Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!unc!tim From: tim@unc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Orphaned Response - (nf) Message-ID: <5348@unc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 9-Jun-83 21:44:14 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.5348 Posted: Thu Jun 9 21:44:14 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 14-Jun-83 06:21:46 EDT References: hp-pcd.1114 Lines: 32 "So if someone wants to give the credit to some god, well, why not? That's as good a description as any, and it is an honest and faithful state- ment of the experience." It is not as good a description as any. It's a self- delusion. The implication is that religion is a harmless thing, but I don't think it is. People kill other people (Moslems & Jews, Christians & Heathens) in the name of religion. It causes Falwells and Ayetollahs (sp?) and Crusades. Is it a self-delusion to say that you have thoughts? After all, what is really happening is that neuro-transmitter emission pat- terns at synaptic receptors in your central nervous system are changing. The use of the term "god" does not imply some vast universe-model in which these odd gaseous humanoids have always existed and shaped the course of history in unprovable ways. It could equally as well be a CNS phenomenon as a pre-existent entity. Knee-jerk atheism, the sort where the person not only doesn't want to have religious experience, but is terribly offended when someone else claims to, is just another brand of dogmatism and intolerance. (Of course, not all atheists are this type.) As to your final point, of course religion is not harmless. Nei- ther is love. Nothing strong is harmless, or ever can be. Does that mean we should forego everything excellent, simply because it has a potential for abuse? Tim Maroney