text
stringlengths 37
51.2k
|
|---|
From: dps@nasa.kodak.com (Dan Schaertel,,,)
Subject: Re: Christian Morality is
In article 11853@vice.ICO.TEK.COM, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
|>
|> Yet I am still not a believer. Is god not concerned with my
|> disposition? Why is it beneath him to provide me with the
|> evidence I would require to believe? The evidence that my
|> personality, given to me by this god, would find compelling?
The fact is God could cause you to believe anything He wants you to.
But think about it for a minute. Would you rather have someone love
you because you made them love you, or because they wanted to
love you. The responsibility is on you to love God and take a step toward
Him. He promises to be there for you, but you have to look for yourself.
Those who doubt this or dispute it have not givin it a sincere effort.
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. To learn you must accept that which
you don't know.
|
Subject: Re: Concerning God's Morality (long)
From: J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
In article <1993Apr5.084042.822@batman.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com
responds to a lot of grief given to him
>In article <1993Apr3.095220.24632@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
>galahad@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Compton)
a.k.a. "The Sagemaster"
[ . . .]
>But then I ask, So? Where is this relevant to my discussion in
>answering John's question of why? Why are there genetic diseases,
>and why are there so many bacterial and viral diseases which require
>babies to develop antibodies. Is it God's fault? (the original
>question) -- I say no, it is not.
Most of Scotty's followup *was* irrelevant to the original question,
but this is not unusual, as threads often quickly evolve away from
the original topic. What I could not understand is why Jim spent so
much time responding to what he regarded as irrelevancies.
[ . . . ]
>> 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),
Well, I guess hypothetical Adam was "the majority of mankind"
seeing how he was the ONLY man at the time.
>then God will allow the consequences of that action to
>affect mankind as a whole. If you didn't understand that, then I
>apologize for not using one and two syllable words in my discussion.
I understand what you mean by "collective," but I think it is an
insane perversion of justice. What sort of judge would punish the
descendants for a crime committed by their ancestor?
>If you want to be sure that I read your post and to provide a
>response, send a copy to Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com. I can't read
>a.a. every day, and some posts slip by. Thanks.
Well, I must admit that you probably read a.a. more often than I read
the Bible these days. But you missed a couple of good followups to
your post. I'm sending you a personal copy of my followup which I
hope you will respond to publically in a.a.
John
The Sageless
|
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
In article <930404.112127.2h6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > And we, meaning people who drive,
|> > accept the risks of doing so, and contribute tax money to design systems
|> > to minimize those risks.
|>
|> Eh? We already have systems to minimize those risks. It's just that you car
|> drivers don't want to use them.
|>
|> They're called bicycles, trains and buses.
Poor Matthew. A million posters to call "you car drivers" and he
chooses me, a non car owner.
jon.
|
From: cbrasted@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Charles Brasted)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
> First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian. It
>makes sense to be one. Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar,
>lunatic, or the real thing? (I might be a little off on the title, but he
>writes the book. Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity,
>in the process he became a Christian himself.
I assume you are posting to encourage comments - how much history has
Tony Campello read? Not much it seems.
> 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.
It is good to hear that there are a few reasonable Christians about.
If only those christian "scientists" would take note.
(In Australia there is a very strong movement, a bunch of christian
scientists who believe that every single event in the bible is exactly
true, and that there is a rational explanation for it all that can be justified
by using the laws of physics. For example, there are a few chaps who are
trying to prove that the age of the universe is 6000 years old, and that the
error in conventional calculations is the result of the fact that the speed
light has been rapidly decaying over the years, and this has not been
accounted for. :-] )
> The book says that Jesus was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a
>modern day Koresh) or he was actually who he said he was.
Or (of course), that he never existed, and the bible was a story, and was never
intended to become a manifesto for a billion people. Did Tony follow that one
up?
> Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows. Who would
>die for a lie? Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar? People
>gathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing
>someone who was or had been healed.
Millions of people have "died for a lie". This point is difficult to
substantiate since it is not well defined (a great many religious arguments
work in that way), but consider the many Aztec warriors who sacrificed
themselves to their gods in the belief that this act would bring them victory
of the Spanish invaders. The list is endless. The Aztecs lost, BTW.
>Call me a fool, but I believe he did heal people.
That is perfectly reasonable, but it is not grounds for me (or anyone)
to become a christian. More to the point, it does not add weight to
the claim that Jesus was the "real thing".
> Niether was he a lunatic. Would more than an entire nation be drawn
>to someone who was crazy. Very doubtful, in fact rediculous. For example
>anyone who is drawn to David Koresh is obviously a fool, logical people see
>this right away.
Have you ever seen a documentary about the rise of Nazi Germany? More to the
point, did Tony mention this? One could hardly call Werner Heisenberg and his
many colleagues fools, or illogical men, their support of Hitler was based
(I presume) upon an emotional issue rather than a rational agreement with
his principles. Obviously my argument is invalid if Tony thought that Hitler
was sane....
> Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the
>real thing.
Hmmm.... I don't think his arguments warrant the use of a "Therefore..."
> 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.
This is (unfortunately) what alot of religious discussions I have had with
people result in - quoting the bible. The only reasonable way I think
people can look at the bible is to treat the stories as some sort of
metaphorical representation of the messages that the authors were trying to
present. If someone tries to interpret parts of the bible literally, he or
she will end up in all sorts of shit.
Tony's argument would be perfectly reasonable for people who believe
the events described in the bible took place, but to convince someone,
who thinks the bible is total fiction, that Jesus is real by quoting the
book is totally pointless. For example, in mathematics you cannot say "a is
equal to b because a is equal to b".
> I don't think most people understand what a Christian is.
That would possibly explain why there have so many people being killed
in religious wars, and why there are hundreds of different versions all
claiming to be correct.
It
>is certainly not what I see a lot in churches. Rather I think it
>should be a way of life, and a total sacrafice of everything for God's
>sake. He loved us enough to die and save us so we should do the
>same. Hey we can't do it, God himself inspires us to turn our lives
>over to him. That's tuff and most people don't want to do it, to be a
>real Christian would be something for the strong to persevere at. But
>just like weight lifting or guitar playing, drums, whatever it takes
>time. We don't rush it in one day, Christianity is your whole life.
>It is not going to church once a week, or helping poor people once in
>a while. We box everything into time units. Such as work at this
>time, sports, Tv, social life. God is above these boxes and should be
>carried with us into all these boxes that we have created for
>ourselves.
I think if you posted this part to alt.religion you would get more flames
than here :-). I have never really understood why the emotional sentiments
of a stranger should be of interest to other people.
Someone famous said that there two evils in life, polititians and churchs, one
rules by fear of the living, the other by fear of the dead. If I am pressed I
could probably find the exact quotation.
Cheers,
Charles.
|
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
In article <C4vyFu.JJ6@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>Keith M. Ryan (kmr4@po.CWRU.edu) wrote:
>:
>: Wild and fanciful claims require greater evidence. If you state that
>: one of the books in your room is blue, I certainly do not need as much
>: evidence to believe than if you were to claim that there is a two headed
>: leapard in your bed. [ and I don't mean a male lover in a leotard! ]
>
>Keith,
>
>If the issue is, "What is Truth" then the consequences of whatever
>proposition argued is irrelevent. If the issue is, "What are the consequences
>if such and such -is- True", then Truth is irrelevent. Which is it to
>be?
I disagree: every proposition needs a certain amount of evidence
and support, before one can believe it. There are a miriad of factors for
each individual. As we are all different, we quite obviously require
different levels of evidence.
As one pointed out, one's history is important. While in FUSSR, one
may not believe a comrade who states that he owns five pairs of blue jeans.
One would need more evidence, than if one lived in the United States. The
only time such a statement here would raise an eyebrow in the US, is if the
individual always wear business suits, etc.
The degree of the effect upon the world, and the strength of the
claim also determine the amount of evidence necessary. When determining the
level of evidence one needs, it is most certainly relevent what the
consequences of the proposition are.
If the consequences of a proposition is irrelvent, please explain
why one would not accept: The electro-magnetic force of attraction between
two charged particles is inversely proportional to the cube of their
distance apart.
Remember, if the consequences of the law are not relevent, then
we can not use experimental evidence as a disproof. If one of the
consequences of the law is an incongruency between the law and the state of
affairs, or an incongruency between this law and any other natural law,
they are irrelevent when theorizing about the "Truth" of the law.
Given that any consequences of a proposition is irrelvent, including
the consequence of self-contradiction or contradiction with the state of
affiars, how are we ever able to judge what is true or not; let alone find
"The Truth"?
By the way, what is "Truth"? Please define before inserting it in
the conversation. Please explain what "Truth" or "TRUTH" is. I do think that
anything is ever known for certain. Even if there IS a "Truth", we could
never possibly know if it were. I find the concept to be meaningless.
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. "
S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu)
|
From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Gulf War and Peace-niks
In article <1993Apr20.102306.882@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.062328.19776@bmerh85.bnr.ca>,
>dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>> [...] Actually, I rather like your idea. Perhaps
>> the rest of the world should have bombed (or maybe missiled) Washington
>> when the US invaded Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Vietnam, Mexico, Hawaii,
>> or any number of other places.
>
>Wait a minute, Doug. I know you are better informed than that. The US
>has never invaded Nicaragua (as far as I know). We liberated Grenada
>[...]
"Liberate" is the way an invader describes an invasion, including, if
I'm not mistaken, the Iraqi liberation of Kuwait. Never invaded
Nicaragua? Only with more word games: can you say "send in the
Marines?"
>So if you mean by the word "invaded" some sort of military action where
>we cross someone's border, you are right 5 out of 6. But normally
>"invaded" carries a connotation of attacking an autonomous nation.
>(If some nation "invades" the U.S. Virgin Islands, would they be
>invading the Virgin Islands or the U.S.?) So from this point of
>view, your score falls to 2 out of 6 (Mexico, Panama).
Oh, good: word games. If you let the aggressor pick the words,
there's scarcely ever been a reprehensible military action.
>> What's a "peace-nik"? Is that somebody who *doesn't* masturbate
>> over "Guns'n'Ammo" or what? Is it supposed to be bad to be a peace-nik?
>
>No, it's someone who believes in "peace-at-all-costs". In other words,
>a person who would have supported giving Hitler not only Austria and
>Czechoslakia, but Poland too if it could have averted the War. And one
>who would allow Hitler to wipe all *all* Jews, slavs, and political
>dissidents in areas he controlled as long as he left the rest of us alone.
That's a convenient technique, much seen on alt.atheism: define those
who disagree with you according to a straw-man extreme that matches
virtually nobody.
>"Is it supposed to be bad to be a peace-nik," you ask? Well, it depends
>on what your values are. If you value life over liberty, peace over
>freedom, then I guess not. But if liberty and freedom mean more to you
>than life itself; if you'd rather die fighting for liberty than live
>under a tyrant's heel, then yes, it's "bad" to be a peace-nik.
Very noble and patriotic. I'm sure the fine young Americans who
carpet-bombed Iraqi infantry positions from over the horizon,
destroyed Iraq's sewer and water infrastructure from the safety of the
sky or further, or who bulldozed other Iraqi infantry into their
trenches [or more importantly the commanders who ordered them to] were
just thrilled to be risking death (if not risking it by much) in the
defense of the liberty of ... well, wealthy Kuwaitis. Can't have
those oil-fields under a tyrant's heel if that tyrant is antagonistic
to US interests...
>The problem with most peace-niks it they consider those of us who are
>not like them to be "bad" and "unconscionable". I would not have any
>argument or problem with a peace-nik if they held to their ideals and
>stayed out of all conflicts or issues, especially those dealing with
>the national defense. But no, they are not willing to allow us to
>legitimately hold a different point-of-view.
Having pigeon-holed "peace-niks" (in this context, "people who
disagree with me about the conduct of the Gulf War") into
"peace-at-all-cost-hitler-supporting-genocide-abetting-wimps", you can
now express righteous indignation when "they" refuse to fit this mold
and question the conduct of the war on legitimate terms. HOW DARE
THEY!
>They militate and
>many times resort to violence all in the name of peace. (What rank
>hypocrisy!)
Yes, hypocrisy indeed! Those violent peace-niks! (Care to list an
example here?)
>All to stop we "warmongers" who are willing to stand up
>and defend our freedoms against tyrants, and who realize that to do
>so requires a strong national defense.
Wow: instant '80's nostalgia! [Of course, "peace-nik" itself is a
'50's Cold War derogatory term equating those who promote pacifism
with Godless Pinko Communists]. Yes indeed, I felt my freedoms
mightily threatened by Iraq...
--
Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
|
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Nicknames
In article <1993Apr18.231914.143616@zeus.calpoly.edu>,
jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch) wrote:
> >Mathew "FAQ" can't remember his last name
> >Keith "Lie Tally .sig" Ryan
> >Kent "Finn-tastic" Sandvick
> >Cindy "Popsicle Toes" Kandolf
> >Jim "Face .sig" Tims
> >Simon "Clip-that-theist" Clippendale
> >Umar "Reasonable" Khan
> >Rob "Argue with G-d" Strom
> >Dave "Buckminster" Fuller
> >Maddi "Never a useful post" Hausmann
>
> Hey, what about an affectionate nickname for me?
You could take my wrongly spelled surname :-).
Cheers,
Kent Sandvik
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
|
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu ("Half" Bake Timmons) writes: >
Maddi: >>
>>Whirr click whirr...Frank O'Dwyer might also be contained
>>in that shell...pop stack to determine...whirr...click..whirr
>
>>"Killfile" Keith Allen Schneider = Frank "Closet Theist" O'Dwyer = ...
>= Maddi "The Mad Sound-O-Geek" Hausmann
No, no, no! I've already been named by "Killfile" Keith.
My nickname is Maddi "Never a Useful Post" Hausmann, and
don't you DARE forget it, "Half".
>-- "...there's nothing higher, stronger, more wholesome and more useful in life
>than some good memory..." -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)
You really should quote Ivan Karamazov instead(on a.a), as he was
the atheist.
--
Maddi Hausmann madhaus@netcom.com
Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553
Kids, please don't try this at home. Remember, I post professionally.
|
From: mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
My turn to jump in! :)
In article <1pi8h5INNq40@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>(reference line trimmed)
>
>livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>There is a good deal more confusion here. You started off with the
>>assertion that there was some "objective" morality, and as you admit
>>here, you finished up with a recursive definition. Murder is
>>"objectively" immoral, but eactly what is murder and what is not itself
>>requires an appeal to morality.
>
I think you mean circular, not recursive, but that is semantics.
Recursiveness has no problems, it is just horribly inefficient (just ask
any assembly programmer.)
>Yes.
>
>>Now you have switch targets a little, but only a little. Now you are
>>asking what is the "goal"? What do you mean by "goal?". Are you
>>suggesting that there is some "objective" "goal" out there somewhere,
>>and we form our morals to achieve it?
>
>Well, for example, the goal of "natural" morality is the survival and
>propogation of the species. Another example of a moral system is
>presented within the Declaration of Independence, which states that we
>should be guaranteed life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You see,
>to have a moral system, we must define the purpose of the system. That is,
>we shall be moral unto what end?
The oft-quoted line that says people should be guaranteed life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights, is a complete lie
and deception, as the very authors of that line were in the process of
proving. Liberty is never free, it is always purchased at some cost,
almost always at the cost to another. Whos liberty is more inalienable?
Similarly for right of life. When one person must die if he is to save
another, or even a group of others, whos life is more inalienable?
That leads into the classic question of the value of the death penalty,
especially for serial killers. Whos life and liberty is more valuable,
the serial killer, or the victim? According to that beautiful line,
those two rights should be completely inviolate, that is, noone should be
able to remove them. This _includes_ government. Admittedly the serial
killer has restricted some people's life and/or liberty, but is not his
own life/liberty inviolate also? According to the declaration of independence,
it is.
>>>Murder is certainly a violation of the golden rule. And, I thought I had
>>>defined murder as an intentional killing of a non-murderer, against his will.
Oooh, I like that. It means that killing an infant is not murder because
it cannot be against its will. Reason, an infant has no will as such.
Similarly for people who are brain dead (easier to see), in a coma, etc.
Also, under current law, accidental killing is still murder. How will you
include that?
>>>And you responded to this by asking whether or not the execution of an
>>>innocent person under our system of capital punishment was a murder or not.
>>>I fail to see what this has to do with anything. I never claimed that our
>>>system of morality was an objective one.
>>I thought that was your very first claim. That there was
>>some kind of "objective" morality, and that an example of that was
>>that murder is wrong. If you don't want to claim that any more,
>>that's fine.
The only real golden rule in life is, he who has the gold, makes the
rules. I.e. Might Makes Right. That is survival. Now what is wrong
with that?
>Well, murder violates the golen rule, which is certainly a pillar of most
>every moral system. However, I am not assuming that our current system
>and the manner of its implementation are objectively moral. I think that
>it is a very good approximation, but we can't be perfect.
If you mean the golden rule as I stated, yes, almost every system as
implemented has used that in reality. Sorry, I don't deal as much in
fiction, as I do in reality.
>>And by the way, you don't seem to understand the difference between
>>"arbitrary" and "objective". If Keith Schneider "defines" murder
>>to be this that and the other, that's arbitrary. Jon Livesey may
>>still say "Well, according to my personal system of morality, all
>>killing of humans against their will is murder, and wrong, and what
>>the legal definition of murder may be in the USA, Kuweit, Saudi
>>Arabia, or the PRC may be matters not a whit to me".
WELCOME TO OZLAND!!!!!!! :)
What is NOT arbitrary? If you can find some part of society, some societal
rules, morals, etc. that are not arbitrary, please tell me. I don't think
there are any.
>Well, "objective" would assume a system based on clear and fundamental
>concepts, while "arbitary" implies no clear line of reasoning.
>
>keith
Sounds like euphemisms to me. The difference seems to be, that objective
is some reasoning that I like, while arbitrary is some reasoning that
I don't like OR don't understand.
M^2
|
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: Bayesian Statistics, theism and atheism
In article <1993Apr24.165301.8321@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
#In article <1quei1$8mb@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#>In article <1993Apr15.181924.21026@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
[I write:]
#>>> Imagine that 1000000 Alterian dollars turn up in your bank account every
#>>> month. Suppose further that this money is being paid to you by (a) your
#>>> big-hearted Alterian benefactor, or (b) a bug in an Alterian ATM. Let's
#>>> suppose that this is a true dichotomy, so P(a)+P(b)=1. Trouble is, Alterius
#>>> is in a different universe, so that no observations of Alterius are possible
#>>> (except for the banks - you couldn't possibly afford it ;-)
#>>>
#>>> Now let's examine the case for (a). There is no evidence whatsoever that
#>>> there is any such thing as a big-hearted Alterian benefactor. However,
#>>> P(exists(b-h A b)) + P(not(exists(b-h A b)) = 1. On the grounds that
#>>> lack_of_evidence_for is evidence_against when we have a partition like
#>>> that, we dismiss hypothesis (a).
#>>>
#>>> Turning, therefore, to (b), we also find no evidence to support that
#>>> hypothesis. On the same grounds as before, we dismiss hypothesis (b).
#>>>
#>>> The problem with this is that we have dismissed *all* of the possible
#>>> hypotheses, and even though we know by construction that the money
#>>> arrives every month, we have proven that it can't, because we
#>>> have dismissed all of its potential causes.
#
#>> That's an *extremely* poor argument, and here's why.
#>>
#>> Premise 1: "...this money is being paid to you by [either] (a) your big-
#>> hearted Alterian benefactor, or (b) a bug in an Alterian ATM".
#>>
#>> Thus each monthly appearance of the bucks, should it happen, is an
#>> observation on Alterius, and by construction, is evidence for the
#>> existence of [either the benefactor or the bug in the ATM].
#>>
#>> Premise 2: no observations on Alterius are possible.
#
#> #> (except for the banks - you couldn't possibly afford it ;-)
#>
#> You forgot to include this. My premise is actually:
#>
#> Premise 2: The cardinality of the set of possible observations on Alterius
#> is one.
#
#>> This is clearly contradictory to the first.
