from
stringlengths 3
223
⌀ | subject
stringlengths 2
120
⌀ | organization
stringlengths 1
116
⌀ | text
stringlengths 1
160k
| label
class label 20
classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
chrisb@seachg.com (Chris Blask) | Re: islamic authority over women | Me, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada | snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>In article <1993Apr7.163445.1203@wam.umd.edu> west@next02.wam.umd.edu writes:
>>> >> And belief causes far more horrors.
>>> >> Crusades,
>>> >> the emasculation and internment of Native Americans,
>>> >> the killing of various tribes in South America.
>>> >-the Inquisition
>>> >-the Counter-reformation and the wars that followed
>>> >-the Salem witch trials
>>> >-the European witch hunts
>>> >-the holy wars of the middle east
>>> >-the colonization/destruction of Africa
>>> >-the wars between Christianity and Islam (post crusade)
>>> >-the genocide (biblical) of the Canaanites and Philistines
>>> >-Aryian invasion of India
>>> >-the attempted genocide of Jews by Nazi Germany
>>> >-the current missionary assaults on tribes in Africa
>>>
>>> I think all the horrors you mentioned are due to *lack* of people
>>> following religion.
.d.
>By lack of people following religion I also include fanatics- people
>that don't know what they are following.
.d.
>So how do you know that you were right?
>Why are you trying to shove down my throat that religion causes horrors.
>It really covers yourself- something false to save yourself.
>
>Peace,
>
>Bobby Mozumder
>
I just thought of another one, in the Bible, so it's definately not because
of *lack* of religion. The Book of Esther (which I read the other day for
other reasons) describes the origin of Pur'im, a Jewish celbration of joy
and peace. The long and short of the story is that 75,000 people were
killed when people were tripping over all of the peacefull solutions
lying about (you couldn't swing a sacred cow without slammin into a nice,
peaceful solution.) 'Course Joshua and the jawbone of an ass spring to
mind...
I agree with Bobby this far: religion as it is used to kill large numbers
of people is usually not used in the form or manner that it was originally
intended for.
That doesn't reduce the number of deaths directly caused by religion, it is
just a minor observation of the fact that there is almost nothing pure in
the Universe. The very act of honestly attempting to find true meaning in
religious teaching has many times inspired hatred and led to war. Many
people have been led by religious leaders more involved in their own
stomache-contentsthan in any absolute truth, and have therefore been driven to
kill by their leaders.
The point is that there are many things involved in religion that often
lead to war. Whether these things are a part of religion, an unpleasant
side effect or (as Bobby would have it) the result of people switching
between Religion and Atheism spontaneously, the results are the same.
@Religious groups have long been involved in the majority of the bloodiest
parts of Man's history.@
Atheists, on the other hand (preen,preen) are typically not an ideological
social caste, nor are they driven to organize and spread their beliefs.
The overuse of Nazism and Stalinism just show how true this is: Two groups
with very clear and specific ideologies using religious persecution to
further their means. Anyone who cannot see the obvious - namely that these
were groups founded for reasons *entirely* their own, who used religious
persecution not because of any belief system but because it made them more
powerfull - is trying too hard. Basically, Bobby uses these examples
because there are so few wars that were *not* *specifically* fought over
religion that he does not have many choices.
Well, I'm off to Key West where the only flames are heating the bottom of
little silver butter-dishes.
-ciao
-chris blask
| 0alt.atheism
|
Edwin Gans | Atheism | Bell-Northern Research | 0alt.atheism
|
|
pats@equalizer.cray.com (Patricia Shanahan) | Re: Albert Sabin | Cray Research Superservers Inc., San Diego CA, USA |
In article <1quim9INNem8@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
...
|> I've seen this claim about the "Josephus insert" flying around the
|> net too often to continue to ignore it. Perhaps it's true. Was
|> there only one Josephus manuscipt? If there were, say, 100 copies,
|> the forger would have to put his insert into all of them.
...
Not necessarily. It is much the same problem as the Eve hypothesis. If
all, or most, of the copies that were available when printing became
common were decended from the same copy, a change in that copy would
propagate to all modern copies, even if there were other copies in
existence at the time of the change. Very few libraries would have
duplicates of a non-religious book, so there would be few opportunities
for anyone to notice that there were variations. Even if someone did
notice, they would be more likely to copy the variation that conformed
to their expectations and ignore the others.
--
Patricia Shanahan
pats@cray.com
phone: (619) 625-3708
| 0alt.atheism
|
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) | Re: <Political Atheists? | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena | bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>I think that about 70% (or so) people approve of the
>>death penalty, even realizing all of its shortcomings. Doesn't this make
>>it reasonable? Or are *you* the sole judge of reasonability?
>Aside from revenge, what merits do you find in capital punishment?
Are we talking about me, or the majority of the people that support it?
Anyway, I think that "revenge" or "fairness" is why most people are in
favor of the punishment. If a murderer is going to be punished, people
that think that he should "get what he deserves." Most people wouldn't
think it would be fair for the murderer to live, while his victim died.
>Revenge? Petty and pathetic.
Perhaps you think that it is petty and pathetic, but your views are in the
minority.
>We have a local televised hot topic talk show that very recently
>did a segment on capital punishment. Each and every advocate of
>the use of this portion of our system of "jurisprudence" cited the
>main reason for supporting it: "That bastard deserved it". True
>human compassion, forgiveness, and sympathy.
Where are we required to have compassion, forgiveness, and sympathy? If
someone wrongs me, I will take great lengths to make sure that his advantage
is removed, or a similar situation is forced upon him. If someone kills
another, then we can apply the golden rule and kill this person in turn.
Is not our entire moral system based on such a concept?
Or, are you stating that human life is sacred, somehow, and that it should
never be violated? This would sound like some sort of religious view.
>>I mean, how reasonable is imprisonment, really, when you think about it?
>>Sure, the person could be released if found innocent, but you still
>>can't undo the imiprisonment that was served. Perhaps we shouldn't
>>imprision people if we could watch them closely instead. The cost would
>>probably be similar, especially if we just implanted some sort of
>>electronic device.
>Would you rather be alive in prison or dead in the chair?
Once a criminal has committed a murder, his desires are irrelevant.
And, you still have not answered my question. If you are concerned about
the death penalty due to the possibility of the execution of an innocent,
then why isn't this same concern shared with imprisonment. Shouldn't we,
by your logic, administer as minimum as punishment as possible, to avoid
violating the liberty or happiness of an innocent person?
keith
| 0alt.atheism
|
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: Yeah, Right | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <66014@mimsy.umd.edu>
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>>And what about that revelation thing, Charley?
>
>If you're talking about this intellectual engagement of revelation, well,
>it's obviously a risk one takes.
>
I see, it is not rational, but it is intellectual. Does madness qualify
as intellectual engagement, too?
>>Many people say that the concept of metaphysical and religious knowledge
>>is contradictive.
>
>I'm not an objectivist, so I'm not particularly impressed with problems of
>conceptualization. The problem in this case is at least as bad as that of
>trying to explain quantum mechanics and relativity in the terms of ordinary
>experience. One can get some rough understanding, but the language is, from
>the perspective of ordinary phenomena, inconsistent, and from the
>perspective of what's being described, rather inexact (to be charitable).
>
Exactly why science uses mathematics. QM representation in natural language
is not supposed to replace the elaborate representation in mathematical
terminology. Nor is it supposed to be the truth, as opposed to the
representation of gods or religions in ordinary language. Admittedly,
not every religion says so, but a fancy side effect of their inept
representations are the eternal hassles between religions.
And QM allows for making experiments that will lead to results that will
be agreed upon as being similar. Show me something similar in religion.
>An analogous situation (supposedly) obtains in metaphysics; the problem is
>that the "better" descriptive language is not available.
>
With the effect that the models presented are useless. And one can argue
that the other way around, namely that the only reason metaphysics still
flourish is because it makes no statements that can be verified or falsified -
showing that it is bogus.
>>And in case it holds reliable information, can you show how you establish
>>that?
>
>This word "reliable" is essentially meaningless in the context-- unless you
>can show how reliability can be determined.
Haven't you read the many posts about what reliability is and how it can
be acheived respectively determined?
Benedikt
| 0alt.atheism
|
"James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> | Re: Studies on Book of Mormon | Apothegmatics, Ltd. | >DATE: Tue, 20 Apr 93 21:12:55 GMT
>FROM: Carolyn Jean Fairman <cfairman@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>
>agrino@enkidu.mic.cl (Andres Grino Brandt) asks about Mormons.
>
>>There are some mention about events, places, or historical persons
>>later discovered by archeologist?
>
>One of the more amusing things in the BOM is a claim that a
>civilization existed in North America, aroun where the mystical plates
>were found. Not only did it use steel and other metals, but it had
>lots of wars (very OT). No one has ever found any metal swords or
>and traces of a civilization other than the Native Americans.
>
>This is just one example.
From _Free Inquiry_, Winter 83/84, the following is an
introduction to the article "Joseph Smith and the Book of
Mormon", by George D. Smith. The introduction is written by
Paul Kurtz.
Mormonism -- the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
-- claims a worldwide membership 5.2 million. It is one of
the world's fastest growing religions, with as many as
200,000 new converst in 1982 alone. Because of the church's
aggressive missionary program, covering more than one
hundred countries, it is spreading even to third world
countries.
Mormonism is both puritanical in moral outlook and
evangelical in preachment. The church is run along strict
authoritarian lines. Led by a president, who allegedly
receives revelations directly form God, and a group of
twelve apostles who attempt to maintain orthodoxy in belief
and practice, the church is opposed to abortion,
pornography, sexual freedom, women's rights, and other, in
its view, immoral influences of secular society, and it
forbids the use of tobacco, alcohol, coffee, and tea.
Centered in Salt Lake City, the church is extremely wealthy
and politically powerful in Utal and many other western
states. Among well-know present-day Mormons are Ezra Taft
Benson (former secretary of agriculture), the Osmond family,
the Mariotts of the hotel empire, and a score of high-placed
government officials.
The Mormon church was founded in western New York in 1830 by
Joseph Smith who claimed that by divine revelation be had
found gold plates containing hieroglyphics buried on a hill
and that with the help of visits from the angel Moroni he
had been able to translate the writing into the _Book of
Mormon_, the basis of Mormon belief. This book, written "by
the commandment of God," claims that the ancient Hebrews
settled in America about 600 B.C.E. and were the ancestors
of the American Indians. Mormons believe that those who
have been baptized in the "true church" will be reunited
after death and that deceased non-Mormon family members can
be baptized by proxy and thus join their relatives in the
hereafter. Because of these beliefs, Mormons have been
considered outcasts by mainline Christian denominations and
as heretics by religious fundamentalists.
Joseph Smith was a controversial figure in his day -- he was
both worshiped as a saint and denounced as a fraud. Because
of persecution he led his band of loyal followers from
Palmyra, New York, westward to Ohio and then to Illinois,
where in 1844 he was shot to death by an agry mob. Brigham
Young, who reportedly had as many as eighty wives, took over
the leadership of the church and led the Mormons further
westward, to found the new Zion in Salt Lake City.
Following the teachings of Joseph Smith in the practice of
polygamy was perhaps the Mormons most controversial practice
in nineteenth-century America.
While other religions go back many centuries --
Muhammadanism, 1200 years; Christianity, 2000; and Judaism,
3000 -- and attempts to examine their beginnings are
difficult, extensive historical investigation of Mormon
roots is possible. Some Mormons are willing to examine this
history objectively, bu others maintain that such scrutiny
is dangerous to the faith.
In the following pages, _Free Inquiry_ presents two articles
about the Mormon church. First, George D. Smith, a lifelong
member of the church, provides a detailed critical
examination of Joseph Smith and his claim the the _Book of
Mormon_ was divinely revealed. Second, we present a portion
of an interview with philosopher Sterling McMurrin, also a
Mormon since birth, who questions the treatment of the
history of the church by Mormon authorities. -- Paul Kurtz
The article itself is super.
,...,.,,
/666; ',
////; _~ -
(/@/----0-~-0
;' . `` ~ \'
, ` ' , >
;;|\..(( -C---->> jimtims p00168@psilink.com
;;| >- `.__),;;
| 0alt.atheism
|
bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) | Re: free moral agency | Okcforum Unix Users Group | See, I told you there was an atheist mythology, thanks for proving my
point.
Bill
| 0alt.atheism
|
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) | Re: some thoughts. | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena | bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
>First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.
Well, this is alt.atheism. I hope you arent here to try to convert anyone.
>It makes sense to be one.
Many would disagree.
[...]
>The book says that Jesus was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a
>modern day Koresh) or he was actually who he said he was.
Well, you shouldn't give any particular book too much weight. Actually,
I don't think that any of these statements is correct. It is more likely
that most of Jesus' fame was attributed to him after his death by those
who had some strong motives...
[...]
>Some other things to note. He fulfilled loads of prophecies in
>the psalms, Isaiah and elsewhere in 24 hrs alone.
What's a prophecy, and what's so significant about them?
>I don't think most people understand what a Christian is.
I think we understand.
>It is certainly not what I see a lot in churches. Rather I think it
>should be a way of life, and a total sacrafice of everything for God's
>sake.
Well, sell your computer and donate you life to your religion now...
Don't waste any time.
keith
| 0alt.atheism
|
mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) | Alice in Wonderland | University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept. | In article <1rgmjn$567@access.digex.net> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>If I wanted
>to do this for _Alice in Wonderland_, I'd visit the British Museum where I
>would find the original manuscript and be able to compare it to the printed
>edition that I own (I'd find many differences including a different title).
WHAT!!?!?? Are you trying to tell me, that the master of nonsenses'
most famous work is not what is published? I'M SHOCKED!!!
What are some of the differences? Did _Through_the_Looking_Glass_ also
get changed? I've been using Martin Gardners Annotated Alice for
my copy of that, how close is that to the real thing?
--
***************************************************************************
* mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu * Never program and drink beer at the same *
* M^2 * time. It doesn't work. *
***************************************************************************
| 0alt.atheism
|
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) | Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW] | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | In article <C5qt5p.Mvo@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>
> In article <115694@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
> >I think many reading this group would also benefit by knowing how
> >deviant the view _as I've articulated it above_ (which may not be
> >the true view of Khomeini) is from the basic principles of Islam.
>
> From the point ov view of an atheist, I see you claim Khomeini wasn't
> practicing true Islam. But I'm sure that he would have said the same about
> you. How am I, a member of neither group, supposed to be able to tell which
> one of you two is really a true Muslim?
Fred Rice answered this already in an early posting:
"The problem with your argument is that you do not _know_ who is a _real_
believer and who may be "faking it". This is something known only by
the person him/herself (and God). Your assumption that anyone who
_claims_ to be a "believer" _is_ a "believer" is not necessarily true."
In other words it seems that nobody could define who is a true and
false Muslim. We are back to square one, Khomeini and Hussein are
still innocent and can't be defined as evil or good Islamic
worshippers.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 0alt.atheism
|
rush@leland.Stanford.EDU (Voelkerding) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA | In article <kmr4.1587.734911207@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
[deletions]
>
> [ In this case, I would consider not saying anything to be a lie.
A lie of omission, as it were. (As opposed to an outright lie which I
believe would be termed a lie of commission.)
>Or, at the very least, it implies that falsehood is on the same level of
>telling the truth. Or, we can stipulate that the SS have methods to make you
>say something: only they can not control whether or not you say "yes" or
>"no". Only that you will say one or the other. ]
>---
>
> Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible.
>
>
Clyde
--
Little girls, like butterflies, don't need a reason!
- Robert Heinlein
| 0alt.atheism
|
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) | Re: Requests | sgi | In article <C5qLLG.4BC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne) writes:
|> In article <pww-190493085759@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) writes:
|> >
|> >Didn't the Church get lightning rods banned in several European countries
|> >in the eighteenth century because it was widely believed that they
|> >interfered with god's striking down of blasphemers? I seem to remember that
|> >this was more common in eastern Europe.
|>
|> I don't know about eastern Europe, but according to Bertrand Russell,
|> writing in Science and Mysticism (I think, though it could have been
|> another book) said that preachers in colonial Boston attributed an
|> earthquake to God's wrath over people putting up lightning rods, which
|> they had been preaching against as interference with God's will. Being
|> deprived of lightning bolts as a method to get at sinners He evidently
|> resorted to sterner measures.
|>
|> No smilies. I am not making this up.
I'm sure you are not. After the "San Francisco" Earthquake
a couple of years ago, there was a flurry of traffic on
talk.religion.misc about how this was the result of the
notorious homo- this that and t'other in the City.
The fact that the Earthquake was actually down the road in
Santa Cruz/Watsonville didn't seem to phase them any.
jon.
| 0alt.atheism
|
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: Gospel Dating | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <66020@mimsy.umd.edu>
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>Assuming you are presenting it accurately, I don't see how this argument
>really leads to any firm conclusion. The material in John (I'm not sure
>exactly what is referred to here, but I'll take for granted the similarity
>to the Matt./Luke "Q" material) IS different; hence, one could have almost
>any relationship between the two, right up to John getting it straight from
>Jesus' mouth.
>
No, the argument says John has known Q, ie a codified version of the logia,
and not the original, assuming that there has been one. It has weaknesses,
of course, like that John might have known the original, yet rather referred
to Q in his text, or that the logia were given in a codified version in
the first place.
The argument alone does not allow a firm conclusion, but it fits well into
the dating usually given for the gospels.
>>We are talking date of texts here, not the age of the authors. The usual
>>explanation for the time order of Mark, Matthew and Luke does not consider
>>their respective ages. It says Matthew has read the text of Mark, and Luke
>>that of Matthew (and probably that of Mark).
>
>The version of the "usual theory" I have heard has Matthew and Luke
>independently relying on Mark and "Q". One would think that if Luke relied
>on Matthew, we wouldn't have the grating inconsistencies in the geneologies,
>for one thing.
>
Not necessarily, Luke may have trusted the version he knew better than the
version given by Matthew. Improving on Matthew would give a motive, for
instance.
As far as I know, the theory that Luke has known Matthew is based on a
statistical analysis of the texts.
>>As it is assumed that John knew the content of Luke's text. The evidence
>>for that is not overwhelming, admittedly.
>
>This is the part that is particularly new to me. If it were possible that
>you could point me to a reference, I'd be grateful.
>
Yep, but it will take another day or so to get the source. I hope your German
is good enough. :-)
>>>Unfortunately, I haven't got the info at hand. It was (I think) in the late
>>>'70s or early '80s, and it was possibly as old as CE 200.
>
>>When they are from about 200, why do they shed doubt on the order on
>>putting John after the rest of the three?
>
>Because it closes up the gap between (supposed) writing and the existing
>copy quit a bit. The further away from the original, the more copies can be
>written, and therefore survival becomes more probable.
>
I still do not see how copies from 200 allow to change the dating of John.
>>That John was a disciple is not generally accepted. The style and language
>>together with the theology are usually used as counterargument.
>
>I'm not really impressed with the "theology" argument. But I'm really
>pointing this out as an "if". And as I pointed out earlier, one cannot make
>these arguments about I Peter; I see no reason not to accept it as an
>authentic letter.
>
Yes, but an if gives only possibilities and no evidence. The authencity of
many letters is still discussed. It looks as if conclusions about them are not
drawn because some pet dogmas of the churches would probably fall with them as
well.
