text
stringlengths 37
51.2k
|
|---|
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>They spent quite a bit of time on the wording of the Constitution.
>I realise that this is widely held belief in America, but in fact
>the clause on cruel and unusual punishments, like a lot of the
>rest, was lifted from the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
Just because the wording is elsewhere does not mean they didn't spend
much time on the wording.
>>We have already looked in the dictionary to define the word. Isn't
>>this sufficient?
>Since the dictionary said that a lack of mercy or an intent to
>inflict injury or grief counted as "cruel", sure.
People can be described as cruel in this way, but punishments cannot.
keith
|
From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Concerning God's Morality (long)
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
> > Sorry, but there are no supernatural
> > forces necessary to create a pathogen. You are saying, "Since
> > diseases are bad, the bad entity must have created it." So
> > what would you say about acid rain, meteors falling from the
> > sky, volcanoes, earthquakes, and other QUOTE UNQUOTE "Acts
> > of God?"
>
> I would say that they are not "acts of God" but natural
> occurrences.
It amazes me that you have the audacity to say that human creation was not
the result of the natural process of evolution (but rather an "act of God")
and then in the same post say that these other processes (volcanos et al.)
are natural occurrences. Who gave YOU the right to choose what things are
natural processes and what are direct acts of God? How do you know that
God doesn't cause each and every natural disaster with a specific purpose
in mind? It would certainly go along with the sadistic nature I've seen in
the bible.
> >>Even if Satan had nothing to do with the original inception of
> >>disease, evolution by random chance would have produced them since
> >>humanity forsook God's protection. If we choose to live apart from
> >>God's law (humanity collectively), then it should come as no surprise
> >>that there are adverse consequences to our (collective) action. One
> >>of these is that we are left to deal with disease and disorders which
> >>inevitably result in an entropic universe.
> >
> > May I ask, where is this 'collective' bullcrap coming from?
>
> By "collective" I was referring to the idea that God works with
> humanity on two levels, individually and collectively. If mankind
> as a whole decides to undertake a certain action (the majority of
> mankind), then God will allow the consequences of that action to
> affect mankind as a whole.
Adam & Eve (TWO PEOPLE), even tho they had the honor (or so you christians
claim) of being the first two, definitely do NOT represent a majority in
the billions and trillions (probably more) of people that have come after
them. Perhaps they were the majority then, but *I* (and YOU) weren't
around to vote, and perhaps we might have voted differently about what to
do with that tree. But your god never asked us. He just assumes that if
you have two bad people then they ALL must be bad. Hmm. Sounds like the
same kind of false generalization that I see many of the theists posting
here resorting to. So THAT's where they get it... shoulda known.
> Jim B.
Nanci
.........................................................................
If you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me
email (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):
Lying to ourselves is more deeply ingrained than lying to others.
|
Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)
In article <1pik3i$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <C4u51L.8Bv@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>|>
>|>
>|> Why do you spend so much time posting here if your atheism is so
>|> incidental, if the question of God is trivial? Fess up, it matters to
>|> you a great deal.
>
>Ask yourself two questions.
>
> 1. How important is Mithras in your life today?
>
> 2. How important would Mithras become if there was a
> well funded group of fanatics trying to get the
> schools system to teach your children that Mithras
> was the one true God?
>
>jon.
Right on, Jon! Who cares who or whose, as long as it works for the individual.
But don't try to impose those beliefs on us or our children. I would add the
well-funded group tries also to purge science, to deny children access to great
wonders and skills. And how about the kids born to creationists? What a
burden with which to begin adult life. It must be a cruel awakening for those
who finally see the light, provided it is possible to escape from the depths of
this type of ignorance.
|
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses
suopanki@stekt.oulu.fi writes:
> On 5 Apr 93 11:24:30 MST, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com said:
> :> God is eternal. [A = B]
> :> Jesus is God. [C = A]
> :> Therefore, Jesus is eternal. [C = B]
>
> :> This works both logically and mathematically. God is of the set of
> :> things which are eternal. Jesus is a subset of God. Therefore
> :> Jesus belongs to the set of things which are eternal.
>
> Everything isn't always so logical....
>
> Mercedes is a car.
> That girl is Mercedes.
> Therefore, that girl is a car?
Unfortunately your phrasing is ambiguous. Re-writing more carefully, we have
(at least) two possibilities. The first:
Things called "Mercedes" are cars
That girl is called "Mercedes"
Therefore that girl is a car
That is entirely valid as a piece of logical deduction. It is not sound,
because the first statement is false. Similarly, I would hold that Jim's
example is valid but not sound.
Another possible interpretation of what you wrote is:
There exists at least one car called "Mercedes"
That girl is called "Mercedes"
Therefore that girl is a car
-- which isn't valid.
mathew
|
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
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."
Oh, Your Highness? And exactly why "should" the quotation
marks enclose "laws," not "must."
In case you didn't notice, it's the function of the "must"
that I wish to ironicise.
|>
|> 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.
Perhaps the chimps that failed to evolve cooperative behaviour
died out, and we are left with the ones that did evolve such
behaviour, entirely by chance.
Are you going to proclaim a natural morality every time an
organism evolves cooperative behaviour?
What about the natural morality of bee dance?
jon.
|
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
In article <1993Apr20.191048.6139@cnsvax.uwec.edu> nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes:
#[reply to frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)]
#
#>>The problem for the objectivist is to determine the status of moral
#>>truths and the method by which they can be established. If we accept
#>>that such judgements are not reports of what is but only relate to
#>>what ought to be (see naturalistic fallacy) then they cannot be proved
#>>by any facts about the nature of the world.
#
#>This can be avoided in at least two ways: (1) By leaving the Good
#>undefined, since anyone who claims that they do not know what it is is
#>either lying or so out of touch with humanity as to be undeserving of a
#>reply.
#
#If the Good is undefined (undefinable?) but you require of everyone that
#they know innately what is right, you are back to subjectivism.
No, and begging the question. see below.
#>(2) By defining the Good solely in terms of evaluative terms.
#
#Ditto here. An evaluative statement implies a value judgement on the
#part of the person making it.
Again, incorrect, and question-begging. See below.
#
#>>At this point the objectivist may talk of 'self-evident truths'
#
#Pretty perceptive, that Prof. Flew.
#
#>>but can he deny the subjectivist's claim that self-evidence is in the
#>>mind of the beholder?
#
#>Of course; by denying that subject/object is true dichotomy.
#
#Please explain how this helps. I don't see your argument.
I don't see yours. It seems to rest on the assertion that everything
is either a subject or an object. There's nothing compelling about that
dichotomy. I might just as well divide the world into subject,object,
event. It even seems more sensible. Causation, for example, is
an event, not a subject or an object.
Furthermore, if subject/object were true dichotomy, i.e.
Everything is either a subject or an object
Then, is that statement a self-evident truth or not? If so, then it's
all in the mind of the beholder, according to the relativist, and hardly
compelling. Add to that the fact that the world can quickly be shoved
in its entirety into the "subjective" category by an idealist or
solipsist argument, and that we have this perfectly good alternate
set of categories (subject, object, event) [which can be reduced
to (subject, object, quality) without any logical difficulty] and why
yes, I guess I *am* denying that self-evident truths are all in the mind of
the beholder.
#>>If not, what is left of the claim that some moral judgements are true?
All of it.
#>If nothing, then NO moral judgements are true. This is a thing that
#>is commonly referred to as nihilism. It entails that science is of
#>no value, irrepective of the fact that some people find it useful. How
#>anyone arrives at relativism/subjectivism from this argument beats me.
#
#This makes no sense either. Flew is arguing that this is where the
#objectivist winds up, not the subjectivist. Furthermore, the nihilists
#believed in nothing *except* science, materialism, revolution, and the
#People.
I'm referring to ethical nihilism
#>>The subjectivist may well feel that all that remains is that there are
#>>some moral judgements with which he would wish to associate himself.
#>>To hold a moral opinion is, he suggests, not to know something to be
#>>true but to have preferences regarding human activity."
#
#>And if those preferences should include terrorism, that moral opinion
#>is not true. Likewise, if the preferences should include noTerrorism,
#>that moral opinion is not true. Why should one choose a set of
#>preferences which include terrorisim over one which includes
#>noTerrorism? Oh, no reason. This is patently absurd....
#
#And also not the position of the subjectivist, as has been pointed out
#to you already by others. Ditch the strawman, already, and see my reply
#to Mike Cobb's root message in the thread Societal Basis for Morality.
I've responded over there. BTW - I don't intend this as a strawman, but
as something logically entailed by relativism (really any ethical system
where values are assumed to be unreal). It's different to say "Relativists
say..." than "relativism implies...".
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
|
From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
>>>>> 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." (*)/'(*)
|
From: aiken@unity.ncsu.edu (Wayne NMI Aiken)
Subject: Re: Mottos to replace "In doG we trust"
Andrew Hilmer (hilmera@storm.cs.orst.edu) wrote:
: At the risk of beginning a cascade, I'll start with a possibly cheesy
: good 'ol Uhmericun:
: "Our shield is freedom"
Or, considering what our government has been doing for the past 50 years,
perhaps this would be more appropriate:
"100% Debt"
--
Holy Temple of Mass $ >>> slack@ncsu.edu <<< $ "My used underwear
Consumption! $ $ is legal tender in
PO Box 30904 $ BBS: (919) 782-3095 $ 28 countries!"
Raleigh, NC 27622 $ Warning: I hoard pennies. $ --"Bob"
|
From: marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall)
Subject: Re: Faith and Dogma
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 ---
|
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: islamic genocide
In <2943927496.1.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
>>DATE: 14 Apr 1993 23:52:11 GMT
>>FROM: Frank O'Dwyer <frank@D012S658.uucp>
>>
>>In article <1993Apr14.102810.6059@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>>
>>Just borrowing your post, Mr. Rice...
>>
>>#In <2943656910.0.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
>>#>Are you sure that democracy is the driving force behind
>>#>the massacres in East Timor? It is certainly odd that so many of the worlds
>>#>massacres occur along religious lines, independently of any claims to a
>>#>democratic form of government. Are Ireland and Northern Ireland considered
>>#>democracies? Would you attribute their problems to democracy even though
>>#>they are democracies? Which motivates them more, religion or democracy?
>>
>>Mr. Rice was pointing out a fallacy in the assertion that Islam is evil
>>because some of those who claim to follow it are evil, not asserting that
>>democracy causes massacres, as I read it.
>That is right, he was. And I was pointing out that his use of Indonesians
>killing the East Timorese as a result of _democracy_ was a bit weak because
>democracy is not much of a motivation for doing much of anything in Indonesia
>from what I remember. East Timor was a former Portguese territory which was
>forcibly annexed by Indonesia. Last I heard over 10,000 Indonesians have
>died trying to keep East Timor a part of Indonesia. Being a former
>Portuguese colony, there is a strong Catholic influence in East Timor as I
>recall. So it seems a bit odd that yet again we have another war being
>fought between people who just "happen" to have different religions. Purely
>coincidental, I guess. But then the real motivation is to get the vote out
>and make democracy work in Indonesia.
I pointed out the secession movement in Aceh which has also been
brutally dealt with in the past by the Indonesian government. The
harshly with all secessionist movements.
the evidence, it appears to me that the Indonesian government has dealt
very harshly with all secession movements.
I know that the head of the Indonesian armed forces for a very long time
was Benny Murdani -- a "Christian". Indonesia has been heavy handed in
East Timor for a long time , even when Murdani was head of the armed
forces. The people who make up the
Indonesian government are in general motivated by national interests,
not religious ones.
Fred Rice
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
|
From: a137490@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Aario Sami)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
In <kmr4.1466.734160929@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
> "Wait. You just said that humans are rarely reasonable. Doesn't that
> contradict atheism, where everything is explained through logic and
> reason? This is THE contradiction in atheism that proves it false."
> --- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #2
Does anybody have Bobby's post in which he said something like "I don't
know why there are more men than women in islamic countries. Maybe it's
atheists killing the female children"? It's my personal favorite!
--
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.
|
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: free moral agency
In article <C5pxqs.LM5@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
> dean.kaflowitz (decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com) wrote:
>
> : Now, what I am interested in is the original notion you were discussing
> : on moral free agency. That is, how can a god punish a person for
> : not believing in him when that person is only following his or her
> : nature and it is not possible for that person to deny what his or
> : her reason tells him or her, which is that there is no god?
>
> Dean,
>
> I think you're letting atheist mythology
Great start. I realize immediately that you are not interested
in discussion and are going to thump your babble at me. I would
much prefer an answer from Ms Healy, who seems to have a
reasonable and reasoned approach to things. Say, aren't you the
creationist guy who made a lot of silly statements about
evolution some time ago?
> confuse you on the issue of
> Divine justice. According to the most fundamental doctrines of
> Christianity, When the first man sinned, he was at that time the
> entire human race and any "punishment" meted out would necessarily
> affect the entire race of which he was the sole representive.All
> humans coming after him would, being of the same race (species), share
> in that judgement. It has nothing to do with who deserves what.
> From the perspective of God, humanity is but one category of created
> things and that category is condemned.
Duh, gee, then we must be talking Christian mythology now. I
was hoping to discuss something with a reasonable, logical
person, but all you seem to have for your side is a repetition
of the same boring mythology I've seen a thousand times before.
I am deleting the rest of your remarks, unless I spot something
that approaches an answer, because they are merely a repetition
of some uninteresting doctrine or other and contain no thought
at all.
[..]
I have to congratulate you, though, Bill. You wouldn't
know a logical argument if it bit you on the balls. Such
a persistent lack of function in the face of repeated
attempts to assist you in learning (which I have seen
in this forum and others in the past) speaks of a talent
that goes well beyond my own, meager abilities. I just don't
seem to have that capacity for ignoring outside influences.
Dean Kaflowitz
|
From: dekorte@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Stephen L. DeKorte)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Theism : Evidence?
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
|
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof
watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes:
>kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>>In article <healta.171.735538331@saturn.wwc.edu> healta@saturn.wwc.edu
>>(Tammy R Healy) writes:
>>>> "FBI officials said cult leader David Koresh may have
>>>> forced followers to remain as flames closed in. Koresh's
>>>> armed guard may have injected as many as 24 children with
>>>> poison to quiet them."
>>>>
>>>Do the FBI have proof of this yet?!
>
>> Why ask me? I am only quoting the FBI official. Why not ask the FBI?
>
> Myabe they're lying to cover up, or maybe they're telling the truth.
The 24 children were, of course, killed by a lone gunman in a second story
window, who fired eight bullets in the space of two seconds...
mathew
|
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: thoughts on christians
In article <C5rGKB.4Fs@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>Kent Sandvik (sandvik@newton.apple.com) wrote:
>: The social pressure is indeed a very important factor for the majority
>: of passive Christians in our world today. In the case of early Christianity
>: the promise of a heavenly afterlife, independent of your social status,
>: was also a very promising gift (reason slaves and non-Romans accepted
>: the religion very rapidly).
>
>If this is a hypothetical proposition, you should say so, if it's
>fact, you should cite your sources. If all this is the amateur
>sociologist sub-branch of a.a however, it would suffice to alert the
>unwary that you are just screwing around ...
What would you accept as sources? This very thing has been written
in lots of books. You could start with Erich Fromm's _The Dogma of Christ_.
--
Doug Graham dgraham@bnr.ca My opinions are my own.
|
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
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
|
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!!
In article <93108.020701TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu>
Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>In article <93106.155002JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu> <JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!! BE
>>>PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!!
>>
>>readers of the group. How convenient that he doesn't have a real name...
>>Let's start up the letters to the sysadmin, shall we?
>
>His real name is Jeremy Scott Noonan.
>vmoper@psuvm.psu.edu should have at least some authority,
>or at least know who to email.
>
POSTMAST@PSUVM.BITNET respectively P_RFOWLES or P_WVERITY (the sys admins)
at the same node are probably a better idea than the operator.
Benedikt
|
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!!
In <93106.155002JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu> <JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
Who cares what the fellow wrote anyway? I mean, it came from
PSUVM, so how could it possibly have been of any importance?