#
#> Not if you state it properly.
#
#>> Trouble is, on the basis of premise 2, you say that there can be no evidence
#>> of [either the benefactor or the bug], but the first premise leads to the
#>> conclusion that the appearance of the bucks, should it happen, is evidence
#>> for the existence of [either the benefactor or the bug].
#>>
#>> Voila, a screaming contradiction.
#
#[with my highlights - SC]
#> But in a strawman argument. There is only evidence for OneOf(Benefactor,Bug).
#> No observation to distinguish Benefactor from Bug is possible. That is
#> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#> not evidence for Bug, and neither is it evidence for Benefactor. Nor
#> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#> is true to say that this hypothetical universe appears exactly as
#> if there were no Benefactor/Bug (two statements, both would be false).
#
#This is still contradictory. It reduces to
#
# (1): Alterian dosh arriving in my account is due to [benefactor or bug].
#
# (2): this is not evidence for [benefactor], neither is it evidence for
# [bug] (meaning that it doesn't lend more weight to one than to the
# other)
#
# (3): therefore no evidence can exist for [benefactor] and no evidence
# can exist for [bug].
#
#But (3) relies on a shift in meaning from (2). When you say (paraphrased)
#in (2) that this is not "evidence for [benefactor]", for example, what you
#mean is that it's no *more* evidence for [benefactor] than it is for [bug].
Yes, that's what I mean.
#In (3), however, you've shifted the meaning of "evidence for [benefactor]"
#so that it now means `absolute' "evidence for [benefactor]" rather than
#`relative' "evidence for [benefactor]" w.r.t. [bug].
Not really, I meant evidence that would tend to one over the other. I
think this is just a communications problem. What I am trying to say,
in my clumsy way, is that while I buy your theory as far as it relates
to theism making predictions (prayer, your 'Rapture' example), I don't
buy your use of Occam's razor in all cases where A=0.
In my example, one couldn't dismiss
[benefactor] or [bug] on the grounds of simplicity - one of these is necessary
to explain the dosh. I brought up the 'one-by-one dismissal' process to
show that it would be wrong to do so. From what you're saying in this
post, it seems you agree, and we're talking at cross-purposes.
#(3) is still in contradiction to (1).
#
#Some sums may help. With B = benefactor, b = bug, d = dosh arrives in account:
#
# (1) implies P(B+b | d) = 1
#
#Assuming that P(Bb | d) = 0, so it's either the benefactor *or* a bug
#which is responsible if the bucks arrive, but not both, then
#
# P(B+b | d) = P(B | d) + P(b | d)
#
#so
#
# P(B | d) + P(b | d) = 1
#
#but (3) implies that
#
# P(B | d) = 0 and P(b | d) = 0.
No, this isn't what I meant. P(B | d) = 0.5 and P(b | d) = 0.5, with
necessarily no new observation (we've already seen the dosh) to change
those estimates. I was trying to say (again, in my clumsy way) that
it would be _wrong_ to assign 0 probability to either of these. And that's
precisely what use of the Razor does in the case of gods - gods are
one class of hypothesis (there are many others) belonging to a set of
hypotheses _one_of_which_ is necessary to explain something which otherwise
would _not_ be satisfactorily explained. It can be thrown out or
retained on grounds of non-rational preference, not of science or statistics.
Alternatively, one could chuck out or retain the lot, on the grounds
that the answer can't be known, or that the notional probability estimates
are effectively useless, being equal (agnosticism/weak atheism).
#> As they do when the set M is filled by "the universe is caused by x",
#> where x is gods, pink unicorns, nothing, etc. - and no observation
#> tends to one conclusion over the other.
#
#Exactly the point I was making, I think. So we don't "throw out" any of
#these, contrary to your assertion above that we do.
Some people do, Simon, and they think they are doing excellent science.
My sole point was that they aren't.
#>> Only observations which directly contradict the hypothesis H[i] (i.e. x
#>> where P(x | H[i]) = 0) can cause P(H[i]) to go to zero after a finite
#>> number of observations. Only in this case do we get to throw any of the
#>> hypotheses out.
#
#> Exactly my point, though I may have been unclear.
#
#You said the diametric opposite, which I guess is the source of my confusion.
I was merely trying to illustrate the incorrectness of doing so.
#> What I'm trying to say is that while you are correct to say that absence of
#> evidence can sometimes be evidence of absence, this does not hold true for
#> all, or perhaps any, versions of theism - and it isn't true that those for
#> which it does not hold can be discarded using the razor.
#
#On the contrary, those for which it does not hold are *exactly* those which
#can be discarded using the Razor. See my post on the other branch of this
#thread.
Then you seem to be guilty of the contradiction you accuse me of. If
the razor holds for gods, then it holds for all like hypotheses. Which
means that you're assigning P(x | H[i]) =0 for all i, though we've already
established that it's not correct to do so when SUM(P(x|H[i]))=1 over
all i.
#> Simply put, anyone who claims to have a viable proof of the existence or
#> non-existence of gods, whether inductive or no, is at best mistaken, and
#> at worst barking mad.
#
#Luckily I make no such claim, and have specifically said as much on numerous
#occasions. You wouldn't be constructing a strawman here, would you Frank?
#Although that doesn't, of course, rule out my being barking mad in any case
#(I could be barking mad in my spare time, with apologies to Cleese et al).
#
#But I think you miss the point once again. When I say that something is
#"evidence against" an hypothesis, that doesn't imply that observation of
#the said something necessarily *falsifies* the hypothesis, reducing the
#estimate of P(H | data) to zero. If it *reduces* this quantity, it's still
#evidence against H.
No, I got that. I'm talking about the case when A=0. You're clearly
correct when A!=0. And I'm not constructing a strawman (though it's
certainly possible that I've misunderstood what you're saying). However,
by any standards, a system that says when A=0, gods are highly unlikely,
and when A!=0 gods can be dismissed using the Razor, is a system purporting
to be an inductive proof that gods either don't exist, or are unnecessary
to explain any or all phenomena. In my experience, systems such as this
(including those which purport to prove that gods exist) always contain
a fallacy upon close examination. If that's not what you're saying, then
please put me straight.
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
|
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
In article <1993Apr15.150938.975@news.wesleyan.edu> SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu (SCOTT D. SAUYET) writes:
>In <1qabe7INNaff@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu writes:
>
>>> Chimpanzees fight wars over land.
>>
>> But chimps are almost human...
>>
>> keith
>
>Could it be? This is the last message from Mr. Schneider, and it's
>more than three days old!
>
>Are these his final words? (And how many here would find that
>appropriate?) Or is it just that finals got in the way?
>
No. The christians were leary of having an atheist spokesman
(seems so clandestine, and all that), so they had him removed. Of
course, Keith is busy explaining to his fellow captives how he
isn't really being persecuted, since (after all) they *are*
feeding him, and any resistance on his part would only be viewed
as trouble making.
I understand he did make a bit of a fuss when they tatooed "In God
We Trust" on his forehead, though.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
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: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Islam & Dress Code for women
In article <1993Apr6.030734.28563@ennews.eas.asu.edu>, guncer@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Selim Guncer ) writes:
>
> I wouldn't consider this quote as being exemplary of the Islamic
> (TM) viewpoint though. For all we know, the prophet's cousin and
> the Fourth Khalif Hazret-i Ali may have said this after a
> frustrating night with a woman.
That's very interesting. I wonder, are women's reactions
recorded after a frustrating night with a man? Is that
considered to be important?
jon.
|
From: dewey@risc.sps.mot.com (Dewey Henize)
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic.religion (Was: Why ALT.atheism?)
In article <93103.071613J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>Standard groups (sci, soc, talk) must conform to stricter rules when being
>established and must show a certain volume of postings or else they will
>cease to exist. These groups also reach more sites on USENET than alt
>groups. I already posted my opinion to mathew's suggestion, which was that
>alt.atheism is on the verge of having too many garbage postings from
>fundies, and "elevating" its status to a standard group (and consequently,
>the volume of such postings) could make it unreadable.
I tend to agree. I came here when it first started and watched it grow
from the roots on talk.religion.misc. It seemed to take a while for enough
atheists to come forward to get past the "Let's trash Xians" and such.
Now there's a stable core, and frankly there's a feeling that this is
_our_ group.
If we go mainstream, we're going to be in a lot more places. And every
fucking fundy loonie freshman will be dumping on us to find Jeesus! and
warn us that we're all going to Hell.
Want to see what we'll get? Go real alt.fan.brother-jed and imagine that
those imbecilic tirades will be here. All the time. Every other post.
I'm being selfish. I find I really learn a lot here and the S/N isn't too
bad. The Browns and the Boobys are a distraction, but they are few enough
that they even bring in some of the leavening needed to offset them. But
I greatly fear that mainstreaming would basically put us at the swamping
level of the Conners of the world.
Regards,
Dew
--
Dewey Henize Sys/Net admin RISC hardware (512) 891-8637 pager 928-7447 x 9637
|
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>As for rape, surely there the burden of guilt is solely on the rapist?
Not so. If you are thrown into a cage with a tiger and get mauled, do you
blame the tiger?
keith
|
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: What's a shit shoveler to do? (was Re: Amusing atheists and)
Robert Beauchaine (bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM) wrote:
: >
: Precisely my position.
: As a newbie, I tried the point-by-point approach to debate with
: these types. It wasted both my time and my lifespan. Ignoring
: them is not an option, since they don't go away, and doing so
: would leave one with large stretches of complete anonymity in this
: group.
Bob,
I've posted here long enough to see your name a few times, but I
can't recall any point by point approach to anything you've
contributed. But I'm old (probably senile) and I may have just
forgotten, if you could post an example of your invincible logic, it
might jog my memory.
Bill
|
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
In article <1qnp13INN816@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >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.
|>
|> That's the entire point!
No, that's the point of evolution, not the point of "natural
morality". Unless, of course, as I have suggested several
times already, "natural morality" is just a renaming.
|>
|> >Are you going to proclaim a natural morality every time an
|> >organism evolves cooperative behaviour?
|>
|> Yes!
|>
|> Natural morality is a morality that developed naturally.
But your "yes?" is actually stronger than this. You are
agreeing that "every time an organism evolves cooperative
behaviour" you are going to call it a "natural morality."
> >What about the natural morality of bee dance?
>
> Huh?
Bee dance is a naturally developed piece of cooperative behaviour.
jon.
|
From: mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne)
Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
In article <JVIGNEAU.93Apr5182106@cs.ulowell.edu> jvigneau@cs.ulowell.edu (Joe Vigneau) writes:
>
>If anything, the BSA has taught me, I don't know, tolerance or something.
>Before I met this guy, I thought all gays were 'faries'. So, the BSA HAS
>taught me to be an antibigot.
I could give much the same testimonial about my experience as a scout
back in the 1960s. The issue wasn't gays, but the principles were the
same. Thanks for a well put testimonial. Stan Krieger and his kind who
think this discussion doesn't belong here and his intolerance is the
only acceptable position in scouting should take notice. The BSA has
been hijacked by the religious right, but some of the core values have
survived in spite of the leadership and some scouts and former scouts
haven't given up. Seeing a testimonial like this reminds me that
scouting is still worth fighting for.
On a cautionary note, you must realize that if your experience with this
camp leader was in the BSA you may be putting him at risk by publicizing
it. Word could leak out to the BSA gestapo.
Bill Mayne
|
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
Keith M. Ryan (kmr4@po.CWRU.edu) wrote:
:
: Wild and fanciful claims require greater evidence. If you state that
: one of the books in your room is blue, I certainly do not need as much
: evidence to believe than if you were to claim that there is a two headed
: leapard in your bed. [ and I don't mean a male lover in a leotard! ]
Keith,
If the issue is, "What is Truth" then the consequences of whatever
proposition argued is irrelevent. If the issue is, "What are the consequences
if such and such -is- True", then Truth is irrelevent. Which is it to
be?
Bill
|
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
In article <N4HY.93Apr5120934@harder.ccr-p.ida.org>, n4hy@harder.ccr-p.ida.org (Bob McGwier) writes:
|> [1] HOWEVER, I hate economic terrorism and political correctness
|> worse than I hate this policy.
|> [2] A more effective approach is to stop donating
|> to ANY organizating that directly or indirectly supports gay rights issues
|> until they end the boycott on funding of scouts.
Can somebody reconcile the apparent contradiction between [1] and [2]?
--
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
|
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: free moral agency
In article <C5uuL0.n1C@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
|>
|> Many of the atheists posting here argue against their own parody of
|> religion; they create some ridiculous caricature of a religion and
|> then attack the believers within that religion and the religion itself
|> as ridiculous. By their own devices, they establish a new religion, a
|> mythology.
You mean Bobby Mozumder is a myth? We wondered about that.
|> The point of course, is to erect an easy target and deflect the
|> disputants away from the real issue - atheism. The fictional Christian
|> or Moslem or Jew who is supposed to believe the distorted
|> representation of their beliefs presented here, is therefore made to
|> seem a fool and his/her arguments can thereby be made to appear
|> ludicrous. The mythology is the misrepresentations of religion used
|> here as fact.
You mean Bobby Mozumder didn't really post here? We wondered
about that, too.
So, Mr Conner. Is Bobby Mozumder a myth, a performing artist,
a real Moslem. a crackpot, a provocateur? You know everything
and read all minds: why don't you tell us?
jon.
|
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: free moral agency
In article <kmr4.1696.735588167@po.CWRU.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>
> [34mAnd now . . . [35mDeep Thoughts[0m
> [32mby Jack Handey.[0m
>
> [36mIf you go parachuting, and your parachute doesn't open, and your
> friends are all watching you fall, I think a funny gag would be
> to pretend you were swimming.[0m
You fall if it opens, too.
Gravity: it's not just a good idea; it's the law.
Dean Kaflowitz
|
From: mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Gulf War (was Re: Death Penalty was Re: Political Atheists?)
In article <930420.113512.1V3.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>Don't sell the bastard arms and information in the first place. Ruthlessly
>hunt down those who do. Especially if they're in positions of power.
I looked back at this, and asked some questions of various people and
got the following information which I had claimed and you pooh-poohed.
The US has not sold Iraq any arms. Their navy is entirely made of
F-USSR vessels. Their airforce (not including stuff captured from Kuwait
which I am not as sure about), doesn't include any US equipment. Their
missiles are all non-US. Their tanks are almost all soviet, with about
100 French tanks (older ones). The only US stuff in the Iraqi arsenal
is a few M113s. Those were not sold to Iraq. Iraq captured them from
other countries (like Kuwait). Information is hard to prove. You are
claiming that the US sold information? Prove it.
Now, how did the US build up Iraq again? I just gave some fairly
conclusive evidence that the US didn't sell arms to Iraq. Information
is hard to prove, almost certainly if the US did sell information, then that
fact is classified, and you can't prove it. If you can provide some
useful evidence that the US sold arms or valuable intelligence to Iraq,
I am very interested, but not if you just make claims based on what
"everyone knows".
--
***************************************************************************
* mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu * Never program and drink beer at the same *
* M^2 * time. It doesn't work. *
***************************************************************************
|
From: marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>If Saddam believed in God, he would pray five times a
>day.
>
>Communism, on the other hand, actually committed genocide in the name of
>atheism, as Lenin and Stalin have said themselves. These two were die
>hard atheist (Look! A pun!) and believed in atheism as an integral part
>of communism.
No, Bobby. Stalin killed millions in the name of Socialism. Atheism was a
characteristic of the Lenin-Stalin version of Socialism, nothing more.
Another characteristic of Lenin-Stalin Socialism was the centralization of
food distribution. Would you therefore say that Stalin and Lenin killed
millions in the name of rationing bread? Of course not.
>More horrible deaths resulted from atheism than anything else.
In earlier posts you stated that true (Muslim) believers were incapable of
evil. I suppose if you believe that, you could reason that no one has ever
been killed in the name of religion. What a perfect world you live in,
Bobby.
>One of the reasons that you are atheist is that you limit God by giving
>God a form. God does not have a "face".
Bobby is referring to a rather obscure law in _The Good Atheist's
Handbook_:
Law XXVI.A.3: Give that which you do not believe in a face.
You must excuse us, Bobby. When we argue against theism, we usually argue
against the Christian idea of God. In the realm of Christianity, man was
created in God's image.
--
|""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""|
| Kevin Marshall Sophomore, Computer Science |
| Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA USA marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |
|____________________________________________________________________|
|
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
In article <1993Apr15.135650.28926@st-andrews.ac.uk> nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:
>I don't think you're right about Germany. My daughter was born there and
>I don't think she has any German rights eg to vote or live there (beyond the
>rights of all EC citizens). She is a British citizen by virtue of
>her parentage, but that's not "full" citizenship. For example, I don't think
>her children could be British by virtue of her in the same way.
I am fairly sure that she could obtain citizenship by making an
application for it. It might require immigration to Germany, but
I am almost certain that once applied for citizenship is inevitable
in this case.
>More interesting is your sentence,
>>In fact, many people try to come to the US to have their children
>>born here so that they will have some human rights.
>How does the US compare to an Islamic country in this respect? Do people
>go to Iran so their children will have some human rights? Would you?
More interesting only for your propaganda purposes. I have said several
times now that I don't consider Iran particularly exemplary as a good
Islamic state. We might talk about the rights of people in "capitalist
secular" third world countries to give other examples of the lack of
rights in third world countries broadly. Say, for example, Central
American secular capitalist countries whose govt's the US supports
but who Amnesty International has pointed out are human rights vacua.
Gregg
|
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: A Little Too Satanic
Kent Sandvik and Jon Livesey made essentially the same response, so this
time Kent's article gets the reply:
>I agree, but this started at one particular point in time, and we
>don't know when this starting point of 'accurately copied scriptures'
>actually happened.
This begs the question of whether it ever "started"-- perhaps because
accuracy was always an intention.
>Even worse, if the events in NT were not written by eye witness accounts (a
>high probability looking at possible dates when the first Gospels were
>ready) then we have to take into account all the problems with information
>forwarded with the 'telephone metaphor', indeed.
It makes little difference if you have eyewitnesses or people one step away
(reporters, if you will). As I said earlier, the "telephone" metaphor is
innately bad, because the purpose of a game of telephone is contrary to the
aims of writing these sorts of texts. (Also, I would point out that, by the
standards generally asserted in this group, the distinction between
eyewitnesses and others is hollow, since nobody can be shown to be an
eyewitness, or indeed, even shown to be the author of the text.)
There is no evidence that the "original" texts of either the OT or the NT
are largely lost over time in a sea of errors, "corrections", additions and
deletions. In the case of the NT, the evidence is strongly in the other
direction: the Textus R. and the Nestle-Aland text do not differ on more
than a low level of significance. It is reasonable to assume a similar
situation for the OT, based on the NT as a model.
--
C. Wingate + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
+ but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe + the marv'lous peace of God."
|
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism)
In <CINDY.93Apr18124333@solan10.solan.unit.no> cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:
>Various quotes deleted in the interest of saving a little bit of
>bandwidth, but i will copy the Koran quote:
>>>>"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)
>As it has been pointed out, this quote makes no claim about what
>orbits what. The idea that something orbited something had been held
>as true for many years before the Koran was written, so the fact that
>it says something orbits something is hardly surprising insight. My
>concern is with the word "rounded".
>There are two interpretations of this word:
>1. It means in a circle. This is wrong, although many believed it to
>be true at the time the Koran was written. In other words, it is not
>describing our neighborhood of the universe as it really exists, but
>as it was thought to be at the time. This has implications which i
>hope are obvious to everyone.
>2. It means "in a rounded shape", which could include elipses (the
>geometrical form which most nearly describes the orbits of the
>planets). This is also not a great insight. Look at the shapes you
>see in nature. Very few of them even approach a square or rectangle;
>those are human-created shapes. Everything in nature is rounded to
>some degree. Even the flat-earthers don't try to claim Earth is a
>rectangle. Children who draw imaginary animals seldom give them
>rectangular bodies. We seem to instinctively recognize that nature
>produces rounded shapes; hence, the assumption that the orbits of the
>planets would be round hardly takes divine inspiration.
