text
stringlengths 37
51.2k
|
|---|
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <<Pompous ass
Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>I think you should support your first claim, that people will simply
>>harass me no matter what, as I doubt this is true. I think *some* of the
>>theists will be at a loss, and that is enough reason for me.
>Because "IN GOD WE TRUST" is a motto on the coins, and the coins
>are a representation of the government, christians are given
>ammunition here to slander atheists as unpatriotic.
So, we should ban the ammunition? Why not get rid of the guns?
>And yes, I have heard this used in conversation with christians.
>Sure, they may fall back on other things, but this is one they
>should not have available to use.
It is worse than others? The National Anthem? Should it be changed too?
God Bless America? The list goes on...
>Imagine if the next year's set of coins were labeled with
>the motto: "GOD IS DEAD".
>Certainly, such a statement on U.S. coins would offend almost
>every christian. And I'd be tempted to rub that motto in the
>face of christians when debunking their standard motto slinging
>gets boring.
Then you'd be no better than the people you despise.
>Any statement printed on an item that represents
>the government is an endorsement by the government.
Oh?
>The coin motto is an endorsement of trusting in god.
An endorsement, or an acknowledgement? I think gods are things that people
are proud of, but I don't think the motto encourages belief.
>I don't particularly feel like trusting in god,
>so the government IS putting me down with every
>coin it prints.
Is it?
[...]
>For the motto to be legitimate, it would have to read:
> "In god, gods, or godlessness we trust"
Would you approve of such a motto?
>Whether the motto was intended to be anti-atheist or not,
>it turns up as an open invitation to use as an anti-atheist tool.
And removing the tool will solve the problem?
Or will it increase the problem?
keith
|
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Moraltiy? (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
In article <1ql8ekINN635@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >>>>What if I act morally for no particular reason? Then am I moral? What
|> >>>>if morality is instinctive, as in most animals?
|> >>>
|> >>>Saying that morality is instinctive in animals is an attempt to
|> >>>assume your conclusion.
|> >>
|> >>Which conclusion?
|> >
|> >You conclusion - correct me if I err - that the behaviour which is
|> >instinctive in animals is a "natural" moral system.
|>
|> See, we are disagreeing on the definition of moral here. Earlier, you said
|> that it must be a conscious act. By your definition, no instinctive
|> behavior pattern could be an act of morality. You are trying to apply
|> human terms to non-humans.
Pardon me? *I* am trying to apply human terms to non-humans?
I think there must be some confusion here. I'm the guy who is
saying that if animal behaviour is instinctive then it does *not*
have any moral sugnificance. How does refusing to apply human
terms to animals get turned into applying human terms?
|> I think that even if someone is not conscious of an alternative,
|> this does not prevent his behavior from being moral.
I'm sure you do think this, if you say so. How about trying to
convince me?
|>
|> >>You don't think that morality is a behavior pattern? What is human
|> >>morality? A moral action is one that is consistent with a given
|> >>pattern. That is, we enforce a certain behavior as moral.
|> >
|> >You keep getting this backwards. *You* are trying to show that
|> >the behaviour pattern is a morality. Whether morality is a behavior
|> >pattern is irrelevant, since there can be behavior pattern, for
|> >example the motions of the planets, that most (all?) people would
|> >not call a morality.
|>
|> I try to show it, but by your definition, it can't be shown.
I've offered, four times, I think, to accept your definition if
you allow me to ascribe moral significence to the orbital motion
of the planets.
|>
|> And, morality can be thought of a large class of princples. It could be
|> defined in terms of many things--the laws of physics if you wish. However,
|> it seems silly to talk of a "moral" planet because it obeys the laws of
|> phyics. It is less silly to talk about animals, as they have at least
|> some free will.
Ah, the law of "silly" and "less silly". what Mr Livesey finds
intuitive is "silly" but what Mr Schneider finds intuitive is "less
silly".
Now that's a devastating argument, isn't it.
jon.
|
From: marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall)
Subject: Church o' Satan (was Re: islamic authority [sic] over women)
David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>who: marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall)
>what: <1q7kc3$2dj@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>
>KM> "Yeah, hilarious. Satanists believe Satan is a god, but not
>KM> the only god. Satan is a part of Christian mythology.
>KM> Therefore, one cannot reasonably worship Satan without
>KM> acknowledging the existence of a Christian god. Satanists
>KM> see Satan as their master, and they see God and Satan as
>KM> adversaries of similar power. Satanists believe in the
>KM> eventual overthrow of God and a transfer of all power to
>KM> their master. Kevin Marshall"
>
>A great many Satanists DO NOT believe in Satan. Some do, some
>don't. I'd go so far as to assert that most "orthodox" Satanists
>do not worship Satan (Church of Satan, etc.) but rather "worship"
>self. To hear LaVey say it, only idiots and fools believe in Satan
>and or Allah. He knew that suckers are born every minute.
>
>--- Maximus 2.01wb
Anton LaVey's interpretation of Satanism has always puzzled me. I
read his "Satanic Bible" a few years ago for a social studies project,
as well as a book by Arthur Lyons called "The Cult of Devil Worship
in America." The latter included a very interesting interview with
the Black Pope in which he did indeed say that Satan was merely an
instrument for one to realize the self.
When I refer to Satanism, I am referring to the mishmash of rural Satanic
ritualism and witchcraft which existed before the Church of Satan. I
don't consider LaVey's church to be at all "orthodox," nor do I consider
its followers "satanists." LaVey combined the philosophies of Nietzsche,
Crowley, and Reich, slapped in some religious doctrine, added a little
touch of P.T. Barnum, and christened his creation the Church of Satan.
No doubt the title was a calculated attempt to attract attention...I
suppose he could have just as easily called it the Church of Free Sex.
At any rate, it worked (for a while). In its heyday, the Church had a
huge following, including such Hollywood celebrities as Sammy Davis, Jr.
and Jayne Mansfield. (I have a picture of LaVey with Sammy, by the
way.)
I find the idea of a Satanist not believing in Satan about as credible as
a Christian not believing in Christ. But if you include the Church of
Satan, then I suppose I need to alter my definition. Webster's Dictionary
and The American Heritage Dictionary will have to do the same.
--
--- __ _______ ---
||| Kevin Marshall \ \/ /_ _/ Computer Science Department |||
||| Virginia Tech \ / / / marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |||
--- Blacksburg, Virginia \/ /_/ (703) 232-6529 ---
|
From: mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and anarchists
In article <timmbake.735294667@mcl> timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes:
>mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>
>>The line about atheists haveing something up their sleeves is what seemed
>>to imply that. Sorry, been reading too much on the CLIPPER project lately,
>>and the paranoia over there may have seeped in some.
>
>;) What is the CLIPPER project BTW?
The CLIPPER initiative is an announcement by Clinton that all the
"secure" voice phones will use the same crypto chip, as a de-facto
government standard. Problem is, the government is admitting that
they hold the keys to break the code easily, and the Justice department
will be using the keys to listen in on "illegal activities." Many
people are really scared about such an initiative because it is
a major step towards outlawing real crypto protection on things
like email if you read the press release. The project was developed
by NSA and given to NIST. It uses two keys S1 and S2 that the
government claims are needed to break the code. They claim that
these keys will be handed to two different companies, and when they
get a warrant to do a wiretap (the chip is nicknamed the wiretap chip),
they have to get the keys from both companies. People have poked holes
through and through the press release official version and shown how
it is nowhere near as nice as it sounds, and I have given the simplified
version. People over on sci.crypt are really scared about this
proposal it seems.
--
***************************************************************************
* mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu * Never program and drink beer at the same *
* M^2 * time. It doesn't work. *
***************************************************************************
|
From: tclark@tlcslip.uncecs.edu (Thomas B. Clark)
Subject: Re: "So help you God" in court?
I don't think there is really any question about which god the courts
mean. The request for solemnly swearing, so help you god,
is always made after a request to pick up the bible in your left hand
and hold up your right hand. In the courts of NC, at least, it is always
an old and new testament.
Though it is hard to imagine, picking up the bible and swearing to (whatever)
god is sometimes the least of the religious influence. There is a court in
Greensboro, NC, where the judge routinely has everyone in the courtroom
stand to join him in prayer at the beginning of every session. I've thought about
sitting through it, but I'm not terribly anxious to spend 30 days in jail...
|
From: wilsonr@logica.co.uk
Subject: Re: What it means to be human? (Was: PARSIFAL)
In article <1993Apr16.001326.15820@cs.ucla.edu>, Brad Pierce <pierce@cs.ucla.edu> writes:
>...
> The bedrock of "spiritual" unreason is the belief that resonant, yet
but theology is full of reason even if it is, as we believe, based on false
premises etc etc.
> ill-defined, terms, e.g., "spirit", "transcendental", "mind", "self",
> "consciousness", "ultimate reality", "soul", "elan vital", etc. have
> meaning. Sadly, adherents of "spiritual" movements are seldom satisfied
hold on there: no meaning to "consciousness" or "mind" or "self"?!
> with this harmless illogicality; they seem inexorably drawn to a belief
what illogicality?
> in "the primacy of the spiritual and transcendental over the material
> and empirical," i.e., the primacy of pipe dreams, jabberwocky and
> illusion over facts, science and reason.
since when is, for instance, (non-behaviourist) psychology a pipe dream?
Surely the major purpose of the science of psychology is to understand the
workings of the mind.
> All creatures, all feelings, all thoughts, all perceptions, all
> processes and all phenomena are manifestations of the mundane, i.e.,
> matter, energy, space and time. Those who believe otherwise, albeit
> some do not supplicate "God", are not atheists.
"manifestations of the mundane" sounds rather transcendental to me. In fact
"matter", "energy", "space" and "time" are well measured but mysterious
concepts.
Does an atheist really have to believe in your reductionism or be cast out as
not following the true faith?!
Richard Wilson
Logica Industry Ltd
|
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Subject: Re: Radical Agnostic... NOT!
[reply to zazen@austin.ibm.com (E. H. Welbon)]
>>> There is no means that i can possibly think of to prove beyond doubt
>>>that a god does not exist (but if anyone has one, by all means, tell me
>>>what it is). Therefore, lacking this ability of absolute proof, being an
>>>atheist becomes an act of faith in and of itself, and this I cannot accept.
>>> I accept nothing on blind faith.
>>Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns! Need I say more?
>...I harbor no beliefs at all, there is no good evidence for god
>existing or not. Some folks call this agnosticism. It does not suffer
>from "blind faith" at all. I think of it as "Don't worry, be happy".
For many atheists, the lack of belief in gods is secondary to an
epistemological consideration: what do we accept as a reliable way of
knowing? There are no known valid logical arguments for the existence
of gods, nor is there any empirical evidence that they exist. Most
philosophers and theologians agree that the idea of a god is one that
must be accepted on faith. Faith is belief without a sound logical
basis or empirical evidence. It is a reliable way of knowing?
There is probably nothing else most people would accept in the absence
of any possibility of proof. Even when we agree to take someone elses
word "on faith", we just mean that having found this person to be
reliable in the past, we judge him likely to be a reliable source now.
If we find faith less reliable than logic and empirical evidence
everywhere else, why assume it will provide reliable knowledge about
gods?
The difference between the atheist and the theist is fundamentally then
one of whether or not faith is held to be a reliable way of knowing,
rather than, as some agnostic posters would have it, whether ones faith
is in gods or no gods. The theist believes that faith is an acceptable
basis for a belief in gods, even if he rejects faith as reliable at
other times, for example in his work as a scientist. The atheist
believes that only logic and empirical evidence lead to reliable
knowledge. Agnosticism seems to me a less defensible position than
theism or atheism, unless one is a sceptic in regards to all other
knowledge. Without evidence, why should we believe in gods rather than
Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?
I would also like to point out as others have that the atheist doesn't
require absolute knowledge of the lack of gods. I don't believe that
there is any such thing as absolute knowledge. Atheism is the best and
simplest theory to fit the (lack of) facts and so should be held until
contrary evidence is found.
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: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Overview for New Readers
Archive-name: atheism/overview
Alt-atheism-archive-name: overview
Last-modified: 20 April 1993
Version: 1.3
Overview
Welcome to alt.atheism and alt.atheism.moderated.
This is the first in a series of regular postings aimed at new readers of the
newsgroups.
Many groups of a 'controversial' nature have noticed that new readers often
come up with the same questions, mis-statements or misconceptions and post
them to the net. In addition, people often request information which has
been posted time and time again. In order to try and cut down on this, the
alt.atheism groups have a series of five regular postings under the following
titles:
1. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Overview for New Readers
2. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Introduction to Atheism
3. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
4. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Constructing a Logical Argument
5. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Atheist Resources
This is article number 1. Please read numbers 2 and 3 before posting. The
others are entirely optional.
If you are new to Usenet, you may also find it helpful to read the newsgroup
news.announce.newusers. The articles titled "A Primer on How to Work With
the Usenet Community", "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Usenet"
and "Hints on writing style for Usenet" are particularly relevant. Questions
concerning how news works are best asked in news.newusers.questions.
If you are unable to find any of the articles listed above, see the "Finding
Stuff" section below.
Credits
These files could not have been written without the assistance of the many
readers of alt.atheism and alt.atheism.moderated. In particular, I'd like to
thank the following people:
kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold)
torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
kmldorf@utdallas.edu (George Kimeldorf)
roe2@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Roelofs)
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
mayne@open.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne)
ajr@bigbird.hri.com (Andy Rosen)
stoesser@ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser)
bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan)
lippard@ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
s1b3832@rigel.tamu.edu (S. Baum)
ydobyns@phoenix.princeton.edu (York H. Dobyns)
schroede@sdsc.edu (Wayne Schroeder)
baldwin@csservera.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
D_NIBBY@unhh.unh.edu (Dana Nibby)
dempsey@Kodak.COM (Richard C. Dempsey)
jmunch@hertz,elee.calpoly.edu (John David Munch)
pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
rz@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Richard Zach)
tycchow@math.mit.edu (Tim Chow)
simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
PHIMANEN@cc.helsinki.fi (Pekka Himanen)
...and countless others I've forgotten.
These articles are free. Truly free. You may copy them and distribute them
to anyone you wish. However, please send any changes or corrections to the
author, and please do not re-post copies of the articles to alt.atheism; it
does nobody any good to have multiple versions of the same document floating
around the network.
Finding Stuff
All of the FAQ files *should* be somewhere on your news system. Here are
some suggestions on what to do if you can't find them:
1. Check the newsgroup alt.atheism. Look for subject lines starting with
"Alt.Atheism FAQ:".
2. Check the newsgroup news.answers for the same subject lines.
If you don't find anything in steps 1 or 2, your news system isn't set up
correctly, and you may wish to tell your system administrator about the
problem.
3. If you have anonymous FTP access, connect to rtfm.mit.edu [18.70.0.226].
Go to the directory /pub/usenet/alt.atheism, and you'll find the latest
versions of the FAQ files there.
FTP is a a way of copying files between networked computers. If you
need help in using or getting started with FTP, send e-mail to
mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with
send usenet/news.answers/ftp-list/faq
in the body.
4. There are other sites which also carry news.answers postings. The article
"Introduction to the news.answers newsgroup" carries a list of these
sites; the article is posted regularly to news.answers.
5. If you don't have FTP, send mail to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu
consisting of the following lines:
send usenet/news.answers/finding-sources
send usenet/alt.atheism/faq
send usenet/alt.atheism/introduction
send usenet/alt.atheism/logic
send usenet/alt.atheism/resources
5. (Penultimate resort) Send mail to mail-server@mantis.co.uk consisting of
the following lines:
send atheism/faq/faq.txt
send atheism/faq/logic.txt
send atheism/faq/intro.txt
send atheism/faq/resource.txt
and our poor overworked modems will try and send you a copy of the files.
There's other stuff, too; interesting commands to try are "help" and
"send atheism/index".
6. (Last resort) Mail mathew@mantis.co.uk, or post an article to the
newsgroup asking how you can get the FAQ files. You should only do this
if you've tried the above methods and they've failed; it's not nice to
clutter the newsgroup or people's mailboxes with requests for files.
it's better than posting without reading the FAQ, though! For instance,
people whose email addresses get mangled in transit and who don't have
FTP will probably need assistance obtaining the FAQ files.
mathew
|
From: gmiller@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller)
Subject: Re: Radical Agnostic... NOT!
In article <1993Apr6.013657.5691@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
(David Nye) wrote:
>
> [reply to zazen@austin.ibm.com (E. H. Welbon)]
>
> >>> There is no means that i can possibly think of to prove beyond doubt
> >>>that a god does not exist (but if anyone has one, by all means, tell me
> >>>what it is). Therefore, lacking this ability of absolute proof, being an
> >>>atheist becomes an act of faith in and of itself, and this I cannot accept.
> >>> I accept nothing on blind faith.
>
> >>Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns! Need I say more?
>
> >...I harbor no beliefs at all, there is no good evidence for god
> >existing or not. Some folks call this agnosticism. It does not suffer
> >from "blind faith" at all. I think of it as "Don't worry, be happy".
>
> For many atheists, the lack of belief in gods is secondary to an
> epistemological consideration: what do we accept as a reliable way of
> knowing? There are no known valid logical arguments for the existence
> of gods, nor is there any empirical evidence that they exist. Most
> philosophers and theologians agree that the idea of a god is one that
> must be accepted on faith. Faith is belief without a sound logical
> basis or empirical evidence. It is a reliable way of knowing?
>
Could you expand on your definition of knowing? It seems a bit monolithic
here, but I'm not sure that you intend that. Don't we need, for example, to
distinguish between "knowing" 2 plus 2 equals 4 (or 2 apples plus 2 apples
equals 4 apples), the French "knowing" that Jerry Lewis is an auteur, and
what it means to say we "know" what Socrates said?
> This is patently absurd; but whoever wishes to become a philosopher
> must learn not to be frightened by absurdities. -- Bertrand Russell
I like this epigraph. Perhaps the issue is learning which, if any,
absurdities merit further exploration...Gene
|
Subject: Re: Don't more innocents die without the death penalty?
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
In article <chrisb.734068710@bAARNie>, chrisb@tafe.sa.edu.au (Chris BELL) writes...
> killing is wrong
> if you kill we will punish you
> our punishment will be to kill you.
>
>Seems to be lacking in consistency.
Not any more so than
holding people against their will is wrong
if you hold people against their will we will punish you
our punishment will be to hold you against your will
Is there any punishment which isn't something which, if done by a private
person to another private person for no apparent reason, would lead to
punishment? (Fines, I suppose.)
Jim Lippard Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
|
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
In article <1993Apr15.150938.975@news.wesleyan.edu>, SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu
(SCOTT D. SAUYET) says:
>Are these his final words? (And how many here would find that
>appropriate?) Or is it just that finals got in the way?
>Keep your fingers crossed!
Why should I keep my fingers crossed? I doubt it would do anything. :)
Martin Schulte
|
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Atheist Resources
Archive-name: atheism/resources
Alt-atheism-archive-name: resources
Last-modified: 5 April 1993
Version: 1.1
Atheist Resources
Addresses of Atheist Organizations
USA
FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION
Darwin fish bumper stickers and assorted other atheist paraphernalia are
available from the Freedom From Religion Foundation in the US.
Write to: FFRF, P.O. Box 750, Madison, WI 53701.
Telephone: (608) 256-8900
EVOLUTION DESIGNS
Evolution Designs sell the "Darwin fish". It's a fish symbol, like the ones
Christians stick on their cars, but with feet and the word "Darwin" written
inside. The deluxe moulded 3D plastic fish is $4.95 postpaid in the US.
Write to: Evolution Designs, 7119 Laurel Canyon #4, North Hollywood,
CA 91605.
People in the San Francisco Bay area can get Darwin Fish from Lynn Gold --
try mailing <figmo@netcom.com>. For net people who go to Lynn directly, the
price is $4.95 per fish.
SET FREE
Atheist stickers, T-shirts and books.
Write to: Set Free, P.O. Box 3065-192, Garden Grove, CA 92642.
AMERICAN ATHEIST PRESS
AAP publish various atheist books -- critiques of the Bible, lists of
Biblical contradictions, and so on. One such book is:
"The Bible Handbook" by W.P. Ball and G.W. Foote. American Atheist Press.
372 pp. ISBN 0-910309-26-4, 2nd edition, 1986. Bible contradictions,
absurdities, atrocities, immoralities... contains Ball, Foote: "The Bible
Contradicts Itself", AAP. Based on the King James version of the Bible.
Write to: American Atheist Press, P.O. Box 140195, Austin, TX 78714-0195.
or: 7215 Cameron Road, Austin, TX 78752-2973.
Telephone: (512) 458-1244
Fax: (512) 467-9525
PROMETHEUS BOOKS
Sell books including Haught's "Holy Horrors" (see below).
Write to: 700 East Amherst Street, Buffalo, New York 14215.
Telephone: (716) 837-2475.
An alternate address (which may be newer or older) is:
Prometheus Books, 59 Glenn Drive, Buffalo, NY 14228-2197.
AFRICAN-AMERICANS FOR HUMANISM
An organization promoting black secular humanism and uncovering the history of
black freethought. They publish a quarterly newsletter, AAH EXAMINER.
Write to: Norm R. Allen, Jr., African Americans for Humanism, P.O. Box 664,
Buffalo, NY 14226.
United Kingdom
Rationalist Press Association National Secular Society
88 Islington High Street 702 Holloway Road
London N1 8EW London N19 3NL
071 226 7251 071 272 1266
British Humanist Association South Place Ethical Society
14 Lamb's Conduit Passage Conway Hall
London WC1R 4RH Red Lion Square
071 430 0908 London WC1R 4RL
fax 071 430 1271 071 831 7723
The National Secular Society publish "The Freethinker", a monthly magazine
founded in 1881.
Germany
IBKA e.V.
Internationaler Bund der Konfessionslosen und Atheisten
Postfach 880, D-1000 Berlin 41. Germany.
IBKA publish a journal:
MIZ. (Materialien und Informationen zur Zeit. Politisches
Journal der Konfessionslosesn und Atheisten. Hrsg. IBKA e.V.)
MIZ-Vertrieb, Postfach 880, D-1000 Berlin 41. Germany.
For atheist books, write to:
IBDK, Internationaler B"ucherdienst der Konfessionslosen
Postfach 3005, D-3000 Hannover 1. Germany.
Telephone: 0511/211216
Books -- Fiction
THOMAS M. DISCH
"The Santa Claus Compromise"
Short story. The ultimate proof that Santa exists. All characters and
events are fictitious. Any similarity to living or dead gods -- uh, well...
WALTER M. MILLER, JR
"A Canticle for Leibowitz"
One gem in this post atomic doomsday novel is the monks who spent their lives
copying blueprints from "Saint Leibowitz", filling the sheets of paper with
ink and leaving white lines and letters.
EDGAR PANGBORN
"Davy"
Post atomic doomsday novel set in clerical states. The church, for example,
forbids that anyone "produce, describe or use any substance containing...
atoms".
PHILIP K. DICK
Philip K. Dick Dick wrote many philosophical and thought-provoking short
stories and novels. His stories are bizarre at times, but very approachable.
He wrote mainly SF, but he wrote about people, truth and religion rather than
technology. Although he often believed that he had met some sort of God, he
remained sceptical. Amongst his novels, the following are of some relevance:
"Galactic Pot-Healer"
A fallible alien deity summons a group of Earth craftsmen and women to a
remote planet to raise a giant cathedral from beneath the oceans. When the
deity begins to demand faith from the earthers, pot-healer Joe Fernwright is
unable to comply. A polished, ironic and amusing novel.
"A Maze of Death"
Noteworthy for its description of a technology-based religion.
"VALIS"
The schizophrenic hero searches for the hidden mysteries of Gnostic
Christianity after reality is fired into his brain by a pink laser beam of
unknown but possibly divine origin. He is accompanied by his dogmatic and
dismissively atheist friend and assorted other odd characters.
"The Divine Invasion"
God invades Earth by making a young woman pregnant as she returns from
another star system. Unfortunately she is terminally ill, and must be
assisted by a dead man whose brain is wired to 24-hour easy listening music.