>>One step and one generation removed is bad even in our times. Compare that
>>to reports of similar events in our century in almost illiterate societies.
>
>The best analogy would be reporters talking to the participants, which is
>not so bad.
>
Well, rather like some newsletter of a political party reporting from the
big meeting. Not necessarily wrong, but certainly bad.
>>In other words, one does not know what the original of Mark did look like
>>and arguments based on Mark are pretty weak.
>
>But the statement of divinity is not in that section, and in any case, it's
>agreed that the most important epistles predate Mark.
Yes, but the accuracy of their tradition is another problem.
Question: Are there letters not from Paul and predating Mark claiming the
divinity of Jesus?
Benedikt
| 0alt.atheism
|
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | sgi | In article <1qu03p$442@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1qsili$fme@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> #
|> #You're admitting a lot more than that. You are admitting that
|> #your morals are situational. You are admitting that the actions
|> #of other people and the situation you are in help to determine
|> #how you judge the moral significance of one of your own actions.
|>
|> Sure.
|>
|> #If you employ X degree of force, that's not moral, but if you employ
|> #X degree of force, but previously someone else has employed Y degree
|> #of force, and the situation is thus-and-so, that *is* moral.
|>
|> Sure, within the limits of what I know.
|>
|> #This is quite different from saying "Employing force on other people
|> #is immoral, period. Unfortunately, from time to time we are obliged
|> #to do this immoral thing for reasons of self-preservation, and so
|> #we have to bear the moral consequences of that.
|>
|> Since both statements, to all intents and purposes, say effectively
|> the same thing,
Are you serious? Two statements, one of which says that use of force
in the given situation is moral, and the other of which says it is
not moral "say effectively the same thing?"
Would you say this of any two statements, one saying "X is moral" and
the other saying "X is immoral?" How would you decided when two
statements "X is moral" "X is immoral" actually conflict, and when
they "say effectively the same thing".
|> and lead one to do precisely the same thing, then
|> either both statements are doublespeak, or none.
They might lead you to do the same thing, but the difference is what
motivates pacifism so they obviously don't lead pacifists to to the
same thing.
jon.
| 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 | Shouldn't the bulk of this thread be removed from talk.abortion?
Followups to t.r.m only.
In article <C5wJEs.2Du@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
>I perceive, therefore perception is. (The only conclusion Descarte should
>have dared to draw)
You're being a bit hard on the bloke
The first word in your "I perceive..." statement shows why Descartes was in fact
correct.
Nonetheless, yours does come a close second.
>As for the prudence of looking for patterns and testing them, these
>assumptions are universal in the everyday behavior of humans, and need
>not be proven - they are pragmatic assumptions necessary for living.
~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They are?
Can you...ahem...prove that?
t
| 0alt.atheism
|
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) | Re: Ancient islamic rituals | Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. | In article <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>I propose
>that these two trends -- greater level of general depression in society
>(and other psychological problems) and greater sexual promiscuity -- are
>linked, with the latter being a prime cause of the former. I cannot
>provide any evidence beyond this at this stage, but the whole thesis
>seems very reasonable to me and I request that people ponder upon it.
>
Damn right you can't provide any evidence for it.
Rarely are any widespread social phenomenon reducible to such a
simple premise. If they were, psychology would be a hard science
with roughly the same mathematical soundness as physics.
Your premise may well be right. It is much more likely, however,
that it reflects your socialization and religious background, as
well as your need to validate your religious beliefs. Were I to
pretend to have all the answers (and I don't), I would say that the
xenophobia, guilt, and intolerance brought about by adherence to
fundamentalist religions play just as large a role in depressing
the members of our society.
Your mileage obviously varies.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| 0alt.atheism
|
halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) | Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam | null | In article <30121@ursa.bear.com>, halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
>In article <115288@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>>
>>He'd have to be precise about is rejection of God and his leaving Islam.
>>One is perfectly free to be muslim and to doubt and question the
>>existence of God, so long as one does not _reject_ God. I am sure that
>>Rushdie has be now made his atheism clear in front of a sufficient
>>number of proper witnesses. The question in regard to the legal issue
>>is his status at the time the crime was committed.
>
I'll also add that it is impossible to actually tell when one
_rejects_ god. Therefore, you choose to punish only those who
_talk_ about it.
>
>-jim halat
| 0alt.atheism
|
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) | Re: about the bible quiz answers | AT&T | In article <healta.153.735242337@saturn.wwc.edu>, healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes:
>
>
> #12) The 2 cheribums are on the Ark of the Covenant. When God said make no
> graven image, he was refering to idols, which were created to be worshipped.
> The Ark of the Covenant wasn't wrodhipped and only the high priest could
> enter the Holy of Holies where it was kept once a year, on the Day of
> Atonement.
I am not familiar with, or knowledgeable about the original language,
but I believe there is a word for "idol" and that the translator
would have used the word "idol" instead of "graven image" had
the original said "idol." So I think you're wrong here, but
then again I could be too. I just suggesting a way to determine
whether the interpretation you offer is correct.
Dean Kaflowitz
| 0alt.atheism
|
jvigneau@cs.ulowell.edu (Joe Vigneau) | Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts" | - | In article <1pmjo8INN2l0@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
Just what do gay people do that straight people don't?
Absolutely nothing.
I'm a VERY straight(as an arrow), 17-year old male that is involved in the BSA.
I don't care what gay people do among each other, as long as they don't make
passes at me or anything. At my summer camp where I work, my boss is gay.
Not in a 'pansy' way of gay (I know a few), but just 'one of the guys'.
He doesn't push anything on me, and we give him the same respect back, due
to his position.
If anything, the BSA has taught me, I don't know, tolerance or something.
Before I met this guy, I thought all gays were 'faries'. So, the BSA HAS
taught me to be an antibigot.
Basically, It comes down to this: What you do among yourself is your own
business. No one else has the right to tell you otherwise, unless it
violates someone else's civil rights.
| 0alt.atheism
|
cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) | Re: Rawlins debunks creationism | University of Helsinki | In article <1r15rvINNh8p@ctron-news.ctron.com> king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
>
>
>adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>
>>> Macroevolution is
>>> a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed
>>> within three percent error :) ]
>
>>Bullshit. This is true only under your ad hoc assertion that only
>>religion can explain origins. The history of life through
>>macroevolution is a falsifiable theory. If you think it's not, then
>>make some substantial argument against it.
>
>"The modern theory of evolution is so inadequate that it deserves to be
>treated as a matter of faith." -- Francis Hitching
>
>Jack
>
Your joking, right? Is this a "substantial argument", even by your
standards?
Tero Sand
--
EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi or custts@cc.helsinki.fi
"I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
| 0alt.atheism
|
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> | Re: Gulf War (was Re: Death Penalty was Re: Political Atheists?) | Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. | mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
> I looked back at this, and asked some questions of various people and
> got the following information which I had claimed and you pooh-poohed.
> The US has not sold Iraq any arms.
What about the land mines which have already been mentioned?
> other countries (like Kuwait). Information is hard to prove. You are
> claiming that the US sold information? Prove it. [...] Information
> is hard to prove, almost certainly if the US did sell information, then that
> fact is classified, and you can't prove it.
Oh, very neat. Dismiss everything I say unless I can prove beyond a shadow
of a doubt something which you yourself admit I can never prove to your
satisfaction. Thanks, I'll stick to squaring circles.
mathew
| 0alt.atheism
|
mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) | Re: <Political Atheists? | University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept. |
My turn to jump in! :)
In article <1pi8h5INNq40@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>(reference line trimmed)
>
>livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>There is a good deal more confusion here. You started off with the
>>assertion that there was some "objective" morality, and as you admit
>>here, you finished up with a recursive definition. Murder is
>>"objectively" immoral, but eactly what is murder and what is not itself
>>requires an appeal to morality.
>
I think you mean circular, not recursive, but that is semantics.
Recursiveness has no problems, it is just horribly inefficient (just ask
any assembly programmer.)
>Yes.
>
>>Now you have switch targets a little, but only a little. Now you are
>>asking what is the "goal"? What do you mean by "goal?". Are you
>>suggesting that there is some "objective" "goal" out there somewhere,
>>and we form our morals to achieve it?
>
>Well, for example, the goal of "natural" morality is the survival and
>propogation of the species. Another example of a moral system is
>presented within the Declaration of Independence, which states that we
>should be guaranteed life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You see,
>to have a moral system, we must define the purpose of the system. That is,
>we shall be moral unto what end?
The oft-quoted line that says people should be guaranteed life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights, is a complete lie
and deception, as the very authors of that line were in the process of
proving. Liberty is never free, it is always purchased at some cost,
almost always at the cost to another. Whos liberty is more inalienable?
Similarly for right of life. When one person must die if he is to save
another, or even a group of others, whos life is more inalienable?
That leads into the classic question of the value of the death penalty,
especially for serial killers. Whos life and liberty is more valuable,
the serial killer, or the victim? According to that beautiful line,
those two rights should be completely inviolate, that is, noone should be
able to remove them. This _includes_ government. Admittedly the serial
killer has restricted some people's life and/or liberty, but is not his
own life/liberty inviolate also? According to the declaration of independence,
it is.
>>>Murder is certainly a violation of the golden rule. And, I thought I had
>>>defined murder as an intentional killing of a non-murderer, against his will.
Oooh, I like that. It means that killing an infant is not murder because
it cannot be against its will. Reason, an infant has no will as such.
Similarly for people who are brain dead (easier to see), in a coma, etc.
Also, under current law, accidental killing is still murder. How will you
include that?
>>>And you responded to this by asking whether or not the execution of an
>>>innocent person under our system of capital punishment was a murder or not.
>>>I fail to see what this has to do with anything. I never claimed that our
>>>system of morality was an objective one.
>>I thought that was your very first claim. That there was
>>some kind of "objective" morality, and that an example of that was
>>that murder is wrong. If you don't want to claim that any more,
>>that's fine.
The only real golden rule in life is, he who has the gold, makes the
rules. I.e. Might Makes Right. That is survival. Now what is wrong
with that?
>Well, murder violates the golen rule, which is certainly a pillar of most
>every moral system. However, I am not assuming that our current system
>and the manner of its implementation are objectively moral. I think that
>it is a very good approximation, but we can't be perfect.
If you mean the golden rule as I stated, yes, almost every system as
implemented has used that in reality. Sorry, I don't deal as much in
fiction, as I do in reality.
>>And by the way, you don't seem to understand the difference between
>>"arbitrary" and "objective". If Keith Schneider "defines" murder
>>to be this that and the other, that's arbitrary. Jon Livesey may
>>still say "Well, according to my personal system of morality, all
>>killing of humans against their will is murder, and wrong, and what
>>the legal definition of murder may be in the USA, Kuweit, Saudi
>>Arabia, or the PRC may be matters not a whit to me".
WELCOME TO OZLAND!!!!!!! :)
What is NOT arbitrary? If you can find some part of society, some societal
rules, morals, etc. that are not arbitrary, please tell me. I don't think
there are any.
>Well, "objective" would assume a system based on clear and fundamental
>concepts, while "arbitary" implies no clear line of reasoning.
>
>keith
Sounds like euphemisms to me. The difference seems to be, that objective
is some reasoning that I like, while arbitrary is some reasoning that
I don't like OR don't understand.
M^2
| 0alt.atheism
|
Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu> | Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics | Sponsored account, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA | timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes:
> There lies the hypocrisy, dude. Atheism takes as much faith as theism.
> Admit it!
Some people might think it takes faith to be an atheist... but faith in
what? Does it take some kind of faith to say that the Great Invisible Pink
Unicorn does not exist? Does it take some kind of faith to say that Santa
Claus does not exist? If it does (and it may for some people I suppose) it
certainly isn't as big a leap of faith to say that these things (and god)
DO exist. (I suppose it depends on your notion and definition of "faith".)
Besides... not believing in a god means one doesn't have to deal with all
of the extra baggage that comes with it! This leaves a person feeling
wonderfully free, especially after beaten over the head with it for years!
I agree that religion and belief is often an important psychological healer
for many people and for that reason I think it's important. However,
trying to force a psychological fantasy (I don't mean that in a bad way,
but that's what it really is) on someone else who isn't interested is
extremely rude. What if I still believed in Santa Claus and said that my
belief in Santa did wonderful things for my life (making me a better
person, allowing me to live without guilt, etc...) and then tried to get
you to believe in Santa too just 'cuz he did so much for me? You'd call
the men in white coats as soon as you could get to a phone.
> --
> Bake Timmons, III
Nanci (just babbling... :-))
.........................................................................
If you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me
email (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):
Spring is nature's way of saying, 'Let's party!'
| 0alt.atheism
|
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) | Re: Nicknames | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | In article <1993Apr18.231914.143616@zeus.calpoly.edu>,
jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch) wrote:
> >Mathew "FAQ" can't remember his last name
> >Keith "Lie Tally .sig" Ryan
> >Kent "Finn-tastic" Sandvick
> >Cindy "Popsicle Toes" Kandolf
> >Jim "Face .sig" Tims
> >Simon "Clip-that-theist" Clippendale
> >Umar "Reasonable" Khan
> >Rob "Argue with G-d" Strom
> >Dave "Buckminster" Fuller
> >Maddi "Never a useful post" Hausmann
>
> Hey, what about an affectionate nickname for me?
You could take my wrongly spelled surname :-).
Cheers,
Kent Sandvik
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 0alt.atheism
|
mls@ulysses.att.com (Michael L. Siemon) | Re: Societal basis for morality | AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA | In article <C5r8vH.AI7@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
writes:
>I'm actually not trying to make a point. I'm just trying to find out the
>coherence of the societally based morality position. Is my assumption of
>societally based morals wrong?
No, but you would need a lot of background reading in sociology to get
to a point where the discussion would be focused enough to be helpful.
The interaction of values and behavior among people has been a major
defining element of both psychology and sociology for a century now, and
is the part of both disciplines (as social psychology) that strikes me
as most relevant to the various naive arguments about morality on the
net.
An exceptionally good place to get a clear view of "social norms" in
action is the "micro" sociology of Ervin Goffman. There are some very
good introductory essays ("Deference and Demeanor" is a classic), as
well as accessible books like _Interaction Ritual_. More difficult and
theoretical are some of his later books like _Frame Analysis_. But even
at his most academic, Goffman escapes the dreadful boredom and heavily
jargon-laden theorizing that makes most standard sociology unreadable.
Morality is essentially the playing out of individual goals and aims in
the setting of their expectations of other people, and others' expectations
of them. This becomes "systematized" in a "socially mandated" way simply
because otherwise we'd have to invent the entire context of interpersonal
realtions with every single interaction -- and we engage in social inter-
actions usually hundreds or thousands of times a day, so that a renego-
tiation of human interaction each time is a pretty ridiculous notion.
We simply learn it (most of it) early, along with language (which is one
of the main exemplars.)
--
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
|
MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc. | In <1r34n3$hfj@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp writes:
[ Deletia; in case anybody hadn't noticed, Frank and I are debating
"objective morality", and seemingly hitting semantics. ]
> Secondly, how can I refute your definition? I can only point up its
> logical implications, and say that they seem to contradict the usage
> of the word "objective" in other areas. Indeed, by your definition, an
> objective x is an oxymoron, for all x. I have no quibble with that
> belief, other than that it is useless, and that "objective" is a perfectly
> good word.
It may be that, being a non-native English-speaker, I've
misunderstood your usage of "objective", and tried to debate something
you don't assert; my apologies. I'm at a loss to imagine what you really
do mean, though.
># How many ages can the universe have, and still be internally self-
>#consistent? I'd be amazed if it was more than one. How many different
>#moral systems can different members of society have - indeed, single
>#individuals, in some cases - and humanity still stick together?
>
> Begging the question. People can have many opinions about the age
> of the universe and humanity can still stick together. You are
> saying that the universe has a _real_ age, independent of my beliefs about
> it. Why?
Wrong point. The age of the universe has no direct effect on
humanity's sticking power, in the way the moral system of a society can
have.
I'm saying the Universe has a "real age", because I see evidence
for it; cosmology, astronomy and so on. I say this age is independent of
people's opinions of it, because I know different people have a lot of
different opinions in the matter, yet empirical tests consistently seem
to give roughly the same results.
># The age of the universe, like most scientific facts, can be
>#emirically verified through means that'll give the same result no matter
>#who performs the testing (albeit there are error bars that may be on the
>#largish side...).
>
> This assumes that the universe has a real age, or any kind of reality
> which doesn't depend on what we think.
I can't see how it does that. Put a creationist to the task of
performing the tests and calculations, see to it (s)he makes no blatant
errors in measuring or calculating, and the result of the test will be
the same.
> Why should an extreme Biblical
> Creationist give a rat's ass about the means of which you speak?
Because logically consistent empirical tests contradict their
opinion. If those tests were just my opinion, then their own tests
(which would then be their opinion) would contradict mine, even if we
conducted said tests in identical manner, no? They don't, which I take
as showing these tests have some validity beyond our opinion of them.
>#I've heard of no way to verify morality in a
>#consistent way, much less compute the errors of the measurement; care to
>#enlighten me?
>
> The same is true of pain, but painkillers exist, and can be predicted
> to work with some accuracy better than a random guess.
Map the activity of nerves and neural activity, if you mean
physical pain. You have a sharp point, I'll give you that; but you still
haven't given me a way to quantify morality.
> I wrote
> elsewhere that morality should be hypotheses about observed value.
We agree. Hypotheses, however, can change; I hold that there is no
"ultimate hypothesis of morality" towards which these changes could
gravitate, but that they could be changed in any way imaginable,
producing different results suitable for different tasks or purposes.
> If a moral system makes a prediction "It will be better if...",
> that can be tested,
"Better" and "worse" are (almost?) always defined in the context
of a moral system. Your prediction will _always_ be correct, *within*
*that* *moral* *system*. What you need now is an objective definition of
"good" and "bad"; I wish you luck.
># People's *ideas* about the age of object X are *not* objective;
>#you can have any idea you like, and I can't stop you. Universae and
>#their ages is another ballgame; they are what they are, and if you
>#dislike some detail of them, that's a problem with your *opinion* of
>#them.
>
> Sure. Assume an objective reality, and you get statements like this.
Isn't that what _you're_ doing, when assuming an "objectively
real" morality? Besides, what _exactly_ is provably wrong with my
statement?
>#I claim that morality is an opinion of ours, and as such
>#subjective and individual. If I'm wrong, then some more-or-less
>#objectively "real" thing exists, which you label "objective morality";
>#can you back up this positive claim of existence?
>
> Can you back up your positive claim above? No. That's because it's an
> assumption. I make the same assumption about values, on the basis
> that there is no logical difference between the two, and the empirical
> basis of the two is precisely the same.
Claiming there is no objective morality is suddenly a positive
claim? Besides, I think I _can_ lend some credence to my claim; ponder
different individuals, both fully functional as human beings and members
of society, but yet with wildly different moral codes. If morality was
"objective", at least one should be way off base, but yet hir
'incorrect' morality seems to function fine. How come?
As for producing these individuals, it might be easiest to pick
them from different societies; say, an islamic one and some polynesian
matrilineal system, for example (if such still exist).
[ deletia - testing for footballs on desks ]
># Now take a look at morality. See anything? If so, please inform me
>#which way to look, and WHY to look that particular way, as opposed to
>#some other. Get my drift?