It is good to remember that every translation is to some extent an
interpretation, so (as you point out below) one must really go back to
the original Arabic. Regarding the verses relevant to nature, I prefer
to use Dr. Maurice Bucaille's translations (in his book, "The Bible, the
Qur'an and Science") for in general his translations are more literal.
Maurice Bucaille translates the portion of the verse you are addressing
as
"...Each one is travelling with an orbit in its own motion."
(Also note that "the celestial bodies" in the first translation quoted
by you above is the translator's interpolation -- it is not existent in
the original Arabic, which is why it is included in brackets.)
>Perhaps someone who can read the original Arabic can eliminate one of
>these interpretations; at any rate, neither one of them is exactly
>impressive.
You're right, what the verses _do_ contain isn't all that remarkable.
However, Dr. Bucaille (a surgeon, that's how he's a "Dr.") thinks it is
significant that the above verse contains no geocentric ideas, even
though geocentrism was all the rage up until the 17th century (?) or so.
(And this goes for the rest of the Qur'an as well, which has about 750
verses or so regarding nature, I think I remember reading once.)
Fred Rice
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
|
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
In article <930404.111651.1K0.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr2.065230.18676@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
|> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
|> >The "automobile system" kills non-driving passengers, not to mention
|> >pedestrians. You need not drive or even use a car to be killed by one.
|>
|> Indeed, and it kills far more than a system of public transport would. I am
|> therefore entirely in favour of banning private cars and replacing them with
|> trains, buses, taxis, bicycles, and so on.
Seconded. I cycle to work each day, and if we could just get
those damned cars and their cretinous drivers off the road, it
would be a lot more fun.
jon.
|
From: b711zbr@utarlg.uta.edu (JUNYAN WANG)
Subject: Bible contradictions
I would like a list of Bible contadictions from those of you who dispite
being free from Christianity are well versed in the Bible.
|
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Islam is caused by believing (was Re: Genocide is Caused by Theism)
In article <1993Apr13.173100.29861@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>>I'm only saying that anything can happen under atheism. Being a
>>beleiver, a knowledgeable one in religion, only good can happen.
This is becoming a tiresome statement. Coming from you it is
a definition, not an assertion:
Islam is good. Belief in Islam is good. Therefore, being a
believer in Islam can produce only good...because Islam is
good. Blah blah blah.
That's about as circular as it gets, and equally meaningless. To
say that something produces only good because it is only good that
it produces is nothing more than an unapplied definition. And
all you're application is saying that it's true if you really
believe it's true. That's silly.
Conversely, you say off-handedly that _anything_ can happen under
atheism. Again, just an offshoot of believe-it-and-it-becomes-true-
don't-believe-it-and-it-doesn't.
Like other religions I'm aquainted with, Islam teaches exclusion and
caste, and suggests harsh penalties for _behaviors_ that have no
logical call for punishment (certain limits on speech and sex, for
example). To me this is not good. I see much pain and suffering
without any justification, except for the _waving of the hand_ of
some inaccessible god.
By the by, you toss around the word knowledgable a bit carelessly.
For what is a _knowledgeable believer_ except a contradiction of
terms. I infer that you mean believer in terms of having faith.
And If you need knowledge to believe then faith has nothing
to do with it, does it?
-jim halat
|
Subject: Re: Who has read Rushdie's _The Satanic Verses_?
From: sham@cs.arizona.edu (Shamim Zvonko Mohamed)
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 the controversy broke. Put my name
on the waiting list at the library (that way if the book was really
offensive, none of my money would find its way to the author or
publisher), and read it, "cover to cover" (to use a phrase that seems
popular here right now).
And I *liked* it. 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.)
At the time I still "sorta-kinda" thought of myself as a muslim, and I
couldn't see what the flap was all about. It seemed clear to me that this
was allegory. It was clear that he described some local prostitutes who
took on the names and personae of Muhammed's wives, and had not (as my
grandfather thundered) implied that Muhammed's wives were prostitutes; in
short, every angry muslim that had read even part of the book seemed to
have missed the point completely. (And I won't mention the fact that the
most militant of them had never even seen the book. Oops, I just did!)
Perhaps in a deep sense, the book is insulting to Islam, because it
exposes the silliness of revealed religion - why does an omnipotent deity
need an agent? She can come directly to me, can't she? How do we know that
Muhammed didn't just go out into the desert and smoke something? And how
do we know that the scribes he dictated the Quran to didn't screw up, or
put in their own little verses? And why can Muhammed marry more than four
women, when no other muslim is allowed to? (Although I think the biggest
insult to Islam is that the majority of its followers would want to
suppress a book, sight unseen, on the say-so of some "holy" guy. Not to
mention murder the author.)
>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.
I had much the same response when I tried to talk about the book. A really
silly argument - after all, how many of these same people have read "Mein
Kampf?" It just made me wonder - what are they afraid of? Why don't they
just read the book and decide for themselves?
Maybe the reaction of the muslim community to the book, and the absence of
protest from the "liberal" muslims to Khomeini's fatwa outrage, was the
final push I needed into atheism!
-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: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
In article <1qnpe2INN8b0@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> 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.
In the part of the posting you have so helpfully deleted, I
pointed out that they used the wording from the English Bill of
Rights apparently *changing* what they understood by it, and I
asked why then should we, two hundred years later, be bound by
what Keith Allan Schneider *thinks* they understood by it.
|>
|> >>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.
So one cannot say "a cruel fate"?
Your prevarications are getting increasingly unconvincing, I think.
jon.
|
From: bcash@crchh410.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: I don't beleive in you either.
In article <1993Apr13.213055.818@antioc.antioch.edu>, smauldin@antioc.antioch.edu writes:
|> I stopped believing in you as well, long before the invention of technology.
|>
|> --GOD
|>
Ahhh go back to alt.autotheism where you belong!
Brian /-|-\
|
From: mccullou@snake10.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Gulf War / Selling Arms
In article <930421.120313.2L5.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>> Mathew, I agree. This, it seems, is the crux of your whole position,
>> isn't it? That the US shouldn't have supported Hussein and sold him arms
>> to fight Iran? I agree. And I agree in ruthlessly hunting down those
>> who did or do. But we *did* sell arms to Hussein, and it's a done deal.
>> Now he invades Kuwait. So do we just sit back and say, "Well, we sold
>> him all those arms, I suppose he just wants to use them now. Too bad
>> for Kuwait." No, unfortunately, sitting back and "letting things be"
>> is not the way to correct a former mistake. Destroying Hussein's
>> military potential as we did was the right move. But I agree with
>> your statement, Reagan and Bush made a grave error in judgment to
>> sell arms to Hussein.
>
>But it's STILL HAPPENING. That's the entire point. Only last month, John
>Major hailed it as a great victory that he had personally secured a sale of
>arms to Saudi Arabia. The same month, we sold jet fighters to the same
>Indonesian government that's busy killing the East Timorese.
I heard about the arms sale to Saudi Arabia. Now, how is it such a grave
mistake to sell Saudi Arabia weapons? Or are you claiming that we shouldn't
sell any weapons to other countries? Straightforward answer please.
>It's all very well to say "Oops, we made a boo-boo, better clean up the
>mistake", but the US and UK *keep* making the *same* mistake. They do it so
>often that I can't believe it's not deliberate. This suspicion is reinforced
>by the fact that the mistake is an extremely profitable one for a decrepit
>economy reliant on arms sales.
Who benefits from arms sales? Hint, it isn't normally the gov't. It is
the contractor that builds that piece of equipment. Believe it or not,
the US and UK don't export the huge quantities of arms that you have
just accused them of doing. Arms exports are rare enough, that it
requires an act of congress for non-small arms to most countries, if
not all. Do you believe in telling everyone who can do what, and who
can sell their goods to whom?
>
>mathew
--
***************************************************************************
* mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu * Never program and drink beer at the same *
* M^2 * time. It doesn't work. *
***************************************************************************
|
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: free moral agency
See, I told you there was an atheist mythology, thanks for proving my
point.
Bill
|
From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Is Morality Constant (was Re: Biblical Rape)
This (frayed) thread has turned into a patented alt.atheism 5-on-1
ping-pong game, and I don't have any strong disagreement, so I'll try
to stick to the one thing I don't quite follow about the argument:
It seems to me that there is a contradiction in arguing that the Bible
was "enlightened for its times" (i.e. closer to what we would consider
morally good based on our standards and past experience) on the one
hand [I hope this summarizes this argument adequately], and on the
other hand:
In article <1993Apr03.001125.23294@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
}In article <1phpe1INN8g6@dsi.dsinc.com>, perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes:
}|> }Disclaimer: I'm speaking from the Jewish perspective,
}|> }where "the Bible" means what many call the Old Testament,
}|> }and where the interpretation is not necessarily the
}|> }raw text, but instead the court cases, commentaries
}|> }and traditions passed down through Jewish communities.
}|>
}|> This seems the crux to me: if you judge the Bible according to a long
}|> line of traditions and interpretations coming down to the current day,
}|> rather than on its own merits as a cultural artifact, then of course
}|> it will correspond more closely with more contemporary values.
}
}But if that's how the Bible is actually being used today,
}shouldn't that be how we should judge it? If most people
}use scissors to cut paper, shouldn't Consumer's Reports
}test scissors for paper-cutting ability, even though
}scissors may have been designed originally to cut cloth?
That's possibly a good way to judge the use of the Bible in teaching
Jewish morality today, but it hardly seems fair to claim that this
highly-interpreted version is what was "enlightened for its times".
To (attempt to) extend the analogy, this is like saying that the
original scissor-makers were unusually advanced at paper-cutting for
their times, even though they only ever cut cloth, and had never even
heard of paper.
I'm not arguing that the Bible is "disgusting", though some of the
history depicted in it is, by modern standards. However, history is
full of similar abuses, and I don't think the Biblical accounts are
worse than their contemporaries--or possibly ours. On the other hand,
I don't know of any reason to think the history described in the Bible
shows *less* abuse than their contemporaries, or ours. That complex
and benign moral traditions have evolved based on particular mythic
interpretations of that history is interesting, but I still don't
think it fair to take that long tradition of interpretation and use it
to attack condemnation of the original history.
--
Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
|
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Political Atheists?
dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) writes:
>Keith Allan Schneider (keith@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
>Some soldiers are dependent on religion, for a number of purposes.
>And some are no doubt dependent on cocaine, yet I don't see the military paying
>for coca fields.
While religion certainly has some benefits in a combat situation, what are
the benefits of cocaine?
keith
|
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Re: thoughts on christians
In article <sandvik-190493224221@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>As I know you can't get any physical problems by passive Christianity,
>unlike smoking. It's not that hard to avoid Christianity today, anyway.
>Just ignore 'em.
>
Right on Keith, err, Kent.
Whadda you mean, you didn't see the smiley?
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
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: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>>They spent quite a bit of time on the wording of the Constitution. They
>>picked words whose meanings implied the intent. We have already looked
>>in the dictionary to define the word. Isn't this sufficient?
>We only need to ask the question: what did the founding fathers
>consider cruel and unusual punishment?
>Hanging? Hanging there slowing being strangled would be very
>painful, both physically and psychologicall, I imagine.
Well, most hangings are very quick and, I imagine, painless.
>Firing squad ? [ note: not a clean way to die back in those
>days ], etc.
>All would be considered cruel under your definition.
>All were allowed under the constitution by the founding fathers.
And, hangings and firing squads are allowed today, too. And, if these
things were not considered cruel, then surely a medical execution
(painless) would not be, either.
keith
|
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re: Rawlins debunks creationism
In article <1r4dglINNkv2@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
|>
|>
|> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|>
|>
|>
|> > Neither I, nor Webster's has ever heard of Francis Hitchings. Who is he?
|> >Please do not answer with "A well known evolutionist" or some other such
|> >informationless phrase.
|>
|> He is a paleontologist and author of "The Neck of the Giraffe". The
|> quote was taken from pg. 103.
|>
|> Jack
For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog,
and they list the following books by Francis Hitching:
Earth Magic
The Neck of the Giraffe, or Where Darwin Went Wrong
Pendulum: the Psi Connection
The World Atlas of Mysteries
--
Tom Scharle |scharle@irishmvs
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu
University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
|
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Constructing a Logical Argument
Archive-name: atheism/logic
Alt-atheism-archive-name: logic
Last-modified: 5 April 1993
Version: 1.4
Constructing a Logical Argument
Although there is much argument on Usenet, the general quality of argument
found is poor. This article attempts to provide a gentle introduction to
logic, in the hope of improving the general level of debate.
Logic is the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference [Concise
OED]. Logic allows us to analyze a piece of reasoning and determine whether
it is correct or not (valid or invalid). Of course, one does not need to
study logic in order to reason correctly; nevertheless, a little basic
knowledge of logic is often helpful when constructing or analyzing an
argument.
Note that no claim is being made here about whether logic is universally
applicable. The matter is very much open for debate. This document merely
explains how to use logic, given that you have already decided that logic is
the right tool for the job.
Propositions (or statements) are the building blocks of a logical argument. A
proposition is a statement which is either true or false; for example, "It is
raining" or "Today is Tuesday". Propositions may be either asserted (said to
be true) or denied (said to be false). Note that this is a technical meaning
of "deny", not the everyday meaning.
The proposition is the meaning of the statement, not the particular
arrangement of words used to express it. So "God exists" and "There exists a
God" both express the same proposition.
An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of
statements to establish a definite proposition". An argument consists of
three stages.
First of all, the propositions which are necessary for the argument to
continue are stated. These are called the premises of the argument. They
are the evidence or reasons for accepting the argument and its conclusions.
Premises (or assertions) are often indicated by phrases such as "because",
"since", "obviously" and so on. (The phrase "obviously" is often viewed with
suspicion, as it can be used to intimidate others into accepting suspicious
premises. If something doesn't seem obvious to you, don't be afraid to
question it. You can always say "Oh, yes, you're right, it is obvious" when
you've heard the explanation.)
Next, the premises are used to derive further propositions by a process known
as inference. In inference, one proposition is arrived at on the basis of
one or more other propositions already accepted. There are various forms of
valid inference.
The propositions arrived at by inference may then be used in further
inference. Inference is often denoted by phrases such as "implies that" or
"therefore".
Finally, we arrive at the conclusion of the argument -- the proposition which
is affirmed on the basis of the premises and inference. Conclusions are often
indicated by phrases such as "therefore", "it follows that", "we conclude"
and so on. The conclusion is often stated as the final stage of inference.
For example:
Every event has a cause (premise)
The universe has a beginning (premise)
All beginnings involve an event (premise)
This implies that the beginning of the universe involved an event (inference)
Therefore the universe has a cause (inference and conclusion)
Note that the conclusion of one argument might be a premise in another
argument. A proposition can only be called a premise or a conclusion with
respect to a particular argument; the terms do not make sense in isolation.
Sometimes an argument will not follow the order given above; for example,
the conclusions might be stated first and the premises stated
afterwards in support of the conclusion. This is perfectly valid, if
sometimes a little confusing.
Recognizing an argument is much harder than recognizing premises or
conclusions. Many people shower their writing with assertions without ever
producing anything which one might reasonably describe as an argument. Some
statements look like arguments, but are not. For example:
"If the Bible is accurate, Jesus must either have been insane, an evil liar,
or the Son of God."
This is not an argument, it is a conditional statement. It does not assert
the premises which are necessary to support what appears to be its
conclusion. (It also suffers from a number of other logical flaws, but we'll
come to those later.)
Another example:
"God created you; therefore do your duty to God."
The phrase "do your duty to God" is not a proposition, since it is neither
true nor false. Therefore it is not a conclusion, and the sentence is not an
argument.
Finally, causality is important. Consider a statement of the form "A because
B". If we're interested in establishing A and B is offered as evidence, the
statement is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then
it is not an argument, it is an explanation.
For example:
"There must be something wrong with the engine of my car, because it will not
start." -- This is an argument.
"My car will not start because there is something wrong with the engine."
-- This is an explanation.
There are two traditional types of argument, deductive and inductive. A
deductive argument is one which provides conclusive proof of its conclusions
-- that is, an argument where if the premises are true, the conclusion must
also be true. A deductive argument is either valid or invalid. A valid
argument is defined as one where if the premises are true, then the
conclusion is true.
An inductive argument is one where the premises provide some evidence for the
truth of the conclusion. Inductive arguments are not valid or invalid;
however, we can talk about whether they are better or worse than other
arguments, and about how probable their premises are.
There are forms of argument in ordinary language which are neither deductive
nor inductive. However, we will concentrate for the moment on deductive
arguments, as they are often viewed as the most rigorous and convincing.
It is important to note that the fact that a deductive argument is valid does
not imply that its conclusion holds. This is because of the slightly
counter-intuitive nature of implication, which we must now consider more
carefully.
Obviously a valid argument can consist of true propositions. However, an
argument may be entirely valid even if it contains only false propositions.
For example:
All insects have wings (premise)
Woodlice are insects (premise)
Therefore woodlice have wings (conclusion)
Here, the conclusion is not true because the argument's premises are false.
If the argument's premises were true, however, the conclusion would be true.
The argument is thus entirely valid.
More subtly, we can reach a true conclusion from one or more false premises,
as in:
All fish live in the sea (premise)
Dolphins are fish (premise)
Therefore dolphins live in the sea (conclusion)
However, the one thing we cannot do is reach a false conclusion through valid
inference from true premises. We can therefore draw up a "truth table" for
implication.
The symbol "=>" denotes implication; "A" is the premise, "B" the conclusion.
"T" and "F" represent true and false respectively.
Premise Conclusion Inference
A B A=>B
----------------------------
F F T If the premises are false and the inference
F T T valid, the conclusion can be true or false.
T F F If the premises are true and the conclusion
false, the inference must be invalid.
T T T If the premises are true and the inference valid,
the conclusion must be true.
A sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are true. A sound
argument therefore arrives at a true conclusion. Be careful not to confuse
valid arguments with sound arguments.
To delve further into the structure of logical arguments would require
lengthy discussion of linguistics and philosophy. It is simpler and probably
more useful to summarize the major pitfalls to be avoided when constructing
an argument. These pitfalls are known as fallacies.
In everyday English the term "fallacy" is used to refer to mistaken beliefs
as well as to the faulty reasoning that leads to those beliefs. This is fair
enough, but in logic the term is generally used to refer to a form of
technically incorrect argument, especially if the argument appears valid or
convincing.
So for the purposes of this discussion, we define a fallacy as a logical
argument which appears to be correct, but which can be seen to be incorrect
when examined more closely. By studying fallacies we aim to avoid being
misled by them. The following list of fallacies is not intended to be
exhaustive.
ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM (APPEAL TO FORCE)
The Appeal to Force is committed when the arguer resorts to force or the
threat of force in order to try and push the acceptance of a conclusion. It
is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as "might makes right".
The force threatened need not be a direct threat from the arguer.
For example:
"... Thus there is ample proof of the truth of the Bible. All those who
refuse to accept that truth will burn in Hell."
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
Argumentum ad hominem is literally "argument directed at the man".
The Abusive variety of Argumentum ad Hominem occurs when, instead of trying
to disprove the truth of an assertion, the arguer attacks the person or
people making the assertion. This is invalid because the truth of an
assertion does not depend upon the goodness of those asserting it.
For example:
"Atheism is an evil philosophy. It is practised by Communists and murderers."
Sometimes in a court of law doubt is cast upon the testimony of a witness by
showing, for example, that he is a known perjurer. This is a valid way of
reducing the credibility of the testimony given by the witness, and not
argumentum ad hominem; however, it does not demonstrate that the witness's
testimony is false. To conclude otherwise is to fall victim of the
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (see elsewhere in this list).
The circumstantial form of Argumentum ad Hominem is committed when a person
argues that his opponent ought to accept the truth of an assertion because of
the opponent's particular circumstances.
For example:
"It is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. How can you argue
otherwise when you're quite happy to wear leather shoes?"
This is an abusive charge of inconsistency, used as an excuse for dismissing
the opponent's argument.
This fallacy can also be used as a means of rejecting a conclusion. For
example:
"Of course you would argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing.