MARGARET ATWOOD
"The Handmaid's Tale"
A story based on the premise that the US Congress is mysteriously
assassinated, and fundamentalists quickly take charge of the nation to set it
"right" again. The book is the diary of a woman's life as she tries to live
under the new Christian theocracy. Women's right to own property is revoked,
and their bank accounts are closed; sinful luxuries are outlawed, and the
radio is only used for readings from the Bible. Crimes are punished
retroactively: doctors who performed legal abortions in the "old world" are
hunted down and hanged. Atwood's writing style is difficult to get used to
at first, but the tale grows more and more chilling as it goes on.
VARIOUS AUTHORS
"The Bible"
This somewhat dull and rambling work has often been criticized. However, it
is probably worth reading, if only so that you'll know what all the fuss is
about. It exists in many different versions, so make sure you get the one
true version.
Books -- Non-fiction
PETER DE ROSA
"Vicars of Christ", Bantam Press, 1988
Although de Rosa seems to be Christian or even Catholic this is a very
enlighting history of papal immoralities, adulteries, fallacies etc.
(German translation: "Gottes erste Diener. Die dunkle Seite des Papsttums",
Droemer-Knaur, 1989)
MICHAEL MARTIN
"Atheism: A Philosophical Justification", Temple University Press,
Philadelphia, USA.
A detailed and scholarly justification of atheism. Contains an outstanding
appendix defining terminology and usage in this (necessarily) tendentious
area. Argues both for "negative atheism" (i.e. the "non-belief in the
existence of god(s)") and also for "positive atheism" ("the belief in the
non-existence of god(s)"). Includes great refutations of the most
challenging arguments for god; particular attention is paid to refuting
contempory theists such as Platinga and Swinburne.
541 pages. ISBN 0-87722-642-3 (hardcover; paperback also available)
"The Case Against Christianity", Temple University Press
A comprehensive critique of Christianity, in which he considers
the best contemporary defences of Christianity and (ultimately)
demonstrates that they are unsupportable and/or incoherent.
273 pages. ISBN 0-87722-767-5
JAMES TURNER
"Without God, Without Creed", The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
MD, USA
Subtitled "The Origins of Unbelief in America". Examines the way in which
unbelief (whether agnostic or atheistic) became a mainstream alternative
world-view. Focusses on the period 1770-1900, and while considering France
and Britain the emphasis is on American, and particularly New England
developments. "Neither a religious history of secularization or atheism,
Without God, Without Creed is, rather, the intellectual history of the fate
of a single idea, the belief that God exists."
316 pages. ISBN (hardcover) 0-8018-2494-X (paper) 0-8018-3407-4
GEORGE SELDES (Editor)
"The great thoughts", Ballantine Books, New York, USA
A "dictionary of quotations" of a different kind, concentrating on statements
and writings which, explicitly or implicitly, present the person's philosophy
and world-view. Includes obscure (and often suppressed) opinions from many
people. For some popular observations, traces the way in which various
people expressed and twisted the idea over the centuries. Quite a number of
the quotations are derived from Cardiff's "What Great Men Think of Religion"
and Noyes' "Views of Religion".
490 pages. ISBN (paper) 0-345-29887-X.
RICHARD SWINBURNE
"The Existence of God (Revised Edition)", Clarendon Paperbacks, Oxford
This book is the second volume in a trilogy that began with "The Coherence of
Theism" (1977) and was concluded with "Faith and Reason" (1981). In this
work, Swinburne attempts to construct a series of inductive arguments for the
existence of God. His arguments, which are somewhat tendentious and rely
upon the imputation of late 20th century western Christian values and
aesthetics to a God which is supposedly as simple as can be conceived, were
decisively rejected in Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism". In the revised
edition of "The Existence of God", Swinburne includes an Appendix in which he
makes a somewhat incoherent attempt to rebut Mackie.
J. L. MACKIE
"The Miracle of Theism", Oxford
This (posthumous) volume contains a comprehensive review of the principal
arguments for and against the existence of God. It ranges from the classical
philosophical positions of Descartes, Anselm, Berkeley, Hume et al, through
the moral arguments of Newman, Kant and Sidgwick, to the recent restatements
of the classical theses by Plantinga and Swinburne. It also addresses those
positions which push the concept of God beyond the realm of the rational,
such as those of Kierkegaard, Kung and Philips, as well as "replacements for
God" such as Lelie's axiarchism. The book is a delight to read - less
formalistic and better written than Martin's works, and refreshingly direct
when compared with the hand-waving of Swinburne.
JAMES A. HAUGHT
"Holy Horrors: An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness",
Prometheus Books
Looks at religious persecution from ancient times to the present day -- and
not only by Christians.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 89-64079. 1990.
NORM R. ALLEN, JR.
"African American Humanism: an Anthology"
See the listing for African Americans for Humanism above.
GORDON STEIN
"An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism", Prometheus Books
An anthology covering a wide range of subjects, including 'The Devil, Evil
and Morality' and 'The History of Freethought'. Comprehensive bibliography.
EDMUND D. COHEN
"The Mind of The Bible-Believer", Prometheus Books
A study of why people become Christian fundamentalists, and what effect it
has on them.
GEORGE H. SMITH
"Atheism: The Case Against God", Prometheus Books
Describes the positions of atheism, theism and agnosticism. Reviews many
of the arguments used in favour of the existence of God. Concludes with an
assessment of the impact of God on people's lives.
Net Resources
There's a small mail-based archive server at mantis.co.uk which carries
archives of old alt.atheism.moderated articles and assorted other files. For
more information, send mail to archive-server@mantis.co.uk saying
help
send atheism/index
and it will mail back a reply.
mathew
|
From: Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: free moral agency
In article <C5pxqs.LM5@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill
Conner) says:
>
>dean.kaflowitz (decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com) wrote:
>
>: Now, what I am interested in is the original notion you were discussing
>: on moral free agency. That is, how can a god punish a person for
>: not believing in him when that person is only following his or her
>: nature and it is not possible for that person to deny what his or
>: her reason tells him or her, which is that there is no god?
>
>I think you're letting atheist mythology confuse you on the issue of
(WEBSTER: myth: "a traditional or legendary story...
...a belief...whose truth is accepted uncritically.")
How does that qualify?
Indeed, it's almost oxymoronic...a rather amusing instance.
I've found that most atheists hold almost no atheist-views as
"accepted uncritically," especially the few that are legend.
Many are trying to explain basic truths, as myths do, but
they don't meet the other criterions.
Also...
>Divine justice. According to the most fundamental doctrines of
>Christianity, When the first man sinned, he was at that time the
You accuse him of referencing mythology, then you procede to
launch your own xtian mythology. (This time meeting all the
requirements of myth.)
>salvation. The idea of punishment is based on the proposition that
>everyone knows (instinctively?) that God exists, is their creator and
Ah, but not everyone "knows" that god exists. So you have
a fallacy.
>There's nothing terribly difficult in all this and is well known to
>any reasonably Biblically literate Christian. The only controversy is
And that makes it true? Holding with the Bible rules out controversy?
Read the FAQ. If you've read it, you missed something, so re-read.
(Not a bad suggestion for anyone...I re-read it just before this.)
>with those who pretend not to know what is being said and what it
>means. When atheists claim that they do -not- know if God exists and
>don't know what He wants, they contradict the Bible which clearly says
>that -everyone- knows. The authority of the Bible is its claim to be
...should I repeat what I wrote above for the sake of getting
it across? You may trust the Bible, but your trusting it doesn't
make it any more credible to me.
If the Bible says that everyone knows, that's clearly reason
to doubt the Bible, because not everyone "knows" your alleged
god's alleged existance.
>refuted while the species-wide condemnation is justified. Those that
>claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God or that His will is
>unknown, must deliberately ignore the Bible; the ignorance itself is
>no excuse.
1) No, they don't have to ignore the Bible. The Bible is far
from universally accepted. The Bible is NOT a proof of god;
it is only a proof that some people have thought that there
was a god. (Or does it prove even that? They might have been
writing it as series of fiction short-stories. As in the
case of Dionetics.) Assuming the writers believed it, the
only thing it could possibly prove is that they believed it.
And that's ignoring the problem of whether or not all the
interpretations and Biblical-philosophers were correct.
2) There are people who have truly never heard of the Bible.
3) Again, read the FAQ.
>freedom. You are free to ignore God in the same way you are free to
>ignore gravity and the consequences are inevitable and well known
>in both cases. That an atheist can't accept the evidence means only
Bzzt...wrong answer!
Gravity is directly THERE. It doesn't stop exerting a direct and
rationally undeniable influence if you ignore it. God, on the
other hand, doesn't generally show up in the supermarket, except
on the tabloids. God doesn't exert a rationally undeniable influence.
Gravity is obvious; gods aren't.
>Secondly, human reason is very comforatble with the concept of God, so
>much so that it is, in itself, intrinsic to our nature. Human reason
>always comes back to the question of God, in every generation and in
No, human reason hasn't always come back to the existance of
"God"; it has usually come back to the existance of "god".
In other words, it doesn't generally come back to the xtian
god, it comes back to whether there is any god. And, in much
of oriental philosophic history, it generally doesn't pop up as
the idea of a god so much as the question of what natural forces
are and which ones are out there. From a world-wide view,
human nature just makes us wonder how the universe came to
be and/or what force(s) are currently in control. A natural
tendancy to believe in "God" only exists in religious wishful
thinking.
>I said all this to make the point that Christianity is eminently
>reasonable, that Divine justice is just and human nature is much
>different than what atheists think it is. Whether you agree or not
Xtianity is no more reasonable than most other religions, and
it's reasonableness certainly doesn't merit eminence.
Divine justice...well, it only seems just to those who already
believe in the divinity.
First, not all atheists believe the same things about human
nature. Second, whether most atheists are correct or not,
YOU certainly are not correct on human nature. You are, at
the least, basing your views on a completely eurocentric
approach. Try looking at the outside world as well when
you attempt to sum up all of humanity.
Andrew
|
From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com
Subject: Re: Death Penalty / Gulf War (long)
In article <930420.105805.0x8.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>In article <930419.115707.6f2.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew
>><mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>> Which "liberal news media" are we talking about?
>>
>> Western news in general, but in particular the American "mass media":
>> CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. The general tone of the news during the whole
>> war was one of "those poor, poor Iraqis" along with "look how precisely
>> this cruise missile blew this building to bits".
>
> Most odd. Over here there was very little about the suffering of the Iraqi
> civilians until towards the end of the war; and then it was confined to the
> few remaining quality newspapers.
True. At first, the news media seemed entranced by all the new gizmos
the military was using, not to mention the taped video transmissions from
the missiles as they zeroed in on their targets. But later, and especially
after the bunker full of civilians was hit, they changed their tone. It
seemed to me that they didn't have the stomach for the reality of war,
that innocent people really do die and are maimed in warfare. It's like
they were only pro-Gulf-War as long as it was "nice and clean" (smart
missiles dropping in on military HQs), but not when pictures of dead,
dying, and maimed civilians started cropping up. What naive hypocrites!
>
>>>> How about all the innocent people who died in blanket-bombing in WW2?
>>>> I don't hear you bemoaning them!
[ discussion about blanket-bombing and A-bombs deleted.]
>>>
>> All things considered, the fire-bombings and the atomic bomb were
>> essential (and therefore justified) in bringing the war to a quick
^^^^^^^^^
>> end to avoid even greater allied losses.
I should have said here "militarily justified". It seems from your
comments below that you understood this as meaning "morally justified".
I apologize.
>
> What about the evidence that America knew Japan was about to surrender after
> Hiroshima but *before* Nagasaki? Is that another lie peddled by the liberal
> media conspiracy?
I have often wondered about this. I've always thought that the first bomb
should have been dropped on Japan's island fortress of Truk. A good,
inpenatrable military target. The second bomb could've been held back
for use on an industrial center if need be. But I digress.
Yes, I have heard that we found evidence (after the war, BTW) that Japan
was seriously considering surrender after the first bomb. Unfortunately,
the military junta won out over the moderates and rejected the US's
ulimatum. Therefore the second bomb was dropped. Most unfortunate, IMO.
>
>> I, for one, don't regret it.
>
> Nuke a Jap for Jesus!
>
I don't regret the fact that sometimes military decisions have to be made
which affect the lives of innocent people. But I do regret the
circumstances which make those decisions necessary, and I regret the
suffering caused by those decisions.
[...]
>>> Why all the fuss about Kuwait and not East Timor, Bosnia, or even Tibet?
>>> If Iraq is so bad, why were we still selling them stuff a couple of weeks
>>> before we started bombing?
>>
>> I make no claim or effort to justify the misguided foreign policy of the
>> West before the war. It is evident that the West, especially America,
>> misjudged Hussein drastically. But once Hussein invaded Kuwait and
>> threatened to militarily corner a significant portion of the world's
>> oil supply, he had to be stopped.
>
> Oh, I see. So we can overlook his using chemical weapons on thousands of
> people, but if he threatens your right to drive a huge gas-guzzling car,
> well, the man's gotta go.
Actually, it was the fact that both situations existed that prompted US
and allied action. If some back-water country took over some other
back-water country, we probably wouldn't intervene. Not that we don't
care, but we can't be the world's policman. Or if a coup had occured
in Kuwait (instead of an invasion), then we still wouldn't have acted
because there would not have been the imminent danger perceived to
Saudi Arabia. But the combination of the two, an unprovoked invasion
by a genocidal tyrant AND the potential danger to the West's oil
interests, caused us to take action.
>
> [ I've moved a paragraph from here to later on ]
>
[...]
>>
>> If we hadn't intervened, allowing Hussein to keep Kuwait, then it would
>> have been appeasement.
>
> Right. But did you ever hear anyone advocate such a course of action? Or
> are you just setting up a strawman?
>
I'm not setting up a strawman at all. If you want to argue against the
war, then the only logical alternative was to allow Hussein to keep
Kuwait. Diplomatic alternatives, including sanctions, were ineffective.
>>>> I guess we
>>>> shouldn't have fought WW2 either -- just think of all those innocent
>>>> German civilians killed in Dresden and Hamburg.
>>>
>>> Yes, do. Germans are human too, you know.
>>
>> Sure. What was truly unfortunate was that they followed Hitler in
>> his grandiose quest for a "Thousand Year Reich". The consequences
>> stemmed from that.
>
> Translation: "They were asking for it".
>
Well, in a sense, yes. They probably had no idea of what end Hitler
would lead their nation to.
> But what about those who didn't support Hitler's dreams of conquest? It's
> not as if they democratically voted for all his policies. The NSDAP got 43%
> in the elections of 1933, and that was the last chance the German people got
> to vote on the matter.
They suffered along with the rest. Why does this bother you so much?
The world is full of evil, and circumstances are not perfect. Many
innocents suffer due to the wrongful actions of others. It it regretable,
but that's The-Way-It-Is. There are no perfect solutions.
[...]
>>>
>>> I look forward to hearing your incisive comments about East Timor and
>>> Tibet.
>>
>> What should I say about them? Anything in particular?
>
> The people of East Timor are still being killed by a dictatorship that
> invaded their country. Hell, even Western journalists have been killed. All
> this was happening before the Gulf War. Why didn't we send in the bombers to
> East Timor? Why aren't we sending in the bombers NOW?
Probably because we're not the saviors of the world. We can't police each
and every country that decides to self-destruct or invade another. Nor
are we in a strategic position to get relief to Tibet, East Timor, or
some other places.
>
> [ Here's that paragraph I moved ]
>
>>> What's your intent? To sound like a Loving Christian? Well, you aren't
>>> doing a very good job of it.
>>
>> Well, it's not very "loving" to allow a Hussein or a Hitler to gobble up
>> nearby countries and keep them. Or to allow them to continue with mass
>> slaughter of certain peoples under their dominion. So, I'd have to
>> say yes, stopping Hussein was the most "loving" thing to do for the
>> most people involved once he set his mind on military conquest.
>
> The Chinese government has a policy of mandatory abortion and sterilization
> of Tibetans. Tibetan people are rounded up, tortured, and executed. Amnesty
> International recently reported that torture is still widespread in China.
>
> Why aren't we stopping them? In fact, why are we actively sucking up to them
> by trading freely with them?
Tell me how we could stop them and I'll support it. I, for one, do not
agree with the present US policy of "sucking up to them" as you put it.
I agree that it is deplorable.
>
>>>> And as for poor, poor Rodney King! Did you ever stop and think *why*
>>>> the jury in the first trial brought back a verdict of "not guilty"?
>>>
>>> Yes. Amongst the things I thought were "Hmm, there's an awful lot of white
>>> people in that jury."
>>
>> So? It was the *policemen* on trial not Rodney King!!
>
> Erm, surely it's irrelevant who's on trial? Juries are supposed to represent
> a cross-section of the population.
Are they? Or are they supposed to reflect the population of the locale
where the trial is held? (Normally this is where the crime is committed
unless one party or the other can convince the judge a change of venue
is in order.) I'm not an expert on California law, or even US law, but
it seems that this is the way the system is set up. You can criticize
the system, but let's not have unfounded allegations of racial
prejudice thrown around.
>
>> And under American law they deserved a jury of *their* peers!
>
> You are saying that black people are not the peers of white people?
No, not at all. The point is that the fact that there were no blacks
on the first jury and that Rodney King is black is totally irrelevant.
>
>> This point (of allegedly racial motivations) is really shallow.
>
> This idea of people only being tried before a jury of people just like them
> is really stupid. Should the Nuremburg trials have had a jury entirely made
> up of Nazis?
Germans, perhaps. "Peers" doesn't mean "those who do the same thing",
like having murderers judge murderers. It means "having people from
the same station in life", presumably because they are in a better
position to understand the defendent's motivation(s).
>
>>>> Those who have been foaming at the mouth for the blood of those
>>>> policemen certainly have looked no further than the video tape.
>>>> But the jury looked at *all* the evidence, evidence which you and I
>>>> have not seen.
>>>
>>> When I see a bunch of policemen beating someone who's lying defenceless on
>>> the ground, it's rather hard to imagine what this other evidence might have
>>> been.
>>
>> So? It's "hard to imagine"? So when has Argument from Incredulity
>> gained acceptance from the revered author of "Constructing a Logical
>> Argument"?
>
> We're not talking about a logical argument. We're talking about a court of
> law. As the FAQ points out, some fallacious arguments are not viewed as
> fallacies in a court of law.
OK, granted. However, you are using this reasoning as part of *your*
logical argument in this discussion. This is not a court of law.
>
>> If the facts as the news commentators presented them are true, then
>> I feel the "not guilty" verdict was a reasonable one.
>
> Were you not talking earlier about the bias of the liberal media conspiracy?
>
The media is not totally monolithic. Even though there is a prevailing
liberal bias, programs such as the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour try to give
a balanced and fair reporting of the news. There are even conservative
sources out there if you know where to look. (Hurrah for Rush!)
BTW, I never used the word "conspiracy". I don't accept (without *far*
more evidence) theories that there is some all-pervading liberal
conspiracy attempting to take over all news sources.
>>> "Thou shalt not kill... unless thou hast a pretty good reason for killing,
>>> in which case thou shalt kill, and also kill anyone who gets in the way,
>>> as unfortunately it cannot be helped."
>>> -- Jim Brown Bible for Loving Christians
>>
>> Thanks mathew, I like the quote. Pretty funny actually. (I'm a
>> Monty Python fan, you know. Kind of seems in that vein.)
>>
>> Of course, oversimplifying any moral argument can make it seem
>> contradictory. But then, you know that already.
>
> Ha ha, only serious.
>
> I, an atheist, am arguing against killing innocent people.
>
> You, a supposed Christian, are arguing that it's OK to kill innocent people
> so long as you get some guilty ones as well.
Hardly. I didn't say that it's a Good Thing [tm] to kill innocent people
if the end is just. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and
there are no perfect solutions. If one is going to resist tyranny, then
innocent people on both sides are going to suffer and die. I didn't say
it is OK -- it is unfortunate, but sometimes necessary.
>
> I, a moral relativist, am arguing that saturation bombing of German cities at
> the end of World War II was (as far as I can see) an evil and unnecessary act.
I would agree that it was evil in the sense that it caused much pain
and suffering. I'm not so sure that it was unnecessary as you say. That
conclusion can only be arrived at by evaluating all the factors involved.
And perhaps it *was* unnecessary as (let's say) we now know. That doesn't
mean that those who had to make the decision to bomb didn't see it as
being necessary. Rarely can one have full known of the consequences of
an action before making a decision. At the time it may have seemed
necessary enough to go ahead with it.
But don't assume that I feel the bombing was *morally* justified -- I
don't! I just don't condemn those who had to make a difficult
decision under difficult circumstances.
>
> You, having criticised moral relativism in the past, are now arguing that I am
> in no position to judge the morality of allied actions at the end of the
> War.
You certainly are not in such a position if you are a moral relativist.
I, as an absolutist, am in a position to judge, but I defer judgment.
> You are arguing that the actions need to be assessed in the particular
> context of the time, and that they might have been moral then but not moral
> now.
Wrong. They were neither moral then nor now. They seemed necessary to
those making the decisions to bring a quick end to the war. I simply
refuse to condemn them for their decision.
>
> Where's your Christian love? Where's your absolute morality? Oh, how quick
> you are to discard them when it suits you. As Ivan Stang would say, "Jesus
> would puke!"
One day I will stand before Jesus and give account of every word and action;
even this discourse in this forum. I understand the full ramifications of
that, and I am prepared to do so. I don't believe that you can make the
same claim.
>
> mathew
And BTW, the reason I brought up the blanket-bombing in Germany was
because you were bemoaning the Iraqi civilian casualties as being
"so deplorable". Yet blanket bombing was instituted because bombing
wasn't accurate enough to hit industrial/military targets in a
decisive way by any other method at that time. But in the Gulf War,
precision bombing was the norm. So the point was, why make a big
stink about the relatively few civilian casualties that resulted
*in spite of* precision bombing, when so many more civilians
(proportionately and quantitatively) died under the blanket bombing
in WW2? Even with precision bombing, mistakes happen and some
civilians suffer. But less civilians suffered in this war than
any other iany other in history! Many Iraqi civilians went about their lives
with minimal interference from the allied air raids. The stories
of "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi civilian dead is just plain bunk.
Yes, bunk. The US lost 230,000 servicemen in WW2 over four years
and the majority of them were directly involved in fighting! But
we are expected to swallow that "hundreds of thousands" of
*civilian* Iraqis died in a war lasting about 2 months! And with
the Allies using the most precise bombs ever created at that!
What hogwash. If "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi civilians died,
it was due to actions Hussein took on his own people, not due to
the Allied bombing.
Regards,
Jim B.
|
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Slavery (was Re: Why is sex only allowed in marriage: ...)
In article <1993Apr14.132813.16343@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>,
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) wrote:
> Anyhow, on the basis of the apparent success of Islamic banks, it seems
> to me that the statement that a zero-interest economy cannot survive in
> today's world may be a bit premature.
I'm sure zero-intested economical systems survive on a small-scale,
co-ops is not an Islamic invention, and we have co-operatives working
all around the world. However such systems don't stand the corruption
of a large scale operation. Actually, nothing could handle human
greed, IMHO. Not even Allah :-).
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
|
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>In article <11847@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert
>Beauchaine) writes:
>>Bennett, Neil. "How BCCI adapted the Koran rules of banking". The
>>Times. August 13, 1991.
>
> So, let's see. If some guy writes a piece with a title that implies
> something is the case then it must be so, is that it?
Gregg, you haven't provided even a title of an article to support *your*
contention.
>> This is how you support a position if you intend to have anyone
>> respect it, Gregg. Any questions? And I even managed to include
>> the above reference with my head firmly engaged in my ass. What's
>> your excuse?
>
> This supports nothing. I have no reason to believe that this is
> piece is anything other than another anti-Islamic slander job.
You also have no reason to believe it *is* an anti-Islamic slander job, apart
from your own prejudices.
> I have no respect for titles, only for real content. I can look
> up this article if I want, true. But I can tell you BCCI was _not_
> an Islamic bank.
Why, yes. What's a mere report in The Times stating that BCCI followed
Islamic banking rules? Gregg *knows* Islam is good, and he *knows* BCCI were
bad, therefore BCCI *cannot* have been Islamic. Anyone who says otherwise is
obviously spreading slanderous propaganda.