>
> No. Just look. Are you claiming never to know what good means?
One thing is "good" under some circumstances, because we wish to
achieve some goal, for some reason. Other times we wish to do something
else, and that thing is no longer so clearly "good" at all.
Some things are hard to make "good", because we'd seldom if ever
wish to achieve the sort of goal mass murder would lead one into. Still,
the Aztecs were doing fine until the Spaniards wiped them out.
I almost always know what "good" means; sometimes I even know why.
I never claim this "good" is thereby fixed in stone, immutable.
[...]
># That's a simple(?) matter of proving the track record of the
>#scientific method.
>
> I think it's great, and should be applied to values. I may be completely
> wrong, but that's what I conclude as a result of quite an amount of
> thought.
Yes, me too, and I've tried a thing or two down that line; it
doesn't look good for objective values to me at all.
--
Disclaimer? "It's great to be young and insane!"
| 0alt.atheism
|
salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) | The Universe and Black Holes, was Re: 2000 years..... | Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences | (Wouldn't it be nice if Subject: lines had something to do
with nessage bodies!)
I wonder if the Universe would look like a Black Hole
from "outside"? How could we posit an "Outside", whether called
DeSitter space, hyperspace, parallel universes, whatever?
Suppose that such a space existed, and that our universe
looked like a Black Hole in it. Then our Universe could be open
to it through Hawking radiation, the same way Black Holes are
within our Universe. Note this is all the purist speculation
and noone knows what laws govern QM beyond the event horizon
of our universe. Can laws change at such boundaries of space-time?
Bruce Salem
| 0alt.atheism
|
halat@panther.bears (Jim Halat) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | null | In article <930419.104739.2t8.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>>In article <30136@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
>>>Atoms are not objective. They aren't even real. What scientists call
>>>an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes
>>>certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings. All
>>>of which is subjective.
>>
>> This deserves framing. It really does. "[Atoms] aren't even real."
>>
>> Tell me then, those atoms we have seen with electron microscopes are
>> atoms now, so what are they? Figments of our imaginations? The
>> evidence that atoms are real is overwhelming, but I won't bother with
>> most evidence at the moment.
>
>HA HA HA!
>
>Sorry, but having studied cell biology, I have to say that "I can see it
>through an electron microscope, THEREFORE it is real" is a laughable
>statement.
>
[...stuff deleted...]
Thank you. I thought I was in the twilight zone for a moment.
It still amazes me that many people with science backgrounds
still confuse the models and observables with what even they
would call the real world.
-jim halat
In article <30142@ursa.bear.com>, halat@panther.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
>In article <1993Apr17.153653.26206@Princeton.EDU>, datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>
>>You were a liberal arts major, weren'tcha?
>>
>>Guess you never saw that photo of the smallest logo in the world--
>>"IBM" made with noble gas atoms (krypton? xenon? I forget the
>>specifics).
>>
>>Atoms, trees, electrons are all independently observable and
>>verifiable. Morals aren't. See the difference?
>
>
>Just for the record ( not that any kind of information would be
>likely to affect your thinking ) I have an MSEE -- focus in
>Electromagnetics -- from Penn.
>
>A photo of the smallest logo in the world does not an atom make.
>What was observed is something we can measure that matches what
>the mathematical model we call an atom had predicted.
>
>Much in the same way that we need BOTH a particle model and a
>wave model for light, the atomic model is a mathematical
>representation of physical phenomena. A model that can and
>probably will continue to change over time. That makes it
>subjective (the model that is). However, the model gives us an
>objective way to talk about the physical world.
>
>To put it another way, the Quantum Mechanical model of the atom
>allows for discussion of the atom that will give repeatable and
>unambiguous results, which is objective. However, as Bohr and
>Einstein duked it out mid-century, the interpretation of
>those reapeatable, observable measurements is quite subjective.
>Bohr said that the observable randomness of atomic motion was
>inherent in the nature of the universe. Einstein said particle
>motion was deterministic, but it was our measurement shortcomings
>that introduced the randomness. They were talking about the
>EXACT same results, though.
>
>-jim halat
| 0alt.atheism
|
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) | Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW] | Boston University Physics Department | In article <1993Apr21.171807.16785@bnr.ca> (Rashid) writes:
>In article <115694@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) wrote:
>> I think many reading this group would also benefit by knowing how
>> deviant the view _as I've articulated it above_ (which may not be
>> the true view of Khomeini) is from the basic principles of Islam.
>> So that the non-muslim readers of this group will see how far from
>> the simple basics of Islam such views are on the face of them. And
>> if they are _not_ in contradiction with the basics of Islam, how
>> subtle such issues are and how it seems sects exist in Islam while
>> they are explicitly proscribed by the Qur'an.
>Discussing it here is fine by me. Shall we start a new thread called,
>say, "Infallibility in Islam" and move the discussion there?
I think this should be illuminating to all. Let me make a first
suggestion. When Arabic words, especially technical ones, become of use
let us define them for those, especially atheists, to whom they may not be
terribly familiar. Please also note that though I did initially refer
to Khomeini as a heretic for what I understood to be a claim -- rejected
by you since -- of personal infallibility, I withdraw this as a basis
for such a statement. I conditionally retain this reference in regard
to Khomeini's advocacy of the thesis of the infallibility of the
so-called "Twelve Imams," which is in clear conflict with the Qur'an
in that it places the Twelve Imams in a category of behavior and example
higher than that of the Muhammad, in that the Qur'an shows that the
Prophet was clearly fallible, as well as (it appears, given your
abstruse theological statment regarding the "natures" of the Twelve
Imams) placing them in a different metaphysical category than the
remainder of humanity, with the possible exception of Muhammad,
something which verges on the sin of association.
>As salam a-laikum
Alaikum Wassalam,
Gregg
| 0alt.atheism
|
cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) | Re: EnviroLeague | Stratus Computer, Inc. |
A new alternative to Scouting for those "unacceptable to BSA" for reasons
of religious or sexual preference:
From: "BOYD R. CRITZ, III" <71611.365@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: EnviroLeague
"Birth Announcement" on March 7, 1993, from EARTH Forum, CompuServe
Information Service
===================================================================
FORMAL ANNOUNCEMENT
-------------------
(SM)
EnviroLeague
A new youth movement,"EnviroLeague," was recently born, according to its
founder, Boyd R. Critz, III (CIS ID# 71611,365), of Peoria, Illinois.
EnviroLeague exists for the education of youth, both male and female, in
matters concerning their values related to and responsibility for our
environment.
Incorporated as an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, its Articles and
initial applications for a service mark have now been filed. According to
Critz, its draft Bylaws contain the following statement of Mission and
Objectives:
MISSION
It is the Mission of EnviroLeague and its adult members
to foster and implement the improved education of young
people in the need to conduct their lives as Stewards
of The Earth, to leave The Earth in a better condition
than they found it, and to otherwise act as responsible,
moral and ethical users of their environment. To pursue
the accomplishment of this Mission, EnviroLeague shall
seek to serve as a catalyst, focusing in common cause the
separate efforts of all groups desiring the preservation,
improvement, and responsible use of the environment in
which we must all live.
OBJECTIVES
In pursuit of the Mission of EnviroLeague, its primary
objectives shall be:
(1) To establish a Movement involving as many
environmentally concerned organizations as
possible, said Movement having as its primary
focus the education and participatory
involvement of young people in appropriate areas
of environmental concern;
(2) To develop and provide to such organizations and
their branches a full complement of program
materials for their use, including suitable
uniforms, insignia and other badges, written
ideas, syllabi and information, literature and
other items as shall seem appropriate and
desirable;
(3) To serve as a "clearing house" for the exchange
of program ideas, materials and information
among said organizations; and
(4) To assist environmentally concerned
organizations to recruit and train the necessary
adult leadership for their youth programs.
EnviroLeague will operate through three "Program Divisions" serving youth in
the elementary, middle and high school grades, respectively. Service shall be
through formation of "EnviroLeague Teams," either by EnviroLeague itself or by
environmentally conscious organizations (or their local branches) wishing a
charter to use programs developed by EnviroLeague.
EnviroLeague, as it develops, will be controlled by the actual adult leaders
of each local Team, and will have no nationally imposed obstacles to
membership or adult leadership status not based upon relevant improper
conduct. Organizations accepting a charter may, however, impose certain
additional standards for their own use of the program material. Should such
organizations do so, EnviroLeague will commit itself to forming, as soon as
possible, new nearby Teams having no such restrictions, particularly as to
youth membership.
EnviroLeague will operate on the principle that youth will have much to
contribute to developing its programs. Thus, the top youth leaders of its
Teams for middle and high school youth may become involved in governing any
local administrative groups, and those for its high school youth may be
involved in similar functions at the national level.
Program materials are in development at this time. Copies of the "draft"
portions of the Mentor's Manual (manual for adult leadership) will be in the
EARTH Forum, Library 17. These files will be updated as development takes
place.
CompuServe is particularly proud that EnviroLeague's founder chose this
electronic medium to make the first public announcement of its formation.
This announcement is being made simultaneously in both the OUTDOOR and EARTH
Forums.
The electronic home of EnviroLeague is in CompuServe's Earth Forum - GO
EARTH - message and library areas 17, both named "EnviroLeague."
============================================================================
Subsequently, EnviroLeague's Initial Governance Council has held its first
meeting. Boyd Critz was elected as the first EnviroLeague Chief Guardian
(equivalent to Chairman of the Board or CEO). He can be reached at home
(309) 675-4483 in case of real need. Also, mail can be addressed to:
EnviroLeague
P.O. Box 418
Peoria, IL 61651-0418
Those interested in starting an EnviroLeague Team might just establish
contact, to receive a diskette (IBM DOS, ASCII) with initial information.
--
cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...
| 0alt.atheism
|
bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) | Re: islamic authority over women | Okcforum Unix Users Group | Benedikt Rosenau (I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de) wrote:
: When the object of their belief is said to be perfect and make the believers
: act in a certain way and we observe that they don't, we have a contradiction.
: Something defined contradictorily cannot exist. That what the believe in does
: not exist. Secondly, there are better explanations for why they believe than
: the existence of the object of their belief.
:
:
: Have you read the FAQ already?
: Benedikt
Benedikt,
I can't recall anyone claiming that God -makes- anyone act a particlar
way, I think that you're attempting to manufacture a contradiction.
God is said to require certain behavior, but the only compulsion is
the believer's sense of duty. A standard of conduct does exist, but we
are free to ignore it or misunderstand it or distort it in whatever
ways we find convenient, but our response to God's edicts can in no
way be used to question God's existence. The behavior of believers is
a completely separate question from that of God's existence; there is
nothing contradictory here.
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).
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.
Bill
| 0alt.atheism
|
cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) | Christian Morality is | University of Illinois at Urbana | In <11836@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <C5L1Ey.Jts@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike
Cobb) writes:
>>In <11825@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
writes:
>>
>>
>>> Actually, my atheism is based on ignorance. Ignorance of the
>>> existence of any god. Don't fall into the "atheists don't believe
>>> because of their pride" mistake.
>>
>>How do you know it's based on ignorance, couldn't that be wrong? Why would it
>>be wrong
>>to fall into the trap that you mentioned?
>>
> If I'm wrong, god is free at any time to correct my mistake. That
> he continues not to do so, while supposedly proclaiming his
> undying love for my eternal soul, speaks volumes.
What are the volumes that it speaks besides the fact that he leaves your
choices up to you?
> As for the trap, you are not in a position to tell me that I don't
> believe in god because I do not wish to. Unless you can know my
> motivations better than I do myself, you should believe me when I
> say that I earnestly searched for god for years and never found
> him.
I definitely agree that it's rather presumptuous for either "side" to give some
psychological reasoning for another's belief.
MAC
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
>They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
>and sank Manhattan out at sea.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
With new taxes and spending cuts we'll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.
| 0alt.atheism
|
madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) | So what is Maddi? | Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things | As I was created in the image of Gaea, therefore I must
be the pinnacle of creation, She which Creates, She which
Births, She which Continues.
Or, to cut all the religious crap, I'm a woman, thanks.
And it's sexism that started me on the road to atheism.
--
Maddi Hausmann madhaus@netcom.com
Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553
Kids, please don't try this at home. Remember, I post professionally.
| 0alt.atheism
|
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | sgi | In article <1qjb40$n4f@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1qijer$a2r@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> taite@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu () writes:
|> #you can't force your view of objective morality on me.
|>
|> Try me.
|>
|> [Note to readers outside t.a. :
|>
|> taite has been advocating violent civil disobedience in the U.S.
|> in order to promote his view that abortion should be illegal. Given the
|> necessity and the opportunity, I would have no objection to "forcing"
|> morality on him, if that's what it would take to prevent him carrying out
|> his stated desire to "hang women who have multiple abortions"]
What do you mean when you say "I would have no objection?"
Do you mean it's moral to use force on someone who advocates
the use of force?
Or do you mean that sometimes we have to use force on such
people out of necessity or self-defence, while recognizing
that our own actions in doing so are not moral?
jon.
| 0alt.atheism
|
ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) | Re: A Little Too Satanic | ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia | mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>Nanci Ann Miller writes:
>>My favorite reply to the "you are being too literal-minded" complaint is
>>that if the bible is really inspired by God and if it is really THAT
>>important to him, then he would make damn certain all the translators and
>>scribes and people interpreting and copying it were getting it right,
>>literally. If not, then why should I put ANY merit at all in something
>>that has been corrupted over and over and over by man even if it was
>>originally inspired by God?
>The "corrupted over and over" theory is pretty weak. Comparison of the
>current hebrew text with old versions and translations shows that the text
>has in fact changed very little over a space of some two millennia. This
>shouldn't be all that suprising; people who believe in a text in this manner
>are likely to makes some pains to make good copies.
>--
Do you honestly hold to that tripe Charley? For a start there are enough
current versions of the Bible to make comparisons to show that what you write
above is utter garbage. Witness JW, Mormon, Catholic, Anglican, and Greek
Orthodox Bibles. But to really convince you I'd have to take you to a good
old library. In our local library we had a 1804 King James which I compared
to a brand new, hot of God's tongue Good News Bible. Genesis was almost
unrecognisable, many of the discrepencies between the four gospels had been
edited from the Good News Bible. In fact the God of Good News was a much
more congenial fellow I must say.
If you like I'll get the 1804 King James out again and actually give you
some quotes. At least the headings haven't changed much.
Jeff.
| 0alt.atheism
|
martini@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Sheilagh M.B.E. O'Hare) | Re: Honor (was: A Parable For You) | The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas | While mark claims that his honor would demand that he apologize, it seems
that he would apologieze *if* he were wrong, which takes seeing that he
would be wrong in some situation or other.
Woolfie (lupus would be a cool name for a child) points out that his
brother would see himself as honorable, and not see his mother's point of
view.
My sister has played go between, twixt me and my mother, since I can't
seem to find words that my mother understands on some issues of boundaries,
and such personal things. Not that we dont talk, or anything quite so
drastic, but that it can be hard to reconsile two points of view..
thanks, wolfie, i see some of your point.. and mark, i may see yours,
but it doesnt quite follow the same path, to me, as wolfe's..
sheil
| 0alt.atheism
|
eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) | Re: some thoughts. | Nottingham University | In article <C5rEKJ.49y@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
|> James Felder (spbach@lerc.nasa.gov) wrote:
|>
|> : Logic alert - argument from incredulity. Just because it is hard for you
|> : to believe this doesn't mean that it isn't true. Liars can be very pursuasive
|> : just look at Koresh that you yourself cite.
|>
|> This is whole basis of a great many here rejecting the Christian
|> account of things. In the words of St. Madalyn Murrey-O'Hair, "Face it
|> folks, it's just silly ...". Why is it okay to disbelieve because of
|> your incredulity if you admit that it's a fallacy?
|>
|> Bill
I suppose for the same reason that you do not believe in all the gods. Why
should any be any different? I use the same arguments to dismiss Koresh
as I do god. Tell me, then, why do you not believe that Koresh is the son
of god? By logic it is equally possible that Koresh is Jesus reborn.
--
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Adda Wainwright | Does dim atal y llanw! 8o) |
| eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk | 8o) Mae .sig 'ma ar werth! |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| 0alt.atheism
|
mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) | Re: Amusing atheists and anarchists | University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept. | In article <timmbake.735294667@mcl> timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes:
>mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>
>>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?
The CLIPPER initiative is an announcement by Clinton that all the
"secure" voice phones will use the same crypto chip, as a de-facto
government standard. Problem is, the government is admitting that
they hold the keys to break the code easily, and the Justice department
will be using the keys to listen in on "illegal activities." Many
people are really scared about such an initiative because it is
a major step towards outlawing real crypto protection on things
like email if you read the press release. The project was developed
by NSA and given to NIST. It uses two keys S1 and S2 that the
government claims are needed to break the code. They claim that
these keys will be handed to two different companies, and when they
get a warrant to do a wiretap (the chip is nicknamed the wiretap chip),
they have to get the keys from both companies. People have poked holes
through and through the press release official version and shown how
it is nowhere near as nice as it sounds, and I have given the simplified
version. People over on sci.crypt are really scared about this
proposal it seems.
--
***************************************************************************
* mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu * Never program and drink beer at the same *
* M^2 * time. It doesn't work. *
***************************************************************************
| 0alt.atheism
|
kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) | Re: Is Morality Constant (was Re: Biblical Rape) | University of Oulu, Finland | Bill Conner (bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu) wrote:
: There are a couple of things about your post and others in this thread
: that are a little confusing. An atheist is one for whom all things can
: be understood as processes of nature - exclusively.
This definition does not include all atheists (see the FAQ). However,
I (for one) do think there is no need to invoke any divine or
spiritual explanations.
It makes a big difference to claim that all things can be understood
as natural processes, and to claim that our observations do not
require us to postulate any divine intervention, or anything spiritual,
for that matter. Humans are not omnipotent, and neither is science.
However, science has one advantage theology doesn't: it is self-
correcting, with nature as its judge.
It is delightful to see how scientific inquiry is revealing a self-
consistent, simple picture of our universe. Science is no longer
a bunch of separate branches, it is one. From particle physics to
psychology. And no aspect of our life, or our universe, is safe
from its stern and stony eye. Not even our consciousness.
There is no need
: for any recourse to Divnity to describe or explain anything. There is
: no purpose or direction for any event beyond those required by
: physics, chemistry, biology, etc.; everything is random, nothing is
: determnined.
Actually, determinism vs. indeterminism is a philosophical question,
and science cannot say whether the whole thing is actually somehow
superdeterministic or not. I think the question does not have
any meaning, as far as individual human beings go. If their apparent
free will is an illusion, it does not appear to be so from their
perspective. Bill, can you say _for sure_ whether you have a free
will or not?
: This would also have to include human intelligence of course and all
: its products. There is nothing requiring that life evolve or that it
: acquire intelligence, it's just a happy accident.
Maybe. Who are we to tell? It seems intelligence is useful - when
during the history of Earth has _one species_ been able to control
one third of the whole biosphere? This can still be a result of
numerous happy accidents our genetic machinery blindly replicates
and preserves. Even that machinery can be result of the same
principle - only the systems that can start replicating will
survive, those which don't don't make it. (Recommended reading: t.o)
: For an atheist, no
: event can be preferred to another or be said to have more or less
: value than another in any naturalistic sense, and no thought -about-
: an event can have value.