=====
(disperse smileys until no longer offended)
--
Disclaimer? "It's great to be young and insane!"
|
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: Smullyanism for the day.....
In article <1r8tpi$4pu@dr-pepper.East.Sun.COM> geoff@East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top) writes:
>[This Raymond Smullyan quote is too big for a .sig, but deserves posting IMHO.]
To big for a .sig?
No way!
Keith " Home of the billdboard .sig files " Ryan
=)
---
Private note to Jennifer Fakult.
"This post may contain one or more of the following:
sarcasm, cycnicism, irony, or humor. Please be aware
of this possibility and do not allow yourself to be
confused and/or thrown for a loop. If in doubt, assume
all of the above.
The owners of this account do not take any responsiblity
for your own confusion which may result from your inability
to recognize any of the above. Read at your own risk, Jennifer."
|
Subject: Re: islamic authority over women
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
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)
|
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam
In article <1993Apr14.121134.12187@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>>In article <C5C7Cn.5GB@ra.nrl.navy.mil> khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes:
>I just borrowed a book from the library on Khomeini's fatwa etc.
>I found this useful passage regarding the legitimacy of the "fatwa":
>"It was also common knowledge as prescribed by Islamic law, that the
>sentence was only applicable where the jurisdiction of Islamic law
>applies. Moreover, the sentence has to be passed by an Islamic court
>and executed by the state machinery through the due process of the law.
>Even in Islamic countries, let alone in non-Muslim lands, individuals
>cannot take the law into their own hands. The sentence when passed,
>must be carried out by the state through the usual machinery and not by
>individuals. Indeed it becomes a criminal act to take the law into
>one's own hands and punish the offender unless it is in the process of
>self-defence. Moreover, the offender must be brought to the notice of
>the court and it is the court who shoud decide how to deal with him.
>This law applies equally to Muslim as well as non-Muslim territories.
I agree fully with the above statement and is *precisely* what I meant
by my previous statements about Islam not being anarchist and the
law not being _enforcible_ despite the _law_ being applicable.
>Hence, on such clarification from the ulama [Islamic scholars], Muslims
>in Britain before and after Imam Khomeini's fatwa made it very clear
>that since Islamic law is not applicable to Britain, the hadd
>[compulsory] punishment cannot be applied here."
I disagree with this conclusion about the _applicability_ of the
Islamic law to all muslims, wherever they may be. The above conclusion
does not strictly follow from the foregoing, but only the conclusion
that the fatwa cannot be *enforced* according to Islamic law. However,
I do agree that the punishment cannot be applied to Rushdie even *were*
it well founded.
>Wow... from the above, it looks like that from an Islamic viewpoint
>Khomeini's "fatwa" constitutes a "criminal act" .... perhaps I could
>even go out on a limb and call Khomeini a "criminal" on this basis....
Certainly putting a price on the head of Rushdie in Britain is a criminal
act according to Islamic law.
>Anyhow, I think it is understood by _knowledgeable_ Muslims that
>Khomeini's "fatwa" is Islamically illegitimate, at least on the basis
>expounded above. Others, such as myself and others who have posted here
>(particularly Umar Khan and Gregg Jaeger, I think) go further and say
>that even the punishment constituted in the fatwa is against Islamic law
>according to our understanding.
Yes.
Gregg
|
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Bill Conner:
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
|
From: kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko)
Subject: Re: Consciousness part II - Kev Strikes Back!
Scott D. Sauyet (SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu) wrote:
> In <1993Apr21.163848.8099@cs.nott.ac.uk>
> Kevin Anthony (kax@cs.nott.ac.uk) writes:
> > Firstly, I'm not impressed with the ability of algorithms. They're
> > great at solving problems once the method has been worked out, but not
> > at working out the method itself.
> [ .. crossword example deleted ... ]
> Have you heard of neural networks? I've read a little about them, and
> they seems to overcome most of your objections.
I'm sure there are many people who work with neural networks and
read this newsgroup. Please tell Kevin what you've achieved, and
what you expect.
> I am not saying that NNs will solve all such problems, but I think
> they show that it is not as hard as you think to come up with
> mechanical models of consciousness.
Indeed. I think dualism is a non-solution, or, as Dennett recently
put it, a dead horse.
Petri
--
___. .'*''.* Petri Pihko kem-pmp@ Mathematics is the Truth.
!___.'* '.'*' ' . Pihatie 15 C finou.oulu.fi Physics is the Rule of
' *' .* '* SF-90650 OULU kempmp@ the Game.
*' * .* FINLAND phoenix.oulu.fi -> Chemistry is The Game.
|
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Why Rushdie's writings are unappreciated
In article <1quc6u$8qu@cc.tut.fi>, a137490@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Aario Sami) writes:
|> In <114902@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
|>
|> >In article <C53JqD.MDB@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
|> >>In article <114320@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
|>
|> >>>It has been asked why no counter-fatwa has been issued against
|> >>>Khomenei's condemnation of Rushdies because of his _Satanic Verses_.
|> >>>The reason is basically that the "satanic verses" from which Rushdie
|> >>>took his title are a serious matter not to be played around with by
|> >>>anyone who cares about Islam.
|>
|> >>This shouldn't matter.
|>
|> >That's your opinion, which I am sorry to say is irrelevant.
|>
|> >Gregg
|>
|> This guy sounds more than a little borg-ish!
Vell, this is perfectly normal behaviour Vor a Vogon, you know?
jon.
|
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Concerning God's Morality (was: Americans and Evolution)
In article <1993Apr2.155057.808@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
[why do babies get diseases, etc.]
>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,
Here's the (main) problem. The scenario you outline is reasonably
consistent, but all the evidence that I am familiar with not only does
not support it, but indicates something far different. The Earth, by
latest estimates, is about 4.6 billion years old, and has had life for
about 3.5 billion of those years. Humans have only been around for (at
most) about 200,000 years. But, the fossil evidence inidcates that life
has been changing and evolving, and, in fact, disease-ridden, long before
there were people. (Yes, there are fossils that show signs of disease...
mostly bone disorders, of course, but there are some.) Heck, not just
fossil evidence, but what we've been able to glean from genetic study shows
that disease has been around for a long, long time. If human sin was what
brought about disease (at least, indirectly, though necessarily) then
how could it exist before humans?
> God created the original genetic code
>perfect and without flaw. And without getting sidetracked into
>the theological ramifications of the original sin, the main effect
>of the so-called original sin for this discussion was to remove
>humanity from God's protection since by their choice A&E cut
>themselves off from intimate fellowship with God. In addition, their
>sin caused them to come under the dominion of Satan, who then assumed
>dominion over the earth...
[deletions]
>Since humanity was no longer under God's protection but under Satan's
>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.
Uh... I know of many evolutionary biologists, who know more about
biology than you claim to, who will strongly disagree with this. There
is no evidence that the human genetic code (or any other) 'started off'
in perfect condition. It seems to adapt to its envionment, in a
collective sense. I'm really curious as to what you mean by 'the
degeneration of the genetic code'.
>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.
Umm. Nah, we seem to do a pretty good job of adapting to viruses and
bacteria, and they to us. Only a very small percentage of microlife is
harmful to humans... and that small percentage seems to be reasonalby
constant in size, but the ranks keep changing. For example, bubonic
plague used to be a really nasty disease, I'm sure you'll agree. But
it still pops up from time to time, even today... and doesn't do as
much damage. Part of that is because of better sanitation, but even
when people get the disease, the symptoms tend to be less severe than in
the past. This seems to be partly because people who were very susceptible
died off long ago, and because the really nasty variants 'overgrazed',
(forgive the poor terminology, I'm an engineer, not a doctor! :-> ) and
died off for lack of nearby hosts.
I could be wrong on this, but from what I gather acne is only a few
hundred years old, and used to be nastier, though no killer. It seems to
be getting less nasty w/age...
> Hence
>we have newborns that suffer from genetic, viral, and bacterial
>diseases/disorders.
Now, wait a minute. I have a question. Humans were created perfect, right?
And, you admit that we have an inbuilt abiliy to fight off disease. It
seems unlikely that Satan, who's making the diseases, would also gift
humans with the means to fight them off. Simpler to make the diseases less
lethal, if he wants survivors. As far as I can see, our immune systems,
imperfect though they may (presently?) be, must have been built into us
by God. I want to be clear on this: are you saying that God was planning
ahead for the time when Satan would be in charge by building an immune
system that was not, at the time of design, necessary? That is, God made
our immune systems ahead of time, knowing that Adam and Eve would sin and
their descendents would need to fight off diseases?
>This may be more of a mystical/supernatural explanation than you
>are prepared to accept, but God is not responsible for disease.
>Even if Satan had nothing to do with the original inception of
>disease, evolution by random chance would have produced them since
>humanity forsook God's protection.
Here's another puzzle. What, exactly, do you mean by 'perfect' in the
phrase, 'created... perfect and without flaw'? To my mind, a 'perfect'
system would be incapable of degrading over time. A 'perfect' system
that will, without constant intervention, become imperfect is *not* a
perfect system. At least, IMHO.
Or is it that God did something like writing a masterpiece novel on a
bunch of gum wrappers held together with Elmer's glue? That is, the
original genetic 'instructions' were perfect, but were 'written' in
inferior materials that had to be carefully tended or would fall apart?
If so, why could God not have used better materials?
Was God *incapable* of creating a system that could maintain itself,
of did It just choose not to?
[deletions]
>In summary, newborns are innocent, but God does not cause their suffering.
My main point, as I said, was that there really isn't any evidence for
the explanation you give. (At least, that I'm aware of.) But, I couldn't
help making a few nitpicks here and there. :->
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles || The above opinions are probably
|| not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.
|
From: gck@aero.org (Gregory C. Kozlowski)
Subject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!!
This is hell. Hasn't anyone noticed?
<< Consensual reality is a special case >>
|
Subject: Re: Alleged Deathbed Conversions (was: Asimov stamp)
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
In article <C6697n.33o@panix.com>, carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes...
>In <sheafferC63zt0.Brs@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>
>[deletion]
>>It had to happen: the old allegation of the "deathbed conversion" of the
>>noted unbeliever. I seem to recall similar claims being made about
>>Voltaire, Mencken, Darwin, Ingersoll, etc. Indeed, the literary hoax
>>attributed to Nietzsche, "My Sister and I", portrays him as trembling
>>in fear before Divine Judgment (and it was recently re-issued by _Amok_
>>Books, with an introduction by a Lutheran professor telling us why we
>>should take it seriously!). What all of these "deathbed conversion"
>>claims have in common is that they are utterly unsubstantiated, and
>>almost certainly untrue.
>
> Perhaps the least believable and most infurating alleged conversion
>was that of Tom Paine, reported, like most, only by his devout
>relatives.
>
> Asimov was very unlikely to convert to Christianity on his deathbed.
>Return to Judaism, perhaps, if he did revert to childhood training,
>but Christianity? The Good Doctor would more likely have converted to
>Hinduism.
"Isaac Asimov read creationist books. He read the Bible. He had ample
opportunity to kneel before his Creator and Savior. He refused. In
fact, he sent out a strong promotional letter urging support of the
American Humanist Association, shortly before he died."
--excerpt from Ken Ham, "Asimov Meets His Creator," _Back to Genesis_
No. 42, June 1992, p. c (included in _Acts & Facts_ vol. 21, no. 6,
June 1992, from the Institute for Creation Research). This is one
of the most offensive articles they've ever published--but at least
it argues *against* a deathbed conversion. There's a part of the
article even worse than what I've just quoted, in which an excerpt
from a reader's letter says that if Asimov is burning in hell now,
"then he certainly has had a 180-degree change in his former beliefs
about creation and the Creator." (A post-deathbed conversion.)
Jim Lippard Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
|
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
In <lsran6INN14a@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric
Marsh) writes:
>In article <C5HqxJ.JDG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lis450bw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (lis450
Student) writes:
>>Hmmmm. Define objective morality. Well, depends upon who you talk to.
>>Some say it means you can't have your hair over your ears, and others say
>>it means Stryper is acceptable. _I_ would say that general principles
>>of objective morality would be listed in one or two places.
>>Ten Commandments
>>Sayings of Jesus
>>the first depends on whether you trust the Bible,
>>the second depends on both whether you think Jesus is God, and whether
>> you think we have accurate copies of the NT.
>Gong!
>Take a moment and look at what you just wrote. First you defined
>an "objective" morality and then you qualified this "objective" morality
>with subjective justifications. Do you see the error in this?
>Sorry, you have just disqualified yourself, but please play again.
>>MAC
>>
>eric
Huh? Please explain. Is there a problem because I based my morality on
something that COULD be wrong? Gosh, there's a heck of a lot of stuff that I
believe that COULD be wrong, and that comes from sources that COULD be wrong.
What do you base your belief on atheism on? Your knowledge and reasoning?
COuldn't that be wrong?
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.
|
From: dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood)
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>>David Wood writes:
>>
>> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
>
>More seriously, this is just a high-falutin' way of saying "I don't believe
>what you're saying".
Are you making a meta-argument here? In any case, you are wrong.
Think of those invisible pink unicorns.
>Also, the existence if Jesus is not an extradinary claim.
I was responding to the "historical accuracy... of Biblical claims",
of which the existence of Jesus is only one, and one that was not even
mentioned in my post.
>You may want to
>complain that the miracles attributed to him do constitute such claims (and
>I won't argue otherwise), but that is a different issue.
Wrong. That was exactly the issue. Go back and read the context
included within my post, and you'll see what I mean.
Now that I've done you the kindness of responding to your questions,
please do the same for me. Answer the Charley Challenges. Your claim
that they are of the "did not!/ did so!" variety is a dishonest dodge
that I feel certain fools only one person.
--Dave Wood
|
From: Alan.Olsen@p17.f40.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Alan Olsen)
Subject: Albert Sabin
BR> From: wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins)
BR> Newsgroups: alt.atheism
BR> Organization: DGSID, Atlanta, GA
BR> The problem is that most scientists exclude the
BR> possibility of the supernatural in the question of
BR> origins. Is this is a fair premise? I utterly
BR> reject the hypothesis that science is the highest form of
BR> truth.
It is better than the crap that the creationists put out. So far all they
have been able to manage is distortions and half-truths. (When they are not
taking quotes out of context...)
BR> Some of these so-called human-like creatures were
BR> apes. Some were humans. Some were fancifully
BR> reconstructed from fragments.
The genetic code has shown more about how man is realted to primates that the
fossil record. (A little detail the creationists try and ignore.)
BR> Good deeds do not justify a person in God's
BR> sight. An atonement (Jesus) is needed to atone
BR> for sin.
Who says? Your Bible(tm)? I would be surprised if *ANY* Christian followed
all of the rules in the Bible. (Most of them just pick and choose, according
to the local biases.)
BR> My point: God is the creator. Look's like we agree.
Where is your proof? How do you know it was *YOUR* God?
BR> I'll send you some info via e-mail.
BR> Regards, Bill.
Why not post them? I would be interested in seeing them myself.
Alan
|
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
In <1qkq9t$66n@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp writes:
(Attempting to define 'objective morality'):
> I'll take a wild guess and say Freedom is objectively valuable. I base
> this on the assumption that if everyone in the world were deprived utterly
> of their freedom (so that their every act was contrary to their volition),
> almost all would want to complain.
So long as you keep that "almost" in there, freedom will be a
mostly valuable thing, to most people. That is, I think you're really
saying, "a real big lot of people agree freedom is subjectively valuable
to them". That's good, and a quite nice starting point for a moral
system, but it's NOT UNIVERSAL, and thus not "objective".
> Therefore I take it that to assert or
> believe that "Freedom is not very valuable", when almost everyone can see
> that it is, is every bit as absurd as to assert "it is not raining" on
> a rainy day.
It isn't in Sahara.
--
Disclaimer? "It's great to be young and insane!"
|
From: bobbe@vice (Robert Beauchaine;6086;59-323;LP=A;YAyG)
Subject: Re: Asimov stamp
In article <schnitzi.735603785@eustis> schnitzi@eustis.cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:
>
>I'm sure all the religious types would get in a snit due
>to Asimov's atheism.
