from
stringlengths 3
223
⌀ | subject
stringlengths 2
120
⌀ | organization
stringlengths 1
116
⌀ | text
stringlengths 1
160k
| label
class label 20
classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) | Re: who are we to judge, Bobby? | Walla Walla College | In article <kmr4.1572.734847158@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
>Subject: Re: who are we to judge, Bobby?
>Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 04:12:38 GMT
>
>(S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>>(TAMMY R HEALY) writes:
>>>I would like to take the liberty to quote from a Christian writer named
>>>Ellen G. White. I hope that what she said will help you to edit your
>>>remarks in this group in the future.
>>>
>>>"Do not set yourself as a standard. Do not make your opinions, your views
>>>of duty, your interpretations of scripture, a criterion for others and in
>>>your heart condemn them if they do not come up to your ideal."
>>> Thoughts Fromthe Mount of Blessing p. 124
>>
>>Point?
>
> Point: you have taken it upon yourself to judge others; when only
>God is the true judge.
>
>---
>
> Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible.
>
>
I agree totally with you! Amen! You stated it better and in less world
than I did.
Tammy
| 0alt.atheism
|
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) | Re: A Little Too Satanic | U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 | Jon Livesey writes:
>So why do I read in the papers that the Qumram texts had "different
>versions" of some OT texts. Did I misunderstand?
Reading newspapers to learn about this kind of stuff is not the best idea in
the world. Newspaper reporters are notoriously ignorant on the subject of
religion, and are prone to exaggeration in the interests of having a "real"
story (that is, a bigger headline).
Let's back up to 1935. At this point, we have the Masoretic text, the
various targums (translations/commentaries in aramaic, etc.), and the
Septuagint, the ancient greek translation. The Masoretic text is the
standard Jewish text and essentially does not vary. In some places it has
obvious corruptions, all of which are copied faithfully from copy to copy.
These passages in the past were interpreted by reference to the targums and
to the Septuagint.
Now, the septuagint differs from the masoretic text in two particulars:
first, it includes additional texts, and second, in some passages there are
variant readings from the masoretic text (in addition to "fixing"/predating
the various corrupted passages). It must be emphasized that, to the best of
my knowledge, these variations are only signifcant to bible scholars, and
have little theological import.
The dead sea scroll materials add to this an ancient *copy* of almost all of
Isaiah and fragments of various sizes of almost all other OT books. There
is also an abundance of other material, but as far as I know, there is no
sign there of any hebrew antecdent to the apocrypha (the extra texts in the
septuagint). As far as analysis has proceeded, there are also variations
between the DSS texts and the masoretic versions. These tend to reflect the
septuagint, where the latter isn't obviously in error. Again, though, the
differences (thus far) are not significant theologically. There is this big
expectation that there are great theological surprises lurking in the
material, but so far this hasn't happened.
The DSS *are* important because there is almost no textual tradition in the
OT, unlike for the NT.
--
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
|
ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | EIT | In article <1qm36b$gn2@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <1qktj3$bn9@squick.eitech.com> ekr@squick.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>#In article <1qkn1t$59l@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>#> 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.
>#Twaddle. You're overloading the meaning of the word "value",
>#that's all. Whether I care if the results are true is a "value".
>#I fail to see how whether they are true (correct, whatever) is
>#a value.
>The result's actual truth is independent of what you think of it, if you
>care to look at it that way - however your perception of a result's
>truth cannot match its actual truth, unless you care to follow the (a?)
>procedure to obtain truth ("science") correctly.
Not true. Consider the case of a coin. I flip it and do not look
at it. It is either heads or tails. It is entirely possible
for me to simply choose to believe that it is heads or tails and
be right. Now, there is a procedure for ensuring(more or less)
that my belief will be correct, but it is quite possible for me
to be correct without following it.
> You have to pick
>the right procedure, and note its importance. You've got to value it.
No, I don't. I can do perfectly good science without valuing
the procedure. But you're just overloading the term "value"
again. Judgement of the validity of a procedure is not the
same as judgement of how preferable a certain action is, and
just because the word "value" can be applied to both doesn't
make it so. You might as well assert that "number theory is
based on values."
>Otherwise you don't care about actual truth, and shouldn't object
>to the statement "objectivism is true".
Huh? This is a complete non sequiter.
>Now if we're valuing procedures subjectively, and science is a procedure,
>science cannot be valued non-subjectively.
You're just overloading the word value, AGAIN, I suspect.
> If we're picking facts
>and hypotheses subjectively, then we are using a maybe-not-quite-sure
>method on maybe-not-quite-sure observations. That should lead
>to maybe-not-quite-sure results, no? The fact that it does not seem
>to might make one question the premise, which is that our subjective
>valuations are necessarily unreliable.
I don't understand your point here. What do you mean by "not quite-sure
observations?" It gets observed all the time that if you don't
buy into a whole series of assumptions about how science is
done, the results become meaningless.
If you're suggesting that because science is allegedly chosen
'subjectively' the results have to be inconsistent, that's
silly.
>#Like I said before, DES works whether I value my privacy or
>#not.
>O.K., which DES? The abstract function DES? that stops working in any
>important sense if no-one cares for the importance of truth, mathematics,
>meaning, information, etc. A DES chip or DES s/w? That stops working in any
>important sense if no-one values science, objective reality, etc. DES
>does not work in a value vacuum. Nothing else does, either.
This is just truth by blatant assertion. Your "in any important sense"
seem to be just weasel words. Imagine that I have a box which
accepts 16 bytes and uses the first 8 to ECB the second 8.
It still does a perfect job of DESing, whether or not any input
is being made at the time--whether or not anyone values mathematics..
-Ekr
--
Eric Rescorla ekr@eitech.com
Would you buy used code from this man?
| 0alt.atheism
|
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) | Re: <Political Atheists? | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena | kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>I think that you are confusing the words "objective" and "inherent."
>>And objective system is simply one in which an outside observer who,
>>given the postulates of the system, could perfectly judge any situation
>>or action as consistent with the system (right) or not (wrong). You seem
>>to be objecting because the goals of the system are not inherent. That is,
>>you seem to want to define an objective system as one in which the
>>postulates themselves could be determined by some outside observer.
>>I don't think that this is a good definition of an objective system.
>Then you need to learn English.
Really>`?
>Gravity is an objective system. Anybody can learn what it is, and perform
>experiments. They will get the same results as every other person who
>has performed those experiments.
No, gravity is an inherent system. You don't need any excess information
other than observations to determine anything. It is possible to objectively
determine someone's guilt or innocence within an non-inherent system.
I agree that morality is not necessarily inherent (unless you state that
everything we do has an evolutionary basis), but this does not mean that
it cannot be objective in theory.
>This "natural morality" is not an objective system, as evidenced by
>your comments about lions, and mine.
Perhaps it can be objective, but not inherent. Anyway, as I noted before,
the practices related to mating rituals, etc. among the animals are likely
the only ones to be considered "immoral" under the previous "definitions"
of the natural law. Therefore, some revisions are in order, since the
class of activities surrounding mating seem to pose some general problems.
>>And in fact, the only way that the postulates could be determined by an
>>outsider would be if there were some sort of higher truth, like some
>>sort of god or something. But, I do not think that a god is necessary
>>for an objective system, while it seems that you do.
>What are you trying to say here?
It seens that you are objecting to the notion of an objective system
because perhaps you think that it would imply inherence, which would
necessitate some sort of grand design?
>>No, I have classified behavior of most animals as in line with a
>>moral system. It is certainly possible for animals to commit acts
>>which are outside of their rules of ethics, but they don't seem to
>>do so very often. Perhaps they are not intelligent enough to be
>>immoral.
>And perhaps it's because you have yet to define a "moral" system.
I think I have. It is a code of ethics which basically defines undesired
behaviors, etc. An immoral behavior could be unwanted, unproductive,
or destructive, etc., depending on the goal of the system (that is,
immoral to what end?).
keith
| 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:
>My personal objection is that I find capital punishment to be
>cruel and unusual punishment under all circumstances.
It can be painless, so it isn't cruel. And, it has occurred frequently
since the dawn of time, so it is hardly unusual.
>I don't take issue with the numbers. A single innocent life taken
>is one too many.
But, innocents die due to many causes. Why have you singled out
accidental or false execution as the one to take issue with?
keith
| 0alt.atheism
|
b711zbr@utarlg.uta.edu (JUNYAN WANG) | Bible contradictions | The University of Texas at Arlington | I would like a list of Bible contadictions from those of you who dispite
being free from Christianity are well versed in the Bible.
| 0alt.atheism
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: Bill Conner: | Case Western Reserve University | In article <C4y976.MLr@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>Could you explain what any of this pertains to? Is this a position
>statement on something or typing practice? And why are you using my
>name, do you think this relates to anything I've said and if so, what.
>
>Bill
Could you explain what any of the above pertains to? Is this a position
statement on something or typing practice?
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. "
S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu)
| 0alt.atheism
|
cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | University of Illinois at Urbana | In <kmr4.1593.734933711@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>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.
> What was before the beginning?
Ah. A real question/comment. Creation was the beginning of time. Before that
existed an uncaused cause. Whew! That oughta generate some responses.
MAC
>---
> " Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "
> John Laws, a man without the honor to keep his given word.
--
****************************************************************
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
|
healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) | Re: free moral agency and Jeff Clark | Walla Walla College | In article <16BB112DFC.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
>Subject: Re: free moral agency and Jeff Clark
>Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 20:28:27 GMT
>In article <healta.136.734813153@saturn.wwc.edu>
>healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes:
>
>(Deletion)
>>You also said,"Why did millions suffer for what Adam and Ee did? Seems a
>>pretty sick way of going about creating a universe..."
>>
>>I'm gonna respond by giving a small theology lesson--forgive me, I used
>>to be a theology major.
>>First of all, I believe that this planet is involved in a cosmic struggle--
>>"the Great Controversy betweed Christ and Satan" (i borrowed a book title).
>>God has to consider the interests of the entire universe when making
>>decisions.
>(Deletion)
>
>An universe it has created. By the way, can you tell me why it is less
>tyrannic to let one of one's own creatures do what it likes to others?
>By your definitions, your god has created Satan with full knowledge what
>would happen - including every choice of Satan.
>
>Can you explain us what Free Will is, and how it goes along with omniscience?
>Didn't your god know everything that would happen even before it created the
>world? Why is it concerned about being a tyrant when noone would care if
>everything was fine for them? That the whole idea comes from the possibility
>to abuse power, something your god introduced according to your description?
>
>
>By the way, are you sure that you have read the FAQ? Especially the part
>about preaching?
> Benedikt
I don't feel that I'm preaching. I'm just trying to answer people's
questions and talking about my religion, my beliefs.
When it comes to what I post, I don't do it with the intent of converting
anyone. I don't expect for the atheists in this newsgroup to take what I
say with a grain of salt if they so wish.
I just state what I beleve, they ask me how I believeit and why and we all
go on.
If that's preaching, then I'm soory and I'll get off the soapbox.
Tammy
| 0alt.atheism
|
edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) | Re: Where are they now? | Compaq Computer Corp | a> In article <1qi156INNf9n@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, tcbruno@athena.mit.edu (Tom Bruno) writes:
>
..stuff deleted...
>
> Which brings me to the point of my posting. How many people out there have
> been around alt.atheism since 1990? I've done my damnedest to stay on top of
...more stuff deleted...
Hmm, USENET got it's collective hooks into me around 1987 or so right after I
switched to engineering. I'd say I started reading alt.atheism around 1988-89.
I've probably not posted more than 50 messages in the time since then though.
I'll never understand how people can find the time to write so much. I
can barely keep up as it is.
--
Ed McCreary ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao." (*)/'(*)
| 0alt.atheism
|
ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) | Re: Benediktine Metaphysics | University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor | In article <66019@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>Benedikt Rosenau writes, with great authority:
>
>> IF IT IS CONTRADICTORY IT CANNOT EXIST.
>
>"Contradictory" is a property of language. If I correct this to
>
> THINGS DEFINED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST
>
>I will object to definitions as reality. If you then amend it to
>
> THINGS DESCRIBED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST
>
>then we've come to something which is plainly false. Failures in
>description are merely failures in description.
How about this description: "An object that is, at one time, both a
Euclidean square and a Euclidean circle"? I hold that no object satisfying
this description could exist. The description is inconsistent, and hence
describes an object that could not exist.
Now, suppose someone pointed to a bicycle, and said, "That object is,
at one time, both a Euclidean square and a Euclidean circle." This does
not mean that the bicycle does not exist, it measn that the description
was incorrectly applied.
The atheist says, "The descriptions of God that I have been presented with
are contradictory, and hence describe something that cannot exist."
Now, your position (so far as I can gather) is that God exists, but the
descriptions atheists have been presented with are simply bad descriptions
of It.
This is roughly analogous to someone who has never seen a bicycle, and,
when they ask for a description from people who claim to have seen one,
are told that it is a "Euclidean circle-square". Can they be blamed for
doubting rather strongly that this 'bicycle' exists at all?
>(I'm not an objectivist, remember.)
No kidding. :->
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles ingles@engin.umich.edu
"The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein
| 0alt.atheism
|
perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) | Re: Yeah, Right | Decision Support Inc. | In article <65882@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
}>For several years I've periodically asked Charley Wingate to explain this
}>mythical alternative to rationality which he propounds so enthusiastically
}>when he pops up every few months. His reluctance to explain indicates to me
}>that it's not so hot.
}
}I've said enough times that there is no "alternative" that should think you
}might have caught on by now. And there is no "alternative", but the point
}is, "rationality" isn't an alternative either. The problems of metaphysical
}and religious knowledge are unsolvable-- or I should say, humans cannot
}solve them.
If there is truly no alternative, then you have no basis whatsoever
for your claim. The usual line here, which you call "a prejudgment of
atheism", and dispute, is that reason is all we have. Here you admit
that you have no alternative, no possible basis for the claim that
there is anything other than reason or that reason is inapplicable in
religious knowledge, except possibly that reason conflicts with
"religious knowledge".
This sounds very much like "I can't provide a rational defense for my
belief, but prefer to discard rationality rather than accept that it
may be false". I hope it makes you happy, but your repeated and
unfounded assertions to this effect don't advance your cause.
--
Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
| 0alt.atheism
|
vdp@mayo.edu (Vinayak Dutt) | Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was | Mayo Foundation/Mayo Graduate School :Rochester, MN | In article H9r@ra.nrl.navy.mil, khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes:
##I strongly suggest that you look up a book called THE BIBLE, THE QURAN, AND
##SCIENCE by Maurice Baucaille, a French surgeon. It is not comprehensive,
##but, it is well researched. I imagine your library has it or can get it
##for you through interlibrary loan.
##
I shall try to get hold of it (when I have time to read of course :-)
##In short, Dr Baucaille began investigating the Bible because of pre-
##ceived scientific inaccuracies and inconsistencies. He assumed that
##some of the problems may have been caused by poor translations in by-
##gone days. So, he read what he could find in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic.
##What he found was that the problems didn't go away, they got worse.
##Then, he decided to see if other religions had the same problems.
##So, he picked up the Holy Qur'an (in French) and found similar prob-
##lems, but not as many. SO, he applied the same logoic as he had
##with the Bible: he learned to read it in Arabic. The problems he
##had found with the French version went away in Arabic. He was unable
##to find a wealth of scientific statements in the Holy Qur'an, but,
##what he did find made sense with modern understanding. So, he
##investigated the Traditions (the hadith) to see what they had to
##say about science. they were filled with science problems; after
##all, they were contemporary narratives from a time which had, by
##pour standards, a primitive world view. His conclusion was that,
##while he was impressed that what little the Holy Qur'an had to
##say about science was accurate, he was far more impressed that the
##Holy Qur'an did not contain the same rampant errors evidenced in
##the Traditions. How would a man of 7th Century Arabia have known
##what *not to include* in the Holy Qur'an (assuming he had authored
##it)?