You're white."
This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when one alleges that one's
adversary is rationalizing a conclusion formed from selfish interests, is
also known as "poisoning the well".
ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIUM
Argumentum ad ignorantium means "argument from ignorance". This fallacy
occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it
has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something must be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that this
is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved
true, a basic scientific principle.)
Examples:
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has
shown any proof that they are real."
Note that this fallacy does not apply in a court of law, where one is
generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.
Also, in scientific investigation if it is known that an event would produce
certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can
validly be used to infer that the event did not occur. For example:
"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water
to be present on the earth. The earth does not have a tenth as much water,
even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. Therefore no
such flood occurred."
In science, we can validly assume from lack of evidence that something has
not occurred. We cannot conclude with certainty that it has not occurred,
however.
ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM
This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading. The fallacy is
committed when the arguer appeals to pity for the sake of getting a
conclusion accepted. For example:
"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe. Please don't find me
guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan."
ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM
This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People. To
commit this fallacy is to attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by
appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often
characterized by emotive language. For example:
"Pornography must be banned. It is violence against women."
"The Bible must be true. Millions of people know that it is. Are you trying
to tell them that they are all mistaken fools?"
ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERAM
This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of
asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more
likely it is that that proposition is correct.
ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM
The Appeal to Authority uses the admiration of the famous to try and win
support for an assertion. For example:
"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."
This line of argument is not always completely bogus; for example, reference
to an admitted authority in a particular field may be relevant to a
discussion of that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly
between:
"Stephen Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"
and
"John Searle has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent
computer"
Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black
hole radiation to be informed. Searle is a linguist, so it is questionable
whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.
THE FALLACY OF ACCIDENT
The Fallacy of Accident is committed when a general rule is applied to a
particular case whose "accidental" circumstances mean that the rule is
inapplicable. It is the error made when one goes from the general to the
specific. For example:
"Christians generally dislike atheists. You are a Christian, so you must
dislike atheists."
This fallacy is often committed by moralists and legalists who try to decide
every moral and legal question by mechanically applying general rules.
CONVERSE ACCIDENT / HASTY GENERALIZATION
This fallacy is the reverse of the fallacy of accident. It occurs when one
forms a general rule by examining only a few specific cases which are not
representative of all possible cases.
For example:
"Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian. Therefore all Christians are
insincere."
SWEEPING GENERALIZATION / DICTO SIMPLICITER
A sweeping generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to a
particular situation in which the features of that particular situation
render the rule inapplicable. A sweeping generalization is the opposite of a
hasty generalization.
NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA / POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC
These are known as False Cause fallacies.
The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa occurs when one identifies something as the
cause of an event but it has not actually been shown to be the cause. For
example:
"I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache disappeared. So God
cured me of the headache."
The fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc occurs when something is assumed to
be the cause of an event merely because it happened before the event. For
example:
"The Soviet Union collapsed after taking up atheism. Therefore we must avoid
atheism for the same reasons."
CUM HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. It asserts that
because two events occur together, they must be causally related, and leaves
no room for other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events.
PETITIO PRINCIPII
This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the
conclusion reached.
CIRCULUS IN DEMONSTRANDO
This fallacy occurs when one assumes as a premise the conclusion which one
wishes to reach. Often, the proposition will be rephrased so that the
fallacy appears to be a valid argument. For example:
"Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence any
government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will lose his job.
Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their secret, and will be open
to blackmail. Therefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold government
office."
Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same as the
conclusion. An argument like the above has actually been cited as the reason
for the British Secret Services' official ban on homosexual employees.
Another example is the classic:
"We know that God exists because the Bible tells us so. And we know that the
Bible is true because it is the word of God."
COMPLEX QUESTION / FALLACY OF INTERROGATION
This is the Fallacy of Presupposition. One example is the classic loaded
question:
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
The question presupposes a definite answer to another question which has not
even been asked. This trick is often used by lawyers in cross-examination,
when they ask questions like:
"Where did you hide the money you stole?"
Similarly, politicians often ask loaded questions such as:
"How long will this EC interference in our affairs be allowed to continue?"
or
"Does the Chancellor plan two more years of ruinous privatization?"
IGNORATIO ELENCHI
The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument
supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do
with that conclusion.
For example, a Christian may begin by saying that he will argue that the
teachings of Christianity are undoubtably true. If he then argues at length
that Christianity is of great help to many people, no matter how well he
argues he will not have shown that Christian teachings are true.
Sadly, such fallacious arguments are often successful because they arouse
emotions which cause others to view the supposed conclusion in a more
favourable light.
EQUIVOCATION
Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different
meanings in the same argument. For example:
"What could be more affordable than free software? But to make sure that it
remains free, that users can do what they like with it, we must place a
license on it to make sure that will always be freely redistributable."
AMPHIBOLY
Amphiboly occurs when the premises used in an argument are ambiguous because
of careless or ungrammatical phrasing.
ACCENT
Accent is another form of fallacy through shifting meaning. In this case,
the meaning is changed by altering which parts of a statement are
emphasized. For example, consider:
"We should not speak ILL of our friends"
and
"We should not speak ill of our FRIENDS"
FALLACIES OF COMPOSITION
One fallacy of composition is to conclude that a property shared by the parts
of something must apply to the whole. For example:
"The bicycle is made entirely of low mass components, and is therefore very
lightweight."
The other fallacy of composition is to conclude that a property of a number
of individual items is shared by a collection of those items. For example:
"A car uses less petrol and causes less pollution than a bus. Therefore cars
are less environmentally damaging than buses."
FALLACY OF DIVISION
The fallacy of division is the opposite of the fallacy of composition. Like
its opposite, it exists in two varieties. The first is to assume that a
property of some thing must apply to its parts. For example:
"You are studying at a rich college. Therefore you must be rich."
The other is to assume that a property of a collection of items is shared by
each item. For example:
"Ants can destroy a tree. Therefore this ant can destroy a tree."
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT
This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful
events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the
first event.
For example:
"If we legalize marijuana, then we would have to legalize crack and heroin
and we'll have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot
legalize marijuana."
"A IS BASED ON B" FALLACIES / "IS A TYPE OF" FALLACIES
These fallacies occur when one attempts to argue that things are in some way
similar without actually specifying in what way they are similar.
Examples:
"Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the Bible also a form of
history?"
"Islam is based on faith, Christianity is based on faith, so isn't Islam a
form of Christianity?"
"Cats are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, dogs are a form of
animal based on carbon chemistry, so aren't dogs a form of cat?"
AFFIRMATION OF THE CONSEQUENT
This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, B is true, therefore A
is true". To understand why it is a fallacy, examine the truth table for
implication given earlier.
DENIAL OF THE ANTECEDENT
This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B
is false". Again, the truth table for implication makes it clear why this is
a fallacy.
Note that this fallacy is different from Non Causa Pro Causa; the latter has
the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false", where A does NOT in
fact imply B at all. Here, the problem is not that the implication is
invalid; rather it is that the falseness of A does not allow us to deduce
anything about B.
CONVERTING A CONDITIONAL
This fallacy is an argument of the form "If A then B, therefore if B then A".
ARGUMENTUM AD ANTIQUITAM
This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply
because it is old, or because "that's the way it's always been."
ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITAM
This is the opposite of the argumentum ad antiquitam; it is the fallacy of
asserting that something is more correct simply because it is new or newer
than something else.
ARGUMENTUM AD CRUMENAM
The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those
with more money are more likely to be right.
ARGUMENTUM AD LAZARUM
The fallacy of assuming that because someone is poor he or she is sounder or
more virtuous than one who is wealthier. This fallacy is the opposite of the
argumentum ad crumenam.
ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEAM
This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the
more often it is heard. An "argumentum ad nauseum" is one that employs
constant repetition in asserting something.
BIFURCATION
Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation occurs when
one presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other
alternatives exist or can exist.
PLURIUM INTERROGATIONUM / MANY QUESTIONS
This fallacy occurs when a questioner demands a simple answer to a complex
question.
NON SEQUITUR
A non-sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises
which are not logically connected with it.
RED HERRING
This fallacy is committed when irrelevant material is introduced to the issue
being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the
points being made, towards a different conclusion.
REIFICATION / HYPOSTATIZATION
Reification occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a concrete thing.
SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or
proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad
ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who
denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is
the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
STRAW MAN
The straw man fallacy is to misrepresent someone else's position so that it
can be attacked more easily, then to knock down that misrepresented position,
then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a
fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been
made.
THE EXTENDED ANALOGY
The fallacy of the Extended Analogy often occurs when some suggested general
rule is being argued over. The fallacy is to assume that mentioning two
different situations, in an argument about a general rule, constitutes a
claim that those situations are analogous to each other.
This fallacy is best explained using a real example from a debate about
anti-cryptography legislation:
"I believe it is always wrong to oppose the law by breaking it."
"Such a position is odious: it implies that you would not have supported
Martin Luther King."
"Are you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as the
struggle for Black liberation? How dare you!"
TU QUOQUE
This is the famous "you too" fallacy. It occurs when an action is argued to
be acceptable because the other party has performed it. For instance:
"You're just being randomly abusive."
"So? You've been abusive too."
|
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: ISLAM: a clearer view
In article <16BAFC876.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: ISLAM: a clearer view
>Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 13:15:18 GMT
>In article <healta.60.734567658@saturn.wwc.edu>
>healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes:
>
>>>Sorry, it is generally accepted that the rise of the inquisition is
>>>the reason why torture was introduced outside the Romanic countries
>>>at the end of the Middle Ages. In other words, the Holy Mother Church
>>>which is lead infallibly by the Holy Ghost has spread it.
>>
>>The Roman Catholic Church claims to be lead by the "infallable" pope.
>>That's why she (the RC Church) has done so many wicked things to Xtians and
>>non-believers alike.
>
>
>The rationale that the pope speaking ex cathedra is infallible is based
>on the claim above. The dogma about the pope is of Jesuitic origin and
>has not been been accepted before the mid of the last century.
> Benedikt
You're right. Thanks for enlightening me.
Tammy
|
From: johnchad@triton.unm.edu (jchadwic)
Subject: Another request for Darwin Fish
Hello Gang,
There have been some notes recently asking where to obtain the DARWIN fish.
This is the same question I have and I have not seen an answer on the
net. If anyone has a contact please post on the net or email me.
Thanks,
john chadwick
johnchad@triton.unm.edu
or
|
From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Yeah, Right
In article <65882@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
}>For several years I've periodically asked Charley Wingate to explain this
}>mythical alternative to rationality which he propounds so enthusiastically
}>when he pops up every few months. His reluctance to explain indicates to me
}>that it's not so hot.
}
}I've said enough times that there is no "alternative" that should think you
}might have caught on by now. And there is no "alternative", but the point
}is, "rationality" isn't an alternative either. The problems of metaphysical
}and religious knowledge are unsolvable-- or I should say, humans cannot
}solve them.
If there is truly no alternative, then you have no basis whatsoever
for your claim. The usual line here, which you call "a prejudgment of
atheism", and dispute, is that reason is all we have. Here you admit
that you have no alternative, no possible basis for the claim that
there is anything other than reason or that reason is inapplicable in
religious knowledge, except possibly that reason conflicts with
"religious knowledge".
This sounds very much like "I can't provide a rational defense for my
belief, but prefer to discard rationality rather than accept that it
may be false". I hope it makes you happy, but your repeated and
unfounded assertions to this effect don't advance your cause.
--
Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
|
From: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: New Member
In article <C5HIEw.7s1@portal.hq.videocart.com> dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) writes:
>
> Hello. I just started reading this group today, and I think I am going
>to be a large participant in its daily postings. I liked the section of
>the FAQ about constructing logical arguments - well done. I am an atheist,
>but I do not try to turn other people into atheists. I only try to figure
>why people believe the way they do - I don't much care if they have a
>different view than I do. When it comes down to it . . . I could be wrong.
>I am willing to admit the possibility - something religious followers
>dont seem to have the capability to do.
>
> Happy to be aboard !
>
>Dave Fuller
>dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com
Welcome. I am the official keeper of the list of nicknames that people
are known by on alt.atheism (didn't know we had such a list, did you).
Your have been awarded the nickname of "Buckminster." So the next time
you post an article, sign with your nickname like so:
Dave "Buckminster" Fuller. Thanks again.
Jim "Humor means never having to say you're sorry" Copeland
--
If God is dead and the actor plays his part | -- Sting,
His words of fear will find their way to a place in your heart | History
Without the voice of reason every faith is its own curse | Will Teach Us
Without freedom from the past things can only get worse | Nothing
|
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: Nicknames
cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes: >
>Somebody forgotten me................
>
>"No Nickname" Tan Chade Meng
>(Chinese have nicknames in the front)
>
>--
>
>The UnEnlightened One
I thought your nickname was "UnEnlightened"
--
Maddi Hausmann madhaus@netcom.com
Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553
Kids, please don't try this at home. Remember, I post professionally.
|
Subject: Re: Radical Agnostic... NOT!
From: zazen@austin.ibm.com (E. H. Welbon)
The One and Only (jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: In article <dl2021-310393180711@m249-66.bgsu.edu> dl2021@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes:
: [first post I've seen from the ol' Bug-Zoo (BGSU)]
: > There is no means that i can possibly think of to prove beyond doubt
: >that a god does not exist (but if anyone has one, by all means, tell me
: >what it is). Therefore, lacking this ability of absolute proof, being an
: >atheist becomes an act of faith in and of itself, and this I cannot accept.
: > I accept nothing on blind faith.
: Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns! Need I say more?
There is also the question of what is meant by "atheist". A familiar
example of the importance of the meaning of the word is as follows.
The two statements following ARE consistent:
(1) I do not believe that you are wearing lilac socks
(2) I do not believe that you are are not wearing lilac socks
The two statements following are NOT consistent:
(3) I do believe that you are wearing lilac socks
(4) I do believe that you are are not wearing lilac socks
Statements (1) and (2) require no faith, they make no presumptions about
the nature of reality. Statements (3) and (4) require belief. Many
atheists (myself included) take the following position:
(5) I do not believe that there is a god.
(6) I do not believe that there is not a god.
That is , I harbor no beliefs at all, there is no good evidence
for god existing or not. Some folks call this agnosticism. It does not
suffer from "blind faith" at all. I think of it as "Don't worry, be happy".
|
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: free moral agency
In article <11810@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
>Subject: Re: free moral agency
>Date: 14 Apr 93 21:41:31 GMT
>In article <healta.133.734810202@saturn.wwc.edu> healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes:
>>>
>>In the Old testement, Satan is RARELY mentioned, if at all.
>
>
> Huh? Doesn't the SDA Bible contain the book of Job?
>
>>This is why there is suffering in the world, we are caught inthe crossfire.
>>and sometimes, innocents as well as teh guilty get hurt.
>>That's my opinion and I hope I cleared up a few things.
>>
>
> Seems like your omnipotent and omniscient god has "got some
> 'splainin' to do" then. Or did he just create Satan for shits and
> giggles?
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>
>Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
>
>They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
>and sank Manhattan out at sea.
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I didn't say it NEVER mentioned Satan, I said it RARELY, if at all. Please
excuse me for my lack of perfect memory or omnipotence.
Tammy
P.S I'm soory if I sound cranky. I apoplogize now before anyone's feelings
get hurt.
|
From: <SEC108@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Why the bible?
One thing I think is interesting about alt.athiesm is the fact that
without bible-thumpers and their ilk this would be a much duller newsgroup.
It almost needs the deluded masses to write silly things for athiests to
tear apart. Oh well, that little tidbit aside here is what I really wanted
write about.
How can anyone believe in such a sorry document as the bible? If you
want to be religious aren't there more plausable books out there? Seriously,
the bible was written by multiple authors who repeatedly contradict each
other. One minute it tells you to kill your kid if he talks back and the next
it says not to kill at all. I think that if xtians really want to follow a
deity they should pick one that can be consistent, unlike the last one they
invented.
For people who say Jesus was the son of god, didn't god say not to
EVER put ANYONE else before him? Looks like you did just that. Didn't god
say not to make any symbols or idols? What are crosses then? Don't you think
that if you do in fact believe in the bible that you are rather far off track?
Was Jesus illiterate? Why didn't he write anything? Anyone know?
I honestly hope that people who believe in the bible understand that
it is just one of the religious texts out there and that it is one of the
poorer quality ones to boot. The only reason xtianity escaped the middle east
is because a certain roman who's wine was poisoned with lead made all of rome
xtian after a bad dream.
If this posting keeps one person, just ONE person, from standing on a
streetcorner and telling people they are going to hell I will be happy.
*** Only hatred and snap judgements can guide your robots through life. ***
*** Dr. Clayton Forester ***
*** Mad Scientist ***
|
From: vdp@mayo.edu (Vinayak Dutt)
Subject: Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was
In article H9r@ra.nrl.navy.mil, khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes:
##I strongly suggest that you look up a book called THE BIBLE, THE QURAN, AND
##SCIENCE by Maurice Baucaille, a French surgeon. It is not comprehensive,
##but, it is well researched. I imagine your library has it or can get it
##for you through interlibrary loan.
##
I shall try to get hold of it (when I have time to read of course :-)
##In short, Dr Baucaille began investigating the Bible because of pre-
##ceived scientific inaccuracies and inconsistencies. He assumed that
##some of the problems may have been caused by poor translations in by-
##gone days. So, he read what he could find in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic.
##What he found was that the problems didn't go away, they got worse.
##Then, he decided to see if other religions had the same problems.
##So, he picked up the Holy Qur'an (in French) and found similar prob-
##lems, but not as many. SO, he applied the same logoic as he had
##with the Bible: he learned to read it in Arabic. The problems he
##had found with the French version went away in Arabic. He was unable
##to find a wealth of scientific statements in the Holy Qur'an, but,
##what he did find made sense with modern understanding. So, he
##investigated the Traditions (the hadith) to see what they had to
##say about science. they were filled with science problems; after
##all, they were contemporary narratives from a time which had, by
##pour standards, a primitive world view. His conclusion was that,
##while he was impressed that what little the Holy Qur'an had to
##say about science was accurate, he was far more impressed that the
##Holy Qur'an did not contain the same rampant errors evidenced in
##the Traditions. How would a man of 7th Century Arabia have known
##what *not to include* in the Holy Qur'an (assuming he had authored
##it)?
##
So in short the writer (or writers) of Quran decided to stay away from
science. (if you do not open your mouth, then you don't put you foot into
your mouth either).
But then if you say Quran does not talk much about science, then one can
not make claims (like Bobby does) that you have great science in Quran.
Basically I want to say that *none* of the religious texts are supposed to
be scientific treatises. So I am just requesting the theists to stop making
such wild claims.
--- Vinayak
-------------------------------------------------------
vinayak dutt
e-mail: vdp@mayo.edu
standard disclaimers apply
-------------------------------------------------------
|
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Re: Morality? (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
In article <1ql667INN54a@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>
>What I've been saying is that moral behavior is likely the null behavior.
Do I smell .sig material here?
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
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: bobs@thnext.mit.edu (Robert Singleton)
Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
In article <1993Apr5.163738.2447@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
[deleted]
>
> ... over on alt.atheism we tend to recognise two
> categories of atheism. Function format due to mathew@mantis.co.uk, I
think:
>
> (i) weak - not(believe(gods))
>
> (ii) strong - believe(not(gods))
>
[deleted]
>
>
>
> I ... am [a strong atheist], and I must quibble with your assertion
> that the `strong' position requires faith. I believe that no god/s,
> as commonly described by theists, exist. This belief is merely an
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> opinion, formed on the basis of observation, including a certain
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> amount of introspection.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I fully accept that I could be wrong, and will be swayed by suitably
> convincing evidence. Thus while I believe that no gods exist, this does
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> not imply *faith* on my part that it is so.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Let me first say that "to believe that no gods exist" is in fact
different than "not believing in a god or gods".
I will argue that your latter statement, "I believe that no gods exist"
does rest upon faith - that is, if you are making a POSITIVE statement
that "no gods exist" (strong atheism) rather than merely saying I don't
know and therefore don't believe in them and don't NOT believe in then
(weak atheism). Once again, to not believe in God is different than saying
I BELIEVE that God does not exist. I still maintain the position, even
after reading the FAQs, that strong atheism requires faith.
