Hi Mike,

When I wrote "in exactly the spirit you outline in your post" I should have followed it with a colon because the spirit I referred to is the spirit of the quote immediately following which I enclosed in exclamation points for emphasis.

***One of you has experience with this school of thought...do both of you?***

No. Not I.

Although I think that the history of ideas is fascinating, and probably rewarding to study, I don't think that by continuing in the tradition of "all the high-minded "debate" in the past 2,500 years" will serve us well at this point. What is unique about our time is that science has revealed a considerable amount of the truth of how the universe operates. Enough so that we may use that knowledge to solve all the old pressing problems that plagued humanity. These problems were provision of food, shelter from the elements, protection against predators and disease. Science has solved those problems in large part.

We now face different problems, and they are in large part due to man's inhumanity to man. I think the reason for it is because of vestiges of strategies that were necessary for survival before those other problems were solved. But now that they have been solved, those vestigial strategies cause more harm than good. Some examples of these are greed, competition, and excessive propagation.

What I am saying is that we should forget about analyzing and comparing traditional religious tenets and viewpoints and instead use our intellects to analyze our current situation knowing what we know at this point in history, determine what our major problems are, and devise agreeable strategies to solve those problems.

Warm regards,

Paul

• Hand the reins of power to the best formula rhetoric? - kantolfir2 - July 28, 2002 - 04:03 UTC
  • No, it's too early to tell - pmartin - July 28, 2002 - 04:30 UTC
    • There is no shared brain, only individual reverie + dialogue - kantolfir2 - July 28, 2002 - 16:39 UTC
      • Start over - pmartin - July 29, 2002 - 04:04 UTC
        • Problem solving depends on "imagining agreeable" outcomes - kantolfir2 - July 29, 2002 - 05:00 UTC
          • Now I get it - pmartin - July 29, 2002 - 16:10 UTC
            • Well, things aren't going so well - kantolfir2 - July 29, 2002 - 16:34 UTC
            • Now we have a disagreement - pmartin - July 29, 2002 - 17:20 UTC
              • thanks, but I meant my oilpan drain plug wouldn't come off - kantolfir2 - July 29, 2002 - 21:22 UTC
    • I have - spartacus - July 29, 2002 - 01:33 UTC
• I agree, but we could be doing just that. - spartacus - July 28, 2002 - 19:15 UTC
  • in fact, if you had been here, you'd see we have been - kantolfir2 - July 28, 2002 - 23:58 UTC
    • What makes you think that I've been appealing... - spartacus - July 29, 2002 - 01:03 UTC
    • In addition, - spartacus - July 29, 2002 - 01:19 UTC
      • I'm not confusing those....biological evolution did the same. - kantolfir2 - July 29, 2002 - 05:09 UTC
        • You're still wrong about my opinion - spartacus - July 30, 2002 - 00:28 UTC
          • Daily, I find new things I make mistakes about! - kantolfir2 - July 30, 2002 - 04:51 UTC
            • Mike man... Ted listen! - emperor__alikar - August 1, 2002 - 02:39 UTC
              • I don't think anyone will drown here...thanks for the note - carefuluniverse - August 1, 2002 - 05:59 UTC
                • Actually I know ted personaly - emperor__alikar - August 3, 2002 - 03:21 UTC
        • Sorry - spartacus - July 30, 2002 - 00:56 UTC
  • Yes, we could. Scary isn't it? - pmartin - July 29, 2002 - 04:38 UTC
    • Maybe you're right... - spartacus - July 30, 2002 - 00:39 UTC
      • Yes, but only maybe - pmartin - July 30, 2002 - 04:57 UTC