Datasets:
newsgroup

Dataset card Viewer Files Files and versions Community

Subset (60)

18828_alt.atheism · 799 rows

Split (1)

train · 799 rows

text stringlengths 37 51.2k
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: <Political Atheists? In article <1993Apr17.080321.18675@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes: \|> In article <1ql9a6$afp@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: \|> >In article <1ql0ajINN2kj@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: \|> >\|> Well, chimps must have some system. They live in social groups \|> >\|> as we do, so they must have some "laws" dictating undesired behavior. \|> > \|> >Ah, the verb "to must". I was warned about that one back \|> >in Kindergarten. \|> > \|> >So, why "must" they have such laws? \|> > \|> >jon. \|> Hey, must is a verb in some languages. Just happens it is only a modifier \|> in English. But, the verb of the sentence is to have. This is modified \|> by "must". I know that "must" is a verb in some languages. I'm complaining about the assertion containing the word must. jon.
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses (good grief!) The amount of energy being spent on ONE LOUSY SYLLOGISM says volumes for the true position of reason in this group. -- 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: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) Subject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!! In article <8473@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk> martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman) writes: >JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > >>YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!! BE >>PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!! >> >Oh fuck off. Actually, I just think he's confused. I'm going to hell because I'm Gay, not becuase I don't believe in God. (I wonder if that means I can't come to Tammy & Deans picnic?) -- =kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu \| B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t \| TSAKC= =My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza. OK???= = "Because I'm the Daddy. That's why." =
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) Subject: Re: <<Pompous ass 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? >Worse? Maybe not, but it is definately a violation of the >rules the US govt. supposedly follows. Oh? >>>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. What is wrong with this motto, now? If you wouldn't approve of even that one, I am beginning to think that you just have something against mottos in general. What do you think of "E plurbis unum?" keith
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is [reply to frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)] >>The problem for the objectivist is to determine the status of moral >>truths and the method by which they can be established. If we accept >>that such judgements are not reports of what is but only relate to >>what ought to be (see naturalistic fallacy) then they cannot be proved >>by any facts about the nature of the world. >This can be avoided in at least two ways: (1) By leaving the Good >undefined, since anyone who claims that they do not know what it is is >either lying or so out of touch with humanity as to be undeserving of a >reply. If the Good is undefined (undefinable?) but you require of everyone that they know innately what is right, you are back to subjectivism. >(2) By defining the Good solely in terms of evaluative terms. Ditto here. An evaluative statement implies a value judgement on the part of the person making it. >>At this point the objectivist may talk of 'self-evident truths' Pretty perceptive, that Prof. Flew. >>but can he deny the subjectivist's claim that self-evidence is in the >>mind of the beholder? >Of course; by denying that subject/object is true dichotomy. Please explain how this helps. I don't see your argument. >>If not, what is left of the claim that some moral judgements are true? >If nothing, then NO moral judgements are true. This is a thing that >is commonly referred to as nihilism. It entails that science is of >no value, irrepective of the fact that some people find it useful. How >anyone arrives at relativism/subjectivism from this argument beats me. This makes no sense either. Flew is arguing that this is where the objectivist winds up, not the subjectivist. Furthermore, the nihilists believed in nothing except science, materialism, revolution, and the People. >>The subjectivist may well feel that all that remains is that there are >>some moral judgements with which he would wish to associate himself. >>To hold a moral opinion is, he suggests, not to know something to be >>true but to have preferences regarding human activity." >And if those preferences should include terrorism, that moral opinion >is not true. Likewise, if the preferences should include noTerrorism, >that moral opinion is not true. Why should one choose a set of >preferences which include terrorisim over one which includes >noTerrorism? Oh, no reason. This is patently absurd.... And also not the position of the subjectivist, as has been pointed out to you already by others. Ditch the strawman, already, and see my reply to Mike Cobb's root message in the thread Societal Basis for Morality. 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: praetzel@sunee.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Praetzel) Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics In article <timmbake.735196560@mcl> timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes: > >Nah. I will encourage people to learn about atheism to see how little atheists >have up their sleeves. Whatever I might have suspected is actually quite Riddle me this. If a god(s) exist why on earth should we grovel? Why on earth should we give a damm at all? What evidence do you have that if such a creature(s) exist it deserves anything beyond mild admiration or sheer hatred for what it/they have done in the past (whichever god(s) you care to pick). That is assuming any records of their actions are correct. Religon offers a bliss bubble of self contained reality which is seperate from the physical world. Any belief system can leave you in such a state and so can drugs. God(s) are not a requirement. Only if you remove such useless tappestry can you build a set of morals to build a society upon. It is that or keep on exterminating those who don't believe (or converting them). - Eric NEW VIRUSES: RIGHT TO LIFE VIRUS: Won't allow you to delete a file, regardless of how old it is. If you attempt to erase a file, it requires you to first see a counselor about possible alternatives.
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) Subject: Re: Morality? (was Re: <Political Atheists?) livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: >>So, you are saying that it isn't possible for an instinctive act >>to be moral one? >I like to think that many things are possible. Explain to me >how instinctive acts can be moral acts, and I am happy to listen. For example, if it were instinctive not to murder... >>That is, in order for an act to be an act of morality, >>the person must consider the immoral action but then disregard >>it? >Weaker than that. There must be the possibility that the >organism - it's not just people we are talking about - can >consider alternatives. So, only intelligent beings can be moral, even if the bahavior of other beings mimics theirs? And, how much emphasis do you place on intelligence? Animals of the same species could kill each other arbitarily, but they don't. Are you trying to say that this isn't an act of morality because most animals aren't intelligent enough to think like we do? keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) Subject: Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster? cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes: >I somewhat agree with u. However, what it comes to (theist) religion, >it's a different matter. That's because religion is like a drug, once u >use it, it's very difficult to get out of it. That's because in >order to experience a religion, u necessarily have to have blind faith, >and once u have the blind faith, it's very diffcult for you to reason >yourself back to atheism again. >Therefore, it's unreasonable to ask people to try religion in order to >judge it. It's like asking people to "try dying to find out what >death is like". Well now, we can't judge death until we are dead right? So, why should we judge religion without having experienced it? People have said that religion is bad by any account, and that it is in no way useful, etc., but I don't totally agree with this. Of course, we cannot really say how the religious folk would act had they not been exposed to religion, but some people at least seemed to be helped in some ways by it. So basically, we can not judge whether religion is the right route for a given individual, or even for a general population. We can say that it is not best for us personally (at least, you can choose not to use religion--might be hard to try to find out its benefits, as you state above). keith
From: Alan.Olsen@p17.f40.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Alan Olsen) Subject: some thoughts. rh> From: house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house) rh> Newsgroups: alt.atheism rh> Organization: University of Southern Queensland rh> bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes: > First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian. It rh> I _know_ I shouldn't get involved, but... :-) rh> [bit deleted] > The book says that Jesus was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a >modern day Koresh) or he was actually who he said he was. [rest of rant deleted] This is a standard argument for fundies. Can you spot the falicy? The statement is arguing from the assumption that Jesus actually existed. So far, they have not been able to offer real proof of that existance. Most of them try it using the (very) flawed writings of Josh McDowell and others to prove it, but those writers use VERY flawed sources. (If they are real sources at all, some are not.) When will they ever learn to do real research, instead of believing the drivel sold in the Christian bookstores. rh> Righto, DAN, try this one with your Cornflakes... rh> The book says that Muhammad was either a liar, or he was rh> crazy ( a modern day Mad Mahdi) or he was actually who he rh> said he was. Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as rh> follows. Who would die for a lie? Wouldn't people be able rh> to tell if he was a liar? People gathered around him and rh> kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing how his rh> son-in-law made the sun stand still. Call me a fool, but I rh> believe he did make the sun stand still. rh> Niether was he a lunatic. Would more than an entire nation rh> be drawn to someone who was crazy. Very doubtful, in fact rh> rediculous. For example anyone who is drawn to the Mad rh> Mahdi is obviously a fool, logical people see this right rh> away. rh> Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have rh> been the real thing. Nice rebutal! Alan
From: qpliu@ernie.Princeton.EDU (q.p.liu) Subject: Re: Christian Morality is In article <4949@eastman.UUCP> dps@nasa.kodak.com writes: >Simple logic arguments are folly. If you read the Bible you will see >that Jesus made fools of those who tried to trick him with "logic". Why don't you cite the passages so that we can focus on some to discuss. Then, following Jesus, you can make fools of us and our "logic". > If you rely simply on your reason then you will never >know more than you do now. Indeed, if you can justifiably make this assertion, you must be a genius in logic and making fools of us should be that much easier. -- qpliu@princeton.edu Standard opinion: Opinions are delta-correlated.
From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com Subject: Re: Death Penalty / Gulf War In article <930414.121019.7E4.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes: > rush@leland.Stanford.EDU (Voelkerding) writes: >>In article <1993Apr12.143834.26803@seachg.com> chrisb@seachg.com (Chris >>Blask) writes: >>>Add to this the outrageous cost of putting someone to death (special cell >>>block, years of court costs, extra guards...) and the benefits of the death >>>penalty entirely disappear. >> >> That's because of your earlier claim that the one innocent death >> overrides the benefit of all the others. Obviously it's tragic, but >> it is no argument for doing away with the death penalty. If we went >> to war and worried about accidentally killing civilians all of the time >> (because our determination of who the enemy really is is imperfect), then >> there is no way to win the war. > > Yes. Fortunately we have right-thinking folks like your good self in power, > and it was therefore deemed acceptable to slaughter tens or even hundreds of > thousands of Iraqis in order to liberate oil^H^H^HKuwait. We won the war, > hurrah hurrah! The number of civilian Iraqi deaths were way over-exaggerated and exploited for anti-war emotionalism by the liberal news media. The facts are that less Iraqis died in the Gulf War than did civilians in any other war of comparable size this century! This was due mostly to the short duration coupled with precise surgical bombing techniques which were technically possible only recently. The idea that "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi citizens died is ludicrous. Not even "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi soldiers died, and they were the ones being targeted! Or do you think that the US and its allies were specifically out to kill and maim Iraqi civilians? Either the smart bombs didn't hit their targets (and we know they did), or they were targeting civilian targets (!) which is hardly condusive to destroying Iraq's military potential. The military mission planners are not fools, they know they have to hit military targets to win a war. Hitting civilian targets does nothing but unite the people against you, not a laudable goal if one wants the people to rise up against their tyrant-dictator. > > OK, so some innocent people died. Yes, maybe the unarmed civilians fleeing > along that road didn't need to be bombed to bits. Perhaps that kid with half > his face burned off and the little girl with the mangled legs weren't > entirely guilty. But it's worth the death of a few innocents to save the > oil^H^H^Hlives of the Kuwaiti people, isn't it? After all, the Iraqis may > not have had a chance to vote for Saddam, but they showed their acceptance of > his regime by not assassinating him, right? All that surrendering and > fleeing along open roads was just a devious ploy. We were entirely within > our rights to bomb 'em just in case, without finding out if they were > soldiers. How about all the innocent people who died in blanket-bombing in WW2? I don't hear you bemoaning them! War is never an exact science, but with smart bombs, it's becoming more exact with a smaller percentage of civilian casualties. Sometimes mistakes are made; targets are misidentified; innocents die. That's war the way it really is. But the alternative, to allow tyrannical dictators to treat the earth like it's one big rummage sale, grabbing everything they can get is worse. Like Patrick Henry said some 217 years ago, "I know not what course others may take -- but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" War is always the price one must be willing to pay if one wishes to stay free. > >> 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? > > Yes, let's reinstate the death penalty the way it ought to be. All that shit > about fair trials and a court of appeals just gets in the way of justice. > Let's give the police the absolute right to gun down the guilty, and save > ourselves the expense of all those lawyers. > > Think of the knock-on benefits, too. LA would never have had to spend so > much money cleaning up after riots and holding showcase trials if the cops > had been allowed to do their job properly. A quick bullet through the head > of Rodney King and another for the cameraman, and everyone would have been > saved a great deal of unnecessary paperwork and expense. > > After all, if the police decide a man's guilty, that ought to be enough. The > fact that the death penalty has been shown not to have any deterrent effect > over imprisonment, well, that's entirely irrelevant. > > > mathew > -- Mathew, your sarcasm is noted but you are completely off-base here. You come off sounding like a complete peace-nik idiot, although I feel sure that was not your intent. So the Iraqi war was wrong, eh? I'm sure that appeasement would have worked better than war, just like it did in WW2, eh? I guess we shouldn't have fought WW2 either -- just think of all those innocent German civilians killed in Dresden and Hamburg. How about all the poor French who died in the crossfire because we invaded the continent? We should have just let Hitler take over Europe, and you'd be speaking German instead of English right now. Tyrants like Hussein have to be stopped. His kind don't understand diplomacy; they only understand the point of a gun. My only regret is that Bush wimped out and didn't have the military roll into Baghdad, so now Hussein is still in power and the Iraqi people's sacrifice (not to mention the 357 Americans who died) was for naught. Liberating Kuwait was a good thing, but wiping Hussein off the map would've been better! 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"? 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 one makes a judgment without the benefit of a trial where evidence can be presented on both sides, one has simply lowered himself to the level of vigilante justice, a state-of-mind which your sarcasm above seemingly spoke against, but instead tends to support in the case against the policemen. Law in this country is intended to protect the rights of the accused, whether they be criminals or cops. One is not found guilty if there is a reasonable doubt of one's guilt, and only the jury is in a position to assess the evidence and render a verdict. Anyone else is simply succumbing to verbal vigilantism. Regards, Jim B.
