wookie before the advent of the internet

I entirely relate to this. It reflects the outlook I was born with but my inner 4 year old would have the last line as “and to explororise is my religion”.

I’ve enjoyed testing peoples logic in the assumptions that have led them to hold a position on the existence of god. The reason that has motivated this is that rather than being blindly dogmatic, anyone I have know who I would call genuinely religous have been the more open minded.

>anyone I have know who I would call genuinely religous have been the more open minded.

I don’t think you have much idea of what words like “religion” and “religious” actually mean. It’s just vague feelgood stuff to you, but it isn’t like that for most religious believers. They formally subscribe to literal belief in supernaturalist cosmologies that non-religious people perceive as transparent, deliberately contrived fantasy. And they use these fantasies as a “justification” for oppressing other people.

Bubblecar said:

>anyone I have know who I would call genuinely religous have been the more open minded.

I don’t think you have much idea of what words like “religion” and “religious” actually mean. It’s just vague feelgood stuff to you, but it isn’t like that for most religious believers. They formally subscribe to literal belief in supernaturalist cosmologies that non-religious people perceive as transparent, deliberately contrived fantasy. And they use these fantasies as a “justification” for oppressing other people.

err… I would not analogise my perception of religion as “vague feelgood stuff”. The day to day philosophy I posted was vague feelgood stuff but that is not my perception of the ideologies of specific religions.

roughbarked

battle-roughbarked

Bubblecar said:

>anyone I have know who I would call genuinely religous have been the more open minded.

I don’t think you have much idea of what words like “religion” and “religious” actually mean. It’s just vague feelgood stuff to you, but it isn’t like that for most religious believers. They formally subscribe to literal belief in supernaturalist cosmologies that non-religious people perceive as transparent, deliberately contrived fantasy. And they use these fantasies as a “justification” for oppressing other people.

I would suggest that to take the philosophy posted as a that which one applies to living in the world might be far from vague and feelgood in practice. Neither is a personal philosophy the same question as the practices and justifications of the various religious institutions and those involved.

>anyone I have know who I would call genuinely religous have been the more open minded.

I found this to be true in school, I was on the tail end of RE/RI in state schools. Though the RE teachers were not of the trendy church at the time, and the lesson was more free-flowing into social philosophy and metaphysics, but then the ministers won my heart by letting me and all know I/ and all else could leave the classroom anytime I or any other wanted.

The interesting thing of the time is that what were coming out of the trendy church were something like ‘God only made one mistake, he gave man free will’.

the best in bubblecar designs

> the best in bubblecar designs

Is that second one actually an inflatable car? If so then I like it, and want one in clear plastic for maximum visibility. It’d be very safe wouldn’t it, a car that is all airbag.

Let me know if you want me to post pictures that I have of other nice “bubble-cars” – pictures that are not on the web.

mollwollfumble said:

> the best in bubblecar designs

Is that second one actually an inflatable car? If so then I like it, and want one in clear plastic for maximum visibility. It’d be very safe wouldn’t it, a car that is all airbag.

Let me know if you want me to post pictures that I have of other nice “bubble-cars” – pictures that are not on the web.

But you have to put them on the web so that they can be posted?