From whose perspective? I value events and things subjectively, from
my perspective. Nature does not have values, because it does not have
a perspective - values arise from awareness. If I have a subjective
perspective, it is easy to assume that other people also do, and if
I think about what it would it be like in their position, I will
eventually discover the Golden Rule. Morality is not necessarily
a gift from heavens, in fact, it may be a product of evolution.
Perhaps we are aware of ourselves because a sense of identity
is helpful, allows us to play the roles of others and make us respect
others who seem to have identity, too.
Bill, have you ever read Aristotle? Try his Ethica Nikomakhea (sp.)
for starters.
: How then can an atheist judge value? What is the basis for criticizing
: the values ennumerated in the Bible or the purposes imputed to God? On
: what grounds can the the behavior of the reliogious be condemned? It
: seems that, in judging the values that motivate others to action, you
: have to have some standard against which conduct is measured, but what
: in nature can serve that purpose? What law of nature can you invoke to
: establish your values.
C.S. Lewis tells us that this argument was the main reason why
he abandoned his atheism and became Christian. The argument is
severely flawed.
Some values, such as the Golden Rule, can have a rational basis. Some
others, like the basic idea of wanting to live, has probably its
roots in the way our brains are wired. Lewis ignored the very real
possiblity that natural selection could also favour altruistic
behaviour, and morality as well. Indeed, as humans evolved better
and better in building and using tools, they also became better
at killing each other. It is a logical necessity that evolution could
only favour those who knew how to use tools, but not against one's
own people.
The Bible reveals quite nicely that the morality of the early Jews
was not beyond this. A simple set of rules to hold the people
together, under one god. Their god did not care much about people
of other nations.
At the time of the NT, things were quite different - the Jews
were under rule of an _empire_, and could no longer simply ignore
the Gentiles. A new situation required a new morality, and along
with it a new religion was born. (A mutation in a meme pool.)
: Since every event is entirely and exclusively a physical event, what
: difference could it possibly make what -anyone- does, religious or
: otherwise, there can be no -meaning- or gradation of value. The only
: way an atheist can object to -any- behaviour is to admit that the
: objection is entirely subjective and that he(she) just doesn't like it
: - that's it. Any value judgement must be prefaced by the disclaimer
: that it is nothing more than a matter of personal opinion and carries
: no weight in any "absolute" sense.
It looks like you haven't bothered to read philosophy. Whenever there
is an observer, there is a subjective point of view, which may
value its existence and happiness (even if that were just a result
of some physical event), and other's happiness, too, if the observer
comes to think about it. In an absolutely objective sense, that is,
without any observers or subjects, moral judgments lose their
meaning.
It is not possible for a value to simply exist without a point of
view. This includes gods, too, their values are only _their_
personal judgments, not absolute truths, since such truths
do not exist.
The fact that most people do not deliberately want to hurt others
is a manifestation of the way we have fought for our existence
by becoming social beings who can think and value others'
existence.
Morality is not property of humans alone - chimps, dolphins and
many other species show great care for each other. Dolphins have
sometimes saved humans from drowning, a good deed indeed.
: That you don't like what God told people to do says nothing about God
: or God's commands, it says only that there was an electrical event in your
: nervous system that created an emotional state that your mind coupled
: with a pre-existing thought-set to form that reaction. That your
: objections -seem- well founded is due to the way you've been
: conditioned; there is no "truth" content. The whole of your
: intellectual landscape is an illusion, a virtual reality.
The last statement does not logically follow. In fact, there is
every reason to believe our thoughts can model reality very
well, and our senses can convey reliable information. Solipsism
is still a logical possibility, but not a very likely one.
You are continuously mixing two different views: the subjective
point of view (which we all share) and an objective point of view,
_which does not exist_. Any observer or thinker, any personal being,
has its own point of view. It does not matter whether this point
of view is a result of some physical events or not, it does not
cease to be subjective.
From a non-observers non-point of view, values do not exist. Neither
does pain, or pleasure, or beauty, or love. Such things are
inherently subjective.
Once again, if god wants wives to submit to their husbands, or even
to make a leap of faith into the unknown, or wants to punish us if
we don't, I disagree with his morals. I do not think my morals come
from any supreme being - to remove my morals means the same than
to make me a zombie, a machine without a single thought. If god
gave us morality to judge, but I disagree with him, it is not my
fault. He is free to replace my morals. I cannot see what is the
point of giving someone a moral system which disagrees with one's
own and then to get mad at this.
God must be schizophrenic.
: All of this being so, you have excluded
: yourself from any discussion of values, right, wrong, goood, evil,
: etc. and cannot participate. Your opinion about the Bible can have no
: weight whatsoever.
Neither can the opinion of any god, for that matter. I cannot understand
why a subjective opinion of a thing made of matter is in any way
less credible than an opinion of a thing made of something else.
Bill, take note: Absolute values must be independent of _any_ being,
_including_ gods. If god has a subjective viewpoint, it is his
own point of view, and his morals are his own.
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
|
ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) | Re: Asimov stamp | UC Davis Dept of Applied Science at LLNL | In article <C61H4H.8D4@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>Quoting schnitzi@eustis.cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) in article <schnitzi.735603785@eustis>:
>>I'm sure all the religious types would get in a snit due
>>to Asimov's atheism.
>Can someone confirm this? Someone told me that Asimov converted to
>Christianity at some point, or something. Does anyone have any good
>quotes?
What? Absolutely not. No way. Asimov was a lifelong atheist, and
said so many times, right until his death. Judging from the many
stories he told about his own life, he felt culturally closest to
Judaism, which makes sense. He was born Jewish.
Ed
ed@wente.llnl.gov
| 0alt.atheism
|
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Siemens-Nixdorf AG | In article <pww-150493204223@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) writes:
I write:
#> *some* values are objective. Truth is better than falsehood, peace is
#> better than war, education is better than ignorance. We know these things,
#> if we know anything.
#
#Now, prove it. What, you can't? Frank, you're religious after all!
#What I do know is that I can observe phenomena, creAte a theory that
#explains new phenomena, observe these new phenomena.
Prove that you can observe phenomena, Lord.
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 0alt.atheism
|
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Siemens-Nixdorf AG | In article <lefty-220493121708@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
#In article <1qtsmc$39j@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
#O'Dwyer) wrote:
#>
#> Well I can cut to the chase and admit that what I find least attractive
#> about realtivism is that it elevates the heinous to the level of the good,
#> by saying in effect "to each his own", or "what's good for you, isn't good
#> for me". Thus the terrorist is elevated to the same level as the man
#> of peace.
#
#So, then, I assume that you feel that there is an objective definition for
#"terrorist"?
Not necessarily, but I believe that some people really are terrorists,
and some people really are people of peace. I prefer the peaceful folk
to the terrorists and even though I don't claim to have lock on which is which,
I have hope in our ability to tell them apart, and it would be insane not to
try.
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 0alt.atheism
|
Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu> | Re: free moral agency | Penn State University | In article <C5pxqs.LM5@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill
Conner) says:
>
>dean.kaflowitz (decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com) wrote:
>
>: Now, what I am interested in is the original notion you were discussing
>: on moral free agency. That is, how can a god punish a person for
>: not believing in him when that person is only following his or her
>: nature and it is not possible for that person to deny what his or
>: her reason tells him or her, which is that there is no god?
>
>I think you're letting atheist mythology confuse you on the issue of
(WEBSTER: myth: "a traditional or legendary story...
...a belief...whose truth is accepted uncritically.")
How does that qualify?
Indeed, it's almost oxymoronic...a rather amusing instance.
I've found that most atheists hold almost no atheist-views as
"accepted uncritically," especially the few that are legend.
Many are trying to explain basic truths, as myths do, but
they don't meet the other criterions.
Also...
>Divine justice. According to the most fundamental doctrines of
>Christianity, When the first man sinned, he was at that time the
You accuse him of referencing mythology, then you procede to
launch your own xtian mythology. (This time meeting all the
requirements of myth.)
>salvation. The idea of punishment is based on the proposition that
>everyone knows (instinctively?) that God exists, is their creator and
Ah, but not everyone "knows" that god exists. So you have
a fallacy.
>There's nothing terribly difficult in all this and is well known to
>any reasonably Biblically literate Christian. The only controversy is
And that makes it true? Holding with the Bible rules out controversy?
Read the FAQ. If you've read it, you missed something, so re-read.
(Not a bad suggestion for anyone...I re-read it just before this.)
>with those who pretend not to know what is being said and what it
>means. When atheists claim that they do -not- know if God exists and
>don't know what He wants, they contradict the Bible which clearly says
>that -everyone- knows. The authority of the Bible is its claim to be
...should I repeat what I wrote above for the sake of getting
it across? You may trust the Bible, but your trusting it doesn't
make it any more credible to me.
If the Bible says that everyone knows, that's clearly reason
to doubt the Bible, because not everyone "knows" your alleged
god's alleged existance.
>refuted while the species-wide condemnation is justified. Those that
>claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God or that His will is
>unknown, must deliberately ignore the Bible; the ignorance itself is
>no excuse.
1) No, they don't have to ignore the Bible. The Bible is far
from universally accepted. The Bible is NOT a proof of god;
it is only a proof that some people have thought that there
was a god. (Or does it prove even that? They might have been
writing it as series of fiction short-stories. As in the
case of Dionetics.) Assuming the writers believed it, the
only thing it could possibly prove is that they believed it.
And that's ignoring the problem of whether or not all the
interpretations and Biblical-philosophers were correct.
2) There are people who have truly never heard of the Bible.
3) Again, read the FAQ.
>freedom. You are free to ignore God in the same way you are free to
>ignore gravity and the consequences are inevitable and well known
>in both cases. That an atheist can't accept the evidence means only
Bzzt...wrong answer!
Gravity is directly THERE. It doesn't stop exerting a direct and
rationally undeniable influence if you ignore it. God, on the
other hand, doesn't generally show up in the supermarket, except
on the tabloids. God doesn't exert a rationally undeniable influence.
Gravity is obvious; gods aren't.
>Secondly, human reason is very comforatble with the concept of God, so
>much so that it is, in itself, intrinsic to our nature. Human reason
>always comes back to the question of God, in every generation and in
No, human reason hasn't always come back to the existance of
"God"; it has usually come back to the existance of "god".
In other words, it doesn't generally come back to the xtian
god, it comes back to whether there is any god. And, in much
of oriental philosophic history, it generally doesn't pop up as
the idea of a god so much as the question of what natural forces
are and which ones are out there. From a world-wide view,
human nature just makes us wonder how the universe came to
be and/or what force(s) are currently in control. A natural
tendancy to believe in "God" only exists in religious wishful
thinking.
>I said all this to make the point that Christianity is eminently
>reasonable, that Divine justice is just and human nature is much
>different than what atheists think it is. Whether you agree or not
Xtianity is no more reasonable than most other religions, and
it's reasonableness certainly doesn't merit eminence.
Divine justice...well, it only seems just to those who already
believe in the divinity.
First, not all atheists believe the same things about human
nature. Second, whether most atheists are correct or not,
YOU certainly are not correct on human nature. You are, at
the least, basing your views on a completely eurocentric
approach. Try looking at the outside world as well when
you attempt to sum up all of humanity.
Andrew
| 0alt.atheism
|
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Siemens-Nixdorf AG | In article <pww-150493205533@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) writes:
#In article <1qkn1t$59l@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
#O'Dwyer) wrote:
#>
#> In article <1qk1pp$6hj@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
#> |Perhaps you should explain what you think "science has it's basis
#> |in values" means. The reason why people DO science is that
#> |they value it's results. That does not mean that science has
#> |it's basis in values. Any more than DES stops working if I stop
#> |valuing my privacy.
#>
#> It's partly as you say: the reason why people do science is that they value it's
#> results. If one follows relativism to the letter, then, the theories
#> and predictions which are the results of science can only be subjectively
#> valued as 'objective', 'correct', or anything else. One cannot attach
#> any objective worth to the results of science, for the simple reason
#> that one cannot attach objective worth to anything.
#
#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.
You were doing fine until that last sentence. I believe this too,
but please prove it.
#> Which facts to observe?
#
#That's the value judgement you're confusing, and a question for an
#individual researcher. For science, the answer is unequvocal: all.
Impossible. One observes the simple facts, the ones that are likely to
turn up again. Judgement call. You can't observe everything, and you
can't test every hypothesis. Therefore you select. That's a bunch
of subjective people judging the importance of obs. and hypotheses -
can they do this reliably?
#> What is a fact? When am I justified in valuing sensory input as signal rather than noise? How do I know that everyone makes the call the same as I do?
#
#You don't. That's why it takes substantially more than one observation
#before a newly observed phenomenon is judged to be real or noise. I suppose
#you didn't know that there are still people out there making observations
#to further verify F=ma.
"judged" to be real or noise? How do I do this? Do you do it the same
way as I do? How do we know this? Are we assuming an objective reality
or something? Gee, maybe we are, and judgement is necessary to find out
what it is.
#> So the relativist attends to a system, designed at whim, fed with what should
#> be assumed to be conflicting data, in the expectation of results which need
#> satisfy no-one. GIGO.
#
#Strawman. You're mixing relativism in value for relativism in observation.
Relativism in value => if we all pick different observations to study, it
doesn't matter. We don't know which obs. are
important.
Relativism in value => if we all pick doctored observations to study, it
doesn't matter. We don't know which obs. are
important.
Relativism in value => we all pick different systems to examine phenomena, it
doesn't matter. We don't know which system works
well. Tarot cards are science too.
No mix-up. I still don't like the conclusions, which is why I question
the premise that subjective value judgements can never be assumed to be
reliable and therefore correct.
#You've been barking up this tree for some time, and you haven't gotten
#anywhere.
I've been looking for the separation of church and state in Ireland since
I was 14, and haven't gotten anywhere. So what?
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 0alt.atheism
|
cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | University of Illinois at Urbana | Very true (length of time for discussions on creationism vs evolutionism).
Atheists and Christians have been debating since ?? and still debate with
unabated passion 8-).
MAC
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
With new taxes and spending cuts we'll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.
| 0alt.atheism
|
bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) | Re: free moral agency | Okcforum Unix Users Group | dean.kaflowitz (decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com) wrote:
: >
: > I think you're letting atheist mythology
: Great start. I realize immediately that you are not interested
: in discussion and are going to thump your babble at me. I would
: much prefer an answer from Ms Healy, who seems to have a
: reasonable and reasoned approach to things. Say, aren't you the
: creationist guy who made a lot of silly statements about
: evolution some time ago?
: Duh, gee, then we must be talking Christian mythology now. I
: was hoping to discuss something with a reasonable, logical
: person, but all you seem to have for your side is a repetition
: of the same boring mythology I've seen a thousand times before.
: I am deleting the rest of your remarks, unless I spot something
: that approaches an answer, because they are merely a repetition
: of some uninteresting doctrine or other and contain no thought
: at all.
: I have to congratulate you, though, Bill. You wouldn't
: know a logical argument if it bit you on the balls. Such
: a persistent lack of function in the face of repeated
: attempts to assist you in learning (which I have seen
: in this forum and others in the past) speaks of a talent
: that goes well beyond my own, meager abilities. I just don't
: seem to have that capacity for ignoring outside influences.
: Dean Kaflowitz
Dean,
Re-read your comments, do you think that merely characterizing an
argument is the same as refuting it? Do you think that ad hominum
attacks are sufficient to make any point other than you disapproval of
me? Do you have any contribution to make at all?
Bill
| 0alt.atheism
|
marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall) | Church o' Satan (was Re: islamic authority [sic] over women) | Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA | David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>who: marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall)
>what: <1q7kc3$2dj@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>
>KM> "Yeah, hilarious. Satanists believe Satan is a god, but not
>KM> the only god. Satan is a part of Christian mythology.
>KM> Therefore, one cannot reasonably worship Satan without
>KM> acknowledging the existence of a Christian god. Satanists
>KM> see Satan as their master, and they see God and Satan as
>KM> adversaries of similar power. Satanists believe in the
>KM> eventual overthrow of God and a transfer of all power to
>KM> their master. Kevin Marshall"
>
>A great many Satanists DO NOT believe in Satan. Some do, some
>don't. I'd go so far as to assert that most "orthodox" Satanists
>do not worship Satan (Church of Satan, etc.) but rather "worship"
>self. To hear LaVey say it, only idiots and fools believe in Satan
>and or Allah. He knew that suckers are born every minute.
>
>--- Maximus 2.01wb
Anton LaVey's interpretation of Satanism has always puzzled me. I
read his "Satanic Bible" a few years ago for a social studies project,
as well as a book by Arthur Lyons called "The Cult of Devil Worship
in America." The latter included a very interesting interview with
the Black Pope in which he did indeed say that Satan was merely an
instrument for one to realize the self.
When I refer to Satanism, I am referring to the mishmash of rural Satanic
ritualism and witchcraft which existed before the Church of Satan. I
don't consider LaVey's church to be at all "orthodox," nor do I consider
its followers "satanists." LaVey combined the philosophies of Nietzsche,
Crowley, and Reich, slapped in some religious doctrine, added a little
touch of P.T. Barnum, and christened his creation the Church of Satan.
No doubt the title was a calculated attempt to attract attention...I
suppose he could have just as easily called it the Church of Free Sex.
At any rate, it worked (for a while). In its heyday, the Church had a
huge following, including such Hollywood celebrities as Sammy Davis, Jr.
and Jayne Mansfield. (I have a picture of LaVey with Sammy, by the
way.)
I find the idea of a Satanist not believing in Satan about as credible as
a Christian not believing in Christ. But if you include the Church of
Satan, then I suppose I need to alter my definition. Webster's Dictionary
and The American Heritage Dictionary will have to do the same.
--
--- __ _______ ---
||| Kevin Marshall \ \/ /_ _/ Computer Science Department |||
||| Virginia Tech \ / / / marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |||
--- Blacksburg, Virginia \/ /_/ (703) 232-6529 ---
| 0alt.atheism
|
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) | Re: <Political Atheists? | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena | bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
> And in the US, even that argument doesn't stand. It costs far
> more to execute a criminal in this country than it does to feed,
> clothe, and shelter them for the remainder of their natural life.
> Some people believe this is a fault of our judicial system. I
> find it to be one of it's greatest virtues.
I assume that you are talking about the appeals processes, etc.?
Well, it should be noted that people who are imprisoned for life
will also tend to appeal (though not quite as much in the "final
hours."
Anyway, economics is not a very good reason to either favor or oppose
the punishment.
keith
| 0alt.atheism
|
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) | Re: Genocide is Caused by Theism : Evidence? | Siemens-Nixdorf AG | [to Benedikt Roseneau ]
#In article <1qv6at$fb4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
#frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#
#>#The information of that is invariant under your child being a son or
#>#a daughter and singing about Santa Claus. Wasn't your argument that
#>#"there has to be more"?
#>More than what?
#More than we assume.
Which is what, exactly?
#>(a) Most of the people I debate disagree with my premises. Hardly debate
#> otherwise.
#
#Your favorite point that we sense so it hs to be there has been challenged
#more than once. When I did it, you said, "good question", and did not
#address it.
I've addressed "it" (your caricature is not my "favourite point", needless
to say) at length in a previous outing, and am currently discussing it with
Eric Rescorla.
