Re: A guide on setting up C/C++ development environment for Emacs

[Jai Dayal <dayalsoap@gmail.com>]

1) Hitler was a Christian.

2) What do you mean "false interpretations"? There's no canonical
interpretation of these religions, hence large factions exist between
almost all of them; killing under these "interpretations" is very much
dogma.

> So for me, it's rather a 0:0 draw.  Of course, we *might* count in
pseudo-religious causes, but then why don't we count in
pseudo-science?  Both ways of counting are similarly dishonest.

There is no such thing as pseudo-religion; it's all just religion.
Pseudo-science isn't even close to science.


On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl>
wrote:

> Dnia 2014-08-28, o godz. 13:13:53
> Jai Dayal <dayalsoap@gmail.com> napisał(a):
>
> > So, let me ask again: how many people have been killed in the name of
> > science vs. killed in the name of religion? It's pretty clear: very
> > few people have murdered someone else because "the science dictates
> > this should happen", when many people have killed other people simply
> > because of religious dogma.
>
> This is becoming totally off-topic, but to keep things precise:
>
> 1. I have yet to hear about a murder because "the science dictates this
> should happen".  Unless we count in pseudo-science, that is, like the
> "science" of racial purity of the German authorities during WW2 and
> similar things.  Nobody's going to treat this seriously as "science",
> though.
>
> 2. I have also yet to hear about a murder "because of religious
> dogma".  I've heard about murders because of false interpretations
> and/or false religions, but not about a single one because of a
> *dogma*.
>
> So for me, it's rather a 0:0 draw.  Of course, we *might* count in
> pseudo-religious causes, but then why don't we count in
> pseudo-science?  Both ways of counting are similarly dishonest.
>
> Best,
>
> --
> Marcin Borkowski
> http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
> Adam Mickiewicz University
>
>