##
So in short the writer (or writers) of Quran decided to stay away from
science. (if you do not open your mouth, then you don't put you foot into
your mouth either).
But then if you say Quran does not talk much about science, then one can
not make claims (like Bobby does) that you have great science in Quran.
Basically I want to say that *none* of the religious texts are supposed to
be scientific treatises. So I am just requesting the theists to stop making
such wild claims.
--- Vinayak
-------------------------------------------------------
vinayak dutt
e-mail: vdp@mayo.edu
standard disclaimers apply
-------------------------------------------------------
| 0alt.atheism
|
sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth J. Bradley) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Intel Corporation | 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.
This is a belief, not a theory. A theory makes predictions and is falsi-
fiable. What you've stated makes no predictions and is not falsifiable.
If it was that easy, the ICR wouldn't have it as rough as they do :-).
--
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one. The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare. On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!" -Michael O'Brien
| 0alt.atheism
|
edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) | Re: thoughts on christians | Compaq Computer Corp | >>>>> On 16 Apr 93 05:10:18 GMT, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) said:
RB> 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...
>
RB>
RB> No, that's praying on the young. Preying on the young comes
RB> later, when the bright eyed little altar boy finds out what the
RB> priest really wears under that chasible.
The same thing Scotsmen where under there kilt.
I'll never forget the day when I was about tweleve and accidently
walked in on a roomfull of priests sitting around in their underware
drinking beer and watching football.
Kind of changed my opinion a bit. They didn't seem so menacing after
that.
--
Ed McCreary ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao." (*)/'(*)
| 0alt.atheism
|
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) | Re: Societally acceptable behavior | sgi | In article <C5ws1s.7ns@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
|> In <1r4ioh$44t@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
|> writes:
|> > |>In article <C5qGM3.DL8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike
>|> Cobb) writes:
|> >|>
|> >|> This doesn't seem right. If I want to kill you, I can because that is
|> what I
|> >|> decide?
|>
|> >Sounds as though you are confused between "what I want" and "what
|> >I think is morally right".
|>
|> >jon.
|>
|>
|> What do you mean? Would your idea still apply if I said I think it is ok to
|> kill you because that is what I decided?
What I mean is what I said. "What I want" does not automatically
translate into "what I think is right." That is, it does not
translate that way for me.
If you reply that "I think it is ok to kill you because that is what
I decided" then what that means is that for you "What I want" does
translate into "what I think is right".
It just doesn't translate that way for me.
jon.
| 0alt.atheism
|
king@ctron.com (John E. King) | Re: Branch Athiests Cult (was Rawlins debunks creationism) | Cabletron Systems Inc. |
scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes:
> For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog,
>and they list the following books by Francis Hitching:
I believe I've just discovered an anthopological parallel. In my many
"discussions" with the fundies, their main tactic is to discredit
my sources. They shrilly bleat:
"Barclay's claims are bogus; McKenzie's arguements are a sham,
Oehler position is specious, Jouon's ideas are fiction, Darby is a
fraud, Howard is a counterfeit, Rotherham's claims are vapid."
Ahha...Now with the Branch Athiests zealots we have the following:
"Hitching`s claims are bogus, Gorman argument's are a sham,
Jastrow's position is specious, Stanley's ideas are fiction, Durant
is a fraud, Thorpe is a counterfeit, Hoyle's claims are vapid."
Are we witnessing the founding of a new major religion.... or has
it really been there all along?!
Let me try again.
"The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude
of evolutionary biology has inflamed passions. There is lack of agreement
even within warring camps. Sometimes it seems as if there are as many
variations on each evolutionary theme as there are individual biologists."
Niles Eldridge (yes he's a paleontologist); Natural History; "Evolutionary
Housecleaning"; Feb 1982; pg. 78.
Jack
| 0alt.atheism
|
"Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> | Re: Islamic marriage? | Kupajava, East of Krakatoa | >DATE: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 00:11:49 GMT
>FROM: F. Karner <karner@austin.ibm.com>
>
>In article <1993Apr2.103237.4627@Cadence.COM>, mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan) writes:
>> In article <C4qAv2.24wG@austin.ibm.com> karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:
>> >
>> >Okay. So you want me to name names? There are obviously no official
>> >records of these pseudo-marriages because they are performed for
>> >convenience. What happens typically is that the woman is willing to move
>> >in with her lover without any scruples or legal contracts to speak of.
>> >The man is merely utilizing a loophole by entering into a temporary
>> >religious "marriage" contract in order to have sex. Nobody complains,
>> >nobody cares, nobody needs to know.
>> >
>> >Perhaps you should alert your imam. It could be that this practice is
>> >far more widespread than you may think. Or maybe it takes 4 muslim men
>> >to witness the penetration to decide if the practice exists!
>> >--
>> >
>>
>> Again you astound me with the level of ignorance you display, Muslims
>> are NOT allowed to enter temporary marriages, got that? There is
>> no evidence for it it an outlawed practise so get your facts
>> straight buddy. Give me references for it or just tell everyone you
>> were lying. It is not a widespread as you may think (fantasise) in
>> fact contrary to your fantasies it is not practised at all amongst
>> Muslims.
Did you miss my post on this topic with the quote from The Indonesian
Handbook and Fred Rice's comments about temporary marriages? If so,
I will be glad to repost them. Will you accept that it just may be
a practice among some Muslims, if I do? Or will you continue to claim
that we are all lying and that it is "not practised at all amongst Muslims".
I don't think F. Karner has to tell everyone anything. Least of all that
he is lying.
Since you obviously know nothing about this practice, there is very little
you can contribute to the discussion except to accuse everyone of lying.
Perhaps it is your ignorance which is showing. Learn more about Islam.
Learn more about Muslims. Open your eyes. Maybe you will also see some
of the things the atheists see.
| 0alt.atheism
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: Nicknames | Case Western Reserve University | In article <16BB6B6FE.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu (SCOTT D. SAUYET) writes:
>Okay, how about
> Scott "Can anybody hear me?" Sauyet
> ssauyet@eagel.wesleyan.edu
Could you speak up? I can't hear you....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My sole intention was learning to fly."
| 0alt.atheism
|
David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org | islamic authority [sic] over women | null |
who: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
what: <kmr4.1426.733987668@po.cwru.edu>
with: rush@leland.Stanford.EDU
what: <1993Apr5.050524.9361@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>>> Other readers: I just joined, but is this guy for real?
>>> I'm simply amazed.
KR> "Sadly yes. Don't loose any sleep over Old 'Zlumber. Just
KR> have some fun with him, but he is basically harmless.
KR> At least, if you don't work in NY city."
I don't find it hard to believe that "Ole 'Zlumber" really believes
the hate and ignorant prattle he writes. The frightening thought is,
there are people even worse than he! To say that feminism equals
"superiority" over men is laughable as long as he doesn't then proceed
to pick up a rifle and start to shoot women as a preemptive strike---
aka the Canada slaughter that occured a few years ago. But then, men
killing women is nothing new. Islamic Fundamentalists just have a
"better" excuse (Qu'ran).
from the Vancouver Sun, Thursday, October 4, 1990
by John Davidson, Canadian Press
MONTREAL-- Perhaps it's the letter to the five-year old
daughter that shocks the most.
"I hope one day you will be old enough to understand what
happened to your parents," wrote Patrick Prevost. "I loved
your mother with a passion that went as far as hatred."
Police found the piece of paper near Prevost's body in his
apartment in northeast Montreal.
They say the 39-year-old mechanic committed suicide after
killing his wife, Jocelyne Parent, 31.
The couple had been separated for a month and the woman had
gone to his apartment to talk about getting some more money
for food. A violent quarrel broke out and Prevost attacked
his wife with a kitchen knife, cutting her throat, police said.
She was only the latest of 13 women slain by a husband or
lover in Quebec in the last five weeks.
Five children have also been slain as a result of the same
domestic "battles."
Last year in Quebec alone, 29 [women] were slain by their
husbands. That was more than one-third of such cases across
Canada, according to statistics from the Canadian Centre for
Justice. [rest of article ommited]
Then to say that women are somehow "better" or "should" be the
one to "stay home" and raise a child is also laughable. Women
have traditionally done hard labor to support a family, often
more than men in many cultures, throughout history. Seems to me
it takes at least two adults to raise a child, and that BOTH should
stay home to do so!
--- Maximus 2.01wb
| 0alt.atheism
|
kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) | Re: Are atoms real? (was Re: After 2000 years blah blah blah) | University of Oulu, Finland | mathew (mathew@mantis.co.uk) wrote:
> What is the difference between a "_chemist_" and someone who is taught
> Chemistry at, say, Cambridge University?
Put like this, I can't answer. I was originally pointing out that your
attitude _seemed to be_ (I don't know if it really was) that chemists
tend to ignore all kinds of effects; your original posting stated that
when doing chemistry, it is common to ignore atomic interactions, and
I responded that this is exactly what chemists do.
> Has there been some revolution in teaching methods in the last four years?
Perhaps this revolution has yet to reach Cambridge (my, now I'll get
flamed for sure;-) ). But perhaps I am guilty of referring to
"true chemists" (tm) which are nothing but my ideal, and do not
actually exist. Chemistry is a very easy subject to treat poorly.
> Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that I was thinking of organic
> chemistry, whereas you were thinking of physical chemistry.
No, actually organic chemists were among the first chemists to use
modern MO theories for explaining reactions that did not fit into the
old models. In synthetic organic chemistry, which still comprises
a large part of organic chemistry, it is indeed common to ignore
the rest of the molecule and pay attention only to the functional
groups, but I think this, too, has changed with the advent of
molecular modelling and asymmetric synthesis. Supramolecular
interactions _can_ be taken into account, albeit with difficulty.
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
|
kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu | Re: Feminism and Islam, again | Wesleyan University | In article <1993Apr14.030334.8650@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
> In article <1993Apr11.145519.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>>
>>There's a way around that via the hadith, which state that silence is
>>taken to mean "yes" and that women may not speak before a judge, who
>>must conduct the marriage.
>
> Actaully, that's a false hadith, because it contradicts verses in the
> Quran, that says women may testify- speak before a judge.
>
> Hadiths are declared false when they contradict the Quran. Hadiths
> weren't written during the revelation or during the life of the prophet,
> and so may contain errors.
So the only way you can tell a false hadith from a true one is
if it contradicts the Quran? What if it relates to something
that isn't explicitly spelled out in the Quran?
Also, the Quran wasn't written down during the life of Muhammed
either. It wasn't long after, but 20 years or so is still long
enough to shift a few verses around.
Karl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "Lastly, I come to China in the hope | "All you touch and all you see |
| of fulfilling a lifelong ambition - | Is all your life will ever be." |
| dropping acid on the Great Wall." --Duke | --Pink Floyd |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| A Lie is still a Lie even if 3.8 billion people believe it. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0alt.atheism
|
perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) | Re: Who Says the Apostles Were Tortured? | Decision Support Inc. | Another article that fell between the cracks:
In article <1qiu97INNpq6@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
As evidence for the Resurrection, it is often claimed that the Disciples
were tortured to death for their beliefs and still did not renounce
their claim that Jesus had come back from the dead.
Now, I skimmed Acts and such, and I found a reference to this happening
to Stephen, but no others. Where does this apparently very widely held
belief come from? Is there any evidence outside the Bible? Is there any
evidence *in* the Bible? I sure haven't found any...
Briefly, no. There is widespread folklore, but no good documentary
evidence, or even solid rumor, concerning the deaths of the Apostles.
Further, the usual context of such arguments, as you observe, is "No
Martyrs for a Lie": i.e. the willingness of these people to die rather
than recant is evidence for the truth of their belief. This adds the
quite stronger twist that the proposed martyrs must have been offered
the chance of life by recanting. Since we don't even know how or
where they died, we certainly don't have this information. (By the
way, even in the case of Stephen it is not at all clear that he could
have saved himself by recanting). 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. [See
1Kings18:20-40 for a Biblical account of the martyrdom of 450 priests
of Baal].
--
Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
| 0alt.atheism
|
madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) | Re: some thoughts. | Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things | healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes: >
>Tammy "See, Maddi, I trimmed it!" Healy
Well, you're going to have to practice, but you're getting
the hang of it. Soon we're going to have to give you a new
nickname. Try these on for size:
Tammy "Lucky Seven" Healy
Tammy "Pass the falafel" Healy
Tammy "R Us" Healy
Tammy "Learning by Doing" Healy
Maddi "Never a Useful Post" Hausmann
--
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
|
bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) | Re: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Introduction to Atheism | Society for the Preservation of E. coli | I have an addition to the FAQ regarding "why are there no atheist
hospitals."
If I recall correctly, Johns Hopkins was built to provide medical
services without the "backing" of a religious group...thus making it a
hospital "dedicated to the glory of [weak] atheism."
Might someone check up on this?
--
Brian Evans | "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu | I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
| 0alt.atheism
|
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Siemens-Nixdorf AG | In article <930422.113807.7Q9.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
#frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#> In article <930421.102525.9Y9.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew
#> <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
#> #frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#> #> Presumably this means that some moral systems are better than others?
#> #> How so? How do you manage this without an objective frame of reference?
#> #
#> #Which goes faster, a bullet or a snail? How come you can answer that when
#> #Einstein proved that there isn't an objective frame of reference?
#>
#> Not that Einstein "proved" anything,
#
#Oh, yes he did. You may not agree with his premises, and what he proved may
#not apply to "reality" (if such a thing exists), but he certainly proved
#something.
#
#> but you can't answer it, and your
#> answer be in general true.
#
#Got it in one. Similarly, a moral relativist will not judge one moral system
#to be better than another in every possible circumstance. This does not,
#however, preclude him from judging one moral system to be better than another
#in a specific set of circumstances. Nor does it preclude a set of moral
#relativists from collectively judging a moral system, from some set of
#circumstances which they all agree they are in.
O.K., this makes sense to me. (I'm serious, you've explained something
to me which I never understood before). But just for grins, suppose we
almost all agree that we are in a set of circumstances called "reality". What
then? Or say, for all practical intents and purposes, there is no frame
of reference in which thus and such is good, isn't that approximately
objective, in the same way that we usually expect a speeding bullet to
outrun a snail? For example, if we hear of a bomb in a crowded area,
isn't it a rather sensible first guess that this is an immoral act, even
though there conceivably might be some tail-end case that would justify it?
#> And even that statement assumes an
#> objective reality independent of our beliefs about it.
#
#Eh? Could you explain this? Which "that statement" are you talking about?
My own, above. "you can't answer..."
#
#> #> And what weasel word do you use to describe that frame of reference, if
#> #> it isn't an objective reality for values?
#> #
#> #I'm sorry, I can't parse "an objective reality for values". Could you try
#> #again?
#>
#> s/an objective reality for values/some values are real even in the face
#> of disagreement/
#
#I still don't quite see what you're trying to say. I assume by "values" you
#mean moral values, yes? In which case, what do you mean by "real"? What is
#a "real" moral value, as opposed to an unreal one?
I mean to say that values are as real as horses, whatever you understand
by a horse being real is pretty much what I mean about a value being real.
#> If you are saying that some moral systems are better than others, in
#> your opinion, then all you get is infinite regress.
#
#Sorry, but in what way is it an infinite regress? It looks extremely finite
#to me.