>
>Do we have any atheists on stamps now?
>
>
Due to a discussion on this group some time ago, the theists would
more likely take an Asimov quote out of context and paint him as
the biggest Bible thumpin', God fearin', atheist hatin' christian
you ever laid eyes on. Right up there with Einstein.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: who are we to judge, Bobby?
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
|
From: stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger)
Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
student writes:
>Somewhere, roger colin shouse writes about "radical gay dogma." Somewhere else
>he claims not to claim to have a claim to knowing those he doesn't know.
>There are at least twenty instances of this kind of muddleheaded fourth-
>reich-sophistique shit in his postings. Maybe more. In fact I'm not sure
>the instances could be counted, because they reproduce like a virus the more
>you consider his words.
> My question is this: what is the best response to weasels like
>shouse and Stan Krieger? Possibilities:
> (a) study them dispassionately and figure out how they work, then
>(1) remember what you've learned so as to combat them when they or their clones
>get into office
>(2) contribute your insights to your favorite abnormal psych ward
> (b) learn to overcome your repugnance for serial murder
This posting is totally uncalled for in rec.scouting.
The point has been raised and has been answered. Roger and I have
clearly stated our support of the BSA position on the issue;
specifically, that homosexual behavior constitutes a violation of
the Scout Oath (specifically, the promise to live "morally straight").
There is really nothing else to discuss. Trying to cloud the issue
with comparisons to Blacks or other minorities is also meaningless
because it's like comparing apples to oranges (i.e., people can't
control their race but they can control their behavior).
What else is there to possibly discuss on rec.scouting on this issue?
Nobody, including BSA, is denying anybody the right to live and/or
worship as they please or don't please, but it doesn't mean that BSA
is the big bad wolf for adhering to the recognized, positive, religious
and moral standards on which our society has been established and on
which it should continue to be based.
--
Stan Krieger All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
UNIX System Laboratories if related to my employment, are my own.
Summit, NJ
smk@usl.com
|
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Objective morality (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
In article <1qlf7gINN8sn@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith
Allan Schneider) wrote:
> Which type of morality are you talking about? In a natural sense, it
> is not at all immoral to harm another species (as long as it doesn't
> adversely affect your own, I guess).
Hehehe, so you say, but this objective morality somehere tells you
that this is not the case, and you don't know all the rules of such
transcendental game systems...
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
|
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: Free Moral Agency and Kent S.
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
|
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: islamic genocide
In article <1qu485$58o@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1qkovl$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> #
|> #False dichotomy. You claimed the killing were *not* religiously
|> #motivated, and I'm saying that's wrong. I'm not saying that
|> #each and every killing is religiously motivate, as I spelled out
|> #in detail.
|>
|> Which killings do you say are religously motivated?
For example, I would claim that the recent assassination of four
catholic construction workers who had no connection with the IRA
was probably religously motivated.
|> At the time
|> of writing, I think that someone who claims the current violence is
|> motivated by religion is reaching.
What would you call is when someone writes "The killings in N.I
are not religously motivated?"
|> Now, it's possible to argue that
|> religion *in the past* is a major contributing factor to the violence in
|> the present, but I don't know of any evidence that this is so - and I'm
|> not enough of a historian to debate it.
Given that the avowed aim of the IRA is to take Northern Ireland
into a country that has a particular church written into its
constitution, and which has restriction on civil rights dictated
by that Church, I fail to see why the word "past" is appropriate.
|> #|> #But to claim that "The killings in N.I are not religously
|> #|> #motivated." is grotesque. All that means is that the Church
|> #|> #and believers are doing what they always do with history
|> #|> #they can't face: they rewrite it.
|> #|>
|> #|> You're attacking a different claim. My claim is that when an IRA
|> #|> terrorist plants a bomb in Warrington s/he does not have as a motive
|> #|> the greater glory of God.
|> #
|> #Sorry, Frank, but what I put in quotes is your own words from your
|> #posting <1qi83b$ec4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>. Don't tell us now that
|> #it's a different claim. If you can no longer stand behind your
|> #original claim, just say so.
|>
|> I mean the same thing when I say "The killings in N.I. are not religously
|> motivated" as I do when I say when a terrorist plants a bomb s/he
|> doesn't have a religious motive. The example is meant to clarify, not
|> to be a new claim. The "different claim" to which I refer is the claim
|> which you were seemingly attacking in the previous post, namely that religion
|> is not a major historical cause of the present violence. I don't assert
|> that, nor do I assert its opposite.
You don't have to hand us a bunch of double-talk about what
I was "seemingly" attacking. I *quoted* what I was attacking.
jon.
|
From: wilkins@scubed.com (Darin Wilkins)
Subject: Re: KORESH IS GOD!
>>FROM: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
>>The latest news seems to be that Koresh will give himself up once he's
>>finished writing a sequel to the Bible.
In article <2944079995.1.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
>Writing the Seven Seals or something along those lines. He's already
>written the first of the Seven which was around 30 pages or so and has
>handed it over to an assistant for PROOFREADING!. I would expect any
>decent messiah to have a built-in spellchecker. Maybe Koresh 2.0 will
>come with one.
I heard he had asked the FBI to provide him with a word processor. Does
anyone know if Koresh has requested that it be WordPerfect5.0? WP5.0 was
written (and is owned) by Mormons, so the theological implications of
requesting (or refusing) WP5.0 are profound!
darin
wilkins@scubed.scubed.com
________________________________
| |
| I will be President for food |
|______________________________|
|
Subject: Re: Speculations
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
In article <930405.172903.4w6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>> If this god is truly omnipotent as you folks like to claim, then why can't
>> he terminate eternity?
>
>For the same reason he can't flibble glop ork groink.
>
>The thing you are demanding that he must be able to do, has no meaning in its
>own terms.
This is a classic example of excessive faith in reason. The fact that we
have trouble talking about something doesn't imply that it is impossible; it
simply implies that it is hard to talk about. There is a very good chance
that God *can* flibble glop ork groink. Charlie Wingate can flibble glop
ork groink, and he isn't even God.
--
Doug Graham dgraham@bnr.ca My opinions are my own.
|
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>I think that about 70% (or so) people approve of the
>>death penalty, even realizing all of its shortcomings. Doesn't this make
>>it reasonable? Or are *you* the sole judge of reasonability?
>Aside from revenge, what merits do you find in capital punishment?
Are we talking about me, or the majority of the people that support it?
Anyway, I think that "revenge" or "fairness" is why most people are in
favor of the punishment. If a murderer is going to be punished, people
that think that he should "get what he deserves." Most people wouldn't
think it would be fair for the murderer to live, while his victim died.
>Revenge? Petty and pathetic.
Perhaps you think that it is petty and pathetic, but your views are in the
minority.
>We have a local televised hot topic talk show that very recently
>did a segment on capital punishment. Each and every advocate of
>the use of this portion of our system of "jurisprudence" cited the
>main reason for supporting it: "That bastard deserved it". True
>human compassion, forgiveness, and sympathy.
Where are we required to have compassion, forgiveness, and sympathy? If
someone wrongs me, I will take great lengths to make sure that his advantage
is removed, or a similar situation is forced upon him. If someone kills
another, then we can apply the golden rule and kill this person in turn.
Is not our entire moral system based on such a concept?
Or, are you stating that human life is sacred, somehow, and that it should
never be violated? This would sound like some sort of religious view.
>>I mean, how reasonable is imprisonment, really, when you think about it?
>>Sure, the person could be released if found innocent, but you still
>>can't undo the imiprisonment that was served. Perhaps we shouldn't
>>imprision people if we could watch them closely instead. The cost would
>>probably be similar, especially if we just implanted some sort of
>>electronic device.
>Would you rather be alive in prison or dead in the chair?
Once a criminal has committed a murder, his desires are irrelevant.
And, you still have not answered my question. If you are concerned about
the death penalty due to the possibility of the execution of an innocent,
then why isn't this same concern shared with imprisonment. Shouldn't we,
by your logic, administer as minimum as punishment as possible, to avoid
violating the liberty or happiness of an innocent person?
keith
|
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Political Atheists?
mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:
>I was looking for a rigorous definition because otherwise we would be
>spending the rest of our lives arguing what a "Christian" really
>believes.
I don't think we need to argue about this.
>KS>Do you think that the motto points out that this country is proud
>KS>of its freedom of religion, and that this is something that
>KS>distinguishes us from many other countries?
>MW>No.
>KS>Well, your opinion is not shared by most people, I gather.
>Perhaps not, but that is because those seeking to make government
>recognize Christianity as the dominant religion in this country do not
>think they are infringing on the rights of others who do not share
>their beliefs.
Yes, but also many people who are not trying to make government recognize
Christianity as the dominant religion in this country do no think
the motto infringes upon the rights of others who do not share their
beliefs.
And actually, I think that the government already does recognize that
Christianity is the dominant religion in this country. I mean, it is.
Don't you realize/recognize this?
This isn't to say that we are supposed to believe the teachings of
Christianity, just that most people do.
>Like I've said before I personally don't think the motto is a major
>concern.
If you agree with me, then what are we discussing?
>KS>Since most people don't seem to associate Christmas with Jesus much
>KS>anymore, I don't see what the problem is.
>Can you prove your assertion that most people in the U.S. don't
>associate Christmas with Jesus anymore?
No, but I hear quite a bit about Christmas, and little if anything about
Jesus. Wouldn't this figure be more prominent if the holiday were really
associated to a high degree with him? Or are you saying that the
association with Jesus is on a personal level, and that everyone thinks
about it but just never talks about it?
That is, can *you* prove that most people *do* associate Christmas
most importantly with Jesus?
>Anyways, the point again is that there are people who do associate
>Christmas with Jesus. It doesn't matter if these people are a majority
>or not.
I think the numbers *do* matter. It takes a majority, or at least a
majority of those in power, to discriminate. Doesn't it?
keith
|
From: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
Subject: Re: thoughts on christians
In article <1993Apr15.050750.3893@nuscc.nus.sg>, cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes:
> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> : In article <1q338l$cva@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>, gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric
> : Molas) wrote:
> : > Christianity is an infectious cult. The reasons it flourishes are
> : > because 1) it gives people without hope or driven purpose in life
> : > a safety blanked to hide behind. "Oh wow..all i have to do is
> : > follow this christian moral standard and I get eternal happiness."
> :
> : I agree that in many cases primitive emotional feelings based on
> : 'haha, you won't laugh in hell' mentalities makes certain religions
> : very attractive for certain personalities.
>
> I agree with both of u, but I would like to make a small point. Xtianity, &
> other dogmatic religions, not only attract people without hope etc but
> also attract "average" people as well. I believe that Xtainity, thru
> its escapist doctrines & absolutist attitudes, provides great psychological
> shelter from day-to-day frustrations, unhappiness & fear of uncertainty
> & unknown etc.
>
This is a good point, but I think "average" people do not take up Christianity
so much out of fear or escapism, but, quite simply, as a way to improve their
social life, or to get more involved with American culture, if they are kids of
immigrants for example. Since it is the overwhelming major religion in the
Western World (in some form or other), it is simply the choice people take if
they are bored and want to do something new with their lives, but not somethong
TOO new, or TOO out of the ordinary. Seems a little weak, but as long as it
doesn't hurt anybody...
> The Buddha had something to say about the attractiveness of religions:
>
> "When driven by fear, man worships sacred mountains, sacred stones,
> and sacred trees."
>
> However, the Buddha also said,
>
> "If somebody finds peace in any religion, let him be".
>
>
These are good quotes, and I agree with both of them, but let's make sure to
alter the scond one so that includes something like "...let him be, as long as
he is not preventing others from finding their peace." or something like that.
(Of course, I suppose, if someone were REALLY "at peace", there would be no
need for inflicting evangelism)
> Personally, I feel that since religion have such a poweful
> psychological effect, we should let theists be. But the problem is that
> religions cause enormous harm to non-believers and to humanity as a whole
> (holy wars, inquisitions, inter-religious hatred, impedence of science
> & intellectual progress, us-&-them attitudes etc etc. Need I say more?).
> I really don't know what we can do about them. Any comments?
>
Well, it is a sure thing we will have to live with them all our lives. Their
popularity seems to come and go. I remember when I first entered High School,
I was an atheist (always had been) and so were about 7 of my friends. At this
time, 5 of those 7 have converted, always to Christianity (they were all also
immigrants from Taiwan, or sons of immigrants, hence my earlier gross
generalization). Christianity seems a lot more popular to people now than it
ever has before (since I've been noticing). Maybe it is just my perceptions
that are chagning. Who knows?
I for one am perfectly willing to live and let live with them, so long as we
have some set of abstract rights/agreements on how we should treat each other:
I have no desire to be hurt by them or their notions. For all the well-put
arguments on this usenet, it never does any good. Argumentation does not
really seem to apply to Christians (or even some atheists)- it must simply be a
step the person takes naturally, almost, "instinctively"...
best regards,
********************************************************************************
* Adam John Cooper "Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings *
* who thought themselves good simply because *
* acooper@macalstr.edu they had no claws." *
********************************************************************************
>
--
>
> The UnEnlightened One
> ------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
> | "Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be
> Tan Chade Meng | expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it
> Singapore | transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology;
> cmtan@iss.nus.sg | it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is
> | based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience
> | of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful
> | unity" -- Einstein
> ------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
|
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Benediktine Metaphysics
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
|
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
[reply to timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons]
>...the same kind of ignorance is demonstrated in just about every post
>in this newsgroup. For instance, generalizations about Christianity
>are popular.
Which newsgroup have you been reading? The few anti-Christian posts are
virtually all in response to some Christian posting some "YOU WILL ALL
BURN IN HELL" kind of drivel.
>I'm a soft atheist (courtesy of the FAQ), but even I know enough about
>the Bible to see that it repeatedly warns of false prophets preaching
>in the name of God.
Bake, it is transparently obvious that you are a theist pretending to be
an atheist. You probably think you are very clever, but we see this all
the time.
>But the possibilities of creator and eternity carry with them too much
>emotional power to dismiss merely on the basis of this line.
But of course *you* have dismissed them because you are an atheist,
right?
>...just like any other religion, hard atheism is a faith.
In other words, you *didn't* read the FAQ after all.
David Nye (nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu). Midelfort Clinic, Eau Claire WI
This is patently absurd; but whoever wishes to become a philosopher
must learn not to be frightened by absurdities. -- Bertrand Russell
|
From: guncer@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Selim Guncer )
Subject: Re: Islam & Dress Code for women
In article <16BA7103C3.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>In article <1993Apr5.091258.11830@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
>darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>
>>(2) Do women have souls in Islam?
>>
>>People have said here that some Muslims say that women do not have
>>souls. I must admit I have never heard of such a view being held by
>>Muslims of any era. I have heard of some Christians of some eras
>>holding this viewpoint, but not Muslims. Are you sure you might not be
>>confusing Christian history with Islamic history?
>>
>
>Yes, it is supposed to have been a predominant view in the Turkish
>Caliphate.
>
I am not aware of any "Turkish Caliphate" viewpoint on this. Can you
reference?
However, I found a quote due to Imam Ali, whom the Shias follow:
"Men, never obey your women in any way whatsoever. Never let them give their
advice on any matter whatsoever, even those of everyday life. Indeed, allow
them freely to give advice on anything and they will fritter away one's
wealth and disobey the wishes of the owner of this wealth.
We see them without religion, when, alone, they are left to their own
devices; they are lacking in both pity and virtue when their carnal
desires are at stake. It is easy to enjoy them, but they cause great
anxiety. The most virtious among them are libertines. But the most
corrupt are whores. Only those of them whom age has deprived of any
charm are untainted by vice. They have three qualities particular to
miscreants; they complain of being oppressed, whereas it is they
who oppress; they make oaths, whereas they are lying; they pretend
to refuse men's solicitations, whereas they desire them most ardently.
Let us beg the help of God to emerge victorious from their evil deeds.
And preserve us in any case from their good ones."
(Quote from Mas'ud al-Qanawi, ref. A. Bouhdiba, Sexuality in Islam,
p. 118).
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.