#>(b) There's little point in responding the same points everywhere; I do
#> my best to give everyone the courtesy of a reply.
#
#You still repeat that point.
I do? Curious, since I believe that was the first time I've ever made it.
Not that repetition would imply much more than your seeming inability
to understand; you ask me the same question, I'll give you the same
answer, especially when in this case, I know the answer to be true. I
do my best to give everyone the courtesy of a reply, but if everyone is
making the same points, and I'm pushed for time, then I try to respond what I
believe are the strongest formulations of those points. If that doesn't
include your post, tough; this is USENET, and life is tough all over.
#>(c) Since there's a great deal of responses this isn't always feasible; I
#> do my best to honestly answer questions put to me.
#
#You drop out of debates with some posters and continue with others. You appear
#with the same issue every n months, and start the dicussion at the beginning
#again.
I've only debated this issue twice in a.a, and occasionally in t.a. The
first was in response to Simon Clippingdale's positive assertion that
disagreement about moral values inexorably acknowledges that morals
are relative. It doesn't. Now, Simon has dropped out of the debate
for some time; I take that to mean that he is either busy, or bored
with the topic. I certainly do not accuse him of dishonesty. Do you?
#>(d) I can't always understand what you say
#
#Neither can't I understand you all the time. Usually, one asks what the other
#side means.
Usually, one does. Usually you're clear, but sometimes you aren't
and I ask you what you mean; other times you seem to get extremely uptight
and I feel that I'm debating against line noise. Sometimes I get tired, and
sometimes I have other things I'd rather do. Again, this is USENET, and
life is tough all over. You're going to have to deal with it.
#>(e) You're starting to get personally insulting; I may not even put your name
#> in the hat in future.
#
#That's supposed to be a threat?
No, that's a simple statement, and an assertion that I am not answerable
to those who offer me baseless insults. For example, those who accuse me
of lying about my personal beliefs, while also complaining that I don't answer
their questions.
#>#Like that you what you sense is evidence for the sensed to be there.
#>#If only everything would be so easy.
#>
#>What almost everyone senses is evidence for the sensed to be there.
#>Because to all intents and purposes, it *is* there.
#> #We had that argument. For one, your claim that everyone senses it
#is not founded, and you have been asked to give evidence for it often.
#And then, the correct statement would be it is reason to assume that it
#is there unless evidence against it has been found.
I have no problem with the second statement. I have provided an
argument that almost everyone senses that Freedom is valuable - the
only cogent objection to this came from jon livesey, and was offered
by some other people too: essentially, that people disagree about
fuzzy concepts such as Freedom. It's a good point, and I'm thinking
about it.
#
#Your trick is to say, I feel A is not right, and so do many I know,
#therefore A is absolutely right. It neglects the possibility that
#these people consider A to be right as an effect of the same process,
#restricting the claim of its absoluteness to those who have been subject
#of that process. In other words, refutes it. You make the ontological
#claim, you have to prove it.
Nonsense. My "trick" is to say: I feel that A is better than B and so
does almost any disinterested person I ask. Best evidence is therefore
that A really is better than B, subject to the assumption that we
can establish to our mutual satisfaction what we mean by A and B, and
that the resulting system of values is self-consistent.
Now get this: "really is better" is an idealisation, a fictional model,
in the same sense that "real material existence" is a fictional model. It
may or may not correspond to something true. It is nonetheless a useful
_assumption_. Far more useful than the equally assumed relativist
"trick", to wit:
I feel that A is better than B, and so does almost any disinterested person
I ask. However, if even one person disagrees that A is better than B,
or if even one person dissents from mutually agreed definitions of A and B,
then it is the case that B is better than A for that person, and nothing
more can be said.
I say this is useless because it inexorably implies that a supermajority
seeking to maximise A cannot morally take action against someone seeking to
maximise B (e.g. a terrorist). To do that would be to claim that
a supermajority's carefully considered morality would be better than the
terrorist's - which would, of course, be true, but a no-no for an ethical
relativist. To claim that ethical relativism implies anything else is
simply weasel words, and an example of compartmentalisation to rival
anything in the world of religion.
#>#For a similar argument, I sense morality is subjective, it does not
#>#hurt me to do things that are considered to be objectively wrong by
#>#others.
#>
#>If you mean that you do things that some others consider objectively
#>wrong, and it turns out not to be the case for you - of course this
#>is possible. It is neither evidence for subjectivism, nor evidence
#>against objectivism (except sometimes, in a pragmatic sense).
#>
#It serves as a counterexample for that everything that is subject to
#judgements is absolute. And as long as you don't provide evidence for
#that there is something universally agreed upon there is no reason to
#believe your hypothesis.
I've done this: freedom, with the proviso that I still have to
answer jon's objection that fuzzy concepts like freedom have no
objective meaning.
#Further, in order to make morality absolute, universal, or objective,
#you would have to show that it is independent of humans, or the attributes
#above look quite misleading.
Not really. What evidence is there that _anything_ exists independently
of humans? You'll be hard pressed to find any that isn't logically
equivalent when applied to values.
#>An analogous set of premises would be:
#>
#>Premise 1: Some people believe that objectively speaking the shortest
#> route from my house to a bar is through the main entrance
#> of the estate, and down the Malahide road.
#>
#>Premise 2: I checked it out, and found that the shortest route from my
#> which is much closer.
#>
#>You would never deduce from these that there is no shortest route from my
#>house to a bar; yet that is seemingly how you derive your relativist claim,
#>using premises which are logically no different.
#>
#
#No. Morals are a matter of belief so far. The people still believe that the
#shortest way is through the main entrance. No agreement on *belief* here.
#And in order to have an analogy you would have to show that there is a
#shortest way and that there is a method to convince everyone of that it
#is the shortest way indeed. In other words, your analogy works only when
#one assumes that your premises are right in the first place. If not, it is
#a fallacy.
And if this were an argument for objectivism, you'd be right. It isn't,
though, it's a demonstration that the argument you gave me is neither argument
*against* objectivism, nor argument *for* relativism. Your gimmick is to
assume in the first place that values aren't real, and to use this to "prove"
that values aren't real. In other words, you beg the question against me.
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 0alt.atheism
|
ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) | Re: Ancient islamic rituals | ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia | cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes:
>Why is it more reasonable than the trend towards obesity and the trend towards
>depression? You can't just pick your two favorite trends, notice a correlation
>in them, and make a sweeping statement of generality. I mean, you CAN, and
>people HAVE, but that does not mean that it is a valid or reasonable thesis.
>At best it's a gross oversimplification of the push-pull factors people
>experience.
I agree, I reckon it's television and the increase in fundamentalism.. You
think its the increase in pre-marital sex... others thinks its because
psychologists have taken over the criminal justice system and let violent
criminals con them into letting them out into the streets... others think
it's the increase in designer drugs... others think it's a communist plot.
Basically the social interactions of all the changing factors in our society
are far too complicated for us to control. We just have to hold on to the
panic handles and hope that we are heading for a soft landing. But one
things for sure, depression and the destruction of the nuclear family is not
due solely to sex out of marriage.
Jeff.
>>
>> Fred Rice <-- a Muslim, giving his point of view.
>> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
>cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu
| 0alt.atheism
|
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) | Re: Slavery (was Re: Why is sex only allowed in marriage: ...) | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | > Oh, this all sounds so nice! Everyone helping each other and always smiling
> and fluffy bunnies everywhere. Wake up! People are just not like that. It
> seems evident from history that no society has succeeded when it had to rely
> upon the goodwill and unselfishness of the people. Isn't it obvious from
> places like Iran that even if there are only a few greedy people in society
> then they are going to be attracted to positions of power? Sounds like a
> recipe for disaster.
Looking at historical evidence such 'perfect utopian' islamic states
didn't survive. I agree, people are people, and even if you might
start an Islamic revolution and create this perfect state, it takes
some time and the internal corruption will destroy the ground rules --
again.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 0alt.atheism
|
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) | Re: A Little Too Satanic | null | Kent Sandvik and Jon Livesey made essentially the same response, so this
time Kent's article gets the reply:
>I agree, but this started at one particular point in time, and we
>don't know when this starting point of 'accurately copied scriptures'
>actually happened.
This begs the question of whether it ever "started"-- perhaps because
accuracy was always an intention.
>Even worse, if the events in NT were not written by eye witness accounts (a
>high probability looking at possible dates when the first Gospels were
>ready) then we have to take into account all the problems with information
>forwarded with the 'telephone metaphor', indeed.
It makes little difference if you have eyewitnesses or people one step away
(reporters, if you will). As I said earlier, the "telephone" metaphor is
innately bad, because the purpose of a game of telephone is contrary to the
aims of writing these sorts of texts. (Also, I would point out that, by the
standards generally asserted in this group, the distinction between
eyewitnesses and others is hollow, since nobody can be shown to be an
eyewitness, or indeed, even shown to be the author of the text.)
There is no evidence that the "original" texts of either the OT or the NT
are largely lost over time in a sea of errors, "corrections", additions and
deletions. In the case of the NT, the evidence is strongly in the other
direction: the Textus R. and the Nestle-Aland text do not differ on more
than a low level of significance. It is reasonable to assume a similar
situation for the OT, based on the NT as a model.
--
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
|
rush@leland.Stanford.EDU (Voelkerding) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA | In article <1qkn1t$59l@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>
>However, not only are the outputs of science subjectively valued, so are
>the inputs. More problems. Which facts to observe? What
>is a fact? When am I justified in valuing sensory input as signal rather
>than noise? How do I know that everyone makes the call the same as I
>do? As a loyal relativist, I must assume that what's signal for me
>may not be signal for you. The objectivity postulate should not sit
>well with me.
>
>So the relativist attends to a system, designed at whim, fed with what should
>be assumed to be conflicting data, in the expectation of results which need
>satisfy no-one. GIGO.
>
>--
>Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
>odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
As a loyal relativist, even you can partake in the wonders of
scientific discovery (to borrow a phrase from D. Letterman: "Are you
like me? Do you like science and medicine?").
Difference is that science is based on consensus. The points above are
well made, and obviously there is some discussion as to what the
facts are in some cases. But if you are willing to play along with
the definitions, you too can hit the jackpot. Science also tends to
use the principle of totality (vs locality). You can always look at a
small part of the macrocosm, yet those miniature pieces are still a
part of the total essence. So the facts to observe are those which
pertain to what questions you're asking. You may place a value on the
questions, but in many case, they are being asked just for the sake
of asking. And you can say that you're looking at a signal instead of
listening to noise, but the beauty of science is that it takes both
into account (the totality aspect). For science to say that light is
a wave and NOT a particle (or vice versa) would be to ignore the total
essence that is light (which is based upon the agreed upon definitions).
Why even have definitions? Why agree upon them? Well, to communicate in
such a way so that many will understand what you are saying. Where the
curiosity and drive come from I don't honestly know.
I hope I haven't rambled too much. (Not much sleep lately.)
Clyde
--
Little girls, like butterflies, don't need a reason!
- Robert Heinlein
| 0alt.atheism
|
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) | Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism | Monash University, Melb., Australia. | In <1993Apr19.140316.14872@cs.nott.ac.uk> eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes:
>In article <1993Apr19.112706.26911@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>|> (Great respect or love for a particular person does not equal a form of
>|> "theism".)
>|>
>|> Fred Rice
>|> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
>Hmm. What about Jesus?
Sure, a person could have great respect for Jesus and yet be an
atheist. (Having great respect for Jesus does not necessarily mean
that one has to follow the Christian [or Muslim] interpretation of
his life.)
Fred Rice
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
| 0alt.atheism
|
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) | Re: Don't more innocents die without the death penalty? | Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. | In article <2942881697.0.p00168@psilink.com> p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) writes:
>
>By maintaining classes D and E, even in prison, it seems as if we
>place more innocent people at a higher risk of an unjust death than
>we would if the state executed classes D and E with an occasional error.
>
I answer from the position that we would indeed place these people
in prison for life.
That depends not only on their predisposition towards murder, but
also in their success rate at escape and therefore their ability
to commit the same crimes again.
In other words, if lifetime imprisonment doesn't work, perhaps
it's not because we're not executing these people, but because
we're not being careful enough about how we lock them up.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| 0alt.atheism
|
dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood) | Request for Support | Software Engineering Institute |
I have a request for those who would like to see Charley Wingate
respond to the "Charley Challenges" (and judging from my e-mail, there
appear to be quite a few of you.)
It is clear that Mr. Wingate intends to continue to post tangential or
unrelated articles while ingoring the Challenges themselves. Between
the last two re-postings of the Challenges, I noted perhaps a dozen or
more posts by Mr. Wingate, none of which answered a single Challenge.
It seems unmistakable to me that Mr. Wingate hopes that the questions
will just go away, and he is doing his level best to change the
subject. Given that this seems a rather common net.theist tactic, I
would like to suggest that we impress upon him our desire for answers,
in the following manner:
1. Ignore any future articles by Mr. Wingate that do not address the
Challenges, until he answers them or explictly announces that he
refuses to do so.
--or--
2. If you must respond to one of his articles, include within it
something similar to the following:
"Please answer the questions posed to you in the Charley Challenges."
Really, I'm not looking to humiliate anyone here, I just want some
honest answers. You wouldn't think that honesty would be too much to
ask from a devout Christian, would you?
Nevermind, that was a rhetorical question.
--Dave Wood
| 0alt.atheism
|
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | sgi | In article <1993Apr19.151902.21216@st-andrews.ac.uk>, nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:
|> In article <1qsili$fme@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <1qlvh1$fh0@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> >|> In article <1qkn25$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >|>
|> >|> #Do you mean it's moral to use force on someone who advocates
|> >|> #the use of force?
|> >|>
|> >|> With a few provisos, yes. Minimum force, for a start. And, it
|> >|> depends on what is being forced (on either side).
|> >|>
|> >|> #Or do you mean that sometimes we have to use force on such
|> >|> #people out of necessity or self-defence, while recognizing
|> >|> #that our own actions in doing so are not moral?
|> >|>
|> >|> My opinion is that our actions would be moral, and it would be
|> >|> immoral not to act if action would be both necessary and effective.
|> >|> Again, there many caveats and provisios.
|> >|>
|> >|> Note, my usage of "my opinion" is an admission that I don't have a lock
|> >|> on morals, not that there is no truth about morality to have a lock on.
|> >
|> >You're admitting a lot more than that. You are admitting that
|> >your morals are situational. You are admitting that the actions
|> >of other people and the situation you are in help to determine
|> >how you judge the moral significance of one of your own actions.
|> >
|> >If you employ X degree of force, that's not moral, but if you employ
|> >X degree of force, but previously someone else has employed Y degree
|> >of force, and the situation is thus-and-so, that *is* moral.
|> >
|> >This is quite different from saying "Employing force on other people
|> >is immoral, period. Unfortunately, from time to time we are obliged
|> >to do this immoral thing for reasons of self-preservation, and so
|> >we have to bear the moral consequences of that.
|> >
|> >For what it's worth - and yes, I know you claim to be an agnostic -
|> >it's this ability to re-label things from "immoral" to "moral"
|> >that I find one of the *least* attractive qualities of the religious
|> >mind.
|> >
|> >jon.
|>
|> I think the application of computers to law has something to add to this
|> discussion. My knowledge of this is limited to reading a few papers in
|> it; I had set my students an essay on the topic so I had to know enough
|> to understand them.
|>
|> Before I did my reading, I was of the opinion that you could use a formal
|> language to define laws, and a formal system to decide whether they had
|> been broken or not. In principle you could leave it up to humans to find
|> out the lower-level facts, and then just feed them in to the computer,
|> which would be able to pronounce judgement. Or so I thought.
|>
|> From my reading I discovered that this is not yet possible, and may not be
|> possible in principle. The reason is that every case that comes to trial
|> is unique, with its own collection of special facts. It is beyond human
|> power to specify all the possible circumstances that may bear upon a case
|> in advance. We have to judge each one on its own merits, and simply take
|> the formal law as a guide. The law is an ass: we must be careful to use
|> it as a beast of burden and not expect anything more from it.
|>
|> How does this apply to this discussion? It makes me suspect anything that
|> claims to be and objective or absolute moral standard. If we had such a
|> standard, we'd be able to write it down unambiguously. Any such object
|> must say, "this is right, and that is wrong" - yet that is exactly
|> what research shows we can't do.
Just as well, then, that I'm not claiming that my own moral system is
absolute.
jon.
[list of references stretching from here to Alpha Centauri deleted.]
| 0alt.atheism
|
halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) | Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam | null | In article <115288@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>
>He'd have to be precise about is rejection of God and his leaving Islam.
>One is perfectly free to be muslim and to doubt and question the
>existence of God, so long as one does not _reject_ God. I am sure that
>Rushdie has be now made his atheism clear in front of a sufficient
>number of proper witnesses. The question in regard to the legal issue
>is his status at the time the crime was committed.
I'd have to say that I have a problem with any organization,
religious or not, where the idea that _simple speech_ such
as this is the basis for a crime.
-jim halat
| 0alt.atheism
|
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> | Alt.Atheism FAQ: Overview for New Readers | Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. | Archive-name: atheism/overview
Alt-atheism-archive-name: overview
Last-modified: 5 April 1993
Version: 1.2
Overview
Welcome to alt.atheism and alt.atheism.moderated.
This is the first in a series of regular postings aimed at new readers of the
newsgroups.
Many groups of a 'controversial' nature have noticed that new readers often
come up with the same questions, mis-statements or misconceptions and post
them to the net. In addition, people often request information which has
been posted time and time again. In order to try and cut down on this, the
alt.atheism groups have a series of five regular postings under the following
titles:
1. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Overview for New Readers
2. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Introduction to Atheism
3. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
4. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Constructing a Logical Argument
5. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Atheist Resources
This is article number 1. Please read numbers 2 and 3 before posting. The
others are entirely optional.
If you are new to Usenet, you may also find it helpful to read the newsgroup
news.announce.newusers. The articles titled "A Primer on How to Work With
the Usenet Community", "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Usenet"
and "Hints on writing style for Usenet" are particularly relevant. Questions
concerning how news works are best asked in news.newusers.questions.
If you are unable to find any of the articles listed above, see the "Finding
Stuff" section below.
Credits
These files could not have been written without the assistance of the many
readers of alt.atheism and alt.atheism.moderated. In particular, I'd like to
thank the following people:
kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold)
torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
kmldorf@utdallas.edu (George Kimeldorf)
roe2@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Roelofs)
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
mayne@open.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne)
ajr@bigbird.hri.com (Andy Rosen)
stoesser@ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser)
bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan)
lippard@ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
s1b3832@rigel.tamu.edu (S. Baum)
ydobyns@phoenix.princeton.edu (York H. Dobyns)
schroede@sdsc.edu (Wayne Schroeder)
baldwin@csservera.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
D_NIBBY@unhh.unh.edu (Dana Nibby)
dempsey@Kodak.COM (Richard C. Dempsey)
jmunch@hertz,elee.calpoly.edu (John David Munch)
pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
rz@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Richard Zach)
tycchow@math.mit.edu (Tim Chow)
simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
...and countless others I've forgotten.
These articles are free. Truly free. You may copy them and distribute them
to anyone you wish. However, please send any changes or corrections to the
author, and please do not re-post copies of the articles to alt.atheism; it
does nobody any good to have multiple versions of the same document floating
around the network.