I meant that it's never more than your opinion. You've clarified this
for me above. My understanding is now that if a supermajority of relativists
agree that thus and such is wrong in almost any or all frames of reference,
then they're saying something which is to all practical intents and purposes
no different than what I'm saying.
#
#> What you do not get
#> is any justification for saying that the moral system of the terrorist
#> is inferior to that of the man of peace.
#
#Sorry, but that's not so. I can provide a justification for asserting that
#the moral system of the terrorist is inferior to that of the man of peace. I
#just can't provide a justification which works in all possible circumstances.
Logically possible, or actually possible? By which I mean, are you
stretching possible to include events such as the atoms in my terminal
switching places so that the terminal turns upside down, or do you
think it likely that circumstances will arise in which terrorism is
superior to peace. Really what I'm after is some order of magnitude
on the probability you put on 'possible'.
--
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: <Political Atheists? | ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia | keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>>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.
>>Why wait until they commit the crime? Why not implant such devices in
>>potential criminals like Communists and atheists?
>Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning. You are proposing to punish people
>*before* they commit a crime? What justification do you have for this?
No, Mathew is proposing a public defence mechanism, not treating the
electronic device as an impropriety on the wearer. What he is saying is that
the next step beyond what you propose is the permanent bugging of potential
criminals. This may not, on the surface, sound like a bad thing, but who
defines what a potential criminal is? If the government of the day decides
that being a member of an opposition party makes you a potential criminal
then openly defying the government becomes a lethal practice, this is not
conducive to a free society.
Mathew is saying that implanting electronic surveillance devices upon people
is an impropriety upon that person, regardless of what type of crime or
what chance of recidivism there is. Basically you see the criminal justice
system as a punishment for the offender and possibly, therefore, a deterrant
to future offenders. Mathew sees it, most probably, as a means of
rehabilitation for the offender. So he was being cynical at you, okay?
Jeff.
| 0alt.atheism
|
mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne) | Re: Christian Morality is | Florida State University Computer Science Department | In article <4949@eastman.UUCP> dps@nasa.kodak.com writes:
>
>The fact is God could cause you to believe anything He wants you to.
>But think about it for a minute. Would you rather have someone love
>you because you made them love you, or because they wanted to
>love you.
Same old bullshit. Not being given to delusions and wishful thinking
I do not have the option of either loving or obeying that which I have
so reason to believe.
> The responsibility is on you to love God and take a step toward
>Him. He promises to be there for you, but you have to look for yourself.
>Those who doubt this or dispute it have not givin it a sincere effort.
More bullshit. I assure you in my misguided youth I made a sincere effort.
It was very painful being a rational person raised in Christian home.
Many others could tell the same story. You choose not to believe anyone's
experience which contradicts your smug theories.
Bill Mayne
| 0alt.atheism
|
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Who, me??? | In article <C5wIqr.1Bz@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
>In article <1qm36b$gn2@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>In article <1qktj3$bn9@squick.eitech.com> ekr@squick.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>#In article <1qkn1t$59l@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>#>In article <1qk1pp$6hj@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>#> 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.
>>#Twaddle. You're overloading the meaning of the word "value",
>>#that's all. Whether I care if the results are true is a "value".
>>#I fail to see how whether they are true (correct, whatever) is
>>#a value.
>>
>>The result's actual truth is independent of what you think of it, if you
>>care to look at it that way - however your perception of a result's
>>truth cannot match its actual truth, unless you care to follow the (a?)
>>procedure to obtain truth ("science") correctly. You have to pick
>>the right procedure, and note its importance. You've got to value it.
>>Otherwise you don't care about actual truth, and shouldn't object
>>to the statement "objectivism is true".
>
>Non-sequitur. Humans do math, because they value what math can do.
>That does not mean that math is based on values - unless you claim
>that computers (or even unconstructed physical systems) which instantiate
>mathematical systems also are based on values.
The point is that when we recognize these "instantiations" of mathematical
systems, we do so because we VALUE being able to describe and perhaps even
to control these instantiations. There is always a driving purpose behind
thought -- a motive, if you will. Sometimes that motive is relatively
"pure", e.g. pursuit of knowledge, othertimes it's "impure", e.g. pursuit
of money, or of physical pleasure. But it's always there. And even when it
is a "pure" pursuit of knowledge, presumably one pursues knowledge in order
to personally grow, develop, advance to a higher plane of being. So there
is still an element of acquisition, of reaching, of grasping, even in the
approach of the "detached, objective" scientist.
>>Now if we're valuing procedures subjectively, and science is a procedure,
>>science cannot be valued non-subjectively. If we're picking facts
>>and hypotheses subjectively, then we are using a maybe-not-quite-sure
>>method on maybe-not-quite-sure observations. That should lead
>>to maybe-not-quite-sure results, no? The fact that it does not seem
>>to might make one question the premise, which is that our subjective
>>valuations are necessarily unreliable.
>
>>O.K., which DES? The abstract function DES? that stops working in any
>>important sense if no-one cares for the importance of truth, mathematics,
>>meaning, information, etc. A DES chip or DES s/w? That stops working in any
>>important sense if no-one values science, objective reality, etc. DES
>>does not work in a value vacuum. Nothing else does, either.
>
>The D.E.S. chip works just fine, even if I don't know that it exists.
>You are confusing _why we are using the chip_ with _the chip works_.
>They aren't the same.
No, I think you are the one who is rather confused. There are two senses
in which we can say that the phenomenon of "the working of the DES chip" is
value-based:
1) Because there is bound to be some reason why we built the DES
chip and started it running in the first place
and
2) Because the very notion/definition/concept of "works" has value
associated with it
The first is a CAUSAL linkage -- we want it to work, therefore we CAUSE it to
work. That is rather a mundane interpretation. The second, however, is a more
subtle and deeper PHENOMENOLOGICAL linkage -- that the attribute "works" is
itself, as everything else, presented to the human consciousness as a _valued_
fact, not just a fact-in-itself. You are perhaps justified in shooting down
the causal linkage, but you have not begun to address the phenomenological
linkage.
>Suns in unpopulated solar systems shine without being blessed by your
>values.
Our predictions or confirmations that suns shine in unpopulated solar systems
are, however, items of value.
>Genetic algorithms (closely related to the scientific method)
>can work without intervention of any kind.
Again, our predictions or confirmations of the working of genetic algorithms
are items of value.
>Your claim is without merit;
>the universe does not depend on human values, any more than it
>revolves around earth.
The universe does not DEPEND on human values, no, but our experience and
understanding and concepts of the universe _are_ laced with human values.
Phenomenologically, everything is value-related, since the thing which is
experiencing the phenomena, i.e. self, is itself value-driven. Self is, in
fact, the very SOURCE of all values. Whatever involves self involves values.
- Kevin
| 0alt.atheism
|
kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) | Re: Concerning God's Morality (long) | University of Oulu, Finland | This kind of argument cries for a comment...
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com wrote:
: In article <1993Apr3.095220.24632@leland.Stanford.EDU>, galahad@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Compton) writes:
Jim, you originally wrote:
: >>...God did not create
: >>disease nor is He responsible for the maladies of newborns.
: >
: >>What God did create was life according to a protein code which is
: >>mutable and can evolve. Without delving into a deep discussion of
: >>creationism vs evolutionism, God created the original genetic code
: >>perfect and without flaw.
: > ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~
Do you have any evidence for this? If the code was once perfect, and
has degraded ever since, we _should_ have some evidence in favour
of this statement, shouldn't we?
Perhaps the biggest "imperfection" of the code is that it is full
of non-coding regions, introns, which are so called because they
intervene with the coding regions (exons). An impressive amount of
evidence suggests that introns are of very ancient origin; it is
likely that early exons represented early protein domains.
Is the number of introns decreasing or increasing? It appears that
intron loss can occur, and species with common ancestry usually
have quite similar exon-intron structure in their genes.
On the other hand, the possibility that introns have been inserted
later, presents several logical difficulties. Introns are removed
by a splicing mechanism - this would have to be present, but unused,
if introns are inserted. Moreover, intron insertion would have
required _precise_ targeting - random insertion would not be tolerated,
since sequences for intron removal (self-splicing of mRNA) are
conserved. Besides, transposition of a sequence usually leaves a
trace - long terminal repeats and target - site duplications, and
these are not found in or near intron sequences.
I seriously recommend reading textbooks on molecular biology and
genetics before posting "theological arguments" like this.
Try Watson's Molecular Biology of the Gene or Darnell, Lodish
& Baltimore's Molecular Biology of the Cell for starters.
: Remember, the question was posed in a theological context (Why does
: God cause disease in newborns?), and my answer is likewise from a
: theological perspective -- my own. It is no less valid than a purely
: scientific perspective, just different.
Scientific perspective is supported by the evidence, whereas
theological perspectives often fail to fulfil this criterion.
: I think you misread my meaning. I said God made the genetic code perfect,
: but that doesn't mean it's perfect now. It has certainly evolved since.
For the worse? Would you please cite a few references that support
your assertion? Your assertion is less valid than the scientific
perspective, unless you support it by some evidence.
In fact, it has been claimed that parasites and diseases are perhaps
more important than we've thought - for instance, sex might
have evolved as defence against parasites. (This view is supported by
computer simulations of evolution, eg Tierra.)
: Perhaps. I thought it was higher energy rays like X-rays, gamma
: rays, and cosmic rays that caused most of the damage.
In fact, it is thermal energy that does most of the damage, although
it is usually mild and easily fixed by enzymatic action.
: Actually, neither of us "knows" what the atmosphere was like at the
: time when God created life. According to my recollection, most
: biologists do not claim that life began 4 billion years ago -- after
: all, that would only be a half billion years or so after the earth
: was created. It would still be too primitive to support life. I
: seem to remember a figure more like 2.5 to 3 billion years ago for
: the origination of life on earth. Anyone with a better estimate?
I'd replace "created" with "formed", since there is no need to
invoke any creator if the Earth can be formed without one.
Most recent estimates of the age of the Earth range between 4.6 - 4.8
billion years, and earliest signs of life (not true fossils, but
organic, stromatolite-like layers) date back to 3.5 billion years.
This would leave more than billion years for the first cells to
evolve.
I'm sorry I can't give any references, this is based on the course
on evolutionary biochemistry I attended here.
: >>dominion, it was no great feat for Satan to genetically engineer
: >>diseases, both bacterial/viral and genetic. Although the forces of
: >>natural selection tend to improve the survivability of species, the
: >>degeneration of the genetic code tends to more than offset this.
Again, do you _want_ this be true, or do you have any evidence for
this supposed "degeneration"?
I can understand Scott's reaction:
: > Excuse me, but this is so far-fetched that I know you must be
: > jesting. Do you know what pathogens are? Do you know what
: > Point Mutations are? Do you know that EVERYTHING CAN COME
: > ABOUT SPONTANEOUSLY?!!!!!
:
: In response to your last statement, no, and neither do you.
: You may very well believe that and accept it as fact, but you
: cannot *know* that.
I hope you don't forget this: We have _evidence_ that suggests
everything can come about spontaneously. Do you have evidence against
this conclusion? In science, one does not have to _believe_ in
anything. It is a healthy sign to doubt and disbelieve. But the
right path to walk is to take a look at the evidence if you do so,
and not to present one's own conclusions prior to this.
Theology does not use this method. Therefore, I seriously doubt
it could ever come to right conclusions.
: >>Human DNA, being more "complex", tends to accumulate errors adversely
: >>affecting our well-being and ability to fight off disease, while the
: >>simpler DNA of bacteria and viruses tend to become more efficient in
: >>causing infection and disease. It is a bad combination. Hence
: >>we have newborns that suffer from genetic, viral, and bacterial
: >>diseases/disorders.
You are supposing a purpose, not a valid move. Bacteria and viruses
do not exist to cause disease. They are just another manifests of
a general principle of evolution - only replication saves replicators
from degradiation. We are just an efficient method for our DNA to
survive and replicate. The less efficient methods didn't make it
to the present.
And for the last time. Please present some evidence for your claim that
human DNA is degrading through evolutionary processes. Some people have
claimed that the opposite is true - we have suppressed our selection,
and thus are bound to degrade. I haven't seen much evidence for either
claim.
: But then I ask, So? Where is this relevant to my discussion in
: answering John's question of why? Why are there genetic diseases,
: and why are there so many bacterial and viral diseases which require
: babies to develop antibodies. Is it God's fault? (the original
: question) -- I say no, it is not.
Of course, nothing "evil" is god's fault. But your explanation does
not work, it fails miserably.
: You may be right. But the fact is that you don't know that
: Satan is not responsible, and neither do I.
:
: Suppose that a powerful, evil being like Satan exists. Would it
: be inconceivable that he might be responsible for many of the ills
: that affect mankind? I don't think so.
He could have done a much better Job. (Pun intended.) The problem is,
it seems no Satan is necessary to explain any diseases, they are
just as inevitable as any product of evolution.
: Did I say that? Where? Seems to me like another bad inference.
: Actually what you've done is to oversimplify what I said to the
: point that your summary of my words takes on a new context. I
: never said that people are "meant" (presumably by God) "to be
: punished by getting diseases". Why I did say is that free moral
: choices have attendent consequences. If mankind chooses to reject
: God, as people have done since the beginning, then they should not
: expect God to protect them from adverse events in an entropic
: universe.
I am not expecting this. If god exists, I expect him to leave us alone.
I would also like to hear why do you believe your choices are indeed
free. This is an interesting philosophical question, and the answer
is not as clear-cut as it seems to be.
What consequences would you expect from rejecting Allah?
: Oh, I admit it's not perfect (yet). But I'm working on it. :)
A good library or a bookstore is a good starting point.
: What does this have to do with the price of tea in China, or the
: question to which I provided an answer? Biology and Genetics are
: fine subjects and important scientific endeavors. But they explain
: *how* God created and set up life processes. They don't explain
: the why behind creation, life, or its subsequent evolution.
Why is there a "why behind"? And your proposition was something
that is not supported by the evidence. This is why we recommend
these books.
Is there any need to invoke any why behind, a prime mover? Evidence
for this? If the whole universe can come into existence without
any intervention, as recent cosmological theories (Hawking et al)
suggest, why do people still insist on this?
: Thanks Scotty, for your fine and sagely advice. But I am
: not highly motivated to learn all the nitty-gritty details
: of biology and genetics, although I'm sure I'd find it a
: fascinating subject. For I realize that the details do
: not change the Big Picture, that God created life in the
: beginning with the ability to change and adapt to its
: environment.
I'm sorry, but they do. There is no evidence for your big picture,
and no need to create anything that is capable of adaptation.
It can come into existence without a Supreme Being.
Try reading P.W. Atkins' Creation Revisited (Freeman, 1992).
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
|
johnchad@triton.unm.edu (jchadwic) | Another request for Darwin Fish | University of New Mexico, Albuquerque | Hello Gang,
There have been some notes recently asking where to obtain the DARWIN fish.
This is the same question I have and I have not seen an answer on the
net. If anyone has a contact please post on the net or email me.
Thanks,
john chadwick
johnchad@triton.unm.edu
or
| 0alt.atheism
|
davec@silicon.csci.csusb.edu (Dave Choweller) | Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism | California State University, San Bernardino | In article <1qif1g$fp3@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <1qialf$p2m@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|In article <1qi921$egl@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
[stuff deleted...]