Selim Guncer
--
Selim E. Guncer | Jaca negra, luna grande,
CSSER-ASU | y aceitunas en mi alforja.
(602)-965-4096 | Aunque sepa los caminos
guncer@enuxha.eas.asu.edu | yo nunca llegare a Cordoba.. (FGL)
|
From: (Rashid)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
In article <116171@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) wrote:
>
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.
>
Don't mind my saying this but the best example of obfuscation is to
condemn without having even your most basic facts straight. If you
want some examples, go back and look at your previous posts, where
you manage to get your facts wrong about the fatwa and Khomeini's
supposed infallibility.
As salaam a-laikum
|
From: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
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
That's okay: it's what all the rest of them who come on here say...
> 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 isn't the guy who was a lawyer was he? Could you give more info on this
guy (never mind- I'm sure there will be PLENTY of responses to this post, and
it will appear there)
> 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.
This is true. Make sure it is true for ALL cases.
> The book says that Jesus was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a
Why not both? ;)
> modern day Koresh) or he was actually who he said he was.
> 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?
Why not die for a lie? If you were poverty stricken and alunatic, sounds
perfecetly reasoable to me. As to whether the societal dregs he had for
followers would be able to tell if he was a liar or not, not necessarily.
Even if he died for what he believed in, this still makes him completely
selfish. Like us all. So what's the difference.
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.
There is no historical proof of this (see earlier threads). Besides, he (or at
least his name), have been the cause of enough deaths to make up for whatever
healing he gave.
> Niether was he a lunatic. Would more than an entire nation be drawn
> to someone who was crazy.
SIEG HEIL!!
>Very doubtful, in fact rediculous. For example
> anyone who is drawn to David Koresh is obviously a fool, logical people see
> this right away.
>
Who is David Koresh? I am curious.
Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the
> real thing.
How does this follow? Your definition of lunatic (and "disproof" thereof seem
rather... uhhh.. SHAKY)
> 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.
Good idea.
> I don't think most people understand what a Christian is. It
> is certainly not what I see a lot in churches.
Naturally, those or not TRUE Christians, right? ;)
> 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.
Someone else handle this, I don't know if it's worth it... *sigh*
********************************************************************************
* Adam John Cooper "Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings *
* who thought themselves good simply because *
* acooper@macalstr.edu they had no claws." *
********************************************************************************
|
From: timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons)
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:
>timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes:
>>Rule #4: Don't mix apples with oranges. How can you say that the
>>extermination by the Mongols was worse than Stalin? Khan conquered people
>>unsympathetic to his cause. That was atrocious. But Stalin killed millions of
>>his own people who loved and worshipped _him_ and his atheist state!! How can
>>anyone be worse than that?
>You're right. And David Koresh claimed to be a Christian.
Yup. I can hear the _millions_ cheering for DK right now! Josef Stalin eat
your heart out! :)
--
Bake Timmons, III
-- "...there's nothing higher, stronger, more wholesome and more useful in life
than some good memory..." -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)
|
From: jennyb@carina.unm.edu (Jenny Ballmann)
Subject: Re: Another request for Darwin Fish
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
|
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
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.
|
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>How many contridictions do you want to see?
>>Good question. If I claim something is a general trend, then to disprove this,
>>I guess you'd have to show that it was not a general trend.
>No, if you're going to claim something, then it is up to you to prove it.
>Think "Cold Fusion".
Well, I've provided examples to show that the trend was general, and you
(or others) have provided some counterexamples, mostly ones surrounding
mating practices, etc. I don't think that these few cases are enough to
disprove the general trend of natural morality. And, again, the mating
practices need to be reexamined...
>>Try to find "immoral" non-mating-related activities.
>So you're excluding mating-related-activities from your "natural morality"?
No, but mating practices are a special case. I'll have to think about it
some more.
>>Yes, I think that the natural system can be objectively deduced with the
>>goal of species propogation in mind. But, I am not equating the two
>>as you so think. That is, an objective system isn't necessarily the
>>natural one.
>Are you or are you not the man who wrote:
>"A natural moral system is the objective moral system that most animals
> follow".
Indeed. But, while the natural system is objective, all objective systems
are not the natural one. So, the terms can not be equated. The natural
system is a subset of the objective ones.
>Now, since homosexuality has been observed in most animals (including
>birds and dolphins), are you going to claim that "most animals" have
>the capacity of being immoral?
I don't claim that homosexuality is immoral. It isn't harmful, although
it isn't helpful either (to the mating process). And, when you say that
homosexuality is observed in the animal kingdom, don't you mean "bisexuality?"
>>>>Because we can't determine to what end we should be "moral."
>Are you claiming to be a group? "We" usually implies more than one entity.
This is standard jargon. Read any textbook. The "we" forms are used
throughout.
>>Well, I'm saying that these goals are not inherent. That is why they must
>>be postulates, because there is not really a way to determine them
>>otherwise (although it could be argued that they arise from the natural
>>goal--but they are somewhat removed).
>Postulate: To assume; posit.
That's right. The goals themselves aren't inherent.
>I can create a theory with a postulate that the Sun revolves around the
>Earth, that the moon is actually made of green cheese, and the stars are
>the portions of Angels that intrudes into three-dimensional reality.
You could, but such would contradict observations.
>I can build a mathematical proof with a postulate that given the length
>of one side of a triangle, the length of a second side of the triangle, and
>the degree of angle connecting them, I can determine the length of the
>third side.
But a postulate is something that is generally (or always) found to be
true. I don't think your postulate would be valid.
>Guess which one people are going to be more receptive to. In order to assume
>something about your system, you have to be able to show that your postulates
>work.
Yes, and I think the goals of survival and happiness *do* work. You think
they don't? Or are they not good goals?
keith
|
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>Much though it might be fun to debate capital punishment itself,
>this is probably the wrong group for it. The only relevance here
>is that you don't seem to be able to tell us what capital punishment
>actually is, and when it is murder. That is, when you tell us murder
>is wrong, you are using a term you have not yet defined.
Well, I've said that when an innocent person has been executed, this is
objectively a murder. However, who is at blame is another question.
It seems that the entire society that sanctions any sorts of executions--
realizing the risks--is to blame.
>There is a *probability* of
>killing an innocent person by shooting at random into the air, and
>there is a *probability* of killing an innocent person when the
>state administers a system of capital punishment. So when you do
>either, you know that they actions you are taking will sooner or
>later result in the killing of an innocent person.
Yes, but there is also a probablity that you will kill someone doing
any raondom activity. Presumably, you had not isolated yourself totally
from the rest of society because of this.
>>And, driving will kill people, as will airlines, but people continue to do
>>both.
>Driving and flying are not punishments inflicted on unwilling
>prisoners by Courts. They are risks that we take upon ourselves
>willingly.
And I argue that our law system is a similar risk. Perhaps an innocent
person will be punished someday, but we work to prevent this. In fact,
many criminals go free as a result of our trying to prevent punishment
of innocents.
>If our own driving kills someone else, then sure, there is a moral
>issue. I know at least one person who was involved in a fatal
>accident, and they felt vey guilty afterwards.
But, such accidents are to be totally expected, given the numner of vehicals
on the road. Again, the blame is on society.
>>No I'm not. This is what you said. You were saying that if there were such
>>a false witness that resulted in an innocent person being convicted and killed
>>, it would still be the fault of the state, since it did the actual killing.
>No, I just commented that the state does the killing. It does not
>depend on there being false witnesses. How could it? The state
>does the killing even in the case of sincere mistakes
Yes, but the state is not at fault in such a case. The state can only do
so much to prevent false witnesses.
>>It is possible. So, what are you trying to say, that capital punishment
>>is always murder because of the possibilty of human error invalidating
>>the system?
>I'm saying capital punishment is murder, period. Not because of
>this that and the other, but because it involves taking human life.
>That's *my* definition of murder. I make no appeals to dictionaries
>or to "objective" morals.
Okay, so this is what you call murder. But, the question is whether or not
all such "murders" are wrong. Are you saying that all taking of human life
is wrong, no matter what the circumstances?
>If we, as a society, decide to murder someone, then we should say
>that, and lists our reasons for doing so, and live with the moral
>consequences. We should not play word games and pretend that
>murder isn't murder. And that's *my* opinion about how society
>ought to be run.
But, this is basically how it works. Society accepts the risk that an
innocent person will be murdered by execution. And, every member of
society shares this blame. And, most people's definitions of murder
include some sort of malicious intent, which is not involved in an
execution, is it?
>>But, we were trying to discuss an objective moral system, or at least its
>>possibilty. What ramifications does your personal system have on an
>>objective one?
>No, we were not discussing an objective moral system. I was showing
>you that you didn't have one, because, for one thing, you were incapable
>of defining the terms in it, for example, "murder".
Murder violates the golden rule. Executions do not, because by allowing
it at all, society implicitly accepts the consequences no matter who the
innocent victim is.
>>We're not talking about reading minds, we are just talking about knowing the
>>truth. Yes, we can never be absolutely certain that we have the truth, but
>>the court systems work on a principle of knowing the "truth" "beyond a
>>reasonable doubt."
>Sorry, but you simply are not quoting yourself accurately. Here
>is what you said:
> "And, since we are looking totally objectively at this case,
> then we know what people are thinking when they are voting to
> execute the person or not. If the intent is malicious and
> unfair, then the execution would be murder."
>What you are doing now is to slide into another claim, which is
>quite different. The jury being *persuaded* beyond a serious
>doubt is not the same as us knowing what is in their minds beyond
>a serious doubt.
Reading the minds of the jury would certainly tell whether or not a conviction
was moral or not. But, in an objective system, only the absolute truth
matters, and the jury system is one method to approximate such a truth. That
is, twelve members must be convinced of a truth.
>Moreover, a jury which comes from a sufficiently prejudiced background
>may allow itself to be persuaded beyond a serious doubt on evidence
>that you and I would laugh at.
But then, if we read the minds of these people, we would know that the
conviction was unfair.
>>But, would it be perfectly fair if we could read minds? If we assume that
>>it would be fair if we knew the absolute truth, why is it so much less
>>fair, in your opinion, if we only have a good approximation of the absolute
>>truth?
>It's not a question of fairness. Your claim, which I have quoted
>above is a claim about whether we can *know* it was fair, so as to
>be able to distinguish capital punishnment from murder.
Yes, while we could objectively determine the difference (if we knew all
possible information), we can't always determine the difference in our
flawed system. I think that our system is almost as good as possible,
but it still isn't objectively perfect. You see, it doesn't matter if
we *know* it is fair or not. Objectively, it is either fair or it is not.
>Now there's a huge difference. If we can read minds, we can know,
>and if we cannot read minds, we can know nothing. The difference
>is not in degree of fairness, but in what we can know.
But what we know has no effect on an objective system.
>>I think it is possible to produce a fairly objective system, if we are
>>clear on which goals it is supposed to promote.
>I'm not going to waste my time trying to devise a system that I am
>pretty sure does not exist.
Why are you so sure?
>I simply want people to confront reality. *My* reality, remember.
Why is *your* reality important?
>In this case, the reality is that, "ideal theories' apart, we can
>never know, even after the fact, about the fairness of the justice
>system. For every innocent person released from Death Row, there
>may have been a dozen innocent people executed, or a hundred, or
>none at all. We simply don't know.
But, we can assume that the system is fairly decent, at least most likely.
And, you realize that the correctness of our system says nothing about a
totally ideal and objective system.
>Now what are we going to do? On the one hand, we can pretend
>that we have an 'ideal' theory, and that we can know things we can
>never know, and the Justie System is fair, and that we can wave a
>magic wand and make certain types of killing not murder, and go
>on our way.
Well, we can have an ideal system, but the working system can not be ideal.
We can only hope to create a system that is as close an approximation to
the ideal system as possible.
>On the other hand, we can recognize that all Justice has a small
>- we hope - probability of punishing the innocent, and that in the
>end we do bear moral responsibility even for the probabilistic
>consequences of the systems we set up, and then say, "Well, here
>we go, murdering again." Maybe some of us will even say "Gee, I
>wonder if all this is strictly necessary?"
Yes, we all bear the responsibility. Most people seem willing to do this.
>I think that the second is preferable in that if requires people
>to face the moral consequences of what we do as a society, instead
>of sheltering ourselves from them by magic ceremonies and word
>games.
We must realize the consequences of all our actions. Why do you keep
separating the justice system from the pack?
>And lest I forget, I also don't think we have an objective moral
>system, and I believe I only have to take that idea seriously
>when someone presents evidence of it.
I don't think our country has an objective system, but I think such an
objective system can exist, in theory. Without omniscience, an objective
system is not possible in practice.
keith
|
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Is Morality Constant (was Re: Biblical Rape)
Jim Perry (perry@dsinc.com) wrote:
: }Xenophobia, both *de facto* and *de jure* as implemented
: }in legal systems, is widespread, while the Bible,
: }although not 100% egalitarian, specifically preaches
: }kindness to the stranger, and emphasizes in the Book
: }of Ruth, that a foreigner can join the nation and
: }give rise to one of the great heroes of the nation.
:
: Clearly better than the alternative, but as an American what strikes
: me as strange about this story is that it should have even been
: considered an issue.
Jim,
There are a couple of things about your post and others in this thread
that are a little confusing. An atheist is one for whom all things can
be understood as processes of nature - exclusively. There is no need
for any recourse to Divnity to describe or explain anything. There is
no purpose or direction for any event beyond those required by
physics, chemistry, biology, etc.; everything is random, nothing is
determnined.
This would also have to include human intelligence of course and all
its products. There is nothing requiring that life evolve or that it
acquire intelligence, it's just a happy accident. For an atheist, no
event can be preferred to another or be said to have more or less
value than another in any naturalistic sense, and no thought -about-
an event can have value.
The products of our intelligence are acquired from our environment,
from teaching, training, observation and experience and are only
significant to the individual mind wherein they reside. These mental
processes and the images they produce for us are just electrical
activity and nothing more; content is of no consequence. The human
mind is as much a response to natural forces as water running down a
hill.
How then can an atheist judge value? What is the basis for criticizing
the values ennumerated in the Bible or the purposes imputed to God? On
what grounds can the the behavior of the reliogious be condemned? It
seems that, in judging the values that motivate others to action, you
have to have some standard against which conduct is measured, but what
in nature can serve that purpose? What law of nature can you invoke to
establish your values.
Since every event is entirely and exclusively a physical event, what
difference could it possibly make what -anyone- does, religious or
otherwise, there can be no -meaning- or gradation of value. The only
way an atheist can object to -any- behaviour is to admit that the
objection is entirely subjective and that he(she) just doesn't like it
- that's it. Any value judgement must be prefaced by the disclaimer
that it is nothing more than a matter of personal opinion and carries
no weight in any "absolute" sense.
That you don't like what God told people to do says nothing about God
or God's commands, it says only that there was an electrical event in your
nervous system that created an emotional state that your mind coupled
with a pre-existing thought-set to form that reaction. That your
objections -seem- well founded is due to the way you've been
conditioned; there is no "truth" content. The whole of your
intellectual landscape is an illusion, a virtual reality.
I didn't make these rules, it's inherent in naturalistic atheism and
to be consistent, you have to accept the non-significance of any human
thought, even your own. 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.
Bill
|
From: bcash@crchh410.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Room for Metaphor?
I can (and do) take religious writings as a metaphor for life.
I do this with all sorts of fiction, from Beowolf to Deep Space Nine.
The idea is to not limit yourself to one book, screen out the good
stuff from what you read, and to remember that it is all just a story.
You sound Buddist to me :^)
Brian /-|-\
|
From: lamontg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: High Times A Comin'!!!!!!!
rubble@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Heath Clark) writes:
> It seems a very large part of Christianity is based on the notion that
>it is the _right_ religion, and that just about any other way of looking at
>the universe is flat-out wrong. In the old days we had the Inquisition and the
>burning of heretics; now we have Pat Buchanan trying to start some cultural
>war because he can't stand to live in the same country as all these other,
>non-"God fearing" people.
its a survival trait. there are only a fixed number of resources (people)
for religions to inhabit. the doctrines of intolerance and not using
birth control are devices whereby the meme of the (capital-R) Religion
of Christianity gains a larger share of the population than its memetic
competitors.
|
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
In article <bissda.4.734849678@saturn.wwc.edu>, bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN
LAWRENCE BISSELL) wrote:
>
> 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.
