RE: virus: propagandistic assertions

Sodom (
Mon, 15 Mar 1999 15:16:05 -0500

Well, if the person had never argued the case before, along with collecting lots of data to support it, then I would agree. However, the topic has been broached repeatedly. That violence is commonly asociated with faith and is easily supported and affirmed by the majority of those who find "faith" a virtue, then the argument stands.

I dont think any of us want to start down the path of "faith" and its relationship to fear again - its been done a lot here.

I should have more narrowly defined the faith as the "faith" specific to this topic - not the "faith" that my child will do the right thing, although I think that that is also fear driven.

The problem I have with the whole "faith" thing is that some people here try to broaden the meaning so that faith mearly means confidence, or acceptance. Faith is not these things. Another problem I have is the seeming alusion that fath and reason are opposites. They are not opposites in any way other than it is easier for some people to discuss the terms in that way. Faith fits inside the box of reason. Reason can explain why people feel it, and what benefits they seem to derive from it. Faith however cannot even begin to explain reason. Faith, in my opinion, serves the purpose of placation on this list. Those that use it, use it as a place holder so they can ogo on to other things. It is not necessary though - there are other means of placation - other placeholders that achieve the same goal, but leave the question open.

Bill Roh

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf
> Of KMO
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 1999 1:43 PM
> To:
> Subject: virus: propagandistic assertions
> Sodom wrote:
> > Nice thought - but wrong - Fear driven by faith.
> Necessitated by that faith.
> > Reason cant make that claim. Reason cannot drive fear and
> does not fead fear
> > or bloodlust or the others. Faith calls for death and destruction
> > explicitly. That is the difference.
> Bill, if someone had an unreasonable hatred of <faith> and decided to
> malign it by stringing together a series of propagandist assertions
> unsupported by argument, how would the resulting text differ from the
> post qouted above?
> -KMO