From: Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@...>
Date: 2003-09-06T05:29:22+09:00
Subject: Re: Correction: "religious"

> I was using the word to describe people who think that "something can
> make a better world" without giving rational explainations, only based on
> their belive that this will happen. This is religion.

Is that also a standard definition of the word "religious"?  I have never 
heard it.  But I think we just showed that I don't necessarily know what 
this word means.

So, if I tell you that I have faith in God, but it is based on reasoning 
and evidence (archelogy is handy for this), would you say that I am 
"religious".

Given this definition of religious, I guess I am not a religous person at 
all.  I strongly oppose believing things without any basis.

> So not only R.Stallmann

How does RMS fit this definition?  I'm not defending RMS, I'm just 
asking.

> but also, G.W.Bush and his Voodo Priests are
> religious even if they only believe in the Dollar God.

That I agree with, but we probably shouldn't discuss it.  It is flambait.

-- 
Daniel Carrera, Math PhD student at UMD.  PGP KeyID: 9AF77A88
  .-"~~~"-.   
 /  O   O  \  Warning label on a blanket from Taiwan:
 :    s    :  
 \  \___/  /  "Not to be used as protection from a tornado".
  `-.___.-'