Seems he didn't understand anything about realities, liar, lunatic
or the real thing is a very narrow view of the possibilities of Jesus
message.
Sigh, it seems religion makes your mind/brain filter out anything
that does not fit into your personal scheme.
So anyone that thinks the possibilities with Jesus is bound to the
classical Lewis notion of 'liar, lunatic or saint' is indeed bound
to become a Christian.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
|
From: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
Subject: Idle questions for fellow atheists
I wonder how many atheists out there care to speculate on the face of the world
if atheists were the majority rather than the minority group of the population.
It is rather a ridiculous question in some ways, I know, but my newsreader is
down so I am not getting any new postings for a bit, so I figure I might as
well post something new myself.
Also, how many atheists out there would actually take the stance and accor a
higher value to their way of thinking over the theistic way of thinking. The
typical selfish argument would be that both lines of thinking evolved from the
same inherent motivation, so one is not, intrinsically, different from the
other, qualitatively. But then again a measuring stick must be drawn
somewhere, and if we cannot assign value to a system of beliefs at its core,
than the only other alternative is to apply it to its periphery; ie, how it
expresses its own selfishness.
Idle thoughts...
Adam
********************************************************************************
* Adam John Cooper "Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings *
* who thought themselves good simply because *
* acooper@macalstr.edu they had no claws." *
********************************************************************************
|
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism)
In <16BB4C522.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>In article <1993Apr17.122329.21438@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
>darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>
>>>>"AND IT IS HE (GOD ALMIGHTY) WHO CREATED THE NIGHT AND THE
>>>>DAY, AND THE SUN AND THE EARTH: ALL (THE CELETIAL BODIES)
>>>>SWIM ALONG, EACH IN ITS ROUNDED COURSE." (Holy Quran 21:33)
>>
>>>Hmm. This agrees with the Ptolemic system of the earth at the centre,
>>>with the planets orbitting round it. So Copernicus and Gallileo were
>>>wrong after all!
>>
>>You haven't read very carefully -- if you look again, you will see that
>>it doesn't say anything about what is circling what.
>
>Anyway, they are not moving in circles.
Oops, sorry, my words, not the words of the Qur'an.
>Nor is there any evidence that
>everything goes around in a rounded course in a general sense. Wishy-
>washy statements are not scientific.
Note that "(the celestial bodies)" in the above verse is an
interpolation (which is why it is in brackets) -- it is the translator's
(incorrect, IMHO) interpretation.
Here is Maurice Bucaille's translation (he studied Arabic for his
research into the Qur'an and science) of this verse:
"(God is) the One Who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon.
Each is travelling in an orbit with its own motion." (Qur'an :33)
The positive aspect of this verse noted by Dr. Maurice Bucaille is that
while geocentrism was the commonly accepted notion at the time (and for
a long time afterwards), there is no notion of geocentrism in this verse
(or anywhere in the Qur'an).
Fred Rice
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
|
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Introduction to Atheism
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
|
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Re: Requests
In article <healta.157.735271671@saturn.wwc.edu> healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes:
>
>Bob, if you're wanting an excuse to convert to Christianity, you gonna have
>to look elsewhere.
>
Damn. And I did so have my hopes up.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Re: free moral agency and Jeff Clark
In article <sandvik-140493185248@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>This is the reason I like the controversy of post-modernism, the
>issues of polarities -- evil and good -- are just artificial
>constructs, and they fall apart during a closer inspection.
>
>The more I look into the notion of a constant struggle between
>the evil and good forces, the more it sounds like a metaphor
>that people just assume without closer inspection.
>
More info please. I'm not well exposed to these ideas.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
From: agrino@enkidu.mic.cl (Andres Grino Brandt)
Subject: Studies on Book of Mormon
Hi!
I don't know much about Mormons, and I want to know about serious independent
studies about the Book of Mormon.
I don't buy the 'official' story about the gold original taken to heaven,
but haven't read the Book of Mormon by myself (I have to much work learning
Biblical Hebrew), I will appreciate any comment about the results of study
in style, vocabulary, place-names, internal consistency, and so on.
For example: There is evidence for one-writer or multiple writers?
There are some mention about events, places, or historical persons later
discovered by archeologist?
Yours in Collen
Andres Grino Brandt Casilla 14801 - Santiago 21
agrino@enkidu.mic.cl Chile
No hay mas realidad que la realidad, y la razon es su profeta
|
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
In article <1993Apr6.041343.24997@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
>The point has been raised and has been answered. Roger and I have
>clearly stated our support of the BSA position on the issue;
>specifically, that homosexual behavior constitutes a violation of
>the Scout Oath (specifically, the promise to live "morally straight").
Please define "morally straight".
And, don't even try saying that "straight", as it is used here,
implies only hetersexual behavior. [ eg: "straight" as in the slang word
opposite to "gay" ]
This is alot like "family values". Everyone is talking about them,
but misteriously, no one knows what they are.
---
"One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that
say "Mom", because of the love of their mom. It makes for more
virile men."
Bobby Mozumder ( snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu )
April 4, 1993
The one TRUE Muslim left in the world.
|
From: anthropo@carina.unm.edu (Dominick V. Zurlo)
Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
In article <1993Apr5.011255.7295@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
>Now can we please use rec.scouting for the purpose for which it was
>established? Clearly we netnews voters decided that we did not want to
>provide a scouting newsgroup to give fringe groups a forum for their
>anti-societal political views.
Ok, this is the only thing I will comment on from Stan at this time...
part of this forum we call rec.scouting is for policy discussions and
related topics. This is a policy discussion, and involves related
topics. this is not a "fringe" group discussion. obviously, it
engenders strong feelings from all sides of the issues at hand.
Wether a particular view is anti-societal or not is your opinion,
and yours alone, don't try to make it seem otherwise.
If you do not wish to engage in this discussion, use a kill file.
If you wish to continue in this discussion, please do so, knowing
full well the implications that apply.
I know for myself that I plan on continuing with the discussion when
i have the wish to have input. I for one am tired of people trying to
say that this is not a matter significant for this group! It is, and
quite so. Especially for those of us who feel the impact more closely.
****************************************************************
* Dominick V. Zurlo * "If the world's an *
* WWW * oyster, why am I *
* Eagle Scout '87 * allergic to Mollusks?" *
* blacklisted '88 * *
****************************************************************
|
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
In article <116551@bu.edu>
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
(Deletion)
>>That's was the original answer. While it does not say that he has the head
>>necessarily up its ass, it would be meaningless and pointless if it was not
>>insinuated.
>
>
>I don't see a header referring to Bob as the poster to whom I was
>responding. I distinctly remember thinking I was responding to you
>when I wrote this, in which case I would make no apologies. But
>in the event that I _was_ in fact responding to Bob, I hereby
>apologize to Bob for _insinuating_ such a thing. Sorry Bob.
>On the other hand, it could be that Ben has his head so far up
>his ass that he can't tell himself from Bob.
>
Sorry, Gregg, it was no answer to a post of mine. And you are quite
fond of using abusing language whenever you think your religion is
misrepresented. By the way, I have no trouble telling me apart from
Bob Beauchaine.
I still wait for your answer to that the Quran allows you to beat your wife
into submission. You were quite upset about the claim that it was in it,
to be more correct, you said it wasn't.
I asked you about what your consequences were in case it would be in the
Quran, but you have simply ceased to respond on that thread. Can it be
that you have found out in the meantime that it is the Holy Book?
What are your consequences now? Was your being upset just a show? Do you
simple inherit your morals from a Book, ie is it suddenly ok now? Is it
correct to say that the words of Muhammad reflect the primitive Machism
of his society? Or have you spent your time with your new gained freedom?
Benedikt
|
From: bcash@crchh410.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
I'm sold! Where do I sign up?
Brian /-|-\ The next book: "Charles Manson: Lord, Lunatic, or Liar"
|
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: islamic genocide
> O.K., so pick former Yugoslavia instead and say their problems are caused
> by communism, it doesn't really matter. But I guess religious leaders are
> calling for an end to that, too, so it can't be religiously motivated. This
> despite the fact that the Christians carve crosses in dead Muslims chests.
> Maybe they just want land. Maybe its something else they want. Maybe the
> cross carvings are just accidental. I don't know. Just looks suspicious.
Most likely the tragic situation in Bosnia is a combination of ethnical
and religious motives, where religion is just one attribute that separates
the groups from each other.
But I must agree that the sad saga in Bosnia is a terrible example
of a case where religion is not helping, instead it is used as a weapon
against other humans. And my sympathies are mostly on the Bosnian side,
it looks like the Serbs are the oppressors, willing to use even
Christianity as a weapon against their former friends.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
|
From: timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons)
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and anarchists
mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>My turn
>I went back and reread your post. All you did is attack atheism, and
>say that agnosticism wasn't as funny as atheism. Nowhere does that
>imply that you are agnostic, or weak atheist. As most people who post
>such inflammatory remarks are theists, it was a reasonable assumption.
Sorry, you're right. I did not clearly state it.
>>Rule *2: Condescending to the population at large (i.e., theists) will not
>>win many people to your faith anytime soon. It only ruins your credibility.
>How am I being condescending to the population at large? I am stating
>something that happened to be true for a long time, I couldn't believe
>that people actually believed in this god idea. It was an alien concept
>to me. I am not trying to win people to my faith as you put it. I have
>no faith. Religion was a non issue when I had the attitude above because
>it never even occurred to me to believe. Atheist by default I guess you
>could say.
The most common form of condescending is the rational versus irrational
attitude. Once one has accepted the _assumption_ that there is no god(s),
and then consider other faiths to be irrational simply because their
assumption(s) contradict your assumption, then I would say there's a
lack of consistency here.
Now I know you'll get on me about faith. If the _positive_ belief that God
does not exist were a closed, logical argument, why do so many rational
people have problems with that "logic"?
But you, probably like me, seem to be a soft atheist. Sorry for the flamage.
>The line about atheists haveing something up their sleeves is what seemed
>to imply that. Sorry, been reading too much on the CLIPPER project lately,
>and the paranoia over there may have seeped in some.
;) What is the CLIPPER project BTW?
>>Rule #4: Don't mix apples with oranges. How can you say that the
>>extermination by the Mongols was worse than Stalin? Khan conquered >people
>>unsympathetic to his cause. That was atrocious. But Stalin killed >millions of
>>his own people who loved and worshipped _him_ and his atheist state!! >>How can
>>anyone be worse than that?
>Many rulers have done similar things in the past, only Stalin did it
>when there was plenty of documentation to afix the blame on him. The
>evidence is that some of the early European rulers ruled with an iron
>fist much like Stalin's. You threw in numbers, and I am sick of hearing
>about Stalin as an example because the example doesn't apply. You
>managed to get me angry with your post because it appeared to attack
>all forms of atheism.
It might have appeared to attack atheism in general, but its point was
that mass killing happens for all sorts of reasons. People will hate who
they will and will wave whatever flag to justify it, be it cross or
hammer&sickle. The Stalin example _is_ important not only because it's
still a widely unappreciated era that people want to forget but also
because people really did love him and his ideas, even after all that he
had wrought.
>The evidence I am referring to is more a lack of evidence than negative
>evidence. Say I claim there are no pink crows. I have never seen
>a pink crow, but that doesn't mean it couldn't exist. But, this person
>here claims that there are pink crows, even though he admits he hasn't
>been able to capture one or get a photo, or find one with me etc.
>In a sense that is evidence to not believe in the existence of pink crows.
>That is what I am saying when I look at the evidence. I look at the
>suppossed evidence for a deity, show how it is flawed, and doesn't show
>what theists want it to show, and go on.
First, all the pink crows/unicorns/elves arguments in the world will not
sway most people, for they simply do not accept the analogy. Why?
One of the big reasons is that many, many people want something
beyond this life. You can pretend that they don't want this, but I for
one can accept it and even want it myself sometimes.
And there is nothing unique in this example of why people want a God.
Can love as a truth be proven, logically?
>>themselves, namely, a god or gods. So in principle it's hard to see how
>>theists are necessarily arrogant.
>Makes no sense to me. They seem arrogant to make such a claim to me.
>But my previous refutation still stands, and I believe there may be
>another one on the net.
John the Baptist boasted of Jesus to many people. I find it hard to see
how that behavior is arrogant at all. Many Christians I know also boast
in this way, but I still do not necessarily see it as arrogance. Of course,
I do know arrogant Christians, doctors, and teachers as well. Technically,
you might consider the person who originally made a given claim to be arrogant,
Jesus, for instance.
>Are you talking about all atheism or just strong atheism? If you are
>talking about weak atheism which I believe in, then I refuse such a claim.
>Atheism is a lack of belief. I used good ol' Occam's Razor to make the
>final rejection of a deity, in that, as I see things, even if I
>present the hypothesises in an equal fasion, I find the theist argument
>not plausible.
I speak against strong atheism. I also often find that the evidence
supporting a faith is very subjective, just as, say, the evidence supporting
love as truth is subjective.
>I believe I answered that. I apologize for the (as you stated) incorrect
>assumption on your theism, but I saw nothing to indicate that you
>were an agnostic, only that you were just another newbie Christian
>on the net trying to get some cheap shots in.
No apology necessary. :)
--
Bake Timmons, III
-- "...there's nothing higher, stronger, more wholesome and more useful in life
than some good memory..." -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)
|
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
In article <2BCC892B.21864@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>In article <115290@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>>Well, seeing as you are not muslim the sort of fatwa issued by Khomeini
>>would not be relevant to you. I can understand your fear of persecution
>>and I share it even more than you (being muslim), however Rushdie's
>>behavior was not completely excusable.
>Why should a fatwa issued by Khomeini be relevant to anyone who
>doesn't live in Iran?
Issued by Khomeini it shouldn't be relevant to anyone. But issued
by an honest and learned scholar of Islam it would be relevant to
any muslim as it would be contrary to Islamic law which all muslims
are required to respect.
> Who is it that decides whether Rushdie's behavior is excusable?
Anyone sufficiently well versed in Islamic law and capable of reasoning,
if you are talking about a weak sense of "excuse." It depends on what
sense of "excuse" you have in mind.
> And who cares if you think it is inexcusable?
Only someone who thinks my opinion is important, obviously.
Obviously you don't care, nor do I care that you don't care.
Gregg
|
From: naren@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Naren Bala)
Subject: Re: Theists posting
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
|
From: bobbe@vice (Robert Beauchaine;6086;59-323;LP=A;YAyG)
Subject: More Best of A.A
RAPTURE - OCTOBER 28, 1992
WHAT TO DO IN CASE YOU MISS THE RAPTURE
I. STAY CALM AND DO NOT PANIC
Your natural reaction once you realize what has just occurred is to
panic. But to do so is absolutely useless now. If you had wanted to get right
with God before the rapture, you could have, but you chose to wait. Now your
only chance is to stay on this earth and to endure to the end of the
Tribulation. "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be
saved." - Matthew 24:13
II. REALIZE YOU ARE NOW LIVING DURING THE GREAT TRIBULATION
The Great Tribulation is a seven year period starting from the time of
the rapture until Christ's second coming. Also know as "the time of Jacob's
(Israel's) trouble" (Jere 30:7) and "Daniel's Seventieth Week" (Dan 9), this
period will be unparalleled in trouble and horror.
III. GATHER AS MANY BIBLES AS YOU CAN AND HIDE THEM
Soon after the Antichrist becomes the leader of the European Community
(the revived Roman Empire), Bibles will be confiscated and owning a Bible will
be tantamount to treason. The Bible, however, will be your most valuable
possession during the Tribulation.
IV. READ THE BIBLE LIKE YOU HAVE NEVER READ IT BEFORE IN YOUR LIFE
Since all of your Bibles may be confiscated, even if you are careful, it
is imperative that you read the Word until you memorize whole passages and can
quote them. It is especially important to read Daniel, Luke 21, Matthew 24,
Revelation, and Amos, for these books describe the events you can expect to
unfold before you.