> If someone wants to discuss
> the issue more seriously then I'd be glad to have a real discussion,
> providing references, etc.
I see. If someone wants to provide references to articles you agree with,
you will also respond with references to articles you agree with? Mmm, yes,
that would be a very intellectually stimulating debate. Doubtless that's how
you spend your time in soc.culture.islam.
I've got a special place for you in my...
...kill file. Right next to Bobby. Want to join him?
The more you post, the more I become convinced that it is simply a waste of
time to try and reason with Moslems. Is that what you are hoping to achieve?
mathew
|
From: kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko)
Subject: Re: Christian Morality is
Dan Schaertel,,, (dps@nasa.kodak.com) wrote:
> In article 21627@ousrvr.oulu.fi, kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes:
> |>I love god just as much as she loves me. If she wants to seduce me,
> |>she'll know what to do.
> But if He/She did you would probably consider it rape.
Of course not. I would think that would be great _fun_, not having ever
felt the joy and peace the Christians speak of with a longing gaze.
This is not what I got when I believed - I just tried to hide my fear
of getting punished for something I never was sure of. The Bible is
hopelessly confusing for someone who wants to know for sure. God did
not answer. In the end, I found I had been following a mass delusion,
a lie. I can't believe in a being who refuses to give a slightest hint
of her existence.
> Obviously there are many Christians who have tried and do believe. So .. ?
I suggest they should honestly reconsider the reasons why they believe
and analyse their position. In fact, it is amusing to note in this
context that many fundamentalist publications tell us exactly the
opposite - one should not examine one's belief critically.
I'll tell you something I left out of my 'testimony' I posted to this
group two months ago. A day after I finally found out my faith is over,
I decided to try just one more time. The same cycle of emotional
responses fired once again, but this time the delusion lasted only
a couple of hours. I told my friend in a phone that it really works,
thank god, just to think about it again when I hung up. I had to admit
that I had lied, and fallen prey to the same illusion.
> No one asks you to swallow everything, in fact Jesus warns against it. But let
> me ask you a question. Do you beleive what you learn in history class, or for
> that matter anything in school. I mean it's just what other people have told
> you and you don't want to swallow what others say. right ... ?
I used to believe what I read in books when I was younger, or what
other people told me, but I grew more and more skeptical the more I
read. I learned what it means to use _reason_.
As a student of chemistry, I had to perform a qualitative analysis
of a mixture of two organic compounds in the lab. I _hated_ experiments
like this - they are old-fashioned and increase the student's workload
considerably. Besides, I had to do it twice, since I failed in my first
attempt. However, I think I'll never forget the lesson:
No matter how strongly you believe the structure of the unknown is X,
it may still be Y. It is _very_ tempting to jump into conclusions, take
a leap of faith, assure oneself, ignore the data which is inconsistent.
But it can still be wrong.
I found out that I was, after all, using exactly the same mechanism
to believe in god - mental self-assurance, suspension of fear,
filtering of information. In other words, it was only me, no god
playing any part.
> The life , death, and resurection of Christ is documented historical fact.
Oh? And I had better believe this? Dan, many UFO stories are much better
documented than the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection is documented
quite haphazardly in the Bible - it seems the authors did not pay too
much attention to which wild rumour to leave out. Besides, the ends of
the gospels probably contain later additions and insertions; for instance,
the end of Mark (16:9-20) is missing from many early texts, says my Bible.
Jesus may have lived and died, but he was probably misunderstood.
> As much
> as anything else you learn. How do you choose what to believe and
> what not to?
This is easy. I believe that the world exists independent of my mind,
and that logic and reason can be used to interpret and analyse what I
observe. Nothing else need to be taken on faith, I will go by the
evidence.
It makes no difference whether I believe George Washington existed or not.
I assume that he did, considering the vast amount of evidence presented.
> There is no way to get into a sceptical heart. You can not say you have
> given a
> sincere effort with the attitude you seem to have. You must TRUST,
> not just go
> to church and participate in it's activities. Were you ever willing to
> die for what you believed?
A liar, how do you know what my attitude was? Try reading your Bible
again.
I was willing to die for my faith. Those who do are usually remembered
as heroes, at least among those who believe. Dan, do you think I'm
lying when I say I believed firmly for 15 years? It seems it is
very difficult to admit that someone who has really believed does not
do so anymore. But I can't go on lying to myself.
Blind trust is dangerous, and I was just another blind led by the blind.
But if god really wants me, she'll know what to do. I'm willing. I just
don't know whether she exists - looking at the available evidence,
it looks like she doesn't.
Petri
--
___. .'*''.* Petri Pihko kem-pmp@ Mathematics is the Truth.
!___.'* '.'*' ' . Pihatie 15 C finou.oulu.fi Physics is the Rule of
' *' .* '* SF-90650 OULU kempmp@ the Game.
*' * .* FINLAND phoenix.oulu.fi -> Chemistry is The Game.
|
From: ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray)
Subject: Re: The Bible and Abortion
James J. Lippard (lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu) wrote:
: Exodus 21:22-25:
: 22 And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with
: child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further
: injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may
: demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.
: 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint
: as a penalty life for life,
: 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
: 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
: The most straightforward interpretation of these verses is that if
: men in a fight strike a woman and cause her to miscarry, the penalty
: is only a fine. If, however, the woman is injured or dies, the
: *lex talionis* doctrine of "an eye for an eye" applies. This is the
: Jewish interpretation, and is supported by Jewish commentaries on
: these verses.
: This is quite an embarrassment for pro-lifer Christians, so there is
: of course an alternate explanation. The alternative interprets the
: word "miscarriage" to mean "premature birth"--i.e., the child is born
: alive--and "further injury" to mean injury to either the woman or
: the fetus. This is not a straightforward interpretation, it is not
: (so far as I know) supported by any Jewish commentaries, and it does
: not appeared to be supported by any other part of the Bible.
What if any, historical reference do we have to abortion at this time? Did
the ancient Jew have appropriate reference to understand abortion? (I am
truly asking, not making a point veiled as a question). If there is
little understanding of the medical procedure we know as abortion, it is
not surprising the Bible makes little reference to it, as it makes little
reference to nuclear power and contamination.
While your interpretation is a reasonable one, I see no reason to reject
the other out of hand. The King Jimmy translation says "if there is no
further mischief." This does not necessarily imply to the woman. I know
if my wife we expecting and someone cause her to spontaneously abort, we
would feel that a life was truly taken, not simply a process halted.
|
From: naren@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Naren Bala)
Subject: Re: Slavery (was Re: Why is sex only allowed in marriage: ...)
In article <sandvik-150493144638@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>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.
>
Nothing is perfect. Nothing is perpetual. i.e. even if it is perfect,
it isn't going to stay that way forever.
Perpetual machines cannot exist. I thought that there
were some laws in mechanics or thermodynamics stating that.
Not an atheist
BN
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
- Naren Bala (Software Evaluation Engineer)
- HOME: (503) 627-0380 WORK: (503) 627-2742
- All standard disclaimers apply.
|
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes: >
>OK, you have disproved one thing, but you failed to "nail" me.
>
>See, nowhere in my post did I claim that something _must_ be believed in. Here
>are the three possibilities:
>
> 1) God exists.
> 2) God does not exist.
> 3) I don't know.
>
>My attack was on strong atheism, (2). Since I am (3), I guess by what you said
>below that makes me a weak atheist.
[snip]
>First of all, you seem to be a reasonable guy. Why not try to be more honest
>and include my sentence afterwards that
Honest, it just ended like that, I swear!
Hmmmm...I recognize the warning signs...alternating polite and
rude...coming into newsgroup with huge chip on shoulder...calls
people names and then makes nice...whirrr...click...whirrr
"Clam" Bake Timmons = Bill "Shit Stirrer Connor"
Q.E.D.
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 =
the mind reels. Maybe they're all Bobby Mozumder.
--
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: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!!
In article <C5s9zM.9E0@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
>Subject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!!
>Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 13:11:38 GMT
>In article <C5LH4p.27K@portal.hq.videocart.com>, dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) writes:
>> JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu () writes:
>> : YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!! BE
>> : PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!!
>>
>> What do you mean "be prepared" ?? Surrounded by thumpers like yourself
>> has proven to be hellish enough . . . and I'm not even dead yet !!
>
>Well here's how I prepared. I got one of those big beach
>umbrellas, some of those gel-pack ice things, a big Coleman cooler
>which I've loaded up with Miller Draft (so I like Miller Draft,
>so sue me), a new pair of New Balance sneakers, a Sony
>Watchman, and a couple of cartons of BonTon Cheddar Cheese
>Popcorn.
>
>I haven't decided what to wear yet. What does one wear to an
>eternal damnation?
>
>Dean Kaflowitz
>
You should wear your nicest boxer shorts and bring plenty of SPF 45+
sunscreen. I'll grab my bathing suit, towerl and some veggie hotdogs and we
can have bonfire cookout!!
Does that sound good enough to you, Dean?
EVERY a.a poster is invited!!!
Tammy "No-trim" Healy
|
From: chrisb@seachg.com (Chris Blask)
Subject: Re: A silly question on x-tianity
werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong) writes:
>mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>
>>Question 2: This attitude god character seems awfully egotistical
>>and proud. But Christianity tells people to be humble. What's the deal?
>
>Well, God pretty much has a right to be "egotistical and proud." I
>mean, he created _you_, doesn't he have the right to be proud of such
>a job?
>
>Of course, people don't have much of a right to be proud. What have
>they accomplished that can match God's accomplishments, anyways? How
>do their abilities compare with those of God's. We're an "imbecile
>worm of the earth," to quote Pascal.
Grumblegrumble...
>If you were God, and you created a universe, wouldn't you be just a
>little irked if some self-organizing cell globules on a tiny planet
>started thinking they were as great and awesome as you?
unfortunately the logic falls apart quick: all-perfect > insulted or
threatened by the actions of a lesser creature > actually by offspring >
???????????????????
How/why shuold any all-powerful all-perfect feel either proud or offended?
Anything capable of being aware of the relationship of every aspect of every
particle in the universe during every moment of time simultaneously should
be able to understand the cause of every action of every 'cell globule' on
each tniy planet...
>Well, actually, now that I think of it, it seems kinda odd that God
>would care at all about the Earth. OK, so it was a bad example. But
>the amazing fact is that He does care, apparently, and that he was
>willing to make some grand sacrifices to ensure our happiness.
"All-powerful, Owner Of Everything in the Universe Makes Great Sacrifices"
makes a great headline but it doesn't make any sense. What did he
sacrifice? Where did it go that he couldn't get it back? If he gave
something up, who'd he give it up to?
-chris
[you guys have fun, I'm agoin' to Key West!!]
|
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
In article <1993Apr19.121340.3133@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
|> In <1qi191$jkj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> My understanding is that UK blasphemy laws (yes, they exist in the UK,
|> although they are little-used) apply only to _Anglican_ Christianity.
|>
|> How does this fit in with your claim that there is no state religion in
|> the UK?
Why don't you ask the approx. two million British Muslims who break
it five times a day and have never ever been prosecuted under it?
Then ask how easy it is to hold a Christian church service in Saudi
Arabia.
jon.
|
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:
>>Well, I have typed in the OED definitions. As you will note upon reading
>>them, a punishment, being an inanimate object, is incapable of "showing
>>mercy." So, you can not say that a merciless punishment is a cruel one.
>Sorry, you must have missed the stuff in parens when you read the
>definition (where transf. = transferred sense and fig. =
>figurative,-ly). "Things" can be cruel. Samples of text from the first
>definition include, "Because I would not see thy cruell nailes Plucke
>out his poore old eyes," and "The puniness of man in the centre of a
>cruel and frowning universe."
Sure nails can be cruel. I'd imagine nails in your eyes would be
*very* painful. But, this does not imply that a painless death is
cruel, which is what you are supposed to be trying to show.
keith
|
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
In article <1r35oe$hqd@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1r2kt7$6e1@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> #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.
|>
|> I'm not arguing that atheism causes such behaviour - merely that
|> it is not relevant to the definition of atheism, which is 'lack of belief in
|> gods'.
Throw away the FAQ. We can all just ask Mr O'Dwyer, since he can
define the thing that the rest of us only talk about.
jon.
|
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: "Cruel"
In article <1r7bkpINNo0s@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>No. Well, again I stated that a painless death isn't cruel, but I don't
>think I stated that all painful executions *are* cruel. I think that some
>are cruel, depending on the nature and duration of the pain.
But hanging is certainly painful. Or, do you not let the condemned
know they are going to die?
>Anything more than an instant, I guess. Any death by suffocation
>asphyxiation, or blood loss would be cruel, I think (this includes the
>gas chamber, and drawing and quartering). I'd say that any pain that
>lasts, say, over twenty seconds or so would be too long (but this may
>be an arbitrary cutoff, I suppose).
Hanging is not supposed to be very pleasant. I believe that in
actuality, it is not "quick and clean". However, gas chambers can be
quite non-painful. Heck, why not give them a good time? Suffication by
Nitrious Oxide!
=)
---
Private note to Jennifer Fakult.
"This post may contain one or more of the following:
sarcasm, cycnicism, irony, or humor. Please be aware
of this possibility and do not allow yourself to be
confused and/or thrown for a loop. If in doubt, assume
all of the above.
The owners of this account do not take any responsiblity
for your own confusion which may result from your inability
to recognize any of the above. Read at your own risk, Jennifer."
|
From: qpliu@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (q.p.liu)
Subject: Re: free moral agency
In article <kmr4.1575.734879106@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.000406.10984@Princeton.EDU> qpliu@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (q.p.liu) writes:
>
>>>So while Faith itself is a Gift, obedience is what makes Faith possible.
>>What makes obeying different from believing?
> I am still wondering how it is that I am to be obedient, when I have
>no idea to whom I am to be obedient!
It is all written in _The_Wholly_Babble:_the_Users_Guide_to_Invisible_
_Pink_Unicorns_.
To be granted faith in invisible pink unicorns, you must read the Babble,
and obey what is written in it.
To obey what is written in the Babble, you must believe that doing so is
the way to be granted faith in invisible pink unicorns.
To believe that obeying what is written in the Babble leads to believing
in invisible pink unicorns, you must, essentially, believe in invisible
pink unicorns.
This bit of circular reasoning begs the question:
What makes obeying different from believing?
--
qpliu@princeton.edu Standard opinion: Opinions are delta-correlated.
|
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Ontology (was: Benediktine Metaphysics)
In article <66019@mimsy.umd.edu>
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>
>> IF IT IS CONTRADICTORY IT CANNOT EXIST.
>
>"Contradictory" is a property of language. If I correct this to
>
>
> THINGS DEFINED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST
>
No need to correct it, it stands as it is said.
>I will object to definitions as reality. If you then amend it to
>
> THINGS DESCRIBED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST
>
>then we've come to something which is plainly false. Failures in
>description are merely failures in description.
>
You miss the point entirely. Things defined by contradictory language
do not exist. Though something existing might be meant, conclusions
drawn from the description are wrong, unless there is the possibility
to find the described, and draw conclusions from direct knowledge of
the described then. Another possibility is to drop the contradictory
part, but that implies that one can trust the concept as presented
and that one has not got to doubt the source of it as well.
>(I'm not an objectivist, remember.)
>
Neither am I. But either things are directly sensed (which includes
some form of modelling, by the way) or they are used in modelling.
Using something contradictive in modelling is not approved of.
Wonder why?
We remain with the question if something contradictory can be sensed
as contradictory. An important point is that either one manages to
resolve the contradictions or one is forced not to use or to refer
to the contradictory part in drawing conclusions, or one will fall
in the garbage in garbage out trap.
Benedikt
|
From: Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: <<Pompous ass
In article <1ql71pINN5ef@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan
Schneider) says:
>
>Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>Sure, they may fall back on other things, but this is one they
>>should not have available to use.
>
>It is worse than others? The National Anthem? Should it be changed too?
>God Bless America? The list goes on...
Worse? Maybe not, but it is definately a violation of the
rules the US govt. supposedly follows. Maybe the others
should be changed to? But I'm not personally as concerned
about the anthem since I don't come across it in daily
nearly unavoidable routines.
>>every christian. And I'd be tempted to rub that motto in the
>>face of christians when debunking their standard motto slinging
>>gets boring.
>
>Then you'd be no better than the people you despise.
I don't despise the people...just their opinions. I meant
when chatting with the ones who refuse to listen to any idea
other than their own...then it just becomes an exercise for
amusement.
>[...]
>>For the motto to be legitimate, it would have to read:
>> "In god, gods, or godlessness we trust"
>
>Would you approve of such a motto?
No. ...not unless the only way to get rid of the current one
was to change it to such as that.
|
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
In article <1qkq9t$66n@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|>
|> I'll take a wild guess and say Freedom is objectively valuable. I base
|> this on the assumption that if everyone in the world were deprived utterly
|> of their freedom (so that their every act was contrary to their volition),
|> almost all would want to complain. Therefore I take it that to assert or
|> believe that "Freedom is not very valuable", when almost everyone can see
|> that it is, is every bit as absurd as to assert "it is not raining" on
|> a rainy day. I take this to be a candidate for an objective value, and it
|> it is a necessary condition for objective morality that objective values
|> such as this exist.
My own personal and highly subjective opinion is that freedom
is a good thing.
However, when I here people assert that the only "true" freedom
is in following the words of this and that Messiah, I realise
that people don't even agree on the meaning of the word.
What does it mean to say that word X represents an objective
value when word X has no objective meaning?
jon.
|
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
>So then, you require the same amount of evidence to believe that I
>a) own a pair of bluejeans and b) have superhuman powers?
Well, I could use the argument that some here use about "nature" and claim
that you cannot have superhuman powers because you are a human; superhuman
powers are beyond what a human has, and since you are a human, any powers
you have are not beyond those of a human. Hence, you cannot have superhuman
powers. Sound good to you?
Anyway, to the evidence question: it depends on the context. In this group,
since you are posting from a american college site, I'm willing to take it
as given that you have a pair of blue jeans. And, assuming there is some
coherency in your position, I will take it as a given that you do not have
superhuman powers. Arguments are evidence in themselves, in some respects.
>When you say the "existence of [ sic ] Jesus", I assume that you
>mean just the man, without any special powers, etc.
Yep.
>Many will agree that it is very possible that a man called Jesus DID
>in fact live. In fact, I am willing to agree that there was some man named
>Jesus. I have no reason to believe that there wasn't ever a man.
Good.
>However, most of the claims ARE extradinary: eg virgin birth
>[ virgin in the sense of not having any sexual intercourse ], resurection,
>Son of God, etc. THOSE claims require extra evidence.
"Extra" evidence? Why don't we start with evidence at all?
I cannot see any evidence for the V. B. which the cynics in this group would
ever accept. As for the second, it is the foundation of the religion.
Anyone who claims to have seen the risen Jesus (back in the 40 day period)
is a believer, and therefore is discounted by those in this group; since
these are all ancients anyway, one again to choose to dismiss the whole
thing. The third is as much a metaphysical relationship as anything else--
even those who agree to it have argued at length over what it *means*, so
again I don't see how evidence is possible.
I thus interpret the "extraordinary claims" claim as a statement that the
speaker will not accept *any* evidence on the matter.
--
C. Wingate + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
+ but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe + the marv'lous peace of God."
|
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Death Penalty / Gulf War (long)
Shamim Zvonko Mohamed (sham@cs.arizona.edu) wrote:
: 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"?
:
: 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.
I used to have full figures on this including the tons of bombs dropped
and the number of cluster bomblet munitions used. I had heard the 90% of
the laser-guided weapons hit, which is an unprecedented rate of success.
25% of the iron weapons hit, again unprecedented. The following is a rough
estimate, but this means of the 80,000 tons of bombs dropped by US aircraft
around 56,000 tons *missed*. I'm not sure what proportion of this was
dropped of Baghdad rather than troop concentrations in Iraq and Kuwait.
Much of the tonnage dropped was cluster munitions, as were all the MRLS
rounds and many of the artillery rounds. Napalm and fuel air explosives
were also used (Remember how we were told that weapons of mass destruction
such as FAE were very naughty indeed?)
|
From: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu (Turin Turambar, ME Department of Utter Misery)
Subject: Re: College atheists
In article <1993Apr22.062438.9412@nuscc.nus.sg>, cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes:
> nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nanci Ann Miller) writes:
> : nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes:
> : > I read an article about a poll done of students at the Ivy League
> : > schools in which it was reported that a third of the students
> : > indentified themselves as atheists. This is a lot higher than among the
> : > general population. I wonder what the reasons for this discrepancy are?
> : > Is it because they are more intelligent? Younger? Is this the wave of
> : > the future?
>
> What is the figure for the general population? The last I heard, 25% of
> Americans believe in reincarnation. Can somebody quote a stat?
I don't have a stat, but, unfortunately, I did read generally that both smoking
and belief in the supernatural (occultish garbage) is on the rise here.
>
> : I would guess that it probably has something to do with the ease of which
> : ideas and thoughts are communicated on a college campus....
> :
> : So, in a world where theists are forced to contend with and listen to
> : atheists and theists of other religions some are bound to have a change in
> : their beliefs over four years. There is nowhere to run.... :-)
>
> Funny. In my country, it works the other way round. Univ life is v. v.
> stressful for most people (remember, we're an Asian population) & Xtians
> like to prey on these people. There is nowhere to run from them ...... :-<
>
This is very interesting. I thing the principle is sort of the same though:
all "philosophical" ideas are generally tried out and tested mostly during
college years. Whether the idea is christian or atheist doesn't always matter.
But I'd like to say it's because atheists are more intelligent :)
> --
>
> The UnEnlightened One
> ------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
> |
> Tan Chade Meng | The wise man tells his wife that he understands her.
> Singapore |
> cmtan@iss.nus.sg | The fool tries to prove it.
> |
> ------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
>
--
regards,
--Adam
================================================================================
| Adam John Cooper | "Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings |
| (612) 696-7521 | who thought themselves good simply because |
| acooper@macalstr.edu | they had no claws." |
================================================================================
| "Understand one another? I fear I am beyond your comprehension." --Gandalf |
================================================================================
|
From: (Rashid)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam
In article <1993Apr14.121134.12187@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>,
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) wrote:
>
> >In article <C5C7Cn.5GB@ra.nrl.navy.mil> khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes:
Stuff deleted
> >>What we should be demanding, is for Khomeini and his ilk to publicly
> >>come clean and to show their proof that Islamic Law punishes
> >>apostacy with death or that it tolerates any similar form of
> >>coversion of freedom of conscience.
All five schools of law (to the best of my knowledge) support the
death sentence for apostasy WHEN it is accompanied by open, persistent,
and aggravated hostility to Islam. Otherwise
I agree, there is no legal support for punishment of disbelief.
The Qur'an makes it clear that belief is a matter of conscience. Public
or private disavowal of Islam or conversion to another faith is not
punishable (there are some jurists who have gone against this
trend and insisted that apostasy is punishable (even by death) - but
historically they are the exception.
Cursing and Insulting the Prophets falls under the category of "Shatim".
>
> I just borrowed a book from the library on Khomeini's fatwa etc.
>Lots of stuff deleted<
>
> And, according to the above analysis, it looks like Khomeini's offering
> of a reward for Rushdie's death in fact constitutes a criminal act
> according to Islamic law.
Please see my post under "Re: Yet more Rushdie (ISLAMIC LAW)".
|
Subject: Re: Contradictions
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
In article <C52oys.2CLJ@austin.ibm.com> yoder@austin.ibm.com (Stuart R. Yoder) writes:
>:
>: Then what would it have to do with "in the universe"? You theists
>: cannot understand that inside the universe and outside the universe
>: are two different places. Put God outside the universe and you
>: subtract from it the ability to interact with the inside of the
>: universe, put it inside the universe and you impose the rules of
>: physics on it.
>
>1. God is outside the universe.
>2. Things outside the universe do not have 'the ability to interact
> with the inside of the universe'.
>3. Therefore God cannot interact inside the universe.
>
>(2) has no basis whatsoever. You seem to have positive knowledge
>about this.
(2) is a corrallary of (1).
The negation of (2) would contridict (1).
>
>: Although we do not have a complete model of the physical rules
>: governing the inside of the universe, we expect that there are no
>: contradictory events likely to destroy the fabric of modern physics.