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is [reply to frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)] >>I'm one of those people who does not know what the word objective means >>when put next to the word morality. I assume its an idiom and cannot >>be defined by its separate terms. >>Give it a try. >Objective morality is morality built from objective values. From A Dictionary of Philosophy, by Anthony Flew: "Objectivism: The belief that there are certain moral truths that would remain true whatever anyone or everyone thought or desired. For instance, 'No one should ever deliberately inflict pain on another simply to take pleasure in his suffering' might be thought of as a plausible example. Even in a world of sadists who all rejected it, the contention remains true, just as '5 + 7 = 12' remains correct even if there is no one left to count. The problem for the objectivist is to determine the status of moral truths and the method by which they can be established. If we accept that such judgements are not reports of what is but only relate to what ought to be (see naturalistic fallacy) then they cannot be proved by any facts about the nature of the world. Nor can they be analytic, since this would involve lack of action-guiding content; 'One ought always to do the right thing' is plainly true in virtue of the vords involved but it is unhelpful as a practical guide to action (see analytic and synthetic). At this point the objectivist may talk of 'self-evident truths', but can he deny the subjectivist's claim that self-evidence is in the mind of the beholder? If not, what is left of the claim that some moral judgements are true? THe subjectivist may well feel that all that remains is that there are some moral judgements with which he would wish to associate himself. To hold a moral opinion is, he suggests, not to know something to be true but to have preferences regarding human activity." 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: bdunn@cco.caltech.edu (Brendan Dunn) Subject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!! In article <93108.155839PTS102@psuvm.psu.edu> <PTS102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: [Pitt vs. Penn State controversy deleted] > >Bringing this back to alt.atheism relevance: So the guy says we're going to >Hell. That isn't sufficient cause to bitch to the system operator. At worst, >it's bad etiquette. (Unless you really believe that someone is using his >account without his knowledge/permission, which is actually against the law.) >----- >Patrick Saxton "Pitt is a second-rate school in a second-rate city." >pts102@PSUVM.psu.edu - anon >pts@ecl.psu.edu ob.atheism: "In Batman we Trust" > No. It wouldn't be sufficient cause to bitch to the system operator if this was just some guy saying that atheists are going to hell. The point was that recently many messages were posted from that address. Each of these messages was posted to a different newsgroup, with the apparent intent of provoking the readers of that particular group. This, along with the fact that these posts were written in all-caps, makes these posts suspect. Whoever is using this account is using it irresponsibly. If it is the intended user, they should consider appropriate action. If it is someone else-- which seems a possibility, then this is also reason to report it. We get many posts in the flavor of the one that started this thread. It is only because I have seen posts on other groups by this user that I am considering action. Brendan
From: kellyb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu Subject: Re: Bible Quiz In article <kmr4.1563.734805744@po.CWRU.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: > In article <1qgbmt$c4f@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cr866@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Frank D. Kirschner) writes: > >> --- > > Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible. > > Since when does atheism mean trashing other religions?There must be a God of inbreeding to which you are his only son. Pope John Paul
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> Subject: Re: Cults Vs. Religions? mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: > To the media, "religion" and "cult" have about the same relative > connotations as "government" and "terrorist group". Yes, each is a form of the other. Charley an anarchist? No, just true words being spoken in jest. mathew
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses In article <SUOPANKI.93Apr6024902@stekt6.oulu.fi> suopanki@stekt6.oulu.fi (Heikki T. Suopanki) writes: >:> God is eternal. [A = B] >:> Jesus is God. [C = A] >:> Therefore, Jesus is eternal. [C = B] > >:> This works both logically and mathematically. God is of the set of >:> things which are eternal. Jesus is a subset of God. Therefore >:> Jesus belongs to the set of things which are eternal. > >Everything isn't always so logical.... > >Mercedes is a car. >That girl is Mercedes. >Therefore, that girl is a car? This is not strickly correct. Only by incorrect application of the rules of language, does it seem to work. The Mercedes in the first premis, and the one in the second are NOT the same Mercedes. In your case, A = B C = D A and D are NOT equal. One is a name of a person, the other the name of a object. You can not simply extract a word without taking the context into account. Of course, your case doesn't imply that A = D. In his case, A does equal D. Try again... --- "One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that say "Mom", because of the love of their mom. It makes for more virile men." Bobby Mozumder ( snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu ) April 4, 1993 The one TRUE Muslim left in the world.
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW] In article <1qla0g$afp@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: >In article <115565@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) 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. >Gregg, I'm really sorry if having it pointed out that in practice >things aren't quite the wonderful utopia you folks seem to claim >them to be upsets you.. You have done no such thing. >BBCI was an example of an Islamically owned and operated bank - >what will someone bet me they weren't "real" Islamic owners and >operators? An Islamic bank is a bank which operates according to the rules of Islam in regard to banking. This is done explicitly by the bank. This was not the case with BCCI. >And why did these naive depositors put their life savings into >BCCI rather than the nasty interest-motivated western bank down >the street? This is crap. BCCI was motivated by the same motives as other international banks, with perhaps an emphasis on dealing with outlaws and the intelligence services of various governments. >So please don't try to con us into thinking that it will all >work out right next time. Back to childish propaganda again. You really ought to get a life rather than wasting bandwith on such empty typing. There are thousands of Islamic banks operating throughout the world which no-one ever hears about. If you want to talk about corrupted banks we can talk about all the people who've been robbed by American banks. Gregg
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) Subject: Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster? sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: >>To borrow from philosophy, you don't truly understand the color red >>until you have seen it. >Not true, even if you have experienced the color red you still might >have a different interpretation of it. But, you wouldn't know what red was, and you certainly couldn't judge it subjectively. And, objectivity is not applicable, since you are wanting to discuss the merits of red. keith
Subject: Re: Death Penalty / Gulf War (long) From: sham@cs.arizona.edu (Shamim Zvonko Mohamed) This is the most unmitigated bilge I've seen in a while. Jim Brown obviously has possession of the right-wing token. > Diplomatic alternatives, including sanctions, were ineffective. "In December, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told a Senate committee that sanctions were costing Iraq $100 million per day, and that the multinational coalition could take all the time in the world. Iraq, he suggested, was losing badly every day it defied the UN demands, while the community of nations won every day -- with no taking of life or loss of life." -- FCNL Washington Newsletter. > 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. Wrongful actions of murderers like leaders of the US government, perhaps? Regrettable, of course; The-Way-It-Is - certainly not. > The media is not totally monolithic. ... There are even conservative > sources out there if you know where to look. (Hurrah for Rush!) Good heavens! An escapee from Rush Limbot Land! "Conservative", my ass. > And BTW, the reason I brought up the blanket-bombing in Germany was > because you were bemoaning the Iraqi civilian casualties as being > "so deplorable". Yet blanket bombing was instituted because bombing > wasn't accurate enough to hit industrial/military targets in a > decisive way by any other method at that time. But in the Gulf War, > precision bombing was the norm. BULLSHIT!!! In the Gulf Massacre, 7% of all ordnance used was "smart." The rest - that's 93% - was just regular, dumb ol' iron bombs and stuff. Have you forgotten that the Pentagon definition of a successful Patriot launch was when the missile cleared the launching tube with no damage? Or that a successful interception of a Scud was defined as "the Patriot and Scud passed each other in the same area of the sky"? 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. > The stories > of "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi civilian dead is just plain bunk. Prove it. I have a source that says that to date, the civilian death count (er, excuse me, I mean "collateral damage") is about 200,000. -s -- "No one has attempted to calculate the costs of an execution in Washington state, but studies elsewhere suggest it costs far more than incarceration. "California is spending more than $90 million annually on capital cases, and until this year hadn't executed anyone since 1972. Texas, the national leader in the number of executions, spends an estimated $2.3 million per execution. That compares to an average cost of incarceration in Washington state of $25,000 per maximum-security prisoner per year." -- Shamim Mohamed / {uunet,noao,cmcl2..}!arizona!shamim / shamim@cs.arizona.edu "Take this cross and garlic; here's a Mezuzah if he's Jewish; a page of the Koran if he's a Muslim; and if he's a Zen Buddhist, you're on your own." Member of the League for Programming Freedom - write to lpf@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: Is Morality Constant (was Re: Biblical Rape) From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) In article <C4w5pv.JxD@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes: >There are a couple of things about your post and others in this thread >that are a little confusing. An atheist is one for whom all things can >be understood as processes of nature - exclusively. There is no need >for any recourse to Divnity to describe or explain anything. There is >no purpose or direction for any event beyond those required by >physics, chemistry, biology, etc.; everything is random, nothing is >determnined. This posts contains too many fallacies to respond too. 1) The abolishment of divinity requires the elimination of freewill. You have not shown this. You have not even attempted to. However, the existance of an Omniscience being does eliminate freewill in mortals.* * Posted over five months ago. No one has been able to refute it, nor give any reasonable reasons against it. -- "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: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) Subject: Re: Asimov stamp In article <schnitzi.735603785@eustis> schnitzi@eustis.cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes: >battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu (Laurence Gene Battin) writes: > >>Apart from the suggestion that appeared in the letters column of >>Skeptical Inquirer recently, has there been any further mention >>about a possible Asimov commemorative stamp? If this idea hasn't >>been followed up, does anyone know what needs to be done to get >>this to happen? I think that its a great idea. Should we start a >>petition or something? > >I'm sure all the religious types would get in a snit due >to Asimov's atheism. > >Do we have any atheists on stamps now? More to the point, how long are atheists going to be insulted by the disgraceful addition of religious blah-blah to our money and out pledge? -- "What's big, noisy and has an IQ of 8?" "Operation Rescue."