Finding Stuff
All of the FAQ files *should* be somewhere on your news system. Here are
some suggestions on what to do if you can't find them:
1. Check the newsgroup alt.atheism. Look for subject lines starting with
"Alt.Atheism FAQ:".
2. Check the newsgroup news.answers for the same subject lines.
If you don't find anything in steps 1 or 2, your news system isn't set up
correctly, and you may wish to tell your system administrator about the
problem.
3. If you have anonymous FTP access, connect to rtfm.mit.edu [18.172.1.27].
Go to the directory /pub/usenet/alt.atheism, and you'll find the latest
versions of the FAQ files there.
FTP is a a way of copying files between networked computers. If you
need help in using or getting started with FTP, send e-mail to
mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with
send usenet/news.answers/ftp-list/faq
in the body.
4. There are other sites which also carry news.answers postings. The article
"Introduction to the news.answers newsgroup" carries a list of these
sites; the article is posted regularly to news.answers.
5. If you don't have FTP, send mail to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu
consisting of the following lines:
send usenet/news.answers/finding-sources
send usenet/alt.atheism/faq
send usenet/alt.atheism/introduction
send usenet/alt.atheism/logic
send usenet/alt.atheism/resources
5. (Penultimate resort) Send mail to mail-server@mantis.co.uk consisting of
the following lines:
send atheism/faq/faq.txt
send atheism/faq/logic.txt
send atheism/faq/intro.txt
send atheism/faq/resource.txt
and our poor overworked modems will try and send you a copy of the files.
There's other stuff, too; interesting commands to try are "help" and
"send atheism/index".
6. (Last resort) Mail mathew@mantis.co.uk, or post an article to the
newsgroup asking how you can get the FAQ files. You should only do this
if you've tried the above methods and they've failed; it's not nice to
clutter the newsgroup or people's mailboxes with requests for files.
it's better than posting without reading the FAQ, though! For instance,
people whose email addresses get mangled in transit and who don't have
FTP will probably need assistance obtaining the FAQ files.
mathew
ÿ
| 0alt.atheism
|
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) | Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW] | Monash University, Melb., Australia. | In <2942956021.3.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
>>DATE: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 10:00:39 GMT
>>FROM: Fred Rice <darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au>
>>
>>In <1p8ivt$cfj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>
>>>Should we British go around blowing up skyscrapers next?
>>
>>I don't know if you are doing so, but it seems you are implying
>>(1) that the person accused of blowing up the WTC in NY actually did it,
>>and
>>(2) that Islamic teachings have something to do with blowing up the WTC.
>>
>>[WTC = World Trade Centre, which was the building that was blown up, I
>>think.]
>>
>>Okay... to make some comments...
>>
>>(1) The person has only been accused -- innocent until proven guilty,
>>remember? Secondly, there seem to be some holes in his accusation that
>>I read about. For instance, if they guy used that particular van to
>>blow up the building, and then to go back and claim his deposit back
>>afterwards, he must be incredibly stupid.
>Perhaps Salamen was one of those "uneducated" Muslims we hear so much about.
>>Nevertheless, he was
>>apparently smart enough to put together a very sophisticated bomb. It
>>doesn't seem to fit together, somehow.
>Actually, Salameh was not the ONLY person involved. The other fellow was
>a chemical engineer working for Allied Signal who had specifically studied
>explosive devices in school (believe it or not - we actually allow radical
>Muslim types to study things like this in our universities - so much for
>the price of freedom)
From what I read, the other fellow told Salameh how to put it together
over the phone. The bomb was supposedly some sort of sophisticated
type, so to put a (I assume complicated) sophisticated bomb together
from instructions _over the phone_ (!) one must need some brains I would
expect.
>>Despite this, there have
>>already been many attacks and threats against mosques and Muslims in the
>>United States as a consequence of his accusation, I have read.
>>
>O.K., now please tell us where this is happening. I live in the U.S. and
>I have heard very little about these mosque attacks. There are many mosques
>in Houston, Texas and I would like to know what is going on so I can verify
>this. Or is the Great Jewish Media Conspiracy keeping us from knowing about
>this in the U.S. We heard about the mosque attacks during the Desert Storm
>venture, so why is it so quiet now? Maybe it is localized to New Jersey?
I read this in an article in "The Australian Muslim Times", the
newspaper (weekly) of the Australian Muslim community.
If this is true, perhaps one of the Muslims based in North America (if
they see this posting) can elaborate.
>>(2) Islamic teachings teach against harming the innocent. In the Qur'an
>>it explicitly teaches against harming innocents even in times of war.
>>The blowing up of the WTC and harming innocents is therefore in blatant
>>contradiction to Islamic teachings.
>This means absolutely nothing. Plenty of people commit violence while
>following what they think are valid religious principles. I have seen
>people post many things here from the Koran which could be "misinterpreted"
>(if that is the explanation you wish to use) by an "uneducated" Muslim to
>allow them to harm idolators and unbelievers. The first thing every Muslim
>says is that no Muslim could have done that because Islam teaches against
>harming innocents. And we are supposed to take you WORD that it NEVER
>happens. What do you think is the consequence? Does Allah strike them
>down before the "alleged" violence occurs? Of course not. Muslims commit
>the violent act and then everyone hides behind verses in the Koran. We're
>pretty hip to that trick. And I even doubt that it will come up in the
>trials.
>"My defense is that I am Muslim and Islam teaches me not to harm the innocent.
>Therefore, the people who were killed must not have been innocent. Sure we
>set off the bomb, your honor, but you must remember, sir, I am a Muslim.
>Allah is all-powerful. Allah would not have allowed this. Are you insulting
>my religion?"
>Great defense, eh?
>Just admit that there are some incredibly stupid, violent Muslims in the
>world and stop hiding from that fact. It does no one any good to deny it.
>It only makes the more reasonable Muslims look like they are protecting the
>bad ones. Can you see that?
I don't deny this fact.
The thrust of my argument here is that
(a) Salameh is, according to US law, innocent as he has not been found
guilty in a court of law. As his guilt has not been established, it is
wrong for people to make postings based on this assumption.
(b) Islam teaches us _not_ to harm innocents. If Muslims -- who perhaps
have not realized that Islam teaches this -- perform such actions, it is
_not_ _because_ of the teachings of Islam, but rather _in spite of_ and
_in contradiction to_ the teachings of Islam. This is an important
distinction.
I should clarify what Muslims usually mean when they say "Muslim". In
general, anyone who calls themselves a "Muslim" and does not do or
outwardly profess
something in clear contradiction with the essential teachings of Islam
is considered to be a Muslim. Thus, one who might do things contrary to
Islam (through ignorance, for example) does not suddenly _not_ become a
Muslim. If one knowingly transgresses Islamic teachings and essential
principles, though, then one does leave Islam.
The term "Muslim" is to be contrasted with "Mu'min", which means "true
believer". However, whether a Muslim is in reality a Mu'min is
something known only by God (and perhaps that person himself). So you
will not find the term Mu'min used very much by Muslims in alt.atheism,
because it is not known to anybody (except myself and God), whether I,
for example, am a "true believer" or not. For example, I could just be
putting on a show here, and in reality believe something opposite to
what I write here, without anyone knowing. Thus, when we say "Muslims"
we mean all those who outwardly profess to follow Islam, whether in
practice they might, in ignorance, transgress Islamic teachings. By
"Muslim" we do not necessarily mean "Mu'min", or "true believer" in
Islam.
Fred Rice
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
| 0alt.atheism
|
dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) | Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?) | Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada | In article <1r2j7d$6e1@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1993Apr17.041535.7472@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>|> According to Jerry Mander's _In the Absence of the Sacred_ (good
>|> book, BTW), the Great Binding Law of the Iroquois Confederacy
>|> also played a significant role as a model for the U.S. Constitution.
>|> Furthermore, apparently Marx and Engels were strongly influenced
>|> by a study of Iroquois society, using it as the prime example of
>|> a successful, classless, egalitarian, noncoercive society. Mander
>|> goes on to say that both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. would do well
>|> to study the original document, figure out where each went wrong,
>|> and try to get it right next time.
>
>That's fascinating. I heard that the Chinese, rather than
>the Italians, invented pasta.
That's fascinating. I take it that you're expressing skepticism
at the idea that those ignorant savages could have influenced
the Constitution of the people who stole their continent. You
could be right, but it sounds plausible to me. Is there any
reason that you dismiss it out-of-hand? Here's some more:
Recent scholarship has shown that in the mid-1700s Indians were not
only invited to participate in the deliberations of our "founding
fathers," but that the Great Binding Law of the Iroquois Confederacy
arguably became the single most important model for the 1754 Albany
Plan of Union, and later the Articles of Confederation and the
Constitution. That this would be absent from our school texts,
and from history, and from media is not surprising given the devotion
Americans feel to our founding myth: Great men gathered to express
a new vision that has withstood the test of time. If it were
revealed that Indians had a role in it, imagine the blow to the
American psyche.
...
By 1754, when most of these men and others gathered to creat the
Albany Plan of Union, the first try at confederation, they invited
forty-two members of the Iroquois Grand Council to serve as advisors
on confederate structures. Benjamin Franklin freely acknowledged
his interest in the Iroquois achievement in a famous speech at
Albany Congress: "It would be a strange thing...if six nations
of ignorant savages[sic] should be capable of forming such a union
and be able to execute it in such a manner that it has subsisted
for ages and appears indissoluble, and yet that a like union should
be impractical for ten or a dozen English colonies."
According to Grinde, Franklin convened meetings of Iroquois chiefs
and congressional delegates in order to "hammer out a plan that he
acknowedged to be similar to the Iroquois Confederacy."
Grinde is Professor Donald Grinde,Jr., of the University of California
at Riverside whose book _The Iroquois and the Founding Fathers of the
American Nation_ addresses this issue.
--
Doug Graham dgraham@bnr.ca My opinions are my own.
| 0alt.atheism
|
kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) | Re: Atheism survey | University of Oulu, Finland | I replied to this query via e-mail, but I think there are some
issues that are worth discussing in public.
MTA (mtabbott@unix.amherst.edu) wrote:
> 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 recommend you to take a look at
1) your dictionary
2) alt.atheism FAQ files
to notice that atheism is _not_ a belief system, and what is common
to all atheists is not a belief, but a _lack of belief in deities_.
I cannot imagine how anyone could do research on atheism without
paying careful attention to this issue.
> 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.
IMHO, this is a poor method to do any real survey, although I'm sure the
replies might keep you amused for hours.
> 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.
No, I do _not_ know what you mean. If you are surveying our individual
philosophies, fine, but that's not strictly atheism. Atheism is not
just another, godless version of the theistic explanations for life,
the universe and everything. It is not a belief system, and it could
hardly be called a philosophical system.
Once more: Atheism is characterised by lack of belief in deities.
Do not twist the meaning, or assume that we have some kind of
philosophy we all agree on.
Some comments on your questions:
> 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?)
I would also like to hear more about this. Have we been able to 'convert'
anyone?
> 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)?
This question contains a contradiction in terms. _Beliefs_
cannot be acquired rationally - if they could, they would not be
beliefs! You also seem to have rather strange ideas of how people become
atheists - those who are alienated from religion do not necessarily
become atheists, they just think very little about religion. It seems
it requires a considerable time of honest inquiry to find out that
religions are actually intellectually dishonest virtual realities.
Those who have never had beliefs will certainly find this question
quite odd - how can lack of belief be acquired? When did I acquire
lack of belief in the Easter Bunny? (I did believe in Santa, though ;-))
> 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?
This question does not make any sense, since atheism does not deal with
these issues - it is not a worldview, or a philosophy, or a belief system.
Sigh, why haven't I seen a good, well-thought survey in the Usenet
for three years... and what is the point of doing surveys in the net,
anyway? Just to abstract some opinions?
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
|
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) | Re: Political Atheists? | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena | bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>If I kill this person [an innocent person convicted of murder],
>>then a murder would be committed, but I would not be the murderer. At least,
>>I wouldn't "reasonably" be considered a murderer, with "reasonable" being
>>introduced as a fudge factor necessary to account for the inability to be
>>totally objective due to a lack of absolutely true information.
>If society collective decides to carry the burden of executing
>it's citizens, then it also carries the blame for their innocent
>blood. Each and every voter who casts a ballot in favor of
>capital punishment is in part guilty of the murder of each and
>every innocent victim of the system.
Why are only those people in favor of the system to blame. If society
accepts such a system, then each member of society is to blame when
an innocent person gets executed. Those that are not in favor should
work to convince others.
And, most members of our society have accepted the blame--they've considered
the risk to be acceptable. Similarly, every person who drives must accept
the blame for fatal traffic accidents. This is something that is surely
going to happen when so many people are driving. It is all a question of
what risk is acceptable. It is much more likely that an innocent person
will be killed driving than it is that one will be executed.
keith
| 0alt.atheism
|
salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences | In article <C5JrDE.M4z@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>Theory of Creationism: MY theistic view of the theory of creationism, (there
>are many others) is stated in Genesis 1. In the beginning God created
>the heavens and the earth.
Wonderful, now try alittle imaginative thinking!
| 0alt.atheism
|
bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) | Re: free moral agency | Okcforum Unix Users Group | Maddi Hausmann (madhaus@netcom.com) wrote:
: But how do we know that you're representing the REAL Christians?
: ;-)
: Bill, you're an asshole. Get lost.
Maddi,
I see that you still can't grasp the obvious, is it because your are devious
by nature, or can you only find fault with an argument by
misrepresenting it?
I plainly said that I was stating the Christian position as I
understand it, I did not say whether I agree with it since my point
was that the only flaws in that position are those atheists invent.
I have never claimed to be an expert on anything and especially
Christianity, but I have made it an object of pretty intense study
over the years, so I feel qualified to discuss what its general
propositions are.
What offends you is that I have exposed the distortions and
misrepresentations of Christianity you contrive and then rail against,
(which seems more like the classical strawman dodge than what I said)
This leaves you with nothing but to attack but me. As usual, you
avoid the larger issues by picking away at the insignificant stuff, why not
find one particular thing in my post that we can discuss, or can you
even tell me what the issues are?
Bill
| 0alt.atheism
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Atheists?) | Case Western Reserve University | In article <1993Apr17.225127.25062@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>You exagerate to the point of libel. I gave only unpopular reasons
>deliberately. Or do you think that we should have let Iraq absorb Kuwait?
>I could make the tired old 1939 Poland comparison, but I think you've
>heard it. But the principle aplies, never play a Chamberlain and
>roll over to another country being invaded. That only invites further
>invasions.
Perhaps we ought not to have supported a known genocidist?
Provided him with weapon systems, tactical support, technology,
etc.
We made Suddam Hussein.
What did Bush call him? Oh yes, an ally and a freind.
---
" I'd Cheat on Hillary Too."
John Laws
Local GOP Reprehensitive
Extolling "Traditional Family Values."
| 0alt.atheism
|
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Siemens-Nixdorf AG | In article <1993Apr20.115045.20756@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) writes:
#In <1r0fpv$p11@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp writes:
#>In article <1993Apr20.070156.26910@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI
#>(Mats Andtbacka) writes:
#
#># Ah, that old chestnut, your claim that moral objectivism ==
#>#scientific objectivism. I don't agree with it; now try proving, through
#>#some objective moral test, that my disagreeing is incorrect. =)
#>
#> Your claim, which you have deleted now was "not universal => not objective".
#
# I've deleted it now, in the interest of brevity. Go back a step
#and you'll see it was still in your post. Yes, that was my claim; if you
#can refute it, then please do so.
Firstly, an apology. You hadn't deleted your claim, and I was mistaken in
saying you had. Sorry for any offence caused.
Secondly, how can I refute your definition? I can only point up its
logical implications, and say that they seem to contradict the usage
of the word "objective" in other areas. Indeed, by your definition, an
objective x is an oxymoron, for all x. I have no quibble with that
belief, other than that it is useless, and that "objective" is a perfectly
good word.
#> So, what *is* objective? Not the age of the universe, anyway, as I show
#> above.
#
# How many ages can the universe have, and still be internally self-
#consistent? I'd be amazed if it was more than one. How many different
#moral systems can different members of society have - indeed, single
#individuals, in some cases - and humanity still stick together?
Begging the question. People can have many opinions about the age
of the universe and humanity can still stick together. You are
saying that the universe has a _real_ age, independent of my beliefs about
it. Why?
# The age of the universe, like most scientific facts, can be
#emirically verified through means that'll give the same result no matter
#who performs the testing (albeit there are error bars that may be on the
#largish side...).
This assumes that the universe has a real age, or any kind of reality
which doesn't depend on what we think. Why should an extreme Biblical
Creationist give a rat's ass about the means of which you speak?
#I've heard of no way to verify morality in a
#consistent way, much less compute the errors of the measurement; care to
#enlighten me?
The same is true of pain, but painkillers exist, and can be predicted
to work with some accuracy better than a random guess. I wrote
elsewhere that morality should be hypotheses about observed value.
If a moral system makes a prediction "It will be better if...",
that can be tested, and is falsifiable in the same way as a prediction
"This drug will relieve pain..."
# People's *ideas* about the age of object X are *not* objective;
#you can have any idea you like, and I can't stop you. Universae and
#their ages is another ballgame; they are what they are, and if you
#dislike some detail of them, that's a problem with your *opinion* of
#them.
Sure. Assume an objective reality, and you get statements like this.
#I claim that morality is an opinion of ours, and as such
#subjective and individual. If I'm wrong, then some more-or-less
#objectively "real" thing exists, which you label "objective morality";
#can you back up this positive claim of existence?
Can you back up your positive claim above? No. That's because it's an
assumption. I make the same assumption about values, on the basis
that there is no logical difference between the two, and the empirical
basis of the two is precisely the same.
#># 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.
#
# Take a look on the desk - i.e., perform a test. If(football) THEN
#(accept theory) ELSE DO (Tell people they're hallucinating).
#
# Now take a look at morality. See anything? If so, please inform me
#which way to look, and WHY to look that particular way, as opposed to
#some other. Get my drift?
No. Just look. Are you claiming never to know what good means?
#># *Science* is a whole other matter altogether.
#>
#> Says you. Prove that those who disagree are wrong?
#
# That's a simple(?) matter of proving the track record of the
#scientific method.
I think it's great, and should be applied to values. I may be completely
wrong, but that's what I conclude as a result of quite an amount of
thought.
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 0alt.atheism
|
rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota) | Re: Albert Sabin | The University of South Dakota Computer Science Dept. | In article <18APR199317500990@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In article <C5p660.36t@sunfish.usd.edu>, rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes...
>>In article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
some deleted
>>> 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? In addition, the four gospel accounts
>>> are very much in harmony.
>>
>>Bill, I have taken the time to explain that biblical scholars consider the
>>Josephus reference to be an early Christian insert. By biblical scholar I mean
>>an expert who, in the course of his or her research, is willing to let the
>>chips fall where they may. This excludes literalists, who may otherwise be
>>defined as biblical apologists. They find what they want to find. They are
>>not trustworthy by scholarly standards (and others).
>>
>>Why an insert? Read it - I have, a number of times. The passage is glaringly
>>out of context, and Josephus, a superb writer, had no such problem elsewhere
>>in his work. The passage has *nothing* to do with the subject matter in which
>>it lies. It suddenly appears and then just as quickly disappears.