>: On the other hand, your notion of an omnipotent, omniscient and
>: infinitely benevolent god, is not subject to physical laws: you
>: attempt to explain this away by describing it as being outside of
>: them, beyond measurement. To me, beyond measurement means it can
>: have no measurable effect on reality, so it cannot interact: ergo,
>: your god is IRRELEVANT.
>
>1. God is beyond measure.
>2. Beyond measurement means it can have no measurable effect on
> reality.
>3. Therefore God cannot have a measurable effect on reality.
>
>(2) has no basis whatsoever.
(2) Is a corrallary of (1)
The negation of (2) would contradict (1).
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. "
S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu)
|
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Subject: A Remarkable Admission
Jon Livesey writes:
>I'm certainly not going to attempt to distinguish between different
>flavours of Christian, all loudly claiming to be the One True Christian.
Well, it's obvious that you *don't* attempt, otherwise you would be aware
that they *don't* all "loudly [claim] to be the One True Christian".
I've tried to avoid using the phrase "is/is not christian" because of these
ownership issues; instead, I've tried the phrase "Nicene christianity" in an
attempt to identify the vast majority of "christianity" which has roughly
similar viewpoints on the core theological issues. The JWs do not fall
within this group and in fact espouse a position known as Arianism, which is
rejected by all the nicene churches and virtually everyone else as well.
--
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: dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller)
Subject: Re: thoughts on christians
cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes:
:
[ . . . . . ]
:
: Personally, I feel that since religion have such a poweful
: psychological effect, we should let theists be. But the problem is that
: religions cause enormous harm to non-believers and to humanity as a whole
: (holy wars, inquisitions, inter-religious hatred, impedence of science
: & intellectual progress, us-&-them attitudes etc etc. Need I say more?).
: I really don't know what we can do about them. Any comments?
:
I have always held that there should be no attempt to change a persons
attitude or lifestyle as long as it makes them happy and does not tax
anybody else. This seems to be ok for atheists. You don't get an atheist
knocking on your door, stopping you in the airport, or handing out
literature at a social event. Theists seem to think that thier form of
happy should work for others and try to make it so.
My sister is a
born again, and she was a real thorn in the side for my entire family
for several years. She finally got the clue that she couldn't help.
During that period she bought me "I was atheist, now I'm Xtian" books
for my birthday and Xmas several times. Our birthday cards would contain
verses. It was a problem. I told my mom that I was going to send my
sister an atheist piece of reading material. I got a "Don't you dare".
My mom wasn't religious. Why did she insist that I not send it ??
Because our society has driven into us that religion is ok to
preach, non-religion should be self contained. What a crock of shit.
I finally told my sister that I didn't find her way of life attractive.
I have seen exactly 0 effort from her on trying to convert me since then.
I'm sick of religious types being pampered, looked out for, and WORST
OF ALL . . . . respected more than atheists. There must be an end
in sight.
Dave Fuller
dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com
|
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
In article <115468@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
|> In article <1qg79g$kl5@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >You are amazed that I find it difficult to grasp it when
|> >people justify death-threats against Rushdie with the
|> >claim "he was born Muslim?"
|>
|> This is empty rhetoric. I am amazed at your inability to understand what
|> I am saying not that you find it difficult to "grasp it when people
|> justify death-threats...". I find it amazing that your ability to
|> consider abstract questions in isolation. You seem to believe in the
|> falsity of principles by the consequence of their abuse. You must *hate*
|> physics!
You're closer than you might imagine. I certainly despised living
under the Soviet regime when it purported to organize society according
to what they fondly imagined to be the "objective" conclusions of
Marxist dialectic.
But I don't hate Physics so long as some clown doesn't start trying
to control my life on the assumption that we are all interchangeable
atoms, rather than individual human beings.
jon.
|
From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: KORESH IS GOD!
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 1993 14:15:20 +0100, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> said:
m> The latest news seems to be that Koresh will give himself up once he's
m> finished writing a sequel to the Bible.
Also, it's the 16th now. Can the Feds get him on tax evasion? I don't
remember hearing about him running to the Post Office last night.
--
Ed McCreary ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao." (*)/'(*)
|
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
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
>
Don't listen to this guy, he's just a crank. At first, this business
about being the "one true god" was tolerated by the rest of us,
but now it has gotten completely out of hand.
Besides, it really isn't so bad when people stop believing in you.
It's much more relaxing when mortals aren't always begging you for favors.
-- ZEUS
|
From: dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller)
Subject: Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Atheists?)
: >> The death penalty was conceived as a deterrent to crime, but the legal
: >> shenanigans that have been added (automatic appeals, lengthy court
: >> battles, etc.) have relegated that purpose to a very small part of what
: >> it should be. Hence the question is, do we instate the death penalty as
: >> it was meant to be, and see if that deters crime, or do we get rid of
: >> it entirely?
I doubt the death penalty was supposed to be a "deterrent" to crime. If so,
why doesn't every crime carry a death penalty ? That would be effictive
wouldn't it ???
The death penalty is a punishment, much like a $50 fine for speeding is
a punishment. Anyway, somebody with murder on the mind doesn't much care
about the consequences. I think another problem is that people dont think
they will get caught. If I wanted to kill another person, I wouldn't
care what the penalty was if I didn't think I would get caught.
If it was to be strictly a deterrent, it should have been more along
the lines of torture.
Dave Fuller
dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com
|
From: willdb@wam.umd.edu (William David Battles)
Subject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!!
In article <1993Apr16.223250.15242@ncsu.edu> aiken@news.ncsu.edu (Wayne NMI Aiken) writes:
>JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu wrote:
>: YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!! BE
>: PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!!
>
>Did someone leave their terminal unattended again?
>
>--
>
>Holy Temple of Mass $ >>> slack@ncsu.edu <<< $ "My used underwear
> Consumption! $ $ is legal tender in
>PO Box 30904 $ BBS: (919) 782-3095 $ 28 countries!"
>Raleigh, NC 27622 $ Warning: I hoard pennies. $ --"Bob"
Probably not! The jesus freak's post is probably JSN104@PSUVM. Penn State
is just loaded to the hilt with bible bangers. I use to go there *vomit* and
it was the reason I left. They even had a group try to stop playing
rock music in the dining halls one year cuz they deemed it satanic. Kampus
Krusade for Khrist people run the damn place for the most part....except
the Liberal Arts departments...they are the safe havens.
-wdb
v
rock music in the dining
t
|
From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
I apologize for the long delay in getting a response to this posted.
I've been working reduced hours the past couple of weeks because I had
a son born (the day after Umar's article was posted, btw). I did
respond within a couple of days, but it turns out that a a
coincidental news software rearrangement caused postings from this
site to silently disappear rather than going out into the world. This
is a revision of that original response.
In article <C52q47.7Ct@ra.nrl.navy.mil> khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes:
>In article <1ps98fINNm2u@dsi.dsinc.com> perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes:
>>Only a functional illiterate with absolutely no conception of the
>>nature of the novel could think such a thing.
[this was in response to the claim that "Rushdie made false statements
about the life of Mohammed", with the disclaimer "(fiction, I know,
but where is the line between fact and fiction?) - I stand by this
distinction between fiction and "false statements"]
>>However, it's not for his writing in _The Satanic Verses_, but for
>>what people have accepted as a propagandistic version of what is
>>contained in that book. I have yet to find *one single muslim* who
>>has convinced me that they have read the book. Some have initially
>>claimed to have done so, but none has shown more knowledge of the book
>>than a superficial Newsweek story might impart, and all have made
>>factual misstatements about events in the book.
>
>You keep saying things like this. Then, you accuse people like me of
>making ad hominem arguments. I repeat, as I have said in previous
>postings on AA: I *have* read TSV from cover to cover
I had not seen that claim, or I might have been less sweeping. You
have made what I consider factual misstatements about events in the
book, which I have raised in the past, in the "ISLAM: a clearer view"
thread as well as the root of the "Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]"
thread. My statement was not that you had not read the book, but that
you had not convinced me that you [inter alia] had. As I said before,
if you want to defend your position, then produce evidence, and
respond to the evidence I have posted; so far you have not. Of
course, my statement was not directly aimed at you, but broadly at a
number of Muslim posters who have repeated propaganda about the book,
indicating that they haven't read it, and narrowly at Gregg Jaeger,
who subsequently admitted that he hadn't in fact read the book,
vindicating my skepticism in at least that one case.
So far, the only things I have to go on regarding your own case are a)
the statements you made concerning the book in the "a clearer view"
posting, which I have challenged (not interpretation, but statements
of fact, for instance "Rushdie depicts the women of the most
respected family in all of Islam as whores"), and b) your claim (which
I had not seen before this) that you have indeed read it cover to
cover. I am willing to try to resolve this down to a disagreement on
critical interpretation, but you'll have to support your end, by
responding to my criticism. I have no doubt as to the ability of a
particular Muslim to go through this book with a highlighter finding
passages to take personal offense at, but you have upheld the view
that "TSV *is* intended as an attack on Islam and upon Muslims". This
view must be defended by more than mere assertion, if you want anyone
to take it seriously.
>I am trying very hard to be amicable and rational.
And I appreciate it, but welcome to the club. I am defending my
honest opinion that this book should not be construed as a calculated
(or otherwise) insulting attack on Islam, and the parallel opinion
that most of the criticism of the book I have seen is baseless
propaganda. I have supported my statements and critical
interpretationa with in-context quotes from the book and Rushdie's
essays, which is more than my correspondents have done. Of course,
you are more than welcome to do so.
--
Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
|
From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Dear Mr. Theist
west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
> means to me. The full quote (Michael Crichton, _Jurrasic_Park_) was
> something like "The earth has existed quite contently for billions of
> years. We have been here but for the blink of an eye, and if we were gone
> tomorrow, the earth would not miss us.". I remember this quote to keep
> myself humble when thinking that we have progressed so far or that we
> are masters of this planet.
Cool quote.
> The earth doesn't need saving, it's existed quite happily with-
> out us, we are the ones who need saving.
Better watch it. The theists will jump on you for that... :-)
> Brian West.
> --
> THIS IS NOT A SIG FILE * -"To the Earth, we have been
> THIS IS NOT A SIG FILE * here but for the blink of an
> OK, SO IT'S A SIG FILE * eye, if we were gone tomorrow,
> posted by west@wam.umd.edu * we would not be missed."-
> who doesn't care who knows it. * (Jurassic Park)
> ** DICLAIMER: I said this, I meant this, nobody made me do it.**
Nanci
.........................................................................
If you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me
email (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):
Lying to ourselves is more deeply ingrained than lying to others.
|
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
In article <115565@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>In article <1qi3l5$jkj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>>I hope an Islamic Bank is something other than BCCI, which
>>ripped off so many small depositors among the Muslim
>>community in the Uk and elsewhere.
>
>Grow up, childish propagandist.
>
Gosh, Gregg. I'm pretty good a reading between the lines, but
you've given me precious little to work with in this refutation.
Could you maybe flesh it out just a bit? Or did I miss the full
grandeur of it's content by virtue of my blinding atheism?
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
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: lucio@proxima.alt.za (Lucio de Re)
Subject: A fundamental contradiction (was: A visit from JWs)
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>"Will" is "self-determination". In other words, God created conscious
>beings who have the ability to choose between moral choices independently
>of God. All "will", therefore, is "free will".
The above is probably not the most representative paragraph, but I
thought I'd hop on, anyway...
What strikes me as self-contradicting in the fable of Lucifer's
fall - which, by the way, I seem to recall to be more speculation
than based on biblical text, but my ex RCism may be showing - is
that, as Benedikt pointed out, Lucifer had perfect nature, yet he
had the free will to "choose" evil. But where did that choice come
from?
We know from Genesis that Eve was offered an opportunity to sin by a
tempter which many assume was Satan, but how did Lucifer discover,
invent, create, call the action what you will, something that God
had not given origin to?
Also, where in the Bible is there mention of Lucifer's free will?
We make a big fuss about mankind having free will, but it strikes me
as being an after-the-fact rationalisation, and in fact, like
salvation, not one that all Christians believe in identically.
At least in my mind, salvation and free will are very tightly
coupled, but then my theology was Roman Catholic...
Still, how do theologian explain Lucifer's fall? If Lucifer had
perfect nature (did man?) how could he fall? How could he execute an
act that (a) contradicted his nature and (b) in effect cause evil to
exist for the first time?
--
Lucio de Re (lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA) - tab stops at four.
|
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
In <1r34n3$hfj@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp writes:
[ Deletia; in case anybody hadn't noticed, Frank and I are debating
"objective morality", and seemingly hitting semantics. ]
> Secondly, how can I refute your definition? I can only point up its
> logical implications, and say that they seem to contradict the usage
> of the word "objective" in other areas. Indeed, by your definition, an
> objective x is an oxymoron, for all x. I have no quibble with that
> belief, other than that it is useless, and that "objective" is a perfectly
> good word.
It may be that, being a non-native English-speaker, I've
misunderstood your usage of "objective", and tried to debate something
you don't assert; my apologies. I'm at a loss to imagine what you really
do mean, though.
># How many ages can the universe have, and still be internally self-
>#consistent? I'd be amazed if it was more than one. How many different
>#moral systems can different members of society have - indeed, single
>#individuals, in some cases - and humanity still stick together?
>
> Begging the question. People can have many opinions about the age
> of the universe and humanity can still stick together. You are
> saying that the universe has a _real_ age, independent of my beliefs about
> it. Why?
Wrong point. The age of the universe has no direct effect on
humanity's sticking power, in the way the moral system of a society can
have.
I'm saying the Universe has a "real age", because I see evidence
for it; cosmology, astronomy and so on. I say this age is independent of
people's opinions of it, because I know different people have a lot of
different opinions in the matter, yet empirical tests consistently seem
to give roughly the same results.
># The age of the universe, like most scientific facts, can be
>#emirically verified through means that'll give the same result no matter
>#who performs the testing (albeit there are error bars that may be on the
>#largish side...).
>
> This assumes that the universe has a real age, or any kind of reality
> which doesn't depend on what we think.
I can't see how it does that. Put a creationist to the task of
performing the tests and calculations, see to it (s)he makes no blatant
errors in measuring or calculating, and the result of the test will be
the same.
> Why should an extreme Biblical
> Creationist give a rat's ass about the means of which you speak?
Because logically consistent empirical tests contradict their
opinion. If those tests were just my opinion, then their own tests
(which would then be their opinion) would contradict mine, even if we
conducted said tests in identical manner, no? They don't, which I take
as showing these tests have some validity beyond our opinion of them.
>#I've heard of no way to verify morality in a
>#consistent way, much less compute the errors of the measurement; care to
>#enlighten me?
>
> The same is true of pain, but painkillers exist, and can be predicted
> to work with some accuracy better than a random guess.
Map the activity of nerves and neural activity, if you mean
physical pain. You have a sharp point, I'll give you that; but you still
haven't given me a way to quantify morality.
> I wrote
> elsewhere that morality should be hypotheses about observed value.
We agree. Hypotheses, however, can change; I hold that there is no
"ultimate hypothesis of morality" towards which these changes could
gravitate, but that they could be changed in any way imaginable,
producing different results suitable for different tasks or purposes.
> If a moral system makes a prediction "It will be better if...",
> that can be tested,
"Better" and "worse" are (almost?) always defined in the context
of a moral system. Your prediction will _always_ be correct, *within*
*that* *moral* *system*. What you need now is an objective definition of
"good" and "bad"; I wish you luck.
># People's *ideas* about the age of object X are *not* objective;
>#you can have any idea you like, and I can't stop you. Universae and
>#their ages is another ballgame; they are what they are, and if you
>#dislike some detail of them, that's a problem with your *opinion* of
>#them.
>
> Sure. Assume an objective reality, and you get statements like this.
Isn't that what _you're_ doing, when assuming an "objectively
real" morality? Besides, what _exactly_ is provably wrong with my
statement?
>#I claim that morality is an opinion of ours, and as such
>#subjective and individual. If I'm wrong, then some more-or-less
>#objectively "real" thing exists, which you label "objective morality";
>#can you back up this positive claim of existence?
>
> Can you back up your positive claim above? No. That's because it's an
> assumption. I make the same assumption about values, on the basis
> that there is no logical difference between the two, and the empirical
> basis of the two is precisely the same.
Claiming there is no objective morality is suddenly a positive
claim? Besides, I think I _can_ lend some credence to my claim; ponder
different individuals, both fully functional as human beings and members
of society, but yet with wildly different moral codes. If morality was
"objective", at least one should be way off base, but yet hir
'incorrect' morality seems to function fine. How come?
As for producing these individuals, it might be easiest to pick
them from different societies; say, an islamic one and some polynesian
matrilineal system, for example (if such still exist).
[ deletia - testing for footballs on desks ]
># Now take a look at morality. See anything? If so, please inform me
>#which way to look, and WHY to look that particular way, as opposed to
>#some other. Get my drift?
>
> No. Just look. Are you claiming never to know what good means?
One thing is "good" under some circumstances, because we wish to
achieve some goal, for some reason. Other times we wish to do something
else, and that thing is no longer so clearly "good" at all.
Some things are hard to make "good", because we'd seldom if ever
wish to achieve the sort of goal mass murder would lead one into. Still,
the Aztecs were doing fine until the Spaniards wiped them out.
I almost always know what "good" means; sometimes I even know why.
I never claim this "good" is thereby fixed in stone, immutable.
[...]
># That's a simple(?) matter of proving the track record of the
>#scientific method.
>
> I think it's great, and should be applied to values. I may be completely
> wrong, but that's what I conclude as a result of quite an amount of
> thought.
Yes, me too, and I've tried a thing or two down that line; it
doesn't look good for objective values to me at all.
--
Disclaimer? "It's great to be young and insane!"
|
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
In article <1qlfd4INN935@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>>>Well, chimps must have some system. They live in social groups
>>>as we do, so they must have some "laws" dictating undesired behavior.
>>So, why "must" they have such laws?
>
>The quotation marks should enclose "laws," not "must."
>
>If there were no such rules, even instinctive ones or unwritten ones,
>etc., then surely some sort of random chance would lead a chimp society
>into chaos.
The "System" refered to a "moral system". You havn't shown any
reason that chimps "must" have a moral system.
Except if you would like to redefine everything.
---
" Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "
John Laws, a man without the honor to keep his given word.
|
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!!
In article <C5LH4p.27K@portal.hq.videocart.com>, dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) writes:
> JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu () writes:
> : YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!! BE
> : PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!!
>
> What do you mean "be prepared" ?? Surrounded by thumpers like yourself
> has proven to be hellish enough . . . and I'm not even dead yet !!
Well here's how I prepared. I got one of those big beach
umbrellas, some of those gel-pack ice things, a big Coleman cooler
which I've loaded up with Miller Draft (so I like Miller Draft,
so sue me), a new pair of New Balance sneakers, a Sony
Watchman, and a couple of cartons of BonTon Cheddar Cheese
Popcorn.
I haven't decided what to wear yet. What does one wear to an
eternal damnation?
Dean Kaflowitz
|
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Atheists?)
This is fascinating. Atheists argue for abortion, defend homosexuality
as a means of population control, insist that the only values are
biological and condemn war and capital punishment. According to
Benedikt, if something is contardictory, it cannot exist, which in
this case means atheists I suppose.
I would like to understand how an atheist can object to war (an
excellent means of controlling population growth), or to capital
punishment, I'm sorry but the logic escapes me.
And why just capital punishment, what is being questioned here, the
propriety of killing or of punishment? What is the basis of the
ecomplaint?
Bill
|
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Where are they now?
In article <1r8ou3$41u@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <1993Apr22.070854.18213@nuscc.nus.sg> cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes:
>#I'll be leaving in June. That's because I'm going back to my university
>#& alt.atheism is banned there (stupid theist intolerance). Sad isn't it.
>#Anybody has any idea how I can circumvent this problem?
>
[Frank's solution deleted.]
If you have access to telnet, contact nyx.cs.du.edu. It's a public access
Unix system, completly free, and all you need to for access is a verifiable
form of ID (I think he requires a notarized copy of a picture, or a check, or
some such).
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza. OK???=
|
From: JDB1145@tamvm1.tamu.edu
Subject: Re: A Little Too Satanic
In article <65934@mimsy.umd.edu>
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>
>Nanci Ann Miller writes:
>
]The "corrupted over and over" theory is pretty weak. Comparison of the
]current hebrew text with old versions and translations shows that the text
]has in fact changed very little over a space of some two millennia. This
]shouldn't be all that suprising; people who believe in a text in this manner
]are likely to makes some pains to make good copies.
Tell it to King James, mate.
]C. Wingate + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
] + but strife closed in the sod.
]mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
]tove!mangoe + the marv'lous peace of God."
John Burke, jdb1145@summa.tamu.edu
|
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Yeah, Right
In article <66014@mimsy.umd.edu>
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>>And what about that revelation thing, Charley?
>
>If you're talking about this intellectual engagement of revelation, well,
>it's obviously a risk one takes.
>
I see, it is not rational, but it is intellectual. Does madness qualify
as intellectual engagement, too?
>>Many people say that the concept of metaphysical and religious knowledge
>>is contradictive.
>
>I'm not an objectivist, so I'm not particularly impressed with problems of
>conceptualization. The problem in this case is at least as bad as that of
>trying to explain quantum mechanics and relativity in the terms of ordinary
>experience. One can get some rough understanding, but the language is, from
>the perspective of ordinary phenomena, inconsistent, and from the
>perspective of what's being described, rather inexact (to be charitable).
>
Exactly why science uses mathematics. QM representation in natural language
is not supposed to replace the elaborate representation in mathematical
terminology. Nor is it supposed to be the truth, as opposed to the
representation of gods or religions in ordinary language. Admittedly,
not every religion says so, but a fancy side effect of their inept
representations are the eternal hassles between religions.
And QM allows for making experiments that will lead to results that will
be agreed upon as being similar. Show me something similar in religion.
>An analogous situation (supposedly) obtains in metaphysics; the problem is
>that the "better" descriptive language is not available.
>
With the effect that the models presented are useless. And one can argue
that the other way around, namely that the only reason metaphysics still
flourish is because it makes no statements that can be verified or falsified -
showing that it is bogus.
>>And in case it holds reliable information, can you show how you establish
>>that?
>
>This word "reliable" is essentially meaningless in the context-- unless you
>can show how reliability can be determined.
Haven't you read the many posts about what reliability is and how it can
be acheived respectively determined?
Benedikt
|
From: mam@mouse.cmhnet.org (Mike McAngus)
Subject: Re: Christian Morality is
On 20 Apr 93 13:38:34 GMT dps@nasa.kodak.com (Dan Schaertel,,,) wrote:
>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.
I and many others on a.a have described how we have tried to find god.
Are you saying our efforts have not been sincere? For all the effort
I have put in, there has been no outward nor inward change that I can
perceive. What's a sincerely searching Agnostic or Atheist supposed to
do when even the search turns up nothing?
>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.
How do you "accept that which you don't know"? Do you mean that I must
believe in your god in order to believe in your god?
--
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: tgk@cs.toronto.edu (Todd Kelley)
Subject: Re: Faith and Dogma
>In <1r1mr8$eov@aurora.engr.LaTech.edu> ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray)
>wrote:
>
>Faith and dogma are inevitable. Christians merely understand and admit
>to the fact. Give me your proof that no God exists, or that He does.
>Whichever position you take, you are forced to do it on faith. It does
>no good to say you take no position, for to show no interest in the
>existence of God is to assume He does not exist.
Consider special relativity. It hasn't be proved, nor has it been
disproved. No one has a proof one way or the other, but many people
are interested in it!
I've satisfied myself that nothing could indicate absolutely the
existence of God one way or the other. The two possibilities
are supernaturalism and naturalism. Of course no set of circumstances can
be inconsistent with supernaturalism, but similarly, no set of circumstances
can be inconsistent with naturalism. In naturalism, any phenomenon that
could be described as God is considered part of the natural world, to
be studied as any other natural phenomenon (gravity, for instance).
For example, if a loud ``godlike'' voice vociferously announced, ``I
am God, I exist, and I will prove it by reversing the force of gravity,''
and if then gravity did indeed reverse, a naturalist (probably a scientist)
would say, ``Boy, we sure didn't understand gravity as well as we
thought we did, and that loud voice is something new. Perhaps we
didn't understand thunder as well as we thought we did either.''