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) Subject: Re: <Political Atheists? 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. keith
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) Subject: Re: free moral agency In article <C5uuL0.n1C@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes: >Many of the atheists posting here argue against their own parody of >religion; they create some ridiculous caricature of a religion and >then attack the believers within that religion and the religion itself >as ridiculous. By their own devices, they establish a new religion, a >mythology. That is not an "atheism mythology" in any sense of the word. "Religious paradoy" would be significantly more appropriate. The 2nd part is rendered null and void by the simple fact that I do know several "strong" atheists. I am sure that others do. I myself am "strong" in the sense that I find the standard concept of God without any meaning. Any attempt to bring meaning either results in the destruction of the viability of language, or in internal self contradiction. The concept of strong atheism is not just a whimsical fantasy. They, and I, exist. Your strawman is pointless and weak. --- Private note to Jennifer Fakult. "This post may contain one or more of the following: sarcasm, cycnicism, irony, or humor. Please be aware of this possibility and do not allow yourself to be confused and/or thrown for a loop. If in doubt, assume all of the above. The owners of this account do not take any responsiblity for your own confusion which may result from your inability to recognize any of the above. Read at your own risk, Jennifer."
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) Subject: Re: note to Bobby M., again In article <1993Apr13.213527.3706@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes: > How about people who are not religous? Take the inner city. There are > many people that care little for religion. Lot of crime. Lot of > murder. This is the other end- lack of religion- that allows wrong to > happen. I lived in Tokyo for a year and a half, and one of the many reasons why I intend to go back indefinitely is the freedom one enjoys when one can walk anywhere (and I mean anywhere) at any time of day or night and not feel uneasy, even if one's from an ethnic minority as I was. Clues for Bobby (why do I bother?): (i) Tokyo is a city, and inner Tokyo is an inner city; (ii) there is a negligible level of violent crime, and a street murder will be a lead item on national TV news; (iii) the population is almost universally atheistic. Next time I go for a stroll around Beirut at night, I'll let you know how it compares. > Bobby Mozumder Cheers Simon -- Simon Clippingdale simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk Department of Computer Science Tel (+44) 203 523296 University of Warwick FAX (+44) 203 525714 Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: Requests In article <C5qLLG.4BC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne) writes: \|> In article <pww-190493085759@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) writes: \|> > \|> >Didn't the Church get lightning rods banned in several European countries \|> >in the eighteenth century because it was widely believed that they \|> >interfered with god's striking down of blasphemers? I seem to remember that \|> >this was more common in eastern Europe. \|> \|> I don't know about eastern Europe, but according to Bertrand Russell, \|> writing in Science and Mysticism (I think, though it could have been \|> another book) said that preachers in colonial Boston attributed an \|> earthquake to God's wrath over people putting up lightning rods, which \|> they had been preaching against as interference with God's will. Being \|> deprived of lightning bolts as a method to get at sinners He evidently \|> resorted to sterner measures. \|> \|> No smilies. I am not making this up. I'm sure you are not. After the "San Francisco" Earthquake a couple of years ago, there was a flurry of traffic on talk.religion.misc about how this was the result of the notorious homo- this that and t'other in the City. The fact that the Earthquake was actually down the road in Santa Cruz/Watsonville didn't seem to phase them any. jon.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: islamic genocide In article <1qjipo$pen@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: \|> In article <1qinmd$sp@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: \|> #\|> \|> #\|> At any rate, even if your interpretation is correct this does \|> #\|> not imply that the killings are religously motivated, which was \|> #\|> the original poster's seeming claim. \|> # \|> #Tricky, tricky. I'm replying to your blanket claim that they \|> #are not religiously motivated. \|> \|> They aren't. Irish catholics in the south do not kill Irish protestants \|> in the south, yet have precisely the same history behind them. Those \|> who think the killings are religously motivated ignore the rather \|> obvious matter of British occupation, partition and misguided patriotism \|> on both sides. False dichotomy. You claimed the killing were not religiously motivated, and I'm saying that's wrong. I'm not saying that each and every killing is religiously motivate, as I spelled out in detail. \|> \|> The problems fault along the religious divide because at the historical \|> roots of this thing we have a catholic country partitioned and populated \|> by a protestant one. The grotesque killing of soldiers and \|> civilians is supposedly motivated by patriotism, civil rights issues, and \|> revenge. It's only difficult to understand insofaras insanity is hard \|> to understand - religion need not be invoked to explain it. Does anyone else see the contradiction in this paragraph? \|> #But to claim that "The killings in N.I are not religously \|> #motivated." is grotesque. All that means is that the Church \|> #and believers are doing what they always do with history \|> #they can't face: they rewrite it. \|> \|> You're attacking a different claim. My claim is that when an IRA \|> terrorist plants a bomb in Warrington s/he does not have as a motive \|> the greater glory of God. Sorry, Frank, but what I put in quotes is your own words from your posting <1qi83b$ec4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>. Don't tell us now that it's a different claim. If you can no longer stand behind your original claim, just say so. jon.
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) Subject: Re: some thoughts. In article <healta.145.734928689@saturn.wwc.edu>, healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes: \|> I hope you're not going to flame him. Please give him the same coutesy you' \|> ve given me. \|> \|> Tammy If a person gives a well-balanced reasoned argument, Tammy, then all are happy to discuss it with him. If he makes astounding claims, which are not backed up with any evidence then he must be expected to substantiate them. If the original author had said that everything was his own opinion and not supportable then people would have simply ignored him. He did not. He claimed many things and his logic was seriously flawed. His argument was for christianity in an effort to try to convince atheists like myself to believe him and his message. I for one will not take things as read. If you told me that pink fluffy elephants did the dance of the sugar plum fairy on the dark side of Jupiter then I would demand evidence! Adda -- +-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+ \| Adda Wainwright \| Does dim atal y llanw! 8o) \| \| eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk \| 8o) Mae .sig 'ma ar werth! \| +-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie In article <C5HKv2.Epv@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes: >In article <115256@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: >>Judaism, for one. Maddi has confirmed this for one. And again I >>reiterate that one can easily leave the religion at any time, >>simply by making a public declaration. If one is too lazy to do >>that then the religion cannot be held responsible. >There are many "Islamic" countries where publically renouncing Islam can be >quite dangerous. These countries might not, according to you, necessarily be >practicing "true" Islam, but the danger still remains; one cannot blame >failure to publically renounce Islam on "laziness" as opposed to a desire to >stay alive and well. Of course, if you're planning to pull a Rushdie then declaring one's leaving the religion is little to be concerned about compared to one's other plans. In Rushdie's case, the one under discussion, one can. It is tragic that in _some_ "Islamic" countries this is so. There are, however, Islamic countries (whose constitutions contains statements that Islamic law is to be incorporated), e.g. Kuwait, where one can freely make such statements without fear. >Not to mention that it has already been pointed out that Rushdie has said in >his books that he's not a Muslim, and there have surely been enough readers of >his books to provide the appropriate number of witnesses. This story has become tiresome. The conditions are clear. If you care to make your point clear then make a chronology and show that he had made public statements about leaving Islam prior to his writing of _TSV_. If he did make such statements then he should have made _that_ clear rather than trying to rejoin Islam or go on talking about his personal feelings. Gregg
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: Jews can't hide from keith@cco. In article <1993Apr3.071823.13253@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes: \|> In article <1pj2b6$aaa@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: \|> >In article <1993Apr3.033446.10669@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes: \|> >\|>Er, Jon, what Ken said was: \|> >\|> \|> >\|> There have previously been people like you in your country. Unfortunately, \|> >\|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ \|> >\|> most Jews did not survive. \|> >\|> \|> >\|>That sure sounds to me like Ken is accusing the guy of being a Nazi. \|> > [my previous posting deleted] \|> \|> Yes, yes. This is a perfectly fine rant, and I agree with it completely. \|> But what does it have to do with anything? The issue at hand here \|> is whether or not Ken accused the fellow from Germany of being a \|> Nazi. I grant that he did not explicity make this accusation, but \|> he came pretty damn close. He is certainly accusing the guy of \|> sympathizing with those who would like to exterminate the Jews, and \|> that's good enough for me. The poster casually trashed two thousand years of Jewish history, and Ken replied that there had previously been people like him in Germany. That's right. There have been. There have also been people who were formally Nazis. But the Nazi party would have gone nowhere without the active and tacit support of the ordinary man in the street who behaved as though casual anti-semitism was perfectly acceptable. Now what exactly don't you understand about what I wrote, and why don't you see what it has to do with the matter at hand? jon.
From: jvigneau@cs.ulowell.edu (Joe Vigneau) Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts" In article <1pmjo8INN2l0@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes: Just what do gay people do that straight people don't? Absolutely nothing. I'm a VERY straight(as an arrow), 17-year old male that is involved in the BSA. I don't care what gay people do among each other, as long as they don't make passes at me or anything. At my summer camp where I work, my boss is gay. Not in a 'pansy' way of gay (I know a few), but just 'one of the guys'. He doesn't push anything on me, and we give him the same respect back, due to his position. If anything, the BSA has taught me, I don't know, tolerance or something. Before I met this guy, I thought all gays were 'faries'. So, the BSA HAS taught me to be an antibigot. Basically, It comes down to this: What you do among yourself is your own business. No one else has the right to tell you otherwise, unless it violates someone else's civil rights.