>||> To the newsgroup at large, how about this for a deal: recognise that what
>||> happened in former Communist Russia has as much bearing on the validity
>||> of atheism as has the doings of sundry theists on the validity of their
>||> theism. That's zip, nada, none. The fallacy is known as ad hominem, and
>||> it's an old one. It should be in the Holy FAQ, in the Book of Constructing
>||> a Logical Argument :-)
>|
>|Apart from not making a lot of sense, this is wrong. There
>|is no "atheist creed" that taught any communist what to do "in
>|the name of atheism". There clearly are theistic creeds and
>|instructions on how to act for theists. They all madly
>|conflict with one another, but that's another issue.
>
>Lack of instructions on how to act might also be evil.
That's like saying that, since mathematics includes no instructions on
how to act, it is evil. Atheism is not a moral system, so why should
it speak of instructions on how to act? *Atheism is simply lack of
belief in God*.
Plenty of theists
>think so. So one could argue the case for "atheism causes whatever
>I didn't like about the former USSR" with as much validity as "theism
>causes genocide" - that is to say, no validity at all.
I think the argument that a particular theist system causes genocide
can be made more convincingly than an argument that atheism causes genocide.
This is because theist systems contain instructions on how to act,
and one or more of these can be shown to cause genocide. However, since
the atheist set of instructions is the null set, how can you show that
atheism causes genocide?
--
David Choweller (davec@silicon.csci.csusb.edu)
There are scores of thousands of human insects who are
ready at a moment's notice to reveal the Will of God on
every possible subject. --George Bernard Shaw.
--
There are scores of thousands of human insects who are
ready at a moment's notice to reveal the Will of God on
every possible subject. --George Bernard Shaw.
| 0alt.atheism
|
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <1qj9gq$mg7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
(Deletion)
>Plus questions for you: why do subjectivists/relativists/nihilists get so
>het up about the idea that relativism is *better* than objectivism?
Straw man, you are trying to replace pragmatics by morals. And what about
a Subjectivis saying Subjectivismis better for me?
>Is good logic *better* than bad? Is good science better than bad? Ought
>I to prefer simple theories with accurate predictions to complex and useless
>theories? Is almost anything preferable to genocide? Is there a sense in
>which such value judgements are objective, or not?
>
Make those predictions and don't waste our time with circular definitions
and assertions without evidence. In this example, when genocide is so
commonly abhorred, why does it happen so often in the context of religion?
Does it allow to conclude that there is something about religion that
catalyses genocide? Or, in case it has nothing got to do with religion,
that the premise is wrong, genocide is not abhorred?
Benedikt
| 0alt.atheism
|
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) | Re: some thoughts. | AT&T | In article <C62B52.LKz@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> In article <w_briggs-250493134303@ccresources6h58.cc.utas.edu.au> w_briggs@postoffice.utas.edu.au (William Briggs) writes:
> >Wasn't JC a carpenter? Anyway that's beside the point. I think the fact
> >that is more compelling is JC fulfilling the prophecies when the prophecies
> >include him getting killed in the most agonizing possible way.
>
> This is nonsense.
>
> I can think of a lot more agonizing ways to get killed. Fatal cancer, for
> instance.
>
> Anyone else have some more? Maybe we can make a list.
Actually, I find the stuff about JC being a carpenter more
interesting. Is there an independent source for this assertion,
or is it all from the Christian Bible? Is there any record at
all of anything he built? A table, a house, some stairs (Norm
Abrams says the real test of a carpenter's skill is building
stairs with hand tools). Did he leave any plans behind for, say
kitchen counters and cabinets? Did he build his own cross?
If so, did he use pressure-treated lumber? Gotta use that
pressure-treated anywhere that wood meets concrete, but it
holds up better anyway for mose outdoor applications. I keep
seeing these bumper-stickers that say "My boss is a Jewish
Carpenter," but they're always on the back of Ford Escorts,
and a real carpenter's apprentice would probably drive a
pickup, so I'm out for verification that he really was a
carpenter.
Dean Kaflowitz
Sometimes I like to get away from the shack
Catfish ain't pretty
But they don't talk back
Goin' fishin' again
Goin' fishin' again
Me and my no good friends
Sure goin' fishin' again
| 0alt.atheism
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: The Inimitable Rushdie | Case Western Reserve University | In article <115686@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>No, I say religious law applies to those who are categorized as
>belonging to the religion when event being judged applies. This
Who does the categorizing?
---
" I'd Cheat on Hillary Too."
John Laws
Local GOP Reprehensitive
Extolling "Traditional Family Values."
| 0alt.atheism
|
bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) | Re: Religion As Cause (Was: islamic authority over women) | Okcforum Unix Users Group | Scott D. Sauyet (SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu) wrote:
: The same works for the horrors of history. To claim that Christianity
: had little to do with the Crusades or the Inquisition is to deny the
: awesome power that comes from faith in an absolute. What it seems you
: are doing twisting the reasonable statement that religion was never
: the solitary cause of any evil into the unreasonable statement that
: religion has had no evil impacts on history. That is absurd.
Scott,
Until this paragraph I would willingly amend my earlier statements,
since your point(s) are well made and generally accurate. This last
part though slips into hyperbole. Since I've discussed my objections to
such generalizations before, I really don't feel I need to do it
again. If you haven't seen those posts, ask Maddi, she saves
everything I write.
Bill
| 0alt.atheism
|
merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) | Re: Societal basis for morality | DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN | GMILLS@CHEMICAL.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (Phil Trodwell) writes:
>Think about these questions in light of some recent social issues:
> Topic Legal? Moral?
...
> Prayer in school No (gen.) ditto
Prayer in school is legal; what is illegal is telling children
what to pray, or not to pray. Many people confuse "you can't
tell kids that they ought to pray now" with "kids aren't allowed
to pray", possibly because so few kids do so without being told.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
| 0alt.atheism
|
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) | Re: Gulf War and Peace-niks | Johns Hopkins University CS Dept. | In article <1993Apr20.102306.882@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>Hawaii? We liberated it from
>Spain.
Well, you were going well until you hit this one.
Hawaii was an independent country. A coup by Americans led to a request to
annex it. The US refused, but eventually did annex it several years later
during the Spanish-American War.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole
that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
-- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
| 0alt.atheism
|
huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) | Re: Ancient references to Christianity (was: Albert Sabin) | Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA | In article <C62B7n.6B4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
}Why would the NT NOT be considered a good source. This might be a
}literary/historical question, but when I studied history I always looked for
}firsthand original sources to write my papers.
If I want to check the original New Testament manuscripts for possible copying
errors or mistranslations, which museum would I have to visit? 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).
Likewise, if I had a cast of _Archaeopteryx_, I could take it to Berlin to
compare it to the original fossil found at Solenhofen.
-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
| 0alt.atheism
|
a137490@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Aario Sami) | Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism | Tampere University of Technology, Computing Centre | [deletions...]
In <1993Apr13.184227.1191@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>I really don't think you can imagine what it is like to be infinite.
First of all, infinity is a mathematical concept created by humans
to explain certain things in a certain way. We don't know if it actually
applies to reality, we don't know if anything in the world is infinite.
>It wouldn't be able to
>comprehend what reality is like for the programmer, because that would
>require an infinite memory or whatever because reality is continuous and
>based on infinietely small units- no units.
You don't know if the universe is actually continuous. Continuum is another
mathematical concept (based on infinity) used to explain things in a certain
way.
>Because humans do not know what infinite is. We call it something
>beyond numbers. We call it endless, but we do not know what it is.
I have a pretty good idea of what infinity is. It's a man-made concept, and
like many man-made concepts, it has evolved through time. Ancient Greeks had
a different understanding of it.
>So, we can call Allah infinitely powerful, knowledgeable, etc.., yet we
>cannot imagine what Allah actually is, because we just cannot imagine
>what it is like to be infinite.
Precicely. We don't even know if infinity applies to reality.
--
Sami Aario | "Can you see or measure an atom? Yet you can explode
a137490@cc.tut.fi | one. Sunlight is comprised of many atoms."
-------------------' "Your stupid minds! Stupid, stupid!"
Eros in "Plan 9 From Outer Space" DISCLAIMER: I don't agree with Eros.
| 0alt.atheism
|
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) | Re: Islam & Dress Code for women | sgi | In article <1993Apr6.030734.28563@ennews.eas.asu.edu>, guncer@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Selim Guncer ) writes:
>
> I wouldn't consider this quote as being exemplary of the Islamic
> (TM) viewpoint though. For all we know, the prophet's cousin and
> the Fourth Khalif Hazret-i Ali may have said this after a
> frustrating night with a woman.
That's very interesting. I wonder, are women's reactions
recorded after a frustrating night with a man? Is that
considered to be important?
jon.
| 0alt.atheism
|
Alan.Olsen@p17.f40.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Alan Olsen) | some thoughts on Christian books... | null | DN> I think I took on this 'liar, lunatic, or the real thing'
DN> the last time. Or was it the time before? Anyway, let
DN> somebody else have a turn. I can't debate it with a
DN> straight face. Or perhaps for something completely
DN> different we could just ridicule him or gather up all the
DN> posts from the last two times we did this and email them to
DN> him. As an aside, can you believe that somebody actually
DN> got a book published about this? Must have been a vanity
DN> press.
I would recomend to anyone out there to visit your local Christian bookstore
and become aware of the stuff they sell. Quite
interesting. Most of the stuff is far from intelectual. (About the level of
Chick pamphelets...) If it is a common fundie bookstore, it should have at
least one section about how you should hate Wiccans, Pagans, Catholics,
Mormons, rock musicians, and anyone else who is not as fanatical as them.
(Hate for the "Love of God(tm)"!) It is even more interesting watching the
people who frequent such places. Very scary people. They hear voices from
"God" telling them whatever they want to hear. (If they were not Christians,
most of them would be locked away. Maybe this is why Federal money was
reduced to Mental institutions by the reagan administration... Had to get
their religious leaders out...)
"Where would Christianity be if Jesus got eight to fifteen years, with time
off for good behavior?"
New York State Senator James H. Donovan on Capitol Punishment
Alan
- "Beware! To touch these wires is instant death! Anyone found doing
- this will be prosecuted!
| 0alt.atheism
|
naren@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Naren Bala) | Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism | Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. | >snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
> More horrible deaths resulted from atheism than anything else.
>
LIST OF KILLINGS IN THE NAME OF RELIGION
1. Iran-Iraq War: 1,000,000
2. Civil War in Sudan: 1,000,000
3, Riots in India-Pakistan in 1947: 1,000,000
4. Massacares in Bangladesh in 1971: 1,000,000
5. Inquistions in America in 1500s: x million (x=??)
6. Crusades: ??
I am sure that people can add a lot more to the list.
I wonder what Bobby has to say about the above.
Standard Excuses will not be accepted.
-- Naren
All standard disclaimers apply
| 0alt.atheism
|
perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) | Re: Is Morality Constant (was Re: Biblical Rape) | Decision Support Inc. | This response originally fell into a bit bucket. I'm reposting it
just so Bill doesn't think I'm ignoring him.
In article <C4w5pv.JxD@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>Jim Perry (perry@dsinc.com) wrote:
>
>[Some stuff about Biblical morality, though Bill's quote of me had little
> to do with what he goes on to say]
Bill,
I'm sorry to have been busy lately and only just be getting around to
this.
Apparently you have some fundamental confusions about atheism; I think
many of these are well addressed in the famous FAQ. Your generalisms
are then misplaced -- atheism needn't imply materialism, or the lack
of an absolute moral system. However, I do tend to materialism and
don't believe in absolute morality, so I'll answer your questions.
>How then can an atheist judge value?
An atheist judges value in the same way that a theist does: according
to a personal understanding of morality. That I don't believe in an
absolute one doesn't mean that I don't have one. I'm just explicit,
as in the line of postings you followed up, that when I express
judgment on a moral issue I am basing my judgment on my own code
rather than claiming that it is in some absolute sense good or bad.
My moral code is not particular different from that of others around
me, be they Christians, Muslims, or atheists. So when I say that I
object to genocide, I'm not expressing anything particularly out of
line with what my society holds.
If your were to ask why I think morality exists and has the form it
does, my answer would be mechanistic to your taste -- that a moral
code is a prerequisite for a functioning society, and that humanity
probably evolved morality as we know it as part of the evolution of
our ability to exist in large societies, thereby achieving
considerable survival advantages. You'd probably say that God just
made the rules. Neither of us can convince the other, but we share a
common understanding about many moral issues. You think you get it
from your religion, I think I get it (and you get it) from early
childhood teaching.
>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.
I think you've been reading the wrong sort of comic books, but in
prying through the gobbledygook I basically agree with what you're
saying. I do believe that my mental reactions to stimuli such as "God
commanded the genocide of the Canaanites" is mechanistic, but of
course I think that's true of you as well. My reaction has little to
do with whether God exists or even with whether I think he does, but
if a god existed who commanded genocide, I could not consider him
good, which is supposedly an attribute of God.
>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.
Hmm. Yes, I think some heavy FAQ-reading would do you some good. I
have as much place discussing values etc. as any other person. In
fact, I can actually accomplish something in such a discussion, by
framing the questions in terms of reason: for instance, it is clear
that in an environment where neighboring tribes periodically attempt
to wipe each other out based on imagined divine commands, then the
quality of life will be generally poor, so a system that fosters
coexistence is superior, if quality of life is an agreed goal. An
absolutist, on the other hand, can only thump those portions of a
Bible they happen to agree with, and say "this is good", even if the
act in question is unequivocally bad by the standards of everyone in
the discussion. The attempt to define someone or a group of people as
"excluded from discussion", such that they "cannot participate", and
their opinions given "no weight whatsoever" is the lowest form or
reasoning (ad hominem/poisoning the well), and presumably the resort
of someone who can't rationally defend their own ideas of right,
wrong, and the Bible.
--
Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
--
Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
| 0alt.atheism
|
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) | Re: <<Pompous ass | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena | arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>Look, I'm not the one that made those Nazi comparisons. Other people
>>compared what the religious people are doing now to Nazi Germany. They
>>have said that it started out with little things (but no one really knew
>>about any of these "little" things, strangely enough) and grew to bigger
>>things. They said that the motto is but one of the little things
>You just contradicted yourself. The motto is one of those little things that
>nobody has bothered mentiopning to you, huh?
The "`little' things" above were in reference to Germany, clearly. People
said that there were similar things in Germany, but no one could name any.
They said that these were things that everyone should know, and that they
weren't going to waste their time repeating them. Sounds to me like no one
knew, either. I looked in some books, but to no avail.
>>that is
>>going to pave the way for other "intrusions." Of course, if the motto
>>hasn't caused problems in its 40 year history, then I doubt it is going to...
>It *has* caused problems. You just ignore every instance when someone
>describes one to you.
It has *caused* problems? Again, no one has shown that things were better
before the motto, or that they'd likely be better after. I don't think
the motto initiates any sort of harassment. Harassment will occur whether
or not the motto is present.
keith
| 0alt.atheism
|
ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) | Re: Yeah, Right | University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor | In article <66014@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>Benedikt Rosenau 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.
Ah, now here is the core question. Let me suggest a scenario.
We will grant that a God exists, and uses revelation to communicate
with humans. (Said revelation taking the form (paraphrased from your
own words) 'This infinitely powerful deity grabs some poor schmuck,
makes him take dictation, and then hides away for a few hundred years'.)
Now, there exists a human who has not personally experienced a
revelation. This person observes that not only do these revelations seem
to contain elements that contradict rather strongly aspects of the
observed world (which is all this person has ever seen), but there are
many mutually contradictory claims of revelation.
Now, based on this, can this person be blamed for concluding, absent
a personal revelation of their own, that there is almost certainly
nothing to this 'revelation' thing?
>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).
>
>An analogous situation (supposedly) obtains in metaphysics; the problem is
>that the "better" descriptive language is not available.