>
>I think this is a weak argument. The fact is, there are *two* references to
>Jesus in _Antiquities of the Jews_, one of which has unquestionably at least
>been altered by Christians. Origen wrote, in the third century, that
>Josephus did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, while the long passage
>says the opposite. There is an Arabic manuscript of _Antiquities of the
>Jews_ which contains a version of the passage which is much less gung-ho
>for Jesus and may be authentic.
> There is no question that Origen, in the third century, saw a reference
>to Jesus in Josephus. There are no manuscripts of _Antiquities_ which
>lack the references.
>
>It is possible that it was fabricated out of whole cloth and inserted, but
>I don't think it's very likely--nor do I think there is a consensus in
>the scholarly community that this is the case. (I know G.A. Wells takes
>this position, but that's because he takes the very small minority view
>that Jesus never existed. And he is a professor of German, not of
>biblical history or New Testament or anything directly relevant to
>the historicity of Jesus.)
>
>Jim Lippard Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Evidently Jim thinks I am arguing an `existence' issue. It should be clear
from my response to Bill Rawlins above that in this thread I am objecting only
to the use of Josephus to validate the messiah claim. The argument against the
messiah claim is not weak (maybe mine is, but in the hands of pros it is not).
There are indeed two passages. The short one *cannot be used* to validate the
messiah claim, imo. That's why I refered to the long, which can be used. It
flatly states Jesus "was the Christ", and mentions the crucifixion,
resurrection and Christian belief in said claims.
The short entry mentions Jesus in passing as James' brother - "... brother of
Jesus, who *was called* the Christ, .... [emphasis mine]", and that's it.
If original, Josephus has merely reported what some people say. It is nothing
more than an observation, one which lacks the Christian fundamentals.
The long is widely regarded as an insert for three reasons: 1) its way out of
context, 2) Origen evidently knew nothing of it, and 3) its rather inconsistent
with the short. There is consensus among scholars as defined on the long as
insert, and I see Jim agrees. Consensus is usually reflected subtly, as in
Elaine Pagel's _Gnostic Gospels_ (p. 85), "A comment *attributed* to Josephus
reports ....[emphasis mine]". As for #2, I mentioned in my original post that
the long is a 3rd century insert (more properly, post-Origen as Jim notes).
There may not be consensus on the short. The text, which discusses James in a
legal role, stands with or without it. That it does not upset context makes it
difficult to argue insert. On the other hand, an in-passing insert is easily
disguised in any context. Nonetheless, on historiographical grounds it is
worthless for the messiah defense, and that's why I didn't mention it.
I don't know about the Arabic ms. If you have a translation reference, Jim,
please let me know. As for its "much less gung-ho" tone, obviously the date
of this ms. is critical. If after ca. AD 700, a watered-down entry in lieu
of removal can be easily explained.
*<(:-)
Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota
| 0alt.atheism
|
MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc. | In <C5JxBA.2Gq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu writes:
> In <1993Apr15.074615.957@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
> writes:
>>In <C5Hr14.Jxw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lis450bw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>>> My definition of objective would be absolute, or fixed, rather than
>>> subjective, or varying and changing.
>>
>> Inotherwords, any moral system (that _is_ still what we're talking
>>about, right?) can be 'objective', provided you stick to it no matter
>>what? Doesn't sound good to me, stifles progress.
>
> I hold that an objective moral system exists regardless of my knowledge or
> application of it. I relate it to the idea that there is scientific truth
> that is truth even though I may not know about it.
Aha; this would put the definition much closer to the moral
absolutism I'm more aquainted to debating.
> Some morals I wouldn't want to change, and would not consider it progress
> for a society to oneday say that rape and murder are ok.
We all agree that it's rather unlikely (as the definitions of
"rape" and "murder" are tied to the definitions of "evil", more like
impossible, actually); but what if some society, someday, actually hit
on a good, sound reason for _why_ rape and murder should be moral?
> Some underlying themes (morality, honesty, courage, respect, etc.) are
> used to base actions. I don't consider the idea that we should have
> been moral, should be moral now, and should be so in the future a
> limitation, when it includes such morality.
I don't quite parse this, but you seem to be saying, "absolute
morals are defensible, insofar as we consider them good". Which, of
course, is correct; but then you need an absolute definition of "good".
> Aberrances in a moral system, i.e. it is immoral to marry
> someone of the opposite sex, it is immoral to listen to rock and roll, etc.
Hang on - what's an "aberrance in a moral system"?
Do you mean "moral codes that seem useless or bad", perchance? But your
judgement of what exactly is 'useless' and/or 'bad' is your own opinion;
subjective, not objective.
> [...] if specific actions are given
> moral status I tend to question those morals.
Me too, and add in all unmotivated morals and laws as well.
> MAC
--
Disclaimer? "It's great to be young and insane!"
| 0alt.atheism
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: free moral agency | Case Western Reserve University | In article <C5uzpE.18p@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>What offends you is that I have exposed the distortions and
>misrepresentations of Christianity you contrive and then rail against,
>(which seems more like the classical strawman dodge than what I said)
>This leaves you with nothing but to attack but me. As usual, you
>avoid the larger issues by picking away at the insignificant stuff, why not
>find one particular thing in my post that we can discuss, or can you
>even tell me what the issues are?
Let me guess: you're not a psycho-analyst in real life, but you play
one on alt.atheism. Right?
Is ESP something you have been given by God?
---
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
|
healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) | Re: Studies on Book of Mormon | Walla Walla College | In article <735023059snx@enkidu.mic.cl> agrino@enkidu.mic.cl (Andres Grino Brandt) writes:
>From: agrino@enkidu.mic.cl (Andres Grino Brandt)
>Subject: Studies on Book of Mormon
>Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 14:15:33 CST
>Hi!
>
>I don't know much about Mormons, and I want to know about serious independent
>studies about the Book of Mormon.
>
>I don't buy the 'official' story about the gold original taken to heaven,
>but haven't read the Book of Mormon by myself (I have to much work learning
>Biblical Hebrew), I will appreciate any comment about the results of study
>in style, vocabulary, place-names, internal consistency, and so on.
>
>For example: There is evidence for one-writer or multiple writers?
>There are some mention about events, places, or historical persons later
>discovered by archeologist?
>
>Yours in Collen
>
>Andres Grino Brandt Casilla 14801 - Santiago 21
>agrino@enkidu.mic.cl Chile
>
>No hay mas realidad que la realidad, y la razon es su profeta
I don't think the Book of Mormon was supposedly translated from Biblical
Hebrew. I've read that "prophet Joseph Smith" traslated the gold tablets
from some sort of Egyptian-ish language.
Former Mormons, PLEASE post.
Tammy "no trim" Healy
| 0alt.atheism
|
halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) | Re: Rawlins debunks creationism | null | In article <1r9fuj$bdi@lll-winken.llnl.gov>, dk@imager (Dave Knapp) writes:
>In article <C5wo5C.EBv@sunfish.usd.edu> rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes:
>>
>>Simply put, evolution/creation when each is looked at properly - theory/fact
>>vs. assertion/fiction - is a specific example of exactly what separates reason
>>and science from nonsense.
>
> Although I agree that creation is nonsense, I submit that you are making
>the same mistake that creationists commonly do. In this and previous posts,
>I think you have been engaging in the fallacy of false dichotomy; you have
>consistently characterized science/religion as rationalism/nonsense, when
>in fact the latter do not form a complete set of options. Neither do the
>former, for that matter.
I just want clarify that I was the one making previous posts about
this, but the one above is not mine; it is a criticism of one of
mine. I have never equated science/religion to rationalism/nonsense
or to anything else for that matter. What I did was equate
evolution/creation to theory/assertion.
>
> I wish that the semi-explicit linking of evolution to so-called "rational"
>atheism could be avoided; it just gives the creationists fuel for their
>often-repeated incantation that "evolution leads to atheism."
>
I believe the link you are talking about does not occur with my posts.
--
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
|
bobs@thnext.mit.edu (Robert Singleton) | Re: Americans and Evolution | Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology | In article <16BA8C4AC.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
> In article <1pq47tINN8lp@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
> bobs@thnext.mit.edu (Robert Singleton) writes:
>
> (Deletion)
> >
> >I will argue that your latter statement, "I believe that no gods exist"
> >does rest upon faith - that is, if you are making a POSITIVE statement
> >that "no gods exist" (strong atheism) rather than merely saying I don't
> >know and therefore don't believe in them and don't NOT believe in then
> >(weak atheism). Once again, to not believe in God is different than
> >saying I BELIEVE that God does not exist. I still maintain the
> >position, even after reading the FAQs, that strong atheism requires
> >faith.
> >
>
> No it in the way it is usually used. In my view, you are saying here
> that driving a car requires faith that the car drives.
>
I'm not saying this at all - it requires no faith on my part to
say the car drives because I've seen it drive - I've done more
than at in fact - I've actually driven it. (now what does require
some faith is the belief that my senses give an accurate representation
of what's out there....) But there is NO evidence - pro or con -
for the existence or non-existence of God (see what I have to
say below on this).
> For me it is a conclusion, and I have no more faith in it than I
> have in the premises and the argument used.
>
Sorry if I remain skeptical - I don't believe it's entirely a
conclusion. That you have seen no evidence that there IS a God
is correct - neither have I. But lack of evidence for the existence
of something is in NO WAY evidence for the non-existence of something
(the creationist have a similar mode of argumentation in which if they
disprove evolution the establish creation). You (personally) have never
seen a neutrino before, but they exist. The "pink unicorn" analogy breaks
down and is rather naive. I have a scientific theory that explains the
appearance of animal life - evolution. When I draw the conclusion that
"pink unicorns" don't exist because I haven't seen them, this conclusion
has it's foundation in observation and theory. A "pink unicorn", if
it did exist, would be qualitatively similar to other known entities.
That is to say, since there is good evidence that all life on earth has
evolved from "more primitive" ancestors these pink unicorns would share
a common anscestory with horses and zebras and such. God, however,
has no such correspondence with anything (IMO). There is no physical
frame work of observation to draw ANY conclusions FROM.
> >But first let me say the following.
> >We might have a language problem here - in regards to "faith" and
> >"existence". I, as a Christian, maintain that God does not exist.
> >To exist means to have being in space and time. God does not HAVE
> >being - God IS Being. Kierkegaard once said that God does not
> >exist, He is eternal. With this said, I feel it's rather pointless
> >to debate the so called "existence" of God - and that is not what
> >I'm doing here. I believe that God is the source and ground of
> >being. When you say that "god does not exist", I also accept this
> >statement - but we obviously mean two different things by it. However,
> >in what follows I will use the phrase "the existence of God" in it's
> >'usual sense' - and this is the sense that I think you are using it.
> >I would like a clarification upon what you mean by "the existence of
> >God".
> >
>
> No, that's a word game.
I disagree with you profoundly on this. I haven't defined God as
existence - in fact, I haven't defined God. But this might be
getting off the subject - although if you think it's relevant
we can come back to it.
>
> Further, saying god is existence is either a waste of time, existence is
> already used and there is no need to replace it by god, or you are
> implying more with it, in which case your definition and your argument
> so far are incomplete, making it a fallacy.
>
You are using wrong categories here - or perhaps you misunderstand
what I'm saying. I'm making no argument what so ever and offering no
definition so there is no fallacy. I'm not trying to convince you of
anything. *I* Believe - and that rests upon Faith. And it is inappropriate
to apply the category of logic in this realm (unless someone tells you
that they can logically prove God or that they have "evidence" or ...,
then the use of logic to disprove their claims if fine and necessary).
BTW, an incomplete argument is not a fallacy - some things are not
EVEN wrong.
>
> (Deletion)
> >One can never prove that God does or does not exist. When you say
> >that you believe God does not exist, and that this is an opinion
> >"based upon observation", I will have to ask "what observtions are
> >you refering to?" There are NO observations - pro or con - that
> >are valid here in establishing a POSITIVE belief.
> (Deletion)
>
> Where does that follow? Aren't observations based on the assumption
> that something exists?
>
I don't follow you here. Certainly one can make observations of
things that they didn't know existed. I still maintain that one
cannot use observation to infer that "God does not exist". Such
a positive assertion requires a leap.
> And wouldn't you say there is a level of definition that the assumption
> "god is" is meaningful. If not, I would reject that concept anyway.
>
> So, where is your evidence for that "god is" is meaningful at some
> level?
Once again you seem to completely misunderstand me. I have no
EVIDENCE that "'god is' is meaningful" at ANY level. Maybe such
a response as you gave just comes naturally to you because so
many people try to run their own private conception of God down
your throat. I, however, am not doing this. I am arguing one, and
only one, thing - that to make a positive assertion about something
for which there can in principle be no evidence for or against
requires a leap - it requires faith. I am, as you would say, a
"theist"; however, there is a form of atheism that I can respect -
but it must be founded upon honesty.
> Benedikt
--
bob singleton
bobs@thnext.mit.edu
| 0alt.atheism
|
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) | Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!! | Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept. | In article <8473@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk> martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman) 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!!!
>>
>Oh fuck off.
Actually, I just think he's confused. *I'm* going to hell because I'm Gay,
not becuase I don't believe in God.
(I wonder if that means I can't come to Tammy & Deans picnic?)
--
=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???=
= "Because I'm the Daddy. That's why." =
| 0alt.atheism
|
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) | Re: Objective morality (was Re: <Political Atheists?) | sgi | In article <1ql7utINN5sg@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >I want to know how this omniscient being is going to perform
|> >the feat of "definitely" terming actions right or wrong.
|>
|> If you were omniscient, you'd know who exactly did what, and with what
|> purpose in mind. Then, with a particular goal in mind, you sould be
|> able to methodically judge whether or not this action was in accordance
|> with the general goal.
But now you are contradicting yourself in a pretty massive way,
and I don't think you've even noticed.
In another part of this thread, you've been telling us that the
"goal" of a natural morality is what animals do to survive.
But suppose that your omniscient being told you that the long
term survival of humanity requires us to exterminate some
other species, either terrestrial or alien.
Does that make it moral to do so?
jon.
| 0alt.atheism
|
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!! | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <93108.020701TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu>
Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>In article <93106.155002JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu> <JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!! BE
>>>PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!!
>>
>>readers of the group. How convenient that he doesn't have a real name...
>>Let's start up the letters to the sysadmin, shall we?
>
>His real name is Jeremy Scott Noonan.
>vmoper@psuvm.psu.edu should have at least some authority,
>or at least know who to email.
>
POSTMAST@PSUVM.BITNET respectively P_RFOWLES or P_WVERITY (the sys admins)
at the same node are probably a better idea than the operator.
Benedikt
| 0alt.atheism
|
dewey@risc.sps.mot.com (Dewey Henize) | Re: The Inimitable Rushdie | Motorola, Inc. -- Austin,TX |
Is it just me, or has this part gotten beyond useful?
Gregg is not, as I understand his posts, giving any support to the bounty
on Rushdie's life. If that's correct, end of one point...
Gregg is using the concept of legal in a way most Westerners don't accept.
His comments about Islamic Law I think make a great deal of sense to him,
and are even making a _little_ sense to me now - if a person is a member
of a group (religion or whatever) they bind themselves to follow the ways
of the group within the bounds of what the group requires as a minimum.
The big bone of contention here that I'm picking up is that in the West
we have secular governments that maintain, more or less, a level of control
and of requirements outside the requirements of optional groups. I think
the majority of us reading this thread are in tune (note - I didn't say
"in agreement") with the idea that you are finally responsible to the
secular government, and within that to the group or groups a person may
have chosen.
With that in mind, it not possible under secular law ("legally" as most
people would define the term) to hold a person to a particular group once
they decide to separate from it. Only if the secular authorities agree
that there is a requirement of some sort (contractual, etc) is there
any secular _enforcement_ allowed by a group to a group member or past
group member.
A religion can, and often does, believe in and require additional duties
of a group member. And it can enforce the fulfillment of those duties
in many ways - ostracism is common for example. But the limit comes when
the enforcement would impose unwanted and/or unaccepted onus on a person
_in conflict with secular law_.
This is the difference. In a theocracy, the requirements of the secular
authorities are, by definition, congruent with the religious authorities.
Outside a theocracy, this is not _necessarily_ true. Religious requirements
_may_ coincide or may not. Similiarly, religious consequences _may_ or
may not coincide with secular consequences (if any).
Regards,
Dew
--
Dewey Henize Sys/Net admin RISC hardware (512) 891-8637 pager 928-7447 x 9637
| 0alt.atheism
|
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) | Re: free moral agency | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | In article <C5pxqs.LM5@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu
(Bill Conner) wrote:
> As for your question of moral free-agency, given the Christian
> position above, the freedom we have is to acknowledge God. The
> morality we practice is a direct outgrowth of how we excercise that
> freedom. You are free to ignore God in the same way you are free to
> ignore gravity and the consequences are inevitable and well known
> in both cases. That an atheist can't accept the evidence means only
> that he prefers not to accept it, it says nothing about the evidence
> itself.
I agree, I had a hard feeling not believing my grand-grand mother
who told me of elves dancing outside barns in the early mornings.
I preferred not to accept it, even if her statement provided
the truth itself. Life is hard.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 0alt.atheism
|
bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) | Re: free moral agency | Okcforum Unix Users Group | Kent Sandvik (sandvik@newton.apple.com) wrote:
: I agree, I had a hard feeling not believing my grand-grand mother
: who told me of elves dancing outside barns in the early mornings.
: I preferred not to accept it, even if her statement provided
: the truth itself. Life is hard.
Kent,
Truly a brilliant rebuttal. Apparently you are of the opinion that
ridicule is a suitable substitute for reason; you'll find plenty of
company a.a
Bill
| 0alt.atheism
|
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) | Re: thoughts on christians | Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. | In article <ofnWyG600WB699voA=@andrew.cmu.edu> pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Patrick C Leger) writes:
>EVER HEAR OF
>BAPTISM AT BIRTH? If that isn't preying on the young, I don't know what
>is...
>
No, that's praying on the young. Preying on the young comes
later, when the bright eyed little altar boy finds out what the
priest really wears under that chasible.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| 0alt.atheism
|
danb@shell.portal.com (Dan E Babcock) | Re: Christian Morality is | Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data) | In article <4963@eastman.UUCP> dps@nasa.kodak.com writes:
>In article 21627@ousrvr.oulu.fi, kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes:
>|>Dan Schaertel,,, (dps@nasa.kodak.com) wrote:
>|>
>|>
>|>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 ... ?
Right.
>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?
The Branch Dividians were. They believed and trusted so much that it became
impossible to turn back to reality. What you are advocating is total
irreversible brainwashing.
Dan
| 0alt.atheism
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: free moral agency | Case Western Reserve University | In article <C5uuL0.n1C@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>Many of the atheists posting here argue against their own parody of
>religion; they create some ridiculous caricature of a religion and
>then attack the believers within that religion and the religion itself
>as ridiculous. By their own devices, they establish a new religion, a
>mythology.
That is not an "atheism mythology" in any sense of the word.
"Religious paradoy" would be significantly more appropriate.
The 2nd part is rendered null and void by the simple fact that I
do know several "strong" atheists. I am sure that others do. I myself am
"strong" in the sense that I find the standard concept of God without any
meaning. Any attempt to bring meaning either results in the destruction of
the viability of language, or in internal self contradiction.
The concept of strong atheism is not just a whimsical fantasy. They,
and I, exist.
Your strawman is pointless and weak.