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW] In article <1993Apr21.171807.16785@bnr.ca> (Rashid) writes: >In article <115694@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) wrote: >> I think many reading this group would also benefit by knowing how >> deviant the view _as I've articulated it above_ (which may not be >> the true view of Khomeini) is from the basic principles of Islam. >> So that the non-muslim readers of this group will see how far from >> the simple basics of Islam such views are on the face of them. And >> if they are _not_ in contradiction with the basics of Islam, how >> subtle such issues are and how it seems sects exist in Islam while >> they are explicitly proscribed by the Qur'an. >Discussing it here is fine by me. Shall we start a new thread called, >say, "Infallibility in Islam" and move the discussion there? I think this should be illuminating to all. Let me make a first suggestion. When Arabic words, especially technical ones, become of use let us define them for those, especially atheists, to whom they may not be terribly familiar. Please also note that though I did initially refer to Khomeini as a heretic for what I understood to be a claim -- rejected by you since -- of personal infallibility, I withdraw this as a basis for such a statement. I conditionally retain this reference in regard to Khomeini's advocacy of the thesis of the infallibility of the so-called "Twelve Imams," which is in clear conflict with the Qur'an in that it places the Twelve Imams in a category of behavior and example higher than that of the Muhammad, in that the Qur'an shows that the Prophet was clearly fallible, as well as (it appears, given your abstruse theological statment regarding the "natures" of the Twelve Imams) placing them in a different metaphysical category than the remainder of humanity, with the possible exception of Muhammad, something which verges on the sin of association. >As salam a-laikum Alaikum Wassalam, Gregg
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: > In article <1993Apr15.125245.12872@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats > Andtbacka) writes: > \| "And these objective values are ... ?" > \|Please be specific, and more importantly, motivate. > > I'll take a wild guess and say Freedom is objectively valuable. Yes, but whose freedom? The world in general doesn't seem to value the freedom of Tibetans, for example. mathew
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) Subject: Re: Poisoning the well (was: Islamic Genocide) In article <1rbpq0$ibg@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: > >In article <16BBACBC3.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes: >#By the way, that's why I consider you a theist: > >[7 points, consisting of rhetorical fallacy, unsupported claims, and >demonstrable falsehoods deleted] > No wonder that we don't see any detail for this claim. It is good to remember that you have answered the statement that you are a theist by another correspondent with that you are not a member of a denomination. It is either stupidity or an attempt at a trick answer. Not unlike the rest of your arguments. >Mr. Roseneau, I have little patience with people who tell me what I >believe, and who call me a liar when I disagree. I'm in a position >not only to know what it is that I believe, but to say so. I am an >agnostic. > I am extremely wary of the way you use words. Like in this case, there are broader definitions of gods used by persons who are considered by themselves and others theists. I have pointed to that in my post. You use one of them. Your use of definitions seems to rest on the assumption: because my moral is objective/absolute or the other buzz words you are so fond of, everybody will know it, and there is no need to define it more exactly. And as a user has shown recently, the easiest way to dispell you is to ask you for definitions. >You are of course, free to speculate on my motives for objecting >to seeming irrational bigotry if you wish, but the flaws which I >point out in your arguments stand on their own merits. Since you are the only one seeing them, and many correspondents point to the flaws in your reasoning respectively discussing, I can't say I am impressed. Benedikt
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) Subject: Re: islamic authority over women SCOTT D. SAUYET (SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu) wrote: : Regardless of people's hidden motivations, the stated reasons for many : wars include religion. Of course you can always claim that the REAL : reason was economics, politics, ethnic strife, or whatever. But the : fact remains that the justification for many wars has been to conquer : the heathens. : If you want to say, for instance, that economics was the chief cause : of the Crusades, you could certainly make that point. But someone : could come along and demonstrate that it was REALLY something else, in : the same manner you show that it was REALLY not religion. You could : in this manner eliminate all possible causes for the Crusades. : Scott, I don't have to make outrageous claims about religion's affecting and effecting history, for the purpsoe of a.a, all I have to do point out that many claims made here are wrong and do nothing to validate atheism. At no time have I made any statement that religion was the sole cause of anything, what I have done is point out that those who do make that kind of claim are mistaken, usually deliberately. To credit religion with the awesome power to dominate history is to misunderstand human nature, the function of religion and of course, history. I believe that those who distort history in this way know exaclty what they're doing, and do it only for affect. Bill
From: Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu> Subject: Re: Christian Morality is In article <C5prCA.590@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) says: > >In <11836@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes: > >>In article <C5L1Ey.Jts@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike >Cobb) writes: > >> If I'm wrong, god is free at any time to correct my mistake. That >> he continues not to do so, while supposedly proclaiming his >> undying love for my eternal soul, speaks volumes. > >What are the volumes that it speaks besides the fact that he leaves your >choices up to you? Leaves the choices up to us but gives us no better reason to believe than an odd story of his alleged son getting killed for us? And little new in the past few thousand years, leaving us with only the texts passed down through centuries of meddling with the meaning and even wording. ...most of this passing down and interpretation of course coming from those who have a vested interest in not allowing the possibility that it might not be the ultimate truth. What about maybe talking to us directly, eh? He's a big god, right? He ought to be able to make time for the creations he loves so much...at least enough to give us each a few words of direct conversation. What, he's too busy to get around to all of us? Or maybe a few unquestionably-miraculous works here and there? ...speaks volumes upon volumes to me that I've never gotten a chance to meet the guy and chat with him.
Subject: Re: Feminism and Islam, again From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu In article <1993Apr14.030334.8650@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes: > In article <1993Apr11.145519.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: >> >>There's a way around that via the hadith, which state that silence is >>taken to mean "yes" and that women may not speak before a judge, who >>must conduct the marriage. > > Actaully, that's a false hadith, because it contradicts verses in the > Quran, that says women may testify- speak before a judge. > > Hadiths are declared false when they contradict the Quran. Hadiths > weren't written during the revelation or during the life of the prophet, > and so may contain errors. So the only way you can tell a false hadith from a true one is if it contradicts the Quran? What if it relates to something that isn't explicitly spelled out in the Quran? Also, the Quran wasn't written down during the life of Muhammed either. It wasn't long after, but 20 years or so is still long enough to shift a few verses around. Karl ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- \| "Lastly, I come to China in the hope \| "All you touch and all you see \| \| of fulfilling a lifelong ambition - \| Is all your life will ever be." \| \| dropping acid on the Great Wall." --Duke \| --Pink Floyd \| \|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\| \| A Lie is still a Lie even if 3.8 billion people believe it. \| -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) Subject: Re: atheist? In article <ePVk2B3w165w@mantis.co.uk> Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> writes: (Deletion) >> In other words, if there were gods, they would hardly make sense, and >> it is possible to explain the phenomenon of religion without gods. >> >> The concept is useless, and I don't have to introduce new assumptions >> in order to show that. > >Yes I fully agree with that, but is it "I don't believe gods exist", or >"I believe no gods exist"? As MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) >pointed out, it all hinges on what you take the word "believe" to mean. > For me, it is a "I believe no gods exist" and a "I don't believe gods exist". In other words, I think that statements like gods are or somehow interfere with this world are false or meaningless. In Ontology, one can fairly conclude that when "A exist" is meaningless A does not exist. Under the Pragmatic definition of truth, "A exists" is meaningless makes A exist even logically false. A problem with such statements is that one can't disprove a subjective god by definition, and there might be cases where a subjective god would even make sense. The trouble with most god definitions is that they include some form of objective existence with the consequence of the gods affecting all. Believers derive from it a right to interfere with the life of others. (Deletion) > >Should the FAQ be clarified to try to pin down this notion of "belief"? >Can it? > Honestly, I don't see the problem. Benedikt
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) Subject: Re: thoughts on christians Kent Sandvik (sandvik@newton.apple.com) wrote: : > This is a good point, but I think "average" people do not take up Christianity : > so much out of fear or escapism, but, quite simply, as a way to improve their : > social life, or to get more involved with American culture, if they are kids of : > immigrants for example. Since it is the overwhelming major religion in the : > Western World (in some form or other), it is simply the choice people take if : > they are bored and want to do something new with their lives, but not somethong : > TOO new, or TOO out of the ordinary. Seems a little weak, but as long as it : > doesn't hurt anybody... : The social pressure is indeed a very important factor for the majority : of passive Christians in our world today. In the case of early Christianity : the promise of a heavenly afterlife, independent of your social status, : was also a very promising gift (reason slaves and non-Romans accepted : the religion very rapidly). If this is a hypothetical proposition, you should say so, if it's fact, you should cite your sources. If all this is the amateur sociologist sub-branch of a.a however, it would suffice to alert the unwary that you are just screwing around ... Bill
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Theism : Evidence? In article <1qibo2$f4o@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: > >#>In the absence of some convincing evidence that theist fanatics are more >#>dangerous than atheist fanatics, I'll continue to be wary of fanatics of >#>any stripe. ># >#I think that the agnostic fanatics are the most dangerous of the lot. > >Fair point, actually. I mentioned theists and atheists, but left out >agnostics. Mea culpa. > No wonder in the light of that you are a probably a theist who tries to pass as an agnostic. I still remember your post about your daughter singing Chrismas Carols and your feelings of it well. By the way, would you show marginal honesty and answer the many questions you left open when you ceased to respond last time? Benedikt
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: FAKE GOD, HOLY LIES In article <1993Apr22.130421.113279@zeus.calpoly.edu>, dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes: > > REMEMBER: Einstien said Imagination is greater than knowledge!! Then Einstein should have had lunch with me at the Tien Fu on Castro Street yesterday, when they handed me a fortune cookie that said "He who has imagination but not knowledge has wings, but no feet". jon.
Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution From: lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.) In article <1APR199313404295@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu<, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes... <In article <31MAR199321091163@juliet.caltech.edu<, lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.) writes... <<Atheism (Greek 'a' not + 'theos' god) Belief that there is no god. <<Agnosticism (Greek 'a' not + ~ 'gnostein ?' know) Belief that it is << not possible to determine if there is a god. <No. Agnosticism as you have here defined it is a positive belief--a <belief that it is not possible to determine the existence of any gods. <That's a belief I'm inclined to reject. You have also defined atheism <here as a positive belief--that there is no god. A fairly large number <of atheists on alt.atheism reject this definition, instead holding that <atheism is simply the absence of belief in a god. Michael Martin, in <_Atheism: A Philosophical Justification_, distinguishes strong atheism My mistake. I will have to get a newer dictionary and read the follow up line. larry henling lmh@shakes.caltech.edu
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) Subject: Re: Jews can't hide from keith@cco. In article <1pqdor$9s2@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: >In article <1993Apr3.071823.13253@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes: >The poster casually trashed two thousand years of Jewish history, and >Ken replied that there had previously been people like him in Germany. I think the problem here is that I pretty much ignored the part about the Jews sightseeing for 2000 years, thinking instead that the important part of what the original poster said was the bit about killing Palestinians. In retrospect, I can see how the sightseeing thing would be offensive to many. I originally saw it just as poetic license, but it's understandable that others might see it differently. I still think that Ken came on a bit strong though. I also think that your advice to Masud Khan: #Before you argue with someone like Mr Arromdee, it's a good idea to #do a little homework, or at least think. was unnecessary. >That's right. There have been. There have also been people who >were formally Nazis. But the Nazi party would have gone nowhere >without the active and tacit support of the ordinary man in the >street who behaved as though casual anti-semitism was perfectly >acceptable. > >Now what exactly don't you understand about what I wrote, and why >don't you see what it has to do with the matter at hand? Throughout all your articles in this thread there is the tacit assumption that the original poster was exhibiting casual anti-semitism. If I agreed with that, then maybe your speech on why this is bad might have been relevant. But I think you're reading a lot into one flip sentence. While probably not true in this case, too often the charge of anti-semitism gets thrown around in order to stifle legitimate criticism of the state of Israel. Anyway, I'd rather be somewhere else, so I'm outta this thread. -- Doug Graham dgraham@bnr.ca My opinions are my own.