Absent this better language, and absent observations in support of the
claims of revelation, can one be blamed for doubting the whole thing?
Here is what I am driving at: I have thought a long time about this. I
have come to the honest conclusion that if there is a deity, it is
nothing like the ones proposed by any religion that I am familiar with.
Now, if there does happen to be, say, a Christian God, will I be held
accountable for such an honest mistake?
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles ingles@engin.umich.edu
"The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein
| 0alt.atheism
|
Steve_Mullins@vos.stratus.com | Re: Bible Quiz | Stratus Computer, Marlboro Ma. |
In article <1993Apr16.130430.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu> kellyb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu wrote:
>In article <kmr4.1563.734805744@po.CWRU.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>> Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible.
>>
> Since when does atheism mean trashing other religions?There must be a God
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of inbreeding to which you are his only son.
a) I think that he has a rather witty .sig file. It sums up a great
deal of atheistic thought (IMO) in one simple sentence.
b) Atheism isn't an "other religion".
sm
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Steve_Mullins@vos.stratus.com () "If a man empties his purse into his
My opinions <> Stratus' opinions () head, no one can take it from him
------------------------------ () ---------------Benjamin Franklin
| 0alt.atheism
|
edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) | Re: some thoughts. | Compaq Computer Corp | >>>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 1993 02:51:29 GMT, healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) said:
TRH> I hope you're not going to flame him. Please give him the same coutesy you'
TRH> ve given me.
But you have been courteous and therefore received courtesy in return. This
person instead has posted one of the worst arguments I have ever seen
made from the pro-Christian people. I've known several Jesuits who would
laugh in his face if he presented such an argument to them.
Let's ignore the fact that it's not a true trilemma for the moment (nice
word Maddi, original or is it a real word?) and concentrate on the
liar, lunatic part.
The argument claims that no one would follow a liar, let alone thousands
of people. Look at L. Ron Hubbard. Now, he was probably not all there,
but I think he was mostly a liar and a con-artist. But look at how many
thousands of people follow Dianetics and Scientology. I think the
Baker's and Swaggert along with several other televangelists lie all
the time, but look at the number of follower they have.
As for lunatics, the best example is Hitler. He was obviously insane,
his advisors certainly thought so. Yet he had a whole country entralled
and came close to ruling all of Europe. How many Germans gave their lives
for him? To this day he has his followers.
I'm just amazed that people still try to use this argument. It's just
so obviously *wrong*.
--
Ed McCreary ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao." (*)/'(*)
| 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 | Isn't there a differentiation, though, between improper use or definition or
practice as regards objective morals and whether they actually exist?
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
|
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> | Re: KORESH IS GOD! | Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. | The latest news seems to be that Koresh will give himself up once he's
finished writing a sequel to the Bible.
mathew
| 0alt.atheism
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: islamic authority over women | Case Western Reserve University | In article <1993Apr6.124112.12959@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>For the guy who said he's just arrived, and asked whether Bobby's for real,
>you betcha. Welcome to alt.atheism, and rest assured that it gets worse.
>I have a few pearls of wisdom from Bobby which I reproduce below. Is anyone
>(Keith?) keeping a big file of such stuff?
Sorry, I was, but I somehow have misplaced my diskette from the last
couple of months or so. However, thanks to the efforts of Bobby, it is being
replenished rather quickly!
Here is a recent favorite:
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. "
S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu)
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. "
S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu)
| 0alt.atheism
|
mls@ulysses.att.com (Michael L. Siemon) | Re: Ancient references to Christianity (was: Albert Sabin) | AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA | In article <C62B7n.6B4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
(Mike Cobb) writes:
>In <1ren9a$94q@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
>writes:
>>In article <C5ztJu.FKx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
(Mike Cobb) writes:
>>>Why is the NT tossed out as info on Jesus. I realize it is normally tossed
>>>out because it contains miracles, but what are the other reasons?
>> It is not tossed out as a source, but would it be regarded as
>>unbiased and independant?
Bruce hits the main point simply -- as Russell Turpin does in more detail
in his response. *All* sources are, in modern historiography, to be used
critically, which is simply to say that any claims deriving from them are
subject to *specific* examination in the light of motives and other HUMAN
considerations (as well as the physical background). The critical method
applies BOTH to the original document AND to the uses made of it by others
(most emphatically *including* the historical researchers themselves.)
>wouldn't they be a better "reporter" than someone who heard about it second
>hand? I guess isn't firsthand better than second hand. I know, there is bias,
>and winners writing history, but doesn't the principle of firsthand being best
>still apply?
But given the critical principle, what evidence is there that we have
ANYTHING at ALL from "firsthand" sources about Jesus? Paul's letters are
indeed firsthand evidence ABOUT PAUL and his interactions. They are, as
a result, the most historically solid books in the NT. Paul's claims and
descriptions about his conflicts with Jerusalem may not be "wie es eigent-
lich gewesen" -- but they are most definitely the comments of a participant!
In other words, we'd evaluate Paul's statements more or less as we would
the testimony of a witness in court.
The gospels are another story altogether. Luke is most assuredly NOT a
firsthand witness. He *claims* to have gathered material that is closer
to the actual events -- but this is a conventional claim in ancient books
and Luke in fact NEVER NAMES a witness or points to any one thing in his
book(s) which derive from any source *we* can detect behind Luke. John
has a concluding remark that it derives from the testimony of a beloved
disciple (who is NOT named.) We are not bound to accept this claim (for
a long time, some scholars rejected it outright), but even if we do, it
makes the fourth gospel as we have it *at best* secondhand. Neither Mark
nor Matthew make any claims to be firsthand. Later (much later) Christian
tradition associates the first gosple with Matthew and a possible Aramaic
proto-gospel, and associates Mark with Peter as having something like the
same second-hand status of recounting Peter's preaching of the gospel.
Such traditional claims run into difficulties if we try to evaluate the
actual data before us. Luke and Matthew both appear to use (differently!)
an anonymous and not otherwise attested collection of _logoi_ (words and
deeds) of Jesus, as well as to be dependent on Mark. This makes their
testimony AT LEAST thirdhand.
All that said, historians DO attempt to glean whatever they can from the
NT sources, and they are overwhelmingly the obvious and best sources for
anything about the earliest Church. They are also *extremely* important
for the light they cast (however refracted through Christian biases) on
the sectarian world of Judaism just before and around the time of the
destruction of the 2nd Temple.
The problem of "the historical Jesus" is tricky, however. There is a
cycle of fashion on this (and we are now near a major "high" in people
thinking they *can* discern [with historico-critical plausibility] some-
thing about Jesus' life and opinions from the NT. The difficulty here
(which dominated thinking 50 years ago, and will probably return to favor
in another generation :-)) was pointed out by Bultmann, after Schweitzer's
treatment at the end of the previous high-point on the cycle -- simply
BECAUSE all our sources have passed through AT LEAST one layer of quite
anonymous shaping WITHIN the early Church, we have no easy and reliable
way to distribute ANY part of the material between "real" history and the
inventions of the Church. There are few "radical skeptics" who think we
have nothing of history in the gospels [though such a position can be
maintained], but neither have we any tools that can distinguish "shaping"
of real historical material by its communal use as opposed to "invention."
--
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
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: Request for Support | Case Western Reserve University | In article <1993Apr5.095148.5730@sei.cmu.edu> dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood) writes:
>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."
Agreed.
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. "
S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu)
| 0alt.atheism
|
cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | University of Illinois at Urbana | In <11825@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <C5Jxru.2t8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike
Cobb) writes:
>>What do you base your belief on atheism on? Your knowledge and reasoning?
>>COuldn't that be wrong?
>>
> 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?
Also, if I may, what the heck where we talking about and why didn't I keep
some comments on there to see what the line of thoughts were?
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
|
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) | Re: <Political Atheists? | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena | kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>Natural morality may specifically be thought of as a code of ethics that
>>a certain species has developed in order to survive.
>Wait. Are we talking about ethics or morals here?
Is the distinction important?
>>We see this countless
>>times in the animal kingdom, and such a "natural" system is the basis for
>>our own system as well.
>Huh?
Well, our moral system seems to mimic the natural one, in a number of ways.
>>In order for humans to thrive, we seem to need
>>to live in groups,
>Here's your problem. "we *SEEM* to need". What's wrong with the highlighted
>word?
I don't know. What is wrong? Is it possible for humans to survive for
a long time in the wild? Yes, it's possible, but it is difficult. Humans
are a social animal, and that is a cause of our success.
>>and in order for a group to function effectively, it
>>needs some sort of ethical code.
>This statement is not correct.
Isn't it? Why don't you think so?
>>And, by pointing out that a species' conduct serves to propogate itself,
>>I am not trying to give you your tautology, but I am trying to show that
>>such are examples of moral systems with a goal. Propogation of the species
>>is a goal of a natural system of morality.
>So anybody who lives in a monagamous relationship is not moral? After all,
>in order to ensure propogation of the species, every man should impregnate
>as many women as possible.
No. As noted earlier, lack of mating (such as abstinence or homosexuality)
isn't really destructive to the system. It is a worst neutral.
>For that matter, in herds of horses, only the dominate stallion mates. When
>he dies/is killed/whatever, the new dominate stallion is the only one who
>mates. These seems to be a case of your "natural system of morality" trying
>to shoot itself in the figurative foot.
Again, the mating practices are something to be reexamined...
keith
| 0alt.atheism
|
spbach@lerc.nasa.gov (James Felder) | Re: some thoughts. | NASA Lewis Resaerch Center | In article 734849678@saturn.wwc.edu, bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
-> First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian. It
->makes sense to be one. Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar,
->lunatic, or the real thing? (I might be a little off on the title, but he
->writes the book. Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity,
->in the process he became a Christian himself.
Sounds like you are saying he was a part of some conspiracy. Just what organization did he
belong to? Does it have a name?
-> 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.
Logic alert - artificial trifercation. The are many other possible explainations. Could have been
that he never existed. There have been some good points made in this group that is not
impossible that JC is an amalgam of a number of different myths, Mithra comes to mind.
-> Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows. Who would
->die for a lie? Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar? People
->gathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing
->someone who was or had been healed. Call me a fool, but I believe he did
->heal people.
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 site.
He has followers that don't think he is a fake and they have shown that they are willing to die.
By not giving up after getting shot himself, Koresh has shown that he too is will to die for what
he believes. As far as healing goes. If I rememer right the healing that was attributed is not
consistent between the different gospels. In one of them the healing that is done is not any more
that faith healers can pull off today. Seems to me that the early gospels weren't that compeling,
so the stories got bigger to appeal better.
-> Niether was he a lunatic. Would more than an entire nation be drawn
->to someone who was crazy. Very doubtful, in fact rediculous. For example
->anyone who is drawn to David Koresh is obviously a fool, logical people see
->this right away.
-> Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the
->real thing.
Or might not have existed, or any number of things. That is the logical pitfall that those who
use flawed logic like this fall into. There are bifurcations (or tri, quad, etc) that are valid, because
in the proceeding steps, the person shows conclusively that the alternatives are all that are
possible. Once everyone agrees that the given set is indeed all there are, then arguments among
the alternatives can be presentent, and one mostly likely to be true can be deduced by excluding
all other possible alternatives.
However, if it can be shown that the set is not all inclusive, then any conclusions bases on the
incomplete set are invalid, even if the true choice is one of the original choices. I have given at
least one valid alternative, so the conclusion that JC is the real McCoy just because he isn't one of
the other two alternative is no longer valid.
-> Some other things to note. He fulfilled loads of prophecies in
->the psalms, Isaiah and elsewhere in 24 hrs alone. This in his betrayal
->and Crucifixion. I don't have my Bible with me at this moment, next time I
->write I will use it.
JC was a rabbi. He knew what those prophecies were. It wouldn't be any great shakes to make
sure one does a list of actions that would fullfill prophecy. What would be compeling is if there
were a set of clear and explicit prophecies AND JC had absolutely NO knowledge of then, yet
fullfilled them anyway.
-> I don't think most people understand what a Christian is. 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. He loved us enough to die and save us so we should do the
->same. Hey we can't do it, God himself inspires us to turn our lives
->over to him. That's tuff and most people don't want to do it, to be a
->real Christian would be something for the strong to persevere at. But
->just like weight lifting or guitar playing, drums, whatever it takes
->time. We don't rush it in one day, Christianity is your whole life.
->It is not going to church once a week, or helping poor people once in
->a while. We box everything into time units. Such as work at this
->time, sports, Tv, social life. God is above these boxes and should be
->carried with us into all these boxes that we have created for
->ourselves.
Here I agree with you. Anyone who buys into this load of mythology should take what it says
seriously, and what it says is that it must be a total way of life. I have very little respect for
Xians that don't. If the myth is true, then it is true in its entirity. The picking and choosing
that I see a lot of leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Jim
---
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
James L. Felder |
Sverdrup Technology,Inc. | phone: 216-891-4019
NASA Lewis Research Center |
Cleveland, Ohio 44135 | email: jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov
"Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge, other people gargle"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0alt.atheism
|
gmiller@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller) | Re: Radical Agnostic... NOT! | worldbank.org | In article <1993Apr6.013657.5691@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
(David Nye) wrote:
>
> [reply to zazen@austin.ibm.com (E. H. Welbon)]
>
> >>> There is no means that i can possibly think of to prove beyond doubt
> >>>that a god does not exist (but if anyone has one, by all means, tell me
> >>>what it is). Therefore, lacking this ability of absolute proof, being an
> >>>atheist becomes an act of faith in and of itself, and this I cannot accept.
> >>> I accept nothing on blind faith.
>
> >>Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns! Need I say more?
>
> >...I harbor no beliefs at all, there is no good evidence for god
> >existing or not. Some folks call this agnosticism. It does not suffer
> >from "blind faith" at all. I think of it as "Don't worry, be happy".
>
> For many atheists, the lack of belief in gods is secondary to an
> epistemological consideration: what do we accept as a reliable way of
> knowing? There are no known valid logical arguments for the existence
> of gods, nor is there any empirical evidence that they exist. Most
> philosophers and theologians agree that the idea of a god is one that
> must be accepted on faith. Faith is belief without a sound logical
> basis or empirical evidence. It is a reliable way of knowing?
>
Could you expand on your definition of knowing? It seems a bit monolithic
here, but I'm not sure that you intend that. Don't we need, for example, to
distinguish between "knowing" 2 plus 2 equals 4 (or 2 apples plus 2 apples
equals 4 apples), the French "knowing" that Jerry Lewis is an auteur, and
what it means to say we "know" what Socrates said?
> This is patently absurd; but whoever wishes to become a philosopher
> must learn not to be frightened by absurdities. -- Bertrand Russell
I like this epigraph. Perhaps the issue is learning which, if any,
absurdities merit further exploration...Gene
| 0alt.atheism
|
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. | 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.
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.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
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
|
cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | University of Illinois at Urbana | 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:
> (Is that you, Mike Cobb, or is someone else using a "MAC" sig?)
> (And why on earth was this crossposted to talk.abortion?)
>> 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.
Yup. This is me. I don't know why it crossposted. I was accessing nn
from another system and that might have caused the glitch.
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.
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. 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. 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.
seem to be different than the above lists, and if specific actions are given
moral status I tend to question those morals.
MAC
>--
> Disclaimer? "It's great to be young and insane!"
--
****************************************************************
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
|
healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) | Re: some thoughts. | Walla Walla College | In article <11820@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
>Subject: Re: some thoughts.
