Illuminati-R-Us

2

1

G-g-g-g-g-night, folks. :wink:

Poof.

Now what?

WHO are YOU calling a ... poof, you great Teutonic brute? I should hit you with my purse, after I go and have a good cry.

{Usual list of apologies to any offended ... }

what pride

what determination!

what ironclad determination to throw purses.

Learned it from Margaret Thatcher.

A determinist if ever there was one!

The Lady who made an S/M studio look comfy.

Heh. Don't know about that, but the Lady was not for turning.

You know, deep in the dark crevices of my egoistic, chauvinist, Germanocentric mind, I wish we had a Chancellorette banging her handbag on the tables of Brussels barking "I want my money back".

So you want the Mark to replace the Euro?

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -Edward Gibbon

Do not remember reading that before, Lance. But, so true. :(

KLA2 wrote:"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -Edward Gibbon

Do not remember reading that before, Lance. But, so true. :(

It's new. ;)

Lance wrote:

KLA2 wrote:"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -Edward Gibbon

Do not remember reading that before, Lance. But, so true. :(

It's new. ;)

More scientific as well

But would a stupid ruler find religion useful?

They are usually smart enough for THAT. Even if they believe it themselves.

I daresay they should find religion a public convenience!

MM_Dandy wrote:But would a stupid ruler find religion useful?

It could be useful, independently of its veracity.

You put up with a lot at this board, don't you?

I suppose I could go hardcore and post outrage at every narrow definition, implication, and slight about a subject as broad as humanity itself - but that way lies insanity. Besides, no one is suggesting that religion be outlawed or anything like that.

MM_Dandy wrote:I suppose I could go hardcore and post outrage at every narrow definition, implication, and slight about a subject as broad as humanity itself - but that way lies insanity. Besides, no one is suggesting that religion be outlawed or anything like that.

Oh, MM_Dandy, that is waving a red cape at a bull!

MM_Dandy did sting me with a comment a while ago that I seem to target Christianity in particular. He was right. I guess that is because I was raised in a Christian society and culture, and tend to hold it to a higher standard. Not fair, I agree.

For the record, let me say (again) I find all religions equally absurd, harmful and illogical. This is not a condemnation of the many good folks who believe in them, but I think they would be good folks anyway, without Gods, Devils, Angels, Heavens, Hells and so on.

An atheist, I give what I can to those in need, seek to do good rather than harm, simply because I know that is right, that is what being a member of a society is about. I expect no eternal reward for doing so, and fear no punishment if I do not.

I think most folks are the same. The bad ones, religious or not, are … bad.

How do we know who is good and who is bad? What standards do we use? Are those standards based on something objective, or are they arbitrary?

Being the biologically-minded guy, I'd say that they are aritrary in the sense that you will be hard pressed to prove one standard is superior to the the other by any absolute measure. They are objective in the sense that they are wih us today because our ancestors were successful applying them.

Arneb wrote:... biologically-minded guy

The irony of this oxymoron is that we really are all biologically-minded.