V. PRAY LIKE YOU HAVE NEVER PRAYED BEFORE IN YOUR LIFE
Pray until the power of God comes strongly upon you - pray and pray
and pray. Only by reading the Word and praying will you gain the spiritual
strength to be able to withstand the torture you may have to endure for the
sake of Christ.
VI. DO NOT TAKE THE MARK AT ANY COST - EVEN IN FIT MEANS YOU AND YOUR LOVED
ONES DIE AS MARTYRS
After the Antichrist becomes the leader of the European Community, he
will institute a world economic system, designed so that you cannot buy, sell,
or eat unless you take his mark or the number of his name. Money will be
useless. "And he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and
slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that
no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast,
or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding
calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number
is 666" - Revelation 13:16-18.
The Antichrist will implement the greatest slaughter in all of
humanity. Think of the various ways people have been tortured and killed
in the past, such as the Holocaust.
[or maybe the crusades? -M]
You cannot even imagine the horror that will take place under the Antichrist's
rule; it will be much worse than anything in history (Matt 24:21) "...I saw
under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and
for the testimony which they held. And a white robe was given to each of
them: and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer,
until both the number of the fellow servants and their brethren, who would be
killed as they were, was completed." Revelation 6:9, 11.
His targets will be Jews and Christians who do not worship his image
or take the mark on their forehead or right hadn/ "...And I saw the souls of
those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of
God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark
on their foreheads or on the hands." - Revelation 20:4. He will use every
form of torture and humiliation in order to force you to renounce Christ. Nor
will he hesitate to use your loved ones against you, even your children,
torturing and killing them in front of you so that you will be tempted to take
the mark.
If you take the mark or worship the Antichrist or his image, however,
you will be consigned to the second death, which is the Lake of Fire.
[Sung about so eloquently by Johnny Cash...-M]
You cannot be redeemed. It is better to endure torture for a short while and
gain eternal life then [sic] to endure eternal torment in the Ring^H^H^H^H Lake
of Fire. "...If anyone worships the Beast and his image, and receives his
mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink the wine of
the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His
indignation. An [sic] he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the
presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb." -Revelation
14:9-10
[and probably in the presence of season-ticket holders; special hats given to
the first 5,000 at the stadium --M]
VII. SET A PLAN IN MOTION FOR SURVIVAL
Although you may not be able to hide from the Antichrist's government
until the end of the Tribulation, all of the time you gain in hiding is
important for your spiritual growth and strengthening, since only those who are
extremely strong in Christ can suffer and die for His sake.
The first thing to do is move out of the city and into a rural or
mountainous area, for the Antichrist's control will come last to the least
populated areas. Take a good radio or TV with you so that you can stay
attuned to events and discern the time schedule of the Tribulation.
["As you can see on the weather map, heavy currents of Tribulation will sweep
into our area by daybreak. Expect delays on I-95 outbound, and perhaps school
closings" --M]
Store water and food, because you will not be able to purchase anything without
the mark. Water in lakes and streams will be polluted by radioactive waste
from nuclear warfare and will eventually turn into blood.
[Get a good water filter. --M]
Bring different types of clothing for all seasons, as well as flashlights,
batteries, generators, and First Aid supplies. In short, learn how to
survive and live off the land as the pioneers did.
VIII. TRUST NO ONE
There will be secret agents everywhere, spying for the Antichrist's
government. Be on the lookout.
[Perot supporters take note --M]
IX. WATCH FOR THE ANTICHRIST
It is important to realize who the Antichrist is and what he is up to,
for he will deceive many into thinking that he is a great world leader who will
bring peace and prosperity to a world hungry for it. We can infer from Daniel
11 certain characteristics of this man. Popular during the first three and a
half years of the Tribulation, he will dominate the airwaves. He will be
physically appealing, highly intelligent, with Christ-like charisma and
personality. An international politician, military tactician and economic
expert, his word will be peace; he will make a treaty with the Jews, which
he will break after three and a half years. He will have such supernatural
power that a mortal wound to his head will be healed. Even the very elect will
be deceived. If you do not pray and read the Bible, you too will be deceived.
[Dominate the airwaves? Perhaps Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh...-M]
The antichrist will have a companion, the False Prohphet [sic], who
will make an image in the likeness of the Antichrist and cause it to speak.
All who refuse to worhsip [sic] the image will be killed. The final three and
a half years will be absolutely insane, with demonized spirits everywhere.
X. DO NOT GIVE UP HOPE!
The seven years of Tribulation will end with the triumphant return of
Christ. The Antichrist will be defeated. Be steadfast and endure, and you
will be rewarded greatly in Heaven.
Start reading the Bible and praying fervently now. The salvation of
your sould depends upon it. Determine that, come what may, you will not take
the mark or worship the Antichrist. You still have a chance to be saved or
remain saved, but this time you will have to be "faithful unto death."
May God find you ready in the hour of his glorious return!
******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff * "Christianity is Stupid.
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms * Give up." -Negativland
UB Language Perception Laboratory *
******************************************************************************
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
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
|
From: mcgoy@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu (David McGaughey)
Subject: Re: THE POPE IS JEWISH!
west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
> THE POPE IS JEWISH
I always thought that the Pope was a bear.
You know, because of that little saying:
Does a bear shit in the woods?
Is the Pope Catholic?
There MUST be SOME connection between those two lines!
|
From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Who has read Rushdie's _The Satanic Verses_?
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.
|
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Mike Cobb (cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: Very true (length of time for discussions on creationism vs evolutionism).
: Atheists and Christians have been debating since ?? and still debate with
: unabated passion 8-).
Mike,
I've seen referrences to "Creation vs Evolution" several times in a.a
and I have question. Is either point of view derived from direct
observation; can either be scientific? I wonder if the whole
controversy is more concerned with the consequences of the "Truth"
rather than the truth itself.
Both sides seem to hold to a philosophical outcome, and I can't help
wondering which came first. As I've pointed out elsewhere, my view of
human nature makes me believe that there is no way of knowing
anyhthing objectively - all knowledge is inherently subjective. So, in
the context of a.a, would you take a stand based on what you actually
know to be true or on what you want to be true and how can you tell
the difference?
Bill
|
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was
In article <C5L1Fv.H9r@ra.nrl.navy.mil> khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes:
>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 now we're judging the Qur'an by what's not in it?
How many mutton headed arguments am I going to have to wade
through today?
>Lots of other books have been written on this subject. Those
>books can speak far more eloquently than I.
One would hope.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
From: nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor)
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes:
>Rule #4: Don't mix apples with oranges. How can you say that the
>extermination by the Mongols was worse than Stalin? Khan conquered people
>unsympathetic to his cause. That was atrocious. But Stalin killed millions of
>his own people who loved and worshipped _him_ and his atheist state!! How can
>anyone be worse than that?
You're right. And David Koresh claimed to be a Christian.
|
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: university violating separation of church/state?
dmn@kepler.unh.edu (...until kings become philosophers or philosophers become kings) writes:
> Recently, RAs have been ordered (and none have resisted or cared about
> it apparently) to post a religious flyer entitled _The Soul Scroll: Thoughts
> on religion, spirituality, and matters of the soul_ on the inside of bathroom
> stall doors. (at my school, the University of New Hampshire) It is some sort
> of newsletter assembled by a Hall Director somewhere on campus. It poses a
> question about 'spirituality' each issue, and solicits responses to be
> included in the next 'issue.' It's all pretty vague. I assume it's put out
> by a Christian, but they're very careful not to mention Jesus or the bible.
> I've heard someone defend it, saying "Well it doesn't support any one religion.
> " So what??? This is a STATE university, and as a strong supporter of the
> separation of church and state, I was enraged.
>
> What can I do about this?
It sounds to me like it's just SCREAMING OUT for parody. Give a copy to your
friendly neighbourhood SubGenius preacher; with luck, he'll run it through the
mental mincer and hand you back an outrageously offensive and gut-bustingly
funny parody you can paste over the originals.
I can see it now:
The Stool Scroll
Thoughts on Religion, Spirituality, and Matters of the Colon
(You can use this text to wipe)
mathew
|
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
In article <1pieg7INNs09@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >Now along comes Mr Keith Schneider and says "Here is an "objective
|> >moral system". And then I start to ask him about the definitions
|> >that this "objective" system depends on, and, predictably, the whole
|> >thing falls apart.
|>
|> It only falls apart if you attempt to apply it. This doesn't mean that
|> an objective system can't exist. It just means that one cannot be
|> implemented.
It's not the fact that it can't exist that bothers me. It's
the fact that you don't seem to be able to define it.
If I wanted to hear about indefinable things that might in
principle exist as long as you don't think about them too
carefully, I could ask a religious person, now couldn't I?
jon.
|
From: dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller)
Subject: Re: It's all Mary's fault!
pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Patrick C Leger) writes:
: You know, it just occurred to me today that this whole Christian thing
: can be blamed solely on Mary.
:
: So, she's married to Joseph. She gets knocked up. What do you think
: ol' Joe will do if he finds she's been getting around? So Mary comes up
: with this ridiculous story about God making her pregnant.
:
Nice attempt Chris . . . verrry close.
You missed the conspiracy by 1 step. Joseph knew who knocked her up.
He couldn't let it be known that somebody ELSE got ol' Mary prego. That
wouldn't do well for his popularity in the local circles. So what
happened is that she was feeling guilty, he was feeling embarrassed, and
THEY decided to improve both of their images on what could have otherwise
been the downfall for both. Clever indeed. Come to think of it . . . I
have gained a new respect for the couple. Maybe Joseph and Mary should
receive all of the praise being paid to jesus.
Dave "Buckminster" Fuller
How is that one 'o keeper of the nicknames ?
|
From: (Rashid)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
In article <1993Apr17.044430.801@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>,
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) wrote:
>
Stuff deleted
> Now, I do not believe in _blindly_ following anyone, no matter
> how knowledgeable he or she may be in Islamic law. If someone tells me
> "Islam says such and such", I immediately say "show me the support for
> this statement from the Qur'an and Sunnah". I believe this to be my
> Islamic duty, for according to one hadith of the Prophet (peace and
> blessings of God be with him), if your leader tells you to enter a fire,
> and you do it (and kill yourself), then you have sinned for doing
> wrong, even though you
> were _blindly_ following the instructions of your leader. _I_ am
> responsible for my own actions, not Abu Hanifa, or Imam Malik, etc.,
> even if I am blindly following the opinions of Abu Hanifa etc.
>
> With this in mind, to my understanding, we must look at the reasoning
> behind such opinions of Muslims that support Khomeini's fatwa. Now, to
> my understanding, the hadith upon which those who support Khomeini's
> fatwa is relating to a particular instance that occurred during war
> time. Now, brother, in general, it is IMHO ridiculous and wrong to say
> that a hadith relating to the actions of war is usable during times of
> peace. I think any sensible human being can see this, so I personally
> think that the reasoning of some of our ulema in this matter is faulty,
> for they think it is legitimate to use acts of war in times of peace
> regarding this particular subject.
>
> If you think I am wrong, please feel free to say so, _with your
> reasoning from Qur'an and hadith_, please. Not because somebody said
> so, I want the reasoning from Al-Qur'an and the sahih hadiths.
>
> Perhaps we should take our discussion to soc.religion.islam. Please
> email me, Rashid, if you think we should do this.
>
> By the way, I also disagree with your opinion regarding the punishment
> for apostasy. The viewpoint I follow -- that there is in general no
> punishment for apostasy -- is _very_ strongly supported by Qur'an and
> hadith. This is very well shown in the book "Punishment in Islamic Law"
> by Mohamed S. El-Awa (American Trust Publications, 1981).
>
I reiterate that I would agree with you that there is little
justification for the punishment of apostasy in the Qur'an.
In Islamic history, as well, apostasy has rarely been punished.
Belief is considered a matter of conscience and since there
is to be no compulsion in the matter of belief, apostates have
been generally left to believe or not believe as they will.
However, when an apostate makes attacks upon "God and
His Messenger" the situation changes. Now the charge of
apostasy may be complicated with other charges - perhaps
charges of sedition, treason, spying, etc. If the person
makes a public issue of their apostasy or mounts public
attacks (as opposed to arguement) against Islam, the
situation is likewise complicated. If the person spreads
slander or broadcasts falsehoods, again the situation
changes. The punishments vary according to the situation
the apostate is in. Anyhow, the charge of aggravated
apostasy would only be a subsidiary charge in Rushdie's case.
There is a distinction in the Qur'an between a formal war situation
and being in the situation where someone unilaterally
wages war (by their actions), creates disorder, makes mischief,etc.
against the Muslims and creates a situation that results in harm
to Muslims. Here, a small group or even a single individual could
be said to be engaged in such a practise. In other words, there is
a clear difference between a formal war situation (where two
clearly defined parties wage war, conclude treaties, exchange
prisoners, etc.), and dealing with attacks that come from isolated
individuals or groups against Islam. It is the second situation,
the unilateral attack and the spreading of "fasad" that
would apply in the case of Rushdie.
The matter of Rushdie is not a simple matter of banning an
offensive book (banning the book is secondary) -
a full set of circumstances following the publication of
the book come into play as well, including the deaths of many
Muslims, and Rushdie's (and his publishers) Media games.
> Now, I do not believe in _blindly_ following anyone, no matter
> how knowledgeable he or she may be in Islamic law. If someone tells me
> "Islam says such and such", I immediately say "show me the support for
> this statement from the Qur'an and Sunnah". I believe this to be my
> Islamic duty, for according to one hadith of the Prophet (peace and
> blessings of God be with him), if your leader tells you to enter a fire,
> and you do it (and kill yourself), then you have sinned for doing
> wrong, even though you
> were _blindly_ following the instructions of your leader. _I_ am
> responsible for my own actions, not Abu Hanifa, or Imam Malik, etc.,
> even if I am blindly following the opinions of Abu Hanifa etc.
>Now, to
> my understanding, the hadith upon which those who support Khomeini's
> fatwa is relating to a particular instance that occurred during war
> time. Now, brother, in general, it is IMHO ridiculous and wrong to say
> that a hadith relating to the actions of war is usable during times of
> peace. I think any sensible human being can see this, so I personally
> think that the reasoning of some of our ulema in this matter is faulty,
> for they think it is legitimate to use acts of war in times of peace
> regarding this particular subject.
I am not sure which hadith you are referring to above. I believe
that one of the Qur'anic verses on which the fatwa is based is 5:33.
Every verse in the Qur'an has a corresponding "circumstance of
revelation" but in no way is the understanding (the tafsir) of the
verse restricted solely to the particular historical circumstance
in which it was revealed. If this was the case then we could say
that all the laws and regulations that were revealed when the
Muslims were NOT involved in conflict, should be suspended when
they were at war. The logic does not follow. In complex, real-life
situations, there may be many verses and many hadiths which can
all be related to a single, complicated situation. The internal
relationships between these verses may be quite complex, such that
arriving at an understanding of how the verses interlock and how
each applies to the particular situation can be quite a demanding task.
It is not necessarily a simple "this or that" process. There may
be many parameters involved, there may be a larger context in
which a particular situation should be viewed. All these matters
impinge on the situation.
In other words there is a great deal involved in deciphering the Qur'an.
The Qur'an asks us to reflect on its verses, but this reflection must
entail more than simply reading a verse and its corresponding hadith.
If the reflection is for the sake of increasing personal piety, then each
person has his own level of understanding and there is no harm in that.