From: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu (Turin Turambar, ME Department of Utter Misery) Subject: TEST: IGNORE TEST-- ================================================================================ \| 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: marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall) Subject: Re: some thoughts. bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes: > Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows. Who would >die for a lie? Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar? People >gathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing >someone who was or had been healed. Call me a fool, but I believe he did >heal people. Anyone who dies for a "cause" runs the risk of dying for a lie. As for people being able to tell if he was a liar, well, we've had grifters and charlatans since the beginning of civilization. If David Copperfield had been the Messiah, I bet he could have found plenty of believers. Jesus was hardly the first to claim to be a faith healer, and he wasn't the first to be "witnessed." What sets him apart? > Niether was he a lunatic. Would more than an entire nation be drawn >to someone who was crazy. Very doubtful, in fact rediculous. For example >anyone who is drawn to David Koresh is obviously a fool, logical people see >this right away. Rubbish. Nations have followed crazies, liars, psychopaths, and megalomaniacs throughout history. Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini, Khomeini, Qadaffi, Stalin, Papa Doc, and Nixon come to mind...all from this century. Koresh is a non-issue. > Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the >real thing. Take a discrete mathematics or formal logic course. There are flaws in your logic everywhere. And as I'm sure others will tell you, read the FAQ! > Some other things to note. He fulfilled loads of prophecies in >the psalms, Isaiah and elsewhere in 24 hrs alone. This in his betrayal >and Crucifixion. I don't have my Bible with me at this moment, next time I >write I will use it. Of course, you have to believe the Bible first. Just because something is written in the Bible does not mean it is true, and the age of that tome plus the lack of external supporting evidence makes it less credible. So if you do quote from the Bible in the future, try to back up that quote with supporting evidence. Otherwise, you will get flamed mercilessly. > I don't think most people understand what a Christian is. It >is certainly not what I see a lot in churches. Rather I think it >should be a way of life, and a total sacrafice of everything for God's >sake. He loved us enough to die and save us so we should do the >same. Hey we can't do it, God himself inspires us to turn our lives >over to him. That's tuff and most people don't want to do it, to be a >real Christian would be something for the strong to persevere at. But >just like weight lifting or guitar playing, drums, whatever it takes >time. We don't rush it in one day, Christianity is your whole life. >It is not going to church once a week, or helping poor people once in >a while. We box everything into time units. Such as work at this >time, sports, Tv, social life. God is above these boxes and should be >carried with us into all these boxes that we have created for >ourselves. Just like weight lifting or guitar playing, eh? I don't know how you define the world "total," but I would imagine a "total sacrafice [sp] of everything for God's sake" would involve more than a time commitment. You are correct about our tendency to "box everything into time units." Would you explain HOW one should involove God in sports and (hehehe) television? -- --- __ _______ --- \|\|\| Kevin Marshall \ \/ /_ _/ Computer Science Department \|\|\| \|\|\| Virginia Tech \ / / / marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu \|\|\| --- Blacksburg, Virginia \/ /_/ (703) 232-6529 ---
From: rm03@ic.ac.uk (Mr R. Mellish) Subject: Re: university violating separation of church/state? In article <199304041750.AA17104@kepler.unh.edu> dmn@kepler.unh.edu (...until kings become philosophers or philosophers become kings) writes: > > > > Recently, RAs have been ordered (and none have resisted or cared about >it apparently) to post a religious flyer entitled _The Soul Scroll: Thoughts >on religion, spirituality, and matters of the soul_ on the inside of bathroom >stall doors. (at my school, the University of New Hampshire) It is some sort >of newsletter assembled by a Hall Director somewhere on campus. [most of post deleted] > > Please respond as soon as possible. I'd like these religious postings to >stop, NOW! > > >Thanks, > > Dana > > > There is an easy way out.... Post the flyers on the stall doors, but add at the bottom, in nice large capitals, EMERGENCY TOILET PAPER :) -- ------ Robert Mellish, FOG, IC, UK ------ Email: r.mellish@ic.ac.uk Net: rm03@sg1.cc.ic.ac.uk IRC: HobNob ------ and also the mrs joyful prize for rafia work. ------
From: spbach@lerc.nasa.gov (James Felder) Subject: Re: "So help you God" in court? In article 013423TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu, Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: ->In article <1993Apr9.151914.1885@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu ->(Mark McCullough) says: ->> ->>In article <monack.733980580@helium> monack@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david ->>n->>monack) writes: ->>>Another issue is that by having to request to not be required to ->>>recite the "so help me God" part of the oath, a theistic jury may be ->>>prejudiced against your testimony even though atheism is probably not ->>>at all relevant to the case. ->>> ->>>What is the recommended procedure for requesting an alternate oath or ->>>affirmation? ->>> ->>>Dave Sorry for using a follow-up to respond, but my server dropped about a weeks worth of news when it couldn't keep up. When the you are asked to swear "So help you god" and you have to say it, ask which one; Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, Zues, Odin. Get them to be specific. Don't be obnoxious, just humbly ask, then quitely sit back and watch the fun. --- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- James L. Felder \| Sverdrup Technology,Inc. \| phone: 216-891-4019 NASA Lewis Research Center \| Cleveland, Ohio 44135 \| email: jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov "Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge, other people gargle" -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: free moral agency In article <16BB9DBA8.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>, I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes: \|> In article <1r79j3$ak2@fido.asd.sgi.com> \|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: \|> \|> (Deletion) \|> >So, Mr Conner. Is Bobby Mozumder a myth, a performing artist, \|> >a real Moslem. a crackpot, a provocateur? You know everything \|> >and read all minds: why don't you tell us? \|> > \|> \|> As a side note: isn't it telling that one cannot say for sure if \|> Bobby Mozunder is a firm believer or a provocateur? What does \|> that say about religious beliefs? I think that's an insightful comment. Especially when at the same time we have people like Bill "Projector" Conner complaining that we are posting parodies. jon.
From: Alan.Olsen@p17.f40.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Alan Olsen) Subject: Albert Sabin BR> From: wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) BR> Newsgroups: alt.atheism BR> Organization: DGSID, Atlanta, GA BR> Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you BR> are referring to the New Testament. Please detail BR> your complaints or e-mail if you don't want to post. BR> First-century Greek is well-known and BR> well-understood. Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish BR> Historian, who also wrote of Jesus? In addition, BR> the four gospel accounts are very much in harmony. It is also well known that the comments in Josephus relating to Jesus were inserted (badly) by later editors. As for the four gospels being in harmony on the issue of Jesus... You know not of what you speak. Here are a few contradictions starting with the trial and continuing through the assension. >The death of Judas after the betrayal of Jesus Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field." >What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial? Before the cock crow - Matthew 26:34 Before the cock crow twice - Mark 14:30 >How many times did the cock crow? MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept. MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly. LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice. JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew. >destruction of cities (what said was jeremiah was zechariah) (This is interesting because Matthew quotes a prophesy that was never made! Not the only time he does this either...) MAT 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; zechariah 11:11-13 (nothing in Jeremiah remotely like) What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial? scarlet - Matthew 27:28 purple John 19:2 >The time of the Crucifiction Mark says the third hour, or 9 a.m., but John says the sixth hour (noon) was when the sentence was passed. >Inscription on the Cross Matthew -- This is Jesus the king of the Jews Mark -- The King of the Jews Luke -- This is the king of the Jews John -- Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews >What did they give him to drink? vinegar - Matthew 27:34 wine with myrrh - Mark 15:23 >Women at the Cross Matthew said many stood far off, including Mary Magdaline, Mary the mother of James, and the mother of Zebedee's children. Mark and Luke speak of many far off, and Mark includes Mary Magdeline and Mary the mother of James the less. John says that Jesus's mother stood at the cross, along with her sister and Mary Magdalene. >Jesus' last words Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded u the ghost." Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." >Events of the crucifiction Matthew says that the veil of the temple was rent, that there was an earthquake, and that it was dark from the sixth to the ninth hour, that graves opened and bodies of the saints arose and went into Jeruselem, appearing to many (beating Jesus to the resurection). Mark and Luke speak of darkness and the veil of the temple being rent but mention no earthquake or risen saints. John is the only one who mentions Jesus's side being peirced. >Burial of Jesus Matthew says the Jews asked Pilate for a guard to prevent the body from being stolen by the disciples, and for the tomb to be sealed. All of this was supposedly done, but the other gospels do not mention these precautions. >How long was Jesus in the tomb? Depends where you look; Matthew 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth", and Mark 10:34 has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again". As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days", but the post-resurrection narratives have "on the third day". >Time of the Resurection Matthew says Sunday at dawn, Mark says the sun was rising, and John says it was dark. > Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it : MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. >Whom did they see at the tomb? MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. >Belief that the disciples stole Jesus's body Matthew says the guard was paid to tell this story, but no other gospel makes this claim. >Appearences of the risen Jesus Matthew says an angel at the tomb told the two Marys and that Jesus also told them, to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee. The disciples then went to a mountain previously agreed opon, and met Jesus there. This was his only appearance, except to the women at the tomb. Matthew only devotes five verses to the visit with the disciples. Mark says that Jesus walked with two of the disciples in the country, and that they told the rest of the disciples, who refused to believe. Later he appeared to the 11 disciples at mealtime. Luke says two followers went, the same day that Jesus rose from the dead, to Emmaus, a village eight miles from Jeruselem, and there Jesus jioned them but was unrecognised. While they ate a meal together that evening, they finally recognised Jesus, whereopon he dissapeared. Returning at once to Jeruselem, they told the disciples of their experience, and suddenly Jesus appeared among them, frightening them, as they thought he was a spirit. Jesus then ate some fish and honey and then preached to them. John says Jesus appeared to the disciples the evening of the day he arrose, in Jeruselem, where they were hiding. He breathed the Holy Ghost opon them, but Thomas was not present and refused to believe. Eight days later Jesus joined the disciples again at the same place and this time he convinced Thomas. Once more Jesus made an appearance to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias but again was not recognised. After telling them to cast their netson the other side of the boat, Jesus becomes known to them and prepares bread and fish for them. They all eat together and converse. The book of acts further adds to the confusion. It says that Jesus showed himself to the apostles for a period of 40 days after his resurection (thus contradicting Matthew, Mark, Luke AND John) and spoke to them of things pertaining to the kingdom of God: "And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud recieved him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, two men stood by them in white apparel: Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken from you into heaven, shall so comein like manneras ye have seen him go into heaven" Acts 1:3-11 Paul outdoes every other "authority" by saying that Jesus was seen by 500 persons between the time of the resurection and the assension, although he does not say where. He also claims that he himself "as one born out of due time" also saw Jesus. 1 Cor 15:6-8. >The Ascension Matthew says nothing about it. Mark casually says that Jesus was recieved into heaven after he was finished talking with the disciples in Jeruselem. Luke says Jesus led the desciples to Bethany and that while he blessed them, he was parted from them and carried up into heaven. John says nothing about it. Acts contradicts all of the above. (See previous section) >When second coming? MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. 1 thessalonians 4:15-18 >How many apostles were in office between the resurection and ascention 1 Corinthians 15:5 (12) Matthew 27:3-5 (minus one from 12) Acts 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection) MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. > ascend to heaven "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11) "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (John 3:13) As you can see, there are a number of contradictions in the account of the trial, crucifiction and resurection of Jesus. If these are good witnesses, you would think that they could get SOME of these important details right! (In fact, I cannot find very many points on where they AGREE. You would think that they could at least agree on some of the points they were supposedly observing!) Because of the fact that there is so much contradiction and error, the story of the resurection as presented cannot be taken as literal truth. (Due to the nature of the story, I doubt if it should be taken as ANY sort of truth.) Alan