>Keywords: Dan Bissell
>Date: 15 Apr 93 18:21:21 GMT
>In article <bissda.4.734849678@saturn.wwc.edu> bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
>>
>> First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian. It
>>makes sense to be one. Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar,
>>lunatic, or the real thing? (I might be a little off on the title, but he
>>writes the book. Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity,
>>in the process he became a Christian himself.
>
> This should be good fun. It's been a while since the group has
> had such a ripe opportunity to gut, gill, and fillet some poor
> bastard.
>
> Ah well. Off to get the popcorn...
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>
>Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
>
>They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
>and sank Manhattan out at sea.
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I hope you're not going to flame him. Please give him the same coutesy you'
ve given me.
Tammy
| 0alt.atheism
|
marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall) | Re: Faith and Dogma | Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA | tgk@cs.toronto.edu (Todd Kelley) writes:
>Faith and dogma are irrational. The faith and dogma part of any religion
>are responsible for the irrationality of the individuals.
I disagree. In the end, the *individual* is responsible for his/her own
irrationality. The individual's belief in some dogmatic religion is a
symptom of that irrationality.
>Have you noticed that philosophers tend to be atheists?
Atheists and agnostics, I would imagine, but yes, that was my point. An
atheist would theoretically be just as ill-equipped to study the philosophy
of religion as a Christian, and yet there is a persistence of atheists
among the ranks of philosophers. Therefore, the conflict between one's
religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and the ability to be a philosopher
must not be as great as you assert. The fact that most philosophers may
be non-religious was a secondary point.
>Science, (as would be practiced by atheists) in contrast, has a
>BUILT IN defence against faith and dogma.
As opposed to science practiced by theists? Be careful here.
Science does have a built-in defence against faith and dogma:
skepticism. Unfortunately, it is not foolproof. There is that
wonderful little creature known as the "theory." Many of us believe in
the theory of evolution. We have no absolute proof that this
theory is true, so why do we believe it? Because it "makes more
sense than...?" There is quite a bit of faith involved here.
>A scientist holds sacred the idea that beliefs should change to
>suit whatever is the best information available at the time, AND,
>*AND*, ****AND***, a scientist understands that any current beliefs
>are deficient in some way.
Well, not ALL current beliefs are deficient, but basically I agree.
>Can you see the difference? Science views beliefs as being flawed,
>and new information can be obtained to improve them.
Ideally, this is true. In reality, though, you have to acknowledge
that scientists are human. Scientists have egos and biases. Some
scientists assume a particular theory is true, refuse to admit the
flaws in that theory because of ego problems or whatever, and proceed
to spend their time and money trying to come up with absolute proof
for the theory. Remember cold fusion?
>>By the way, I wasn't aware mass suicide
>>was a problem. Waco and Jonestown were isolated incidents.
>>Mass suicides are far from common.
>
>Clinton and the FBI would love for you to convince them of this.
>It would save the US taxpayer a lot of money if you could.
Not really. I agree that we spent far too much money on the Waco
crisis ($7,500,000 I believe), especially considering the outcome.
My point was that mass suicides in the U.S. are rare (Jonestown was
in Guyana, incidentally, although we footed the bill for the clean-up),
and the U.S. has far more important issues to address. Compare the
number of U.S. citizens who have died in mass suicides with, say, the
number of U.S. soldiers who died during one week of the Vietnam War and
you will see my point.
--
--- __ _______ ---
||| Kevin Marshall \ \/ /_ _/ Computer Science Department |||
||| Virginia Tech \ / / / marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |||
--- Blacksburg, Virginia \/ /_/ (703) 232-6529 ---
| 0alt.atheism
|
sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth J. Bradley) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Intel Corporation | In article <C5L14I.JJ3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>Why isn't this falsifiable? I.E. There is no God, the world has existed forever
>and had no starting point. ?
How does one falsify God's existance? This, again, is a belief, not a scien-
tific premise. The original thread referred specifically to "scientific
creationism". This means whatever theory or theories you propose must be
able to be judged by the scientific method. This is in contrast to
purely philosophical arguments.
--
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one. The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare. On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!" -Michael O'Brien
| 0alt.atheism
|
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> | Re: <Political Atheists? | Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. | mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
> 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.)
Tail-recursive functions in Scheme are at least as efficient as iterative
loops. Anyone who doesn't program in assembler will have heard of optimizing
compilers.
mathew
| 0alt.atheism
|
healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) | Re: Free Moral Agency and Kent S. | Walla Walla College | In article <sandvik-140493185034@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
>Subject: Re: Free Moral Agency and Kent S.
>Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 01:51:57 GMT
>In article <healta.135.734811375@saturn.wwc.edu>, healta@saturn.wwc.edu
>(TAMMY R HEALY) wrote:
>> Ezekiel 28:17 says, Your hart was filled with pride because of all your
>> beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. Therefore
>> I have cast you down the the ground and exposed you helpless before the
>> curious gaze of Kings."
>
>> For those of you who are Bible scholars, you knowthat the 1st 11 verses
>> refer to the Prince of Tyre. This is a prophesy about and addressed to the
>> human prince. Verses 12-19 refer to the King of Tyre, which is a term for
>> Satan.
>
>Tammy, what's the rationale to connect the prince of Tyre with Satan,
>could you give us more rational bible cites, thanks? I'm afraid that
>if this is not the case, your thinking model falls apart like a house
>of cards. But let's see!
>
>Cheers,
>Kent
>---
>sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
At the time Ezekiel was written, Israel was in apostacy again and if I'm not
mistaken, Tyre was about to make war on Israel. Like I said, the Prince of
Tyre was the human ruler of Tyre. He was a wicked man. By calling Satan
the King of Tyre, Ezekiel was saying that Satan is the real ruler over Tyre.
Don't think my interpretation is neccessarily the orthodox Christian one,
although most Christian Bible commentaries interpret the King of Tyre as
being a reference to Satan. (I haven't read Ezekiel throughly in a long
time.)
Tammy
| 0alt.atheism
|
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) | Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?) | sgi | In article <1r5emjINNmk@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
|>
|> >But, this just shows then that painful execution is not considered
|> >"cruel" and unusual punishment. This shows that "cruel" as used in the
|> >constitution does NOT refer to whether or not the punishment causes physical
|> >pain.
|> >Rather, it must be a different meaning.
|>
|> I don't think so. Although some forms of execution are painful (the electric
|> chair looks particularly so), I think the pain is relatively short-lived.
|> Drawing and quartering, on the other hand, looks very painful, and the
|> victim wouldn't die right away (he'd bleed to death, I'd imagine).
So what do we have now, an integral over pain X time?
I get to lash you with a wet noodle for ever, but I only get to
cut you up with a power saw if I'm quick about it?
jon.
| 0alt.atheism
|
bvickers@net1.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) | Re: Rawlins debunks creationism | University of California, Irvine | king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
>"The modern theory of evolution is so inadequate that it deserves to be
>treated as a matter of faith." -- Francis Hitching
Wee. It's the old creationist argumentum ad quotation. Pitiful,
dishonest, creationist saps like yourself seem only to know how to
takes quotes out of context.
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_).
Mr. King, next time you quote someone, at least read the rest of what
the person has to say before you make a fool of yourself in front of
everyone. (Of course, we all know you have probably never even looked
at the book; you most likely copied that quote off some list your
pastor gave you.)
Another creationist builds the case against creationism. Thanks,
John!
--
Brett J. Vickers "Don't go around saying the world owes you
bvickers@ics.uci.edu a living. The world owes you nothing.
It was here first." - Mark Twain
| 0alt.atheism
|
edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) | Re: KORESH IS GOD! | Compaq Computer Corp | >>>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 1993 14:15:20 +0100, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> said:
m> The latest news seems to be that Koresh will give himself up once he's
m> finished writing a sequel to the Bible.
Also, it's the 16th now. Can the Feds get him on tax evasion? I don't
remember hearing about him running to the Post Office last night.
--
Ed McCreary ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao." (*)/'(*)
| 0alt.atheism
|
mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne) | Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts" | Florida State University Computer Science Department | In article <JVIGNEAU.93Apr5182106@cs.ulowell.edu> jvigneau@cs.ulowell.edu (Joe Vigneau) writes:
>
>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.
I could give much the same testimonial about my experience as a scout
back in the 1960s. The issue wasn't gays, but the principles were the
same. Thanks for a well put testimonial. Stan Krieger and his kind who
think this discussion doesn't belong here and his intolerance is the
only acceptable position in scouting should take notice. The BSA has
been hijacked by the religious right, but some of the core values have
survived in spite of the leadership and some scouts and former scouts
haven't given up. Seeing a testimonial like this reminds me that
scouting is still worth fighting for.
On a cautionary note, you must realize that if your experience with this
camp leader was in the BSA you may be putting him at risk by publicizing
it. Word could leak out to the BSA gestapo.
Bill Mayne
| 0alt.atheism
|
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: The Inimitable Rushdie | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <1993Apr16.211458.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
(deletion)
>Nope, Germany has extremely restrictive citizenship laws. The
>ethnic Germans who have lived in Russia for over 100 years
>automatically become citizens if they move to Germany, but the
>Turks who are now in their third generation in Germany can't.
That's wrong. They can.
Benedikt
| 0alt.atheism
|
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) | Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW] | Boston University Physics Department | In article <C5qt5p.Mvo@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>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?
This is a very good point. I have already made the clear claim that
Khomeini advocates views which are in contradition with the Qur'an
and have given my arguments for this. This is something that can be
checked by anyone sufficiently interested. Khomeini, being dead,
really can't respond, but another poster who supports Khomeini has
responded with what is clearly obfuscationist sophistry. This should
be quite clear to atheists as they are less susceptible to religionist
modes of obfuscationism.
So, to answer your question, the only way you can judge is by learning
more about Islam, that is by reading the Qur'an and understanding it's
basic principles. Once one has done this it is relatively easy to see
who is following the principles of Islam and who is acting in a way at
odds with Islam. Khomeini by attributing a superhuman status to twelve
muslim historical leaders is at variance with one of basic principles
of Islam, which is that no human being is metaphysically different than
any other human being and in no sense any closer to God in metaphysical
nature.
Gregg
| 0alt.atheism
|
healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) | Re: free moral agency | Walla Walla College | In article <11810@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
>Subject: Re: free moral agency
>Date: 14 Apr 93 21:41:31 GMT
>In article <healta.133.734810202@saturn.wwc.edu> healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes:
>>>
>>In the Old testement, Satan is RARELY mentioned, if at all.
>
>
> Huh? Doesn't the SDA Bible contain the book of Job?
>
>>This is why there is suffering in the world, we are caught inthe crossfire.
>>and sometimes, innocents as well as teh guilty get hurt.
>>That's my opinion and I hope I cleared up a few things.
>>
>
> Seems like your omnipotent and omniscient god has "got some
> 'splainin' to do" then. Or did he just create Satan for shits and
> giggles?
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>
>Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
>
>They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
>and sank Manhattan out at sea.
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I didn't say it NEVER mentioned Satan, I said it RARELY, if at all. Please
excuse me for my lack of perfect memory or omnipotence.
Tammy
P.S I'm soory if I sound cranky. I apoplogize now before anyone's feelings
get hurt.
| 0alt.atheism
|
emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Sun | In article <1qkhju$43c@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <rayC5JAK7.D7E@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>#Given a choice between a peaceful compromise or endless contention,
>#I'd say that compromise seems to be "better".
>And I would agree. But it's bloody to pointless to speak of it if it's
>merely a matter of taste. Is your liking for peace any better founded
>than someone else's liking for ice-cream? I'm looking for a way to say
>"yes" to that question, and relativism isn't it.
The problem is, Frank, that you are bringing your own _subjective_ values
into the debate and on the basis of those values you are making claim
to something that there is not any evidence (that I've seen, anyhow) to
support. This is not unsimilar to those people who make claims to
supernatural gods, not on the basis of fact, but because it makes them feel
better to think that they can minipulate their environment by influencing
those gods. It may be comforting, but is it real?
If you are going to claim that there is an absolute or objective morality,
the very first thing you have to do is demonstrate that morality itself
exists as something more than an abstraction. Only when you have done that
can we progress to debating whether this morality is absolute or not.
There have been many claims that morality is a component of reality, but
then again, there have been plenty of claims made by different folk over
the centuries. Claims, without fact to back them up are ultimatly very
hollow things.
So, having said that, I would ask you to begin by demonstrating that morality
is other than just an abstraction. Care to meet the challenge?
>--
>Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
>odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
eric
| 0alt.atheism
|
Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> | Re: atheist? | Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. | I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
> In article <ii1i2B1w165w@mantis.co.uk>
> Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>
> (Deletion)
> >
> >My opinion is that the strong atheist position requires too much
> >belief for me to be comfortable with. Any strong atheists out there
> >care to comment?
>[...]
> Humans just come up with the idea of a spiritual parent. It is one
> of the artifacts of human thought. The evidence for that is quite
> overwhelming. And the information content of the conceived is vanishing.
>
> In other words, if there were gods, they would hardly make sense, and
> it is possible to explain the phenomenon of religion without gods.
>
> The concept is useless, and I don't have to introduce new assumptions
> in order to show that.
>
> No leap of faith required for me. Your mileage may vary.
Yes I fully agree with that, but is it "I don't believe gods exist", or
"I believe no gods exist"? As MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
pointed out, it all hinges on what you take the word "believe" to mean.
Unfortunately this is bound up in the definitions of strong and weak
atheism, at least according to the FAQ:
# Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of God.
# Some atheists go further, and believe that God does not exist. The former is
# often referred to as the "weak atheist" position, and the latter as "strong
# atheism".
#
# It is important to note the difference between these two positions. "Weak
# atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong
# atheism" is a positive belief that God does not exist. Please do not
# fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists".
(From mathew's "An Introduction to Atheism" version 1.2 last modified 5-Apr-93)
Should the FAQ be clarified to try to pin down this notion of "belief"?
Can it?
--
Tony Lezard IS tony@mantis.co.uk OR tony%mantis.co.uk@uknet.ac.uk OR things
like tony%uk.co.mantis@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay OR (last resort) arl10@phx.cam.ac.uk
PGP 2.2 public key available on request.
| 0alt.atheism
|
marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall) | Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Atheists?) | Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA | bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>This is fascinating. Atheists argue for abortion, defend homosexuality
>as a means of population control, insist that the only values are
>biological and condemn war and capital punishment. According to
>Benedikt, if something is contardictory, it cannot exist, which in
>this case means atheists I suppose.
>I would like to understand how an atheist can object to war (an
>excellent means of controlling population growth), or to capital
>punishment, I'm sorry but the logic escapes me.
First, you seem to assume all atheists think alike. An atheist does not
believe in the existence of a god. Our opinions on issues such as
capital punishment and abortion, however, vary greatly.
If you were attacking the views of a particular atheist (Benedikt, I
presume), then please present your argument as such and do not lump us
all together.
As for the issues, let's start with abortion. Personally, I do not support
abortion as a means of population control or contraception-after-the-fact.
However, I support the right of any woman to have an abortion, regardless
of what my personal views may be, because it would be arrogant of me to tell
any individual what he/she may or may not do to his/her body, and the domain
of legislators should not extend into the uterus. That's my opinion, and I
am sure many atheists and theists would disagree with me.
I do not defend homosexuality as a means of population control, but I
certainly defend it as an end to itself. I think most homosexuals would
be angered to hear of anyone characterizing their personal relationship as
nothing more than a conscious effort to keep population levels down.
As for atheists believing all values are biological, I have no idea what
you're talking about.
Finally, there are the issues of war and capital punishment. An atheist
can object to either one just as easily as a theist might. You seem to
be hung up on some supposed conspiratorial link between atheism and
population control. Could this be the "atheist cause" you were referring
to a few posts back?