However, if the reflection is in order to decide matters that pertain to
the
State, to the gestation of laws and rulings, to the gestation of society,
the dispensing of justice, the guidance of the community, then there
are certain minimum requirements of understanding that one
should achieve. Jaffar Ibn Muhammad as-Sadiq(a.s.) relates some of
these requirements, as taught by the Prophet(S.A.), in a hadith:
"...he who does not distinguish in the Book of Allah the abrogating
verse from the abrogated one, and a specific one from a general one,
and a decisive from an ambiguous; and does not differentiate between
a permission and an obligation, and does not recognize a verse of
Meccan period from a Medinite one, and does not know the circumstances
of revelation, and does not understand the technical words of
the Qur'an (whether simple or compound); and does not comprehend the
knowledge of decree and measure, and is ignorant of advancing and
delaying (in its verses); and does not distinguish the clear from
the deep, nor the manifest from the esoteric, nor the beginning
from the termination; and is unaware of the question and the answer,
the disjoining and the joining, and the exceptions and the all-inclusive,
and is ignorant of an adjective of a preceding noun that explains the
subsequent one; and is unaware of the emphasized subject and the
detailed one, the obligatory laws and the permissions, the places of the
duties and rules, and the meaning of the lawful and the unlawful; and
does not know the joined words, and the words that are related to those
coming before them, or after them - then such a man does not know
the Qur'an; nor is he among the people of the Qur'an....".
Based on these and other hadiths, and in accordance with many Qur'anic
verses ("Why should not a company from every group remain behind
to gain profound understanding (tafaqquh) in religion and to warn
people when they return to them, so that they may beware." (9:122)),
a science of jurisprudence arose. The requirements
for a person to be considered a mujtahid (one who can pronounce on
matters of law and religion) are many. I've listed a few major
divisions below - there are, of course, many subdivisions within these
headings.
- Knowledge of Arabic (syntax, conjugation, roots, semantics, oratory).
- Knowledge of tafsir and principles of tafsir.
- Logic (mantiq)
- A knowledge of Hadiths
- A knowledge of transmitters (rijal)
- Knowledge of the principles of juriprudence (Qur'an, Sunnah, Consensus,
Reasoning)
The study of Qur'an and sunnah for purposes of law involves:
- discussion of imperatives (awamir)
- discussion of negative imperatives (nawahi)
- discussion of generalities and particularities (aam wa khas)
- discussion of unconditional and conditional
- discussion of tacit meanings
- discussion of the abstract and the clear
- discussion of the abrogator and the abrogated
The principles of Application of the law involves:
- principles of exemption
- principles of precaution
- principles of option
- principles of mastery
The jurisprudent is bound to go through a very rigorous process
in pronouncing judgement on a given situation. It is not a matter
of looking at one verse and one hadith.
Now no one should blindly follow anyone, but there is a difference
between blind following and acceding to the opinion of someone who is
clearly more knowledgeable and more qualified than oneself. There is the
famous hadith of the Prophet (S.A.) in which he says:
"The fuqaha (religious scholars) are the trustees of the Prophet, as
long as they do not concern themselves with the illicit desires, pleasures,
and wealth of this world." The Prophet (S.A.) was asked: "O Messenger
of God! How may we know if they so concern themselves?" He (S.A.) replied:
"By seeing whether they follow the ruling power. If they do that, fear for
your religion and shun them." I do not yet know enough about the Imams
of the four Sunni madhabs to comment on how this hadith applies
to them or to the contemporary scholars who base themselves upon them.
The Prophet also refered to the fuqaha as "The fortress of Islam". My only
point is to make it clear that arriving at a legal judgement calls into
play a certain amount of expertise - the specifics of this expertise is
delineated in the Qur'an and hadith. Those who acquire this expertise
are praised in both the Qur'an and hadith - those who without the requisite
knowledge pronounce on matters that affect society, state, and religion
are cautioned.
The only reason I said anything at all about the Rushdie affair in this
group, is because the whole basis for the discussion of the fatwa (that is,
apostasy), was wrong. When one discusses something they should at least
base their discussion on fact. Secondly, Khomeini was condemned as a
heretic
because he supposedly claimed to be infallible - another instance of
creating a straw man and then beating him.
> Perhaps we should take our discussion to soc.religion.islam. Please
> email me, Rashid, if you think we should do this.
I agree that we should move the discussion to another newsgroup.
Unfortunately,
I do not have any access to email, so private discussion or a moderated
group
is out of the question (I cannot post to a moderated group like
soc.religion.islam. How about soc.culture.arabic or talk.religion.misc?
As salaam a-laikum
|
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
In article <1993Apr15.125245.12872@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) writes:
|In <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp writes:
|> In article <30114@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
|
|> #I'm one of those people who does not know what the word objective means
|> #when put next to the word morality. I assume its an idiom and cannot
|> #be defined by its separate terms.
|> #
|> #Give it a try.
|>
|> Objective morality is morality built from objective values.
|
| "And these objective values are ... ?"
|Please be specific, and more importantly, motivate.
I'll take a wild guess and say Freedom is objectively valuable. I base
this on the assumption that if everyone in the world were deprived utterly
of their freedom (so that their every act was contrary to their volition),
almost all would want to complain. Therefore I take it that to assert or
believe that "Freedom is not very valuable", when almost everyone can see
that it is, is every bit as absurd as to assert "it is not raining" on
a rainy day. I take this to be a candidate for an objective value, and it
it is a necessary condition for objective morality that objective values
such as this exist.
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
|
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism)
In article <1993Apr19.231641.21652@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>The positive aspect of this verse noted by Dr. Maurice Bucaille is that
>while geocentrism was the commonly accepted notion at the time (and for
>a long time afterwards), there is no notion of geocentrism in this verse
>(or anywhere in the Qur'an).
There is no notion of heliocentric, or even galacticentric either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My sole intention was learning to fly."
|
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Theism : Evidence?
[to Benedikt Roseneau ]
#In article <1qv6at$fb4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
#frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#
#>#The information of that is invariant under your child being a son or
#>#a daughter and singing about Santa Claus. Wasn't your argument that
#>#"there has to be more"?
#>More than what?
#More than we assume.
Which is what, exactly?
#>(a) Most of the people I debate disagree with my premises. Hardly debate
#> otherwise.
#
#Your favorite point that we sense so it hs to be there has been challenged
#more than once. When I did it, you said, "good question", and did not
#address it.
I've addressed "it" (your caricature is not my "favourite point", needless
to say) at length in a previous outing, and am currently discussing it with
Eric Rescorla.
#>(b) There's little point in responding the same points everywhere; I do
#> my best to give everyone the courtesy of a reply.
#
#You still repeat that point.
I do? Curious, since I believe that was the first time I've ever made it.
Not that repetition would imply much more than your seeming inability
to understand; you ask me the same question, I'll give you the same
answer, especially when in this case, I know the answer to be true. I
do my best to give everyone the courtesy of a reply, but if everyone is
making the same points, and I'm pushed for time, then I try to respond what I
believe are the strongest formulations of those points. If that doesn't
include your post, tough; this is USENET, and life is tough all over.
#>(c) Since there's a great deal of responses this isn't always feasible; I
#> do my best to honestly answer questions put to me.
#
#You drop out of debates with some posters and continue with others. You appear
#with the same issue every n months, and start the dicussion at the beginning
#again.
I've only debated this issue twice in a.a, and occasionally in t.a. The
first was in response to Simon Clippingdale's positive assertion that
disagreement about moral values inexorably acknowledges that morals
are relative. It doesn't. Now, Simon has dropped out of the debate
for some time; I take that to mean that he is either busy, or bored
with the topic. I certainly do not accuse him of dishonesty. Do you?
#>(d) I can't always understand what you say
#
#Neither can't I understand you all the time. Usually, one asks what the other
#side means.
Usually, one does. Usually you're clear, but sometimes you aren't
and I ask you what you mean; other times you seem to get extremely uptight
and I feel that I'm debating against line noise. Sometimes I get tired, and
sometimes I have other things I'd rather do. Again, this is USENET, and
life is tough all over. You're going to have to deal with it.
#>(e) You're starting to get personally insulting; I may not even put your name
#> in the hat in future.
#
#That's supposed to be a threat?
No, that's a simple statement, and an assertion that I am not answerable
to those who offer me baseless insults. For example, those who accuse me
of lying about my personal beliefs, while also complaining that I don't answer
their questions.
#>#Like that you what you sense is evidence for the sensed to be there.
#>#If only everything would be so easy.
#>
#>What almost everyone senses is evidence for the sensed to be there.
#>Because to all intents and purposes, it *is* there.
#> #We had that argument. For one, your claim that everyone senses it
#is not founded, and you have been asked to give evidence for it often.
#And then, the correct statement would be it is reason to assume that it
#is there unless evidence against it has been found.
I have no problem with the second statement. I have provided an
argument that almost everyone senses that Freedom is valuable - the
only cogent objection to this came from jon livesey, and was offered
by some other people too: essentially, that people disagree about
fuzzy concepts such as Freedom. It's a good point, and I'm thinking
about it.
#
#Your trick is to say, I feel A is not right, and so do many I know,
#therefore A is absolutely right. It neglects the possibility that
#these people consider A to be right as an effect of the same process,
#restricting the claim of its absoluteness to those who have been subject
#of that process. In other words, refutes it. You make the ontological
#claim, you have to prove it.
Nonsense. My "trick" is to say: I feel that A is better than B and so
does almost any disinterested person I ask. Best evidence is therefore
that A really is better than B, subject to the assumption that we
can establish to our mutual satisfaction what we mean by A and B, and
that the resulting system of values is self-consistent.
Now get this: "really is better" is an idealisation, a fictional model,
in the same sense that "real material existence" is a fictional model. It
may or may not correspond to something true. It is nonetheless a useful
_assumption_. Far more useful than the equally assumed relativist
"trick", to wit:
I feel that A is better than B, and so does almost any disinterested person
I ask. However, if even one person disagrees that A is better than B,
or if even one person dissents from mutually agreed definitions of A and B,
then it is the case that B is better than A for that person, and nothing
more can be said.
I say this is useless because it inexorably implies that a supermajority
seeking to maximise A cannot morally take action against someone seeking to
maximise B (e.g. a terrorist). To do that would be to claim that
a supermajority's carefully considered morality would be better than the
terrorist's - which would, of course, be true, but a no-no for an ethical
relativist. To claim that ethical relativism implies anything else is
simply weasel words, and an example of compartmentalisation to rival
anything in the world of religion.
#>#For a similar argument, I sense morality is subjective, it does not
#>#hurt me to do things that are considered to be objectively wrong by
#>#others.
#>
#>If you mean that you do things that some others consider objectively
#>wrong, and it turns out not to be the case for you - of course this
#>is possible. It is neither evidence for subjectivism, nor evidence
#>against objectivism (except sometimes, in a pragmatic sense).
#>
#It serves as a counterexample for that everything that is subject to
#judgements is absolute. And as long as you don't provide evidence for
#that there is something universally agreed upon there is no reason to
#believe your hypothesis.
I've done this: freedom, with the proviso that I still have to
answer jon's objection that fuzzy concepts like freedom have no
objective meaning.
#Further, in order to make morality absolute, universal, or objective,
#you would have to show that it is independent of humans, or the attributes
#above look quite misleading.
Not really. What evidence is there that _anything_ exists independently
of humans? You'll be hard pressed to find any that isn't logically
equivalent when applied to values.
#>An analogous set of premises would be:
#>
#>Premise 1: Some people believe that objectively speaking the shortest
#> route from my house to a bar is through the main entrance
#> of the estate, and down the Malahide road.
#>
#>Premise 2: I checked it out, and found that the shortest route from my
#> which is much closer.
#>
#>You would never deduce from these that there is no shortest route from my
#>house to a bar; yet that is seemingly how you derive your relativist claim,
#>using premises which are logically no different.
#>
#
#No. Morals are a matter of belief so far. The people still believe that the
#shortest way is through the main entrance. No agreement on *belief* here.
#And in order to have an analogy you would have to show that there is a
#shortest way and that there is a method to convince everyone of that it
#is the shortest way indeed. In other words, your analogy works only when
#one assumes that your premises are right in the first place. If not, it is
#a fallacy.
And if this were an argument for objectivism, you'd be right. It isn't,
though, it's a demonstration that the argument you gave me is neither argument
*against* objectivism, nor argument *for* relativism. Your gimmick is to
assume in the first place that values aren't real, and to use this to "prove"
that values aren't real. In other words, you beg the question against me.
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
|
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: free moral agency and Jeff Clark
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
|
Subject: Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Athei
From: sham@cs.arizona.edu (Shamim Zvonko Mohamed)
In article <1993Apr19.151120.14068@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) writes:
>In <930419.125145.9O3.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew writes:
>> I wonder if Noam Chomsky is reading this?
>
> I could be wrong, but is he actually talking about outright
>_government_ control of the media, aka censorship?
>
> If he doesn't, any quick one-stop-shopping reference to his works
>that'll tell me, in short, what he _does_ argue for?
"Manufacturing Consent," a film about the media. You alternative movie source
may have this; or to book it in your local alternative theatre, contact:
FILMS TRANSIT * INTERNATIONAL SALES
Jan Rofekamp
402 Notre Dame E.
Montreal, Quebec
Canada H2Y 1C8
Tel (514) 844-3358 * Fax (514) 844-7298
Telex 5560074 Filmtransmtl
(US readers: call Zeitgeist Films at 212 274 1989.)
-s
--
Shamim Mohamed / {uunet,noao,cmcl2..}!arizona!shamim / shamim@cs.arizona.edu
"Take this cross and garlic; here's a Mezuzah if he's Jewish; a page of the
Koran if he's a Muslim; and if he's a Zen Buddhist, you're on your own."
Member of the League for Programming Freedom - write to lpf@uunet.uu.net
|
From: kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko)
Subject: Re: Christian Morality is
Dan Schaertel,,, (dps@nasa.kodak.com) wrote:
Since this is alt.atheism, I hope you don't mind if we strongly disagree...
: The fact is God could cause you to believe anything He wants you to.
: But think about it for a minute. Would you rather have someone love
: you because you made them love you, or because they wanted to
: love you. The responsibility is on you to love God and take a step toward
: Him. He promises to be there for you, but you have to look for yourself.
Indeed, "knock and it shall be opened to you". Dan, why didn't this work?
I firmly believed in god for 15 years, but I eventually realised I was
only deluding myself, fearful to face the truth. Ultimately, the only reason
what kept me believing was the fear of hell. The mental states I
had sillily attributed to divine forces or devil's attempts to
destroy my faith were nothing more than my imagination, and it is easy
to achieve the same mental states at will.
My faith was just learned fear in a disguise.
: Those who doubt this or dispute it have not givin it a sincere effort.
God is demanding too much. Dan, what was it I believed in for 15 years?
If sincere effort is equivalent to active suspension of disbelief -
what it was in my case - I'd rather quit. If god does not help me to
keep the faith, I can't go on.
Besides, I am concerned with god's morality and mental health. Does
she really want us to _believe_ in herself without any help (revelations,
guidance, or anything I can feel)? If she has created us, why didn't
she make the task any easier? Why are we supposed to love someone who
refuses to communicate with us? What is the point of eternal torture
for those who can't believe?
I love god just as much as she loves me. If she wants to seduce me,
she'll know what to do.
: Simple logic arguments are folly. If you read the Bible you will see
: that Jesus made fools of those who tried to trick him with "logic".
: Our ability to reason is just a spec of creation. Yet some think it is
: the ultimate. If you rely simply on your reason then you will never
: know more than you do now.
Your argument is of the type "you'll know once you try".
Yet there are many atheists who have sincerely tried, and believed
for many years, but were eventually honest enough to admit that
they had lived in a virtual reality.
What else but reason I can use? I don't have the spiritual means
Christians often refer to. My conscience disagrees with the Bible.
I don't even believe I have a soul. I am fully dependent on my
body - indeed, I _am_ this body. When it goes up with flames, so
does my identity. God can entertain herself with copies of me
if she wants.
: To learn you must accept that which you don't know.
What does this mean? To learn you must accept that you don't know
something, right-o. But to learn you must _accept_ something I don't
know, why? This is not the way I prefer to learn. It is unwise to
merely swallow everything you read. Suppose I write a book telling
how the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn (tm) has helped me in my
daily problems, would you accept this, since you can't know whether
it is true or not?
Note that the GIPU is also omnipotent, omnipresent, and loves just
about everyone. Besides, He (and She) is guiding every writer on this planet,
you and me, and not just some people who write legendary stories
2000 years ago.
Your god is just one aspect of His and Her Presence.