>I contend that proper implementation of the Christian faith requires
>reasoning, but that reasoning cannot be used to throw out things you
>don't like, or find uncomfortable. Hedonistic sexual behavior is
>condemned in the Bible and no act of true reason will make it any
>less condemned. Hatred, murder, gossip; all these are condemned.
>Is there God-ordained murder in the Bible? You bet, and if God ever
>orders me to kill you, I will. But I will first use the Gideon-like
>behavior of verifying that God actually ordered the hit, and will
>probably discuss it in an Abram-like fashion.
I'm sure glad you don't know where I live, since you don't seem
to realize it is impossible for you to distinguish between voices
in your head, and God's voice.
>I can hear you now, this is how Jim Jones and David Koresh justify
>their behavior. Delusional religious cults bear the same relationship
>to Christianity that rape bears to consentual sex: form but no substance.
>When the Southern Baptist Church or the Methodist Church begin to do this
>then you have reason to blame mainstream religion for the behaviors of these
>people. Or should I associate every negative behavior I witness in any
>non-Christian with you?
You seem to have missed my point. Even if Jim Jones and David Koresh
were not religious people, my point remains that faith and dogma
are dangerous, and religion encourages them. Jim Jones and David Koresh
also encouraged them. My point does not rely on Jim Jones and David
Koresh being religious.
Todd
|
From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: thoughts on christians
>>>>> On 16 Apr 93 05:10:18 GMT, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) said:
RB> In article <ofnWyG600WB699voA=@andrew.cmu.edu> pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Patrick C Leger) writes:
>EVER HEAR OF
>BAPTISM AT BIRTH? If that isn't preying on the young, I don't know what
>is...
>
RB>
RB> No, that's praying on the young. Preying on the young comes
RB> later, when the bright eyed little altar boy finds out what the
RB> priest really wears under that chasible.
The same thing Scotsmen where under there kilt.
I'll never forget the day when I was about tweleve and accidently
walked in on a roomfull of priests sitting around in their underware
drinking beer and watching football.
Kind of changed my opinion a bit. They didn't seem so menacing after
that.
--
Ed McCreary ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao." (*)/'(*)
|
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie)
Subject: [UPI] "Mother files complaint over Boy Scouts"
[By default, followups to 3 newsgroups.]
A short excerpt:
> BROOKFIELD, Wis. (UPI) -- A mother has filed a complaint with the
>Elmbrook School Board alleging her son's elementary school and its
>Parent-Teacher Organization show discrimination by supporting the Boy
>Scouts.
> Gisele Klemp said Wednesday the PTO's sponsorship of a Boy Scout
>troop and Cub Scout pack that meet at Hillside Elementary School in
>surbarban Milwaukee is discrimination because the Boy Scouts ban
>homosexuals.
[...]
> PTO President Gail Pludeman disputed the charges of discrimination
>and said she believes the Boy Scouts are beneficial.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
|
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: The Problem of Satan (used to be: islamic authority over women)
In article <1993Apr5.165233.1007@news.unomaha.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu
(Stephen McIntyre) writes:
> Of course, Bobby then states that Satan has no free will, that
> he does as God wants him to. This brings up a host of
> paradoxes: is God therefore evil; do I have free will
> or is God directing me also; if God is evil, which part
> of his infinite self is good and which is evil; etc.?
> I would like for once a solid answer, not a run-about.
# I hope I gave you a fairly solid answer to this one: I simply don't agree
# with the embodied version of a Satan who is a separate creation or a force.
# I wrote:
>> The belief to which I ascribe is that evil is not a creation;
>> rather, it is "the absence of good." This fits with all the
>> logic about things having dual use: e.g., a knife can be used
>> to sculpt and it can be used to kill. Like entropy, evil is
>> seen in this view as neither force nor entity. Satan is,
>> therefore, metaphorical. In fact, there are several verses
>> of the Holy Qur'an which appear to support this view and several
>> Traditions as well.
>
>> For example, there is a Tradition that food should never be left open
>> on a shelf or table overnight, lest "Satan" enter it. It appears
>> that this is a reference to as yet undiscovered germs; thus, the
>> evil effect of spoiled food is described as "Satan."
>But there are many examples of Satan personified. Which am I
> to believe?
# And there are quite physical descriptions of Heaven and Hell in the
# Holy Qur'an, the Bible, etc. There have been times in the spiritual
# and intellectual evolution of the modern human when these physical
# descriptions of Heaven, Hell, and Satan were taken quite literally
# and that *worked* for the time. As I mentioned in the Tradition
# cited above, for example, it was sufficient in the absence of a theory
# about germs and disease spread by worms to simply describe the "evil"
# which was passed to a consumer of spoiled food as "satanic."
Which begs the question: if Satan in this case is
metaphorical, how can you be certain Allah is not
the same way?
# The bottom line here, however, is that describing a spiritual plane
# in human language is something like describing "color" to a person
# who has been blind from birth. You may want to read the book
# FLATLAND (if you haven't already) or THE DRAGON'S EGG. The first
# is intended as a light hearted description of a mathematical con-
# cept...
[some deleted for space saving]
# When language fails because it cannot be used to adequately describe
# another dimension which cannot be experienced by the speakers, then
# such conventions as metaphor, allegory, and the like come to be
# necessary. The "unseen" is described in terms which have reference`
# and meaning for the reader/listener. But, like all models, a compro-
# mise must be made when speaking metaphorically: clarity and directness
# of meaning, equivalence of perception, and the like are all
# crippled. But what else can you do?
This is why I asked the above. How would you then
know God exists as a spirit or being rather than
just being metaphorical? I mean, it's okay to say
"well, Satan is just metaphorical," but then you
have to justify this belief AND justify that God is
not some metaphor for something else.
I say this because there are many, many instances of
Satan described as a being (such as the tormentor in
the Old Testament book of Job, or the temptor in the
New Testament Gospels). In the same way, God too is
described as a being (or spirit.) How am I to know
one is metaphorical and not the other.
Further, belief in God isn't a bar to evil. Let's
consider the case of Satanists: even if Satan were
metaphorical, the Satanist would have to believe
in God to justify this belief. Again, we have a
case where someone does believe in God, but by
religious standards, they are "evil." If Bobby
does see this, let him address this question also.
[deleted some more on "metaphor"]
>> Obviously more philosophizing on this issue is possible, but I'm
>> not sure that the readers of this newsgroup would want to delve
>> into religious interpretation further. However, if anyone wishes
>> to discuss this, I'm certainly willing (either off line - e-mail - or
>> on line - posting).
Stephen
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ * Atheist
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ * Libertarian
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ * Pro-individuality
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ * Pro-responsibility
_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Jr. * and all that jazz...
--
|
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: Who Says the Apostles Were Tortured?
The traditions of the church hold that all the "apostles" (meaning the 11
surviving disciples, Matthias, Barnabas and Paul) were martyred, except for
John. "Tradition" should be understood to read "early church writings other
than the bible and heteroorthodox scriptures".
--
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: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: about the bible quiz answers
In article <healta.153.735242337@saturn.wwc.edu>, healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes:
>
>
> #12) The 2 cheribums are on the Ark of the Covenant. When God said make no
> graven image, he was refering to idols, which were created to be worshipped.
> The Ark of the Covenant wasn't wrodhipped and only the high priest could
> enter the Holy of Holies where it was kept once a year, on the Day of
> Atonement.
I am not familiar with, or knowledgeable about the original language,
but I believe there is a word for "idol" and that the translator
would have used the word "idol" instead of "graven image" had
the original said "idol." So I think you're wrong here, but
then again I could be too. I just suggesting a way to determine
whether the interpretation you offer is correct.
Dean Kaflowitz
|
From: (Rashid)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
> What about the Twelve Imams, who he considered incapable of error
> or sin? Khomeini supports this view of the Twelve Imans. This is
> heresy for the very reasons I gave above.
I would be happy to discuss the issue of the 12 Imams with you, although
my preference would be to move the discussion to another
newsgroup. I feel a philosophy
or religion group would be more appropriate. The topic is deeply
embedded in the world view of Islam and the
esoteric teachings of the Prophet (S.A.). Heresy does not enter
into it at all except for those who see Islam only as an exoteric
religion that is only nominally (if at all) concerned with the metaphysical
substance of man's being and nature.
A good introductory book (in fact one of the best introductory
books to Islam in general) is Murtaza Mutahhari's "Fundamental's
of Islamic Thought - God, Man, and the Universe" - Mizan Press,
translated by R. Campbell. Truly a beautiful book. A follow-up book
(if you can find a decent translation) is "Wilaya - The Station
of the Master" by the same author. I think it also goes under the
title of "Master and Mastership" - It's a very small book - really
just a transcription of a lecture by the author.
The introduction to the beautiful "Psalms of Islam" - translated
by William C. Chittick (available through Muhammadi Trust of
Great Britain) is also an excellent introduction to the subject. We
have these books in our University library - I imagine any well
stocked University library will have them.
From your posts, you seem fairly well versed in Sunni thought. You
should seek to know Shi'ite thought through knowledgeable
Shi'ite authors as well - at least that much respect is due before the
charge of heresy is levelled.
As salaam a-laikum
|
From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Is Morality Constant (was Re: Biblical Rape)
This response originally fell into a bit bucket. I'm reposting it
just so Bill doesn't think I'm ignoring him.
In article <C4w5pv.JxD@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>Jim Perry (perry@dsinc.com) wrote:
>
>[Some stuff about Biblical morality, though Bill's quote of me had little
> to do with what he goes on to say]
Bill,
I'm sorry to have been busy lately and only just be getting around to
this.
Apparently you have some fundamental confusions about atheism; I think
many of these are well addressed in the famous FAQ. Your generalisms
are then misplaced -- atheism needn't imply materialism, or the lack
of an absolute moral system. However, I do tend to materialism and
don't believe in absolute morality, so I'll answer your questions.
>How then can an atheist judge value?
An atheist judges value in the same way that a theist does: according
to a personal understanding of morality. That I don't believe in an
absolute one doesn't mean that I don't have one. I'm just explicit,
as in the line of postings you followed up, that when I express
judgment on a moral issue I am basing my judgment on my own code
rather than claiming that it is in some absolute sense good or bad.
My moral code is not particular different from that of others around
me, be they Christians, Muslims, or atheists. So when I say that I
object to genocide, I'm not expressing anything particularly out of
line with what my society holds.
If your were to ask why I think morality exists and has the form it
does, my answer would be mechanistic to your taste -- that a moral
code is a prerequisite for a functioning society, and that humanity
probably evolved morality as we know it as part of the evolution of
our ability to exist in large societies, thereby achieving
considerable survival advantages. You'd probably say that God just
made the rules. Neither of us can convince the other, but we share a
common understanding about many moral issues. You think you get it
from your religion, I think I get it (and you get it) from early
childhood teaching.
>That you don't like what God told people to do says nothing about God
>or God's commands, it says only that there was an electrical event in your
>nervous system that created an emotional state that your mind coupled
>with a pre-existing thought-set to form that reaction.
I think you've been reading the wrong sort of comic books, but in
prying through the gobbledygook I basically agree with what you're
saying. I do believe that my mental reactions to stimuli such as "God
commanded the genocide of the Canaanites" is mechanistic, but of
course I think that's true of you as well. My reaction has little to
do with whether God exists or even with whether I think he does, but
if a god existed who commanded genocide, I could not consider him
good, which is supposedly an attribute of God.
>All of this being so, you have excluded
>yourself from any discussion of values, right, wrong, goood, evil,
>etc. and cannot participate. Your opinion about the Bible can have no
>weight whatsoever.
Hmm. Yes, I think some heavy FAQ-reading would do you some good. I
have as much place discussing values etc. as any other person. In
fact, I can actually accomplish something in such a discussion, by
framing the questions in terms of reason: for instance, it is clear
that in an environment where neighboring tribes periodically attempt
to wipe each other out based on imagined divine commands, then the
quality of life will be generally poor, so a system that fosters
coexistence is superior, if quality of life is an agreed goal. An
absolutist, on the other hand, can only thump those portions of a
Bible they happen to agree with, and say "this is good", even if the
act in question is unequivocally bad by the standards of everyone in
the discussion. The attempt to define someone or a group of people as
"excluded from discussion", such that they "cannot participate", and
their opinions given "no weight whatsoever" is the lowest form or
reasoning (ad hominem/poisoning the well), and presumably the resort
of someone who can't rationally defend their own ideas of right,
wrong, and the Bible.
--
Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
--
Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
|
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Who has read Rushdie's _The Satanic Verses_?
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 bought a copy of The Satanic Verses when there was talk of the British
Government banning it. There's nothing interests me in a book more than
making it illegal.
However, it's still sitting on my shelf unread. Perhaps I'll get round to it
soon. I've still got a pile of Lem, Bulgakov and Zamyatin to go through; I
don't find nearly enough time to read. In fact, there are far more
interesting things to do than I can ever find time for; how anyone ever
manages to be bored is beyond me. If I didn't have to sleep, maybe I could
manage it.
mathew
--
Atheism: Anti-virus software for the mind.
|
From: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu (Turin Turambar, ME Department of Utter Misery)
Subject: From soc.religion.christian
I found this little gem, I don't know if anyone has any interest/comments...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone,
I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem. I know
that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet
hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools,
do you still think that just believing is enough?'
Now if someone is fully believing but there life is totally lead by themselves
and not by God, according to Romans that person is still saved by there faith.
But then there is the bit which says that God preferes someone who is cold to
him (i.e. doesn't know him - condemned) so a lukewarm Christian someone who
knows and believes in God but doesn't make any attempt to live by the bible.
Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do)
as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James
in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out'
Can anyone help me, this really bothers me.--
in Christ,
Will
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Adam
================================================================================
| Adam John Cooper | "Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings |
| (612) 696-7521 | who thought themselves good simply because |
| acooper@macalstr.edu | they had no claws." |
================================================================================
| "Understand one another? I fear I am beyond your comprehension." --Gandalf |
================================================================================
|
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
(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.
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?
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>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".
Well, "objective" would assume a system based on clear and fundamental
concepts, while "arbitary" implies no clear line of reasoning.
keith
|
From: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu (Turin Turambar, ME Department of Utter Misery)
Subject: Re: Societal basis for morality
In article <C5sAD7.1DM@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
> In <1993Apr20.004119.6119@cnsvax.uwec.edu> nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
> writes:
>
>>[reply to cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)]
>>
>>>If morals come from what is societally accepted, why follow that? What
>>>right do we have to expect others to follow our notion of societally
>>>mandated morality? Pardon the extremism, but couldn't I murder your
>>>"brother" and say that I was exercising my rights as I saw them, was
>>>doing what felt good, didn't want anyone forcing their morality on me,
>>>or I don't follow your "morality" ?
>>
>>I believe that morality is subjective. Each person is entitled to his
>>own moral attitudes. Mine are not a priori more correct than someone
>>elses. This does not mean however that I must judge another on the
>>basis of his rather than my moral standards. While he is entitled to
>>believe what his own moral sense tells him, the rest of society is
>>entitled to pass laws spelling out punishments for behavior that is
>>offensive to the majority.
>
> Why? How? Might makes right? How can they force their morality on me? Why
> can't I do what I want? Who are they to decide? What if I disagree?
Well I agree with you in the sense that they have no "moral" right to inflict
these rules, but there is one thing I might add: at the very least, almost
everybody wants to avoid pain, and if that means sacrificing some stuff for a
herd morality, then so be it.
>>
>>Most criminals do not see their behavior as moral. The may realize that
>>it is immoral and not care. They are thus not following their own moral
>>system but being immoral.
>
> Good point, but it is being immoral in our opinion. We don't let them choose,
> we make the decision that their actions are wrong for them.
Right, and since they grew up and learned around us, they have some idea of our
right and wrong, which I think must, in part, be incorporated. Very rarely do
you see criminal behaviour for "philosophical reasons"
>
> For someone to lay claim to an alternative
>>moral system, he must be sincere in his belief in it and it must be
>>internally consistent. Some sociopaths lack an innate moral sense
>
> I admit to lean toward the idea of an innate moral sense, but have little basis
> for it as of yet. How far can such a concept be extended?
>
(stuff deleted)
> Do you mean that we could say it would be wrong for us to do such a thing but
> not him. After all, he was behaving morally in his own eyes and doing what he
> chose. On what basis do we condemn other societies besides, here's the buzz
> words, on the idea that there are some actions wrong for all humans in all
> societies?
>
>> Holding that morality is subjective does not mean
>>that we must excuse the murderer.
>
> Why not? Do we have to be objective suddenly?
>>
>>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
>
> 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
--
best regards,
--Adam
********************************************************************************
* Adam John Cooper "Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings *
* (612) 696-7521 who thought themselves good simply because *
* acooper@macalstr.edu they had no claws." *
********************************************************************************
|
From: kax@cs.nott.ac.uk (Kevin Anthoney)
Subject: Re: Christian Morality is
In article <4949@eastman.UUCP> dps@nasa.kodak.com writes:
>
>The fact is God could cause you to believe anything He wants you to.
>But think about it for a minute. Would you rather have someone love
>you because you made them love you, or because they wanted to
>love you. ...
There's a difference between believing in the existence of an entity,
and loving that entity. God _could_ show me directly that he exists,
and I'd still have a free choice about whether to love him or not. So
why doesn't he?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Anthoney kax@cs.nott.ac.uk
Don't believe anything you read in .sig files.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
In <C5L1tG.K5q@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu writes:
> If some society came up with a good reason for why rape and murder are ok I
> would be consistent with my position and hold that it was still wrong. My
> basis of morality is not on societal norms, or on current legalities. My
> basis is, surprise surprise, on both the Bible and on inherent moral
> abhorrences,
AH! But what, exactly, is "inherently abhorrent" and WHY is it so?
What you're saying is, in effect, "I think some things are repulsive,
and I know a whole bunch of other people who agree with me, so they
should be deemed absolutely immoral now and forever, period".
Which in and of itself is nice enough; to some extent I agree with
you. But I do _not_ agree that things are 'inherently' or 'absolutely'
immoral; they are labeled 'immoral' each for its own good reason, and if
the reason can even theoretically change, then so can the label.
[...]
> Yes, that's vague, and the only way I know off the top of my head to
> defend it is to say that all humans are similarly made. Yes, that falls
> into the trap of creation,
No it doesn't. Humans are to some extent similar, because we all
belong to the same species; that that species has evolved is another
story altogether. To a certain extent evolution can even lend credence
to moral absolutism (of a flavour).
[...]
> My arguments are that it is better to exhibit trust, goodness,
> love, respect, courage, and honesty in any society rather than deceipt,
> hatred, disrespect, "cowardness", and dishonesty.
You're saying morality is what'll keep society alive and kicking.
It is, I think, up to a point; but societies are not all alike, and
neither are their moralities.
> No, I haven't been everywhere and
> seen everyone, but, according to my thesis, I don't have to, since I hold that
> we were all created similarly.
Similar != identical.
> If that makes an unfalsifiable thesis, just say
> so, and I'll both work out what I can and punt to fellow theists.
No, it's falsifiable through finding someoe who was "created
different", whatever that might be in the "real" world.
--
Disclaimer? "It's great to be young and insane!"
|
Subject: Re: Don't more innocents die without the death penalty?
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
In article <2942881697.0.p00168@psilink.com> p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) writes:
>
>By maintaining classes D and E, even in prison, it seems as if we
>place more innocent people at a higher risk of an unjust death than
>we would if the state executed classes D and E with an occasional error.
>
I answer from the position that we would indeed place these people
in prison for life.
That depends not only on their predisposition towards murder, but
also in their success rate at escape and therefore their ability
to commit the same crimes again.
In other words, if lifetime imprisonment doesn't work, perhaps
it's not because we're not executing these people, but because
we're not being careful enough about how we lock them up.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
From: pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker)
Subject: Re: Christian Morality is
In article <4963@eastman.UUCP>, dps@nasa.kodak.com (Dan Schaertel,,,)
wrote:
>
>
> The life , death, and resurection of Christ is documented historical fact.
Not by any standard of history I've seen. Care to back this up, sans the
lies apologists are so fond of?
> However all the major events of the life
> of Jesus Christ were fortold hundreds of years before him. Neat trick uh?
Not really. Most of the prophesies aren't even prophesies. They're prayers
and comments taken from the Torah quite out of context. Seems Xians started
lying right from the beginning.
>
> There is no way to get into a sceptical heart. You can not say you have given a
> sincere effort with the attitude you seem to have.
My we're an arrogant ass, aren't we?
> You must TRUST, not just go
> to church and participate in it's activities.
You're wrong to think we haven't. The trust was in something that doesn't
exist.
> Were you ever willing to die for what
> you believed?
I'm still willing to die for what I believe and don't believe. So were the
loonies in Waco. So what?
Besides, the point's not to die for what one believes in. The point's to
make that other sorry son-of-a-bitch to die for what *he* believes in! :)
Doesn't anyone else here get tired of these cretins' tirades?
Peter the Damed, and damned proud of it!
Don't forget to sing:
They say there's a heaven for those who will wait
Some say it's better, but I say it ain't
I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
The sinners are much more fun
Only the good die young!
|
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Nostalgia
The recent rise of nostalgia in this group, combined with the
incredible level of utter bullshit, has prompted me to comb
through my archives and pull out some of "The Best of Alt.Atheism"
for your reading pleasure. I'll post a couple of these a day
unless group concensus demands that I stop, or I run out of good
material.
I haven't been particularly careful in the past about saving
attributions. I think the following comes from John A. Johnson,
but someone correct me if I'm wrong. This is probably the longest
of my entire collection.
________________________________________________________
So that the
Prophecy be
Fulfilled
* * *
In considering the Christian religion, and judging it
according to its claims, it is important to look at its claims at
fulfilling earlier Jewish prophecy. The scribe Matthew is perhaps
the most eager to draw out what he thinks are prophetic answers in
the career of Jesus of Nazareth. As you will see, Matthew's main
strategy is to take various Old Testament passages, often not even
about the promised Messiah, and apply them to the circumstances in
the New Testament. We must also bear in mind the question of the
authenticity of the accounts. Since the gospels were written at
least 35 years after Jesus was executed, we do not know how much
happened exactly as stated. But, for purposes of analysis, we
will take particular claims at face value.
Immanuel:
We begin, of course, at the beginning.
(Mt 1.21-22): "[Mary] will bear a son, and you,
Joseph, will name him 'Jesus' (which means G'd is
salvation), for he will save his people from their
sins." All this happened to fulfil what the lord had
spoken by a prophet:
[Isaiah 7.1-16]: In the days of Ahaz (c. 750 BCE),
king of Judah, Rezin of Syria and Pekah of Israel made
war on Jerusalem (capitol of Judah), but could not
quite conquer it. When the house of David (i.e. Ahaz
and his court in Judah) were told of this, ...its
heart and the heart of its people shook... And, the
lord G'd said to Isaiah, "go to meet with Ahaz..."
...And the lord spoke to Ahaz (through prophet Isaiah,
naturally) saying, "Ask a sign of G'd your lord. It
can be as deep as Sheol or as high as heaven." But,
Ahaz said, "I won't ask; I will not put the lord to a
test." Then (Isaiah) said, "Hear then, O house of
David. Is it not enough for you to weary men, that
you must weary my god too? Therefore, the lord
himself will give you a sign: Behold, a young woman
is with child and will bear a son, and name him
"Immanuel," which means, "G'd is with us." He will
eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse evil
and choose good. For, before the child knows how to
refuse evil and choose good, the land of the two kings
you dread will have been deserted...
Matthew homes in on just the sentence that is in italics.
Further, he the Hebrew word "almah," (young woman), as
specifically, "virgin." But, this is not a prophecy about the
Messiah. It is not a prophecy about an event to happen 750 years
later. It is not a prophecy about a virgin (bethulah) mother. In
short, it not about Jesus. Matthew has made use of a verse out of
context, and tries to make it fit the specific case of Mary. It
should be noted that if we want to read the prophecy in a general
manner, a very general one, it can be made to fit Mary. Mary,
virgin or not, was indeed a young woman with child. Of course,
the fit is shady and has problems. Jesus, while thought of by
later Christians to be G'd walking among men, was never called by
the name, Immanuel. If Christianity wished to claim this prophecy
for Jesus, it becomes at best a cut-and-paste prophecy... a second
class prophecy. Not too convincing.