--
--- __ _______ ---
||| Kevin Marshall \ \/ /_ _/ Computer Science Department |||
||| Virginia Tech \ / / / marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |||
--- Blacksburg, Virginia \/ /_/ (703) 232-6529 ---
| 0alt.atheism
|
healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) | Re: who are we to judge, Bobby? | Walla Walla College | In article <1993Apr14.213356.22176@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>From: snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder )
>Subject: Re: who are we to judge, Bobby?
>Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 21:33:56 GMT
>In article <healta.56.734556346@saturn.wwc.edu> healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes:
>>Bobby,
>>
>>I would like to take the liberty to quote from a Christian writer named
>>Ellen G. White. I hope that what she said will help you to edit your
>>remarks in this group in the future.
>>
>>"Do not set yourself as a standard. Do not make your opinions, your views
>>of duty, your interpretations of scripture, a criterion for others and in
>>your heart condemn them if they do not come up to your ideal."
>> Thoughts Fromthe Mount of Blessing p. 124
>>
>>I hope quoting this doesn't make the atheists gag, but I think Ellen White
>>put it better than I could.
>>
>>Tammy
>
>Point?
>
>Peace,
>
>Bobby Mozumder
>
My point is that you set up your views as the only way to believe. Saying
that all eveil in this world is caused by atheism is ridiculous and
counterproductive to dialogue in this newsgroups. I see in your posts a
spirit of condemnation of the atheists in this newsgroup bacause they don'
t believe exactly as you do. If you're here to try to convert the atheists
here, you're failing miserably. Who wants to be in position of constantly
defending themselves agaist insulting attacks, like you seem to like to do?!
I'm sorry you're so blind that you didn't get the messgae in the quote,
everyone else has seemed to.
Tammy
| 0alt.atheism
|
sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) | Re: some thoughts. | University of Washington, Seattle | In article <bissda.4.734849678@saturn.wwc.edu> bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
It appears that Walla Walla College will fill the same role in alt.atheist
that Allegheny College fills in alt.fan.dan-quayle.
> First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian. It
>makes sense to be one. Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar,
>lunatic, or the real thing? (I might be a little off on the title, but he
>writes the book. Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity,
>in the process he became a Christian himself.
Converts to xtianity have this tendency to excessively darken their
pre-xtian past, frequently falsely. Anyone who embarks on an
effort to "destroy" xtianity is suffering from deep megalomania, a
defect which is not cured by religious conversion.
> The arguements he uses I am summing up. The book is about whether
>Jesus was God or not. I know many of you don't believe, but listen to a
>different perspective for we all have something to gain by listening to what
>others have to say.
Different perspective? DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE?? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
> 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.
(sigh!) Perhaps Big J was just mistaken about some of his claims.
Perhaps he was normally insightful, but had a few off days. Perhaps
many (most?) of the statements attributed to Jesus were not made by
him, but were put into his mouth by later authors. Other possibilities
abound. Surely, someone seriously examining this question could
come up with a decent list of possible alternatives, unless the task
is not serious examination of the question (much less "destroying"
xtianity) but rather religious salesmanship.
> Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows. Who would
>die for a lie?
How many Germans died for Nazism? How many Russians died in the name
of the proletarian dictatorship? How many Americans died to make the
world safe for "democracy". What a silly question!
>Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar? People
>gathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing
>someone who was or had been healed. Call me a fool, but I believe he did
>heal people.
Is everyone who performs a healing = God?
> Niether was he a lunatic. Would more than an entire nation be drawn
>to someone who was crazy.
It's probably hard to "draw" an entire nation to you unless you
are crazy.
>Very doubtful, in fact rediculous. For example
>anyone who is drawn to David Koresh is obviously a fool, logical people see
>this right away.
> Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the
>real thing.
Anyone who is convinced by this laughable logic deserves
to be a xtian.
> Some other things to note. He fulfilled loads of prophecies in
>the psalms, Isaiah and elsewhere in 24 hrs alone. This in his betrayal
>and Crucifixion. I don't have my Bible with me at this moment, next time I
>write I will use it.
Don't bother. Many of the "prophecies" were "fulfilled" only in the
eyes of xtian apologists, who distort the meaning of Isaiah and
other OT books.
| 0alt.atheism
|
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) | Re: Christian Morality is | Johns Hopkins University CS Dept. | In article <4949@eastman.UUCP> dps@nasa.kodak.com writes:
>|> Yet I am still not a believer. Is god not concerned with my
>|> disposition? Why is it beneath him to provide me with the
>|> evidence I would require to believe? The evidence that my
>|> personality, given to me by this god, would find compelling?
>The fact is God could cause you to believe anything He wants you to.
>But think about it for a minute. Would you rather have someone love
>you because you made them love you, or because they wanted to
>love you.
Oh no, not again.
There is a difference between believing that God exists, and loving him.
(For instance, Satan certainly believes God exists, but does not love him.)
What unbelievers request in situations like this is that God provide evidence
compelling enough to believe he exists, not to compel them to love him.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole
that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
-- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
| 0alt.atheism
|
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) | Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!! | AT&T | In article <healta.176.735768613@saturn.wwc.edu>, healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes:
> In article <1993Apr25.020546.22426@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
> >From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
> >Subject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!!
> >Date: Sun, 25 Apr 93 02:05:46 GMT
> >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?)
>
> Of course you can come. I said "ALL a.a posters are invited" and I didn't
> put a "No homosexual" clause. Bring some munchies and join the party!!!
> I can't imagine Dean objecting, either.
Knowing Keith, I expect he'll bring the leather accessories.
Better oil it well. Leather cracks when it dries.
Dean Kaflowitz
| 0alt.atheism
|
ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) | Re: There must be a creator! (Maybe) | University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor | In article <1993Apr2.144909.806@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>In article <1993Apr2.165032.3356@bradford.ac.uk>, L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:
[deletions]
>>...Argument from incredulity has not been considered a valid form of
>> reasoning since medieval times.
[deletions]
>Interesting that you should mention that "Argument from incredulity has
>not been considered a valid form of reasoning since medieval times." I
>quite agree. Why then, do some atheists here engage in it? More than
>a few times I have read posts where the atheists posting state that
>they 'cannot see how a gracious and loving God can allow such evil and
>suffering to occur as we see on the earth.' Simply because they cannot
>envision it, it must not be true. If this is not an argument from
>incredulity, I don't know what is!
As you have presented it, it is indeed an argument from incredulity.
However, from what I have seen, it is not often presented in this manner.
It is usually presented more in the form, "And *besides*, I cannot see...
...nor have I ever been offered a convincing explanation."
Moreover, it is not unreasonable to ask for an explanation for such
phenomena. That theism does not provide a convincing explanation is not
an argument in theism's favor. Especially when different theisms offer
different explanations, and even different adherents of what is purportedly
the same theism give different explanations...
> God has far more complex motivations
>and reasons for action or non-action than to simply "fix" evil whenever
>and however it occurs, or even *before* it occurs. And yet, it is this
>very same argument from incredulity which ranks high among reasons
>why atheists (in general) reject God and in particular the Christian God.
Not im my experience. In my experience, the most common reason is the
lack of evidence in theism's favor. You mileage may vary. :->
>This seems to be the universal bane of human reasoning and rationality,
>to wit, that it is far easier to see the logical fallacy or inept reasoning
>on the part of one's opponents than it is to see it in oneself.
Oh, heck, I'll be snide this once. :-> It's also fairly easy to attack
arguments that are not made. (I.e. 'strawmen'.)
>As one Man of Wisdom put it, take the log out of your own eye before you
>try to remove the splinter from your neighbor's eye.
Sage advice indeed.
Sincerely,
Raymond Ingles ingles@engin.umich.edu
"An apple every eight hours keeps three doctors away." - B. Kliban
| 0alt.atheism
|
acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu (Turin Turambar, ME Department of Utter Misery) | Re: College atheists | Macalester College | In article <1993Apr22.062438.9412@nuscc.nus.sg>, cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes:
> nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nanci Ann Miller) writes:
> : nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes:
> : > I read an article about a poll done of students at the Ivy League
> : > schools in which it was reported that a third of the students
> : > indentified themselves as atheists. This is a lot higher than among the
> : > general population. I wonder what the reasons for this discrepancy are?
> : > Is it because they are more intelligent? Younger? Is this the wave of
> : > the future?
>
> What is the figure for the general population? The last I heard, 25% of
> Americans believe in reincarnation. Can somebody quote a stat?
I don't have a stat, but, unfortunately, I did read generally that both smoking
and belief in the supernatural (occultish garbage) is on the rise here.
>
> : I would guess that it probably has something to do with the ease of which
> : ideas and thoughts are communicated on a college campus....
> :
> : So, in a world where theists are forced to contend with and listen to
> : atheists and theists of other religions some are bound to have a change in
> : their beliefs over four years. There is nowhere to run.... :-)
>
> Funny. In my country, it works the other way round. Univ life is v. v.
> stressful for most people (remember, we're an Asian population) & Xtians
> like to prey on these people. There is nowhere to run from them ...... :-<
>
This is very interesting. I thing the principle is sort of the same though:
all "philosophical" ideas are generally tried out and tested mostly during
college years. Whether the idea is christian or atheist doesn't always matter.
But I'd like to say it's because atheists are more intelligent :)
> --
>
> The UnEnlightened One
> ------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
> |
> Tan Chade Meng | The wise man tells his wife that he understands her.
> Singapore |
> cmtan@iss.nus.sg | The fool tries to prove it.
> |
> ------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
>
--
regards,
--Adam
================================================================================
| Adam John Cooper | "Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings |
| (612) 696-7521 | who thought themselves good simply because |
| acooper@macalstr.edu | they had no claws." |
================================================================================
| "Understand one another? I fear I am beyond your comprehension." --Gandalf |
================================================================================
| 0alt.atheism
|
mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne) | Re: Christian Morality is | Florida State University Computer Science Department | In article <1993Apr21.184959.9451@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>
>Dan, I'm concerned that you are in grave spiritual danger because of your
>stubborn refusal to love and accept into your heart the Mighty Invisible
>Pink Unicorn...[Nice parody deleted.]
>I shall pray for you. In fact, brother, I cast out the demon which binds you
>in the Name of the Mighty Invisible Pink Unicorn. Dan, you must have *faith*!
Then you better pray for me, too, because I believe that the Mighty
Invisibile Pink Unicorn does not exist. One being cannot be both "Pink"
and "Invisible." The demon (or should that be daemon?) that keeps me
from believing and saving my soul is named Logic.
Bill Mayne
| 0alt.atheism
|
naren@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Naren Bala) | Re: Theists posting | Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. | In article <C4ux99.AIC@ra.nrl.navy.mil> khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes:
Stuff deleted
>Is there a concordance for the FAQ? WHich translation is considered
>most authoritative? Is there an orthodox commentary for the FAQ
>available? Is there one FAQ for militant atheists and another for
>moderate atheists; or, do you all read from the same FAQ? If so,
>how do you resolve differences of interpretation?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.............................................
I can put the same question to followers of any religion. How do you
Moslems resolve differences of opinion ?? Don't tell me that there
is one interpretation of the Quran. Read the soc.culture.* newsgroups.
You will zillions of different interpretations.
-- Naren
naren@TEKIG1.PEN.TEK.COM
All standard disclaimers apply
| 0alt.atheism
|
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) | Re: Origins of the bible. | AT&T | In article <1993Apr19.141112.15018@cs.nott.ac.uk>, eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes:
> Hi,
>
> I have been having an argument about the origins of the bible lately with
> a theist acquaintance. He stated that thousands of bibles were discovered
> at a certain point in time which were syllable-perfect. This therefore
> meant that there must have been one copy at a certain time; the time quoted
> by my acquaintace was approximately 50 years after the death of Jesus.
You can tell your friend from me that I was in a publisher's
warehouse one time and saw thousands of copies of The Joy of
Cooking and every one of them was syllable-perfect.
I have since sold all I own and become a follower of The Joy
of Cooking. The incident I mentioned convinced me, once and
for all, that The Joy of Cooking is inspired by god and the
one true path to his glory.
Dean Kaflowitz May the Sauce be With You
| 0alt.atheism
|
dekorte@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Stephen L. DeKorte) | Re: Genocide is Caused by Theism : Evidence? | Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |
I saw a 3 hour show on PBS the other day about the history of the
Jews. Appearently, the Cursades(a religious war agianst the muslilams
in 'the holy land') sparked the widespread persecution of muslilams
and jews in europe. Among the supporters of the persiecution, were none
other than Martin Luther, and the Vatican.
Later, Hitler would use Luthers writings to justify his own treatment
of the jews.
> Genocide is Caused by Theism : Evidence?
SD
| 0alt.atheism
|
"Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> | Re: An Anecdote about Islam | Kupajava, East of Krakatoa | >DATE: 5 Apr 1993 23:32:28 GMT
>FROM: Jon Livesey <livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com>
>
>In article <114127@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>|>
>|> 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.
>
>Then Mr Mozumder is incorrect when he says that when committing
>bad acts, people temporarily become atheists?
>
>jon.
Of course B.M. is not incorrect. He is defending Islam. When defending
Islam against infidels you can say anything and no one will dare criticize
you. But when an atheist uses the same argument he is using "petty sarcasm". So
B.M. can have his "temporary atheists" whenever he needs them and all the
"temporary atheists" can later say that they were always good Muslims because
they never explicitly rejected Islam.
Temporary atheism, temporary Islam, temporary marriage. None of it sticks.
A teflon religion. How convenient. And so easy to clean up after. But
then, what would you expect from a bunch of people who can't even agree on
the phases of the moon?
| 0alt.atheism
|
jennyb@carina.unm.edu (Jenny Ballmann) | Re: Another request for Darwin Fish | Cursed Female | Darwin fish can be bought from:
--
"JOIN THE DARWINNERS (TM) Send $6 to receive your official Evolving
Fish.. wherever you want to spread the good news! Darwinners, 6671
Sunset Blvd., Ste. 1525, L.A.,CA 90028 THE GREATEST THEORY EVER TOLD!"
Jenny
--
Forty years from now nursing homes will be filled with demented hackers,
studying their blank laptop screens nicely placed on knitted quilts
to keep their knees warm. -K. Mitchum
| 0alt.atheism
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: <Political Atheists? | Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) | In article <1qlfd4INN935@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>>>Well, chimps must have some system. They live in social groups
>>>as we do, so they must have some "laws" dictating undesired behavior.
>>So, why "must" they have such laws?
>
>The quotation marks should enclose "laws," not "must."
>
>If there were no such rules, even instinctive ones or unwritten ones,
>etc., then surely some sort of random chance would lead a chimp society
>into chaos.
The "System" refered to a "moral system". You havn't shown any
reason that chimps "must" have a moral system.
Except if you would like to redefine everything.
---
" Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "
John Laws, a man without the honor to keep his given word.
| 0alt.atheism
|
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: Poisoning the well (was: Islamic Genocide) | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <1rbpq0$ibg@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>
>In article <16BBACBC3.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>#By the way, that's why I consider you a theist:
>
>[7 points, consisting of rhetorical fallacy, unsupported claims, and
>demonstrable falsehoods deleted]
>
No wonder that we don't see any detail for this claim. It is good to
remember that you have answered the statement that you are a theist
by another correspondent with that you are not a member of a denomination.
It is either stupidity or an attempt at a trick answer. Not unlike the
rest of your arguments.
>Mr. Roseneau, I have little patience with people who tell me what I
>believe, and who call me a liar when I disagree. I'm in a position
>not only to know what it is that I believe, but to say so. I am an
>agnostic.