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) Subject: Re: Christian Morality is In article <4949@eastman.UUCP> dps@nasa.kodak.com writes: >\|> Yet I am still not a believer. Is god not concerned with my >\|> disposition? Why is it beneath him to provide me with the >\|> evidence I would require to believe? The evidence that my >\|> personality, given to me by this god, would find compelling? >The fact is God could cause you to believe anything He wants you to. >But think about it for a minute. Would you rather have someone love >you because you made them love you, or because they wanted to >love you. Oh no, not again. There is a difference between believing that God exists, and loving him. (For instance, Satan certainly believes God exists, but does not love him.) What unbelievers request in situations like this is that God provide evidence compelling enough to believe he exists, not to compel them to love him. -- "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ... -- Pizza Hut commercial (and Mtlu/Agic bait) Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: chrisb@seachg.com (Chris Blask) Subject: Re: islamic authority over women snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes: >In article <1993Apr7.163445.1203@wam.umd.edu> west@next02.wam.umd.edu writes: >>> >> And belief causes far more horrors. >>> >> Crusades, >>> >> the emasculation and internment of Native Americans, >>> >> the killing of various tribes in South America. >>> >-the Inquisition >>> >-the Counter-reformation and the wars that followed >>> >-the Salem witch trials >>> >-the European witch hunts >>> >-the holy wars of the middle east >>> >-the colonization/destruction of Africa >>> >-the wars between Christianity and Islam (post crusade) >>> >-the genocide (biblical) of the Canaanites and Philistines >>> >-Aryian invasion of India >>> >-the attempted genocide of Jews by Nazi Germany >>> >-the current missionary assaults on tribes in Africa >>> >>> I think all the horrors you mentioned are due to lack of people >>> following religion. .d. >By lack of people following religion I also include fanatics- people >that don't know what they are following. .d. >So how do you know that you were right? >Why are you trying to shove down my throat that religion causes horrors. >It really covers yourself- something false to save yourself. > >Peace, > >Bobby Mozumder > I just thought of another one, in the Bible, so it's definately not because of lack of religion. The Book of Esther (which I read the other day for other reasons) describes the origin of Pur'im, a Jewish celbration of joy and peace. The long and short of the story is that 75,000 people were killed when people were tripping over all of the peacefull solutions lying about (you couldn't swing a sacred cow without slammin into a nice, peaceful solution.) 'Course Joshua and the jawbone of an ass spring to mind... I agree with Bobby this far: religion as it is used to kill large numbers of people is usually not used in the form or manner that it was originally intended for. That doesn't reduce the number of deaths directly caused by religion, it is just a minor observation of the fact that there is almost nothing pure in the Universe. The very act of honestly attempting to find true meaning in religious teaching has many times inspired hatred and led to war. Many people have been led by religious leaders more involved in their own stomache-contentsthan in any absolute truth, and have therefore been driven to kill by their leaders. The point is that there are many things involved in religion that often lead to war. Whether these things are a part of religion, an unpleasant side effect or (as Bobby would have it) the result of people switching between Religion and Atheism spontaneously, the results are the same. @Religious groups have long been involved in the majority of the bloodiest parts of Man's history.@ Atheists, on the other hand (preen,preen) are typically not an ideological social caste, nor are they driven to organize and spread their beliefs. The overuse of Nazism and Stalinism just show how true this is: Two groups with very clear and specific ideologies using religious persecution to further their means. Anyone who cannot see the obvious - namely that these were groups founded for reasons entirely their own, who used religious persecution not because of any belief system but because it made them more powerfull - is trying too hard. Basically, Bobby uses these examples because there are so few wars that were not specifically fought over religion that he does not have many choices. Well, I'm off to Key West where the only flames are heating the bottom of little silver butter-dishes. -ciao -chris blask
From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu> Subject: Re: Bible Quiz kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: > Would you mind e-mailing me the questions, with the pairs of answers? > I would love to have them for the next time a Theist comes to my door! I'd like this too... maybe you should post an answer key after a while? Nanci ......................................................................... If you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me email (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu): It is better to be a coward for a minute than dead for the rest of your life.
From: pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) Subject: Re: Cults Vs. Religions? In article <1r4bfe$7hg@aurora.engr.LaTech.edu>, ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray) wrote: > > James Thomas Green (jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu) wrote: > > : > : So in conclusion it can be shown that there is essentially no > : logical argument which clearly differentiates a "cult" from a > : "religion". I challenge anyone to produce a distinction which > : is clear and can't be easily knocked down. > > How about this one: a religion is a cult which has stood the test > of time. Or a religion is a cult that got co-opted by people who are better at compartmentalizing their irrationality. 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: kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) Subject: Re: FAQ sheet Mike McAngus (mam@mouse.cmhnet.org) wrote: >By the way, news.announce.newusers has an article (can't remember which >one) that recommends reading a newsgroup for 1 month before posting. >This makes sense because you get an idea who the players are and what >the current discussions are about. >Am I the only one who followed that advice? No, I spent a month just reading, too, mainly because I did not know much about the way atheists think. I even printed out the FAQs and discussed it with a friend before I started posting. Alt.atheism deals with religious issues (more appropriately, lack of religious beliefs), which are by their very nature very controversial. It makes sense to read what is being discussed and how just to make sure you are not repeating something others have said better. 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: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) Subject: Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Atheists?) In article <C5rLyz.4Mt@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) wrote: > > 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, ever heard of secular humanism? Please check out what this stands for, and then revise your statements above. Cheers, Kent --- sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) Subject: Re: Gulf War and Peace-niks In article <1993Apr20.102306.882@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: >Hawaii? We liberated it from >Spain. Well, you were going well until you hit this one. Hawaii was an independent country. A coup by Americans led to a request to annex it. The US refused, but eventually did annex it several years later during the Spanish-American War. -- "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ... -- Pizza Hut commercial (and Mtlu/Agic bait) Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) Subject: Re: EnviroLeague A new alternative to Scouting for those "unacceptable to BSA" for reasons of religious or sexual preference: From: "BOYD R. CRITZ, III" <71611.365@CompuServe.COM> Subject: EnviroLeague "Birth Announcement" on March 7, 1993, from EARTH Forum, CompuServe Information Service =================================================================== FORMAL ANNOUNCEMENT ------------------- (SM) EnviroLeague A new youth movement,"EnviroLeague," was recently born, according to its founder, Boyd R. Critz, III (CIS ID# 71611,365), of Peoria, Illinois. EnviroLeague exists for the education of youth, both male and female, in matters concerning their values related to and responsibility for our environment. Incorporated as an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, its Articles and initial applications for a service mark have now been filed. According to Critz, its draft Bylaws contain the following statement of Mission and Objectives: MISSION It is the Mission of EnviroLeague and its adult members to foster and implement the improved education of young people in the need to conduct their lives as Stewards of The Earth, to leave The Earth in a better condition than they found it, and to otherwise act as responsible, moral and ethical users of their environment. To pursue the accomplishment of this Mission, EnviroLeague shall seek to serve as a catalyst, focusing in common cause the separate efforts of all groups desiring the preservation, improvement, and responsible use of the environment in which we must all live. OBJECTIVES In pursuit of the Mission of EnviroLeague, its primary objectives shall be: (1) To establish a Movement involving as many environmentally concerned organizations as possible, said Movement having as its primary focus the education and participatory involvement of young people in appropriate areas of environmental concern; (2) To develop and provide to such organizations and their branches a full complement of program materials for their use, including suitable uniforms, insignia and other badges, written ideas, syllabi and information, literature and other items as shall seem appropriate and desirable; (3) To serve as a "clearing house" for the exchange of program ideas, materials and information among said organizations; and (4) To assist environmentally concerned organizations to recruit and train the necessary adult leadership for their youth programs. EnviroLeague will operate through three "Program Divisions" serving youth in the elementary, middle and high school grades, respectively. Service shall be through formation of "EnviroLeague Teams," either by EnviroLeague itself or by environmentally conscious organizations (or their local branches) wishing a charter to use programs developed by EnviroLeague. EnviroLeague, as it develops, will be controlled by the actual adult leaders of each local Team, and will have no nationally imposed obstacles to membership or adult leadership status not based upon relevant improper conduct. Organizations accepting a charter may, however, impose certain additional standards for their own use of the program material. Should such organizations do so, EnviroLeague will commit itself to forming, as soon as possible, new nearby Teams having no such restrictions, particularly as to youth membership. EnviroLeague will operate on the principle that youth will have much to contribute to developing its programs. Thus, the top youth leaders of its Teams for middle and high school youth may become involved in governing any local administrative groups, and those for its high school youth may be involved in similar functions at the national level. Program materials are in development at this time. Copies of the "draft" portions of the Mentor's Manual (manual for adult leadership) will be in the EARTH Forum, Library 17. These files will be updated as development takes place. CompuServe is particularly proud that EnviroLeague's founder chose this electronic medium to make the first public announcement of its formation. This announcement is being made simultaneously in both the OUTDOOR and EARTH Forums. The electronic home of EnviroLeague is in CompuServe's Earth Forum - GO EARTH - message and library areas 17, both named "EnviroLeague." ============================================================================ Subsequently, EnviroLeague's Initial Governance Council has held its first meeting. Boyd Critz was elected as the first EnviroLeague Chief Guardian (equivalent to Chairman of the Board or CEO). He can be reached at home (309) 675-4483 in case of real need. Also, mail can be addressed to: EnviroLeague P.O. Box 418 Peoria, IL 61651-0418 Those interested in starting an EnviroLeague Team might just establish contact, to receive a diskette (IBM DOS, ASCII) with initial information. -- cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company, OR cdt@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: <Political Atheists? In article <1ql0ajINN2kj@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: \|> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: \|> \|> >>But chimps are almost human... \|> >Does this mean that Chimps have a moral will? \|> \|> Well, chimps must have some system. They live in social groups \|> as we do, so they must have some "laws" dictating undesired behavior. Ah, the verb "to must". I was warned about that one back in Kindergarten. So, why "must" they have such laws? jon.