Petri
--
___. .'*''.* Petri Pihko kem-pmp@ Mathematics is the Truth.
!___.'* '.'*' ' . Pihatie 15 C finou.oulu.fi Physics is the Rule of
' *' .* '* SF-90650 OULU kempmp@ the Game.
*' * .* FINLAND phoenix.oulu.fi -> Chemistry is The Game.
|
From: a137490@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Aario Sami)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
In <1993Apr9.154316.19778@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>In article <kmr4.1483.734243128@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>> If I state that I know that there is a green marble in a closed box,
>>which I have _never_ seen, nor have any evidence for its existance; I would
>>be guilty of deceit, even if there is, in fact, a green marble inside.
>>
>> The question of whether or not there is a green marble inside, is
>>irrelevent.
>You go ahead and play with your marbles.
I love it, I love it, I love it!! Wish I could fit all that into a .sig
file! (If someone is keeping a list of Bobby quotes, be sure to include
this one!)
>>
>> Stating an unproven opinion as a fact, is deceit. And, knowingly
>>being decietful is a falsehood and a lie.
>So why do you think its an unproven opinion? If I said something as
>fact but you think its opinion because you do not accept it, then who's
>right?
The Flat-Earthers state that "the Earth is flat" is a fact. I don't accept
this, I think it's an unproven opinion, and I think the Round-Earthers are
right because they have better evidence than the Flat-Earthers do.
Although I can't prove that a god doesn't exist, the arguments used to
support a god's existence are weak and often self-contradictory, and I'm not
going to believe in a god unless someone comes over to me and gives me a
reason to believe in a god that I absolutely can't ignore.
A while ago, I read an interesting book by a fellow called Von Daenicken,
in which he proved some of the wildest things, and on the last page, he
wrote something like "Can you prove it isn't so?" I certainly can't, but
I'm not going to believe him, because he based his "proof" on some really
questionable stuff, such as old myths (he called it "circumstancial
evidence" :] ).
So far, atheism hasn't made me kill anyone, and I'm regarded as quite an
agreeable fellow, really. :)
--
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.
|
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
In article <C5rEyF.4CE@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu
(Bill Conner) wrote:
> Kent Sandvik (sandvik@newton.apple.com) wrote:
> : In article <11838@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert
> : Beauchaine) wrote:
> : > Someone spank me if I'm wrong, but didn't Lord, Liar, or Lunatic
> : > originate with C.S. Lewis? Who's this Campollo fellow anyway?
>
> : I do think so, and isn't there a clear connection with the "I do
> : believe, because it is absurd" notion by one of the original
> : Christians (Origen?).
>
> There is a similar statement attributed to Anselm, "I believe so that
> I may understand". In both cases reason is somewhat less exalted than
> anyone posting here could accept, which means that neither statement
> can be properly analysed in this venue.
Bill, I think you have a misunderstanding about atheism. Lack of
belief in God does not directly imply lack of understanding
transcendental values. I hope you would accept the fact that
for instance Buddhists appreciate issues related to non-empirical
reasoning without the need to automatically believe in theism.
I think reading a couple of books related to Buddhism might
revise and fine tune your understanding of non-Christian systems.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
|
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!!
In article <healta.161.735350336@saturn.wwc.edu> healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes:
>You should wear your nicest boxer shorts and bring plenty of SPF 45+
>sunscreen. I'll grab my bathing suit, towerl and some veggie hotdogs and we
>can have bonfire cookout!!
>Does that sound good enough to you, Dean?
>EVERY a.a poster is invited!!!
Is there room for nudists? After all, if you believe most upstanding
moral churches, nudity IS a sin...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My sole intention was learning to fly."
|
From: chrisb@tafe.sa.edu.au (Chris BELL)
Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>My syllogism is of the form:
>A is B.
>C is A.
>Therefore C is B.
>This is a logically valid construction.
>Your syllogism, however, is of the form:
>A is B.
>C is B.
>Therefore C is A.
>Therefore yours is a logically invalid construction,
>and your comments don't apply.
>I appeal to Mathew (Mantis) here who wrote the excellent
>post (now part of the FAQ) on logical argument.
>Jim B.
I am not Mathew (Mantis) but any (successful) first year logic student will see that you are logically correct, the other poster is logically incorrect.
--
"I know" is nothing more than "I believe" with pretentions.
|
From: kilman2y@fiu.edu (Yevgeny (Gene) Kilman)
Subject: Re: USAToday ad ("family values")
In article <C4rzz2.47J@unix.portal.com> danb@shell.portal.com (Dan E Babcock) writes:
>There was a funny ad in USAToday from "American Family Association".
>I'll post a few choice parts for your enjoyment (all emphases is in
>the ad; I'm not adding anything). All the typos are mine. :)
[Dan's article deleted]
I found the same add in our local Sunday newspaper.
The add was placed in the ..... cartoon section!
The perfect place for it ! :-)
Y.K.
|
From: geoff@poori.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top)
Subject: Re: Who has read Rushdie's _The Satanic Ve
In article 1r1cl7INNknk@bozo.dsinc.com, perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes:
>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?
I read it. I found it wonderful. For some reason (no flames,
please), I was reminded of Hemingway, Carl Orff and Van Gogh (not
all at once, though).
---
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)
--------------------------------------------------+-------------------
"What if they made the whole thing up? | "The Great Lie" by
Four guys, two thousand years ago, over wine..." | The Tear Garden
|
From: cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan)
Subject: Christianity & Logic (was: Xtian Morality is)
In article <4949@eastman.UUCP> dps@nasa.kodak.com writes:
>Simple logic arguments are folly. If you read the Bible you will see
>that Jesus made fools of those who tried to trick him with "logic".
> If you rely simply on your reason then you will never
>know more than you do now. ^^^^^^
I once heard an arguement from a xtian friend similar to this.
"Christianity is a Higher Logic. Athiest like u will not be able
to understand it. Your atheist logic is very low. Only thru faith can
we understand the Higher Logic in God".
So I asked him, "So what is this Higher Logic?"
His answer, "I don't know."
This, & the posting above highlights one of the worst things about
xtainity. It is abundantly clear to both atheists & xtains that
their believe is both illogical & irrational. Their tactics, therefore:
to disregard logic & rationality altogether. Silly excuses such as
the ones above and those such as, "How can u trust science, science
was invented by man!", only goes to further show the weakness of
their religion.
In my country where xtainity was and still is rapidly growing, xtains
never try to convert people by appealing to their brains or senses.
They know it would be a fruitless act, given the irrational nature
of their faith.
They would wait until a person is in distress, then they would comfort
him/her and addict them to their emotional opium.
Never in my life had I met a person who converted to xtainity coz it's
"reasonable". Rationality has no place in xtainity (see xtian arguement
against "reason" above).
--
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.
|
------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
--
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.
|
------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
|
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Studies on Book of Mormon
>DATE: Tue, 20 Apr 93 21:12:55 GMT
>FROM: Carolyn Jean Fairman <cfairman@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>
>agrino@enkidu.mic.cl (Andres Grino Brandt) asks about Mormons.
>
>>There are some mention about events, places, or historical persons
>>later discovered by archeologist?
>
>One of the more amusing things in the BOM is a claim that a
>civilization existed in North America, aroun where the mystical plates
>were found. Not only did it use steel and other metals, but it had
>lots of wars (very OT). No one has ever found any metal swords or
>and traces of a civilization other than the Native Americans.
>
>This is just one example.
From _Free Inquiry_, Winter 83/84, the following is an
introduction to the article "Joseph Smith and the Book of
Mormon", by George D. Smith. The introduction is written by
Paul Kurtz.
Mormonism -- the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
-- claims a worldwide membership 5.2 million. It is one of
the world's fastest growing religions, with as many as
200,000 new converst in 1982 alone. Because of the church's
aggressive missionary program, covering more than one
hundred countries, it is spreading even to third world
countries.
Mormonism is both puritanical in moral outlook and
evangelical in preachment. The church is run along strict
authoritarian lines. Led by a president, who allegedly
receives revelations directly form God, and a group of
twelve apostles who attempt to maintain orthodoxy in belief
and practice, the church is opposed to abortion,
pornography, sexual freedom, women's rights, and other, in
its view, immoral influences of secular society, and it
forbids the use of tobacco, alcohol, coffee, and tea.
Centered in Salt Lake City, the church is extremely wealthy
and politically powerful in Utal and many other western
states. Among well-know present-day Mormons are Ezra Taft
Benson (former secretary of agriculture), the Osmond family,
the Mariotts of the hotel empire, and a score of high-placed
government officials.
The Mormon church was founded in western New York in 1830 by
Joseph Smith who claimed that by divine revelation be had
found gold plates containing hieroglyphics buried on a hill
and that with the help of visits from the angel Moroni he
had been able to translate the writing into the _Book of
Mormon_, the basis of Mormon belief. This book, written "by
the commandment of God," claims that the ancient Hebrews
settled in America about 600 B.C.E. and were the ancestors
of the American Indians. Mormons believe that those who
have been baptized in the "true church" will be reunited
after death and that deceased non-Mormon family members can
be baptized by proxy and thus join their relatives in the
hereafter. Because of these beliefs, Mormons have been
considered outcasts by mainline Christian denominations and
as heretics by religious fundamentalists.
Joseph Smith was a controversial figure in his day -- he was
both worshiped as a saint and denounced as a fraud. Because
of persecution he led his band of loyal followers from
Palmyra, New York, westward to Ohio and then to Illinois,
where in 1844 he was shot to death by an agry mob. Brigham
Young, who reportedly had as many as eighty wives, took over
the leadership of the church and led the Mormons further
westward, to found the new Zion in Salt Lake City.
Following the teachings of Joseph Smith in the practice of
polygamy was perhaps the Mormons most controversial practice
in nineteenth-century America.
While other religions go back many centuries --
Muhammadanism, 1200 years; Christianity, 2000; and Judaism,
3000 -- and attempts to examine their beginnings are
difficult, extensive historical investigation of Mormon
roots is possible. Some Mormons are willing to examine this
history objectively, bu others maintain that such scrutiny
is dangerous to the faith.
In the following pages, _Free Inquiry_ presents two articles
about the Mormon church. First, George D. Smith, a lifelong
member of the church, provides a detailed critical
examination of Joseph Smith and his claim the the _Book of
Mormon_ was divinely revealed. Second, we present a portion
of an interview with philosopher Sterling McMurrin, also a
Mormon since birth, who questions the treatment of the
history of the church by Mormon authorities. -- Paul Kurtz
The article itself is super.
,...,.,,
/666; ',
////; _~ -
(/@/----0-~-0
;' . `` ~ \'
, ` ' , >
;;|\..(( -C---->> jimtims p00168@psilink.com
;;| >- `.__),;;
|
From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Who has read Rushdie's _The Satanic Verses_?
In article <37410@optima.cs.arizona.edu> sham@cs.arizona.edu (Shamim Zvonko Mohamed) writes:
>In article <1r1cl7INNknk@bozo.dsinc.com> perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes:
>>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?
>
>I read it when it first came out[...]
>And I *liked* it. [...]
>At the time I still "sorta-kinda" thought of myself as a muslim, and I
>couldn't see what the flap was all about. [...]
Thank you. I now know at least that though I may be on drugs, at
least I'm not the only one.
>The writing style was a little hard to get used to, but
>it was well worth the effort. Coming from a similar background (Rushdie
>grew up in Bombay in a muslim family, and moved to England; I grew up in
>New Delhi), it made a strong impression on me. (And he used many of the
>strange constructions of Indian English: the "yaar" at the end of a
>sentence, "Butbutbut," the occasional hindi phrase, etc.)
Yes, this took some getting used to -- of course not having an Indian
connection, no knowledge of hindi, etc., this was not trivial for me.
I did have, thanks to the wonders of the net, "A Glossary to *Satanic
Verses*", posted to rec.arts.books by Vijay Raghavan, which explains a
lot of the Indian English constructions, Indian culture references,
even the Islamic references ("Jahilia", "Submission", the context of
the Satanic Verses incident, etc.) -- what I have only covers the
first couple of hundred pages, but it helped me get into the flow of
the novel [I can mail this to anyone interested; if anyone has
portions after part I, if they exist, I'd like to get those].
--
Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
|
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
In article <116172@bu.edu>
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>> I'm not in a position to say, since I know nothing
>> about the situation. That does not, in my estimation, qualify me
>> as having my head up my ass.
>
>
>Bob, I never accused you of having your head up your ass! It takes
>me quite some time in dealing with someone before accusing them of
>having their head up their ass. I was accusing the original poster
>(Benedikt, I believe) of being so impaired.
>
After insult, Gregg resorts to lies:
In article <115670@bu.edu>
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>> Could you maybe flesh it out just a bit? Or did I miss the full
>> grandeur of it's content by virtue of my blinding atheism?
>
>You may be having difficulty seeing the light because you
>have your head up your ass. I suggest making sure this is
>not the case before posting again.
>
That's was the original answer. While it does not say that he has the head
necessarily up its ass, it would be meaningless and pointless if it was not
insinuated.
Benedikt
|
From: a137490@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Aario Sami)
Subject: Re: Why is sex only allowed in marriage: Rationality (was: Islamic marriage)?
In <1993Mar31.013034.27070@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>My case is that everything wrong in the world will end if people start
>believing in Islam. And that horrors to mankind are all caused by the
>lack of belief- Atheism.
For the last time, Bobby. Lack of belief in YOUR god does NOT imply
atheism. Just because some moslems aren't moral does not mean they don't
believe in a god named Allah, although their Allah may not do the things
your Allah does. If a moslem says he/she believes that a god exists, he/she
is a theist (though maybe not a TRUE follower of islam).
>30,000 murder victims a year caused by atheism. Poverty. Massive hate crimes.
>Such low respect for the human body. Distrust among people. Everything
>wrong, all caused by atheism.
>Peace,
Jerk.
>Bobby Mozumder
--
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.
|
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
In article <1993Apr6.021635.20958@wam.umd.edu> west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
>Fine... THE ILLIAD IS THE WORD OF GOD(tm) (disputed or not, it is)
>
>Dispute that. It won't matter. Prove me wrong.
The Illiad contains more than one word. Ergo: it can not be
the Word of God.
But, if you will humbly agree that it is the WORDS of God, I
will conceed.
:-D
---
"One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that
say "Mom", because of the love of their mom. It makes for more
virile men."
Bobby Mozumder ( snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu )
April 4, 1993
The one TRUE Muslim left in the world.
|
From: mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Idle questions for fellow atheists
In article <1993Apr5.124216.4374@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu writes:
>
>I wonder how many atheists out there care to speculate on the face of the world
>if atheists were the majority rather than the minority group of the population.
Probably we would have much the same problems with only a slight shift in
emphasis. Weekends might not be so inviolate (more common to work 7 days
a week in a business), and instead of American Atheists, we would have
similar, religious organizations. A persons religious belief seems more
as a crutch and justification for actions than a guide to determine actions.
Of course, people would have to come up with more fascinating
rationalizations for their actions, but that could be fun to watch...
It seems to me, that for most people, religion in America doesn't matter
that much. You have extreemists on both ends, but a large majority don't
make too much of an issue about it as long as you don't. Now, admittedly,
I have never had to suffer the "Bible Belt", but I am just north of it
and see the fringes, and the reasonable people in most things tend to be
reasonable in religion as well.
>Also, how many atheists out there would actually take the stance and accor a
>higher value to their way of thinking over the theistic way of thinking. The
>typical selfish argument would be that both lines of thinking evolved from the
>same inherent motivation, so one is not, intrinsically, different from the
>other, qualitatively. But then again a measuring stick must be drawn
>somewhere, and if we cannot assign value to a system of beliefs at its core,
>than the only other alternative is to apply it to its periphery; ie, how it
>expresses its own selfishness.
>
I don't bother according a higher value to my thinking, or just about
anybodys thinking. I don't want to fall in that trap. Because if you
do start that, then you are then to decide which is better, says whom,
why, is there a best, and also what to do about those who have inferior
modes of thinking. IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.)
I'll argue it over a soda, but not over much more.
Just my $.12 (What inflation has done...)
M^2
|