Egypt:
After Jesus's birth in Bethlehem, Matthew tells about a
quick (and elsewhere unmentioned) excursion to Egypt, as if he
wishes to liken Jesus to Moses. This was done to escape an
alleged infanticidal rampage of the king, Herod.
[Mt 2.15] ...and remained there until the death of
Herod. This was to fulfil what the lord had spoken:
"Out of Egypt I have cal-led my son."
What the lord really said was this.
[Hosea 11.1] When Israel was a child, I loved him.
And, out of Egypt I called my son. The more I called
them (my people), the more they went from me; they
kept sacrificing to the Ba'als, and kept burning
incense to idols.
Matthew conveniently omits the rest of Hosea's oracle. But, it
was indeed Israel that, once called out of Egypt, wanted to
return. This is history. Jesus is certainly not being spoken of
here. And, if we are to draw some kind of parallel here, we wind
up with a Jesus that flees and resists G'd. Again, this prophecy
is just not as convincing as Matthew probably had hoped.
Rachel Weeps:
While Jesus is off vacationing in Egypt, Matthew says that
King Herod sought to kill him, and thus ordered the executions of
all young male children. Matthew then writes,
[Mt 2.17-18] By this, that which was spoken by the
prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
"A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud
lamentation-- Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be consoled, because they were
no more."
The reference is to a passage in Jeremiah 31.15, referring to the
carrying off of Israel into exile by Sargon (of Assyria) in 722
BCE. Rachel, the ancestor of the major tribes of Israel, Ephraim,
and Manasseh, is said to weep for her descendants who are "no
more." It is metaphorical, of course, since Rachel lived and dies
before the Hebrews were even in the Egyptian exile.
It is interesting to note that it was Leah, not Rachel, who
was the ancestor of the Judeans (the land where Jesus and
Bethlehem were). If anyone should do weeping for her "children,"
it is Leah. The only connexion that Rachel has with Bethlehem is
that the legends have it that she was buried north of the city,
"on the way to Ephrath, (Bethlehem)."
As for Herod and his infanticide, it is rather unlikely
that such an event actually occurred. One never knows, but the
event is not mentioned or alluded to anywhere else in the Bible,
nor is it mentioned in any of the secular records of the time.
Herod was particularly unliked in his reign, and many far less
evil deeds of Herod were carefully recorded. This might be a
prime example of how events were added to Jesus's life to enhance
the message of the church's gospel.
Because of the whole story's similarity to the tale of the
infant Moses in Egypt, it is highly likely that it is a device set
up by Matthew to add prophetic, yet artificial, approval of Jesus.
It is not surprising that Matthew conveniently neglects to mention
the rest of the Jeremiah quote. The "children" the prophet
speaks of are not dead, but exiled in the Assyrian Empire. G'd
comforts the weeping Rachel, saying that the children will be
returned-- he will gather them back together. Of course, this
would not suit Matthew's purpose, as the children he speaks of are
dead for good. Again, the "prophecy" Matthew sets up is not even
that, and to anyone who bothers to check it out, is not too
convincing.
The Nazarene:
We do not even have to go to the next chapter to find
another Matthean prophecy. After leaving Egypt, Joseph & wife
take the infant Jesus to live in the city of Nazareth,
[Mt 2.23] ...that what was spoken of by the prophets
might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."
First thing we notice is that Matthew does not mention the name of
the prophet(s) this time. Second, we have to ask who "He" is.
There are no Messianic prophecies speaking of a Nazarene. Worse,
there are no prophecies, period, mentioning a Nazarene. Still
worse, there are no Nazarenes mentioned in the Old Testament at
all. In the book of Judges, an angel tells Samson's mother that
she will,
[Judges 13.5] "...conceive and bear a son. No razor
shall tough his head, for he will be a Nazirite to his
god from the day of his birth. He will deliver Israel
from the hands of the Philistines."
This is of course not a prophecy of Jesus, or the messiah of G'd.
But, it is the best that can be found. Obviously, Matthew has
begun to go overboard in cut-and-paste prophecies, in that he is
simple making them up now.
Bearing our
Diseases:
Jesus next goes around healing people of physical illnesses
and disabilities.
[Mt 8.17] This was to fulfil what was spoken by the
prophet Isaiah, "He took our infirmities and bore our
diseases."
As expected, the verse quoted in Isaiah is quoted out of context,
and a few words are skewed to fit the Christian scheme. We have,
[Is 53.4] Surely he, [the suffering servant], has
borne our sickness, and carried our pains.
From a reading of the surrounding passages in Isaiah, we know that
the prophet is speaking in present tense of the collective nation
of Israel, Jehovah's chosen servant and people. He speaks to the
Israelites suffering in exile, in the voice of the gentile nations
that look upon it. This image is deeply ingrained in Jewish
identity --an image of a chastised, yet cherished, Israel as the
instrument of the nations' salvation by G'd.
The verses speak of Israel taking on the sicknesses which
are the literal and metaphorical manifestations of guilt and
discipline. They do not speak of a "servant" going around and
healing people. Notice that the servant in Isaiah takes on the
sicknesses and pains of the nations (and individual Jews). Jesus,
as we all know, did not take the diseases onto himself. The
verses here in Isaiah are not a prophecy of something to come, but
rather something that had already happened. While it is believed
that Jesus took on the eternal punishment of hell, he did not bear
the illnesses he healed. So, while someone might want to say
that, figuratively, Jesus reenacted the deeds of Israel in his
spiritual atonement, he has to admit that Matthew's parallel
misses where he intended it to have its effect.
Silent Messiah:
Upon healing multitudes of commoners, it is said that Jesus
ordered them to keep quiet, presumable so that he wouldn't arouse
the attention of the local rulers.
[Mt 12.15-21] This was to fulfill what was spoken by
the prophet Isaiah.
"Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved,
with whom my soul is pleased. I will put my spirit on
him, and he will announce justice to the Gentiles. He
will not wrangle or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear
his voice in the streets. He will not break a bruised
reed or quench a smoldering wick until he brings
justice to victory, and the gentiles will hope in his
name."
The Isaiah passage quoted reads,
[Is 42.1-4] Behold my servant whom I uphold, my
chosen, in whom my soul delights. I have put my
spirit on him, and he will bring forth justice to the
nations. We will not cry or lift up his voice, or
make it heard in the street. He will not break a
bruised reed, or quench a smoldering wick. He will
faithfully bring forth justice. He will not fail
(burn dimly) or be discouraged (bruised) until he has
established justice in the earth. And the coastlands
await his law.
You see, Matthew has conveniently left out part of the passage,
because it does not suit the dealings of Jesus. Christians could
never think of Jesus failing, never would the "light" of mankind
burn dimly. But, the servant nation of Israel will indeed come to
an end when its job is done. When the gentiles come to embrace
G'd there will no longer be a chosen people, but rather all will
be the children of G'd. Also, the ending phrase has been changed
from the Judaic "...the coastlands await his law." to the
Christologic, "the Gentiles will hope in his name." While the
original proclaims the Torah law of Jehovah, the other rewrites it
to fit its strange doctrine of "believing in the name." If one
has any doubt the servant referred to is not Jesus, one has only
to read the whole chapter, Isaiah 42, and hear about the beloved
but blind and imperfect servant, "a people robbed and
plundered..." So, we see that when Matthew's attempt at
"prophecy" is examined, it crumbles.
Three Days and
Three Nights:
Now we come upon a prophecy supposedly uttered by the very
mouth of the god Jesus himself. He speaks of his crucifixion and
resurrection.
[Mt 12.40] For as Jonah was in the belly of the
whale for three days and three nights, so will the Son
of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and
three nights.
Before any further discussion can occur, it is necessary to know
how the Jews understood days. As far as day names went, each was
24 hours long, lasting from sunset 6pm to the following sunset
6pm. What was referred to as a "day" was the period of light from
6am to the ending sunset at 6pm. Thus, according to our time
scale, a sabbath day began at 6pm Friday evening, and lasted until
6pm saturday evening. This is why the Jews celebrate their
sabbath on the daylight portion of Saturdays, instead of Sundays.
(It seems like a real miracle that Christians didn't forget that
Saturday was indeed the seventh and last day of the week!) Thus,
when days and nights are referred to together, 12 hour daylight
portions and 12 hour night periods are being spoken of. Thus,
Jesus says that he will be in the grave, or in hell, or otherwise
unresurrected for three days and three nights.
As the good book tells us, Jesus was crucified on the "ninth
hour," which is 3pm, Friday afternoon. He then was put into the
grave sometime after that. Then, Jesus left the grave, "rose,"
before dawn of what we call Sunday (The dawn after the sabbath was
over). What this means is that Jesus was, using our time for
clarity, in the grave from 6pm Friday night to some time before
6am Sunday morning. We could also add a little time before 6pm
Friday, since the bible is not specific here. What this means
using Jewish time is that he was in the grave for one day, two
nights, and possibly a couple of hours of one day. Certainly this
is a problem for Jesus prediction. There is absolutely no way we
are even able to have his death involve three days and three
nights --even using modern time measurements. We then are led to
suspect that this error is another one of Matthew's little
mistakes, and that the gospel writer put false words into his
god's mouth. And no matter who made the prediction, it is more
than unconvincing... it is counter-convincing.
Hearing &
Understanding:
Jesus tool on a habit of speaking to his vast audiences in
parables-- stories in which a deeper meaning could be found, if
you were already one of the elect, those chosen to understand the
message of Jesus. He reasons that those who can understand the
parables are the ones he wants. If the people cannot understand
them, there is no need to bother with them, since they will not
accept the "plain" message any better. Matthew says,
[Mt 13.14-16] With them [the audience] indeed in
fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says,
"You will indeed hear but never understand; and you
will indeed see, but never perceive. Because this
people's heart has grown dull, their ears are heavy of
hearing, and they have shut their eyes so the they
would not perceive with them, her with their ears, and
understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal
them."
The original Isaiah passages are part of his earlier works, his
call to the ministry. This is in 740 BCE, when Israel is
flourishing, right before it falls under the authority of Assyria.
Isaiah sees the good times ending, and also a vision from G'd,
calling him to bring reform to Israel and Judah.
[Is 6.9-13] And G'd said, "Go, and say to this
people, `Hear and hear, but do not understand; see and
see, but do not perceive.' Make the heart of this
people fat, make their ears heavy, and shut their
eyes, so they will not see with their eyes, or hear
with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and
turn and be healed." Then Isaiah said, "How long,
lord?" And he said, "Until the cities lie waste
without inhabitant, and houses without men, and the
land is utterly desolate, and the G'ds take men far
away, and forsaken places are many in the land. And
though a tenth will remain in it, it will be burned
again, like a terebinth or an oak whose stump still
stands when the tree is felled." The holy seed is its
stump.
Here we see that it is really G'd who causes the people of Israel
to stop listening to the prophet's warnings, but reaffirms the
promise made to Solomon's (and David's) seed/lineage. If you read
the rest of Isaiah, you find that this is done to fulfil the plan
of G'd to use Israel as a servant, a light to the nations. (Look
at Isaiah 42.18-25, 48.20, 49.3)
We see that Matthew has cut-and-pasted just a little portion
of Isaiah's verse, to suit his own gospel needs. More than that,
he has altered the words, to make it fit the people who didn't
understand Jesus's stories. And, as we see, Isaiah's verses are
not prophecies, but rather commands from G'd to him, in the
present. Once again, Matthew's prophecy falls flat on its face.
Matthew tries again to make Jesus's parables look like they
have the prophetic approval.
[Mt 13.35] ...he said nothing to them without a
parable. This was to fulfil what was spoken of by the
prophet, "I will open my mouth to them in parables. I
will utter that which has been hidden since the
foundation of the world."
Matthew really botches up here. He attempts to quote not from a
prophet, but from the Psalms.
[Ps 78.2-4] I will open my mouth in parable. I will
utter dark sayings of old, things that we all have
heard and known, things that our fathers have told us.
We will not hide them from their children, but tell to
the coming generation the glorious deeds of the
lord...
As was pointed out, the verses in the Psalms do not really come
from a prophet. You might also want to know that earlier copies
of Matthew's gospel even inserted Isaiah's name as this prophet.
Apparently, later scribes caught the error and tried to cover some
of it up.
Perhaps the most significant part of this is that, once
again, Matthew has altered the Old Testament Scriptures. As Jesus
has said earlier, he speaks in parables so that some will not
understand them. The parables in the Psalms are not to be hidden.
Further, they speak of things "known, that our fathers have told
us." Jesus deals with things "hidden since the foundation of the
world." Indeed Jesus dealt in a lot of secrecy and confusion.
This is in direct opposition to the parables in the Psalms. No
wonder Matthew had to rewrite them! And still once again,
Matthew's artificial prophecies fall flat on their face. But,
Christians rarely look at this. Matthew's prophecies aren't the
only things about Christianity that are beginning to look bad.
Excuses of
Little Faith:
In Mt. 17.14-21, we see that the disciples are able to go
around casting out demons, except in one case. Not knowing what
epilepsy was, the people thought those with the disease were
possesed with demons. It is no wonder that the disciples were
unable to "dispossess" the epileptic. But, Jesus, perhaps no more
enlightened than they, is reported to have rebuked them, saying
they didn't have enough faith. This seems strange. Why was this
demon special? It seems that either a true believer has faith or
he does not. Apparently, enough faith will allow someone to move
mountains. Of course, you will find no one, these days that can
move real mountains. No one parts seas. The only miracles the
Charismatics can speak of are those rumoured to happen on trips to
Mexico or some faraway place. Major miracles are making some old
woman's arthritis feel better on Sunday morning T.V.
And the gods, including Jesus, are always shrouded in
ancient lore and writings, protected from the skeptics in their
sacred pasts. They are either dead, sleeping, or hiding in
heaven, with people rumouring about their imminent return and
their great miracles of days long gone. Yet, life goes on.
Tales of mystics, stories of miracles-- all in a distant time
or a distant place. Gods used to reveal themselves to men in the
old days, Jehovah too. But, now they are silent. All the
theologians give are various excuses as to why we don't get to see
God anymore.
We're too lazy; we're not zealous enough; we're
sinful; it's just his "plan"; we put too many of our
own demands on G'd's appearance; if we had the right
faith, if we were willing to meet G'd on his terms...
Yet, even the most pious of men have not seen G'd. You, dear
reader, have not seen G'd. Not literally, you know that to be
true. (I know that's presumptuous and bold. But, searching your
heart, you know what I mean.) All that we've seen religions do is
make people feel good and content about not seeing G'd. They say
our little faith does not merit us to see G'd. Sometimes, they
say, "See the love in these people you worship with... see the
lives of people change... that is seeing G'd." Thus people get
lulled to sleep, satisfied with turning G'd into the everyday
sights. But, that is not seeing G'd as I am speaking of... it is
not seeing G'd the way people used to see.
What we see in the world that is good, is the compassion of
human hearts, the love given and taken by men and women, the
forgiveness practised by Christian & Atheist alike, beauty created
by the mind of man. These are the things that are done; these are
what we see. But, it is said this is so only because everybody
has little faith.
Jesus Rides on
an Ass:
Shortly after accepting the role of the Jewish messiah
king, Jesus requests a donkey be brought in for him to ride into
Jerusalem.
[Mt 21.5] This took place to fulfil what was spoken
by the prophet, saying,
Tell the daughter of Zion, "Behold, your king is
coming to you, humble, mounted on an ass, and on a
ass-colt."
Of course, the passage quoted from Zechariah 9.9 reads a little
differently.
Lo, your king comes to you; he is triumphant and
victorious, humble, and riding on an ass, on an ass-
colt... he will command peace to the nations.
There isn't all that much difference here, except that Zechariah
only involves one animal --an ass-colt-- while Matthew reads the
poetic wording slightly differently. Thus, he has Jesus call for
both a colt and an adult ass. From Matthew's version, we get a
comical picture of the divine Christ sweating it to straddle two
donkeys. This could inevitably lead to a theological,
proctological dilemma! We find that in the account written
earlier by St. Mark, only the colt was called for and brought to
Jesus. This indeed fits the verses of Zechariah properly, and
shows us that in Matthew attempt to use prophetic verses, he has
bungled. Now, excluding many respectable Christians I have met, I
have noticed that while Christ is thought to have ridden on asses,
the situation is often reversed nowadays...
Then, entering the Jerusalem temple, the priests were
angered at people and youngsters calling Jesus the messiah. But,
Jesus replied as we might expect Matthew to have done,
[Mt 21.16] Haven't you read? `Out of the mouth of
babes and sucklings thou has brought perfect praise.'
It is more likely that Matthew made this response up since Jesus
was never one to point out such little "prophetic" things AND
since, as we might expect, the quote is in error, which seems to
fit Matthew's track record quite well. We might ask Jesus or
Matthew, "Haven't you read?" for the source reads,
[Psalms 8.1-2] O YaHWeH our lord, how majestic is
your name in the whole world! You, whose glory is
chanted above the heavens by babes and infants, you
have founded a bulwark against your foes to still the
enemy and the avenger.
The passages hardly need comment. There is no "perfect praise"
spoken of in the psalm, and what praise is there is given to G'd,
not his messiah king, and not Jesus. As mentioned, it seems to be
just one more case of Matthew's pen making up convenient prophetic
scripture.
YHVH said to
my lord...:
Jesus is said to have asked from whom the promised Jewish
messiah-king is to be descended. The Jews agree-- it is king
David. But, then Jesus counters by quoting Psalms 110,
"The LORD said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until
I put your enemies under your feet."
Taken at face value, Jesus is denying the necessity of Davidic
descent. One assumes he is in opposition to their answer. Of
course, the Christian answer is that he agrees, but is trying to
make some hidden point, to reveal some mystery about the divine
nature of the messiah-king. It's tempting to believe this, if one
is a Christian and not interested in matters of investigation.
But, there are problems.
In Jesus's time, the psalm was thought to be about the
messiah. And, it is easy to see why David might refer to the
messiah as his superior. We need only look at the scriptures
about the messiah to see that he is expected to be a great king,
bringing the Jews to times even better than those under David's
rule. Of course, the Jews listening had no good answer, and the
passage could indeed refer to a divine messiah, such as the
Christians worship. The problem lies in the meaning of this
psalm, an error that apparently several Jews of Jesus's time had
also made. One must remember that there were various factions
among the Jews, often as a result of different expectations of the
messiah-king. Jesus was apparently one of these adventists, like
his audience, who thought the messiah's advent was imminent, and
who interpreted Psalms 110, among others, as being messianic.
What is the problem, then? Psalm 110 literally reads,
YHVH's utterance to my lord:
"Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your
footstool."
YHVH sends forth your mighty scepter from Zion. Rule
in the midst of your foes! Your people will offer
themselves freely on the day you lead your host on the
holy mountains.
"You are a priest of the order of Melchizedek
forever."
The word "lord" is often mistakenly capitalised by Christian
bibles to denote divinity in this lord. But, in the Hebrew, the
word is "adoni," and no capitalisation exists. Adoni simply means
"lord," a generic term as we would use it. It is used often in
the scriptures to refer to kings and to G'd. It is merely an
address of respect.
There is nothing in the text itself to imply that the word
refers either to divinity or to the messiah-king. That this is
supposed to be written by David is not certain. The title of the
psalm translates to either "a psalm of David," or "a psalm about
David." It seems fitting to assume it to be written by a court
poet, about David's covenant and endorsement from G'd. If the
psalm had been written by David, it is unlikely that he would be
talking about the messiah. The idea of a perfect king, descended
from David, was not present in David's age. We have extensive
tales of David's doings and sayings-- none of which include any
praises of a messiah.
Many of the psalms show evidence of being written long after
David was dead, in times of the exile when G'd had put his show of
favour for David's kingdom on hold.
The description in the psalm fit David very well. David was
promised by G'd a rise to power, victory over his enemies,
successful judgement among the nations he conquered. He achieved
the priesthood common to Melchizedek in being a righteous king,
enabled to bless the people. It all fits.
We do not have to blame this problem on Matthew alone,
though. Here, there is not artificial prophecy alluded to, though
his use of the scripture is rather questionable. Still, this
event is common to the other gospels too. So, we let Matthew off
a little more easily this time. It is interesting to note,
though, how Matthew dresses up the event. The earlier gospel of
Mark tells the tale with Jesus simply speaking to a crowd.
Matthew has the Pharisees, who became the religious competition of
an infant Christianity, be the target of Jesus's question. As we
might expect, Matthew writes that the event ends up by
embarrassing the Pharisees. Such power is the pen.
Moses & Jesus,
Had it Together
All Along...:
We leave the gospel story of Matthew momentarily to see a
pseudo-prophecy in John's gospel. The gospel story of John
deserves special treatment, because it seems to be so far removed
from the real events of Jesus's career as told by even Matthew.
But, for the moment, we will just look at one verse. The early
church leaders founded a religion on the Jewish hopes of a messiah
king, and on an artificial extension of the original promises made
by G'd. When constructing the history of Abraham, Moses wrote of
a promise of land and nationhood to the Jewish people. While this
was accomplished eventually, under the rule of king David, the
Christians who came along later decided that they would claim the
fulfillment of the promise. But, to do so, they expanded on the
promise, preaching about a heavenly kingdom.
[John 8.56] (J.C. speaking) Your father, Abraham,
rejoiced to see My day. He say it and was glad.
It would be nice to tie in approval for Jesus from Abraham, but,
Abraham knew nothing of Jesus or a messiah, or anything Christian.
I have tried, and failed to find any event in the Old Testament
which corresponds to John's little prophecy. It is par for the
course to see St. John making up Old Testament backings, just like
his forerunner Matthew. Many Christians know that their faith has
many of its foundations in such fraud, and it is surprising they
still cling to it.
The Potter's
Field:
We are told that Jesus was betrayed while in Jerusalem by
one of his followers, Judas Iscariot. Matthew writes,
[Mt 27.5-10] And throwing down the pieces of silver
in the temple, [Judas] departed... But, the chief
priests, taking the silver, said, "It isn't lawful for
us to put it in the treasury, since it is blood
money." So they... bought a potter's field with it to
bury strangers in... Then was fulfilled what was
spoken by the prophet Jeremiah,
"And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price
of him on whom a price had been set by some of the
sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's
field, as the lord directed me."
This prophecy is an utterly gross bastardisation of Old Testament
Scripture. First, Matthew has made a mistake regarding the name
of the prophet. It is Zechariah who utters the verses which
Matthew makes use of.
[Zech. 11.12-13] ...And they weighed out my wages,
thirty shekels of silver. Then YHVH said to me, "Cast
them to the treasury," --the lordly price at which I
was paid off by them. So I took the thirty shekels of
silver and cast them into the treasury in the house of
YHVH.
First of all, the verses of Zechariah do not deal with a betrayer
of the messiah, or of G'd. The deal with a shepherd, most likely
a priest, chosen to serve a function of presiding over the people
shortly before G'd would send Judah and Israel into conflict with
one another. The word, "treasury," had been replaced by the King
James Scholars with "to the potter," precisely because this made
Matthew's quote fit better. But, this is a blatant error. The
correct translation of the Hebrew is indeed "treasury," which also
makes perfect sense in Zechariah's context, whereas "potter's
field" is totally unrelated. Whether the mistranslation was
intentional or not seems to be beyond speculation. However, given
Matthew's track record, one finds it hard to resist the notion of
intentional dishonesty.
Of course, Matthew would have ample reason for altering the
text. The thirty pieces of silver match Judas's situation, and if
as most Christians seem to be, the reader is willing to disregard
the contextual incongruity, Matthew might have another prophecy to
toss around. However, the correct translation of Zechariah
directly contradicts the situation with Judas and the high
priests. The high priests would not put the money in the
treasury. The worthless shepherd of Zechariah does exactly the
opposite! Of course, to the average Thursday-Night Bible student,
the "prophecy" as presented by Matthew would be taken at New
Testament face value. To those, Matthew's work is convincing
enough.
Wine, Vinegar,
& Casting Lots:
Then, Jesus is led away to be crucified.
[Mt 27.34-35] ...they gave him vinegar to drink,
mingled with gall; but when he tasted it, he would not
drink it. And, when they had crucified him, they
divided his garments among them by casting lots: that
it might be fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet,
"They parted my garments among them, and upon my
vesture did they cast lots."
First of all, the vinegar offered to Jesus is actually common sour
wine, of the type that Roman soldiers drank regularly. We find
that right before Jesus dies, the soldiers themselves give him
some to drink --not polluted with gall.
[Jn 19.28-30] Jesus... said, "I thirst." A bowl of
vinegar stood there, so they put a sponge full of the
vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth. When he
had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished;"
But, Matthew seems to be drawing on, not a passage from the
prophets, but one from the Psalms.
[Ps 69.20-28] I looked for pity, but there was none;
and for comforters, but I found none. They gave me
poison for food (lit. they put gall in my meat), and
for my thirst, they gave me vinegar to drink... Add
to them punishment upon punishment, may they have no
acquittal from thee. Let them be blotted out of the
Book of the Living.
Of course, the sour wine offered to Jesus is done at his request
of drink. This does indeed seem to be a show of pity. The psalm
quoted is about David and his political and military enemies. It
is not about the messiah or Jesus. It is then not surprising that
we run into further problem when we see that the "Jesus" in the
psalm asks G'd for the damnation of the "crucifiers," whereas the
Jesus of the gospels says,
[Lk 23.34] Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, the
don't know what they do!"
Further, Matthew misses with his attempt to create prophecy by
having gall (a bitter substance) put into Jesus's drink, not his
meat, as the psalm stipulates.
With the "prophecy" of the vinegar faulty, we naturally
ask, "What of the casting of lots?" This brings up the 22nd
Psalm, which deserves discussion all by itself. Suffice it now to
say that the fact that Jesus's clothes were divided as told is no
great thing. It turns out that this happened often to any felon
in those days. As we will soon see, it is perhaps the least
erroneous passage of the psalm when applied to Jesus. It does
indeed bring up the interesting question as to the quality of
Jesus's clothes. For a man so removed from worldly possessions,
his ownership of clothes worthy of casting lots raises some
suspicions.
The 22nd Psalm:
This psalm is attributed to David, as a lament of his
condition under the attack of his enemies. It becomes a song of
praise to YHVH and of hope. Taken out of context, parts of it
seem to fit the plight of Jesus at the crucifixion quite well. We
will examine the primary passages.
Verse 1-2: My god, my god! why have you forsaken me?!
Why are you so far from helping me, far from the words
of my groaning? Oh, my god, I cry by day, but you
don't answer, and by night, but find no rest.
Jesus is said to have cried the first sentence while on the cross.
This suggests that the whole psalm is really about Jesus, rather
than king David. Of course, the rest of the first stanza does not
fit as nicely to Jesus or his execution. Jesus is not pictured as
complaining about the whole ordeal, he is supposed to be like "the
lamb led mute before its shearers." Indeed, Jesus doesn't do much
groaning, even when on the cross. He certainly does not cry by
both day and night on the cross.
6-8: But, I am a worm, and no man-- scorned by men...
All who see me mock at me. They make faces and wag
their heads; "He committed his cause to YHVH. So let
him deliver him... for he delights in him."
This seems to fit Jesus's execution pretty well, with the
exception of the Holy messiah being called a worm.
12-13: Many bulls encompass me... they open their
mouths widely at me like a ravening and roaring lion.
16-18: Yea, dogs are round about me, a company of
evildoers encir-cle me, they have pierced my hands and
feet. I can see all my bones... They divide my
garments among them, and cast lost for my raiment.
19-21: But you, YHVH, be not far away! ...Deliver my
soul from the sword, my life from the power of the
dog! Save me from the mouth of the lion, and my
afflicted soul from the horns of the wild bull!
It would seem quite convincing, and I'm sure the early Christian
fathers who wrote of this prophecy thought so too. Unfortunately,
this prophecy has a fatal flaw. The words "have pierced" really
do not exist in the psalm. The correct Hebrew translation is,
16: Yea, dogs are round about me, a company of
evildoers encircles me, like the lion, they are at my
hands and feet...
In Hebrew the phrase "like the lion" and a very rare verb form
which can mean "pierced" differ by one phonetic character. The
word in the Hebrew text is literally, "like the lion" (ka'ari),
which makes sense in the context, and even further fits the animal
imagery employed by the psalm writer. It is convenience that
would urge a Christian to change the word to "ka'aru." But, to
add the needed (yet artificial) weight to the "prophecy" this is
just what the Christian translators have chosen to do. While the
correct translation does not eliminate the psalm from referring to
Jesus, its absence does not say much for the honesty of the
translators.
Apart from the erroneous verse 16, the psalm does not lend
itself to Jesus so easily. Verse 20 speaks of the sufferer being
saved from a sword rather than a cross. This naturally fits the
psalm's true subject, king David. As a side note, we now know
that crucifixions did not pierce the hands, the palms, but rather
the forearms. This doesn't say much in favour of the traditional
thought of a resurrected Jesus showing his disciples the scars on
his palms. But then, facts aren't bound by our religious beliefs.
Matthew escapes culpability this time, as he does not
attempt to draw many direct links between this psalm and his lord
Jesus. But the psalm, like many others, was on the minds of all
the gospel writers when they compiled the stories and
interpretations of Jesus's life and death. How much these
scriptures may have contributed to what actually got written down
is a question that has serious repercussions for Christian
theology. It is easy to see, for those who are not faithful
fundamentalists, how some of the events in the New Testament might
have been "enhanced" by scribes such as the eager Matthew. But,
it does less to speculate than to simply investigate scriptural
matters and prophetic claims. So far, this has not said good
things for St. Matthew.
The reference to the piercing looks a lot like Jesus's
crucifixion. John's gospel recount, written about 70 years after
the fact, tells us at Jesus's execution,
[Jn 19.34,37] But one of the soldiers pierced his
side with a spear, and out came blood and water...
these things took place that Scripture be fulfilled...
"The will look on him whom they've pierced."
Of course, this is built on a passage taken blatantly out of
context. Prophet Zechariah tells us how much of the nation of
Israel will split off from Jerusalem and Judah and go to war with
them.
[Zc 12.7-10] And YHVH will give victory to Judah...
And on that day, I will seek to destroy the nations
that come against Jerusalem (in Judah). And I will
pour a spirit of compassion and supplication... on
Jerusalem so that when they look on him who they have
pierced, they will mourn, and weep bitterly over him
like you weep over a firstborn child.
John's attempt to make up prophecy is perhaps weaker that
Matthew's attempts. Matthew, at least, usually excontexts more
than just one passage. John's errors are grossly obvious and
blatant here. It does not speak well for any of the gospel
writers, as it helps to show how the prophetic aspects of their
religion were founded.
Reckoned with
Transgressors:
After his arrest, Jesus is quickly executed for claiming
the Jewish kingship, messiahship. According to one version of
the gospel tale, Jesus gets executed along with two thieves.
[Mk 15.27] And with him they crucified two robbers,
one on his right, one on his left. And so the
scripture was fulfilled which says,
"He was reckoned with the transgressors."
Here, Mark is trying to link Jesus to a passage in Isaiah 53,
about the servant nation of Israel. The passage is not about the
messiah, for if one reads the whole chapter of Isaiah 53, and its
surrounding chapters, one sees that the servant is a nation. The
verses are also about what this servant has gone through in the
past, not a prediction of what is to come, in any event. The
servant is thought of as a criminal. This also happens to fit the
description of Jesus. Had the passage really been about the
messiah, it still is not at all clear why executing Jesus between
two thieves would fulfill the "prophecy" in Isaiah. Jesus would
more fittingly fulfill it with his whole ministry. He was
considered a blasphemer and troublemaker all throughout his
career. Locking onto a single event is a rather poor way to
steal prophecy, at least in this case, as we see that Mark could
have had made a better analogy with general comparisons.
Mark goes on to tell us how "those who were crucified with
[Jesus] also reviled him." [15.32] This is to be expected from a
couple of robbers. Of course in his later recount, St. Luke
decides to change some things. Luke tells us,
[Lk 23.39-43] And one of the criminals who was hanged
with him railed, "Aren't you the messiah?! Save
yourself, and us!"
This certainly fits with Mark's recount, which tells how the
people who crucified Jesus said, "Save yourself!" and that the
robbers did the same. But then Luke goes on,
But the other [criminal] rebuked [the first] saying,
"Don't you fear G'd, since you are under the same
sentence of condemnation? And we, indeed justly so,
for we are receiving the due reward for our deeds.
But, this man has done nothing wrong. And he said,
"Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom."
And Jesus answered, "Verily I say to you, today you
will be with me in paradise."
Now, this little dialogue seems highly contrived. It stretches
the imagination a bit to see this picture of one ruffian rebuking
his fellow criminal with such eloquent speech. We have a rather
strange picture of a criminal lamenting over the goodness of his
punishment and the justness of his suffering. Such a man,
apparently noble and of principle, doesn't seem likely to have
been a robber. We wonder at the amount of theatrics created by
Luke. Of course, Luke's recount also disagrees with Mark's.
Luke has only one criminal revile Jesus, not both. It is easy
enough to discount the discrepancy because the account was made
up, but those who wish to believe it is all part of the error free
words of G'd do not have this avenue open. This is yet another
example of a writer trying to take an Old Testament passage and
expand it and reinterpret it to suit his theology. In this case,
the embroidery creates some embarrassing problems, as we have
seen.
The End of the
World--
Mt. 24:
Now comes perhaps one of the most extraordinary and
embarrassing passages in the New Testament. It is found in all
three of the synoptic gospel stories, and casts some of the most
unfavourable doubt on the whole theory of Christianity. Jesus
mentions the destruction of the Jewish temples and buildings, and
his disciples ask him about this, and about the end of the world
which he has been warning about.
The disciples: Tell us, when will this [the temple's
destruction] be, and what will be the sign of your
coming, and of the close of the age?
Jesus: Take care that no one leads you astray, for
many will come in my name, saying, "I am the christ."
...you will hear of wars and rumours of wars... for
this must take place, but the end is not yet. For,
nation will rise against nation... all this is but the
beginning of the birthpangs.
They will deliver you up... put you to death,
and false prophets will arise and lead many astray.
...But he who endures to the end will be saved. This
gospel will be preached throughout the whole world, a
testimony to the nations, and then the end will come.
So, when you see the desolation spoken of by the
prophet Daniel, ...let those who are in Judea flee to
the mountains.
Immediately after the tribulation of those days,
the sun will be darkened... the stars will fall from
heaven... then will appear the sign of the Son of Man
in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn,
and see the Son of Man coming... and he will send out
his angels... and gather his elect...
Learn the lesson of the fig tree: as soon as its
branch becomes tender and puts forth leaves, you know
that summer is near. So also, when you see all these
things, you will know that He is near, at the very
gate. Truly I say to you, this generation will not
pass away until all these things take place...
But, of the day and hour, no one knows; not the
angels, not the Son, but only the Father... Therefore,
you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming
at an hour you do not expect.
From this, it is clear that Jesus thought the world would in
within the lifetimes of at least some of his disciples. He tells
them that although he doesn't know the exact day or hour, that it
will come, and thus they must be ready. Theologians have wet
their pants in panic to find some way out of this Holy Error.
But, unfortunately, Jesus made himself to explicit. He told his
disciples that their generation would still be around at the End,
and that they in particular should prepare for it, prepare to be
swept away.
There have been some who resorted to removing the inerrant
nature of the Bible, and said that the phrase, "this generation
shall not pass away..." really means "this race of people will not
pass away..." Of course, the word for generation is used many
times to refer to exactly that, the generation of the disciples.
It is an interesting notion that when God decided to learn Greek,
he didn't learn it well enough to make himself clear. But. it is
quite obvious from the rest of the dialogue that the disciples (at
least some of them) are supposed to live to the End of the World.
The charge of mistranslation is completely blown away by looking
at the Apostles' responses. It becomes abundantly clear from
Rev. 22.7, 1 Peter 4.7, 1 John 2.18, and Rev. 22.20, that Jesus
meant exactly what he said. The End was very near.
For 2,000 years, Christians have rationalised this 24th
chapter of Matthew, or ignored its meaning altogether. For 2,000
years, they have waited for their executed leader to come back,
hearing of wars, and rumours of wars, sure that He is coming soon.
Surely He must be. All we must do is wait. Can you imagine how
tired He must be, sitting around up there, being holy, waiting for
just the right moment to spring?
So, shortly after his crucifixion, Jesus of Nazareth,
(Joshua-ben-Joseph), died. It is said that after three days, or
three days and three nights, or three periods of time, or three
eternal seconds --or three of whatever they can decide makes for
less trouble-- he was seen again, resurrected, glowing with divine
radiance. Then the Saviour decided it wasn't in the best
interests of his new religion to stick around, and therefore
disappeared from sight into heaven. So the story goes, anyway.
As has been seen, there were many things attributed to Jesus when
people got around to writing the gospel stories down. To them,
Jesus was the fulfiller of all prophecy and scripture. We have
seen, though, that this matter is quite shaky. But, throughout
Church history, Christians have held fast to faith, in simple
belief. What doctrinal objections could not be solved with
argumentation or brute force, faith and forgetfulness kept away
from question. To question and investigate has never been the
easiest way to treat matters. Thus for 2,000 years, the
prophecies cited in the New Testament have gone on largely
accepted. Things may well continue that way for some time.
Pausing a moment to consider the way the doctrines of Christianity
have been accepted and used (properly or improperly) to support
wars and persecution, I suppose there is one prophecy of which
Christianity can securely keep hold.
[Mt 10.34] Jesus: "Don't think that I have come to
bring peace on earth. I haven't come to bring peace,
but rather a sword."
|
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
In article <1qlb7oINN684@shelley.u.washington.edu>
jimh@carson.u.washington.edu (James Hogan) writes:
>20:52 P.S.T. I come to my senses and accept the all-knowing
>wisdom and power of the Quran and Allah. Not only that, but Allah
>himself drops by to congratulate me on my wise choice. Allah rolls a
>few bones and we get down. Then Allah gets out the Crisco, bends
>over, and invites me to take a spin around the block. Wow.
>20:56 P.S.T. I realize that maybe Allah is looking for more of a
>commitment than I'm ready for, so I say "Man, I've got some
>programming to do. Gotta go. I'll call you."
>20:59 P.S.T Thinking it over, I renounce Islam.
What loyalty!
Jim, it seems you've been reading a little too much Russell Hoban
lately. As Hemingway said, my imitators always imitate the _bad_
aspects of my writing. Hoban would, no doubt, say the same here.
Gregg
|
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
> Niether was he a lunatic. Would more than an entire nation be drawn
>to someone who was crazy.
Find an encyclopedia. Volume H. Now look up Hitler, Adolf. He had
many more people than just Germans enamoured with him.
P.
--
moorcockpratchettdenislearydelasoulu2iainmbanksneworderheathersbatmanpjorourke
clive p a u l m o l o n e y Come, let us retract the foreskin of misconception
james trinity college dublin and apply the wire brush of enlightenment - GeoffM
brownbladerunnersugarcubeselectronicblaylockpowersspikeleekatebushhamcornpizza
|
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Is Keith as ignorant as he seems?
mam@mouse.cmhnet.org (Mike McAngus) writes:
>>>No, everything wouldn't be OK, but it would be a start.
>>Now wait, if the religious organizations were no longer tax-exempt, what
>>other beef could you have? They would then have as much right to lobby
>>as would any other group.
>You asked "would everything be okay". I answered no. Everything
>encompasses more than just the tax-exempt status of religious
>organizations.
Well, if everything wouldn't be okay, then tell us what it is that
wouldn't be okay. That is, if religions were no longer tax-exempt, then
what would be wrong with their lobbying or otherwise attempting to
influence politics?
keith
|
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Wholly Babble (Was Re: free moral agency)
In article <2944159064.5.p00261@psilink.com>
"Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
(Deletion)
>Of course, there is also the
>Book of the SubGenius and that whole collection of writings as well.
Does someone know a FTP site with it?
Benedikt
|
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
In article <1r0fpv$p11@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
(Deletion)
># Point: Morals are, in essence, personal opinions. Usually
>#(ideally) well-founded, motivated such, but nonetheless personal. The
>#fact that a real large lot of people agree on some moral question,
>#sometimes even for the same reason, does not make morals objective; it
>#makes humans somewhat alike in their opinions on that moral question,
>#which can be good for the evolution of a social species.
>
>And if a "real large lot" (nice phrase) of people agree that there is a
>football on a desk, I'm supposed to see a logical difference between the two?
>Perhaps you can explain the difference to me, since you seem to see it
>so clearly.
>
(rest deleted)
That's a fallacy, and it is not the first time it is pointed out.
For one, you have never given a set of morals people agree upon. Unlike
a football. Further, you conveniently ignore here that there are
many who would not agree on tghe morality of something. The analogy
does not hold.
One can expect sufficiently many people to agree on its being a football,
while YOU have to give the evidence that only vanishing number disagrees
with a set of morals YOU have to give.
Further, the above is evidence, not proof. Proof would evolve out of testing
your theory of absolute morals against competing theories.
The above is one of the arguments you reiterate while you never answer
the objections. Evidence that you are a preacher.
Benedikt
|
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Science and theories
As per various threads on science and creationism, I've started dabbling into a
book called Christianity and the Nature of Science by JP Moreland. A question
that I had come from one of his comments. He stated that God is not
necessarily a religious term, but could be used as other scientific terms that
give explanation for events or theories, without being a proven scientific
fact. I think I got his point -- I can quote the section if I'm being vague.
The examples he gave were quarks and continental plates. Are there
explanations of science or parts of theories that are not measurable in and of
themselves, or can everything be quantified, measured, tested, etc.?
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: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: Nicknames
In article <16BB6B6FE.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu (SCOTT D. SAUYET) writes:
>Okay, how about
> Scott "Can anybody hear me?" Sauyet
> ssauyet@eagel.wesleyan.edu
Could you speak up? I can't hear you....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My sole intention was learning to fly."
|
From: mccullou@snake10.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Gulf War (was Re: Death Penalty was Re: Political Atheists?)
In article <930421.120012.2o5.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>> I looked back at this, and asked some questions of various people and
>> got the following information which I had claimed and you pooh-poohed.
>> The US has not sold Iraq any arms.
>
>What about the land mines which have already been mentioned?
I asked around in one of the areas you suggested yourself, and presented
the information I got. No mention of US landmines was given.
>> other countries (like Kuwait). Information is hard to prove. You are
>> claiming that the US sold information? Prove it. [...] Information
>> is hard to prove, almost certainly if the US did sell information, then that
>> fact is classified, and you can't prove it.
>
>Oh, very neat. Dismiss everything I say unless I can prove beyond a shadow
>of a doubt something which you yourself admit I can never prove to your
>satisfaction. Thanks, I'll stick to squaring circles.
>
>mathew
Okay, so you are going to blindly believe in things without reasonable
evidence? I didn't realize you were a theist. I am doubting a claim
presented without any evidence to support it. If you are able to present
real evidence for it, then great. But unsupported claims, or even claims
by such and such news agency will not be accepted. If you want to
stick to the sheer impossible, instead of the merely difficult, then
fine.
The statement that if such a fact is classified, then you
can't prove it, is a simple matter of pragmatics and the law. If you
have access to classified information that you know to be classified,
and you reveal it, there is a good chance that you or someone else
(the person who revealed it to you), is going to jail.
I never said that you couldn't prove it to my satisfaction, I merely
said that it was difficult. (Who said I try and make things easy
for people I am arguing with :) (Unless of course, they need the
handicap).
--
***************************************************************************
* mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu * Never program and drink beer at the same *
* M^2 * time. It doesn't work. *
***************************************************************************
|
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Free Moral Agency and Kent S.
In article <healta.140.734925835@saturn.wwc.edu>, healta@saturn.wwc.edu
(Tammy R Healy) wrote:
> At the time Ezekiel was written, Israel was in apostacy again and if I'm not
> mistaken, Tyre was about to make war on Israel. Like I said, the Prince of
> Tyre was the human ruler of Tyre. He was a wicked man. By calling Satan
> the King of Tyre, Ezekiel was saying that Satan is the real ruler over Tyre.
Tammy, is this all explicitly stated in the bible, or do you assume
that you know that Ezekiel indirectly mentioned? It could have been
another metaphor, for instance Ezekiel was mad at his landlord, so he
talked about him when he wrote about the prince of Tyre.
Sorry, but my interpretation is more mundane, Ezekiel wrote about
the prince of Tyre when we wrote about the prince of Tyre.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
|
From: Patrick C Leger <pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: thoughts on christians
Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 15-Apr-93 Re: thoughts on christians
by Dave Fuller@portal.hq.vi
> I'm sick of religious types being pampered, looked out for, and WORST
> OF ALL . . . . respected more than atheists. There must be an end
> in sight.
>
I think it'd help if we got a couple good atheists (or even some good,
steadfast agnostics) in some high political offices. When was the last
time we had an (openly) atheist president? Have we ever? (I don't
actually know; these aren't rhetorical questions.) How 'bout some
Supreme court justices?
One thing that really ticked me off a while ago was an ad for a news
program on a local station...The promo said something like "Who are
these cults, and why do they prey on the young?" Ahem. EVER HEAR OF
BAPTISM AT BIRTH? If that isn't preying on the young, I don't know what
is...
I used to be (ack, barf) a Catholic, and was even confirmed...Shortly
thereafter I decided it was a load of BS. My mom, who really insisted
that I continue to go to church, felt it was her duty (!) to bring me up
as a believer! That was one of the more presumptuous things I've heard
in my life. I suggested we go talk to the priest, and she agreed. The
priest was amazingly cool about it...He basically said that if I didn't
believe it, there was no good in forcing it on me. Actually, I guess he
wasn't amazingly cool about it--His response is what you'd hope for
(indeed, expect) from a human being. I s'pose I just _didn't_ expect
it...
I find it absurd that religion exists; Yet, I can also see its
usefulness to people. Facing up to the fact that you're just going to
be worm food in a few decades, and that there isn't some cosmic purpose
to humanity and the universe, can be pretty difficult for some people.
Having a readily-available, pre-digested solution to this is pretty
attractive, if you're either a) gullible enough, b) willing to suspend
your reasoning abilities for the piece of mind, or c) have had the stuff
rammed down your throat for as long as you can remember. Religion in
general provides a nice patch for some human weaknesses; Organized
religion provides a nice way to keep a population under control.
Blech.
Chris
----------------------
Chris Leger
Sophomore, Carnegie Mellon Computer Engineering
Remember...if you don't like what somebody is saying, you can always
ignore them!
|
From: rjg@doe.carleton.ca (Richard Griffith)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof
In <1r4b59$7hg@aurora.engr.LaTech.edu> ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray) writes:
>If I make a statement, "That God exists, loves me, etc." but in no way
>insist that you believe it, does that place a burden of proof upon me.
>If you insist that God doesn't exist, does that place a burden of proof
>upon you? I give no proofs, I only give testimony to my beliefs. I will
>respond to proofs that you attempt to disprove my beliefs.
What is your reaction to people who claim they were abducted by space aliens?
Some of these people say, "I was abducted, experimented on, etc."
If we insist that these aliens don't exist is the burden of proof placed on
us. These people can give no hard facts but can give a lot of testimony to
back up their beliefs.
Replace <space aliens> with <elvis>, <big foot>, <blue unicorns>,
and we have a larger percentage of the population than I like to think
about.
Sometimes I wonder if reality really is a different experience for everone.
|
From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: It's all Mary's fault!
dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) writes:
> Nice attempt Chris . . . verrry close.
>
> You missed the conspiracy by 1 step. Joseph knew who knocked her up.
> He couldn't let it be known that somebody ELSE got ol' Mary prego. That
> wouldn't do well for his popularity in the local circles. So what
> happened is that she was feeling guilty, he was feeling embarrassed, and
> THEY decided to improve both of their images on what could have otherwise
> been the downfall for both. Clever indeed. Come to think of it . . . I
> have gained a new respect for the couple. Maybe Joseph and Mary should
> receive all of the praise being paid to jesus.
Lucky for them that the baby didn't have any obvious deformities! I could
just see it now: Mary gets pregnant out of wedlock so to save face she and
Joseph say that it was God that got her pregnant and then the baby turns
out to be deformed, or even worse, stillborn! They'd have a lot of
explaining to do.... :-)
> Dave "Buckminster" Fuller
> How is that one 'o keeper of the nicknames ?
Nanci
.........................................................................
If you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me
email (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):
Life does not cease to be funny when people die, any more than it ceases to
be serious when people laugh.
|
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
In <2942956021.3.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
>>DATE: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 10:00:39 GMT
>>FROM: Fred Rice <darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au>
>>
>>In <1p8ivt$cfj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>
>>>Should we British go around blowing up skyscrapers next?
>>
>>I don't know if you are doing so, but it seems you are implying
>>(1) that the person accused of blowing up the WTC in NY actually did it,
>>and
>>(2) that Islamic teachings have something to do with blowing up the WTC.
>>
>>[WTC = World Trade Centre, which was the building that was blown up, I
>>think.]
>>
>>Okay... to make some comments...
>>
>>(1) The person has only been accused -- innocent until proven guilty,
>>remember? Secondly, there seem to be some holes in his accusation that
>>I read about. For instance, if they guy used that particular van to
>>blow up the building, and then to go back and claim his deposit back
>>afterwards, he must be incredibly stupid.
>Perhaps Salamen was one of those "uneducated" Muslims we hear so much about.
>>Nevertheless, he was
>>apparently smart enough to put together a very sophisticated bomb. It
>>doesn't seem to fit together, somehow.
>Actually, Salameh was not the ONLY person involved. The other fellow was
>a chemical engineer working for Allied Signal who had specifically studied
>explosive devices in school (believe it or not - we actually allow radical
>Muslim types to study things like this in our universities - so much for
>the price of freedom)
From what I read, the other fellow told Salameh how to put it together
over the phone. The bomb was supposedly some sort of sophisticated
type, so to put a (I assume complicated) sophisticated bomb together
from instructions _over the phone_ (!) one must need some brains I would
expect.
>>Despite this, there have
>>already been many attacks and threats against mosques and Muslims in the
>>United States as a consequence of his accusation, I have read.
>>
>O.K., now please tell us where this is happening. I live in the U.S. and
>I have heard very little about these mosque attacks. There are many mosques
>in Houston, Texas and I would like to know what is going on so I can verify
>this. Or is the Great Jewish Media Conspiracy keeping us from knowing about
>this in the U.S. We heard about the mosque attacks during the Desert Storm
>venture, so why is it so quiet now? Maybe it is localized to New Jersey?
I read this in an article in "The Australian Muslim Times", the
newspaper (weekly) of the Australian Muslim community.
If this is true, perhaps one of the Muslims based in North America (if
they see this posting) can elaborate.
>>(2) Islamic teachings teach against harming the innocent. In the Qur'an
>>it explicitly teaches against harming innocents even in times of war.
>>The blowing up of the WTC and harming innocents is therefore in blatant
>>contradiction to Islamic teachings.
>This means absolutely nothing. Plenty of people commit violence while
>following what they think are valid religious principles. I have seen
>people post many things here from the Koran which could be "misinterpreted"
>(if that is the explanation you wish to use) by an "uneducated" Muslim to
>allow them to harm idolators and unbelievers. The first thing every Muslim
>says is that no Muslim could have done that because Islam teaches against
>harming innocents. And we are supposed to take you WORD that it NEVER
>happens. What do you think is the consequence? Does Allah strike them
>down before the "alleged" violence occurs? Of course not. Muslims commit
>the violent act and then everyone hides behind verses in the Koran. We're
>pretty hip to that trick. And I even doubt that it will come up in the
>trials.
>"My defense is that I am Muslim and Islam teaches me not to harm the innocent.
>Therefore, the people who were killed must not have been innocent. Sure we
>set off the bomb, your honor, but you must remember, sir, I am a Muslim.
>Allah is all-powerful. Allah would not have allowed this. Are you insulting
>my religion?"
>Great defense, eh?
>Just admit that there are some incredibly stupid, violent Muslims in the
>world and stop hiding from that fact. It does no one any good to deny it.
>It only makes the more reasonable Muslims look like they are protecting the
>bad ones. Can you see that?
I don't deny this fact.
The thrust of my argument here is that
(a) Salameh is, according to US law, innocent as he has not been found
guilty in a court of law. As his guilt has not been established, it is
wrong for people to make postings based on this assumption.
(b) Islam teaches us _not_ to harm innocents. If Muslims -- who perhaps
have not realized that Islam teaches this -- perform such actions, it is
_not_ _because_ of the teachings of Islam, but rather _in spite of_ and
_in contradiction to_ the teachings of Islam. This is an important
distinction.
I should clarify what Muslims usually mean when they say "Muslim". In
general, anyone who calls themselves a "Muslim" and does not do or
outwardly profess
something in clear contradiction with the essential teachings of Islam
is considered to be a Muslim. Thus, one who might do things contrary to
Islam (through ignorance, for example) does not suddenly _not_ become a
Muslim. If one knowingly transgresses Islamic teachings and essential
principles, though, then one does leave Islam.
The term "Muslim" is to be contrasted with "Mu'min", which means "true
believer". However, whether a Muslim is in reality a Mu'min is
something known only by God (and perhaps that person himself). So you
will not find the term Mu'min used very much by Muslims in alt.atheism,
because it is not known to anybody (except myself and God), whether I,
for example, am a "true believer" or not. For example, I could just be
putting on a show here, and in reality believe something opposite to
what I write here, without anyone knowing. Thus, when we say "Muslims"
we mean all those who outwardly profess to follow Islam, whether in
practice they might, in ignorance, transgress Islamic teachings. By
"Muslim" we do not necessarily mean "Mu'min", or "true believer" in
Islam.
Fred Rice
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
|
From: bcash@crchh410.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses
In article <1993Apr2.115300.803@batman.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
|> In article <C4twso.8M2@HQ.Ileaf.COM>, mukesh@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Mukesh Prasad) writes:
|> > In article <1993Apr1.142854.794@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
|> >> In article <1p8v1aINN9e9@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
|> >> > bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
|> >> >
|> >> >>- The Earth is evil because Satan rules over it.
|> >> >
|> >> > This is a new one to me. I guess it's been a while since a Witness
|> >> > bothered with me. Are they implying that Satan is omniscient? You
|> >> > might try tricking them into saying that Satan is 'all-knowing' and
|> >> > then use that statement to show them how their beliefs are
|> >> > self-contradictary.
|> >>
|> >> No, Satan is not omniscient, but he does hold dominion over the earth
|> >> according to Christian theology (note, not to be confused with JW's
|> >> theology).
|> >>
|> >
|> > What are the standard theologies on who/what created Satan,
|> > and why?
|> >
|>
|> Orthodox Christian theology states that God created Lucifer (Satan)
|> along with the other angels, presumably because He wanted beings to
|> celebrate (glorify) existence and life (and thereby, God) along with
|> Him. Actually the whys and wherefores of God's motivations for
|> creating the angels are not a big issue within Christian theology.
|>
|> But God created Lucifer with a perfect nature and gave him along with
|> the other angels free moral will. Lucifer was a high angel (perhaps
|> the highest) with great authority. It seems that his greatness caused
|> him to begin to take pride in himself and desire to be equal to or
|> greater than God. He forgot his place as a created being. He exalted
|> himself above God, and thereby evil and sin entered creation.
Actually, the story goes that Lucifer refused to bow before MAN as
God commanded him to. Lucifer was devoted to God.
Oh yeah, there is nothing in Genesis that says the snake was anything
more than a snake (well, a talking one...had legs at the time, too).
I don't think pointing out contradictions in STORIES is the best way
to show the error in theology: if they think a supernatural entity
kicked the first humans out of paradise because they bit into a
fruit that gave them special powers...well, they might not respond
well to reason and logic. :^)
Brian /-|-\
|
From: bcash@crchh410.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: free moral agency
In article <735295730.25282@minster.york.ac.uk>, cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
|> : Are you saying that their was a physical Adam and Eve, and that all
|> : humans are direct decendents of only these two human beings.? Then who
|> : were Cain and Able's wives? Couldn't be their sisters, because A&E
|> : didn't have daughters. Were they non-humans?
|>
|> Genesis 5:4
|>
|> and the days of Adam after he begat Seth were eight hundred years, and
|> he begat sons and daughters:
|>
|> Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Yeah, but these were not the wives. The wives came from Nod, apparently
a land being developed by another set of gods.
Brian /-|-\
|
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Nicknames
Maddi Hausmann (madhaus@netcom.com) wrote:
: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only) writes: >
: >We could start with those posters who annoy us the most, like Bobby or
: >Bill.
: Your wish is my command.
: Bill "Shit-stirrer" Connor
: Bobby "Circular" Mozumder
I'm not sure my new nom d'net is exactly appropriate, but it comes
very close. Considering what I have to wade through before I make one
of my insightful, dead-on-the-money repsonses, I have to agree that
something's getting stirred up. I would like to believe my
characterization of what I respond to would be kinder though, but if
you insist ...
I am also surprised to find that I have offended anyone, but in some
cases it's unavoidable if I am to say anything at all. For those to
whom fairness is important, check out my contributions, haven't I been
most generous and patient, a veritable paragon of gentility?
Oh, BTW, I don't mind being paired with Bobby; I admire his tenacity.
How many of you would do as well in this hostile environment - you
think -I'm- offensive ?! read your own posts ...
Love and kisses,
Bill
P.S.
My name is Conner, not Connor. No point in humiliating the innocents.
|
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: An Anecdote about Islam
In <114127@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu writes:
[deletia]
> I don't understand the point of this petty sarcasm. It is a basic
> principle of Islam that if one is born muslim or one says "I testify
> that there is no god but God and Mohammad is a prophet of God" that,
> so long as one does not explicitly reject Islam by word then one _must_
> be considered muslim by all muslims. So the phenomenon you're attempting
> to make into a general rule or psychology is a direct odds with basic
> Islamic principles. If you want to attack Islam you could do better than
> than to argue against something that Islam explicitly contradicts.
In the deletions somewhere, it mentioned something about chopping
off of hands being a punishment for theft in Saudi Arabia. Assuming this
is so (I wouldn't know), and assuming it is done by people fitting your
requirement for "muslim" (which I find highly likely), then would you
please try to convince Bobby Mozumder that muslims chop people's hands
off?
Come back when you've succeeded.
--
Disclaimer? "It's great to be young and insane!"
|
From: mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne)
Subject: Re: Christian Morality is
In article <1993Apr21.184959.9451@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>
>Dan, I'm concerned that you are in grave spiritual danger because of your
>stubborn refusal to love and accept into your heart the Mighty Invisible
>Pink Unicorn...[Nice parody deleted.]
>I shall pray for you. In fact, brother, I cast out the demon which binds you
>in the Name of the Mighty Invisible Pink Unicorn. Dan, you must have *faith*!
Then you better pray for me, too, because I believe that the Mighty
Invisibile Pink Unicorn does not exist. One being cannot be both "Pink"
and "Invisible." The demon (or should that be daemon?) that keeps me
from believing and saving my soul is named Logic.
Bill Mayne
|
From: pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker)
Subject: Re: The Universe and Black Holes, was Re: 2000 years.....
In article <1993Apr22.162239@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) wrote:
>
> In article <1r5hj0INN14c@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan
> Schneider) writes:
> >Well, suppose a probe emitting radiation at a constant frequency was
> >sent towards a black hole. As it got closer to the event horizon, the
> >red shift would keep increasing. The period would get longer and longer,
> >but it would never stop. An observer would not observe the probe actually
> >reaching the event horizon. The detected energy from the probe would keep
> >decreasing, but it wouldn't vanish. Exp(-t) never quite reaches zero.
>
> That's kind of what I meant. To be more precise, given any observer, in any
> single position outside the event horizon, would that observer ever in any way,
> be able to detect the probe having crossed the event horizon?
Yes, unless the observer is at rest with respect to the singularity at
infinite distance away. But an observer on a close approach to the BH will
see the particle go in in finite time.
Peter
Don't forget to sing:
They say there's a heaven for those who will wait
Some say it's better, but I say it ain't
I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
The sinners are much more fun
Only the good die young!
|
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Not the Omni!
Charley Wingate (mangoe@cs.umd.edu) wrote:
:
: >> Please enlighten me. How is omnipotence contradictory?
:
: >By definition, all that can occur in the universe is governed by the rules
: >of nature. Thus god cannot break them. Anything that god does must be allowed
: >in the rules somewhere. Therefore, omnipotence CANNOT exist! It contradicts
: >the rules of nature.
:
: Obviously, an omnipotent god can change the rules.
When you say, "By definition", what exactly is being defined;
certainly not omnipotence. You seem to be saying that the "rules of
nature" are pre-existant somehow, that they not only define nature but
actually cause it. If that's what you mean I'd like to hear your
further thoughts on the question.
Bill
|
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
In article <30136@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
>In article <1qjd3o$nlv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>Firstly, science has its basis in values, not the other way round.
>>So you better explain what objective atoms are, and how we get them
>>from subjective values, before we go any further.
>
>Atoms are not objective. They aren't even real. What scientists call
>an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes
>certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings. All
>of which is subjective.
[rest deleted...]
You were a liberal arts major, weren'tcha?
Guess you never saw that photo of the smallest logo in the world--
"IBM" made with noble gas atoms (krypton? xenon? I forget the
specifics).
Atoms, trees, electrons are all independently observable and
verifiable. Morals aren't. See the difference?
Tep
--
Men who love brown tend to be warm and deep, sensitive to the needs and
desires of their partners. Sex is a 24 hour a day thing. Snuggling by
the fire, walking in the rain or catching snowflakes on their tongue is
a real turn-on to a lover of brown. (thanx becka!)
|
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
In article <C5L184.Jo9@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
writes:
>In <1qlapk$d7v@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
>writes:
>>In article <C5JrDE.M4z@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike
>Cobb) writes:
>>>Theory of Creationism: MY theistic view of the theory of creationism, (there
>>>are many others) is stated in Genesis 1. In the beginning God created
>>>the heavens and the earth.
>
>> Wonderful, now try alittle imaginative thinking!
>
>Huh? Imaginative thinking? What did that have to do with what I said? Would it
>have been better if I said the world has existed forever and never was created
>and has an endless supply of energy and there was spontaneous generation of
>life from non-life? WOuld that make me all-wise, and knowing, and
imaginative?
No, but at least it would be a theory.
| __L__
-|- ___ Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
| | o | kv07@iastate.edu
|/ `---' Iowa State University
/| ___ Math Department
| |___| 400 Carver Hall
| |___| Ames, IA 50011
J _____
|
Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
In article <j0=5l3=@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@jec322.its.rpi.edu (Dan Johnson) writes:
>In article 143048IO30436@MAINE.MAINE.EDU, <IO30436@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> () writes:
Dan Johnson-
You don't know me, but take this hand anyway. Bravo for GO(DS) = 0.
Beautiful! Simply beautiful!
-jim halat
|
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Islamic marriage?
>DATE: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 00:11:49 GMT
>FROM: F. Karner <karner@austin.ibm.com>
>
>In article <1993Apr2.103237.4627@Cadence.COM>, mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan) writes:
>> In article <C4qAv2.24wG@austin.ibm.com> karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:
>> >
>> >Okay. So you want me to name names? There are obviously no official
>> >records of these pseudo-marriages because they are performed for
>> >convenience. What happens typically is that the woman is willing to move
>> >in with her lover without any scruples or legal contracts to speak of.
>> >The man is merely utilizing a loophole by entering into a temporary
>> >religious "marriage" contract in order to have sex. Nobody complains,
>> >nobody cares, nobody needs to know.
>> >
>> >Perhaps you should alert your imam. It could be that this practice is
>> >far more widespread than you may think. Or maybe it takes 4 muslim men
>> >to witness the penetration to decide if the practice exists!
>> >--
>> >
>>
>> Again you astound me with the level of ignorance you display, Muslims
>> are NOT allowed to enter temporary marriages, got that? There is
>> no evidence for it it an outlawed practise so get your facts
>> straight buddy. Give me references for it or just tell everyone you
>> were lying. It is not a widespread as you may think (fantasise) in
>> fact contrary to your fantasies it is not practised at all amongst
>> Muslims.
Did you miss my post on this topic with the quote from The Indonesian
Handbook and Fred Rice's comments about temporary marriages? If so,
I will be glad to repost them. Will you accept that it just may be
a practice among some Muslims, if I do? Or will you continue to claim
that we are all lying and that it is "not practised at all amongst Muslims".
I don't think F. Karner has to tell everyone anything. Least of all that
he is lying.
Since you obviously know nothing about this practice, there is very little
you can contribute to the discussion except to accuse everyone of lying.
Perhaps it is your ignorance which is showing. Learn more about Islam.
Learn more about Muslims. Open your eyes. Maybe you will also see some
of the things the atheists see.
|
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
> ( I am almost sure that Zyklon-B is immediate and painless method of
> death. If not, insert soem other form. )
>
> And, ethnic and minority groups have been killed, mutilated and
> exterminated through out history, so I guess it was not unusual.
>
> So, you would agree that the holocost would be allowed under the US
> Constitution? [ in so far, the punishment. I doubt they recieved what would
> be considered a "fair" trial by US standards.
Don't be so sure. Look what happened to Japanese citizens in the US during
World War II. If you're prepared to say "Let's round these people up and
stick them in a concentration camp without trial", it's only a short step to
gassing them without trial. After all, it seems that the Nazis originally
only intended to imprison the Jews; the Final Solution was dreamt up partly
because they couldn't afford to run the camps because of the devastation
caused by Goering's Total War. Those who weren't gassed generally died of
malnutrition or disease.
mathew
|
From: marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall)
Subject: Re: thoughts on christians
bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>>Robert Beauchine wrote:
>: RB> No, that's praying on the young. Preying on the young comes
>: RB> later, when the bright eyed little altar boy finds out what the
>: RB> priest really wears under that chasible.
>Does this statement further the atheist cause in some way, surely it's
>not intended as wit ...
Surely it was intended as wit.
By the way, which "atheist cause" were you referring to, Bill?
--
--- __ _______ ---
||| Kevin Marshall \ \/ /_ _/ Computer Science Department |||
||| Virginia Tech \ / / / marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |||
--- Blacksburg, Virginia \/ /_/ (703) 232-6529 ---
|
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Suggestion for "resources" FAQ
>DATE: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 15:01:10 GMT
>FROM: Bruce Stephens <bruce@liverpool.ac.uk>
>
>I think a good book summarizing and comparing religions would be good.
>
>I confess I don't know of any---indeed that's why I checked the FAQ to see
>if it had one---but I'm sure some alert reader does.
>
>I think the list of books suffers far too much from being Christian based;
>I agree that most of the traffic is of this nature (although a few Islamic
>references might be good) but I still think an overview would be nice.
One book I have which presents a fairly unbiased account of many religions
is called _Man's Religions_ by John B. Noss. It was a textbook in a class
I had on comparative religion or some such thing. It has some decent
bibliographies on each chapter as a jumping off point for further reading.
It doesn't "compare" religions directly but describes each one individually
and notes a few similarities. But nothing I have read in it could be even
remotely described as preachy or Christian based. In fact, Christianity
mercifully consumes only 90 or so of its nearly 600 pages. The book is
divided according to major regions of the world where the biggies began
(India, East Asia, Near East). There is nothing about New World religions
from the Aztecs, Mayas, Incas, etc. Just the stuff people kill each
other over nowadays. And a few of the older religions snuffed out along
the way.
If you like the old stuff, then a couple of books called "The Ancient Near
East" by James B. Pritchard are pretty cool. Got the Epic of Gilgamesh,
Code of Hammurabi, all the stuff from way back when men were gods and gods
were men. Essential reading for anyone who wishes to make up their own
religion and make it sound real good.
|
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes:
> Atheism denies the existence of God. This is logically bankrupt --
>where is the proof of this nonexistence? It's a joke.
This is one of my favorite fallacious points against atheism, i.e. the
belief that you can't deny anything that you can't prove doesn't exist.
This is easily nailed by showing that an infinite number of beings are
conceivable but not observed to exist, does this mean that we would have
to believe in all of them? According to the above poster, we must believe
in objects or beings that haven't been proved not to exist so why stop at
God? (there could be a huge number of beings identical to Ronald Reagan
except for trivial differences, say one is missing a finger, one has blond
hair,... and they all live on other planets so we can't see them) The
reason no one but atheists bring this up is that none of these christians
have a vested interest in these unknown beings with the exception of God.
>Fine, but why do these people shoot themselves in the foot and mock the idea of
>a God? Here again is a classic atheist fallacy.
How did they shoot themselves in the foot?
> Radical Muslims, the Crusades, the Inquisition are common examples that
>atheists like to bring up as marks against religion. How weak! Only fools can
>take that drivel seriously. How about the grand-daddy of all human atrocities,
>the Stalinist movement?
> Twenty eight MILLION people _killed_ under this leadership, which
>proudly featured atheism.
There is a big difference here, Stalin didn't say that he stood for a
particular moral position (i.e. against murder and terrorism, etc.) and
then did the opposite (like the religious movements), he was at least
an honest killer. (This is NOT a support of Stalin but an attack on this
viewpoint). Saying that atheism supports murder and violence just because
one man was a tyrant and an atheist is just bad logic, look at all the
russians that helped Stalin that weren't atheists - don't they contradict
your point? Besides your point assumes that his atheism was relevant
to his murdering people, this is just the common assumption that atheists
can't value life as much as theists (which you didn't support).
> Agnostics are not as funny because they are more reasonable. Yet
>they do in some sense seem funny because they believe that the existence of God
>is unknowable. This in itself is every bit the assumption that atheism is,
>though it's less arrogant and pompous.
Ah, and here's another point you didn't get out of the FAQ. An atheist
doesn't have to hold the positive view that god doesn't exist, he/she may
just have the non-existence of the positive belief. Here's the example:
Strong atheism - "I believe god does not exist" a positive belief
Weak atheism - "I don't believe in a god" a negative belief
these are NOT the same, some one that has never thought of the idea of
god in their whole life is technically an atheist, but not the kind that
you are calling unreasonable. Or let's look at it this way (in sets)
suppose that a given person has a huge set of ideas that I will represent
as capital letters and these people then either believe that these ideas
exist as real objects or not. So if S = santa, then E(S)= no is the person
not believing in santa but still having the idea of santa. But notice that
even E(S) = no is itself another idea! This means you have lots of cases:
christian : (A,E(A)=yes,B,E(B)=no, . . . G,E(G)=yes......) where G = god
atheist (strong) : (A,E(A). . . . .G,E(G)=no)
atheist (weak) : (A,.....E) i.e. no G at all in the set
agnostic : (A,.......G, E(G) = indeterminate, E', ....)
> Why are people so afraid to say "undecided"? It must just be another
>feature of human nature -- "undecided" is not a sexy, trendy, or glamorous
>word. It does not inspire much hate or conflict. It's not blasphemous.
>It's not political. In fact it is too often taken to mean unsophisticated.
Nietzsche once said that a man would rather will nonexistence than not
will at all but the darwinist way to put this is that humanity always
prefers no or yes to a maybe because indecision is not a useful survival
trait, evolution has drilled it in us to take positions, even false ones.
>Bake Timmons, III
M.S.
|
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster?
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>But, if you were to discuss the merits of racism, or its psycholgical
>>benefits, you would do well to have experienced it personally.
>When you speak of "experiencing religion" you mean someone should believe in
>a religion.
That's right, and this is pretty impossible, right? It would be ideal if
we could believe for a while, just to try out religion, and only then
determine which course of thought suits us best. But again, this is not
possible. Not that religion warrants belief, but the belief carries with
it some psychological benefits. There are also some psychological
burdens, too.
>When you speak of "experiencing racism", do you mean that someone should
>believe in racism, or that they should have racist things done to them? For
>parallelism, the former must be what you meant, but it seems to be an odd
>usage of the phrase.
Well, if there were some psychological or other benefits gained from racism,
they could only be fully understood or judged by persons actually "believing"
in racism. Of course, the parallel happens to be a poor one, but you
originated it.
keith
|