From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) Subject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!! >>>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 1993 15:50:02 EDT, <JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu> said: J> YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!! BE J> PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!! Hmm, I've got my MST3K lunch box, my travel scrabble, and a couple of kegs of Bass Ale. I'm all set! Let's go everybody! -- Ed McCreary ,__o edm@twisto.compaq.com _-\_<, "If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao." ()/'()
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) Subject: Re: Theism and Fanatism (was: Islamic Genocide) In article <16BB7B863.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes: #In article <1r0sn0$3r@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> #frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: # #>\|>#>#Theism is strongly correlated with irrational belief in absolutes. Irrational #>\|>#>#belief in absolutes is strongly correlated with fanatism. # #(deletion) # #>\|Theism is correlated with fanaticism. I have neither said that all fanatism #>\|is caused by theism nor that all theism leads to fanatism. The point is, #>\|theism increases the chance of becoming a fanatic. One could of course #>\|argue that would be fanatics tend towards theism (for example), but I just #>\|have to loook at the times in history when theism was the dominant ideology #>\|to invalidate that conclusion that that is the basic mechanism behind it. #> #>IMO, the influence of Stalin, or for that matter, Ayn Rand, invalidates your #>assumption that theism is the factor to be considered. # #Bogus. I just said that theism is not the only factor for fanatism. #The point is that theism is a factor. That's your claim; now back it up. I consider your argument as useful as the following: Belief is strongly correlated with fanaticism. Therefore belief is a factor in fanaticism. True, and utterly useless. (Note, this is any belief, not belief in Gods) #>Gullibility, #>blind obedience to authority, lack of scepticism, and so on, are all more #>reliable indicators. And the really dangerous people - the sources of #>fanaticism - are often none of these things. They are cynical manipulators #>of the gullible, who know precisely what they are doing. # #That's a claim you have to support. Please note that especially in the #field of theism, the leaders believe what they say. If you believe that, you're incredibly naive. #>Now, some #>brands of theism, and more precisely some theists, do tend to fanaticism, #>I grant you. To tar all theists with this brush is bigotry, not a reasoned #>argument - and it reads to me like a warm-up for censorship and restriction #>of religious freedom. Ever read Animal Farm? #> #That's a straw man. And as usually in discussions with you one has to #repeat it: Read what I have written above: not every theism leads to #fanatism, and not all fanatism is caused by theism. The point is, #there is a correlation, and it comes from innate features of theism. No, some of it comes from features which some theism has in common with some fanaticism. Your last statement simply isn't implied by what you say before, because you're trying to sneak in "innate features of [all] theism". The word you're groping for is "some". #Gullibility, by the way, is one of them. No shit, Sherlock. So why not talk about gullibility instead of theism, since it seems a whole lot more relevant to the case you have, as opposed to the case you are trying to make? #And to say that I am going to forbid religion is another of your straw #men. Interesting that you have nothing better to offer. I said it reads like a warm up to that. That's because it's an irrational and bogus tirade, and has no other use than creating a nice Them/Us split in the minds of excitable people such as are to be found on either side of church walls. #>\|>(2) Define "irrational belief". e.g., is it rational to believe that #>\|> reason is always useful? #>\|> #>\| #>\|Irrational belief is belief that is not based upon reason. The latter has #>\|been discussed for a long time with Charley Wingate. One point is that #>\|the beliefs violate reason often, and another that a process that does #>\|not lend itself to rational analysis does not contain reliable information. #> #>Well, there is a glaring paradox here: an argument that reason is useful #>based on reason would be circular, and argument not based on reason would #>be irrational. Which is it? #> #That's bogus. Self reference is not circular. And since the evaluation of #usefulness is possible within rational systems, it is allowed. O.K., it's oval. It's still begging the question, however. And though that certainly is allowed, it's not rational. And you claiming to be rational and all. At the risk of repeating myself, and hearing "we had that before" [we didn't hear a _refutation_ before, so we're back. Deal with it] : you can't use reason to demonstrate that reason is useful. Someone who thinks reason is crap won't buy it, you see. #Your argument is as silly as proving mathematical statements needs mathematics #and mathematics are therfore circular. Anybody else think Godel was silly? #>The first part of the second statement contains no information, because #>you don't say what "the beliefs" are. If "the beliefs" are strong theism #>and/or strong atheism, then your statement is not in general true. The #>second part of your sentence is patently false - counterexample: an #>axiomatic datum does not lend itself to rational analysis, but is #>assumed to contain reliable information regardless of what process is #>used to obtain it. #> # #I've been speaking of religious systems with contradictory definitions #of god here. # #An axiomatic datum lends itself to rational analysis, what you say here #is a an often refuted fallacy. Have a look at the discussion of the #axiom of choice. And further, one can evaluate axioms in larger systems #out of which they are usually derived. "I exist" is derived, if you want #it that way. # #Further, one can test the consistency and so on of a set of axioms. # #what is it you are trying to say? That at some point, people always wind up saying "this datum is reliable" for no particular reason at all. Example: "I am not dreaming". #>\|Compared the evidence theists have for their claims to the strength of #>\|their demands makes the whole thing not only irrational but antirational. #> #>I can't agree with this until you are specific - which theism? To #>say that all theism is necessarily antirational requires a proof which #>I suspect you do not have. #> # #Using the traditonal definition of gods. Personal, supernatural entities #with objective effects on this world. Usually connected to morals and/or #the way the world works. IMO, any belief about such gods is necessarily irrational. That does not mean that people who hold them are in principle opposed to the exercise of intelligence. Some atheists are also scientists, for example. #>\|The affinity to fanatism is easily seen. It has to be true because I believe #>\|it is nothing more than a work hypothesis. However, the beliefs say they are #>\|more than a work hypothesis. #> #>I don't understand this. Can you formalise your argument? # #Person A believes system B becuase it sounds so nice. That does not make #B true, it is at best a work hypothesis. However, the content of B is that #it is true AND that it is more than a work hypothesis. Testing or evaluating #evidence for or against it therefore dismissed because B (already believed) #says it is wronG/ a waste of time/ not possible. Depending on the further #contents of B Amalekites/Idolaters/Protestants are to be killed, this can #have interesting effects. Peculiar definition of interesting, but sure. Now show that a belief in gods entails the further contents of which you speak. Why aren't my catholic neighbours out killing the protestants, for example? Maybe they don't believe in it. Maybe it's the conjunction of "B asserts B" and "jail/kill dissenters" that is important, and the belief in gods is entirely irrelevant. It certainly seems so to me, but then I have no axe to grind here. -- Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That' odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie In article <16BB112525.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes: >I assume that you say here a religious law is for the followers of the >religion. That begs the question why the religion has the right to define >who is a follower even when the offenders disagree. No, I say religious law applies to those who are categorized as belonging to the religion when event being judged applies. This prevents situations in which someone is a member of a religion who, when charged, claims that he/she was _not_ a member of the religion so they are free to go on as if nothing had happened. Gregg
From: dewey@risc.sps.mot.com (Dewey Henize) Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW] In article <1993Apr15.212943.15118@bnr.ca> (Rashid) writes: [deletions] > >The fatwa was levelled at the person of Rushdie - any actions of >Rushdie that feed the situation contribute to the legitimization of >the ruling. The book remains in circulation not by some independant >will of its own but by the will of the author and the publishers. The fatwa >against the person of Rushdie encompasses his actions as well. The >crime was certainly a crime in progress (at many levels) and was being >played out (and played up) in the the full view of the media. > >P.S. I'm not sure about this but I think the charge of "shatim" also >applies to Rushdie and may be encompassed under the umbrella >of the "fasad" ruling. If this is grounded firmly in Islam, as you claim, then you have just exposed Islam as the grounds for terrorism, plain and simple. Whether you like it or not, whether Rushdie acted like a total jerk or not, there is no acceptable civilized basis for putting someone in fear of their life for words. It simply does not matter whether his underlying motive was to find the worst possible way he could to insult Muslims and their beliefs, got that? You do not threaten the life of someone for words - when you do, you quite simply admit the backruptcy of your position. If you support threatening the life of someone for words, you are not yet civilized. This is exactly where I, and many of the people I know, have to depart from respecting the religions of others. When those beliefs allow and encourage (by interpretation) the killing of non-physical opposition. You, or I or anyone, are more than privledged to believe that someone, whether it be Rushdie or Bush or Hussien or whover, is beyond the pale of civilized society and you can condemn his/her soul, refuse to allow any members of your association to interact with him/her, _peacably_ demonstrate to try to convince others to disassociate themselves from the "miscreants", or whatever, short of physical force. But once you physically threaten, or support physical threats, you get much closer to your earlier comparison of rape - with YOU as the rapist who whines "She asked for it, look how she was dressed". Blaming the victim when you are unable to be civilized doesn't fly. Dew -- Dewey Henize Sys/Net admin RISC hardware (512) 891-8637 pager 928-7447 x 9637
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) Subject: Re: some thoughts. James Felder (spbach@lerc.nasa.gov) wrote: : Logic alert - argument from incredulity. Just because it is hard for you : to believe this doesn't mean that it isn't true. Liars can be very pursuasive : just look at Koresh that you yourself cite. This is whole basis of a great many here rejecting the Christian account of things. In the words of St. Madalyn Murrey-O'Hair, "Face it folks, it's just silly ...". Why is it okay to disbelieve because of your incredulity if you admit that it's a fallacy? Bill
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) Subject: Re: Christian Morality is In article <pww-210493010443@spac-at1-59.rice.edu>, pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter > > 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. > > Can anyone eaplain what he's just said here? I can't. It seems Jesus used logic to make people using logic look like fools? No, that does not sound right, he maybe just told they were fools, and that's it, and people believed that... Hmm, does not sound reasonable either... I find it always very intriguing to see people stating that transcendental values can't be explained, and then in the next sentence they try to explain these unexplained values. Highly strange. Cheers, Kent --- sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) Subject: Re: <Political Atheists? In article <1pigidINNsot@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: >mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes: >>As for rape, surely there the burden of guilt is solely on the rapist? > >Not so. If you are thrown into a cage with a tiger and get mauled, do you >blame the tiger? A human has greater control over his/her actions, than a predominately instictive tiger. A proper analogy would be: If you are thrown into a cage with a person and get mauled, do you blame that person? Yes. [ providing that that person was in a responsible frame of mind, eg not clinicaly insane, on PCB's, etc. ] --- "One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that say "Mom", because of the love of their mom. It makes for more virile men." Bobby Mozumder ( snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu ) April 4, 1993 The one TRUE Muslim left in the world.