But first let me say the following.
We might have a language problem here - in regards to "faith" and
"existence". I, as a Christian, maintain that God does not exist.
To exist means to have being in space and time. God does not HAVE
being - God IS Being. Kierkegaard once said that God does not
exist, He is eternal. With this said, I feel it's rather pointless
to debate the so called "existence" of God - and that is not what
I'm doing here. I believe that God is the source and ground of
being. When you say that "god does not exist", I also accept this
statement - but we obviously mean two different things by it. However,
in what follows I will use the phrase "the existence of God" in it's
'usual sense' - and this is the sense that I think you are using it.
I would like a clarification upon what you mean by "the existence of
God".
We also might differ upon what it means to have faith. Here is what
Webster says:
faith
1a: allegiance to duty or a person: LOYALTY
b (1): fidelity to one's promises
(2): sincerity of intentions
2a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(2): complete trust
3: something that is believed esp. with strong conviction; esp: a system
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of religious beliefs
syn see BELIEF
One can never prove that God does or does not exist. When you say
that you believe God does not exist, and that this is an opinion
"based upon observation", I will have to ask "what observtions are
you refering to?" There are NO observations - pro or con - that
are valid here in establishing a POSITIVE belief. All observations
can only point you in a direction - a direction that we might even
be predisposed to (by predisposed I mean, for example, people whoes
partents "believe in God" also tend to). To actually draw a conclusion
about the "existence" or "non-existence" of God requires a leap - and
you have made this leap when you actively say "I believe that God
does/does not exist". Personally, I think that both statements are
misguided. Arguing over the "existence" of God is precisely the wrong way
to find Him (and yes, I use "Him" because a personal God is the only
viable concept (IMO) - if a person wants to use "She" go ahead. Of course
God is neither He nor She - but we have no choice but to
anthropomorphise. If you want me to explain myself further I'll be
glad to.)
And please, if someone does not agree with me - even if they violently
disagree - it's in no ones advantage to start name calling. If a person
thinks I've misunderstood something in the FAQs, or if they they think
I have not read them well enough, just point out to me the error of my
ways and I correct the situation. I'm interested in a polite and well
thought out discussion.
> Cheers
>
> Simon
> --
> Simon Clippingdale simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
> Department of Computer Science Tel (+44) 203 523296
> University of Warwick FAX (+44) 203 525714
> Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
--
bob singleton
bobs@thnext.mit.edu
|
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
In article <11820@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
>Subject: Re: some thoughts.
>Keywords: Dan Bissell
>Date: 15 Apr 93 18:21:21 GMT
>In article <bissda.4.734849678@saturn.wwc.edu> bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
>>
>> First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian. It
>>makes sense to be one. Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar,
>>lunatic, or the real thing? (I might be a little off on the title, but he
>>writes the book. Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity,
>>in the process he became a Christian himself.
>
> This should be good fun. It's been a while since the group has
> had such a ripe opportunity to gut, gill, and fillet some poor
> bastard.
>
> Ah well. Off to get the popcorn...
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>
>Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
>
>They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
>and sank Manhattan out at sea.
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I hope you're not going to flame him. Please give him the same coutesy you'
ve given me.
Tammy
|
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism)
In article <1993Apr25.165315.1190@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>>(Deletion)
>>>"(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)
>>>
(Deletion)
>>Well, that is certainly different, but it looks as if there is a translation
>>found for everything. By the way, I am most surprised to hear that night and
>>day move in an orbit.
>
>I thought about this, too -- some translations refer to only the latter
>two objects being in orbit, but Bucaille's translation seems to indicate
>the night and the day travelling in "orbit" too. Perhaps this can be
>understood when one looks at it from the earth's reference frame -- from
>this reference frame, the day and the night would appear to "orbit" the
>earth (travelling from east to west). (This is from the reference frame
>when the earth is still.)
>
Well, yes, but that belongs in the other group, there is a interpretation
found for everything. However, allowing any form of interpretation reduces
the information of the text so interprteted to zero.
By the way, I have checked the quote and I think the lines preceding those
quoted above are more interesting:
21:32 where mountains are set on earth in order to immobilize the earth.
21:33 where the skies (heavens?) are referred to as well supported.
the lines given above are 21:34 after my edition.
>Maybe this is what is meant by the above....? It's just a possibility.
>
>>And that the sun travels in an orbit without saying that earth does, too,
>>sounds geocentric to me.
>
>I will see if I can find out more about this.
>
>But it is still not geocentric.
>
That sun and moon move and the earth is immobile sounds geocentric to me.
Benedikt
|
Subject: Re: islamic authority over women
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
In article <1993Apr3.214741.14026@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>
> My claim is that a person that committs a crime doesn't believe in
> God, for the moment that the crime is committed, at least, whether
> they are originally believers or not. To believe is to do good.
> Your statistics indicate people that have declared atheism.
And doubtless, when an atheist does an act of charity
they temporarily become a Baptist.
jon.
|
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Introduction to Atheism
Archive-name: atheism/introduction
Alt-atheism-archive-name: introduction
Last-modified: 5 April 1993
Version: 1.2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
An Introduction to Atheism
by mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
This article attempts to provide a general introduction to atheism. Whilst I
have tried to be as neutral as possible regarding contentious issues, you
should always remember that this document represents only one viewpoint. I
would encourage you to read widely and draw your own conclusions; some
relevant books are listed in a companion article.
To provide a sense of cohesion and progression, I have presented this article
as an imaginary conversation between an atheist and a theist. All the
questions asked by the imaginary theist are questions which have been cropped
up repeatedly on alt.atheism since the newsgroup was created. Some other
frequently asked questions are answered in a companion article.
Please note that this article is arguably slanted towards answering questions
posed from a Christian viewpoint. This is because the FAQ files reflect
questions which have actually been asked, and it is predominantly Christians
who proselytize on alt.atheism.
So when I talk of religion, I am talking primarily about religions such as
Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which involve some sort of superhuman divine
being. Much of the discussion will apply to other religions, but some of it
may not.
"What is atheism?"
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of God.
Some atheists go further, and believe that God does not exist. The former is
often referred to as the "weak atheist" position, and the latter as "strong
atheism".
It is important to note the difference between these two positions. "Weak
atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong
atheism" is a positive belief that God does not exist. Please do not
fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists".
Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their
atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making
flat-out denials.
"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"
Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe
it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to
believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or
not. Which brings us to agnosticism.
"What is agnosticism then?"
The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor Huxley at a meeting of the
Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who
disclaimed ("strong") atheism and believed that the ultimate origin of things
must be some cause unknown and unknowable.
Thus an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not and cannot know for
sure whether God exists.
Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that
you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact
that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people
use agnosticism to mean "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when
referring to "strong atheism".
Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it
is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for
sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't
the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out
about the universe.
"So what is the philosophical justification or basis for atheism?"
There are many philosophical justifications for atheism. To find out why a
particular person chooses to be an atheist, it's best to ask her.
Many atheists feel that the idea of God as presented by the major religions
is essentially self-contradictory, and that it is logically impossible that
such a God could exist. Others are atheists through scepticism, because they
see no evidence that God exists.
"But isn't it impossible to prove the non-existence of something?"
There are many counter-examples to such a statement. For example, it is
quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number larger than
all other prime numbers. Of course, this deals with well-defined objects
obeying well-defined rules. Whether Gods or universes are similarly
well-defined is a matter for debate.
However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a God is not provably
impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the non-existence of
God. If we assume that something does not exist, it is always possible to
show that this assumption is invalid by finding a single counter-example.
If on the other hand we assume that something does exist, and if the thing in
question is not provably impossible, showing that the assumption is invalid
may require an exhaustive search of all possible places where such a thing
might be found, to show that it isn't there. Such an exhaustive search is
often impractical or impossible. There is no such problem with largest
primes, because we can prove that they don't exist.
Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist
unless we have evidence that they do. Even theists follow this rule most of
the time; they don't believe in unicorns, even though they can't conclusively
prove that no unicorns exist anywhere.
To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which probably cannot be
tested. We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere God might be to
prove that he doesn't exist anywhere. So the sceptical atheist assumes by
default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test.
Those who profess strong atheism usually do not claim that no sort of God
exists; instead, they generally restrict their claims so as to cover
varieties of God described by followers of various religions. So whilst it
may be impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists, it may be
possible to prove that (say) a God as described by a particular religious
book does not exist. It may even be possible to prove that no God described
by any present-day religion exists.
In practice, believing that no God described by any religion exists is very
close to believing that no God exists. However, it is sufficiently different
that counter-arguments based on the impossibility of disproving every kind of
God are not really applicable.
"But what if God is essentially non-detectable?"
If God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his interaction
must be measurable. Hence his interaction with our universe must be
detectable.
If God is essentially non-detectable, it must therefore be the case that he
does not interact with our universe in any way. Many atheists would argue
that if God does not interact with our universe at all, it is of no
importance whether he exists or not.
If the Bible is to be believed, God was easily detectable by the Israelites.
Surely he should still be detectable today?
Note that I am not demanding that God interact in a scientifically
verifiable, physical way. It must surely be possible to perceive some
effect caused by his presence, though; otherwise, how can I distinguish him
from all the other things that don't exist?
"OK, you may think there's a philosophical justification for atheism, but
isn't it still a religious belief?"
One of the most common pastimes in philosophical discussion is "the
redefinition game". The cynical view of this game is as follows:
Person A begins by making a contentious statement. When person B points out
that it can't be true, person A gradually re-defines the words he used in the
statement until he arrives at something person B is prepared to accept. He
then records the statement, along with the fact that person B has agreed to
it, and continues. Eventually A uses the statement as an "agreed fact", but
uses his original definitions of all the words in it rather than the obscure
redefinitions originally needed to get B to agree to it. Rather than be seen
to be apparently inconsistent, B will tend to play along.
The point of this digression is that the answer to the question "Isn't
atheism a religious belief?" depends crucially upon what is meant by
"religious". "Religion" is generally characterized by belief in a superhuman
controlling power -- especially in some sort of God -- and by faith and
worship.
[ It's worth pointing out in passing that some varieties of Buddhism are not
"religion" according to such a definition. ]
Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it
categorized by worship in any meaningful sense. Widening the definition of
"religious" to encompass atheism tends to result in many other aspects of
human behaviour suddenly becoming classed as "religious" as well -- such as
science, politics, and watching TV.
"OK, so it's not a religion. But surely belief in atheism (or science) is
still just an act of faith, like religion is?"
Firstly, it's not entirely clear that sceptical atheism is something one
actually believes in.
Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or assumptions to
make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience. Most atheists
try to adopt as few core beliefs as possible; and even those are subject to
questioning if experience throws them into doubt.
Science has a number of core assumptions. For example, it is generally
assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers. These are
the sort of core assumptions atheists make. If such basic ideas are called
"acts of faith", then almost everything we know must be said to be based on
acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning.
Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in something.
According to such a definition, atheism and science are certainly not acts of
faith. Of course, individual atheists or scientists can be as dogmatic as
religious followers when claiming that something is "certain". This is not a
general tendency, however; there are many atheists who would be reluctant to
state with certainty that the universe exists.
Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or proof.
Sceptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as sceptical atheism
has no beliefs. Strong atheism is closer, but still doesn't really match, as
even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to refer to experimental data (or
the lack of it) when asserting that God does not exist.
"If atheism is not religious, surely it's anti-religious?"
It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for" or
"against", "friend" or "enemy". The truth is not so clear-cut.
Atheism is the position that runs logically counter to theism; in that sense,
it can be said to be "anti-religion". However, when religious believers
speak of atheists being "anti-religious" they usually mean that the atheists
have some sort of antipathy or hatred towards theists.
This categorization of atheists as hostile towards religion is quite unfair.
Atheist attitudes towards theists in fact cover a broad spectrum.
Most atheists take a "live and let live" attitude. Unless questioned, they
will not usually mention their atheism, except perhaps to close friends. Of
course, this may be in part because atheism is not "socially acceptable" in
many countries.
A few atheists are quite anti-religious, and may even try to "convert" others
when possible. Historically, such anti-religious atheists have made little
impact on society outside the Eastern Bloc countries.
(To digress slightly: the Soviet Union was originally dedicated to separation
of church and state, just like the USA. Soviet citizens were legally free to
worship as they wished. The institution of "state atheism" came about when
Stalin took control of the Soviet Union and tried to destroy the churches in
order to gain complete power over the population.)
Some atheists are quite vocal about their beliefs, but only where they see
religion encroaching on matters which are not its business -- for example,
the government of the USA. Such individuals are usually concerned that
church and state should remain separate.
"But if you don't allow religion to have a say in the running of the state,
surely that's the same as state atheism?"
The principle of the separation of church and state is that the state shall
not legislate concerning matters of religious belief. In particular, it
means not only that the state cannot promote one religion at the expense of
another, but also that it cannot promote any belief which is religious in
nature.
Religions can still have a say in discussion of purely secular matters. For
example, religious believers have historically been responsible for
encouraging many political reforms. Even today, many organizations
campaigning for an increase in spending on foreign aid are founded as
religious campaigns. So long as they campaign concerning secular matters,
and so long as they do not discriminate on religious grounds, most atheists
are quite happy to see them have their say.
"What about prayer in schools? If there's no God, why do you care if people
pray?"
Because people who do pray are voters and lawmakers, and tend to do things
that those who don't pray can't just ignore. Also, Christian prayer in
schools is intimidating to non-Christians, even if they are told that they
need not join in. The diversity of religious and non-religious belief means
that it is impossible to formulate a meaningful prayer that will be
acceptable to all those present at any public event.
Also, non-prayers tend to have friends and family who pray. It is reasonable
to care about friends and family wasting their time, even without other
motives.
"You mentioned Christians who campaign for increased foreign aid. What about
atheists? Why aren't there any atheist charities or hospitals? Don't
atheists object to the religious charities?"
There are many charities without religious purpose that atheists can
contribute to. Some atheists contribute to religious charities as well, for
the sake of the practical good they do. Some atheists even do voluntary work
for charities founded on a theistic basis.
Most atheists seem to feel that atheism isn't worth shouting about in
connection with charity. To them, atheism is just a simple, obvious everyday
matter, and so is charity. Many feel that it's somewhat cheap, not to say
self-righteous, to use simple charity as an excuse to plug a particular set
of religious beliefs.
To "weak" atheists, building a hospital to say "I do not believe in God" is a
rather strange idea; it's rather like holding a party to say "Today is not my
birthday". Why the fuss? Atheism is rarely evangelical.
"You said atheism isn't anti-religious. But is it perhaps a backlash against
one's upbringing, a way of rebelling?"
Perhaps it is, for some. But many people have parents who do not attempt to
force any religious (or atheist) ideas upon them, and many of those people
choose to call themselves atheists.
It's also doubtless the case that some religious people chose religion as a
backlash against an atheist upbringing, as a way of being different. On the
other hand, many people choose religion as a way of conforming to the
expectations of others.
On the whole, we can't conclude much about whether atheism or religion are
backlash or conformism; although in general, people have a tendency to go
along with a group rather than act or think independently.
"How do atheists differ from religious people?"
They don't believe in God. That's all there is to it.
Atheists may listen to heavy metal -- backwards, even -- or they may prefer a
Verdi Requiem, even if they know the words. They may wear Hawaiian shirts,
they may dress all in black, they may even wear orange robes. (Many
Buddhists lack a belief in any sort of God.) Some atheists even carry a copy
of the Bible around -- for arguing against, of course!
Whoever you are, the chances are you have met several atheists without
realising it. Atheists are usually unexceptional in behaviour and
appearance.
"Unexceptional? But aren't atheists less moral than religious people?"
That depends. If you define morality as obedience to God, then of course
atheists are less moral as they don't obey any God. But usually when one
talks of morality, one talks of what is acceptable ("right") and unacceptable
("wrong") behaviour within society.
Humans are social animals, and to be maximally successful they must
co-operate with each other. This is a good enough reason to discourage most
atheists from "anti-social" or "immoral" behaviour, purely for the purposes
of self-preservation.
Many atheists behave in a "moral" or "compassionate" way simply because they
feel a natural tendency to empathize with other humans. So why do they care
what happens to others? They don't know, they simply are that way.
Naturally, there are some people who behave "immorally" and try to use
atheism to justify their actions. However, there are equally many people who
behave "immorally" and then try to use religious beliefs to justify their
actions. For example:
"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Jesus Christ
came into the world to save sinners... But for that very reason, I was
shown mercy so that in me... Jesus Christ might display His unlimited
patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive
eternal life. Now to the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God,
be honor and glory forever and ever."
The above quote is from a statement made to the court on February 17th 1992
by Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious cannibal serial killer of Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. It seems that for every atheist mass-murderer, there is a
religious mass-murderer. But what of more trivial morality?
A survey conducted by the Roper Organization found that behavior
deteriorated after "born again" experiences. While only 4% of respondents
said they had driven intoxicated before being "born again," 12% had done
so after conversion. Similarly, 5% had used illegal drugs before
conversion, 9% after. Two percent admitted to engaging in illicit sex
before salvation; 5% after.
["Freethought Today", September 1991, p. 12.]
So it seems that at best, religion does not have a monopoly on moral
behaviour.
"Is there such a thing as atheist morality?"
If you mean "Is there such a thing as morality for atheists?", then the
answer is yes, as explained above. Many atheists have ideas about morality
which are at least as strong as those held by religious people.
If you mean "Does atheism have a characteristic moral code?", then the answer
is no. Atheism by itself does not imply anything much about how a person
will behave. Most atheists follow many of the same "moral rules" as theists,
but for different reasons. Atheists view morality as something created by
humans, according to the way humans feel the world 'ought' to work, rather
than seeing it as a set of rules decreed by a supernatural being.
"Then aren't atheists just theists who are denying God?"
A study by the Freedom From Religion Foundation found that over 90% of the
atheists who responded became atheists because religion did not work for
them. They had found that religious beliefs were fundamentally incompatible
with what they observed around them.
Atheists are not unbelievers through ignorance or denial; they are
unbelievers through choice. The vast majority of them have spent time
studying one or more religions, sometimes in very great depth. They have
made a careful and considered decision to reject religious beliefs.
This decision may, of course, be an inevitable consequence of that
individual's personality. For a naturally sceptical person, the choice
of atheism is often the only one that makes sense, and hence the only
choice that person can honestly make.
"But don't atheists want to believe in God?"
Atheists live their lives as though there is nobody watching over them. Many
of them have no desire to be watched over, no matter how good-natured the
"Big Brother" figure might be.
Some atheists would like to be able to believe in God -- but so what? Should
one believe things merely because one wants them to be true? The risks of
such an approach should be obvious. Atheists often decide that wanting to
believe something is not enough; there must be evidence for the belief.
"But of course atheists see no evidence for the existence of God -- they are
unwilling in their souls to see!"
Many, if not most atheists were previously religious. As has been explained
above, the vast majority have seriously considered the possibility that God
exists. Many atheists have spent time in prayer trying to reach God.
Of course, it is true that some atheists lack an open mind; but assuming that
all atheists are biased and insincere is offensive and closed-minded.
Comments such as "Of course God is there, you just aren't looking properly"
are likely to be viewed as patronizing.
Certainly, if you wish to engage in philosophical debate with atheists it is
vital that you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are
being sincere if they say that they have searched for God. If you are not
willing to believe that they are basically telling the truth, debate is
futile.
"Isn't the whole of life completely pointless to an atheist?"
Many atheists live a purposeful life. They decide what they think gives
meaning to life, and they pursue those goals. They try to make their lives
count, not by wishing for eternal life, but by having an influence on other
people who will live on. For example, an atheist may dedicate his life to
political reform, in the hope of leaving his mark on history.
It is a natural human tendency to look for "meaning" or "purpose" in random
events. However, it is by no means obvious that "life" is the sort of thing
that has a "meaning".
To put it another way, not everything which looks like a question is actually
a sensible thing to ask. Some atheists believe that asking "What is the
meaning of life?" is as silly as asking "What is the meaning of a cup of
coffee?". They believe that life has no purpose or meaning, it just is.
"So how do atheists find comfort in time of danger?"
There are many ways of obtaining comfort; from family, friends, or even pets.
Or on a less spiritual level, from food or drink or TV.
That may sound rather an empty and vulnerable way to face danger, but so
what? Should individuals believe in things because they are comforting, or
should they face reality no matter how harsh it might be?
In the end, it's a decision for the individual concerned. Most atheists are
unable to believe something they would not otherwise believe merely because
it makes them feel comfortable. They put truth before comfort, and consider
that if searching for truth sometimes makes them feel unhappy, that's just
hard luck.
"Don't atheists worry that they might suddenly be shown to be wrong?"
The short answer is "No, do you?"
Many atheists have been atheists for years. They have encountered many
arguments and much supposed evidence for the existence of God, but they have
found all of it to be invalid or inconclusive.
Thousands of years of religious belief haven't resulted in any good proof of
the existence of God. Atheists therefore tend to feel that they are unlikely
to be proved wrong in the immediate future, and they stop worrying about it.
"So why should theists question their beliefs? Don't the same arguments
apply?"
No, because the beliefs being questioned are not similar. Weak atheism is
the sceptical "default position" to take; it asserts nothing. Strong atheism
is a negative belief. Theism is a very strong positive belief.
Atheists sometimes also argue that theists should question their beliefs
because of the very real harm they can cause -- not just to the believers,
but to everyone else.
"What sort of harm?"
Religion represents a huge financial and work burden on mankind. It's not
just a matter of religious believers wasting their money on church buildings;
think of all the time and effort spent building churches, praying, and so on.
Imagine how that effort could be better spent.
Many theists believe in miracle healing. There have been plenty of instances
of ill people being "healed" by a priest, ceasing to take the medicines
prescribed to them by doctors, and dying as a result. Some theists have died
because they have refused blood transfusions on religious grounds.
It is arguable that the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control -- and
condoms in particular -- is increasing the problem of overpopulation in many
third-world countries and contributing to the spread of AIDS world-wide.
Religious believers have been known to murder their children rather than
allow their children to become atheists or marry someone of a different
religion.
"Those weren't REAL believers. They just claimed to be believers as some
sort of excuse."
What makes a real believer? There are so many One True Religions it's hard
to tell. Look at Christianity: there are many competing groups, all
convinced that they are the only true Christians. Sometimes they even fight
and kill each other. How is an atheist supposed to decide who's a REAL
Christian and who isn't, when even the major Christian churches like the
Catholic Church and the Church of England can't decide amongst themselves?
In the end, most atheists take a pragmatic view, and decide that anyone who
calls himself a Christian, and uses Christian belief or dogma to justify his
actions, should be considered a Christian. Maybe some of those Christians
are just perverting Christian teaching for their own ends -- but surely if
the Bible can be so readily used to support un-Christian acts it can't be
much of a moral code? If the Bible is the word of God, why couldn't he have
made it less easy to misinterpret? And how do you know that your beliefs
aren't a perversion of what your God intended?
If there is no single unambiguous interpretation of the Bible, then why
should an atheist take one interpretation over another just on your say-so?
Sorry, but if someone claims that he believes in Jesus and that he murdered
others because Jesus and the Bible told him to do so, we must call him a
Christian.
"Obviously those extreme sorts of beliefs should be questioned. But since
nobody has ever proved that God does not exist, it must be very unlikely
that more basic religious beliefs, shared by all faiths, are nonsense."
That does not hold, because as was pointed out at the start of this dialogue,
positive assertions concerning the existence of entities are inherently much
harder to disprove than negative ones. Nobody has ever proved that unicorns
don't exist, but that doesn't make it unlikely that they are myths.
It is therefore much more valid to hold a negative assertion by default than
it is to hold a positive assertion by default. Of course, "weak" atheists
would argue that asserting nothing is better still.
"Well, if atheism's so great, why are there so many theists?"
Unfortunately, the popularity of a belief has little to do with how "correct"
it is, or whether it "works"; consider how many people believe in astrology,
graphology, and other pseudo-sciences.
Many atheists feel that it is simply a human weakness to want to believe in
gods. Certainly in many primitive human societies, religion allows the
people to deal with phenomena that they do not adequately understand.
Of course, there's more to religion than that. In the industrialized world,
we find people believing in religious explanations of phenomena even when
there are perfectly adequate natural explanations. Religion may have started
as a means of attempting to explain the world, but nowadays it serves other
purposes as well.
"But so many cultures have developed religions. Surely that must say
something?"
Not really. Most religions are only superficially similar; for example, it's
worth remembering that religions such as Buddhism and Taoism lack any sort of
concept of God in the Christian sense.
Of course, most religions are quick to denounce competing religions, so it's
rather odd to use one religion to try and justify another.
"What about all the famous scientists and philosophers who have concluded
that God exists?"
For every scientist or philosopher who believes in a god, there is one who
does not. Besides, as has already been pointed out, the truth of a belief is
not determined by how many people believe it. Also, it is important to
realize that atheists do not view famous scientists or philosophers in the
same way that theists view their religious leaders.
A famous scientist is only human; she may be an expert in some fields, but
when she talks about other matters her words carry no special weight. Many
respected scientists have made themselves look foolish by speaking on
subjects which lie outside their fields of expertise.
"So are you really saying that widespread belief in religion indicates
nothing?"
Not entirely. It certainly indicates that the religion in question has
properties which have helped it so spread so far.
The theory of memetics talks of "memes" -- sets of ideas which can propagate
themselves between human minds, by analogy with genes. Some atheists view
religions as sets of particularly successful parasitic memes, which spread by
encouraging their hosts to convert others. Some memes avoid destruction by
discouraging believers from questioning doctrine, or by using peer pressure
to keep one-time believers from admitting that they were mistaken. Some
religious memes even encourage their hosts to destroy hosts controlled by
other memes.
Of course, in the memetic view there is no particular virtue associated with
successful propagation of a meme. Religion is not a good thing because of
the number of people who believe it, any more than a disease is a good thing
because of the number of people who have caught it.
"Even if religion is not entirely true, at least it puts across important
messages. What are the fundamental messages of atheism?"
There are many important ideas atheists promote. The following are just a
few of them; don't be surprised to see ideas which are also present in some
religions.
There is more to moral behaviour than mindlessly following rules.
Be especially sceptical of positive claims.
If you want your life to have some sort of meaning, it's up to you to
find it.
Search for what is true, even if it makes you uncomfortable.
Make the most of your life, as it's probably the only one you'll have.
It's no good relying on some external power to change you; you must change
yourself.
Just because something's popular doesn't mean it's good.
If you must assume something, assume something it's easy to test.
Don't believe things just because you want them to be true.
and finally (and most importantly):
All beliefs should be open to question.
Thanks for taking the time to read this article.
mathew
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.2
iQCVAgUBK8AjRXzXN+VrOblFAQFSbwP+MHePY4g7ge8Mo5wpsivX+kHYYxMErFAO
7ltVtMVTu66Nz6sBbPw9QkbjArbY/S2sZ9NF5htdii0R6SsEyPl0R6/9bV9okE/q
nihqnzXE8pGvLt7tlez4EoeHZjXLEFrdEyPVayT54yQqGb4HARbOEHDcrTe2atmP
q0Z4hSSPpAU=
=q2V5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
For information about PGP 2.2, send mail to pgpinfo@mantis.co.uk.
|
From: dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood)
Subject: Request for Support
I have a request for those who would like to see Charley Wingate
respond to the "Charley Challenges" (and judging from my e-mail, there
appear to be quite a few of you.)
It is clear that Mr. Wingate intends to continue to post tangential or
unrelated articles while ingoring the Challenges themselves. Between
the last two re-postings of the Challenges, I noted perhaps a dozen or
more posts by Mr. Wingate, none of which answered a single Challenge.
It seems unmistakable to me that Mr. Wingate hopes that the questions
will just go away, and he is doing his level best to change the
subject. Given that this seems a rather common net.theist tactic, I
would like to suggest that we impress upon him our desire for answers,
in the following manner:
1. Ignore any future articles by Mr. Wingate that do not address the
Challenges, until he answers them or explictly announces that he
refuses to do so.
--or--
2. If you must respond to one of his articles, include within it
something similar to the following:
"Please answer the questions posed to you in the Charley Challenges."
Really, I'm not looking to humiliate anyone here, I just want some
honest answers. You wouldn't think that honesty would be too much to
ask from a devout Christian, would you?
Nevermind, that was a rhetorical question.
--Dave Wood
|
From: chrisb@tafe.sa.edu.au (Chris BELL)
Subject: Re: Don't more innocents die without the death penalty?
"James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>By maintaining classes D and E, even in prison, it seems as if we
>place more innocent people at a higher risk of an unjust death than
>we would if the state executed classes D and E with an occasional error.
I would rather be at a higher risk of being killed than actually killed by
^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
mistake. Though I do agree with the concept that the type D and E murderers
are a massive waste of space and resources I don't agree with the concept:
killing is wrong
if you kill we will punish you
our punishment will be to kill you.
Seems to be lacking in consistency.
--
"I know" is nothing more than "I believe" with pretentions.
|
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>>As for rape, surely there the burden of guilt is solely on the rapist?
>>Unless you force someone to live with the rapist against his will, in which
>>case part of the responsibility is yours.
>I'm sorry, but I can't accept that. Unless the rapist was hypnotized or
>something, I view him as solely responsible for his actions.
Not necessarily, especially if the rapist is known as such. For instance,
if you intentionally stick your finger into a loaded mousetrap and get
snapped, whose fault is it?
keith
|
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Omnipotence (was Re: Speculations)
In article <1993Apr5.171143.828@batman.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
|> In article <2942949719.2.p00261@psilink.com>, "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
|> >>DATE: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 23:02:22 -0500
|> >>FROM: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
|> >>
|> >>
|> >>> > 3. Can god uncreate itself?
|> >>>
|> >>> No. For if He did, He would violate His own nature which He cannot do.
|> >>> It is God's nature to Exist. He is, after all, the "I AM" which is
|> >>> a statement of His inherent Existence. He is existence itself.
|> >>> Existence cannot "not-exist".
|> >>
|> >>Then, as mentioned above, he must not be very omnipotent.
|> >>
|>
|> What do you mean by omnipotent here? Do you mean by "omnipotent"
|> that God should be able to do anything/everything? This creates
|> a self-contradictory definition of omnipotence which is effectively
|> useless.
|>
|> To be descriptive, omnipotence must mean "being all-powerful" and
|> not "being able to do anything/everything".
|>
|> Let me illustrate by analogy.
|> Suppose the United States were the only nuclear power on earth. Suppose
|> further that the US military could not effectively be countered by any
|> nation or group of nations. The US has the power to go into any country
|> at any time for any reason to straighten things out as the leaders of the
|> US see fit. The US would be militarily "omnipotent".
Did you check with the Afghans before posting this? They
might disagree.
jon.
|
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
In article <1qugin$9tf@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1qkogg$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> #And in that area, what you care about is whether someone is sceptical,
|> #critical and autonomous on the one hand, or gullible, excitable and
|> #easily led on the other.
|>
|> Indeed I may. And one may be an atheist and also be gullible, excitable
|> and easily led.
|>
|> #I would say that a tendency to worship tyrants and ideologies indicates
|> #that a person is easily led. Whether they have a worship or belief
|> #in a supernatural hero rather than an earthly one seems to me to be
|> #beside the point.
|>
|> Sure. But whether or not they are atheists is what we are discussing,
|> not whether they are easily led.
Not if you show that these hypothetical atheists are gullible, excitable
and easily led from some concrete cause. In that case we would also
have to discuss if that concrete cause, rather than atheism, was the
factor that caused their subsequent behaviour.
jon.
|
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Jews can't hide from keith@cco.
In article <C51DAq.2Fqs@austin.ibm.com>, karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:
>
> So, you consider the german poster's remark anti-semitic?
When someone says:
"So after 1000 years of sightseeing and roaming around its
ok to come back, kill Palastinians, and get their land back,
right?"
Yes, that's casual antisemitism. I can think of plenty of ways
to criticize Israeli policy without insulting Jews or Jewish history.
Can't you?
jon
|
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
In article <1993Apr26.000410.18114@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
> In article <C62B52.LKz@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> >I can think of a lot more agonizing ways to get killed. Fatal cancer, for
> >instance.
> >
> >Anyone else have some more? Maybe we can make a list.
> How about dying of a blood clot in a _very_ bad place.
Kidney stones with complete blockage.
|
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Societally acceptable behavior
In article <C5ws1s.7ns@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
|> In <1r4ioh$44t@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
|> writes:
|> > |>In article <C5qGM3.DL8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike
>|> Cobb) writes:
|> >|>
|> >|> This doesn't seem right. If I want to kill you, I can because that is
|> what I
|> >|> decide?
|>
|> >Sounds as though you are confused between "what I want" and "what
|> >I think is morally right".
|>
|> >jon.
|>
|>
|> What do you mean? Would your idea still apply if I said I think it is ok to
|> kill you because that is what I decided?
What I mean is what I said. "What I want" does not automatically
translate into "what I think is right." That is, it does not
translate that way for me.
If you reply that "I think it is ok to kill you because that is what
I decided" then what that means is that for you "What I want" does
translate into "what I think is right".
It just doesn't translate that way for me.
jon.
|
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: You will all go to hell.
In article <1993Apr20.103345.2651@nuscc.nus.sg> cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes:
>From: cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan)
>Subject: Re: You will all go to hell.
>Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 10:33:45 GMT
>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!!!
>
>Arrgg!! *Another* one of those?!
>Another letter to the Big Guy:
>
>Dear God,
>
>Please take them back to Heaven & leave us rational, intelligent
>people alone.
>
>Love,
>Meng
>
>
>--
>
>The UnEnlightened One
>------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
> |
>Tan Chade Meng | There is light at the end of the tunnel ......
>Singapore |
>cmtan@iss.nus.sg | It's an on-coming train.
> |
>------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Meng,
I have a better prayer:
Dear God,
Please save the world from the likes of these!!!
Tammy
|
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: There must be a creator! (Maybe)
In article <1993Apr2.144909.806@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>In article <1993Apr2.165032.3356@bradford.ac.uk>, L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:
[deletions]
>>...Argument from incredulity has not been considered a valid form of
>> reasoning since medieval times.
[deletions]
>Interesting that you should mention that "Argument from incredulity has
>not been considered a valid form of reasoning since medieval times." I
>quite agree. Why then, do some atheists here engage in it? More than
>a few times I have read posts where the atheists posting state that
>they 'cannot see how a gracious and loving God can allow such evil and
>suffering to occur as we see on the earth.' Simply because they cannot
>envision it, it must not be true. If this is not an argument from
>incredulity, I don't know what is!
As you have presented it, it is indeed an argument from incredulity.
However, from what I have seen, it is not often presented in this manner.
It is usually presented more in the form, "And *besides*, I cannot see...
...nor have I ever been offered a convincing explanation."
Moreover, it is not unreasonable to ask for an explanation for such
phenomena. That theism does not provide a convincing explanation is not
an argument in theism's favor. Especially when different theisms offer
different explanations, and even different adherents of what is purportedly
the same theism give different explanations...
> God has far more complex motivations
>and reasons for action or non-action than to simply "fix" evil whenever
>and however it occurs, or even *before* it occurs. And yet, it is this
>very same argument from incredulity which ranks high among reasons
>why atheists (in general) reject God and in particular the Christian God.
Not im my experience. In my experience, the most common reason is the
lack of evidence in theism's favor. You mileage may vary. :->
>This seems to be the universal bane of human reasoning and rationality,
>to wit, that it is far easier to see the logical fallacy or inept reasoning
>on the part of one's opponents than it is to see it in oneself.
Oh, heck, I'll be snide this once. :-> It's also fairly easy to attack
arguments that are not made. (I.e. 'strawmen'.)
>As one Man of Wisdom put it, take the log out of your own eye before you
>try to remove the splinter from your neighbor's eye.
Sage advice indeed.
Sincerely,
Raymond Ingles ingles@engin.umich.edu
"An apple every eight hours keeps three doctors away." - B. Kliban
|
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: The nonexistance of Atheists?!
>In article <kutluk.734797558@ccl.umist.ac.uk> kutluk@ccl.umist.ac.uk (Kutluk Ozguven) writes:
>>Atheists are not
>>mentioned in the Quran because from a Quranic point of view, and a
>>minute's reasoning, one can see that there is no such thing.
I guess that's why scientists probably aren't mentioned either. Or
stock brokers. Or television repairmen.
It's precious to know just how deep the brainwashing from childhood
( that it takes to progress a religion ) cleans away a very substantial
part of the reasoning neurons.
But don't mind me; I don't exist.
-jim halat
|
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
In article <1ql8mdINN674@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>
>But we were discussing it in relation to the death penalty. And, the
>Constitution need not define each of the words within. Anyone who doesn't
>know what cruel is can look in the dictionary (and we did).
>
Or, with no dictionary available, they could gain first hand
knowledge by suffering through one of your posts.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
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: mam@mouse.cmhnet.org (Mike McAngus)
Subject: Hard/Soft == Strong/Weak. KISS!
On 20 Apr 93 08:31:07 GMT timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) wrote:
>mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu writes:
[writing to someone else]
>But you, probably like me, seem to be a soft atheist. Sorry for the flamage.
Can we get back to using the terms "strong Atheist" and "weak Atheist"
rather than this "hard Atheist" and "soft Atheist". I can imagine
future discussions with Newbies where there is confusion because of the
multiplication of descriptions.
[rest deleted]
--
Mike McAngus | The Truth is still the Truth
mam@mouse.cmhnet.org | Even if you choose to ignore it.
|
(Some of the old .sig viruses are still the best)
|
Subject: Re: STRONG & weak Atheism
From: SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Scott D. Sauyet)
In <930421.122032.2c0.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew writes:
> > Did that FAQ ever got modified to re-define strong atheists as not those who
> > assert the nonexistence of God, but as those who assert that they BELIEVE in
> > the nonexistence of God?
>
> In a word, yes.
>
> mathew
Mathew:
Could you let us know when this happened, so I can see if my version
is as up-to-date as possible? I try to re-save the FAQs once in a
while, but otherwise I ignore their regular postings, so I wouldn't
generally notice such a change.
And I like to stay current.
Thanks,
-- Scott
|
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Slavery (was Re: Why is sex only allowed in marriage: ...)
> Oh, this all sounds so nice! Everyone helping each other and always smiling
> and fluffy bunnies everywhere. Wake up! People are just not like that. It
> seems evident from history that no society has succeeded when it had to rely
> upon the goodwill and unselfishness of the people. Isn't it obvious from
> places like Iran that even if there are only a few greedy people in society
> then they are going to be attracted to positions of power? Sounds like a
> recipe for disaster.
Looking at historical evidence such 'perfect utopian' islamic states
didn't survive. I agree, people are people, and even if you might
start an Islamic revolution and create this perfect state, it takes
some time and the internal corruption will destroy the ground rules --
again.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
|
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Second Law (was: Albert Sabin)
Joel Hanes (jjh00@diag.amdahl.com) wrote:
: Mr Connor's assertion that "more complex" == later in paleontology
: is simply incorrect. Many lineages are known in which whole
: structures are lost -- for example, snakes have lost their legs.
: Cave fish have lost their eyes. Some species have almost completely
: lost their males. Kiwis are descended from birds with functional
: wings.
Joel,
The statements I made were illustrative of the inescapably
anthrpomorphic quality of any desciption of an evolutionary process.
There is no way evolution can be described or explained in terms other
than teleological, that is my whole point. Even those who have reason
to believe they understand evolution (biologists for instance) tend to
personify nature and I can't help but wonder if it's because of the
limits of the language or the nature of nature.
Bill
|
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Subject: Re: History & texts (was: Ancient references to Christianity)
-*----
I wrote:
>> The diaries of the followers of the Maharishi, formerly of
>> Oregon, are historical evidence.
In article <2944756297.1.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
> Are you confusing Bhagwan Rajneesh (sp?) with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
> here by any chance?
I believe that Maharishi is titular. (Someone please correct me if
I am wrong.) Thus, Maharishi Rajneesh is a different person from
Maharishi Mahesh, but they are both Maharishis.
Russell
|
From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Is Morality Constant (was Re: Biblical Rape)
My last response in this thread fell into a bit-bucket and vanished
(though appearing locally). I'll repost it, since I always feel
slighted when someone appears to ignore one of my postings in a
conversational thread, I don't want Rob to think I'm doing so. Since
this is now dated, however, don't feel compelled to respond...
In article <1993Apr08.174942.45124@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>I was making two separate points, both of which attack
>"face value" Bible interpretation:
>
>(1) To judge the Bible's value today, you judge it based on
> the way it is used today. That is, what do commentators
> actually say, what do rabbis teach, etc.
I suspect you meant this in context of the Jewish tradition you have
been referring to; one problem with a highly-interpreted tradition
like this is what happens when a schism occurs, and over time certain
large and influential branches of the heretical group come to favor
exactly a "face value" interpretation...
>(2) To judge the Bible's value when originally written,
> you (a) read it in the context of its time (not
> with today's assumptions), and (b) compare it to
> the practices of surrounding people.
While the context of the time is important, value judgments must
ultimately be according to current understanding, or at least to some
base standard (relative stability/success of a society, e.g.). This
is obviously true in comparing it to practices of surrounding people,
for instance: according to the Bible, the surrounding people were
immoral savages with repulsive and inhuman habits. We need to look
rather at what those peoples were *really* like. For instance, in
what way is it better to worship a single god whose presence is
symbolically strongest in a tent or temple over multiple gods some of
whose presence is symbolically represented in a statue? By the
Bible's own terms idolatry is inherently evil, but I see no evidence
that the followers of the various other religions of the area and time
were particularly bad people, relative to the people in the Bible.
>[...scissors and cloth...] Now in the past, our ancestors
>did cut cloth with scissors, but they at least knew that
>their inhumane neighbors cut it with their bare teeth,
>so this was a relatively enlightened step forward from
>their earlier barbarism, and made the transition to
>modern civilized paper-cutting that much easier."
Sounds good, but it presupposes teeth-rending neighbors, which I see
no support for. One can argue that post-facto assertion of inhumane
neighbors can be used to make moral points, but that doesn't mean that
the actual neighbors really were inhuman. More to the point, such
dehumanization of the people across the river or over the mountain, or
even of a different people dwelling among us, is all too common.
>|> That complex
>|> and benign moral traditions have evolved based on particular mythic
>|> interpretations of that history is interesting, but I still don't
>|> think it fair to take that long tradition of interpretation and use it
>|> to attack condemnation of the original history.
Note that I'm speaking of historical interpretation here, for instance
claiming that Hammurabi's "an eye for an eye" was primitive brutal
retribution, while Moses' version was an enlightened benign fine
(because the tradition has since interpreted the phrase that way). As
of 3000 years ago or so, they probably both meant the same thing.
>To be sure, I'm arguing from a parochial perspective.
>I belong to this tiny tribe which has struggled against
>overwhelming odds for survival as a distinct tribe,
>and this book is the book of my tribe. The book commands
>us to dedicate ourselves to study, to improve the
>world, and to set an example as "a light to the nations".
>
>We've revered the book, and I think we've been successful:
>as scientists, as artists and musicians, as leaders
>in important humanitarian causes. It's hard for me to
>separate the success of my people from the virtue
>of our book. You'd have to argue that we'd have
>done significantly better with a different book or with no book,
>or that another tribe with a different book or
>with no book has done significantly better.
I don't belittle the accomplishments, particularly the intellectual
ones, of the Jewish people. I have given up on trying to think by
analogy, since I don't know of any other 'tribe' that is at all
similar (the closest I can think of are the Romany, but I don't know
enough about them to make a meaningful comparison). I think a
tradition of reflective study, of flexible rather than dogmatic
interpretation, is a good thing. I think that with such an attitude a
case could be made that you could have done as well starting with a
1943 Captain America comic (or whatever the Babylonian equivalent
would have been).
--
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: mam@mouse.cmhnet.org (Mike McAngus)
Subject: Re: thoughts on christians
On Wed, 21 Apr 1993 08:16:14 GMT sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) wrote:
>In article <C5rGKB.4Fs@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu
[re. Conner's questioning of the blissful afterlife as a reason why many
joined the early Xian church]
>Well, as I remember Jacoby's "Mythmaker" talks about this to cite
>one source -- but I'm not sure if all Christians have read this book.
>In addition my social experiences is from being raised and educated
>as a Lutheran, having a lot of Christian friends, and I even
>have played in two Christian rock bands!
Do you mean Hyam Maccoby's _The Mythmaker_?
--
Mike McAngus | The Truth is still the Truth
mam@mouse.cmhnet.org | Even if you choose to ignore it.
|
(Some of the old .sig viruses are still the best)
|
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: An Anecdote about Islam
In article <114140@bu.edu>
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>>>>> In cases of prostitution
>>>>>both the man and the prostitute would be punished in public, quite
>>>>>severely.
(Deletion)
>
>>No Gregg, you cannot say A is lenient and A punishes severely in public.
>>Unless, of course, it is one of the exceptions implied by "almost all
>>matters".
>
>That depends on the statistics and who is punished in public. If some
>power (for example, nothing Islamic about it) allows men to rape women
>five times before blowing the rapist's head off in public then I'd call
>that leniency, wouldn't you?
>
You have given that example. It is not lenient. End of argument.
And chopping off the hands or heads of people is not lenient either. It
rather appears that you are internalized the claims about the legal system
without checking if they suit the description.
And wasn't the argument that it takes five men to rape a woman according
to Islamic law?
>>While I don't approve of it, I think both the prostitute and the customer
>>have the right to do what they do. In other words, punishing them is a
>>violation of their rights. And to punish them severely in public is just
>>another pointer to the hysteria connected with sexuality in so many
>>religions.
>
>Believe what you like.
>
No, I even believe what I don't like. Can you give better answers than that?
Have you got any evidence for your probably opposite claims?
>>In this case, I don't see why I should accept the complex ridden views
>>of an oriental goatherd.
>
>Ah, yes, I forget that the West is historically so much without sexual
>neurosis :)
>
>"Oriental goatherd", _really_ intellectual.
>
A fact, if memory serves. And most will see the connection between the
primitive machism in the Orient and in Islam.
>>If people agree on having sex it is fine. And I would assume that a
>>god would have a clue of what the detrimental effects of supressing it
>>are.
>
>Huh? Ever heard of AIDs? (Of course you'll probably go on to say that
>God must be evil because he allows the disease to exist, bla bla).
>
As usually you miss the point. Aids is neither spread only through sex
nor necessarily spread by having sex. Futher, the point is, a very important
point, the urge for sex is stronger than the fear of AIDS. It is even
stronger than the religious attempts to channel or to forbid sex. The
consequences of suppressing sex are worse than the consequences of Aids.
Please note that the idea that everybody would end up with AIDS when sex
is not controlled is completely counterfactual.
And since you have brought up the point, is your god evil or not?
Benedikt
|
Subject: Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Atheists?)
From: SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu (SCOTT D. SAUYET)
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: >
( in <1993Apr16.163729.867@batman.bmd.trw.com> )
( responding to Dave "First With Official A.A Nickname" Fuller )
[ ... ]
> The death penalty IS a deterrent, Dave. The person executed will never
> commit a crime again. Guaranteed. [ ... ]
That means that it is an effective anti-recidivism measure. It does
not say that it deters an individual from committing a capital crime
in the first place.
The true question is whether the threat of death is likely to actually
stop one from murdering. (Or commiting treason -- are there any other
capital crimes anywhere in the USA?) That is, if there were no death
penalty, would its introduction deter a would-be criminal from
committing her/his crime? I doubt it.
This is only the first step. Even if it were a strong deterrent
(short of being a complete deterrent) I would reject it. For what
about the case of the innocent executed?
And even if we could eliminate this possibility, I would reject the
death penalty as immoral. This makes me something of a radical on
the issue, although I think there are many opponents of captial
punishment who agree with me, but who find the innocent executed the
strongest argument to make.
I would, if magically placed in charge, facilitate state-aided suicide
for criminals who have life-sentences. This could be a replacement
for capital punishment. Those who don't want to live the rest of
their lives in jail would always have this option.
-- Scott Sauyet ssauyet@eagle.wesleyan.edu
|
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
In article <115686@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>No, I say religious law applies to those who are categorized as
>belonging to the religion when event being judged applies. This
Who does the categorizing?
---
" I'd Cheat on Hillary Too."
John Laws
Local GOP Reprehensitive
Extolling "Traditional Family Values."
|
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: Omnipotence (was Re: Speculations)
In article <1993Apr5.171143.828@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>God is effectively limited in the same sense. He is all powerful, but
>He cannot use His power in a way that would violate the essence of what
>He, Himself is.
Cannot? Try, will not.
---
"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: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: islamic genocide
In article <1qi83b$ec4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
(Deletion)
>#>Few people can imagine dying for capitalism, a few
>#>more can imagine dying for democracy, but a lot more will die for their
>#>Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who Died on the Cross for their Sins.
>#>Motivation, pure and simple.
>
>Got any cites for this nonsense? How many people will die for Mom?
>Patriotism? Freedom? Money? Their Kids? Fast cars and swimming pools?
>A night with Kim Basinger or Mel Gibson? And which of these things are evil?
>
Read a history book, Fred. And tell me why so many religions command to
commit genocide when it has got nothing to do with religion. Or why so many
religions say that not living up to the standards of the religion is worse
than dieing? Coincidence, I assume. Or ist part of the absolute morality
you describe so often?
Theism is strongly correlated with irrational belief in absolutes. Irrational
belief in absolutes is strongly correlated with fanatism.
Benedikt
|
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: STRONG & weak Atheism
acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu (Turin Turambar, ME Department of Utter Misery) writes:
> Did that FAQ ever got modified to re-define strong atheists as not those who
> assert the nonexistence of God, but as those who assert that they BELIEVE in
> the nonexistence of God?
In a word, yes.
mathew
|
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Subject: College atheists
I read an article about a poll done of students at the Ivy League
schools in which it was reported that a third of the students
indentified themselves as atheists. This is a lot higher than among the
general population. I wonder what the reasons for this discrepancy are?
Is it because they are more intelligent? Younger? Is this the wave of
the future?
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: mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Death Penalty / Gulf War (long)
In article <37501@optima.cs.arizona.edu> sham@cs.arizona.edu (Shamim Zvonko Mohamed) writes:
>This is the most unmitigated bilge I've seen in a while. Jim Brown obviously
>has possession of the right-wing token.
>
>> Diplomatic alternatives, including sanctions, were ineffective.
>
>"In December, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told a
>Senate committee that sanctions were costing Iraq $100 million per day, and
>that the multinational coalition could take all the time in the world.
>Iraq, he suggested, was losing badly every day it defied the UN demands,
>while the community of nations won every day -- with no taking of life or
>loss of life." -- FCNL Washington Newsletter.
As I understand, that number is deceptive. The reason is that the money
cost was in non-oil sales for the most part. Iraq still is not allowed
to sell oil, or do many of the things under the initial sanctions, but
is still surviving.
>> And BTW, the reason I brought up the blanket-bombing in Germany was
>> because you were bemoaning the Iraqi civilian casualties as being
>> "so deplorable". Yet blanket bombing was instituted because bombing
>> wasn't accurate enough to hit industrial/military targets in a
>> decisive way by any other method at that time. But in the Gulf War,
>> precision bombing was the norm.
>
>BULLSHIT!!! In the Gulf Massacre, 7% of all ordnance used was "smart." The
>rest - that's 93% - was just regular, dumb ol' iron bombs and stuff. Have
>you forgotten that the Pentagon definition of a successful Patriot launch
>was when the missile cleared the launching tube with no damage? Or that a
>successful interception of a Scud was defined as "the Patriot and Scud
>passed each other in the same area of the sky"?
Of the ~93% (I have heard figures closer to 80%, but I won't quibble your
figures), most was dropped in carpet bombing of regions only occupied by
enemy troops. A B-52 drops a lot of bombs in one sortie, and we used them
around the clock. Not to mention other smaller aircraft using dumb
munitions.
2. The Patriot uses a proximity fuse. The adjusted figures for number
of Patriot kills of SS-1 derivitives is ~60-70%. That figure came
not from some fluke in the Pentagon, but a someone working with such
stuff in another part of DoD.
3. The statement precision bombing was the norm, is true around areas
where civilians were close to the target. We dropped by tonnage very
little bombs in populated regions, explaining the figures.
>And of the 7% that was the "smart" stuff, 35% hit. Again - try to follow me
>here - that means 65% of this "smart" arsenal missed.
This figure, is far below all the other figures I have seen. If it
is indeed accurate, then how do you explain the discrepancy between
that figure, and other figures from international organizations?
Most figures I have seen place the hit ratio close to 70%, which is
still far higher than your 35%. Or does your figure say a bomb
missed if the plane took off with it, and the bomb never hit the target,
regardless of whether or not the bomb was dropped? Such methods
are used all the time to lie with statistics.
>> The stories
>> of "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi civilian dead is just plain bunk.
>
>Prove it. I have a source that says that to date, the civilian death count
>(er, excuse me, I mean "collateral damage") is about 200,000.
I have _never_ seen any source that was claiming such a figure. Please
post the source so its reliability can be judged.
--
***************************************************************************
* mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu * Never program and drink beer at the same *
* M^2 * time. It doesn't work. *
***************************************************************************
|
From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Who Says the Apostles Were Tortured?
Another article that fell between the cracks:
In article <1qiu97INNpq6@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
As evidence for the Resurrection, it is often claimed that the Disciples
were tortured to death for their beliefs and still did not renounce
their claim that Jesus had come back from the dead.
Now, I skimmed Acts and such, and I found a reference to this happening
to Stephen, but no others. Where does this apparently very widely held
belief come from? Is there any evidence outside the Bible? Is there any
evidence *in* the Bible? I sure haven't found any...
Briefly, no. There is widespread folklore, but no good documentary
evidence, or even solid rumor, concerning the deaths of the Apostles.
Further, the usual context of such arguments, as you observe, is "No
Martyrs for a Lie": i.e. the willingness of these people to die rather
than recant is evidence for the truth of their belief. This adds the
quite stronger twist that the proposed martyrs must have been offered
the chance of life by recanting. Since we don't even know how or
where they died, we certainly don't have this information. (By the
way, even in the case of Stephen it is not at all clear that he could
have saved himself by recanting). The willingness of true believers
to die for their belief, be it in Jesus or Jim Jones, is
well-documented, so martyrdom in and of itself says little. [See
1Kings18:20-40 for a Biblical account of the martyrdom of 450 priests
of Baal].
--
Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
|
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: Societally acceptable behavior
I guess I'm delving into a religious language area. What exactly is morality
or morals? I never thought of eating meat to be moral or immoral, but I think
it could be. How do we differentiate between not doing something because it is
a personal choice or preference and not doing something because we see it as
immoral? Do we fall to what the basis of these morals are?
Also, consensus positions fall to a might makes right. Or, as you brought out,
if whatever is right is what is societally mandated then whoever is in control
at the time makes what is right
MC
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
Nobody can explain everything to anybody. G.K.Chesterton
|
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>So how do you then explain sudden violent behavior of human beings?
>Your theory would state that the more the human is detached from
>primitive behavior, the more violent and non-moralistic the human
>becomes (please correct me if my understanding was wrong). So
>you have this bifurcation point where a madman is killing people
>from the roof of a campus. Could you explain how your 'theory'
>explains such a situation?
Madmen are mad. Do we try to explain the output from a broken computer?
I think not.
keith
|
From: Steve_Mullins@vos.stratus.com
Subject: Re: Bible Quiz
In article <1993Apr16.130430.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu> kellyb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu wrote:
>In article <kmr4.1563.734805744@po.CWRU.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>> Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible.
>>
> Since when does atheism mean trashing other religions?There must be a God
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of inbreeding to which you are his only son.
a) I think that he has a rather witty .sig file. It sums up a great
deal of atheistic thought (IMO) in one simple sentence.
b) Atheism isn't an "other religion".
sm
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Steve_Mullins@vos.stratus.com () "If a man empties his purse into his
My opinions <> Stratus' opinions () head, no one can take it from him
------------------------------ () ---------------Benjamin Franklin
|
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>This whole thread started because of a discussion about whether
>>or not the death penalty constituted cruel punishment, which is forbidden
>>by the US Constitution.
>Yes, but they didn't say what they meant by "cruel", which is why
>a) you have the Supreme Court, and b) it makes no sense to refer
>to the Constitution, which is quite silent on the meaning of the
>word "cruel".
They spent quite a bit of time on the wording of the Constitution. They
picked words whose meanings implied the intent. We have already looked
in the dictionary to define the word. Isn't this sufficient?
>>Oh, but we were discussing the death penalty (and that discussion
>>resulted from the one about murder which resulted from an intial
>>discussion about objective morality--so this is already three times
>>removed from the morality discussion).
>Actually, we were discussing the mening of the word "cruel" and
>the US Constitution says nothing about that.
But we were discussing it in relation to the death penalty. And, the
Constitution need not define each of the words within. Anyone who doesn't
know what cruel is can look in the dictionary (and we did).
keith
|
From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Studies on Book of Mormon
>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 93 21:12:55 GMT, cfairman@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) said:
CJF> agrino@enkidu.mic.cl (Andres Grino Brandt) asks about Mormons.
CJF> Although I don't personally know about independent sudies, I do know
CJF> a few things.
CJF> He writes:
>There are some mention about events, places, or historical persons
>later discovered by archeologist?
CJF> One of the more amusing things in the BOM is a claim that a
CJF> civilization existed in North America, aroun where the mystical plates
CJF> were found. Not only did it use steel and other metals, but it had
CJF> lots of wars (very OT). No one has ever found any metal swords or
CJF> and traces of a civilization other than the Native Americans.
I was talking to the head of the archeology dept. once in college and
the topic of Mormon archeology came up. It seems that the Mormon church
is (or was) big on giving grants to archeologists to prove that the
native Americans are really the lost tribe of Israel and other such
bunk. The archeologists would shake their head knowingly while listening
to them, take the grant, and go off to do real archeology anyway.
--
Ed McCreary ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao." (*)/'(*)
|
Subject: Re: Islamic marriage?
From: karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)
In article <1993Apr2.103237.4627@Cadence.COM>, mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan) writes:
> In article <C4qAv2.24wG@austin.ibm.com> karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:
> >
> >Okay. So you want me to name names? There are obviously no official
> >records of these pseudo-marriages because they are performed for
> >convenience. What happens typically is that the woman is willing to move
> >in with her lover without any scruples or legal contracts to speak of.
> >The man is merely utilizing a loophole by entering into a temporary
> >religious "marriage" contract in order to have sex. Nobody complains,
> >nobody cares, nobody needs to know.
> >
> >Perhaps you should alert your imam. It could be that this practice is
> >far more widespread than you may think. Or maybe it takes 4 muslim men
> >to witness the penetration to decide if the practice exists!
> >--
> >
>
> Again you astound me with the level of ignorance you display, Muslims
> are NOT allowed to enter temporary marriages, got that? There is
> no evidence for it it an outlawed practise so get your facts
> straight buddy. Give me references for it or just tell everyone you
> were lying. It is not a widespread as you may think (fantasise) in
> fact contrary to your fantasies it is not practised at all amongst
> Muslims.
First of all, I'm not your buddy! Second, read what I wrote. I'm not
talking about what muslims are ALLOWED to do, merely what *SOME*
practice. They consider themselves as muslim as you, so don't retort
with the old and tired "they MUST NOT BE TRUE MUSLIMS" bullshit. If I
gave you the names what will you do with this information? Is a fatwa
going to be leashed out against the perpetrators? Do you honestly think
that someone who did it would voluntarily come forward and confess?
With the kind of extremism shown by your co-religionaries? Fat chance.
At any rate, there can be no conclusive "proof" by the very nature of
the act. Perhaps people that indulge in this practice agree with you in
theory, but hope that Allah will forgive them in the end.
I think it's rather arrogant of you to pretend to speak for all muslims
in this regard. Also, kind of silly. Are you insinuating that because
the Koranic law forbids it, there are no criminals in muslim countries?
This is as far as I care to go on this subject. The weakness of your
arguments are for all netters to see. Over and out...
--
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com
|
From: richard@harlqn.co.uk (Richard Brooksby)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
> > More horrible deaths resulted from atheism than anything else.
>
> There are definitely quite a few horrible deaths as the result of
> both atheists AND theists. ... Perhaps, since I'm a bit weak on
> history, somone here would like to give a list of wars caused/led by
> theists? ...
This thread seems to be arguing the validity of a religious viewpoint
according to some utilitarian principle, i.e. atheism/religion is
wrong because it causes death. The underlying `moral' is that death
is `wrong'. This is a rather arbitrary measure of validity.
Get some epistemology.
---
richard@harlequin.com (Internet)
richard@harlequin.co.uk (Internet)
RPTB1@UK.AC.CAMBRIDGE.PHOENIX (JANET)
Zen Buddhist
|
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: A Little Too Satanic
In article <66615@mimsy.umd.edu>, mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
|> Jon Livesey writes:
|>
|> |> What I said was that people took time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly.
|> |> Translations present completely different issues.
|>
|>
|> >So why do I read in the papers that the Qumram texts had "different
|> >versions" of some OT texts. Did I misunderstand?
|>
|> Reading newspapers to learn about this kind of stuff is not the best idea in
|> the world. Newspaper reporters are notoriously ignorant on the subject of
|> religion, and are prone to exaggeration in the interests of having a "real"
|> story (that is, a bigger headline).
|>
|> Let's back up to 1935. At this point, we have the Masoretic text, the
|> various targums (translations/commentaries in aramaic, etc.), and the
|> Septuagint, the ancient greek translation. The Masoretic text is the
|> standard Jewish text and essentially does not vary. In some places it has
|> obvious corruptions, all of which are copied faithfully from copy to copy.
|> These passages in the past were interpreted by reference to the targums and
|> to the Septuagint.
So when they took the time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly, that includes
"obvious corruptions?"
|>
|> Now, the septuagint differs from the masoretic text in two particulars:
|> first, it includes additional texts, and second, in some passages there are
|> variant readings from the masoretic text (in addition to "fixing"/predating
|> the various corrupted passages). It must be emphasized that, to the best of
|> my knowledge, these variations are only signifcant to bible scholars, and
|> have little theological import.
So when they took the time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly, that does not
exclude "variant readings from the masoretic text" which are "of little
theological import"
|>
|> The dead sea scroll materials add to this an ancient *copy* of almost all of
|> Isaiah and fragments of various sizes of almost all other OT books. There
|> is also an abundance of other material, but as far as I know, there is no
|> sign there of any hebrew antecdent to the apocrypha (the extra texts in the
|> septuagint). As far as analysis has proceeded, there are also variations
|> between the DSS texts and the masoretic versions. These tend to reflect the
|> septuagint, where the latter isn't obviously in error. Again, though, the
|> differences (thus far) are not significant theologically. There is this big
|> expectation that there are great theological surprises lurking in the
|> material, but so far this hasn't happened.
|>
|> The DSS *are* important because there is almost no textual tradition in the
|> OT, unlike for the NT.
Hey, you're the expert.
jon.
|
Subject: Re: Biblical Rape
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
In article <1993Apr04.225107.39364@watson.ibm.com>
strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
(Deletion)
>
>The thread "Biblical Rape" was initiated by David O Hunt.
>Here is his posting:
>In article <8feu_KO00XsF0kpc5p@andrew.cmu.edu>, David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU> writes:
>|> I'm pretty sure I've seen biblical rules for when it's allowable to rape
>|> prisoners, what the codes are about that, etc. Could some more
>|> knowledgable soul than I please let me know some references?
>
>He asked a very narrow question, and I gave a very narrow answer.
>
Yes, sorry. I have got that wrong. My apology.
(Deletion)
>No. David Hunt's post didn't mention a god, nor did my response.
>You were the first to bring up the idea of the Bible being "given
>by god". Most Jews don't believe this in any literal sense.
>
So? No fun, but I must have met the minority then.
And "given by god" refers to any action whereby a god
god causes or better effects something.
Rob, I am not intimate with Jewish theology, but I understand
that you are a Messianic Jew. Correct me if I am wrong, but
it appears that the views of Messianic Jews on metaphysics
is different to that of the majority of Jews. While Jewish
theology overall is quite distinct from the Christianic god
views, I have heard that it is possible for Jews to attribute
evil to their god, an no-no for Christians, the Bible is
still seen as effect of the interaction of some god with man.
(Deletion)
>No. I thought we agreed that though Jews disagree,
>there are a set of core beliefs that they do agree upon,
>one of which is that the commandments are accessible
>and written in the language of the time, and another
>of which is that there must be a legal system to update them.
>
The context was metaphysics, even when the process of adapting
the commandments is not transcendent, the justification of the
process lie in metaphysic specualtion. I wonder how you break
out of the shackles of having metaphysics in your system.
(Deletion)
>Could you explain this with respect to the original commandments
>being discussed --- that is, the commandment that says if
>you feel like raping a woman prisoner, you should instead
>wait and marry her? What about "the way this commandment
>is given" invalidates it?
>
Is is in a book that commands to commit genocide among other
reprehensible deeds. The context is repulsive, and it is
foul play, IMO, to invoke some relatively enlightened passages
as an example for the content of the whole book.
(Big deletion)
>|>
>|> The point is that I see that there is a necessary connection
>|> between the theology you use and the interpretation of the Bible.
>|>
>
>Only very loosely. My interpretation of the Bible is
>based on a long tradition of Jewish scholars interpreting
>the Bible. Theology doesn't really enter into it ---
>there are Jewish atheists who interpret the laws of
>charity essentially the same way I do.
>
No, not the interpretation of some laws, but the interpretation of
the bible. As in the example that Sodom and Gomorrha mean argue
with god. The whole idea that it is metaphorically and yet allows
you to argue with a god (whatever that means, that alone is a theo-
logic question) is proof of a theology used.
>|> >You pose another metaphysical riddle!
>|>
>|> No, you do.
>|>
>
>Well, you wrote this:
>|> Fine. So we have some major spirit with neither absolute power
>|> nor absolute knowledge. And, as it appears, limited means or will
>|> to communicate with us. Some form of spiritual big friend.
>|> Do you admit that using god in this context is somewhat unusual?
>|>
>|> Am I right in the assumption that it cannot have created the
>|> universe as well? And that the passages in the Bible referring
>|> to that or its omnipotence are crap?
>
>That's what I meant by the "riddle".
>
It is an important question in the light of what for instance the
passage witrh Sodom and Gomorrha means. Either there is some connection
between the text, the fact that it exists, and your interpretation of
it, or it is purely arbitrary.. Further, the question is why is has
one to carry the burden of Biblical texts when one could simply write
other books that convey the message better. You might answer that one
can't becuase some peculiar Biblical information might be lost, but
that holds true of every other book, and the question remains why has
the Bible still a special place? Can't it be replaced somehow? Is it
ok to bargain the dangerous content of the Bible against some other
message that is included as well?
(Deletion)
>|> Do you see the danger in doing so? Especially with the metaphers used
>|> in the Bible?
>
>I think the danger of doing so is less than either the
>danger of having a frozen system of laws, or having no laws.
>
Sorry, but there are worse systems does not say anything about if
one could not have a better system.
(Deletion)
>If we
>read two stories about the importance of helping the poor,
>and in one God is a spirit, and in the other God has a body,
>which is more important, helping the poor, or resolving
>the contradiction about the corporeal nature of God?
>
If we read two stories in the Bible, one that god commands people
to kill children for being idolaters and another where god kills
children directly, what is more important to resolve, the message that
children are to be killed or if it has to be done by god?
And the argument you have given is a fallacy, while it may not be important
in the context you have given to find out if god is corporeal or not, it
can be crucial in other questions. Religious believers resolve contradictions
with that they choose one of the possibilities given in an arbitrary way,
and have the advantage of being able to attribute their decision to some
god.
One cannot resolve questions by the statement do what is good when what
is good depends on the question.
Benedikt
|
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: THE POPE IS JEWISH!
>DATE: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 18:13:09 GMT
>FROM: R. Bruce Rakes <bruce@cortex.dixie.com>
>
>mcgoy@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu (David McGaughey) writes:
>
>>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!
>
>And I always heard it:
>
>Is the bear Catholic?
>Does the pope ????
>
>Oh nevermind!
>--
>R. Bruce Rakes, Software Systems Manager
>Elekta Instruments, Inc. 8 Executive Park W, Suite 809, Atlanta, GA 30329
>Voice:(404)315-1225 FAX:(404)315-7850 email: bruce@elekta.com
>
Anyone from Alabama knows it should be:
Is "The Bear" Catholic?
Does a Pope shit in the woods?
The Pope may not be a bear, but "The Bear" is a god.
(Paul "Bear" Bryant, Football coach/god, University of Alabama.)
|
From: vdp@mayo.edu (Vinayak Dutt)
Subject: Re: Islamic Banks (was Re: Slavery
In article 28833@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
#In <1993Apr14.143121.26376@bmw.mayo.edu> vdp@mayo.edu (Vinayak Dutt) writes:
#>So instead of calling it interest on deposits, you call it *returns on investements*
#>and instead of calling loans you call it *investing in business* (that is in other words
#>floating stocks in your company).
#
#No, interest is different from a return on an investment. For one
#thing, a return on an investment has greater risk, and not a set return
#(i.e. the amount of money you make can go up or down, or you might even
#lose money). The difference is, the risk of loss is shared by the
#investor, rather than practically all the risk being taken by the
#borrower when the borrower borrows from the bank.
#
But is it different from stocks ? If you wish to call an investor in stocks as
a banker, well then its your choice .....
#>Relabeling does not make it interest free !!
#
#It is not just relabeling, as I have explained above.
It *is* relabeling ...
Also its still not interest free. The investor is still taking some money ... as
dividend on his investment ... ofcourse the investor (in islamic *banking*, its your
so called *bank*) is taking more risk than the usual bank, but its still getting some
thing back in return ....
Also have you heard of junk bonds ???
---Vinayak
-------------------------------------------------------
vinayak dutt
e-mail: vdp@mayo.edu
standard disclaimers apply
-------------------------------------------------------
|
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Constructing a Logical Argument
Here's a suggestion for the logical argument FAQ. I don't think it's covered,
though the fallacy probably has a better name than the one I used: How about
it, mathew?
INCONSISTENCY AND COUNTEREXAMPLE
This occurs when one party points out that some source of information takes
stand A, which is inconsistent with B. There are two variations in which B is
either a mutually-agreed-on premise or else a stand elsewhere from the same
source. The second party fallaciously responds by saying "see, the source
really does say B, it's right here!"; this reply does not refute the allegation
of inconsistency because it does not show that the source _only_ says B.
Example of the first type: "The Koran says unbelievers should be treated in
these ways. We can both agree these are immoral." "The Koran clearly says in
this other passage that unbelievers are not to be treated that way."
Example of the second type: "There are two Biblical creation stories." "You're
wrong, since the Bible clearly describes the creation as [description]."
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole
that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
-- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
|
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: islamic authority over women
In article <1993Apr5.023044.19580@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
> 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.
> Compare that with how homos are raised. Do a study and you will get my
> point.
Oh, Bobby. You're priceless. Did I ever tell you that?
My policy with Bobby's posts, should anyone give a damn, is to flick
through the thread at high speed, searching for posts of Bobby's which
have generated a whole pile of followups, then go in and extract the
hilarious quote inevitably present for .sig purposes. Works for me.
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?
"In Allah's infinite wisdom, the universe was created from nothing,
just by saying "Be", and it became. Therefore Allah exists."
--- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #1
"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
"Plus, to the believer, it would be contradictory
to the Quran for Allah not to exist."
--- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #3
and now
"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. Compare
that with how homos are raised. Do a study and you will get my point."
-- Bobby Mozumder being Islamically Rigorous on alt.atheism
Mmmmm. Quality *and* quantity from the New Voice of Islam (pbuh).
Cheers
Simon
--
Simon Clippingdale simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
|
From: kax@cs.nott.ac.uk (Kevin Anthoney)
Subject: Re: Consciousness part II - Kev Strikes Back!
In article <1993Apr17.045559.12900@ousrvr.oulu.fi>
kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes:
>Kevin Anthoney (kax@cs.nott.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>: This post is probably either brilliant or insane. Do let me know
>: which... :-)
>
>A brilliant example of using the introspective objection against
>materialist theories of consciousness.
Diplomatic :-)
I realize I'm fighting Occam's razor in this argument, so I'll try to
explain why I feel a mind is necessary.
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.
As a specific example, I like to solve numerical crosswords (not the
simple do-the-sums-and-insert-the-answers type, the hard ones.) To do
these with any efficiency, you need to figure out a variety of tricks.
Now, I know that you can program a computer to do these puzzles, but
in doing so you have to work out the tricks _yourself_, and program
them into the computer. You can, of course, 'obfuscate' the trick, and
write the program so that it is uncovered, but as far as I can see,
the trick still has to be there in some form to be discovered. Does
this mean that all the ideas we will ever have are already
pre-programmed into our brains? This is somewhat unlikely, given that
our brains ultimately are encoded in 46 chromosomes worth of genetic
material, much of which isn't used.
One way around this is to bring the environment into the equation, but
(again, as far as I can see) this still has an air of 'if you see
object X, then perform action Y,' and we don't seem to get anywhere.
The algorithm has to anticipate what it might see, and what
conclusions to draw from it's experience.
The other problem with algorithms is their instability. Not many
algorithms survive if you take out a large portion of their code, yet
people survive strokes without going completely haywire (there are
side-effects, but patients still seem remarkably stable.) Also,
neurons in perfectly healthy people are dying at an alarming rate -
can an algorithm survive if I randomly corrupt various bits of it's
code?
The next problem is the sticky question of "What is colour?" (replace
'colour' with the sensation of your choice.) Presumably, the
materialist viewpoint is that it's the product of some kind of
chemical reaction. The usual products of such a reaction are energy +
different chemicals. Is colour a mixture of these? If this is so, a
computer won't see colour, because the chemistry is different. Does an
algorithm that sees colour have a selective advantage over an
equivalent that doesn't? It shouldn't, because the outputs of each
algorithm ought to be the same in equivalent circumstances. So why do
we see colour?
>
>However, such a view is actually a nonsolution. How should minds be
>able to act as observers, feel pain and pleasure and issue
>commands any better than the brain? Moreover, how do the interactions
>occur?
A bit of idle speculation...
If I remember correctly, quantum mechanics consists of a wavefunction,
with two processes acting on it. The first process has been called
'Unitary Evolution' (or 'U'), is governed by Schroedinger's equation
and is well known. The second process, called various things such as
'collapse of the wavefunction' or 'state vector reduction' (or 'R'),
and is more mysterious. It is usually said to occur when a
'measurement' takes place, although nobody seems to know precisely
when that occurs. When it does occur, the effect of R is to abruptly
change the wavefunction.
I envisage R as an interaction between the wavefunction and 'something
else,' which I shall imaginitively call 'part X.' It seems reasonable
to assume that _something_ causes R, although that something might be
the wavefunction itself (in which case, part X is simply the
wavefunction. Note, though, that we'd need more than U to explain R.)
Anyway, I'm speculating that minds would be in part X. There seems to
be some link between consciousness and R, in that we never see linear
superpositions of anything, although there are alternative
explainations for this. I've no idea how a brain is supposed to access
part X, but since this is only speculation, that won't matter too
much :-) My main point is that there might be a place for minds in
physics.
I'll go back to my nice padded cell now, if that's OK with you :-)
>
>
>Petri
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Anthoney kax@cs.nott.ac.uk
Don't believe anything you read in .sig files.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
From: GMILLS@CHEMICAL.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (Phil Trodwell)
Subject: Re: Societally acceptable behavior
In article <C5qGM3.DL8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
>Subject: Societally acceptable behavior
>Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 13:39:39 GMT
>Merely a question for the basis of morality
>
>Moral/Ethical behavior = _Societally_ _acceptable_ _behavior_.
>1)Who is society
>2)How do "they" define what is acceptable?
>3)How do we keep from a "whatever is legal is what is "moral" "position?
>MAC
Wow! You got me thinking now!
This is an interesting question in that recently there has been a
move in society to classify previously "socially unacceptable" yet legal
activities as OK. In the past it seems to me there were always two
coexisting methods of social control.
First (and most explicit) is legal control. That is the set of
actions we define as currently illegal and having a specifically defined set
of punishments.
Secondly (and somewhat more hidden) is social control. These are
the actions which are considered socially unacceptable and while not covered
by legal control, are scrictly controled by social censure. Ideally (if
socialization is working as it should) legal control is hardly ever needed
since most people voluntarilly control their actions due to the pressure of
social censure.
The control manifests itself in day-to-day life as "guilt" and
"morality". I've heard it said (and fully believe) that if it weren't for
the VAST majority of people policing themselves, legal control would be
absolutely impossible.
Lately (last 50, 100 years?) however there has been a move to
attempt to dissengage the individual from societal control (ie. if it ain't
illegal, then don't pick on me). I'm not saying this is wrong, merely
that it is a byproduct of a society which has:
1) A high education level,
2) A high exposure to alternative ideas via the popular media,
3) A high level of institutionalized individual rights, and
4) A "me" oriented culture.
I guess what I'm saying is that we appear to be in a state of transition,
here in the western world in that we still have many ideas about what we can\
can't allow people to do based entirely on personal squeamishness, yet we
are fully bent on maximizing individual freedoms to the max as long as
those freedoms don't impinge on another's.
IMHO society is trying to persue two mutually exclusive ends here. While we
appreciate and persue individual rights (these satisfy the old
territoriality and dominance instincts), the removal of socialized,
inherent fears based on ignorance will result in the
continued destabilization of society.
I got no quick fix. I have no idea how we can get ourselves out of this
mess. I know I would never consent to the roll-back of personal freedoms
in order to "stabilize" society. Yet I believe development of societies
follow a Darwinian process which selects for stability. Can we find a
social model which maximizes indiv. freed.'s yet is stable? Perhaps it is
possible to live with a "non-stable" society?
Anybody see a way out? Comments?
PS. Therefore answer to question #3: We don't. Do we want to?
Phil Trodwell
*** This space ***| "I'd be happy to ram a goddam 440-volt cattle
*** for rent. ***| prod into that tub with you right now, but not
*** (cheap) ***| this radio!" -Hunter S. Thompson
|
Subject: Re: Ancient islamic rituals
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
In article <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>
> I propose that these two trends -- greater level of general
> depression in society (and other psychological problems) and
> greater sexual promiscuity -- are linked, with the latter being
> a prime cause of the former. I cannot provide any evidence beyond
> this at this stage, but the whole thesis seems very reasonable to
> me and I request that people ponder upon it.
I pondered it for all of ten seconds when I realised that since
we don't have any reliable statistics for sexual promiscuity,
and since the whole issue of "depression" isn't at all well
defined for earlier centuries, you are probably talking crap.
Of course, you could pull a Mozumder on us, and say that people
who are having sex outside marriage are *defined* to be depressed.
I can't say I'd ever noticed, myself.
jon.
|
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: free moral agency
In article <C5v09t.1Dq@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
|>
|> Okay all humans are direct descendents of of a bunch of hopeful
|> monsters. The human race didn't evolve from one set parents, but from
|> thousands. Do you really base your atheist on -this-?
In article <C5v0zp.1Dq@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
|>
|> Truly a brilliant rebuttal. Apparently you are of the opinion that
|> ridicule is a suitable substitute for reason; you'll find plenty of
|> company a.a
Bill Conner, meet Bill Conner.
jon.
|