Religion [was Re: Everything is an object in python - object class and type class]

[Mark Lawrence]

On 02/06/2015 07:04, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 June 2015 15:01, Rustom Mody wrote:
>
>> eg Would it make sense to you if you were told that there are widespread
>> religions like Buddhism that are agnostic or Jainism that are strictly
>> atheistic?
>
> No of course it wouldn't make sense. But nothing to do with religion,
> spirituality and superstition makes sense, the whole point of them is that
> they speak to the emotions, not logic. (You note that I am carefully not
> commenting on whether this is a good thing or not.)
>
> Draw up two sets of overlapping axes, and label the vertical axes
> "Agnosticism / Gnosticism" and the horizontal axes "Supernatural / Natural".
> Belief systems can be found in all four quadrants. Agnostic religions are
> easy, they're just in the Supernatural+Agnostic quadrant. If you define
> religion to be merely any belief system, then even an atheist religion is
> understandable: it could be anything on the Natural half of the graph.
>
> Personally, I consider that redefining religion to refer to belief systems
> which do not include supernatural divine gods is an abuse of language
> (except informally, as in "football is my religion" or "the religious war
> between Vi and Emacs users"). it's like the food processor that is
> advertised as being a "three speed food-processor" because there are three
> settings on the control: High, Low and OFF.
>
>

If anybody wishes to discuss this can they please take it off list, as 
it surely has no place here when we're meant to be discussing the Python 
programming langauge.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence