--- Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> wrote: You are merely restating what I said in the sentence that follows the question above in <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050613/012754.html>.
Besides, my question concerns respect and disrespect, reverence and irreverence. Why should statements that are impossible to prove or disprove be held in higher regard than empirical statements, so much so that it is acceptable to be irreverent toward the latter but not toward the former?
---
I don't care whether you respect or disrespect it or whatever. I suspect the noumenal basis for existence doesn't care either. :)
BTW I think a lot of people in this thread are confusing "the God in the Bible" as opposed to "'thing' that created everything" or "metaphysical ground of being." The former is (presumably) a myth. The latter is a metaphysical postulate. Y'alls have got to read more Eckhardt and Heidegger.
Also, I totally concur with just about all of Ravi's statements.
Also, I think many people on this list have been really warped on this topic by exposure to US fundamentalism and are using that as their model of what religion is. Over here, I am quite happy the Orthodox are making a comeback. Good for them.
Nu, zayats, pogodi!
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs