from
stringlengths 3
223
⌀ | subject
stringlengths 2
120
⌀ | organization
stringlengths 1
116
⌀ | text
stringlengths 1
160k
| label
class label 20
classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
"Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> | Re: KORESH IS GOD! | Kupajava, East of Krakatoa | >DATE: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 14:15:20 +0100
>FROM: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
>
>The latest news seems to be that Koresh will give himself up once he's
>finished writing a sequel to the Bible.
>
>mathew
Writing the Seven Seals or something along those lines. He's already
written the first of the Seven which was around 30 pages or so and has
handed it over to an assistant for PROOFREADING!. I would expect any
decent messiah to have a built-in spellchecker. Maybe Koresh 2.0 will
come with one.
| 0alt.atheism
|
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) | Re: some thoughts. | AT&T | In article <madhausC5yD87.KIp@netcom.com>, madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
> healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes: >
>
> >Tammy "See, Maddi, I trimmed it!" Healy
>
> Well, you're going to have to practice, but you're getting
> the hang of it. Soon we're going to have to give you a new
> nickname. Try these on for size:
>
> Tammy "Lucky Seven" Healy
> Tammy "Pass the falafel" Healy
> Tammy "R Us" Healy
> Tammy "Learning by Doing" Healy
The "R Us" thing is trademarked. I don't know if Charles
Lazarus is dead or alive, but I'd be careful, because with
a name like Lazarus, he might rise again just to start a
lawsuit.
Dean Kaflowitz
(I knew an architect once who, I swear, was employed to design
the signs for the Toys R Us and Kids R Us stores. The signs.
The things they stick over the store or up on a big pole so they
can be seen from the highway. What a job. All those hours in
school studying to be an architect so you can tell them to move
the pole ten feet closer to the highway.)
| 0alt.atheism
|
jimh@carson.u.washington.edu (James Hogan) | Re: What's a shit shoveler to do? (was Re: Amusing atheists and) | University of Washington, Seattle | In article <timmbake.735278230@mcl> timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes:
>
>James Hogan writes:
>
>[fine sentiments]
>
>From his very first post Jim assumed an attack of ad hominem, sarcastic
>innuendo, i.e., shit to be shoveled. He conveniently forgets this, of course,
>and then _whines_ about his boredom.
Ad hominem, sarcastic innuendo? Absolutely. Forgotten? Hardly.
Bored? Not really. I try not to confuse "life on a.a." with life.
I just can't overcome the urge to tease/taunt folks who bound FAQ-less
onto a.a. with such a chip on their shoulder. To listen to you,
one might think we belonged to some church!
I appreciate the patience of others who questioned your posting
on a line-by-line content basis, though it's hard to know what
impact that might have had, as compared to, say, "shovelling".
>
>Fact: If he were truly interested in ending the thread he wouldn't have posted
>his last shit to be shoveled.
I think I only lamented that, whatever the initial satisfactions,
past a certain point circular abuse-heaping was just that.
>--
>Bake Timmons, III
>
>-- "...there's nothing higher, stronger, more wholesome and more useful in life
>than some good memory..." -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)
Sincere questions: Why are you here? What are you looking for?
Jim
| 0alt.atheism
|
a137490@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Aario Sami) | Re: note to Bobby M. | Tampere University of Technology, Computing Centre | In <1993Apr10.191100.16094@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>Insults about the atheistic genocide was totally unintentional. Under
>atheism, anything can happen, good or bad, including genocide.
And you know why this is? Because you've conveniently _defined_ a theist as
someone who can do no wrong, and you've _defined_ people who do wrong as
atheists. The above statement is circular (not to mention bigoting), and,
as such, has no value.
--
Sami Aario | "Can you see or measure an atom? Yet you can explode
a137490@cc.tut.fi | one. Sunlight is comprised of many atoms."
-------------------' "Your stupid minds! Stupid, stupid!"
Eros in "Plan 9 From Outer Space" DISCLAIMER: I don't agree with Eros.
| 0alt.atheism
|
aaron@minster.york.ac.uk | Re: Gulf War / Selling Arms | Department of Computer Science, University of York, England | Mark McCullough (mccullou@snake10.cs.wisc.edu) wrote:
: I heard about the arms sale to Saudi Arabia. Now, how is it such a grave
: mistake to sell Saudi Arabia weapons? Or are you claiming that we shouldn't
: sell any weapons to other countries? Straightforward answer please.
Saudi Arabia is an oppressive regime that has been recently interfering
in the politcs of newly renunified Yemen, including assasinations and
border incursions. It is entirely possible that they will soon invade.
Unluckily for Yemen it is not popular in the West as they managed to put
aside political differences during reunification and thus the West has
effectively lost one half (North?) as a client state.
Aaron Turner
| 0alt.atheism
|
west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) | Re: Gospel Dating | Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park | In article <kmr4.1433.734039535@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.
Ryan) writes:
> In article <1993Apr5.163050.13308@wam.umd.edu>
west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
> >In article <kmr4.1422.733983061@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.
> >Ryan) writes:
> >> In article <1993Apr5.025924.11361@wam.umd.edu>
> >west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
> >>
> >> >THE ILLIAD IS THE UNDISPUTED WORD OF GOD(tm) *prove me wrong*
> >>
> >> I dispute it.
> >>
> >> Ergo: by counter-example: you are proven wrong.
> >
> > I dispute your counter-example
> >
> > Ergo: by counter-counter-example: you are wrong and
> > I am right so nanny-nanny-boo-boo TBBBBBBBTTTTTTHHHHH
>
> No. The premis stated that it was undisputed.
>
Fine... THE ILLIAD IS THE WORD OF GOD(tm) (disputed or not, it is)
Dispute that. It won't matter. Prove me wrong.
Brian West
--
THIS IS NOT A SIG FILE * -"To the Earth, we have been
THIS IS NOT A SIG FILE * here but for the blink of an
OK, SO IT'S A SIG FILE * eye, if we were gone tomorrow,
posted by west@wam.umd.edu * we would not be missed."-
who doesn't care who knows it. * (Jurassic Park)
** DICLAIMER: I said this, I meant this, nobody made me do it.**
| 0alt.atheism
|
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) | Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?) | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena | livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>They spent quite a bit of time on the wording of the Constitution.
>I realise that this is widely held belief in America, but in fact
>the clause on cruel and unusual punishments, like a lot of the
>rest, was lifted from the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
Just because the wording is elsewhere does not mean they didn't spend
much time on the wording.
>>We have already looked in the dictionary to define the word. Isn't
>>this sufficient?
>Since the dictionary said that a lack of mercy or an intent to
>inflict injury or grief counted as "cruel", sure.
People can be described as cruel in this way, but punishments cannot.
keith
| 0alt.atheism
|
mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Micheal Cranford) | Re: Rawlins debunks creationism | Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. | John E. King (king@ctron.com) posts a whopping one liner:
* "The modern theory of evolution is so inadequate that it deserves to be *
* treated as a matter of faith." -- Francis Hitching *
I have a few points to make about the above posting.
1. Science is not based on and does not consist of "quotes" from either
real or alleged experts. Critical reasoning, evidence and (if possible)
experimentation are necessary. Creationists frequently display a massive
confusion about this by merely quoting both non-experts and experts alike
(some of the latter quotes are in fact false) and steadfastly refusing to
follow any kind of rigorous scientific procedure. This strongly suggests
that (a.) their claims completely lack any scientific merit and (b.) they
are aware of this fatal deficiency. Of course, you may not actually be a
creationist and this may not be your real intent.
2. You have failed to identify Hitching and the surrounding context of his
statement. Why is that? If Hitching is a scientific illiterate then the
quote would merely display his profound ignorance of evolutionary biology.
Creationists are frequently known to quote real scientists out of context
and to fabricate statements that they subsequently attribute to legitimate
scientists. Of course, you may not actually be a creationist and this may
not be your real intent.
3. Evidence supporting the alleged inadequacies of "the modern theory of
evolution" would be a much more powerful argument than a contextless one
line quote from an unidentified nobody. It is also important to note that
disproving biological evolution does not automatically prove some alternate
claims any more that disproving that the earth is shaped like a hockey puck
proves that it is a hyperbolic paraboloid. Creationists seem rather fond
of diving (head first) into this logical fallacy. Of course, you may not
actually be a creationist and this may not be your real intent.
4. Since evolution is central to virtually all of modern science, an attack
on evolution (either the fact or the theory) really represents an attack on
science. While the theory will unquestionably continue to evolve (B^) the
fact of evolution will not ever go away. Creationists lost the battle long
ago (more than 100 years in fact) but are simply too willfully ignorant and
irrational to acknowledge the fact. Of course, you may not actually be a
creationist and you may not really be that ignorant.
Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub (kv07@IASTATE.EDU) asks:
* Neither I, nor Webster's has ever heard of Francis Hitchings. Who is he? *
I, like Hitchings, am not to be found in Webster's B^). Francis Hitchings
is a scientifically illiterate creationist (or perhaps he is just playing the
part of one) who wrote a quite ignorant book attacking evolution ("The Neck of
the Giraffe"). In that publication he quotes a creationist (Jean Sloat Morton)
using the standard invalid creationist probability argument that proteins could
not have formed by chance. Thus not only confusing abiogenesis with evolution
(the two are quite independent) but also concluding with a "non sequitur" (i.e.
the conclusion "does not follow"). [pp 70-71] Hitchings also misquotes Richard
Lewontin in an effort to support creationism. [pp 84]
Hitchings book was reviewed by National Park Service ecologist David Graber
in the Los Angeles Times (and repeated in the Oregonian). The article was
titled "`Giraffe' sticks scientific neck out too far". Excerpts include :
"Francis Hitchings is not a biologist." "He goes after Darwin like Mark
Antony after Brutus. He flips from scientific reasoning to mysticism and
pseudo-science with the sinuosity of a snake-oil salesman." "He suggests
a mystical `organizing principle' of life, using the similarity of organs
in different creatures as evidence [sic]."
Note that the last statement above is actually evidence FOR evolution not
against it. If John E. King is quoting from this reviewed book it wouldn't
surprise me much. It's also interesting that King had nothing to add (i.e.
he only posted a quote).
UUCP: uunet!tektronix!sail!mikec or M.Cranford
uunet!tektronix!sail.labs.tek.com!mikec Principal Troll
ARPA: mikec%sail.LABS.TEK.COM@RELAY.CS.NET Resident Skeptic
CSNet: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM TekLabs, Tektronix
| 0alt.atheism
|
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: islamic authority over women | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <C5rACM.41q@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>
bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>I can't recall anyone claiming that God -makes- anyone act a particlar
>way, I think that you're attempting to manufacture a contradiction.
A world creator god does, the moment it creates the world. And to sayi
that you can't recall *anyone* is even below your usual standard of
a"arguing".
My argument is based on quite usual theistic assumptions, namely god
is perfect, god is all-knowing god sets the rules. The rules don't
work for whatever reason. Because of its omniscience, the god has
known it. In advance.
(Deletion)
>To say that something defined contadictorily cannot exist, is really
>asking too much; you would have existence depend on grammar. All you
>can really say is that something is poorly defined, but that in itself
>is insufficient to decide anything (other than confusion of course).
>
It is not a question of grammar, it is a question of modelling. Has been
discussed in the wonderful time when you were not posting to this group.
When A is contradictorily defined A does not point to an instance in
reality. Unless there is more information in the definition of A that
allows me to find it somehow. However, when the contradictory attribute
is said to be essential, ie has not got that attribute => not the A I
am looking for, I can conclude that A does not exist.
>Your point that there are better reasons for the phenomenon of belief
>than the object of belief may lead to a rat's nest of unnecessary
>complexity. I think I know what you're implying, but I'd like to see
>your version of this better alternative just the same.
>
That's quite like: I predict coins falling
Predicted Happened
1. Heads Tails
2. Tails Tails
3. Heads Tails
4. Heads Tails
I take 2. and dismiss the rest because of the unnecessary complexity
the other evidence causes.
For an easy to understand explanation of why humans believe in gods
read "Manwatching" by Desmond Morris.
Benedikt
| 0alt.atheism
|
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) | Re: some thoughts. | AT&T | In article <EDM.93Apr15104322@gocart.twisto.compaq.com>, edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:
> >>>>> On Thu, 15 Apr 1993 04:54:38 GMT, bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) said:
>
> DLB> First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian. It
> DLB> makes sense to be one. Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar,
> DLB>lunatic, or the real thing? (I might be a little off on the title, but he
> DLB>writes the book. Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity,
> DLB> in the process he became a Christian himself.
>
> Here we go again...
Just the friendly folks at Christian Central, come to save you.
| 0alt.atheism
|
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) | Re: Bayesian Statistics, theism and atheism | Siemens-Nixdorf AG | In article <1993Apr24.165301.8321@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
#In article <1quei1$8mb@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#>In article <1993Apr15.181924.21026@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
[I write:]
#>>> Imagine that 1000000 Alterian dollars turn up in your bank account every
#>>> month. Suppose further that this money is being paid to you by (a) your
#>>> big-hearted Alterian benefactor, or (b) a bug in an Alterian ATM. Let's
#>>> suppose that this is a true dichotomy, so P(a)+P(b)=1. Trouble is, Alterius
#>>> is in a different universe, so that no observations of Alterius are possible
#>>> (except for the banks - you couldn't possibly afford it ;-)
#>>>
#>>> Now let's examine the case for (a). There is no evidence whatsoever that
#>>> there is any such thing as a big-hearted Alterian benefactor. However,
#>>> P(exists(b-h A b)) + P(not(exists(b-h A b)) = 1. On the grounds that
#>>> lack_of_evidence_for is evidence_against when we have a partition like
#>>> that, we dismiss hypothesis (a).
#>>>
#>>> Turning, therefore, to (b), we also find no evidence to support that
#>>> hypothesis. On the same grounds as before, we dismiss hypothesis (b).
#>>>
#>>> The problem with this is that we have dismissed *all* of the possible
#>>> hypotheses, and even though we know by construction that the money
#>>> arrives every month, we have proven that it can't, because we
#>>> have dismissed all of its potential causes.
#
#>> That's an *extremely* poor argument, and here's why.
#>>
#>> Premise 1: "...this money is being paid to you by [either] (a) your big-
#>> hearted Alterian benefactor, or (b) a bug in an Alterian ATM".
#>>
#>> Thus each monthly appearance of the bucks, should it happen, is an
#>> observation on Alterius, and by construction, is evidence for the
#>> existence of [either the benefactor or the bug in the ATM].
#>>
#>> Premise 2: no observations on Alterius are possible.
#
#> #> (except for the banks - you couldn't possibly afford it ;-)
#>
#> You forgot to include this. My premise is actually:
#>
#> Premise 2: The cardinality of the set of possible observations on Alterius
#> is one.
#
#>> This is clearly contradictory to the first.
#
#> Not if you state it properly.
#
#>> Trouble is, on the basis of premise 2, you say that there can be no evidence
#>> of [either the benefactor or the bug], but the first premise leads to the
#>> conclusion that the appearance of the bucks, should it happen, is evidence
#>> for the existence of [either the benefactor or the bug].
#>>
#>> Voila, a screaming contradiction.
#
#[with my highlights - SC]
#> But in a strawman argument. There is only evidence for OneOf(Benefactor,Bug).
#> No observation to distinguish Benefactor from Bug is possible. That is
#> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#> not evidence for Bug, and neither is it evidence for Benefactor. Nor
#> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#> is true to say that this hypothetical universe appears exactly as
#> if there were no Benefactor/Bug (two statements, both would be false).
#
#This is still contradictory. It reduces to
#
# (1): Alterian dosh arriving in my account is due to [benefactor or bug].
#
# (2): this is not evidence for [benefactor], neither is it evidence for
# [bug] (meaning that it doesn't lend more weight to one than to the
# other)
#
# (3): therefore no evidence can exist for [benefactor] and no evidence
# can exist for [bug].
#
#But (3) relies on a shift in meaning from (2). When you say (paraphrased)
#in (2) that this is not "evidence for [benefactor]", for example, what you
#mean is that it's no *more* evidence for [benefactor] than it is for [bug].
Yes, that's what I mean.
#In (3), however, you've shifted the meaning of "evidence for [benefactor]"
#so that it now means `absolute' "evidence for [benefactor]" rather than
#`relative' "evidence for [benefactor]" w.r.t. [bug].
Not really, I meant evidence that would tend to one over the other. I
think this is just a communications problem. What I am trying to say,
in my clumsy way, is that while I buy your theory as far as it relates
to theism making predictions (prayer, your 'Rapture' example), I don't
buy your use of Occam's razor in all cases where A=0.
In my example, one couldn't dismiss
[benefactor] or [bug] on the grounds of simplicity - one of these is necessary
to explain the dosh. I brought up the 'one-by-one dismissal' process to
show that it would be wrong to do so. From what you're saying in this
post, it seems you agree, and we're talking at cross-purposes.
#(3) is still in contradiction to (1).
#
#Some sums may help. With B = benefactor, b = bug, d = dosh arrives in account:
#
# (1) implies P(B+b | d) = 1
#
#Assuming that P(Bb | d) = 0, so it's either the benefactor *or* a bug
#which is responsible if the bucks arrive, but not both, then
#
# P(B+b | d) = P(B | d) + P(b | d)
#
#so
#
# P(B | d) + P(b | d) = 1
#
#but (3) implies that
#
# P(B | d) = 0 and P(b | d) = 0.
No, this isn't what I meant. P(B | d) = 0.5 and P(b | d) = 0.5, with
necessarily no new observation (we've already seen the dosh) to change
those estimates. I was trying to say (again, in my clumsy way) that
it would be _wrong_ to assign 0 probability to either of these. And that's
precisely what use of the Razor does in the case of gods - gods are
one class of hypothesis (there are many others) belonging to a set of
hypotheses _one_of_which_ is necessary to explain something which otherwise
would _not_ be satisfactorily explained. It can be thrown out or
retained on grounds of non-rational preference, not of science or statistics.
Alternatively, one could chuck out or retain the lot, on the grounds
that the answer can't be known, or that the notional probability estimates
are effectively useless, being equal (agnosticism/weak atheism).
#> As they do when the set M is filled by "the universe is caused by x",
#> where x is gods, pink unicorns, nothing, etc. - and no observation
#> tends to one conclusion over the other.
#
#Exactly the point I was making, I think. So we don't "throw out" any of
#these, contrary to your assertion above that we do.
Some people do, Simon, and they think they are doing excellent science.
My sole point was that they aren't.
#>> Only observations which directly contradict the hypothesis H[i] (i.e. x
#>> where P(x | H[i]) = 0) can cause P(H[i]) to go to zero after a finite
#>> number of observations. Only in this case do we get to throw any of the
#>> hypotheses out.
#
#> Exactly my point, though I may have been unclear.
#
#You said the diametric opposite, which I guess is the source of my confusion.
I was merely trying to illustrate the incorrectness of doing so.
#> What I'm trying to say is that while you are correct to say that absence of
#> evidence can sometimes be evidence of absence, this does not hold true for
#> all, or perhaps any, versions of theism - and it isn't true that those for
#> which it does not hold can be discarded using the razor.
#
#On the contrary, those for which it does not hold are *exactly* those which
#can be discarded using the Razor. See my post on the other branch of this
#thread.
Then you seem to be guilty of the contradiction you accuse me of. If
the razor holds for gods, then it holds for all like hypotheses. Which
means that you're assigning P(x | H[i]) =0 for all i, though we've already
established that it's not correct to do so when SUM(P(x|H[i]))=1 over
all i.
#> Simply put, anyone who claims to have a viable proof of the existence or
#> non-existence of gods, whether inductive or no, is at best mistaken, and
#> at worst barking mad.
#
#Luckily I make no such claim, and have specifically said as much on numerous
#occasions. You wouldn't be constructing a strawman here, would you Frank?
#Although that doesn't, of course, rule out my being barking mad in any case
#(I could be barking mad in my spare time, with apologies to Cleese et al).
#
#But I think you miss the point once again. When I say that something is
#"evidence against" an hypothesis, that doesn't imply that observation of
#the said something necessarily *falsifies* the hypothesis, reducing the
#estimate of P(H | data) to zero. If it *reduces* this quantity, it's still
#evidence against H.
No, I got that. I'm talking about the case when A=0. You're clearly
correct when A!=0. And I'm not constructing a strawman (though it's
certainly possible that I've misunderstood what you're saying). However,
by any standards, a system that says when A=0, gods are highly unlikely,
and when A!=0 gods can be dismissed using the Razor, is a system purporting
to be an inductive proof that gods either don't exist, or are unnecessary
to explain any or all phenomena. In my experience, systems such as this
(including those which purport to prove that gods exist) always contain
a fallacy upon close examination. If that's not what you're saying, then
please put me straight.
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 0alt.atheism
|
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) | Re: Keith IS a relativist! | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena | 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Desert Brat) writes:
>Keith, if you start wafffling on about how it is different for a human
>to maul someone thrown into it's cage (so to speak), you'd better start
>posting tome decent evidence or retract your 'I think there is an absolute
>morality' blurb a few weeks ago.
Did I claim that there was an absolute morality, or just an objective one?
keith
| 0alt.atheism
|
aaron@minster.york.ac.uk | Re: Death Penalty / Gulf War (long) | Department of Computer Science, University of York, England | Mark McCullough (mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu) wrote:
: >Prove it. I have a source that says that to date, the civilian death count
: >(er, excuse me, I mean "collateral damage") is about 200,000.
:
: I have _never_ seen any source that was claiming such a figure. Please
: post the source so its reliability can be judged.
This figure would not simply be deaths by bombing, but also death later
from disease (the sewer system of Baghdad was deliberately targeted) and
starvation. I believe (but when I get a copy of the latest research in
June or July) that this was the figure proposed in the Census Bureau
report on the matter. The report was suppressed and the CB attempted to
sack the author of the report, but failed due to procedural technicality.
The author is now on permanent leave.
Aaron Turner
| 0alt.atheism
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: Gospel Dating | Case Western Reserve University | In article <1993Apr6.021635.20958@wam.umd.edu> west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
>Fine... THE ILLIAD IS THE WORD OF GOD(tm) (disputed or not, it is)
>
>Dispute that. It won't matter. Prove me wrong.
The Illiad contains more than one word. Ergo: it can not be
the Word of God.
But, if you will humbly agree that it is the WORDS of God, I
will conceed.
:-D
---
"One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that
say "Mom", because of the love of their mom. It makes for more
virile men."
Bobby Mozumder ( snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu )
April 4, 1993
The one TRUE Muslim left in the world.
| 0alt.atheism
|
acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu | Re: thoughts on christians | Macalester College | In article <1993Apr15.050750.3893@nuscc.nus.sg>, cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes:
> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> : In article <1q338l$cva@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>, gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric
> : Molas) wrote:
> : > Christianity is an infectious cult. The reasons it flourishes are
> : > because 1) it gives people without hope or driven purpose in life
> : > a safety blanked to hide behind. "Oh wow..all i have to do is
> : > follow this christian moral standard and I get eternal happiness."
> :
> : I agree that in many cases primitive emotional feelings based on
> : 'haha, you won't laugh in hell' mentalities makes certain religions
> : very attractive for certain personalities.
>
> I agree with both of u, but I would like to make a small point. Xtianity, &
> other dogmatic religions, not only attract people without hope etc but
> also attract "average" people as well. I believe that Xtainity, thru
> its escapist doctrines & absolutist attitudes, provides great psychological
> shelter from day-to-day frustrations, unhappiness & fear of uncertainty
> & unknown etc.
>
This is a good point, but I think "average" people do not take up Christianity
so much out of fear or escapism, but, quite simply, as a way to improve their
social life, or to get more involved with American culture, if they are kids of
immigrants for example. Since it is the overwhelming major religion in the
Western World (in some form or other), it is simply the choice people take if
they are bored and want to do something new with their lives, but not somethong
TOO new, or TOO out of the ordinary. Seems a little weak, but as long as it
doesn't hurt anybody...
> The Buddha had something to say about the attractiveness of religions:
>
> "When driven by fear, man worships sacred mountains, sacred stones,
> and sacred trees."
>
> However, the Buddha also said,
>
> "If somebody finds peace in any religion, let him be".
>
>
These are good quotes, and I agree with both of them, but let's make sure to
alter the scond one so that includes something like "...let him be, as long as
he is not preventing others from finding their peace." or something like that.
(Of course, I suppose, if someone were REALLY "at peace", there would be no
need for inflicting evangelism)
> Personally, I feel that since religion have such a poweful
> psychological effect, we should let theists be. But the problem is that
> religions cause enormous harm to non-believers and to humanity as a whole
> (holy wars, inquisitions, inter-religious hatred, impedence of science
> & intellectual progress, us-&-them attitudes etc etc. Need I say more?).
> I really don't know what we can do about them. Any comments?
>
Well, it is a sure thing we will have to live with them all our lives. Their
popularity seems to come and go. I remember when I first entered High School,
I was an atheist (always had been) and so were about 7 of my friends. At this
time, 5 of those 7 have converted, always to Christianity (they were all also
immigrants from Taiwan, or sons of immigrants, hence my earlier gross
generalization). Christianity seems a lot more popular to people now than it
ever has before (since I've been noticing). Maybe it is just my perceptions
that are chagning. Who knows?
I for one am perfectly willing to live and let live with them, so long as we
have some set of abstract rights/agreements on how we should treat each other:
I have no desire to be hurt by them or their notions. For all the well-put
arguments on this usenet, it never does any good. Argumentation does not
really seem to apply to Christians (or even some atheists)- it must simply be a
step the person takes naturally, almost, "instinctively"...
best regards,
********************************************************************************
* Adam John Cooper "Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings *
* who thought themselves good simply because *
* acooper@macalstr.edu they had no claws." *
********************************************************************************
>
--
>
> The UnEnlightened One
> ------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
> | "Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be
> Tan Chade Meng | expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it
> Singapore | transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology;
> cmtan@iss.nus.sg | it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is
> | based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience
> | of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful
> | unity" -- Einstein
> ------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
| 0alt.atheism
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: Where are they now? | Case Western Reserve University | In article <1ql0d3$5vo@dr-pepper.East.Sun.COM> geoff@East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top) writes:
>Your posting provoked me into checking my save file for memorable
>posts. The first I captured was by Ken Arromdee on 19 Feb 1990, on the
>subject "Re: atheist too?". That was article #473 here; your question
>was article #53766, which is an average of about 48 articles a day for
>the last three years. As others have noted, the current posting rate is
>such that my kill file is depressing large...... Among the posting I
>saved in the early days were articles from the following notables:
Hey, it might to interesting to read some of these posts...
Especially from ones who still regularly posts on alt.atheism!
>>From: loren@sunlight.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich)
>>From: jchrist@nazareth.israel.rel (Jesus Christ of Nazareth)
>>From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin)
>>From: perry@apollo.HP.COM (Jim Perry)
>>From: lippard@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
>>From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
>
>An interesting bunch.... I wonder where #2 is?
Hee hee hee.
*I* ain't going to say....
---
" Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "
John Laws, a man without the honor to keep his given word.
| 0alt.atheism
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: 27 fundamental beliefs of SDA | Case Western Reserve University | In article <healta.183.735790222@saturn.wwc.edu> healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes:
> I was asked to post list of the SDA Church's basic beliefs. The SDA
>church has always been reluctant to formalize a creed in the usual sense of
>word. However, the powers that be in the church deemed it neccessary to
>publish a summary of basic SDA beliefs.
May I ask why they are afraid to do so?
---
Speaking of proofs of God, the funniest one I have ever seen was in a
term paper handed in by a freshman. She wrote, "God must exist, because
he wouldn't be so mean as to make me believe he exists if he really
doesn't!" Is this argument really so much worse than the ontological
proofs of the existence of God provided by Anselm and Descartes, among
others?
Raymond Smullyan
[From "5,000 B.C. and Other Philosophical Fantasies".]
| 0alt.atheism
|
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <1r0fpv$p11@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
(Deletion)
># Point: Morals are, in essence, personal opinions. Usually
>#(ideally) well-founded, motivated such, but nonetheless personal. The
>#fact that a real large lot of people agree on some moral question,
>#sometimes even for the same reason, does not make morals objective; it
>#makes humans somewhat alike in their opinions on that moral question,
>#which can be good for the evolution of a social species.
>
>And if a "real large lot" (nice phrase) of people agree that there is a
>football on a desk, I'm supposed to see a logical difference between the two?
>Perhaps you can explain the difference to me, since you seem to see it
>so clearly.
>
(rest deleted)
That's a fallacy, and it is not the first time it is pointed out.
For one, you have never given a set of morals people agree upon. Unlike
a football. Further, you conveniently ignore here that there are
many who would not agree on tghe morality of something. The analogy
does not hold.
One can expect sufficiently many people to agree on its being a football,
while YOU have to give the evidence that only vanishing number disagrees
with a set of morals YOU have to give.
Further, the above is evidence, not proof. Proof would evolve out of testing
your theory of absolute morals against competing theories.
The above is one of the arguments you reiterate while you never answer
the objections. Evidence that you are a preacher.
Benedikt
| 0alt.atheism
|
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | sgi | In article <1qjclt$nh7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1qiore$20b@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> #
|> #The intended audience is the set of people who *are* convinced
|> #by those arguments, who therefore finish up as church members.
|> #It doesn't need to be everyone, just enough to count.
|>
|> This is completely refuted by the evidence that I do not belong to any
|> church, and am in fact an agnostic. I'm not canvassing for church
|> members.
Where did I say that you were a Church member? I just said
that people who buy your kind of arguments finish up as church
members. There's still time.
|> #It's like GM stays in business as long as *some* people buy
|> #GM cars, so they make their cars for the people who are willing
|> #to buy GM cars. And that's why GM cars are GM cars, and why
|> #Frank's argument are Frank's arguments.
|>
|> Nonsense. Reality is not a business, and I have nothing to sell.
You undervalue yourself, Frank. You're one of the slickest
salesmen I've seen.
Not, of course, The Greatest Salesman in the World. That was
Jesus, wasn't it?
[rest of Frank's tantrum mercifully deleted].
jon.
| 0alt.atheism
|
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com | Re: Gulf War / Selling Arms | null | In article <930420.113512.1V3.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
From a parallel thread. Much about definitions of bombs, etc. deleted.
[...]
>
>> Aaaahhh. Tell me, how many innocents were killed in concentration camps?
>> mm-hmm. Now, how many more were scheduled to enter concentration camps
>> had they not been shut down because they were captured by the allies?
>> mm-hmm. Now, civilians died in that war. So no matter what you do,
>> civilians die. What is the proper course?
>
> Don't sell the bastard arms and information in the first place. Ruthlessly
> hunt down those who do. Especially if they're in positions of power.
>
Mathew, I agree. This, it seems, is the crux of your whole position,
isn't it? That the US shouldn't have supported Hussein and sold him arms
to fight Iran? I agree. And I agree in ruthlessly hunting down those
who did or do. But we *did* sell arms to Hussein, and it's a done deal.
Now he invades Kuwait. So do we just sit back and say, "Well, we sold
him all those arms, I suppose he just wants to use them now. Too bad
for Kuwait." No, unfortunately, sitting back and "letting things be"
is not the way to correct a former mistake. Destroying Hussein's
military potential as we did was the right move. But I agree with
your statement, Reagan and Bush made a grave error in judgment to
sell arms to Hussein. So it's really not the Gulf War you abhor
so much, it was the U.S.'s and the West's shortsightedness in selling
arms to Hussein which ultimately made the war inevitable, right?
If so, then I agree.
[more deleted.]
>
> mathew
Regards,
Jim B.
| 0alt.atheism
|
qpliu@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (q.p.liu) | Re: free moral agency | Princeton University | In article <kmr4.1575.734879106@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.000406.10984@Princeton.EDU> qpliu@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (q.p.liu) writes:
>
>>>So while Faith itself is a Gift, obedience is what makes Faith possible.
>>What makes obeying different from believing?
> I am still wondering how it is that I am to be obedient, when I have
>no idea to whom I am to be obedient!
It is all written in _The_Wholly_Babble:_the_Users_Guide_to_Invisible_
_Pink_Unicorns_.
To be granted faith in invisible pink unicorns, you must read the Babble,
and obey what is written in it.
To obey what is written in the Babble, you must believe that doing so is
the way to be granted faith in invisible pink unicorns.
To believe that obeying what is written in the Babble leads to believing
in invisible pink unicorns, you must, essentially, believe in invisible
pink unicorns.
This bit of circular reasoning begs the question:
What makes obeying different from believing?
--
qpliu@princeton.edu Standard opinion: Opinions are delta-correlated.
| 0alt.atheism
|
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) | Re: Is Keith as ignorant as he seems? | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena | mam@mouse.cmhnet.org (Mike McAngus) writes:
>>>No, everything wouldn't be OK, but it would be a start.
>>Now wait, if the religious organizations were no longer tax-exempt, what
>>other beef could you have? They would then have as much right to lobby
>>as would any other group.
>You asked "would everything be okay". I answered no. Everything
>encompasses more than just the tax-exempt status of religious
>organizations.
Well, if everything wouldn't be okay, then tell us what it is that
wouldn't be okay. That is, if religions were no longer tax-exempt, then
what would be wrong with their lobbying or otherwise attempting to
influence politics?
keith
| 0alt.atheism
|
halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | null | >>#>
>>#> In article <1qk1pp$6hj@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>#So what? The value I assign the results is as real *to me* as they can get.
>>#I'm just not limited to how things are valuable to me. Aside from our own
>>#desires for its results, science has no value. Nevertheless, it still
>>#accurately describes how the universe works, humans or no humans.
>>
It accurately described what we can _say_ about how the universe works.
--
jim halat halat@bear.com
bear-stearns --whatever doesn't kill you will only serve to annoy you--
nyc i speak only for myself
| 0alt.atheism
|
geoff@East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top) | Re: Where are they now? | SunSelect | Your posting provoked me into checking my save file for memorable
posts. The first I captured was by Ken Arromdee on 19 Feb 1990, on the
subject "Re: atheist too?". That was article #473 here; your question
was article #53766, which is an average of about 48 articles a day for
the last three years. As others have noted, the current posting rate is
such that my kill file is depressing large...... Among the posting I
saved in the early days were articles from the following notables:
>From: loren@sunlight.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich)
>From: jchrist@nazareth.israel.rel (Jesus Christ of Nazareth)
>From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin)
>From: perry@apollo.HP.COM (Jim Perry)
>From: lippard@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
>From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
An interesting bunch.... I wonder where #2 is?
---
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)
--------------------------------------------------+-------------------
"What if they made the whole thing up? | "The Great Lie" by
Four guys, two thousand years ago, over wine..." | The Tear Garden
| 0alt.atheism
|
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) | Re: Political Atheists? | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena | mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:
>I was looking for a rigorous definition because otherwise we would be
>spending the rest of our lives arguing what a "Christian" really
>believes.
I don't think we need to argue about this.
>KS>Do you think that the motto points out that this country is proud
>KS>of its freedom of religion, and that this is something that
>KS>distinguishes us from many other countries?
>MW>No.
>KS>Well, your opinion is not shared by most people, I gather.
>Perhaps not, but that is because those seeking to make government
>recognize Christianity as the dominant religion in this country do not
>think they are infringing on the rights of others who do not share
>their beliefs.
Yes, but also many people who are not trying to make government recognize
Christianity as the dominant religion in this country do no think
the motto infringes upon the rights of others who do not share their
beliefs.
And actually, I think that the government already does recognize that
Christianity is the dominant religion in this country. I mean, it is.
Don't you realize/recognize this?
This isn't to say that we are supposed to believe the teachings of
Christianity, just that most people do.
>Like I've said before I personally don't think the motto is a major
>concern.
If you agree with me, then what are we discussing?
>KS>Since most people don't seem to associate Christmas with Jesus much
>KS>anymore, I don't see what the problem is.
>Can you prove your assertion that most people in the U.S. don't
>associate Christmas with Jesus anymore?
No, but I hear quite a bit about Christmas, and little if anything about
Jesus. Wouldn't this figure be more prominent if the holiday were really
associated to a high degree with him? Or are you saying that the
association with Jesus is on a personal level, and that everyone thinks
about it but just never talks about it?
That is, can *you* prove that most people *do* associate Christmas
most importantly with Jesus?
>Anyways, the point again is that there are people who do associate
>Christmas with Jesus. It doesn't matter if these people are a majority
>or not.
I think the numbers *do* matter. It takes a majority, or at least a
majority of those in power, to discriminate. Doesn't it?
keith
| 0alt.atheism
|
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Johns Hopkins University CS Dept. | In article <930423.103637.3O4.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>> > There's no objective physics; Einstein and Bohr have told us that.
>> Speaking as one who knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say:
>> Bullshit.
>Speaking as someone who also knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say:
>Go ahead, punk, make my day. My degree can beat up your degree.
Simple. Take out some physics books, and start looking for statements which
say that there is no objective physics. I doubt you will find any. You might
find statements that there is no objective length, or no objective location,
but no objective _physics_? (Consider, for instance, that speed-of-light-in-
vacuum is invariant. This sounds an awful lot like an objective
speed-of-light-in-vacuum.)
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole
that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
-- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
| 0alt.atheism
|
timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) | Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics | null |
Maddi Hausmann chirps:
>timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes: >
>>First of all, you seem to be a reasonable guy. Why not try to be more >honest
>>and include my sentence afterwards that
>Honest, it just ended like that, I swear!
That's nice.
>Hmmmm...I recognize the warning signs...alternating polite and
>rude...coming into newsgroup with huge chip on shoulder...calls
>people names and then makes nice...whirrr...click...whirrr
You forgot the third equality...whirrr...click...whirrr...see below...
>Whirr click whirr...Frank O'Dwyer might also be contained
>in that shell...pop stack to determine...whirr...click..whirr
>"Killfile" Keith Allen Schneider = Frank "Closet Theist" O'Dwyer = ...
= Maddi "The Mad Sound-O-Geek" Hausmann
...whirrr...click...whirrr
--
Bake Timmons, III
-- "...there's nothing higher, stronger, more wholesome and more useful in life
than some good memory..." -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)
| 0alt.atheism
|
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) | Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism | sgi | In article <1qjf31$o7t@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1qimbe$sp@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> #In article <1qif1g$fp3@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> #|> In article <1qialf$p2m@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> #|>
|> #|> I forget the origin of the quote, but "I gotta use words when I talk to
|> #|> you". An atheist is one who lacks belief in gods, yes? If so, then
|> #|> it's entirely plausible that an atheist could dig Lenin or Lennon to
|> #|> such an extent that it might be considered "worship", and still be
|> #|> an atheist. Anything else seems to be Newspeak.
|> #
|> #Ask yourself the following question. Would you regard an ardent
|> #Nazi as a republican, simply because Germany no longer had a Kaiser?
|>
|> No, because that's based on false dichotomy. There are more options
|> than you present me.
And that, of course, is the point. You can't simply divide the
world into atheists and non-atheists on the basis of god-belief.
If all you care about is belief in a supernatural deity, and
have nothing to say about behaviour, then belief in a supernatural
being is your criterion.
But once you start talking about behaviour, then someone's suscept-
ibility to be led by bad people into doing bad things is what you
are - I assume - worried about.
And in that area, what you care about is whether someone is sceptical,
critical and autonomous on the one hand, or gullible, excitable and
easily led on the other.
I would say that a tendency to worship tyrants and ideologies indicates
that a person is easily led. Whether they have a worship or belief
in a supernatural hero rather than an earthly one seems to me to be
beside the point.
jon.
| 0alt.atheism
|
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoronic? | Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. | jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
> Oh goody, I get to defend China again on alt.atheism. Just exactly what
> 'policy of mandatory forced abortion in Tibet' are we talking about here?
> What are the words 'policy' and 'mandatory' doing there - you mean there
> is a law requiring all (or even some) ethnically Tibetan babies to be
> aborted? Just how many are we talking about? Hundred? Dozens? One or two?
> You are aware of course that even in the days when the one child policy was
> enforced the Tibetans and all other ethnic minorities were exempt? Of course
> you do. And you are aware that if the Chinese wanted to kill all the Tibetans
> they have lots of better means and they have had a rather long time in which
> to do it. But for some reason there seems to be more Tibetans now than at any
> other time. Odd for a people supposedly suffering a 'policy of mandatory
> forced abortion'.
"Laugh if you want to,
or say you don't care;
If you cannot see it,
you think it's not there.
It doesn't work that way.
Peek-a-boo!"
-- DEVO
> Don't suppose you care to provide a credible citation?
Read your own newspapers. I don't have the space to keep them all. If I
kept enough records to be able to respond with a couple of pages of citations
every time some idiot said "Nyaah nyaah, prove it, gimme a citation", I
wouldn't have any space left in my flat. It's enough work to track down
references to prove that George Bush really said atheists shouldn't be
considered citizens, or that Einstein wasn't a Christian, and those used to
get demanded every week.
And I suspect if I did track down the various issues of The Guardian which
have carried detailed reports on the subject, you'd dismiss them as "liberal
propaganda", just like Gregg dismisses the articles about Islam in The Times.
Did you miss Amnesty International's widely-announced report about torture in
China? It was in the news a couple of weeks ago. Oh, I forgot, that's just
liberal propaganda. I mean, is it plausible that the country responsible for
the Tienanmen Square massacre would torture and kill people? Naaah. Forget
it.
Keep up the good work. I'm sure China's "Most Favoured Nation" status will
be renewed in June, and you can feel really proud.
mathew
| 0alt.atheism
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: Smullyanism for the day..... | Case Western Reserve University | In article <1r8tpi$4pu@dr-pepper.East.Sun.COM> geoff@East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top) writes:
>[This Raymond Smullyan quote is too big for a .sig, but deserves posting IMHO.]
To big for a .sig?
No way!
Keith " Home of the billdboard .sig files " Ryan
=)
---
Private note to Jennifer Fakult.
"This post may contain one or more of the following:
sarcasm, cycnicism, irony, or humor. Please be aware
of this possibility and do not allow yourself to be
confused and/or thrown for a loop. If in doubt, assume
all of the above.
The owners of this account do not take any responsiblity
for your own confusion which may result from your inability
to recognize any of the above. Read at your own risk, Jennifer."
| 0alt.atheism
|
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: atheist? | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <ePVk2B3w165w@mantis.co.uk>
Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> writes:
(Deletion)
>> In other words, if there were gods, they would hardly make sense, and
>> it is possible to explain the phenomenon of religion without gods.
>>
>> The concept is useless, and I don't have to introduce new assumptions
>> in order to show that.
>
>Yes I fully agree with that, but is it "I don't believe gods exist", or
>"I believe no gods exist"? As MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
>pointed out, it all hinges on what you take the word "believe" to mean.
>
For me, it is a "I believe no gods exist" and a "I don't believe gods exist".
In other words, I think that statements like gods are or somehow interfere
with this world are false or meaningless. In Ontology, one can fairly
conclude that when "A exist" is meaningless A does not exist. Under the
Pragmatic definition of truth, "A exists" is meaningless makes A exist
even logically false.
A problem with such statements is that one can't disprove a subjective god
by definition, and there might be cases where a subjective god would even
make sense. The trouble with most god definitions is that they include
some form of objective existence with the consequence of the gods affecting
all. Believers derive from it a right to interfere with the life of others.
(Deletion)
>
>Should the FAQ be clarified to try to pin down this notion of "belief"?
>Can it?
>
Honestly, I don't see the problem.
Benedikt
| 0alt.atheism
|
tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U | In article <1qkjvc$4jv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>If I can predict with almost 100% accuracy that Americans prefer to own their
>portions of the US than an infinitesmal portion of $1, in what sense are
>these values not objective?
Ahhhh. I see what you mean now.
But in this example it is not the values that are objective, but
the *existence* of those values. At least, they are as objectively real
as anything is.
>I don't think I'm way off beam in saying that "something is
>better than nothing" is a rational and objective valuation.
The term 'rational' does not apply to a simple statement like that.
You would have to include the statement within a syllogism and
assert the rationility of the syllogism.
A statement is just a statement.
As to its objectivity - well it depends what you mean.
Values tend to be regarded as good or bad, valid or invalid, true or false,
and so on. Objective values are those which must fall into one or other of
those options for all people - or, if you are prepared for dissent, then
they are those values which should be accepted by everyone.
If someone rejects an objective value they are regarded as 'wrong'.
Objective values require a fundamental notion of good versus bad, or at
least right versus wrong (or even just correct versus incorrect) and
a way of relating that to specific aspects of human behaviour.
In my opinion that requires a belief in a deity of some sort.
Suppose you could predict with almost 100% accuracy that Americans
believed that something is better than nothing.
You could usefully say that the existence of that value was an
objective fact. You could not say that the value itself was
objective. You could not do that unless you could prove that the
value was 'right'. Showing that everyone happens to accept the value
as right doesn't show that it is right.
>Do you agree with me then that the assertion "no values are objective"
>is false?
Well I am a believer in a God. So I do believe that some values are
objective. But I usually suspend that belief when posting to t.a
because it immediately invalidates subsequent arguments in the mind
of many t.a readers.
So, ignoring the idea of a God, I disagree with you.
I believe, in this limited context, that 'no values are objective'.
But I think that this thread is showing some cross-purpose debate.
I think I understand your use of the word 'objective' when
relating it to values. I think it is an unusual usage, but I
believe you are consistent given that usage.
tommy
| 0alt.atheism
|
lefty@apple.com (Lefty) | Re: I'll see your demand and raise you... (was Re: After 2000 years etc) | Our Lady of Heavy Artillery | In article <1993Apr19.203616.21280@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) wrote:
>
> In article <930419.103239.5M4.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> >
> >Prove that you exist, Frank.
> >mathew
>
> Cogito, ergo sum. :)
OK. Prove you _think_.
--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
| 0alt.atheism
|
David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU> | Re: Death Penalty / Gulf War (long) | Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA | From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com
>Actually, it was the fact that both situations existed that prompted US
>and allied action. If some back-water country took over some other
>back-water country, we probably wouldn't intervene. Not that we don't
>care, but we can't be the world's policman. Or if a coup had occured
>in Kuwait (instead of an invasion), then we still wouldn't have acted
>because there would not have been the imminent danger perceived to
>Saudi Arabia. But the combination of the two, an unprovoked invasion
>by a genocidal tyrant AND the potential danger to the West's oil
>interests, caused us to take action.
There are many indications that would have taken place had Saddam
been wanting or planning on going into Saudi Arabia. There were
none. This has been openly stated by ex-Pentagon analysts. Pull.
From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com
>I'm not setting up a strawman at all. If you want to argue against the
>war, then the only logical alternative was to allow Hussein to keep
>Kuwait. Diplomatic alternatives, including sanctions, were ineffective.
Actually, reports from other mid-east countries showed that Hussein
was ready to make concessions due to the sanctions. We just didn't want
him to - we wanted to crush him, as well as battle-test all these high
tech toys we've built over the years.
From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com
>Probably because we're not the saviors of the world. We can't police each
>and every country that decides to self-destruct or invade another. Nor
>are we in a strategic position to get relief to Tibet, East Timor, or
>some other places.
We're also hypocrites of the first magnitude. Obviously, we don't give
a shit about freedom and democracy. All we care about is our oil. Oh,
and the excuse, now that the Soviets are gone from the board, to keep
a sizable military presence in the gulf region. Care to make bets about
when ALL our troops will come home?
Basically, Saddam was OK with us. He was a killer, who tortured his
own people, used gas on them, and other horrors - he was a brutal
dictator, but he was OUR brutal dictator. Once he said "fuck you" to
the US, he became the next Hitler. The same for Noriega. He was a
bastard, but he was OUR bastard...until he changed his mind and went
his own way. Then we had to get rid of him.
David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own. | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>> | Jewish homeland!
====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=====
Email: bluelobster+@cmu.edu Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"
It will be a great day when scientists and engineers have all the R&D money
they need and religions have to beg for money to pay the priest.
| 0alt.atheism
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: Contradictions | Case Western Reserve University | In article <C52oys.2CLJ@austin.ibm.com> yoder@austin.ibm.com (Stuart R. Yoder) writes:
>:
>: Then what would it have to do with "in the universe"? You theists
>: cannot understand that inside the universe and outside the universe
>: are two different places. Put God outside the universe and you
>: subtract from it the ability to interact with the inside of the
>: universe, put it inside the universe and you impose the rules of
>: physics on it.
>
>1. God is outside the universe.
>2. Things outside the universe do not have 'the ability to interact
> with the inside of the universe'.
>3. Therefore God cannot interact inside the universe.
>
>(2) has no basis whatsoever. You seem to have positive knowledge
>about this.
(2) is a corrallary of (1).
The negation of (2) would contridict (1).
>
>: Although we do not have a complete model of the physical rules
>: governing the inside of the universe, we expect that there are no
>: contradictory events likely to destroy the fabric of modern physics.
>: On the other hand, your notion of an omnipotent, omniscient and
>: infinitely benevolent god, is not subject to physical laws: you
>: attempt to explain this away by describing it as being outside of
>: them, beyond measurement. To me, beyond measurement means it can
>: have no measurable effect on reality, so it cannot interact: ergo,
>: your god is IRRELEVANT.
>
>1. God is beyond measure.
>2. Beyond measurement means it can have no measurable effect on
> reality.
>3. Therefore God cannot have a measurable effect on reality.
>
>(2) has no basis whatsoever.
(2) Is a corrallary of (1)
The negation of (2) would contradict (1).
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. "
S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu)
| 0alt.atheism
|
Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu> | Re: It's all Mary's fault! | Sponsored account, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA | dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) writes:
> Nice attempt Chris . . . verrry close.
>
> You missed the conspiracy by 1 step. Joseph knew who knocked her up.
> He couldn't let it be known that somebody ELSE got ol' Mary prego. That
> wouldn't do well for his popularity in the local circles. So what
> happened is that she was feeling guilty, he was feeling embarrassed, and
> THEY decided to improve both of their images on what could have otherwise
> been the downfall for both. Clever indeed. Come to think of it . . . I
> have gained a new respect for the couple. Maybe Joseph and Mary should
> receive all of the praise being paid to jesus.
Lucky for them that the baby didn't have any obvious deformities! I could
just see it now: Mary gets pregnant out of wedlock so to save face she and
Joseph say that it was God that got her pregnant and then the baby turns
out to be deformed, or even worse, stillborn! They'd have a lot of
explaining to do.... :-)
> Dave "Buckminster" Fuller
> How is that one 'o keeper of the nicknames ?
Nanci
.........................................................................
If you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me
email (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):
Life does not cease to be funny when people die, any more than it ceases to
be serious when people laugh.
| 0alt.atheism
|
pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) | Re: Rawlins debunks creationism | I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can't prove a thing. | In article <1993Apr15.223844.16453@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>,
wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) wrote:
>
> We are talking about origins, not merely science. Science cannot
> explain origins. For a person to exclude anything but science from
> the issue of origins is to say that there is no higher truth
> than science. This is a false premise.
Says who? Other than a hear-say god.
> By the way, I enjoy science.
You sure don't understand it.
> It is truly a wonder observing God's creation. Macroevolution is
> a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed
> within three percent error :) ]
Bill, I hereby award you the Golden Shovel Award for the biggist pile of
bullshit I've seen in a whils. I'm afraid there's not a bit of religion in
macroevolution, and you've made a rather grand statement that Science can
not explain origins; to a large extent, it already has!
> // Bill Rawlins <wpr@atlanta.dg.com> //
Peter W. Walker "Yu, shall I tell you what knowledge is? When
Dept. of Space Physics you know a thing, say that you know it. When
and Astronomy you do not know a thing, admit you do not know
Rice University it. This is knowledge."
Houston, TX - K'ung-fu Tzu
| 0alt.atheism
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: Gospel Dating | Case Western Reserve University | In article <C4vyFu.JJ6@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>Keith M. Ryan (kmr4@po.CWRU.edu) wrote:
>:
>: Wild and fanciful claims require greater evidence. If you state that
>: one of the books in your room is blue, I certainly do not need as much
>: evidence to believe than if you were to claim that there is a two headed
>: leapard in your bed. [ and I don't mean a male lover in a leotard! ]
>
>Keith,
>
>If the issue is, "What is Truth" then the consequences of whatever
>proposition argued is irrelevent. If the issue is, "What are the consequences
>if such and such -is- True", then Truth is irrelevent. Which is it to
>be?
I disagree: every proposition needs a certain amount of evidence
and support, before one can believe it. There are a miriad of factors for
each individual. As we are all different, we quite obviously require
different levels of evidence.
As one pointed out, one's history is important. While in FUSSR, one
may not believe a comrade who states that he owns five pairs of blue jeans.
One would need more evidence, than if one lived in the United States. The
only time such a statement here would raise an eyebrow in the US, is if the
individual always wear business suits, etc.
The degree of the effect upon the world, and the strength of the
claim also determine the amount of evidence necessary. When determining the
level of evidence one needs, it is most certainly relevent what the
consequences of the proposition are.
If the consequences of a proposition is irrelvent, please explain
why one would not accept: The electro-magnetic force of attraction between
two charged particles is inversely proportional to the cube of their
distance apart.
Remember, if the consequences of the law are not relevent, then
we can not use experimental evidence as a disproof. If one of the
consequences of the law is an incongruency between the law and the state of
affairs, or an incongruency between this law and any other natural law,
they are irrelevent when theorizing about the "Truth" of the law.
Given that any consequences of a proposition is irrelvent, including
the consequence of self-contradiction or contradiction with the state of
affiars, how are we ever able to judge what is true or not; let alone find
"The Truth"?
By the way, what is "Truth"? Please define before inserting it in
the conversation. Please explain what "Truth" or "TRUTH" is. I do think that
anything is ever known for certain. Even if there IS a "Truth", we could
never possibly know if it were. I find the concept to be meaningless.
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. "
S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu)
| 0alt.atheism
|
healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) | Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!! | Walla Walla College | In article <C5s9zM.9E0@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
>Subject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!!
>Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 13:11:38 GMT
>In article <C5LH4p.27K@portal.hq.videocart.com>, dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) writes:
>> JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu () writes:
>> : YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!! BE
>> : PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!!
>>
>> What do you mean "be prepared" ?? Surrounded by thumpers like yourself
>> has proven to be hellish enough . . . and I'm not even dead yet !!
>
>Well here's how I prepared. I got one of those big beach
>umbrellas, some of those gel-pack ice things, a big Coleman cooler
>which I've loaded up with Miller Draft (so I like Miller Draft,
>so sue me), a new pair of New Balance sneakers, a Sony
>Watchman, and a couple of cartons of BonTon Cheddar Cheese
>Popcorn.
>
>I haven't decided what to wear yet. What does one wear to an
>eternal damnation?
>
>Dean Kaflowitz
>
You should wear your nicest boxer shorts and bring plenty of SPF 45+
sunscreen. I'll grab my bathing suit, towerl and some veggie hotdogs and we
can have bonfire cookout!!
Does that sound good enough to you, Dean?
EVERY a.a poster is invited!!!
Tammy "No-trim" Healy
| 0alt.atheism
|
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) | Re: Moraltiy? (was Re: <Political Atheists?) | sgi | In article <1r5cmnINNb8@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >Pardon me? *I* am trying to apply human terms to non-humans?
|>
|> That's right. You are basically stating that morality can only deal with
|> humans, because only humans are sentient enough to be moral (that is,
|> you say that morality can only deal with intentions?).
I have never said that only humans are the only beings which are
sufficiently sentient to have intentions. In fact, I have explicitly
said that I am perfectly happy to consider that some animals *are*
capable of forming intentions.
What I am objecting to is considering programmed or instinctive
behaviour to have moral significance, since, it seems to me,
such behaviour does *not* involve intention.
|>
|> >>I think that even if someone is not conscious of an alternative,
|> >>this does not prevent his behavior from being moral.
|> >I'm sure you do think this, if you say so. How about trying to
|> >convince me?
|>
|> I think that a moral act is moral whether or not the implementor
|> thinks it is.
That's not the point. The point is whether the implementor thinks
*at all*. The issue is not whether thinking produces opinion A
or opinion B, but whether thinking takes place, period.
|>
|> >I've offered, four times, I think, to accept your definition if
|> >you allow me to ascribe moral significence to the orbital motion
|> >of the planets.
|>
|> Hmm... perhaps you can ascribe it. I could say that many human actions
|> are not "natural" and thus don't follow a natural morality.
Since humans are part of nature, are not all human actions "natural".
Or perhaps you're going to throw in a definition of "natural" that
will allow us to describe some actions as "natural" and some as
"not natural". If so, what is the definition?
|> Other than those death which surround mating rituals, other animals
|> just don't kill each other (within a species) that often, do they?
Sure they do, as multiple posters have show you. Sharks, for example,
eat wounded sharks. I've personally seen cats eat their newborn.
Are you in some kind of denial? People give you example after example,
and you go off the air for a week, and then pop up claiming that it
never happened. It's very strange.
|> But why don't animals kill each other?
See what I mean. Here we go again. What do we have to do: write
up a tailor-made FAQ just for Mr Schneider?
jon.
| 0alt.atheism
|
eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (C.Wainwright) | Re: Albert Sabin | Nottingham University | In article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
|>
|> Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring
|> to the New Testament. Please detail your complaints or e-mail if
|> you don't want to post.
|> First-century Greek is well-known and
|> well-understood. Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian,
|> who also wrote of Jesus?
This can be now assumed kin of comic books. There are many authors and artists
who write on, say, Superman. This does not make the fictional character
worthy of blind sycophantic worship. Indeed, I too could write of Jesus. Does
that make my writings sacred and me worthy of becoming a saint? Somehow I doubt
it.
|>In addition, the four gospel accounts
|> are very much in harmony.
|>
About a week ago a number of discrepancies were posted to this
newsgroup which noone, NOT ONE christian dared to take up. Perhaps the original
poster could re-post them for Bill...?
|> ==========================================================
|> // Bill Rawlins <wpr@atlanta.dg.com> //
|> // "I speak for myself only" //
|> ==========================================================
--
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Adda Wainwright | Does dim atal y llanw! 8o) |
| eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk | 8o) Mae .sig 'ma ar werth! |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| 0alt.atheism
|
wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) | Re: Rawlins debunks creationism | DGSID, Atlanta, GA | In article <2BC8B03B.29868@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@net1.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
|> wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
|> >Science and the Bible are not in contradiction. God can supercede the
|> >scientific "laws" as man understands them. Creation is a good
|> >example. God has the power to create something out of nothing, order
|> >out of chaos.
|>
|> Precisely why creationism is not science. Precisely why it should
|> remain out of science classrooms.
|>
|> No one makes the case for the pseudoscientific nature of creationism
|> better than the creationists. Thanks Bill!
We are talking about origins, not merely science. Science cannot
explain origins. For a person to exclude anything but science from
the issue of origins is to say that there is no higher truth
than science. This is a false premise. By the way, I enjoy science.
It is truly a wonder observing God's creation. Macroevolution is
a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed
within three percent error :) ]
--
==========================================================
// Bill Rawlins <wpr@atlanta.dg.com> //
// "I speak for myself only" //
==========================================================
| 0alt.atheism
|
() | Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW] | Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada | In article <115561@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) wrote:
>Khomeini advocates the view that
> there was a series of twelve Islamic leaders (the Twelve Imams) who
> are free of error or sin. This makes him a heretic.
>
Wow, you're quicker to point out heresy than the Church in the
Middle ages. Seriously though, even the Sheiks at Al-Azhar don't
claim that the Shi'ites are heretics. Most of the accusations
and fabrications about Shi'ites come out of Saudi Arabia from the
Wahabis. For that matter you should read the original works of
the Sunni Imams (Imams of the four madhabs). The teacher of
at least two of them was Imam Jafar Sadiq (the sixth Imam of the
Shi'ites).
Although there is plenty of false propaganda floating around
about the Shi'ites (esp. since the revolution), there are also
many good works by Shi'ites which present the views and teachings
of their school. Why make assumptions and allegations (like
people in this group have done about Islam in general) about Shi'ites.
| 0alt.atheism
|
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) | Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses (good grief!) | null | The amount of energy being spent on ONE LOUSY SYLLOGISM says volumes for the
true position of reason in this group.
--
C. Wingate + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
+ but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe + the marv'lous peace of God."
| 0alt.atheism
|
John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Penn State University | In article <1r39kh$itp@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
O'Dwyer) says:
>
[ . . .]
>Specifically, I'd like to know what relativism concludes when two
>people grotesquely disagree. Is it:
>
>(a) Both are right
>
>(b) One of them is wrong, and sometimes (though perhaps rarely) we have a
> pretty good idea who it is
>
>(c) One of them is wrong, but we never have any information as to who, so
> we make our best guess if we really must make a decision.
>
>(d) The idea of a "right" moral judgement is meaningless (implying that
> whether peace is better than war, e.g., is a meaningless question,
> and need not be discussed for it has no correct answer)
>
>(e) Something else. A short, positive assertion would be nice.
>
>As I hope you can tell, (b) and (c) are actually predicated on
>the assumption that values are real - so statements like these
>_can't_ consistently derive from the relativist assumption that values
>aren't part of objective reality.
I am a relativist who would like to answer your question, but the way you
phrase the question makes it unanswerable. The concepts of "right"
and "wrong" (or "correct/incorrect" or "true/false") belong to the
domain of epistemological rather than moral questions. It makes no
sense to ask if a moral position is right or wrong, although it is
legitimate to ask if it is good (or better than another position).
Let me illustrate this point by looking at the psychological derivatives
of epistemology and ethics: perception and motivation, respectively.
One can certainly ask if a percept is "right" (correct, true,
veridical) or "wrong" (incorrect, false, illusory). But it makes little
sense to ask if a motive is true or false. On the other hand, it is
strange to ask whether a percept is morally good or evil, but one can
certainly ask that question about motives.
Therefore, your suggested answers (a)-(c) simply can't be considered:
they assume you can judge the correctness of a moral judgment.
Now the problem with (d) is that it is double-barrelled: I agree with
the first part (that the "rightness" of a moral position is a
meaningless question), for the reasons stated above. But that is
irrelevant to the alleged implication (not an implication at all) that
one cannot feel peace is better than war. I certainly can make
value judgments (bad, better, best) without asserting the "correctness"
of the position.
Sorry for the lengthy dismissal of (a)-(d). My short (e) answer is
that when two individuals grotesquely disagree on a moral issue,
neither is right (correct) or wrong (incorrect). They simply hold
different moral values (feelings).
-----------------------------------
John A. Johnson (J5J@psuvm.psu.edu)
Department of Psychology Penn State DuBois Campus 15801
Penn State is not responsible for my behavior.
"A ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of
another sort. Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing
metaphysics is a part of life." - from _Lila_ by R. Pirsig
| 0alt.atheism
|
twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) | Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts" | Blasny Blasny, Consolidated (Amherst, MA Offices) | In article <1993Apr6.041343.24997@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
>Roger and I have
>clearly stated our support of the BSA position on the issue;
>specifically, that homosexual behavior constitutes a violation of
>the Scout Oath (specifically, the promise to live "morally straight").
>
>There is really nothing else to discuss.
Apparently not.
In response to his claim that it "terrifies" gay people not to be able
to "indoctrinate children to our lifestyle" (or words to that effect),
I sent Roger a very calm, carefully-written, detailed letter
explaining simply why the BSA policy does, indeed terrify me. I did
not use inflammatory language and left myself extremely open for an
answer. Thus far, I have not received an answer. I can conclude only
that Roger considers his position either indefensible or simply not
worth defending.
>Trying to cloud the issue
>with comparisons to Blacks or other minorities is also meaningless
>because it's like comparing apples to oranges (i.e., people can't
>control their race but they can control their behavior).
In fact, that's exactly the point: people can control their behavior.
Because of that fact, there is no need for a blanket ban on
homosexuals.
>What else is there to possibly discuss on rec.scouting on this issue?
You tell me.
--
____ Tim Pierce / ?Usted es la de la tele, eh? !La madre
\ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / del asesino! !Ay, que graciosa!
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / -- Pedro Almodovar
| 0alt.atheism
|
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) | Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics | University of Wisconsin Eau Claire | [reply to timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons]
>...the same kind of ignorance is demonstrated in just about every post
>in this newsgroup. For instance, generalizations about Christianity
>are popular.
Which newsgroup have you been reading? The few anti-Christian posts are
virtually all in response to some Christian posting some "YOU WILL ALL
BURN IN HELL" kind of drivel.
>I'm a soft atheist (courtesy of the FAQ), but even I know enough about
>the Bible to see that it repeatedly warns of false prophets preaching
>in the name of God.
Bake, it is transparently obvious that you are a theist pretending to be
an atheist. You probably think you are very clever, but we see this all
the time.
>But the possibilities of creator and eternity carry with them too much
>emotional power to dismiss merely on the basis of this line.
But of course *you* have dismissed them because you are an atheist,
right?
>...just like any other religion, hard atheism is a faith.
In other words, you *didn't* read the FAQ after all.
David Nye (nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu). Midelfort Clinic, Eau Claire WI
This is patently absurd; but whoever wishes to become a philosopher
must learn not to be frightened by absurdities. -- Bertrand Russell
| 0alt.atheism
|
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) | We don't need no stinking subjects! | The Loyal Order Of Keiths. | In article <1ql1avINN38a@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>
>>No, if you're going to claim something, then it is up to you to prove it.
>>Think "Cold Fusion".
>
>Well, I've provided examples to show that the trend was general, and you
>(or others) have provided some counterexamples, mostly ones surrounding
>mating practices, etc. I don't think that these few cases are enough to
>disprove the general trend of natural morality. And, again, the mating
>practices need to be reexamined...
So what you're saying is that your mind is made up, and you'll just explain
away any differences at being statistically insignificant?
>>>Try to find "immoral" non-mating-related activities.
>>So you're excluding mating-related-activities from your "natural morality"?
>
>No, but mating practices are a special case. I'll have to think about it
>some more.
So you'll just explain away any inconsistancies in your "theory" as being
"a special case".
>>>Yes, I think that the natural system can be objectively deduced with the
>>>goal of species propogation in mind. But, I am not equating the two
>>>as you so think. That is, an objective system isn't necessarily the
>>>natural one.
>>Are you or are you not the man who wrote:
>>"A natural moral system is the objective moral system that most animals
>> follow".
>
>Indeed. But, while the natural system is objective, all objective systems
>are not the natural one. So, the terms can not be equated. The natural
>system is a subset of the objective ones.
You just equated them. Re-read your own words.
>>Now, since homosexuality has been observed in most animals (including
>>birds and dolphins), are you going to claim that "most animals" have
>>the capacity of being immoral?
>
>I don't claim that homosexuality is immoral. It isn't harmful, although
>it isn't helpful either (to the mating process). And, when you say that
>homosexuality is observed in the animal kingdom, don't you mean "bisexuality?"
A study release in 1991 found that 11% of female seagulls are lesbians.
>>>Well, I'm saying that these goals are not inherent. That is why they must
>>>be postulates, because there is not really a way to determine them
>>>otherwise (although it could be argued that they arise from the natural
>>>goal--but they are somewhat removed).
>>Postulate: To assume; posit.
>
>That's right. The goals themselves aren't inherent.
>
>>I can create a theory with a postulate that the Sun revolves around the
>>Earth, that the moon is actually made of green cheese, and the stars are
>>the portions of Angels that intrudes into three-dimensional reality.
>
>You could, but such would contradict observations.
Now, apply this last sentence of your to YOUR theory. Notice how your are
contridicting observations?
>>I can build a mathematical proof with a postulate that given the length
>>of one side of a triangle, the length of a second side of the triangle, and
>>the degree of angle connecting them, I can determine the length of the
>>third side.
>
>But a postulate is something that is generally (or always) found to be
>true. I don't think your postulate would be valid.
You don't know much math, do you? The ability to use SAS to determine the
length of the third side of the triangle is fundemental to geometry.
>>Guess which one people are going to be more receptive to. In order to assume
>>something about your system, you have to be able to show that your postulates
>>work.
>
>Yes, and I think the goals of survival and happiness *do* work. You think
>they don't? Or are they not good goals?
Goals <> postulates.
Again, if one of the "goals" of this "objective/natural morality" system
you are proposing is "survival of the species", then homosexuality is
immoral.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza. OK???=
| 0alt.atheism
|
Patrick C Leger <pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu> | Re: thoughts on christians | Sophomore, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA | Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 15-Apr-93 Re: thoughts on christians
by Dave Fuller@portal.hq.vi
> I'm sick of religious types being pampered, looked out for, and WORST
> OF ALL . . . . respected more than atheists. There must be an end
> in sight.
>
I think it'd help if we got a couple good atheists (or even some good,
steadfast agnostics) in some high political offices. When was the last
time we had an (openly) atheist president? Have we ever? (I don't
actually know; these aren't rhetorical questions.) How 'bout some
Supreme court justices?
One thing that really ticked me off a while ago was an ad for a news
program on a local station...The promo said something like "Who are
these cults, and why do they prey on the young?" Ahem. EVER HEAR OF
BAPTISM AT BIRTH? If that isn't preying on the young, I don't know what
is...
I used to be (ack, barf) a Catholic, and was even confirmed...Shortly
thereafter I decided it was a load of BS. My mom, who really insisted
that I continue to go to church, felt it was her duty (!) to bring me up
as a believer! That was one of the more presumptuous things I've heard
in my life. I suggested we go talk to the priest, and she agreed. The
priest was amazingly cool about it...He basically said that if I didn't
believe it, there was no good in forcing it on me. Actually, I guess he
wasn't amazingly cool about it--His response is what you'd hope for
(indeed, expect) from a human being. I s'pose I just _didn't_ expect
it...
I find it absurd that religion exists; Yet, I can also see its
usefulness to people. Facing up to the fact that you're just going to
be worm food in a few decades, and that there isn't some cosmic purpose
to humanity and the universe, can be pretty difficult for some people.
Having a readily-available, pre-digested solution to this is pretty
attractive, if you're either a) gullible enough, b) willing to suspend
your reasoning abilities for the piece of mind, or c) have had the stuff
rammed down your throat for as long as you can remember. Religion in
general provides a nice patch for some human weaknesses; Organized
religion provides a nice way to keep a population under control.
Blech.
Chris
----------------------
Chris Leger
Sophomore, Carnegie Mellon Computer Engineering
Remember...if you don't like what somebody is saying, you can always
ignore them!
| 0alt.atheism
|
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: An Anecdote about Islam | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <114140@bu.edu>
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>>>>> In cases of prostitution
>>>>>both the man and the prostitute would be punished in public, quite
>>>>>severely.
(Deletion)
>
>>No Gregg, you cannot say A is lenient and A punishes severely in public.
>>Unless, of course, it is one of the exceptions implied by "almost all
>>matters".
>
>That depends on the statistics and who is punished in public. If some
>power (for example, nothing Islamic about it) allows men to rape women
>five times before blowing the rapist's head off in public then I'd call
>that leniency, wouldn't you?
>
You have given that example. It is not lenient. End of argument.
And chopping off the hands or heads of people is not lenient either. It
rather appears that you are internalized the claims about the legal system
without checking if they suit the description.
And wasn't the argument that it takes five men to rape a woman according
to Islamic law?
>>While I don't approve of it, I think both the prostitute and the customer
>>have the right to do what they do. In other words, punishing them is a
>>violation of their rights. And to punish them severely in public is just
>>another pointer to the hysteria connected with sexuality in so many
>>religions.
>
>Believe what you like.
>
No, I even believe what I don't like. Can you give better answers than that?
Have you got any evidence for your probably opposite claims?
>>In this case, I don't see why I should accept the complex ridden views
>>of an oriental goatherd.
>
>Ah, yes, I forget that the West is historically so much without sexual
>neurosis :)
>
>"Oriental goatherd", _really_ intellectual.
>
A fact, if memory serves. And most will see the connection between the
primitive machism in the Orient and in Islam.
>>If people agree on having sex it is fine. And I would assume that a
>>god would have a clue of what the detrimental effects of supressing it
>>are.
>
>Huh? Ever heard of AIDs? (Of course you'll probably go on to say that
>God must be evil because he allows the disease to exist, bla bla).
>
As usually you miss the point. Aids is neither spread only through sex
nor necessarily spread by having sex. Futher, the point is, a very important
point, the urge for sex is stronger than the fear of AIDS. It is even
stronger than the religious attempts to channel or to forbid sex. The
consequences of suppressing sex are worse than the consequences of Aids.
Please note that the idea that everybody would end up with AIDS when sex
is not controlled is completely counterfactual.
And since you have brought up the point, is your god evil or not?
Benedikt
| 0alt.atheism
|
mls@ulysses.att.com (Michael L. Siemon) | Re: Albert Sabin | AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA | In article <1r67ruINNmle@ctron-news.ctron.com> king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
>
>rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes:
>
>[Discussion on Josephus inserts]
>
>Thanks. Am I correct, then, in assuming that that Josephus
>did in fact write about Jesus, but Christian copists embellished it?
"Correct" overstates the case. The whole point of the discussions
has been that it is *reasonable* to assume that there was some brief
reference to Jesus that has been doctored. By consensus, this is
the *most* reasonable of the proposed solutions -- but not so much
so as to rule out complete fabrication.
--
Michael L. Siemon "Stand, stand at the window
mls@panix.com As the tears scald and start.
mls@ulysses.att.com You shall love your crooked neighbor
-standard disclaimer- With your crooked heart."
| 0alt.atheism
|
timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) | Re: Amusing atheists and anarchists | null | mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>My turn
>I went back and reread your post. All you did is attack atheism, and
>say that agnosticism wasn't as funny as atheism. Nowhere does that
>imply that you are agnostic, or weak atheist. As most people who post
>such inflammatory remarks are theists, it was a reasonable assumption.
Sorry, you're right. I did not clearly state it.
>>Rule *2: Condescending to the population at large (i.e., theists) will not
>>win many people to your faith anytime soon. It only ruins your credibility.
>How am I being condescending to the population at large? I am stating
>something that happened to be true for a long time, I couldn't believe
>that people actually believed in this god idea. It was an alien concept
>to me. I am not trying to win people to my faith as you put it. I have
>no faith. Religion was a non issue when I had the attitude above because
>it never even occurred to me to believe. Atheist by default I guess you
>could say.
The most common form of condescending is the rational versus irrational
attitude. Once one has accepted the _assumption_ that there is no god(s),
and then consider other faiths to be irrational simply because their
assumption(s) contradict your assumption, then I would say there's a
lack of consistency here.
Now I know you'll get on me about faith. If the _positive_ belief that God
does not exist were a closed, logical argument, why do so many rational
people have problems with that "logic"?
But you, probably like me, seem to be a soft atheist. Sorry for the flamage.
>The line about atheists haveing something up their sleeves is what seemed
>to imply that. Sorry, been reading too much on the CLIPPER project lately,
>and the paranoia over there may have seeped in some.
;) What is the CLIPPER project BTW?
>>Rule #4: Don't mix apples with oranges. How can you say that the
>>extermination by the Mongols was worse than Stalin? Khan conquered >people
>>unsympathetic to his cause. That was atrocious. But Stalin killed >millions of
>>his own people who loved and worshipped _him_ and his atheist state!! >>How can
>>anyone be worse than that?
>Many rulers have done similar things in the past, only Stalin did it
>when there was plenty of documentation to afix the blame on him. The
>evidence is that some of the early European rulers ruled with an iron
>fist much like Stalin's. You threw in numbers, and I am sick of hearing
>about Stalin as an example because the example doesn't apply. You
>managed to get me angry with your post because it appeared to attack
>all forms of atheism.
It might have appeared to attack atheism in general, but its point was
that mass killing happens for all sorts of reasons. People will hate who
they will and will wave whatever flag to justify it, be it cross or
hammer&sickle. The Stalin example _is_ important not only because it's
still a widely unappreciated era that people want to forget but also
because people really did love him and his ideas, even after all that he
had wrought.
>The evidence I am referring to is more a lack of evidence than negative
>evidence. Say I claim there are no pink crows. I have never seen
>a pink crow, but that doesn't mean it couldn't exist. But, this person
>here claims that there are pink crows, even though he admits he hasn't
>been able to capture one or get a photo, or find one with me etc.
>In a sense that is evidence to not believe in the existence of pink crows.
>That is what I am saying when I look at the evidence. I look at the
>suppossed evidence for a deity, show how it is flawed, and doesn't show
>what theists want it to show, and go on.
First, all the pink crows/unicorns/elves arguments in the world will not
sway most people, for they simply do not accept the analogy. Why?
One of the big reasons is that many, many people want something
beyond this life. You can pretend that they don't want this, but I for
one can accept it and even want it myself sometimes.
And there is nothing unique in this example of why people want a God.
Can love as a truth be proven, logically?
>>themselves, namely, a god or gods. So in principle it's hard to see how
>>theists are necessarily arrogant.
>Makes no sense to me. They seem arrogant to make such a claim to me.
>But my previous refutation still stands, and I believe there may be
>another one on the net.
John the Baptist boasted of Jesus to many people. I find it hard to see
how that behavior is arrogant at all. Many Christians I know also boast
in this way, but I still do not necessarily see it as arrogance. Of course,
I do know arrogant Christians, doctors, and teachers as well. Technically,
you might consider the person who originally made a given claim to be arrogant,
Jesus, for instance.
>Are you talking about all atheism or just strong atheism? If you are
>talking about weak atheism which I believe in, then I refuse such a claim.
>Atheism is a lack of belief. I used good ol' Occam's Razor to make the
>final rejection of a deity, in that, as I see things, even if I
>present the hypothesises in an equal fasion, I find the theist argument
>not plausible.
I speak against strong atheism. I also often find that the evidence
supporting a faith is very subjective, just as, say, the evidence supporting
love as truth is subjective.
>I believe I answered that. I apologize for the (as you stated) incorrect
>assumption on your theism, but I saw nothing to indicate that you
>were an agnostic, only that you were just another newbie Christian
>on the net trying to get some cheap shots in.
No apology necessary. :)
--
Bake Timmons, III
-- "...there's nothing higher, stronger, more wholesome and more useful in life
than some good memory..." -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)
| 0alt.atheism
|
mam@mouse.cmhnet.org (Mike McAngus) | Re: Americans and Evolution | The cat is on the mat | On Tue, 20 Apr 1993 04:49:18 GMT bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) wrote:
>Robert Singleton (bobs@thnext.mit.edu) wrote:
>: > Sure it isn't mutually exclusive, but it lends weight to (i.e. increases
>: > notional running estimates of the posterior probability of) the
>: > atheist's pitch in the partition, and thus necessarily reduces the same
>: > quantity in the theist's pitch. This is because the `divine component'
>: > falls prey to Ockham's Razor, the phenomenon being satisfactorily
>: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: > explained without it, and there being no independent evidence of any
>: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: > such component. More detail in the next post.
>: >
>Occam's Razor is not a law of nature, it is way of analyzing an
>argument, even so, it interesting how often it's cited here and to
>what end.
>It seems odd that religion is simultaneously condemned as being
>primitive, simple-minded and unscientific, anti-intellectual and
>childish, and yet again condemned as being too complex (Occam's
>razor), the scientific explanation of things being much more
>straightforeward and, apparently, simpler.
Cute characterization Bill; however, there is no inconsistency between
the two statements. Even if one believes that religion is "primitive,
simple-minded and unscientific, anti-intellectual and childish", one
can still hold the view that religion also adds an unnecessary level of
complexity to the explanation. The ideas themselves don't have to be
complex before being excised by Occam's Razor, they only have to add
unnecessarily to the overall complexity of the description.
> Which is it to be - which
>is the "non-essential", and how do you know?
I think the non-essential part of an explanatory system is one that
adds no predictive capability to the system.
>Considering that even scientists don't fully comprehend science due to
>its complexity and diversity. Maybe William of Occam has performed a
>lobotomy, kept the frontal lobe and thrown everything else away ...
Huh?
>This is all very confusing, I'm sure one of you will straighten me out
>tough.
^^^^^
Watch it, your Freudian Slip is showing
--
Mike McAngus | The Truth is still the Truth
mam@mouse.cmhnet.org | Even if you choose to ignore it.
|
(Some of the old .sig viruses are still the best)
| 0alt.atheism
|
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) | Re: The Inimitable Rushdie | Boston University Physics Department | In article <C5HKv2.Epv@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <115256@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>>Judaism, for one. Maddi has confirmed this for one. And again I
>>reiterate that one can easily leave the religion at any time,
>>simply by making a public declaration. If one is too lazy to do
>>that then the religion cannot be held responsible.
>There are many "Islamic" countries where publically renouncing Islam can be
>quite dangerous. These countries might not, according to you, necessarily be
>practicing "true" Islam, but the danger still remains; one cannot blame
>failure to publically renounce Islam on "laziness" as opposed to a desire to
>stay alive and well.
Of course, if you're planning to pull a Rushdie then declaring one's
leaving the religion is little to be concerned about compared to one's
other plans.
In Rushdie's case, the one under discussion, one can. It is tragic that
in _some_ "Islamic" countries this is so. There are, however, Islamic
countries (whose constitutions contains statements that Islamic law is
to be incorporated), e.g. Kuwait, where one can freely make such
statements without fear.
>Not to mention that it has already been pointed out that Rushdie has said in
>his books that he's not a Muslim, and there have surely been enough readers of
>his books to provide the appropriate number of witnesses.
This story has become tiresome. The conditions are clear. If you care to
make your point clear then make a chronology and show that he had made
public statements about leaving Islam prior to his writing of _TSV_. If
he did make such statements then he should have made _that_ clear rather
than trying to rejoin Islam or go on talking about his personal
feelings.
Gregg
| 0alt.atheism
|
acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu (Turin Turambar, ME Department of Utter Misery) | Re: Christian Morality is | Macalester College | In article <4963@eastman.UUCP>, dps@nasa.kodak.com (Dan Schaertel,,,) writes:
> In article 21627@ousrvr.oulu.fi, kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes:
> |>Dan Schaertel,,, (dps@nasa.kodak.com) wrote:
> |>
> |>
> |>I love god just as much as she loves me. If she wants to seduce me,
> |>she'll know what to do.
> |>
>
> But if He/She did you would probably consider it rape.
Probably because it IS rape.
>
> |>: Simple logic arguments are folly. If you read the Bible you will see
> |>: that Jesus made fools of those who tried to trick him with "logic".
> |>: Our ability to reason is just a spec of creation. Yet some think it is
> |>: the ultimate. If you rely simply on your reason then you will never
> |>: know more than you do now.
> |>
> |>Your argument is of the type "you'll know once you try".
> |>Yet there are many atheists who have sincerely tried, and believed
> |>for many years, but were eventually honest enough to admit that
> |>they had lived in a virtual reality.
> |>
>
> Obviously there are many Christians who have tried and do believe. So .. ?
So nothing. It may work for some, but not for others: it doesn't give any
insight into an overall God or overall truth of a religion- it would seem to be
dependent solely on the individual, as well as individually-created. And since
Christians have failed to show us how there way of life is in any wy better
than ours, I do not see why the attempt to try it is necessary, or even
particularly attractive.
>
> |>: To learn you must accept that which you don't know.
> |>
> |>What does this mean? To learn you must accept that you don't know
> |>something, right-o. But to learn you must _accept_ something I don't
> |>know, why? This is not the way I prefer to learn. It is unwise to
> |>merely swallow everything you read. Suppose I write a book telling
> |>how the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn (tm) has helped me in my
> |>daily problems, would you accept this, since you can't know whether
> |>it is true or not?
> |>
>
> No one asks you to swallow everything, in fact Jesus warns against it. But let
> me ask you a question. Do you beleive what you learn in history class, or for
> that matter anything in school. I mean it's just what other people have told
> you and you don't want to swallow what others say. right ... ?
Well, we will nerver know for sure if we were told the truth or not, but at the
very least there is a bit more evidence pointing to the fact that, say, there
was a military conflict in Vietnam 25 years ago, then there is a supernatural
diety who wants us to live a certain way. The fact that Jesus warned against
it means nothing. *I* warn against it too. Big deal.
>
> The life , death, and resurection of Christ is documented historical fact.
This is not true. The first two choices here (life and death) are scantily
documented, and the last one is total malarky unless one uses the Bible, and
that is totally circular. Perhaps it be better to use the imagination, or
one's ignorance. Someone else will address this I'm sure, and refer you to
plenty of documentation...
>As much
> as anything else you learn. How do you choose what to believe and what not to?
> I could argue that George Washington is a myth. He never lived because I don't
> have any proof except what I am told. However all the major events of the life
> of Jesus Christ were fortold hundreds of years before him. Neat trick uh?
How is this? There is nothing more disgusting than Christian attempts to
manipulate/interpret the Old Testament as being filled with signs for the
coming of Christ. Every little reference to a stick or bit of wood is
autmoatically interpreted as the Cross. What a miscarriage of philology.
>
> There is no way to get into a sceptical heart. You can not say you have given a
> sincere effort with the attitude you seem to have. You must TRUST, not just go
> to church and participate in it's activities. Were you ever willing to die for what
> you believed?
Well, since we have skeptical hearts (thank goodness,) there is no way to get
into us. Here we have the irreconcilable difference: Christians glorify
exactly what we tend to despise or snub: trust/belief/faith without knowledge.
If I am lucky one day and I happen to be thinking of God at the same time my
enkephalins go up, then I may associate this as a sign of God (it will "feel"
right, and I will trust without knowing). Maybe. Religosity does not seem to
be anything that is conclusively arrived at, but rather it seems to be more of
a sudden affliction...
I believe many of us were willing to die for what we believed, many of us were
not. The question is, is suchg an attitude reflective of a _correct_ or
healthy morality. IT would seem not to be. The same thing could reflect
fanaticism, for example, and is any case an expression of simple selfishness.
--
--Adam
================================================================================
| Adam John Cooper | "Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings |
| (612) 696-7521 | who thought themselves good simply because |
| acooper@macalstr.edu | they had no claws." |
================================================================================
| "Understand one another? I fear I am beyond your comprehension." --Gandalf |
================================================================================
| 0alt.atheism
|
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) | Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW] | Boston University Physics Department | In article <1993Apr10.123858.25059@bradford.ac.uk> L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:
>Gregg Jaeger (jaeger@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
>> Khomenei was a jerk and so were plenty of
>>British "leaders", so what?
>>THE QUR'AN is the basis of judgement. Khomenei was clearly a heretic
>>by the standards of the Qur'an. End of story.
>Could you be a little more specific as to exactly why Khomanei was a
>heretic and a jerk as judged by the Koran. I have no liking for the
>guy, but as far as I know he has done nothing contrary to the teachings
>of the Koran, or at least so I'm told by several Iranian research
>students that I share an office with.
>It is easy and convenient for you to denounce him. But I have the
>feeling that your views are not as clear cut and widely accepted as you
>suggest.
I have made this clear elsewhere but will do so again. Khomeini put a
price on the head of someone in another country, this makes him a jerk
as well as an international outlaw. Khomeini advocates the view that
there was a series of twelve Islamic leaders (the Twelve Imams) who
are free of error or sin. This makes him a heretic. In the Qur'an
Muhammad is chastised for error directly by God; the Qur'an says that
Muhammad is the greatest example of proper Islamic behavior; thus
no muslim is free from error.
>As usual there seems to be almost as many Islamic viewpoints as there
>are Muslims.
Perhaps it seems so to you, but this is hardly the case. There is
widespread agreement about matters of Islam. There certainly are
many viewpoints on issues which are not particularly Islamic in
and of themselves, but this is so for any large group of people
under the same name.
>It all comes back to the Koran being so imprecise in its wording.
The Qur'an is not particularly imprecise in wording, though it is true
that several interpretations are possible in the interpretations of
many words. However, as an entire text the Qur'an makes its meanings
precise enough for intelligent people free from power lust to come
to agreement about them.
Gregg
| 0alt.atheism
|
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) | Re: He has risen! | University of Wisconsin Eau Claire | [reply to kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)]
>Our Lord and Savior David Keresh has risen!
>He has been seen alive!
>Spread the word!
Jeez, can't he get anything straight. I told him to wait for three
days.
GOD
David Nye (nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu). Midelfort Clinic, Eau Claire WI
This is patently absurd; but whoever wishes to become a philosopher
must learn not to be frightened by absurdities. -- Bertrand Russell
| 0alt.atheism
|
mam@mouse.cmhnet.org (Mike McAngus) | Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Atheists?) | The cat is on the mat | On Tue, 20 Apr 1993 04:32:59 GMT bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) wrote:
>This is fascinating. Atheists argue for abortion, defend homosexuality
>as a means of population control, insist that the only values are
>biological and condemn war and capital punishment. According to
>Benedikt, if something is contardictory, it cannot exist, which in
>this case means atheists I suppose.
What atheists are you talking about?
IMNSHO, Abortion is the womans choice. Homosexual sex is the choice of
the people involved. War is sometimes necessary.
This leaves capital punishment. I oppose capital punishemnt because
mistakes can happen (yes this thread went around with no resolution
recently).
As far as poplulation control, I think contraception and education are
the best courses of action.
>I would like to understand how an atheist can object to war (an
>excellent means of controlling population growth), or to capital
>punishment, I'm sorry but the logic escapes me.
That's because you are again making the assumption that all Atheists
have some specific mindset.
>And why just capital punishment, what is being questioned here, the
>propriety of killing or of punishment? What is the basis of the
>ecomplaint?
Mistakes can happen Bill, and I could be the victim of such a mistake.
--
Mike McAngus | The Truth is still the Truth
mam@mouse.cmhnet.org | Even if you choose to ignore it.
|
(Some of the old .sig viruses are still the best)
| 0alt.atheism
|
jboxhorn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Joseph E Boxhorn) | Re: Albert Sabin | Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee |
In article <1993Apr2.082500.28753@smds.com> rh@smds.com writes:
> If I recall correctly there
>are protist cells that can divide and multiply quite readily without
>nuclear DNA. If memory serves me correctly this is the case with white
>cells in the blood. [I rely on some indignant biologist to set me
>straight.]
As someone who works with protists, this does not strike me as being true.
Are you confusing this with:
1) Ciliates which have a macronucleus and a micronucleus, each containing
DNA (but in different amounts). The micronucleus is involved in mitosis
and meiosis, the macronucleus seems to be the main "control center" of
the cell; or
2) Two groups of unrelated protists, euglenoids and dinoflagellates, which
seem to have permanently condensed chromosomes. How these groups read
their DNA is quite a puzzle, as most models of how genes work involve
the chromosomes being unwound.
>--
>Richard Harter: SMDS Inc. Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398
>US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742. Fax: 508-369-8272
>In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
>Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
--
Joseph Boxhorn (jboxhorn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu)
Department of Biological Sciences
and Center for Great Lake Studies
University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee
| 0alt.atheism
|
kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) | Re: Consciousness part II - Kev Strikes Back! | University of Oulu, Finland | Scott D. Sauyet (SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu) wrote:
> In <1993Apr21.163848.8099@cs.nott.ac.uk>
> Kevin Anthony (kax@cs.nott.ac.uk) writes:
> > Firstly, I'm not impressed with the ability of algorithms. They're
> > great at solving problems once the method has been worked out, but not
> > at working out the method itself.
> [ .. crossword example deleted ... ]
> Have you heard of neural networks? I've read a little about them, and
> they seems to overcome most of your objections.
I'm sure there are many people who work with neural networks and
read this newsgroup. Please tell Kevin what you've achieved, and
what you expect.
> I am not saying that NNs will solve all such problems, but I think
> they show that it is not as hard as you think to come up with
> mechanical models of consciousness.
Indeed. I think dualism is a non-solution, or, as Dennett recently
put it, a dead horse.
Petri
--
___. .'*''.* Petri Pihko kem-pmp@ Mathematics is the Truth.
!___.'* '.'*' ' . Pihatie 15 C finou.oulu.fi Physics is the Rule of
' *' .* '* SF-90650 OULU kempmp@ the Game.
*' * .* FINLAND phoenix.oulu.fi -> Chemistry is The Game.
| 0alt.atheism
|
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) | Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW] | sgi | In article <115565@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
|> In article <1qi3l5$jkj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >I hope an Islamic Bank is something other than BCCI, which
|> >ripped off so many small depositors among the Muslim
|> >community in the Uk and elsewhere.
|>
|> >jon.
|>
|> Grow up, childish propagandist.
Gregg, I'm really sorry if having it pointed out that in practice
things aren't quite the wonderful utopia you folks seem to claim
them to be upsets you, but exactly who is being childish here is
open to question.
BBCI was an example of an Islamically owned and operated bank -
what will someone bet me they weren't "real" Islamic owners and
operators? - and yet it actually turned out to be a long-running
and quite ruthless operation to steal money from small and often
quite naive depositors.
And why did these naive depositors put their life savings into
BCCI rather than the nasty interest-motivated western bank down
the street? Could it be that they believed an Islamically owned
and operated bank couldn't possibly cheat them?
So please don't try to con us into thinking that it will all
work out right next time.
jon.
| 0alt.atheism
|
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> | Re: Are atoms real? (was Re: After 2000 years blah blah blah) | Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. | kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes:
>mathew (mathew@mantis.co.uk) wrote:
>> What is the difference between a "_chemist_" and someone who is taught
>> Chemistry at, say, Cambridge University?
>
> Put like this, I can't answer. I was originally pointing out that your
> attitude _seemed to be_ (I don't know if it really was) that chemists
> tend to ignore all kinds of effects;
When they're not important, yes. All scientists do. Otherwise science would
never get anywhere.
> your original posting stated that
> when doing chemistry, it is common to ignore atomic interactions,
Hang about -- not atomic interactions in general. Just specific ones which
are deemed unimportant. Like gravitational interactions between ions, which
are so small they're drowned out by electrostatic effects, and so on.
>> Has there been some revolution in teaching methods in the last four years?
>
> Perhaps this revolution has yet to reach Cambridge (my, now I'll get
> flamed for sure;-) ).
Oh, probably. They still make people memorize equations and IR spectra.
Maybe in a few decades they'll discover the revolutionary "data book"
technique.
Bitter and twisted, mathew
| 0alt.atheism
|
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) | Re: Gospel Dating | null | >So then, you require the same amount of evidence to believe that I
>a) own a pair of bluejeans and b) have superhuman powers?
Well, I could use the argument that some here use about "nature" and claim
that you cannot have superhuman powers because you are a human; superhuman
powers are beyond what a human has, and since you are a human, any powers
you have are not beyond those of a human. Hence, you cannot have superhuman
powers. Sound good to you?
Anyway, to the evidence question: it depends on the context. In this group,
since you are posting from a american college site, I'm willing to take it
as given that you have a pair of blue jeans. And, assuming there is some
coherency in your position, I will take it as a given that you do not have
superhuman powers. Arguments are evidence in themselves, in some respects.
>When you say the "existence of [ sic ] Jesus", I assume that you
>mean just the man, without any special powers, etc.
Yep.
>Many will agree that it is very possible that a man called Jesus DID
>in fact live. In fact, I am willing to agree that there was some man named
>Jesus. I have no reason to believe that there wasn't ever a man.
Good.
>However, most of the claims ARE extradinary: eg virgin birth
>[ virgin in the sense of not having any sexual intercourse ], resurection,
>Son of God, etc. THOSE claims require extra evidence.
"Extra" evidence? Why don't we start with evidence at all?
I cannot see any evidence for the V. B. which the cynics in this group would
ever accept. As for the second, it is the foundation of the religion.
Anyone who claims to have seen the risen Jesus (back in the 40 day period)
is a believer, and therefore is discounted by those in this group; since
these are all ancients anyway, one again to choose to dismiss the whole
thing. The third is as much a metaphysical relationship as anything else--
even those who agree to it have argued at length over what it *means*, so
again I don't see how evidence is possible.
I thus interpret the "extraordinary claims" claim as a statement that the
speaker will not accept *any* evidence on the matter.
--
C. Wingate + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
+ but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe + the marv'lous peace of God."
| 0alt.atheism
|
eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) | Re: Rawlins debunks creationism | Nottingham University | In article <1993Apr15.223844.16453@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
|> We are talking about origins, not merely science. Science cannot
|> explain origins. For a person to exclude anything but science from
|> the issue of origins is to say that there is no higher truth
|> than science.
|> This is a false premise.
In what manner? If you argue that the universe was created with a higher
`truth` than science (btw I would love to see you define `truth` in this
arguement) then you must state how you know this and what it is. To subbornly
state that there is a "higher truth" and that it isyour god, I would ask you to prove it.
This, obviously, you cannot do. Besides, if I assume for the moment that
there is a 'higher truth' then how can you prove it is your god and not
another religion's? What makes you so arrogant to push forward your idea
of creation over many peoples' study of the laws of nature, ie science?
Science is the study of nature. It is open-minded: if the theory doesn't fit the
facts then trash the theory and try to construct one which does. It is *flexible*!
Your definition of science presupposes that science ignores this god
character altogether. If this is so, then it is only because no evidence
can be found of him.
|> By the way, I enjoy science.
So do I. Fortunately I am not mentally shackled into constructing my
scientific conclusions by placing god, Jesus and the holy ghost into every
paragraph in a sycophantic manner.
|> It is truly a wonder observing God's creation. Macroevolution is
|> a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed
|> within three percent error :) ]
|>
Indeed it is a wonder observing the random effects of creation. This, of
course, assumes a definition of aethetics which you don't forward!
As to "Macroevolution": please give references and more information. From
where do you get your figures?
Adda.
|> --
|> ==========================================================
|> // Bill Rawlins <wpr@atlanta.dg.com> //
|> // "I speak for myself only" //
|> ==========================================================
--
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Adda Wainwright | Does dim atal y llanw! 8o) |
| eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk | 8o) Mae .sig 'ma ar werth! |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| 0alt.atheism
|
sjchmura@ellis.uchicago.edu (steven joseph chmura) | Re: The _real_ probability of abiogenesis (was Re: Albert Sabin) | University of Chicago | In article <1q23qfINN91b@ctron-news.ctron.com> king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
>
>
>adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)writes:
>
>>>As I recall the figure for just one of the molecules forming is 1 : 10^-114.
>
>If amino acids were somehow formed in an organic soup, they must get out of
>it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins
>useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they
>are in the destructive ultraviolet light. By the same token, bodies of water
>are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. It is hard to see how
>polymerisation (sp?) could have proceeded in the primitive soup since
>the presence
>of water favors depolymerisation .
>
What is your degree in again - or should I say when. This is a 1960's
view of abiogenesis. PLease read something modern like Carle Woose's
"On the Origins" which he beats these "warm little ponds" into the ground.
Look at archeobacteria - they live in areas so hot you would melt.
And, believe it or not, we use their machinery everday in the pursuit of
new drugs, therapies, and knowledge.
`
>There are many other stubborn problems. The 20 amino acids needed for
>life's proteins are all left handed. If they formed randomly as the theory
>states, what are the chances that all the one's needed for life's proteins
^^^^^^^^^^^
You mean your theory. Again, arguing this point is like telling a child
that the sky will not fall. If the child is stubborn you will not get anywhere.
>would be left handed.
>
The P=1. They are left handed :) Really, this is not a big deal. There are
many problems with abiogenisis but these are really trivial.
>Jack
Please Jack rad some modern biololgy - i do not mean books by creationists
about modern biology. Pick up a text book and read. I think you
would like Woose's "On the Origins." He is an arogant man but his writting
and research is brilliant.
--
________________________________________________________________________________Steven Chmura University of Chicago Medical School(M1)
"Given enough time, the impossible becomes probable, and the probable
inevitable.." -George Wald, "On the Origins of Life"
| 0alt.atheism
|
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> | Re: Are atoms real? (was Re: After 2000 years blah blah blah) | Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. | kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes:
> mathew (mathew@mantis.co.uk) wrote:
> : And I agree. I think you merely misunderstood the point I was trying to
> : make, which is that we simplify the real situation to something we can deal
> : with. For instance, we talk about electron pairs, and draw diagrams of
> : molecules with little markings to show these pairs of electrons. This is
> : actually nonsense, but it's a perfectly good model for predicting all kinds
> : of chemical reactions.
>
> Your original posting shows that you seem to think chemists still think
> this way. It is true that basic chemistry is still taught in terms of
> electron pairs and valences, but this is not what _chemists_ are taught,
> and this is not how they should think.
What is the difference between a "_chemist_" and someone who is taught
Chemistry at, say, Cambridge University?
> I suggest you take a look at P.W. Atkins's classic text _Physical Chemistry_
> (4th ed., Oxford University Press 1990) to see how chemistry is taught today.
Has there been some revolution in teaching methods in the last four years?
Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that I was thinking of organic
chemistry, whereas you were thinking of physical chemistry.
mathew
| 0alt.atheism
|
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) | Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster? | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena | cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes:
>I somewhat agree with u. However, what it comes to (theist) religion,
>it's a different matter. That's because religion is like a drug, once u
>use it, it's very difficult to get out of it. That's because in
>order to experience a religion, u necessarily have to have blind faith,
>and once u have the blind faith, it's very diffcult for you to reason
>yourself back to atheism again.
>Therefore, it's unreasonable to ask people to try religion in order to
>judge it. It's like asking people to "try dying to find out what
>death is like".
Well now, we can't judge death until we are dead right? So, why should
we judge religion without having experienced it? People have said that
religion is bad by any account, and that it is in no way useful, etc.,
but I don't totally agree with this. Of course, we cannot really say
how the religious folk would act had they not been exposed to religion,
but some people at least seemed to be helped in some ways by it.
So basically, we can not judge whether religion is the right route for
a given individual, or even for a general population. We can say that
it is not best for us personally (at least, you can choose not to use
religion--might be hard to try to find out its benefits, as you state
above).
keith
| 0alt.atheism
|
mtabbott@unix.amherst.edu (MTA) | Atheism survey | Amherst College | I am doing research on atheism, part of which involves field research here
on the net. The following is a survey directed towards all readers of this
group, intended to get data about the basis of atheistic belief. I would
seriously appreciate it if each and every one of you would fill it out and
mail it back to me at mtabbott@unix.amherst.edu.
First of all, I've tried to structure questions that can be answered in a
variety of ways, with varying amounts of detail; it's possible to give
succinct answers to most everything, but there's enough here to keep most of
you typing for hours, I'm sure. As much detail as you want to give me (I mean
it) is great, but it's also important for me to have as broad a base of
individuals as possible, so even minimal responses are far better than nothing
-- it's a short survey if you just answer the questions without elaboration.
Secondly, I hope some of the questions don't come off as obnoxious; I know that
phrases like "What would convince you of the existence of God" imply that I am
a seminary student intent on proving you all to be ignorant Godless heathens.
In fact, I'm not too sure about the existence of a higher power myself, so my
use of "God" is a question of locution rather than ideology -- it's easier
than just repeating "a deity or higher power" every time.
Also, I tend to use a lot of anthropological buzzwords like "belief system"
although I know some of you might contend that you don't have ANY beliefs, but
are skeptical towards everything. I understand; but you know what I mean.
Think of such buzzwords as abbreviations for the rather unweildy phrases
required to get the precise idea across.
Lastly, thanks! Please fill out as much as you can, in as much detail as
you can, and send them to me. My research and I thank you.
---------------
Where would you place your beliefs, on the spectrum
Theism <--> Agnosticism <--> Weak Atheism <--> Strong Atheism?
Feel free to elaborate on your specific beliefs.
In what, if any, religious tradition were you raised? Did you ever believe
in the existence of a God? (Several of the following questions presume
that the answer to this is "yes;" if you've always been an atheist, or at
least never a theist, you may have to modify the question/answer somewhat.)
How serious was your/your family's involvement?
How and when did you start to doubt the tenets you were raised to believe?
How and when did your "final break" with your beliefs, if any, occur? I
realize that this is often more of an ongoing process than an "event" per se;
whatever the case, just describe it in whatever detail you wish.
What contact with other atheists have you had; before and after (and during)
your "conversion" to atheism? (Certainly your involvement with alt.atheism
counts -- how have net discussions affected your beliefs?)
To what extent do you think other atheists have influenced you in your
beliefs? Did you come by your beliefs through discussion, through
independent means, or by some combination of the two or other means?
Are you convinced that your beliefs were acquired through wholly rational
means (proofs of the non-existence of God, etc), or was it perhaps, at least
in part, through other means (alienation from mainstream religion, etc)?
To what extent do you feel you "understand" the universe through your beliefs?
What phenomena of the universe and of human existence (anything from physical
phenomena to the problem of the existence of evil in human affairs) do you
feel are adequately dealt with by your beliefs, and where are they lacking as
an explanatory method?
What would it take for you to question, or change, your beliefs? What would
convince you of the existence of God, what would convince you of the
plausibility of God's existence, and so forth? How dynamic are your beliefs
-- are they constantly changing; have they stayed more or less the same for
some time?
Are you involved in a career or education in science? To what extent do you
think science has influenced your beliefs? (Issac Asimov claimed that science
was the new "secular religion," and that "scientists are, in a very real sense,
the new priesthood." Do you see the pursuit of science as having a quasi-
religious base, or even a religious element?)
---------------
This survey is intended to get data from a broad range of individuals, but
also to help me narrow down the field to a small group of people whose
ideas and histories could be very useful to me. Would you be willing to have
me, on the basis of this survey, write you to find out more about you and your
beliefs? If not, fine; your filling out the survey alone is great.
---------------
Thanks again. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about what
I'm doing with this data, or if you have anything to say in addition to what
I've asked about above.
Mark Abbott
mtabbott@unix.amherst.ed
| 0alt.atheism
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Case Western Reserve University | In article <1qkj31$4c6@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>
>I'm not willing to attempt this until someone provides an objective
>basis for the notion that science is useful, worthy, or important in
>dealing with observed facts. Alternatively, you could try to
>demonstrate to me that science is not necessarily useful, worthy
>or important in any situation. In other words, I need to know
>how you use the term "objective".
One need not have have the notion that science is useful. For
example: many Christian scientists do not believe medical science to be
usefor or worthy. That does not make medical science subjective.
In any event, I fail to see what you mean by "subjective" science.
Are you suggesting that it is, and that if I step of a building, I may fall,
while you may not?
I assure you, it is a very objective conclusion that you will fall
( without any other outside means of support ). If you do not believe this,
I suggest you step off of a building, and subjectively believe that you will
not fall.
---
Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible.
| 0alt.atheism
|
oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) | Re: Studies on Book of Mormon | Washington University Astrophysics | I think that _The_Transcedental_Temptation_, by Paul Kurtz, has a good
section on the origins of Mormonism you might want to look at.
-Scott O.
| 0alt.atheism
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: some thoughts. | Case Western Reserve University | In article <C63AEC.FB3@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>The "R Us" thing is trademarked. I don't know if Charles
>Lazarus is dead or alive, but I'd be careful, because with
>a name like Lazarus, he might rise again just to start a
>lawsuit.
The "R Us" is not trademarked, but the "Backwards R Us" is, I
believe.
---
Speaking of proofs of God, the funniest one I have ever seen was in a
term paper handed in by a freshman. She wrote, "God must exist, because
he wouldn't be so mean as to make me believe he exists if he really
doesn't!" Is this argument really so much worse than the ontological
proofs of the existence of God provided by Anselm and Descartes, among
others?
Raymond Smullyan
[From "5,000 B.C. and Other Philosophical Fantasies".]
| 0alt.atheism
|
kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) | Re: Christian Morality is | University of Oulu, Finland | Dan Schaertel,,, (dps@nasa.kodak.com) wrote:
Since this is alt.atheism, I hope you don't mind if we strongly disagree...
: The fact is God could cause you to believe anything He wants you to.
: But think about it for a minute. Would you rather have someone love
: you because you made them love you, or because they wanted to
: love you. The responsibility is on you to love God and take a step toward
: Him. He promises to be there for you, but you have to look for yourself.
Indeed, "knock and it shall be opened to you". Dan, why didn't this work?
I firmly believed in god for 15 years, but I eventually realised I was
only deluding myself, fearful to face the truth. Ultimately, the only reason
what kept me believing was the fear of hell. The mental states I
had sillily attributed to divine forces or devil's attempts to
destroy my faith were nothing more than my imagination, and it is easy
to achieve the same mental states at will.
My faith was just learned fear in a disguise.
: Those who doubt this or dispute it have not givin it a sincere effort.
God is demanding too much. Dan, what was it I believed in for 15 years?
If sincere effort is equivalent to active suspension of disbelief -
what it was in my case - I'd rather quit. If god does not help me to
keep the faith, I can't go on.
Besides, I am concerned with god's morality and mental health. Does
she really want us to _believe_ in herself without any help (revelations,
guidance, or anything I can feel)? If she has created us, why didn't
she make the task any easier? Why are we supposed to love someone who
refuses to communicate with us? What is the point of eternal torture
for those who can't believe?
I love god just as much as she loves me. If she wants to seduce me,
she'll know what to do.
: Simple logic arguments are folly. If you read the Bible you will see
: that Jesus made fools of those who tried to trick him with "logic".
: Our ability to reason is just a spec of creation. Yet some think it is
: the ultimate. If you rely simply on your reason then you will never
: know more than you do now.
Your argument is of the type "you'll know once you try".
Yet there are many atheists who have sincerely tried, and believed
for many years, but were eventually honest enough to admit that
they had lived in a virtual reality.
What else but reason I can use? I don't have the spiritual means
Christians often refer to. My conscience disagrees with the Bible.
I don't even believe I have a soul. I am fully dependent on my
body - indeed, I _am_ this body. When it goes up with flames, so
does my identity. God can entertain herself with copies of me
if she wants.
: To learn you must accept that which you don't know.
What does this mean? To learn you must accept that you don't know
something, right-o. But to learn you must _accept_ something I don't
know, why? This is not the way I prefer to learn. It is unwise to
merely swallow everything you read. Suppose I write a book telling
how the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn (tm) has helped me in my
daily problems, would you accept this, since you can't know whether
it is true or not?
Note that the GIPU is also omnipotent, omnipresent, and loves just
about everyone. Besides, He (and She) is guiding every writer on this planet,
you and me, and not just some people who write legendary stories
2000 years ago.
Your god is just one aspect of His and Her Presence.
Petri
--
___. .'*''.* Petri Pihko kem-pmp@ Mathematics is the Truth.
!___.'* '.'*' ' . Pihatie 15 C finou.oulu.fi Physics is the Rule of
' *' .* '* SF-90650 OULU kempmp@ the Game.
*' * .* FINLAND phoenix.oulu.fi -> Chemistry is The Game.
| 0alt.atheism
|
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | sgi | In article <1qkjvc$4jv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1qk1md$6gs@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|> #In article <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> #>In article <kmr4.1571.734847050@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
|> #># You have only pushed back the undefined meaning. You must now define
|> #>#what "objective values" are.
|> #>
|> #>Really? You don't know what objective value is? If I offered the people
|> #>of the U.S., collectively, $1 for all of the land in America, would that
|> #>sound like a good deal?
|> #Well, that would depend on how much we wanted the US and how much
|> #we wanted the $1, wouldn't it?
|>
|> Yes it would. Luckily these parameters are fixed by reality. If I can
|> predict with almost 100% accuracy that Americans prefer to own their portions of
|> the US than an infinitesmal portion of $1, in what sense are these values
|> not objective?
Not only are they not objective, but they don't even stay constant
over time. A young farmer and an old farmer on the verge of
retirement have quite different ideas about the relative values of
a piece of land and a dollar bill.
Similarly, a person viewing an anonymous piece of land, and a
person viewing a piece of land that his family has lived on for
generations.
These values are essentially subjective, and that's why we have
markets: to allow people to match their valuations of land and
dollar bills.
jon.
| 0alt.atheism
|
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) | Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster? | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena | mam@mouse.cmhnet.org (Mike McAngus) writes:
>Let me see if I understand what you are saying. In order to talk
>knowledgeably about religion, Atheists must first have been so immersed
>in a religion that only the rare individual could have left.
No, you don't understand. I said that I don't think people can discuss
the subjective merits of religion objectively. This should be obvious.
People here have said that everyone would be better off without religion,
but this almost certainly isn't true.
>>But really, are you threatened by the motto, or by the people that use it?
>The motto is a tool. Let's try to take away the tool.
But, guns and axes are tools, both of which have been used for murder.
Should both be taken away? That is to say, I don't think motto misuse
warrants its removal. At least not in this case.
keith
| 0alt.atheism
|
simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) | Re: Americans and Evolution, now with free Ockham's Razor inside | Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England | Sorry about the delay in responding, due to conference paper deadline panic.
In article <1qsnqqINN1nr@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> bobs@thnext.mit.edu (Robert Singleton) writes:
>In article <1993Apr18.043207.27862@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
>simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
[Alarming amounts of agreement deleted :-)]
> I made my statement about Ockums Razor from my experiences in physics.
> Thanks for info in Baysian statistics - very interesting and I didn't
> know it before. I follow your proof, but I have one questions. We have
> two hypotheses H and HG - the latter is more "complicated", which by
> definition means P(H) > P(HG).
That ("complicated") isn't in fact where P(H) > P(HG) comes from; it's more
the other way around. It's from
P(H) = P(HG) + P(HG') where G' is the complement of G
and by axiom, P(anything) >= 0, so P(HG') >= 0, so P(H) >= P(HG).
In a sense, HG is necessarily more "complicated" than H for any H and G,
so I may be splitting hairs, but what I'm trying to say is that irrespective
of subjective impressions of how complicated something is, P(H) >= P(HG)
holds, with equality if and only if P(HG') = 0.
> As you point out, it's a very simple matter to show P(x | H) = P(x | HG)
> ==> P(H | x) > P(HG | x), and thus H is to be preferd to HG. Now to say
> that H is as consistent with the data as HG is to say P(x | H) = P(x | HG).
> Can you elaborate some on this.
Well, "P(x | A) = P(x | B)" means that x is as likely to be observed if A is
operative as it is if B is operative. This implies that observing x does not
provide any useful information which might allow us to discriminate between
the respective possibilities that A and B are operative; the difference
reduces to the difference between the (unknown and unhelpful) prior
probabilities P(A) and P(B):
P(x | A) = P(x | B) ==>
P(A | x) = k P(A), and P(B | x) = k P(B)
where k = P(x | A) / P(x) = P(x | B) / P(x).
So A and B are "equally consistent with the data" in that observing x
doesn't give any pointers as to which of A or B is operative.
In the particular case where A = H and B = HG, however, we know that their
prior probabilities are ordered by P(H) >= P(HG), although we don't know
the actual values, and it's this which allows us to deploy the Razor to
throw out any such HG.
> Also, in the "real world" it isn't as clear cut and dry it seems
> to me. We can't always determine whether the equality "P(x | H) =
> P(x | HG)" is true.
That's certainly true, but the particular point here was whether or
not a `divine component' actually underlies the prevalence of religion
in addition to the memetic transmission component, which even the religious
implicitly acknowledge to be operative when they talk of `spreading the word'.
Now it seems to me, as I've said, that the observed variance in religious
belief is well accounted for by the memetic transmission model, but rather
*less* well if one proposes a `divine component' in addition, since I would
expect the latter to conspire *against* wide variance and even mutual
exclusion among beliefs. Thus my *personal* feeling is that P(x | HG) isn't
even equal to P(x | H) in this case, but is smaller (H is memetic transmission,
G is `divine component', x is the variance among beliefs). But I happily
acknowledge that this is a subjective impression.
> BTW, my beef with your Baysian argument was not a mathematical one -
> I checked most of your work and didn't find an error and you seem very
> careful so there probably isn't a "math mistake". I think the mistake
> is philosophical. But just to make sure I understand you, can please
> rephrase it in non-technical terms? I think this is a reasonable
> request - I always try to look for ways of explaining physics to
> non-physicist. I'm not a Baysian statistician (nor any type of
> statistician), so this would be very helpful.
Not that I'm a statistician as such either, but:
The idea is that both theism and atheism are compatible with all of
the (read `my') observations to date. However, theism (of the type with
which I am concerned) *also* suggests that, for instance, prayer may be
answered, people may be miraculously healed (both are in principle amenable
to statistical verification) and that god/s may generally intervene in
measurable ways.
This means that these regions of the space of possible observations,
which I loosely termed "appearances of god/s", have some nonzero
probability under the theistic hypothesis and zero under the atheistic.
Since there is only so much probability available for each hypothesis to
scatter around over the observation space, the probability which theism
expends on making "appearances of god/s" possible must come from somewhere
else (i.e. other possible observations).
All else being equal, this means that an observation which *isn't* an
"appearance of god/s" must have a slightly higher probability under
atheism than under theism. The Bayesian stuff implies that such
observations must cause my running estimate for the probability of
the atheistic hypothesis to increase, with a corresponding decrease
in my running estimate for the probability of the theistic hypothesis.
Sorry if that's still a bit jargonesque, but it's rather difficult to
put it any other way, since it does depend intimately on the properties
of conditional probability densities, and particularly that the total
area under them is always unity.
An analogy may (or may not :-) be helpful. Say that hypothesis A is "the
coin is fair", and that B is "the coin is unfair (two-headed)". (I've
used A and B to avoid confusion with H[heads] and T[tails].)
Then
P(H | A) = 0.5 } total 1
P(T | A) = 0.5 }
P(H | B) = 1 } total 1
P(T | B) = 0 }
The observations are a string of heads, with no tails. This is compatible
with both a fair coin (A) and a two-headed coin (B). However, the probability
expended by A on making possible the appearance of tails (even though they
don't actually appear) must come from somewhere else, since the total must
be unity, and it comes in this case from the probability of the appearance
of heads.
Say our running estimates at time n-1 are e[n-1](A) and e[n-1](B). The
observation x[n] at time n is another head, x[n] = H. The estimates are
modified according to
P(H | A)
e[n](A) = e[n-1](A) * -------- = e[n-1](A) * m
P(H)
and
P(H | B)
e[n](B) = e[n-1](B) * -------- = e[n-1](B) * 2m
P(H)
Now we don't know P(H), the *actual* prior probability of a head, but
the multiplier for e(A) is half that for e(B). This is true every time
the coin is tossed and a head is observed.
Thus whatever the initial values of the estimates, after n heads, we have
n
e[n](A) = m e[0](A)
and
n
e[n](B) = (2m) e[0](B),
and since e[k](A) + e[k](B) = 1 at any time k, you can show that 0.5 < m < 1
and thus 1 < 2m < 2. Hence the estimate for the fair-coin hypothesis A must
decrease at each trial and that for the two-headed coin hypothesis B must
increase, even though both hypotheses are compatible with a string of heads.
The loose analogy is between "unfair coin" and atheism, and between "fair
coin" and theism, with observations consistent with both. A tail, which
would falsify "unfair coin", is analogous to an "appearance of god/s",
which would falsify atheism. I am *not* claiming that the analogy extends
to the numerical values of the various probabilities, just that the principle
is the same.
>> Constant observation of no evidence for gods, if evidence for them
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> is at all possible under the respective theisms, constantly increases
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> the notional estimated probability that they don't exist,
> It's important to draw a distinction between theism that could
> be supported or not supported by evidence and theism that can't.
> Given a theism for which evidence is in principle not possible,
> it doesn't make sense to say "lack of evidence" supports the contrary
> view.
Quite so, but this type of theism is what I might call "the G in the HG",
in terms of our Ockham's Razor discussion, and I'd bin it on those grounds.
> So it depends upon your conception of this god. If it's a conception
> like Zeus, who happened to come down to earth to "play" quite
> frequently, then I agree with you - lack of evidence for this conception
> of god is evidence that it does not exist. But if your conception
> of God is one that does not make falsifiable predictions (see below
> on "falsifiable predictions"), then I disagree -- lack of evidence
> does not support a disbelief.
The hypotheses don't have to be falsifiable, and indeed in my `model',
the theism isn't falsifiable.
> [...]
> I used the phrase "SHOULD obverse". Given any specific 'x' theism
> does not make the prediction "P(x | Ht) > 0". That's why I used the
> word "should" - theism makes no predictions about any specific event.
> I can only say "I believe" that God did such and such after such
> and such happens, or "I believe God will" do such and such. But
> for any given 'x' I can never, a priori, say P(x | Ht) > 0. I can
> not even say this for the set of all 'x' or some 'x'. This is what
> don't like about your use of probability. We also have no way of
> assigning these probabilities - I hold science to positivistic
> criteria - if someone cannot tell me how to measure, even in principle,
> P(x | H), then probability is not applicable to hypothesis H. Such
> is the case when H = Ht (theistic) and Ha (atheistic). For example,
> P(x | Ha) = P(x & Ha)/P(Ha). What is P(Ha)?!? How do I measure it?
You don't have to. We don't need, in the above analogy, to know *any*
prior probabilities to deduce that the updating multiplier for the
fair-coin hypothesis is less than unity, and that the corresponding
multiplier for the two-headed coin hypothesis is greater than unity.
You don't need to know the initial values of the running estimates
either. It's clear that after a large number of observations, P(fair-coin)
approaches zero and P(two-headed-coin) approaches unity.
All you need to know is whether P(x | Ha) is larger than P(x | Ht) for
observed x, and this follows from the assumptions that there are certain
events rendered *possible* (not necessary) under Ht which are not possible
under Ha, and all else is equal.
> Baysian statistics relies upon a series of observations. But
> what if the hypothesis isn't amenable to observation? And even for
> statements that are amenable to observation, some observations are
> not relevant -- a sequence of observations must be chosen with care.
> I'm curious to know what types of observations x[1],x[2],... you have
> in mind concerning theism and atheism.
Any observations you like; it really doesn't matter, nor affect the
reasoning, provided that there are some possible observations which
would count as "appearances of god/s". Examples of this might be
a demonstration of the efficacy of prayer, or of the veracity of
revelation.
>> But any statement about P(x | H) for general x still counts as a
>> prediction of H. If the theism in question, Ht, says that prayer may
>> be answered, or that miracles may happen (see my interpretation, quoted
>> again above, of what `God exists' means), then this is a prediction,
>> P(x | Ht) > 0 for such x. It's what distinguishes it from the atheist
>> hypothesis Ha, which predicts that this stuff does not happen, P(x | Ha)
>> = 0 for such x.
> Theism does not make the claim that "P(x | Ht) > 0 for such x".
> Or I should say that my "theism" doesn't. Maybe I was too quick to
> say we had a common language. You said that by the existence of God
> you "mean the notion that the deity described by the Bible and by
> Christians *does* interact with the universe as claimed by those agents".
> I agreed with this. However, I must be careful here. I BELIEVE
> this - I'm not making any claims. Maybe I should have changed *does*
> to *can* - there is an important shift of emphasis. But any way,
> since I "only" have a belief, I cannot conclude "P(x | Ht) > 0 for
> such x".
OK, we'll downgrade "*does* interact" to "*may* interact", which would
actually be better since "does interact" implies a falsifiability which
we both agree is misplaced.
> I don't think my theism makes "predictions". Maybe I'm not
> understanding what you mean by "prediction" - could you explain what
> you mean by this word?
I'll explain, but bear in mind that this isn't central; all I require of
a theism is that it *not* make the prediction "Appearances of god/s will
never happen", as does atheism. (Before somebody points out that quantum
mechanics doesn't make this prediction either, the difference is that
QM and atheism do not form a partition.)
Predictions include such statements as "Prayer is efficacious" (implying
"If you do the stats, you will find that Prayer is efficacious"), or "Prayer
is *not* efficacious", or "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not
pass, till all these things be fulfilled." I don't think we have any problems
of misunderstanding here.
>> Persistent observation of this stuff not happening, *consistent* with
>> Ht though it may be, is *more* consistent with Ha, as explained in the
>> Bayesian stats post.
>>
>> Even if Ht ("God exists") is unfalsifiable, that's
>> no problem for my argument, other than that you have to let the number
>> of observations go to infinity to falsify it asymptotically.
> BTW, I do not consider an argument that requires an infinite number of
> observations as valid - or rather that part of the argument is not valid.
> We, as existing humans, can never make an infinite number of measurments
> and any conclusion that reilies on this I don't accept as valid.
That's fine; I don't claim that theism is false, merely that the [finite
number of] observations available to me so far suggest that it is, and
that as I continue to observe, the suggestion looks better and better.
> [Renormalization stuff deleted]
>> In the Bayesian stats post, I assumed that theism was indeed unfalsifiable
>> in a finite number of observations. Here's the relevant quote:
>>
>> $ The important assumption is that there are *some* observations which
>> $ are compatible with the theist hypothesis and not with the atheist
>> $ hypothesis, and thus would falsify atheism; these are what I called
>> $`appearances of god/s', but this need not be taken too literally. Any
>> $ observation which requires for its explanation that one or more gods
>> $ exist will count. All other observations are assumed to be compatible
>> $ with both hypotheses. This leaves theism as unfalsifiable, and atheism
>> $ as falsifiable in a single observation only by such `appearances of
>> $ god/s'.
> Here is my problem with this. For something to be falsifiable it
> must make the prediction that 'x' should not be seen. If 'x' is
> seen then the hypothesis has been falsified. Now, atheism is a word
> in oposition to something - theism. A theism aserts a belief and an
> atheism aserts a disbelief. So there are certain atheisms that are
> certainly falsifiable - just as there are certain theisms that are
> falsifable (e.g. if my theism asserts the world is only 6,000 years
> old and that God does not decieve then this has been falsified). However,
> the atheism that is in oposition to an unfalsifiable theism is also
> unfalsifiable. I could be wrong on this statment - [...contd]
I think you are; an "appearance of god/s" is sufficient to falsify
atheism, whereas in general the corresponding theism is unfalsifiable.
> I'll think more about it. Until then, here is a general question.
> Suppse X were unfalsifiable. Is not(X) also unfalsifiable?
No: by way of a counterexample, let X = "the coin is fair", or more
accurately (so that not(X) makes sense) "the two sides of the coin are
different". This is unfalsifiable by tossing the coin; even a string of
heads is consistent with a fair coin, and you have to go to an infinite
number of tosses to falsify X in the limit. Its converse is falsifiable,
and is falsified when at least one head and at least one tail have appeared.
>>> This is partly what's wrong with you Baysian argument - which
>>> requires observations x[1] ... x[n] to be made. There are simply
>>> no such observations that have a truth value in relation to the
>>> statement "God exists". Now, by use of your symmetry argument, I
>>> can understand why someone would say "Since the statement
>>> 'God does not exist'
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> makes no predictions I will choose not to believe it." But none
>>> the less this would be founded on a type of faith - or if you don't
>>> like the word faith insert "belief for which there is no falsifiable
>>> evidence" instead.
>> I'll assume you meant `God exists' up there at the highlight. But by our
>> agreed definition of "exists", the statement makes predictions as I said
>> above, although it isn't falsifiable in a finite number of observations.
> Actually, I mean 'God does not exist' makes no predictions.
Oops. Sorry. Mea culpa.
> The truth of this statment actually depends upon which god you are
> refering to. But I can think of some conceptions of God for which
> it is true. But once again I'm open to the posibility that I could
> be wrong. So give me some examples of predictions of the statment
> "God does not exist". Here is one that I can think of. If true, then
> there would be no healing or miricles. But this can in principle never
> be determined one way or the other. There are cases in which people
> seem to recover and are healed without the help of a doctor and for no
> known reason. These situations do in fact happen. They are consistent
> with a theistic hypothesis, but IN NO WAY support such a hypothesis.
We agree here.
> They are not inconsistent with an atheistic hypothesis. I can't
> think of one "prediction" from 'God does not exist' that isn't of
> this type. But I might be missing something.
"The Rapture will not happen on October 28 1992." Said Rapture would have
falsified atheism to my satisfaction had it happened, although its failure
to happen does not, of course, falsify any theisms other than those which
specifically predicted it.
"No phenomenon which requires the existence of one or more gods for its
explanation will ever be observed." That about sums the whole thing up.
> bob singleton
> bobs@thnext.mit.edu
Cheers
Simon
--
Simon Clippingdale simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
| 0alt.atheism
|
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) | Re: An Anecdote about Islam | Boston University Physics Department | In article <16BB112949.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>In article <115287@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>>>>>A brutal system filtered through "leniency" is not lenient.
>>>>Huh?
>>>How do you rate public floggings or floggings at all? Chopping off the
>>>hands, heads, or other body parts? What about stoning?
>>I don't have a problem with floggings, particularly, when the offenders
>>have been given a chance to change their behavior before floggings are
>>given. I do have a problem with maiming in general, by whatever means.
>>In my opinion no-one who has not maimed another should be maimed. In
>>the case of rape the victim _is_ maimed, physically and emotionally,
>>so I wouldn't have a problem with maiming rapists. Obviously I wouldn't
>>have a problem with maiming murderers either.
>May I ask if you had the same opinion before you became a Muslim?
Sure. Yes, I did. You see I don't think that rape and murder should
be dealt with lightly. You, being so interested in leniency for
leniency's sake, apparently think that people should simply be
told the "did a _bad_ thing."
>And what about the simple chance of misjudgements?
Misjudgments should be avoided as much as possible.
I suspect that it's pretty unlikely that, given my requirement
of repeated offenses, that misjudgments are very likely.
>>>>>>"Orient" is not a place having a single character. Your ignorance
>>>>>>exposes itself nicely here.
>>>>>Read carefully, I have not said all the Orient shows primitive machism.
>>>>Well then, why not use more specific words than "Orient"? Probably
>>>>because in your mind there is no need to (it's all the same).
>>>Because it contains sufficient information. While more detail is possible,
>>>it is not necessary.
>>And Europe shows civilized bullshit. This is bullshit. Time to put out
>>or shut up. You've substantiated nothing and are blabbering on like
>>"Islamists" who talk about the West as the "Great Satan." You're both
>>guilty of stupidities.
>I just love to compare such lines to the common plea of your fellow believers
>not to call each others names. In this case, to substantiate it: The Quran
>allows that one beATs one's wife into submission.
Really? Care to give chapter and verse? We could discuss it.
>Primitive Machism refers to
>that. (I have misspelt that before, my fault).
Again, not all of the Orient follows the Qur'an. So you'll have to do
better than that.
Sorry, you haven't "put out" enough.
>>>Islam expresses extramarital sex. Extramarital sex is a subset of sex. It is
>>>suppressedin Islam. That marial sexis allowed or encouraged in Islam, as
>>>it is in many branches of Christianity, too, misses the point.
>>>Read the part about the urge for sex again. Religions that run around telling
>>>people how to have sex are not my piece of cake for two reasons: Suppressing
>>>a strong urge needs strong measures, and it is not their business anyway.
>>Believe what you wish. I thought you were trying to make an argument.
>>All I am reading are opinions.
>It is an argument. That you doubt the validity of the premises does not change
>it. If you want to criticize it, do so. Time for you to put up or shut up.
This is an argument for why _you_ don't like religions that suppress
sex. A such it's an irrelevant argument.
If you'd like to generalize it to an objective statement then
fine. My response is then: you have given no reason for your statement
that sex is not the business of religion (one of your "arguments").
The urge for sex in adolescents is not so strong that any overly strong
measures are required to suppress it. If the urge to have sex is so
strong in an adult then that adult can make a commensurate effort to
find a marriage partner.
Gregg
| 0alt.atheism
|
battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu (Laurence Gene Battin) | Re: The Universe and Black Holes, was Re: 2000 years..... | Indiana University | On re-reading this, I decided there was something else I'd like
to add to my earlier comments...
Please forgive me if I get any attributions wrong here...
Also, this isn't really appropriate to talk.origins, but I hope
you all will excuse me just this once, as they say...
In article <C5tx38.Av8@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
Laurence Gene Battin (battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu) wrote:
> In article <schinder.735362755@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
> Paul J. Schinder (schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
> > In <1993Apr20.154658@IASTATE.EDU>
> > kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> > >In article <lt8d3bINNj1g@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM
> > >(Eric Marsh) writes:
[snip, snip]
> > > Now that has always confused me. Once a black hole forms, I don't see
> > >how
> > >anything could pass the event horizon (perhaps including the original
> > >mass
> > >that formed (is forming) the black hole in the first place.
> > > Let's say that we drop a marble into the black hole. It races, ever
> > >faster, towards the even horizon. But, thanks to the curving of space
> > >caused by the excessive gravity, as the object approaches the event
> > >horizon
> > >it has further to travel. Integrating the curve gives a time to reach
> > >the
> > >event horizon of . . .
> > >infinity. So the math says that nothing can enter a black hole.
It seems to me that you are mis-using physical intuition here. My point is
that you are talking about global conditions influencing local phenomena
inappropriately. Remember that there is no such thing as a "global" frame
of reference for time. Our minds like to pretend that there is, and we
imagine things like the calendar on Alpha Centaury being approx. 4 years off
from ours on Earth.
This is simply wrong. There is NO global "time" which can be applied to
events on Alpha Centaury concurrently with events on Earth. This is what
Special Relativity has taught us. If I am travelling past the Earth at
a high rate of speed toward A.C. I can even have a different view of the
_order_ of the occurance of events on A.C. versus Earth. Thus, the answer to
the question, "what's happening on Alpha Centaury NOW?" is NOT well-defined, if
asked on Earth, until you specify all the relevant parameters such as relative
velocities and the like; AND it will have different answers for different
values of these parameters.
Now, in the vicinity of a black hole, the curvature of spacetime becomes
important enough that this lack of a global frame of reference becomes
very important. In particular, the frame used by a distant observer is quite
different from the frame appropriate to the falling object. Our minds just
don't seem able to easily deal with the idea that time itself could be
behaving differently in these two locations, but the equations of relativity
say that it does. We would _like_ to say "the falling object is hovering
above the horizon, NOW", for an object whose frame has rotated wholly "away"
from ours. In a very real sense, once the object has fallen into the hole
its gone forever from our ken. Unless you volunteer to jump in after it,
that is... :-)
Gene Battin
battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
| 0alt.atheism
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Case Western Reserve University | In article <1qkoel$5fr@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>Good question, my point was that a world with truth is better than a world
>with falsehood. A world in which it were possible to say "yes, I am
>holding a Jew" (the truth) and you, me, the Jew, and the SS guy all sit
>down to crack open a bottle of whiskey is better than the grim alternatives
>you present. Obviously, this is not possible, and the best alternative seems
>to be to lie. That's because other values are involved, such as life.
>Now that IS just my opinion - don't confuse the claim 'objective morality
>exists' with the claim 'I have a lock on morals'.
So then, it is not objectively better to tell the truth. There are
some subjective situations within which, it is better to lie.
I agree that it is my subjective opinion that a world without SS
troops and the like would be better. It is also when using certain systems
to judge the situations, such as unitarianism, that it is objectively better.
---
Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible.
| 0alt.atheism
|
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> | Re: Death Penalty / Gulf War (long) | Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. | jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
> I don't regret the fact that sometimes military decisions have to be made
> which affect the lives of innocent people. But I do regret the
> circumstances which make those decisions necessary, and I regret the
> suffering caused by those decisions.
"I'm afraid I'm going to have to kill you. Don't worry, though; as a Loving
Christian, I guarantee that I will regret the fact that I have to kill
you, although I won't regret the actual killing."
>>> If we hadn't intervened, allowing Hussein to keep Kuwait, then it would
>>> have been appeasement.
>>
>> Right. But did you ever hear anyone advocate such a course of action? Or
>> are you just setting up a strawman?
>
> I'm not setting up a strawman at all. If you want to argue against the
> war, then the only logical alternative was to allow Hussein to keep
> Kuwait.
False dichotomy.
> Diplomatic alternatives, including sanctions, were ineffective.
That's because they weren't even attempted.
>> But what about those who didn't support Hitler's dreams of conquest? It's
>> not as if they democratically voted for all his policies. The NSDAP got
>> 43 % in the elections of 1933, and that was the last chance the German
>> people got to vote on the matter.
>
> They suffered along with the rest. Why does this bother you so much?
You want to know why it bothers me that thousands of innocent people were
maimed or killed by bombing at the end of WW2, when it was far from clear
that such bombing was necessary?
> The world is full of evil, and circumstances are not perfect. Many
> innocents suffer due to the wrongful actions of others. It it regretable,
> but that's The-Way-It-Is.
And why-is-it-that-way? Who set things up to be that way?
>> this was happening before the Gulf War. Why didn't we send in the bombers
>> to East Timor? Why aren't we sending in the bombers NOW?
>
> Probably because we're not the saviors of the world. We can't police each
> and every country that decides to self-destruct or invade another.
No, just the ones that have oil. Or the ones that look like they might make
a success of Communism.
> Nor are we in a strategic position to get relief to Tibet, East Timor, or
> some other places.
I don't see that getting UN forces to East Timor is any harder than getting
them to Iraq.
>> Tibetan people are rounded up, tortured, and executed. Amnesty
>> International recently reported that torture is still widespread in China.
>>
>> Why aren't we stopping them? In fact, why are we actively sucking up to
>> them by trading freely with them?
>
> Tell me how we could stop them and I'll support it. I, for one, do not
> agree with the present US policy of "sucking up to them" as you put it.
> I agree that it is deplorable.
Fine. Write to your Congressman and to President Clinton. China's status as
"Most Favoured Nation" comes up for renewal in June. Point out that the US
shouldn't be offering favourable trading terms to such a despicable regime.
I doubt anything will happen. Clinton's keener on trade sanctions against
Europe.
[ Unbelievable comments about the Rodney King case deleted ]
> The media is not totally monolithic. Even though there is a prevailing
> liberal bias, programs such as the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour try to give
> a balanced and fair reporting of the news. There are even conservative
> sources out there if you know where to look. (Hurrah for Rush!)
Any idea how many kill files you just ended up in?
>> I, an atheist, am arguing against killing innocent people.
>>
>> You, a supposed Christian, are arguing that it's OK to kill innocent people
>> so long as you get some guilty ones as well.
>
> Hardly. I didn't say that it's a Good Thing [tm] to kill innocent people
> if the end is just. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and
> there are no perfect solutions. If one is going to resist tyranny, then
> innocent people on both sides are going to suffer and die. I didn't say
> it is OK -- it is unfortunate, but sometimes necessary.
The ends justify the means, eh?
>> You, having criticised moral relativism in the past, are now arguing that I
>> am in no position to judge the morality of allied actions at the end of the
>> War.
>
> You certainly are not in such a position if you are a moral relativist.
The same tired old misunderstanding. Moral relativism means that there is no
*objective* standard of morality. It doesn't mean you can't judge other
people's morals. Christ on a bike, how many times have we tried to hammer
that into your head?
>> Where's your Christian love? Where's your absolute morality? Oh, how
>> quick you are to discard them when it suits you. As Ivan Stang would say,
>> "Jesus would puke!"
>
> One day I will stand before Jesus and give account of every word and action;
> even this discourse in this forum. I understand the full ramifications of
> that, and I am prepared to do so. I don't believe that you can make the
> same claim.
Obviously not, as I am an atheist. I don't think you'd get on with Jesus,
though; he was a long-haired lunatic peace-nik, was he not?
> And BTW, the reason I brought up the blanket-bombing in Germany was
> because you were bemoaning the Iraqi civilian casualties as being
> "so deplorable". Yet blanket bombing was instituted because bombing
> wasn't accurate enough to hit industrial/military targets in a
> decisive way by any other method at that time. But in the Gulf War,
> precision bombing was the norm. So the point was, why make a big
> stink about the relatively few civilian casualties that resulted
> *in spite of* precision bombing, when so many more civilians
> (proportionately and quantitatively) died under the blanket bombing
> in WW2?
Right. Unfortunately for you, it turned out that my opinions on the matter
were entirely consistent in that I condemned the bombing of Dresden too.
I think you're being a bit glib with your explanation of the blanket bombing
policy, too. You make it sound as though we were aiming for military targets
and could only get them by destroying civilian buildings next door. As I
understand it, that is not the case; we aimed deliberately at civilian
targets in order to cause massive damage and inspire terror amongst the
German people.
> civilians suffer. But less civilians suffered in this war than
> any other iany other in history!
Oh, come on. With wars like the Falklands fresh in people's minds, that sort
of propaganda isn't going to fool anyone.
> The stories
> of "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi civilian dead is just plain bunk.
> Yes, bunk. The US lost 230,000 servicemen in WW2 over four years
> and the majority of them were directly involved in fighting!
Yes? And what about the millions of casualties the Russians suffered? It's
hardly surprising the US didn't lose many men in WW2, given that you turned
up late.
mathew
| 0alt.atheism
|
aaron@minster.york.ac.uk | Re: Death Penalty / Gulf War (long) | Department of Computer Science, University of York, England | Mark McCullough (mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu) wrote:
: This figure, is far below all the other figures I have seen. If it
: is indeed accurate, then how do you explain the discrepancy between
: that figure, and other figures from international organizations?
: Most figures I have seen place the hit ratio close to 70%, which is
: still far higher than your 35%. Or does your figure say a bomb
: missed if the plane took off with it, and the bomb never hit the target,
: regardless of whether or not the bomb was dropped? Such methods
: are used all the time to lie with statistics.
Answering the last sentence, claimed that they had a success rate of 80%
without initially explaining, until pressed, that this meant that 80%
of the aircraft came back having dropped their bombs somewhere, regardless'
of whether they had hit the intended target, or indeed anything al all.
Aaron Turner
| 0alt.atheism
|
rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota) | Re: Americans and Evolution | The University of South Dakota Computer Science Dept. | In article <1pik3i$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <C4u51L.8Bv@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>|>
>|>
>|> Why do you spend so much time posting here if your atheism is so
>|> incidental, if the question of God is trivial? Fess up, it matters to
>|> you a great deal.
>
>Ask yourself two questions.
>
> 1. How important is Mithras in your life today?
>
> 2. How important would Mithras become if there was a
> well funded group of fanatics trying to get the
> schools system to teach your children that Mithras
> was the one true God?
>
>jon.
Right on, Jon! Who cares who or whose, as long as it works for the individual.
But don't try to impose those beliefs on us or our children. I would add the
well-funded group tries also to purge science, to deny children access to great
wonders and skills. And how about the kids born to creationists? What a
burden with which to begin adult life. It must be a cruel awakening for those
who finally see the light, provided it is possible to escape from the depths of
this type of ignorance.
| 0alt.atheism
|
"Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> | Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was | Kupajava, East of Krakatoa | >DATE: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 15:23:54 GMT
>FROM: Umar Khan <khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil>
>
> His conclusion was that,
>while he was impressed that what little the Holy Qur'an had to
>say about science was accurate, he was far more impressed that the
>Holy Qur'an did not contain the same rampant errors evidenced in
>the Traditions. How would a man of 7th Century Arabia have known
>what *not to include* in the Holy Qur'an (assuming he had authored
>it)?
>
Well, it looks like the folks in soc.religion.islam have loosened up
a bit and are discussing this topic as well as the banking/interest
topic. A few books on the subject have also been mentioned in addition
to the one you mentioned. These may be hard to find, but I think I may
take a stab at it out of curiosity. I know the one film I saw on this
subject was pretty weak and the only two quotes I have seen which were
used to show science in the Koran (which I posted here) were also pretty
vague. I suspect that these books will extrapolate an awful lot on the
quotes they have.
At least one poster on the Islam channel seems to have some misgivings
about the practice of using the Koran to decide what is good science.
I wonder if Islam has ever come up with the equivalent of the Christians
"Creation Science" on any topic. It would be interesting to find a history
of scientific interpretations of the Koran, to see if anyone used the Koran
to support earlier science which has since been discarded. It is all too
easy to look at science as it exists today and then "interpret" passages
to match those findings. People do similar things with the sayings of
Nostradamus all the time.
Anyway, it is a rather unique claim of Islam and may be worth checking.
| 0alt.atheism
|
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: islamic genocide | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <1qi83b$ec4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
(Deletion)
>#>Few people can imagine dying for capitalism, a few
>#>more can imagine dying for democracy, but a lot more will die for their
>#>Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who Died on the Cross for their Sins.
>#>Motivation, pure and simple.
>
>Got any cites for this nonsense? How many people will die for Mom?
>Patriotism? Freedom? Money? Their Kids? Fast cars and swimming pools?
>A night with Kim Basinger or Mel Gibson? And which of these things are evil?
>
Read a history book, Fred. And tell me why so many religions command to
commit genocide when it has got nothing to do with religion. Or why so many
religions say that not living up to the standards of the religion is worse
than dieing? Coincidence, I assume. Or ist part of the absolute morality
you describe so often?
Theism is strongly correlated with irrational belief in absolutes. Irrational
belief in absolutes is strongly correlated with fanatism.
Benedikt
| 0alt.atheism
|
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
README.md exists but content is empty.
Use the Edit dataset card button to edit it.
- Downloads last month
- 724