---
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
|
king@ctron.com (John E. King) | Re: Rawlins debunks creationism | Cabletron Systems Inc. |
vickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>Here's another quote from the same source as your quote above:
>"Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But
>they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a
>fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two
>centuries from geology, paleontology, molecular biology and many other
>scientific disciplines. Despite the many believers in Divine creation
>who dispute this ..., the probability that evolution has occurred
>approaches certainty in scientific terms." (Hitching, _The Neck of
>the Giraffe_).
Of course. Hitchings believes in evolution. The purpose of the quote I
sited was to show the ambivalance that evolutionists have with their own
theory. For example, on page 107 he states, "...one may question an
evolution theory so beset by doubts among even those who teach it. If
Darwinism is truely the great unifying principle of biology, it encompasses
extraordinarily large areas of ignorance. It fails to explain some of the
basic questions of all -- how lifeless chemicals came alive, what rules of
grammer lie behind the genetic code, how genes shap and form living things."
Jack
| 0alt.atheism
|
qpliu@ernie.Princeton.EDU (q.p.liu) | Re: Christian Morality is | Princeton University | In article <4949@eastman.UUCP> dps@nasa.kodak.com writes:
>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".
Why don't you cite the passages so that we can focus on some to discuss.
Then, following Jesus, you can make fools of us and our "logic".
> If you rely simply on your reason then you will never
>know more than you do now.
Indeed, if you can justifiably make this assertion, you must be a
genius in logic and making fools of us should be that much easier.
--
qpliu@princeton.edu Standard opinion: Opinions are delta-correlated.
| 0alt.atheism
|
cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | University of Illinois at Urbana | If some society came up with a good reason for why rape and murder are ok I
would be consistent with my position and hold that it was still wrong. My
basis of morality is not on societal norms, or on current legalities. My basis
is, surprise surprise, on both the Bible and on inherent moral abhorrences, for
lack of a better way to put it, to certain things. Yes, that's vague, and the
only way I know off the top of my head to defend it is to say that all humans
are similarly made. Yes, that falls into the trap of creation, and why follow
the Bible. My arguments are that it is better to exhibit trust, goodness,
love, respect, courage, and honesty in any society rather than deceipt, hatred,
disrespect, "cowardness", and dishonesty. No, I haven't been everywhere and
seen everyone, but, according to my thesis, I don't have to, since I hold that
we were all created similarly. If that makes an unfalsifiable thesis, just say
so, and I'll both work out what I can and punt to fellow theists.
MAC
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
With new taxes and spending cuts we'll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.
| 0alt.atheism
|
pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) | Re: Albert Sabin | The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'. | In article <1pq63o$n7t@access.digex.net>
huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>In article <1ph4c8$8j6@shrike.und.ac.za>
dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) writes:
>}Herb Huston (huston@access.digex.com) wrote:
>}: Actually, cannibalism is quite widespread. My favorite examples are sand
>}: sharks and mackerel sharks. The fetuses begin cannibalizing each other, and
>}: the one that is eventually born enters the sea with a full stomache. Would
>}: you like some more gruesome examples?
>}Fair enough - I'm pretty well aware of the examples used - and mine were very
>}rapidly and thoughtlessly pulled out of thin air, but the point I'm making is
>}that our non-cannibalism doesn't imply any `value' over other animals.
>Did something happen while I wasn't looking? When did _Homo sapiens_ become
>non-cannibalistic?
Including ritualized cannibalism where the act itself becomes sacred?
| 0alt.atheism
|
rush@leland.Stanford.EDU (Voelkerding) | Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Atheists?) | DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA | In article <11812@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.205414.3982@leland.Stanford.EDU> rush@leland.Stanford.EDU (Voelkerding) writes:
>>
>>If we worry about the one case in 20,000 (or more) where an innocent man is
>>convicted of something horrible enough to warrant the death penalty, and
>>hence put laws into place which make it virtually impossible to actually
>>execute real criminals, then the death penalty is not serving its original
>>purpose. It should either be changed or done away with.
>>
>
> I don't have numbers to back this up, so take the following
> accordingly.
>
> You use an off-the-cuff number of 1 in 20,000 innocent people
> sentenced to die as an acceptable loss for the benefit of capital
> punishment. I'd be very, very surprised if the ratio were that
> low. There have been approximately a dozen known cases of the
> execution of the innocent in the US since the turn of the century.
> Have we in that same period sentenced 240,000 people to death?
> Accounting for those cases that we don't know the truth, it seems
> reasonable to assume that twice that many innocent people have in
> fact been executed. That would raise the number of death
> sentences metered out since 1900 to half a million for your
> acceptance ratio to hold. I rather doubt that's the case.
>
>
> The point, of course, is what *is* an acceptable loss. 1 in
> 10,000? Seems we're probably not doing even that well. 1 in 100?
> 1 in 2? Or should we perhaps find a better solution?
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>
>Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
>
Any suggestions as to what a better solution might be? I realize the
off-hand nature of the numbers I used. And I can't answer as to what
an acceptable loss rate is. However, as I said in another post, I
despise the idea of supporting criminals for life. It's the economics
of the situation that concern me most. The money spent feeding, clothing,
housing and taking care of people who have demonstrated that they are
unfit to live in society could go to a number of places, all of which
I, and probably others, would consider far more worthwhile and which
would enrish the lives of all Americans. Give people jobs, give the
homeless shelter. Any number of things.
Clyde
--
Little girls, like butterflies, don't need a reason!
- Robert Heinlein
| 0alt.atheism
|
perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) | Re: Hoban (was Re: The Inimitable Rushdie) | Decision Support Inc. | In article <116540@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
[Interchange on Hoban deleted]
>This post of mine also illustrates that I am not simply a reactionary
>who hates any book which doesn't go out of its way to avoid upsetting
>religionists.
Only those you haven't actually read? Sorry, but the irony remains.
>I reiterate for the nth time also that I don't agree with K's fatwa,
>nor do I support censorship. My point in the original thread has been
>to show why Rushdie is not particularly due sympathy by those who hold
>their religion in high esteem and don't enjoy seeing things which slander
>it (like the story of the Satanic Verses (as opposed to the Rushdie's
>_TSV_)) played with for amusement.
So although you don't agree with the fatwa, and apparently don't think
Rushdie should be killed for his book, yet you think he is not due
sympathy for being being under this threat. Furthermore you base this
reaction solely on the fact that he wrote about a particular
well-known story which -- if true -- might reflect poorly on the
absolute truth of your religion. Yet, this opinion is formed without
recourse to actually looking to see how the story is used in context,
accepting at face value the widespread propaganda on just what this
book contains and what the author's motivations are. And then you
come forward and recommend another book which touches on (presumably
"plays with") religious/historical material because you find its
overall presentation neutral!
--
Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
| 0alt.atheism
|
healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) | Re: note to Bobby M. | Walla Walla College | In article <1993Apr14.190904.21222@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>From: mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
>Subject: Re: note to Bobby M.
>Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 19:09:04 GMT
>In article <1993Apr14.131548.15938@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>>In <madhausC5CKIp.21H@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>>
>>>Mark, how much do you *REALLY* know about vegetarian diets?
>>>The problem is not "some" B-vitamins, it's balancing proteins.
>>>There is also one vitamin that cannot be obtained from non-animal
>>>products, and this is only of concern to VEGANS, who eat no
>>>meat, dairy, or eggs. I believe it is B12, and it is the only
>>>problem. Supplements are available for vegans; yes, the B12
>>>does come from animal by-products. If you are on an ovo-lacto
>>>vegetarian diet (eat dairy and eggs) this is not an issue.
>
>I didn't see the original posting, but...
>Yes, I do know about vegetarian diets, considering that several of my
>close friends are devout vegetarians, and have to take vitamin supplements.
>B12 was one of the ones I was thinking of, it has been a long time since
>I read the article I once saw talking about the special dietary needs
>of vegetarians so I didn't quote full numbers. (Considering how nice
>this place is. ;)
>
>>B12 can also come from whole-grain rice, I understand. Some brands here
>>in Australia (and other places too, I'm sure) get the B12 in the B12
>>tablets from whole-grain rice.
>
>Are you sure those aren't an enriched type? I know it is basically
>rice and soybeans to get almost everything you need, but I hadn't heard
>of any rice having B12.
>
>>Just thought I'd contribute on a different issue from the norm :)
>
>You should have contributed to the programming thread earlier. :)
>
>> Fred Rice
>> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
>
>M^2
>
If one is a vegan (a vegetarian taht eats no animal products at at i.e eggs,
milk, cheese, etc., after about 3 years of a vegan diet, you need to start
taking B12 supplements because b12 is found only in animals.) Acutally our
bodies make B12, I think, but our bodies use up our own B12 after 2 or 3
years.
Lacto-oveo vegetarians, like myself, still get B12 through milk products
and eggs, so we don't need supplements.
And If anyone knows more, PLEASE post it. I'm nearly contridicting myself
with the mish-mash of knowledge I've gleaned.
Tammy
| 0alt.atheism
|
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: An Anecdote about Islam | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <115687@bu.edu>
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
(deletion)
>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."
>
Straw man. And you brought up leniency.
>>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.
>
Assuming that misjudgements are not correlated.
(Deletion)
>>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.
>
Has been discussed here. Chapter and verse were cited, I assume that you
weren't looking then.
Let's be more exact, do you think it is not in the Quran?. And what would
your consequences be when it it was shown to be in 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.
>
I have not claimed that. It is sufficient for the argument when there are
a lot of male dominated societies that qualify as Machistic. Are you going
to say that the situation of women is better in sufficeint areas of the
Orient?
(Deletion)
>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.
>
You apparently have trouble reading things you don't like. The point was
having sex the way one wishes being a strong desire. Marriage is a red
herring. Tell me about homosexuals, for one. You simply ignore everything
that doesn't fit into the world as you would like to have it.
And as for the situation of adolescents, one has probably keep your
combination of leniency and maiming in mind, whe you say that it does
not take *overly* strong measures to suppress the urge for sex in
adolescents.
Benedikt
| 0alt.atheism
|
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) | Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW] | Boston University Physics Department | In article <11855@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <116003@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>>This supports nothing. I have no reason to believe that this is
>>piece is anything other than another anti-Islamic slander job.
>>I have no respect for titles, only for real content. I can look
>>up this article if I want, true. But I can tell you BCCI was _not_
>>an Islamic bank. Seeing as I'm spending my time responding to
>>propaganda (in responding to this little sub-thread) I really
>>don't feel a deep need to do more than make statements to the
>>effect that the propaganda is false. If someone wants to discuss
>>the issue more seriously then I'd be glad to have a real discussion,
>>providing references, etc.
> But you must admit that this is a more thorough argument
> supporting a proposition than your 'it's propganda because I say
> so'. I hope you can see why we might not find this argument
> compelling. If you want to refute a point, then do so, but do it
> right.
Well, again, I am doing as much as the poster I was replying too. I am
quite busy and really don't have the time to respond in full scholarly
form to every accusation that is flippantly made by someone who's
being clearly antagonistic.
> And have you ever considered that perhaps these people actually
> believe what they say? That they are not just spreading
> propaganda?
I have considered it. But if someone spreads falsehoods out of
ignorance then they are still spreading falsehoods. Those falsehoods
generally do not come out of nowhere but are produced by people
who know that what they are saying is (at _least_) not the whole
truth. I still consider such spreading of falsehoods propaganda
on some level.
> I'm not in a position to say, since I know nothing
> about the situation. That does not, in my estimation, qualify me
> as having my head up my ass.
Bob, I never accused you of having your head up your ass! It takes
me quite some time in dealing with someone before accusing them of
having their head up their ass. I was accusing the original poster
(Benedikt, I believe) of being so impaired.
Cheers,
Gregg
| 0alt.atheism
|
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) | Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam | Boston University Physics Department | In article <1993Apr15.163317.20805@cs.nott.ac.uk> eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (C.Wainwright) writes:
>In article <115437@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>|> The authorities I am referring to is the authority of the world
>|> Islamic community over itself. My point was simply that Islamic
>|> law does apply to muslims wherever they are despite the fact that
>|> Islamic law may not be enforcable in non-Islamic countries.
>Muslims residing in the UK may decide to be 'tried' (or whatever) by the
>Islamic community, but their rulings have no legal consequences in these
>isles.
It's not really their _decision_ to be tried. The rulings _do_ have
legal consequences, but only in Islamic law and not in UK law (this
should be obvious). Enforcing a judgment is distinct from the making
of a judgment. Take for example the judgments of the World Court. This
is an internationally recognized tribunal whose judgments often have no
physical or economic effect but which _are_ important despite the fact
that their judgments cannot be enforced
>The person may be excommunicated (or similar) but if it decided to
>mete out violent laws such as the fatwa then it would be breaking UK laws
>itself, and the persons doing such would be liable to prosecution.
Of course, have you read any of this thread before this post?
> To ignore
>the country's laws in preference to religious laws which are not indigenous
>to the country in question is an absurd and arrogant notion.
Of course, it is a sort of anarchism. Anarchism is explicitly against
Islam. Thank you for your well reasoned response, but it is beside the
points I've been making in this thread.
Gregg
| 0alt.atheism
|
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> | Re: <Political Atheists? | Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. | kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
> ( I am almost sure that Zyklon-B is immediate and painless method of
> death. If not, insert soem other form. )
>
> And, ethnic and minority groups have been killed, mutilated and
> exterminated through out history, so I guess it was not unusual.
>
> So, you would agree that the holocost would be allowed under the US
> Constitution? [ in so far, the punishment. I doubt they recieved what would
> be considered a "fair" trial by US standards.
Don't be so sure. Look what happened to Japanese citizens in the US during
World War II. If you're prepared to say "Let's round these people up and
stick them in a concentration camp without trial", it's only a short step to
gassing them without trial. After all, it seems that the Nazis originally
only intended to imprison the Jews; the Final Solution was dreamt up partly
because they couldn't afford to run the camps because of the devastation
caused by Goering's Total War. Those who weren't gassed generally died of
malnutrition or disease.
mathew
| 0alt.atheism
|
cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | University of Illinois at Urbana | In <sfnNTrC00WBO43LRUK@andrew.cmu.edu> "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu>
writes:
>After tons of mail, could we move this discussion to alt.religion?
Yes.
MAC
>=============================================================
>--There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke. (Bob Dylan)
>--"If you were happy every day of your life you wouldn't be a human
>being, you'd be a game show host." (taken from the movie "Heathers.")
>--Lecture (LEK chur) - process by which the notes of the professor
>become the notes of the student without passing through the minds of
>either.
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
With new taxes and spending cuts we'll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.
| 0alt.atheism
|
jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch) | Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW] | California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo | In article <1993Apr15.212943.15118@bnr.ca> (Rashid) writes:
>P.S. I'm not sure about this but I think the charge of "shatim" also
>applies to Rushdie and may be encompassed under the umbrella
>of the "fasad" ruling.
Please define the words "shatim" and "fasad" before you use them again.
/---- John David Munch ------------------ jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu ----\
|...." the heart can change, be full of hate, or love. If people are allowed|
|to base their lives through their hearts, anything can happen. A dangerous |
|situation, in my opinion." -Bobby Mozumder describing problems with atheism|
| 0alt.atheism
|
MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) | Re: An Anecdote about Islam | Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc. | In <114127@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu writes:
[deletia]
> I don't understand the point of this petty sarcasm. It is a basic
> principle of Islam that if one is born muslim or one says "I testify
> that there is no god but God and Mohammad is a prophet of God" that,
> so long as one does not explicitly reject Islam by word then one _must_
> be considered muslim by all muslims. So the phenomenon you're attempting
> to make into a general rule or psychology is a direct odds with basic
> Islamic principles. If you want to attack Islam you could do better than
> than to argue against something that Islam explicitly contradicts.
In the deletions somewhere, it mentioned something about chopping
off of hands being a punishment for theft in Saudi Arabia. Assuming this
is so (I wouldn't know), and assuming it is done by people fitting your
requirement for "muslim" (which I find highly likely), then would you
please try to convince Bobby Mozumder that muslims chop people's hands
off?
Come back when you've succeeded.
--
Disclaimer? "It's great to be young and insane!"
| 0alt.atheism
|
lefty@apple.com (Lefty) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Our Lady of Heavy Artillery | In article <1qtsmc$39j@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
O'Dwyer) wrote:
>
> Well I can cut to the chase and admit that what I find least attractive
> about realtivism is that it elevates the heinous to the level of the good,
> by saying in effect "to each his own", or "what's good for you, isn't good
> for me". Thus the terrorist is elevated to the same level as the man
> of peace.
So, then, I assume that you feel that there is an objective definition for
"terrorist"?
--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
| 0alt.atheism
|
ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray) | Re: Who Says the Apostles Were Tortured? | Louisiana Tech University | : The willingness of true believers
: to die for their belief, be it in Jesus or Jim Jones, is
: well-documented, so martyrdom in and of itself says little.
It does say something about the depth of their belief. Religion has
both deluded believers and con men. The difference is often how far
they will follow their beliefs.
I have no first hand, or even second hand, knowledge of how the
original apostles died. If they began a myth in hopes of exploiting
it for profit, and followed that myth to the death, that would be
inconsistent. Real con men would bail out when it was obvious it would
lead to discomfort, pain and death.
The story in 1 Kings regarding the 450 prophets of Baal is of no
help in this debate. One can easily assume that they believed that
no overwhelming vindication of Elijah would be forthcoming. He was
simply a fool, who would be shown to be so. The fire from heaven was
swift and their seizure and deaths were equally swift.
| 0alt.atheism
|
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) | Re: The Inimitable Rushdie | Boston University Physics Department | In article <2BCC892B.21864@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>In article <115290@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>>Well, seeing as you are not muslim the sort of fatwa issued by Khomeini
>>would not be relevant to you. I can understand your fear of persecution
>>and I share it even more than you (being muslim), however Rushdie's
>>behavior was not completely excusable.
>Why should a fatwa issued by Khomeini be relevant to anyone who
>doesn't live in Iran?
Issued by Khomeini it shouldn't be relevant to anyone. But issued
by an honest and learned scholar of Islam it would be relevant to
any muslim as it would be contrary to Islamic law which all muslims
are required to respect.
> Who is it that decides whether Rushdie's behavior is excusable?
Anyone sufficiently well versed in Islamic law and capable of reasoning,
if you are talking about a weak sense of "excuse." It depends on what
sense of "excuse" you have in mind.
> And who cares if you think it is inexcusable?
Only someone who thinks my opinion is important, obviously.
Obviously you don't care, nor do I care that you don't care.
Gregg
| 0alt.atheism
|
scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) | Re: Rawlins debunks creationism | Univ. of Notre Dame | In article <1r4dglINNkv2@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
|>
|>
|> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|>
|>
|>
|> > Neither I, nor Webster's has ever heard of Francis Hitchings. Who is he?
|> >Please do not answer with "A well known evolutionist" or some other such
|> >informationless phrase.
|>
|> He is a paleontologist and author of "The Neck of the Giraffe". The
|> quote was taken from pg. 103.
|>
|> Jack
For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog,
and they list the following books by Francis Hitching:
Earth Magic
The Neck of the Giraffe, or Where Darwin Went Wrong
Pendulum: the Psi Connection
The World Atlas of Mysteries
--
Tom Scharle |scharle@irishmvs
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu
University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
| 0alt.atheism
|