>
I am extremely wary of the way you use words. Like in this case, there
are broader definitions of gods used by persons who are considered by
themselves and others theists. I have pointed to that in my post. You
use one of them.
Your use of definitions seems to rest on the assumption: because my
moral is objective/absolute or the other buzz words you are so fond
of, everybody will know it, and there is no need to define it more
exactly.
And as a user has shown recently, the easiest way to dispell you is
to ask you for definitions.
>You are of course, free to speculate on my motives for objecting
>to seeming irrational bigotry if you wish, but the flaws which I
>point out in your arguments stand on their own merits.
Since you are the only one seeing them, and many correspondents
point to the flaws in your reasoning respectively discussing, I
can't say I am impressed.
Benedikt
| 0alt.atheism
|
kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu | Re: The nonexistance of Atheists?! | Wesleyan University | In article <bskendigC5JCwx.Jzn@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
> [s.c.a quotes deleted]
>
> It really looks like these people have no idea at all of what it means
> to be atheist. There are more Bobby Mozumder clones in the world than
> I thought...
Well, that explains some things; I posted on soc.religion.islam
with an attached quote by Bobby to the effect that all atheists
are lying evil scum, and asked if it was a commonly-held idea
among muslims. I got no response. Asking about the unknown,
I guess...
Karl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "Lastly, I come to China in the hope | "All you touch and all you see |
| of fulfilling a lifelong ambition - | Is all your life will ever be." |
| dropping acid on the Great Wall." --Duke | --Pink Floyd |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| A Lie is still a Lie even if 3.8 billion people believe it. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0alt.atheism
|
bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) | Re: Societal basis for morality References: <4fm9iYO00iV303voYt@andrew.cmu.edu> | Okcforum Unix Users Group | Bruce Salem (salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: >If morals come from what is societally accepted, why follow that?
: Because social pressure is the most powerful force known to
: man. How can you disprove a contention that the richeousness of
: established religion is anything other than social convention? One
: way is to assert that there are moral universals. But that is not
: the same thing as asserting that these universials owe their origen
: to trancendance or the supernatural or to dieties.
: >What right do
: >we have to expect others to follow our notion of societally mandated morality?
: We expect empathy from our fellow man. We expect to raise each
: generation with values that we live by, those which assure that mistakes
: we have made are not repeated. Do you think that mere authority checks
: all tendancies which are disruptive of civilized life? I think not! In fact
: authority is power, and power corrupts. The most powerful tend to think
: that they are above the law that applies to everybody else. Religious
: authority, theocarcy, has not mitigated this any better than other
: power structures on this score and it seems that because there are no
: checks on power concentrated in clergy or nobility that the abuses
: recorded by history are greater.
: We live and teach morals by setting an example, starting in
: the home. This does not come from books or authority figures in
: soceity. If people are weak or confused at the present time it is
: not because the breakup of the family has been precipitated by some
: mysterious moral decidance that redidication to traditional formulas
: will repair. That is but magical and simplistic thinking. We need to
: look at forces in the way we live, even the good things that happen
: in our present culture, that are weakening the family as the primary
: means we have to teach children values. Of course people are trying
: to have the community do things that once were done in the family
: alone. This may not be as effective. We need to look at this.
..
: Laying down the law, and with teeth, doesn't stop the crazy
: man from murdering your brother despite the morality or the law. It
: may help you with dealing promptly with him after the fact, but it
: may not be very effective for preventing mental illness or cracy people
: from murduring.
Bruce,
It seems like you are advocating social change based on your
concept of human nature, and that concept seems pretty Utopian. It's
obvious from even a cursory study of history that no system,
regardless of the authority it may claim for its basis, will make
people act any better. Until human nature changes, the products of our
nature won't change, and that has to include society. I think your
assessment of human potential in this regard is too optimistic.
What is needed is an absolute moral standard if -all- people are to
create any Utopias. By implying a Utopian future, you also argue for
an absolute standard that applies to everyone in every case. I realize
that you may not acknowledge the connection, but it's there.
Bill
| 0alt.atheism
|
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Siemens-Nixdorf AG | In article <930422.113530.7w1.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk# mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
#frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#> Specifically, I'd like to know what relativism concludes when two
#> people grotesquely disagree. Is it:
#>
#> (a) Both are right
#>
#> (b) One of them is wrong, and sometimes (though perhaps rarely) we have a
#> pretty good idea who it is
#>
#> (c) One of them is wrong, but we never have any information as to who, so
#> we make our best guess if we really must make a decision.
#>
#> (d) The idea of a "right" moral judgement is meaningless (implying that
#> whether peace is better than war, e.g., is a meaningless question,
#> and need not be discussed for it has no correct answer)
#>
#> (e) Something else. A short, positive assertion would be nice.
#
#From whose point of view would you like to know what relativism concludes?
#One of the people involved in the argument, or some third person observing
#the arguers?
I've just come from responding another of your posts, where some pennies
have dropped for me. But it would clarify further if you would answer
from the point of view of any disinterested observers - perhaps an
observer as likely to be in position A as in position B (where A and B
disagree) in the future, and have his or her conclusion now binding on
them at that time.
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 0alt.atheism
|
perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) | Re: Who has read Rushdie's _The Satanic Verses_? | Decision Support Inc. | Another one rescued from the bit bucket...
Over the years the furor over this book has been discussed on a.a. and
elsewhere on the net. Generally, the discussion comes down to the
contention on the one hand that TSV contains such blood libel against
Islam as to merit, if not death, than at least banning and probably
some sort of punishment; and on the other that Rushdie, particularly
as a non-muslim in a Western country, had every right to write and
publish whatever he chose, regardless of whether some muslims find it
offensive, without fear of persecution or death.
I am naturally inclined to the latter position, but find myself in an
interesting position, because I think this is a fine book, only
incidentally concerned with Islam, and moreover I'm damned if I can
find anything malevolently offensive in it.
Over the years, when I have made this point, various primarily muslim
posters have responded, saying that yes indeed they have read the book
and had called it such things as "filth and lies", "I would rank
Rushdie's book with Hitler's Mein Kempf or worse", and so on.
Unfortunately, these comments are usually generalities, and attempts
to follow up by requesting explanations for what specifically is so
offensive have met either with stony silence, more generalizations, or
inaccurate or out-of-context references to the book [which lead me to
believe that few of them have actually read it]. Corrections and
attempts to discuss the text in context have been ignored.
Anyway, since I seem to be the only one following this particular line
of discussion, I wonder how many of the rest of the readership have
read this book? What are your thoughts on it?
--
Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
--
Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
| 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 | 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.
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
|
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) | Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | In article <115288@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) wrote:
> 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.
Gregg, so would you consider that Rushdie would now be left alone,
and he could have a normal life? In other words, does Islam support
the notion of forgiving?
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 0alt.atheism
|
davidk@welch.jhu.edu (David "Go-Go" Kitaguchi) | Re: Americans and Evolution | Welch Medical Library |
:P>My atheism is incidental, and the question of "God" is trivial.
:P
:P>But........
:P
:P>It matters a great deal to me when idiots try to force their belief on me,
:P>when they try to enforce their creation myths to be taught as scientific
:P>fact in school, when they tell me I can have no morals because morals are
:P>from "God", when a successful presidential candidate says that an atheist
:P>shouldn't be considered a citizen and couldn't be patriotic because "after
:P>all this is one nation under God", when the fundies try to take over the
:P>party that may well provide the next President of The United States of
:P>America so that they can force their beliefs on the rest of the country,
:P>et cetera..........
:P
:P>That's why I subscribe to alt.atheism.
:P
:P>And in the middle of this, people who aren't mind readers pop up on
:P>alt.atheism to tell me what I do or don't believe, or to concoct some
:P>straw-man reason why I don't share their particular belief.
:P
:P>You think I should just accept this?
:P
:P>This isn't particularly a dig at fundamentalist christians. I have been
:P>told on alt.atheism that I reject Allah because I am too proud to embrace
:P>islam, and that I reject Krishna because my eyes are closed. But most of
:P>the religious nuts who post on alt.atheism are some kind of militant
:P>christian who can't accept that others don't share their beliefs. This
:P>kind of stuff should be kept on talk.religion.misc, where it belongs.
:P
:P>ATHEISM ISN'T A BELIEF, IT'S THE ABSENCE OF BELIEF IN ANY GODS.
:P> -------
:P
:P>Do you have a problem with this?
:P
:P>>
:P>>Bill
:PFirst, I would like to say that atheism is in fact a belief. It is a beilief
:Pbecause a belief in something you hold to with ador and faith. An atheist says there are no gods. This cannot be proven. therefore you are excepting this on
:Pfaith alone. That is a belief. Secondly, you complain so much about how the
:Pfundamental christians are trying to force their beliefs on you, but you don't
:Pmention anything about how the atheists, such as; Madamme Murry O'hare(founder
:Pof the Atheists Association in Austin Texas), and Robert Sherman(from the Chicago area) have been trying to force their beliefs on everyone by trying to get rid of God from our society by banning religious paintings from parks during Chistmas, forcing cities to change their town seals if there is any mention of God in it (like Sherman has done), or trying to get the slogan "In God We Trust" off of the American currency? You also talk about creation "myths" as if they are in fact myths and tha
:P
:P
:P
:Phave concrete evidece of this. You probably
:Pdon't and that just enforces my point that your atheism is just as much belief as my christianity. If this is not so please do show me why it isn't.
:PMark Covalt
The only real problem I have with the argument of christianity is that they seem to ignore their origin that being Asiatic in origin. As soon as christians become the
good non ego-centric Buddhists they are supposed to be, then I might listen.
My opinion, I speak not for my place of employment... But I should...
"Christ was over-rated, and will the ATF follow Koresh (the current Christ) through
his ascention to heaven?"
| 0alt.atheism
|
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Who, me??? | In article <1qvtk4$jep@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1qu2c9$4o4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>In article <1qme79$c0k@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>#In article <1qm36b$gn2@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>#>In article <1qktj3$bn9@squick.eitech.com> ekr@squick.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>#>Now if we're valuing procedures subjectively, and science is a procedure,
>>#>science cannot be valued non-subjectively.
>>#
>>#You're just overloading the word value, AGAIN, I suspect.
>>
>>Maybe you're underloading it. If, from hundreds of alleged procedures for
>>obtaining truth about the material world, I pick science, then that is a
>>subjective judgement according to the strict meaning of the terms, yes?
>
>Yes, naturally.
>
>>Ordinarily, it is also a *value* judgement, though it needn't be (one
>>could "do science" without believing it was worth a damn in any context,
>>though that hardly seems sensible).
>
>No, you're just overloading the word "value" again. It is an
>estimation of probability of correctness, not an estimation of "worth."
>Shit, I don't even know what "worth" means. Consider the possibility
>that I am not interested in knowing truth. I could still believe
>that science was the most likely way to get truth, and not value
>science at all.
But you STILL value likely ways over unlikely ways, correct? If I wanted to
know the "truth" about, say, the specific gravity of chicken soup, I could
employ science -- meters, gauges, scales, etc. -- or I could just talk a walk
on a beach somewhere. Both have a possibility of generating the truthful
answer -- in the case of the walk on the beach, it would have to be some sort
of sudden inspiration about the specific gravity of chicken soup which just
happened to be truthful -- so what makes me choose the scientific method of
truth-determination over the "walk on the beach" method? Because I *VALUE*
science's higher probability of obtaining truth, that's why. Everywhere one
turns, there is intentionality and value judgments lurking just beneath the
veneer of detached objectivity. It is an inescapable aspect of the human
condition.
>>#>#Like I said before, DES works whether I value my privacy or
>>#>#not.
>>#>
>>#>O.K., which DES? The abstract function DES? that stops working in any
>>#>important sense if no-one cares for the importance of truth, mathematics,
>>#>meaning, information, etc. A DES chip or DES s/w? That stops working in
>>#>any important sense if no-one values science, objective reality, etc.
>>#>DES does not work in a value vacuum. Nothing else does, either.
>>#
>>#This is just truth by blatant assertion. Your "in any important sense"
>>#seem to be just weasel words. Imagine that I have a box which
>>#accepts 16 bytes and uses the first 8 to ECB the second 8.
>>#It still does a perfect job of DESing, whether or not any input
>>#is being made at the time--whether or not anyone values mathematics..
>>
>>The concept of a DES box which can be assumed to work as you describe in
>>the absence of an assumption of objective reality is incoherent. Such a box
>>may as well be assumed to wear a dufflecoat and go to the Limerick Races.
>
>Truth by blatant assertion again, Frank. It's observationally the
>case that when you measure it, it works. It can be reasonably well
>assumed that it will work even when you are not measuring it, barring
>quantum silliness about how it might have disappeared and reappeared.
>It doesn't take a notion of objective reality to discuss my observations.
Well, I would add that the attribute "works even when not being measured" is
*ALSO* something which is valued and intended, Eric. All you've succeeded in
doing is kicking this up another level in the hierarchy of values.
- Kevin
| 0alt.atheism
|
JDB1145@tamvm1.tamu.edu | Re: A Little Too Satanic | Texas A&M University | In article <65934@mimsy.umd.edu>
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>
>Nanci Ann Miller writes:
>
]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.
Tell it to King James, mate.
]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."
John Burke, jdb1145@summa.tamu.edu
| 0alt.atheism
|
emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) | Re: The Universe and Black Holes, was Re: 2000 years..... | Sun | In article <1qvmk2$csk@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
> (Wouldn't it be nice if Subject: lines had something to do
>with nessage bodies!)
Yes.
> 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?
I don't think that the universe would look like a black hole from
the outside, because that would imply that similar to a black hole we
would see stuff coming in from the "outside."
> 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?
I am personally convinced that what we call our "universe" is only a
small part of a larger system. Further, I think that it is logically
necessary for the laws of our universe be confined to this universe
itself.
Why do I believe this? It is simple; I believe that the odds against
there being only one universe and that universe having the right conditions
to support us are infinate. I believe that to explain our existance in
this universe it is necessary to either consider multiple universes
(an infinate number of them) or intelligent design. Since the only
intelligence that we know of is of a higher order than simple matter
(the brain is made of matter) by Ockham's razor I go for the first
choice.
What's more, there are a couple of books out dealing with popular
science that use parallel universes and holographic universes (which
is another way of saying parallel) to explain the behavior of particals
at the quantum level. One is called Parallel Universes, and I think it
is by Wolf, the other The Holographic Universe.
BTW, the parallel universe approach implys an element of mind in the
very physical reality of the universe.
>Bruce Salem
>
eric
| 0alt.atheism
|
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) | Re: I'll see your demand and raise you... (was Re: After 2000 years etc) | National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA | From article by ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson):
> In article mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>>frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>> (Peter Walker) writes:
>>>
>>> #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.
>>
>>Prove that you exist, Frank.
>
> Cogito, ergo sum. :)
Cogito, ergo spud.
I think, therefore I yam.
:-D
kyuk kyuk kyuk
| 0alt.atheism
|
lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) | Re: Don't more innocents die without the death penalty? | University of Arizona | In article <chrisb.734068710@bAARNie>, chrisb@tafe.sa.edu.au (Chris BELL) writes...
> killing is wrong
> if you kill we will punish you
> our punishment will be to kill you.
>
>Seems to be lacking in consistency.
Not any more so than
holding people against their will is wrong
if you hold people against their will we will punish you
our punishment will be to hold you against your will
Is there any punishment which isn't something which, if done by a private
person to another private person for no apparent reason, would lead to
punishment? (Fines, I suppose.)
Jim Lippard Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
| 0alt.atheism
|