From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW] In article <1993Apr25.031703.5230@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes: >The intent of my post (as I remember it) was to show that you cannot >argue against any religion (or ideology, for that matter) by the actions >of those who claim to be its followers. You have to look at the >teachings of the religion (or the principles of the ideology) _itself_. >There is no getting around this. > >So to argue against Islam, you have to go to the Qur'an. Bringing up >Khomeini (or anyone else) is relevant to discussing Khomeini, but not >_necessarily_ relevant to discussing Islam _as a religion_. Sorry, Fred, but for the purposes under discussion here, I must disagree. Your point is true only in the sense that one cannot argue against communism by reference to the Chinese or Soviet empires, since those did not represent true communism. In judging the practical consequences of Islam as a force to contend with in the world today, it is precisely the Khomeini's of the world, the Rushdie-fatwa supporters, and perhaps more importantly, the reaction of the world Muslim community to those extremists, that we must look to. Perhaps unfortunately from your perspective, most people are not concerned with whether Islam is the right religion for them, or whether the Qur'an could be used as a guidebook for a hypothetical utopia, but how Islam affects the world around them, or what their lives might be like if Islam gains in influence. When I consider such possibilities, it is with not inconsiderable fear. -- Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
From: lpzsml@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (Steve Lang) Subject: Re: Objective Values 'v' Scientific Accuracy (was Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is) In article <C5J718.Jzv@dcs.ed.ac.uk>, tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) wrote: > In article <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: > > >Science ("the real world") has its basis in values, not the other way round, > >as you would wish it. > > You must be using 'values' to mean something different from the way I > see it used normally. > > And you are certainly using 'Science' like that if you equate it to > "the real world". > > Science is the recognition of patterns in our perceptions of the Universe > and the making of qualitative and quantitative predictions concerning > those perceptions. Science is the process of modeling the real world based on commonly agreed interpretations of our observations (perceptions). > It has nothing to do with values as far as I can see. > Values are ... well they are what I value. > They are what I would have rather than not have - what I would experience > rather than not, and so on. Values can also refer to meaning. For example in computer science the value of 1 is TRUE, and 0 is FALSE. Science is based on commonly agreed values (interpretation of observations), although science can result in a reinterpretation of these values. > Objective values are a set of values which the proposer believes are > applicable to everyone. The values underlaying science are not objective since they have never been fully agreed, and the change with time. The values of Newtonian physic are certainly different to those of Quantum Mechanics. Steve Lang SLANG->SLING->SLINK->SLICK->SLACK->SHACK->SHANK->THANK->THINK->THICK
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW] In article <115793@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: \|> In article <1qla0g$afp@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: >\|> >I hope an Islamic Bank is something other than BCCI, which >\|> >ripped off so many small depositors among the Muslim >\|> >community in the Uk and elsewhere. >\|> Grow up, childish propagandist. \|> \|> >BBCI was an example of an Islamically owned and operated bank - \|> >what will someone bet me they weren't "real" Islamic owners and \|> >operators? \|> \|> An Islamic bank is a bank which operates according to the rules \|> of Islam in regard to banking. This is done explicitly by the \|> bank. This was not the case with BCCI. So now you are saying that an Islamic Bank is something other than BCCI. Would you care to explain why it was that when I said "I hope an Islamic Bank is something other than BCCI", you called me a childish propagandist. jon.
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is In article <1993Apr20.115045.20756@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) writes: #In <1r0fpv$p11@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp writes: #>In article <1993Apr20.070156.26910@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI #>(Mats Andtbacka) writes: # #># Ah, that old chestnut, your claim that moral objectivism == #>#scientific objectivism. I don't agree with it; now try proving, through #>#some objective moral test, that my disagreeing is incorrect. =) #> #> Your claim, which you have deleted now was "not universal => not objective". # # I've deleted it now, in the interest of brevity. Go back a step #and you'll see it was still in your post. Yes, that was my claim; if you #can refute it, then please do so. Firstly, an apology. You hadn't deleted your claim, and I was mistaken in saying you had. Sorry for any offence caused. Secondly, how can I refute your definition? I can only point up its logical implications, and say that they seem to contradict the usage of the word "objective" in other areas. Indeed, by your definition, an objective x is an oxymoron, for all x. I have no quibble with that belief, other than that it is useless, and that "objective" is a perfectly good word. #> So, what is objective? Not the age of the universe, anyway, as I show #> above. # # How many ages can the universe have, and still be internally self- #consistent? I'd be amazed if it was more than one. How many different #moral systems can different members of society have - indeed, single #individuals, in some cases - and humanity still stick together? Begging the question. People can have many opinions about the age of the universe and humanity can still stick together. You are saying that the universe has a _real_ age, independent of my beliefs about it. Why? # The age of the universe, like most scientific facts, can be #emirically verified through means that'll give the same result no matter #who performs the testing (albeit there are error bars that may be on the #largish side...). This assumes that the universe has a real age, or any kind of reality which doesn't depend on what we think. Why should an extreme Biblical Creationist give a rat's ass about the means of which you speak? #I've heard of no way to verify morality in a #consistent way, much less compute the errors of the measurement; care to #enlighten me? The same is true of pain, but painkillers exist, and can be predicted to work with some accuracy better than a random guess. I wrote elsewhere that morality should be hypotheses about observed value. If a moral system makes a prediction "It will be better if...", that can be tested, and is falsifiable in the same way as a prediction "This drug will relieve pain..." # People's ideas about the age of object X are not objective; #you can have any idea you like, and I can't stop you. Universae and #their ages is another ballgame; they are what they are, and if you #dislike some detail of them, that's a problem with your opinion of #them. Sure. Assume an objective reality, and you get statements like this. #I claim that morality is an opinion of ours, and as such #subjective and individual. If I'm wrong, then some more-or-less #objectively "real" thing exists, which you label "objective morality"; #can you back up this positive claim of existence? Can you back up your positive claim above? No. That's because it's an assumption. I make the same assumption about values, on the basis that there is no logical difference between the two, and the empirical basis of the two is precisely the same. #># Point: Morals are, in essence, personal opinions. Usually #>#(ideally) well-founded, motivated such, but nonetheless personal. The #>#fact that a real large lot of people agree on some moral question, #>#sometimes even for the same reason, does not make morals objective; it #>#makes humans somewhat alike in their opinions on that moral question, #>#which can be good for the evolution of a social species. #> #> And if a "real large lot" (nice phrase) of people agree that there is a #> football on a desk, I'm supposed to see a logical difference between the two? #> Perhaps you can explain the difference to me, since you seem to see it #> so clearly. # # Take a look on the desk - i.e., perform a test. If(football) THEN #(accept theory) ELSE DO (Tell people they're hallucinating). # # Now take a look at morality. See anything? If so, please inform me #which way to look, and WHY to look that particular way, as opposed to #some other. Get my drift? No. Just look. Are you claiming never to know what good means? #># Science is a whole other matter altogether. #> #> Says you. Prove that those who disagree are wrong? # # That's a simple(?) matter of proving the track record of the #scientific method. I think it's great, and should be applied to values. I may be completely wrong, but that's what I conclude as a result of quite an amount of thought. -- Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That' odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) Subject: Re: <Political Atheists? kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes: >>Natural morality may specifically be thought of as a code of ethics that >>a certain species has developed in order to survive. >Wait. Are we talking about ethics or morals here? Is the distinction important? >>We see this countless >>times in the animal kingdom, and such a "natural" system is the basis for >>our own system as well. >Huh? Well, our moral system seems to mimic the natural one, in a number of ways. >>In order for humans to thrive, we seem to need >>to live in groups, >Here's your problem. "we SEEM to need". What's wrong with the highlighted >word? I don't know. What is wrong? Is it possible for humans to survive for a long time in the wild? Yes, it's possible, but it is difficult. Humans are a social animal, and that is a cause of our success. >>and in order for a group to function effectively, it >>needs some sort of ethical code. >This statement is not correct. Isn't it? Why don't you think so? >>And, by pointing out that a species' conduct serves to propogate itself, >>I am not trying to give you your tautology, but I am trying to show that >>such are examples of moral systems with a goal. Propogation of the species >>is a goal of a natural system of morality. >So anybody who lives in a monagamous relationship is not moral? After all, >in order to ensure propogation of the species, every man should impregnate >as many women as possible. No. As noted earlier, lack of mating (such as abstinence or homosexuality) isn't really destructive to the system. It is a worst neutral. >For that matter, in herds of horses, only the dominate stallion mates. When >he dies/is killed/whatever, the new dominate stallion is the only one who >mates. These seems to be a case of your "natural system of morality" trying >to shoot itself in the figurative foot. Again, the mating practices are something to be reexamined... keith
From: (Rashid) Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW] In article <1993Apr14.131032.15644@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) wrote: > > It is my understanding that it is generally agreed upon by the ulema > [Islamic scholars] that Islamic law applies only in an Islamic country, > of which the UK is not. Furthermore, to take the law into one's own > hands is a criminal act, as these are matters for the state, not for > individuals. Nevertheless, Khomeini offered a cash prize for people to > take the law into their own hands -- something which, to my > understanding, is against Islamic law. Yes, this is also my understanding of the majority of Islamic laws. However, I believe there are also certain legal rulings which, in all five schools of law (4 sunni and 1 jaffari), can be levelled against muslim or non-muslims, both within and outside dar-al-islam. I do not know if apostasy (when accompanied by active, persistent, and open hostility to Islam) falls into this category of the law. I do know that historically, apostasy has very rarely been punished at all, let alone by the death penalty. My understanding is that Khomeini's ruling was not based on the law of apostasy (alone). It was well known that Rushdie was an apostate long before he wrote the offending novel and certainly there is no precedent in the Qur'an, hadith, or in Islamic history for indiscriminantly levelling death penalties for apostasy. I believe the charge levelled against Rushdie was that of "fasad". This ruling applies both within and outside the domain of an Islamic state and it can be carried out by individuals. The reward was not offered by Khomeini but by individuals within Iran. > Stuff deleted > Also, I think you are muddying the issue as you seem to assume that > Khomeini's fatwa was issued due to the _distribution_ of the book. My > understanding is that Khomeini's fatwa was issued in response to the > _writing_ and _publishing_ of the book. If my view is correct, then > your viewpoint that Rushdie was sentenced for a "crime in progress" is > incorrect. > I would concur that the thrust of the fatwa (from what I remember) was levelled at the author and all those who assisted in the publication of the book. However, the charge of "fasad" can encompass a number of lesser charges. I remember that when diplomatic relations broke off between Britain and Iran over the fatwa - Iran stressed that the condemnation of the author, and the removal of the book from circulation were two preliminary conditions for resolving the "crisis". But you are correct to point out that banning the book was not the main thrust behind the fatwa. Islamic charges such as fasad are levelled at people, not books. The Rushdie situation was followed in Iran for several months before the issuance of the fatwa. Rushdie went on a media blitz, presenting himself as a lone knight guarding the sacred values of secular democracy and mocking the foolish concerns of people crazy enough to actually hold their religious beliefs as sacred. Fanning the flames and milking the controversy to boost his image and push the book, he was everywhere in the media. Then Muslim demonstrators in several countries were killed while protesting against the book. Rushdie appeared momentarily concerned, then climbed back on his media horse to once again attack the Muslims and defend his sacred rights. It was at this point that the fatwa on "fasad" was issued. The fatwa was levelled at the person of Rushdie - any actions of Rushdie that feed the situation contribute to the legitimization of the ruling. The book remains in circulation not by some independant will of its own but by the will of the author and the publishers. The fatwa against the person of Rushdie encompasses his actions as well. The crime was certainly a crime in progress (at many levels) and was being played out (and played up) in the the full view of the media. P.S. I'm not sure about this but I think the charge of "shatim" also applies to Rushdie and may be encompassed under the umbrella of the "fasad" ruling.
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> Subject: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Atheist Resources Archive-name: atheism/resources Alt-atheism-archive-name: resources Last-modified: 11 December 1992 Version: 1.0 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. 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. 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: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu (Turin Turambar, ME Department of Utter Misery) Subject: STRONG & weak Atheism Did that FAQ ever got modified to re-define strong atheists as not those who assert the nonexistence of God, but as those who assert that they BELIEVE in the nonexistence of God? There was a thread on this earlier, but I didn't get the outcome... -- Adam "No Nickname" Cooper ******************************************************************************** * 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: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) Subject: Re: >>>>>>Pompous ass livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: >>>How long does it [the motto] have to stay around before it becomes the >>>default? ... Where's the cutoff point? >>I don't know where the exact cutoff is, but it is at least after a few >>years, and surely after 40 years. >Why does the notion of default not take into account changes >in population makeup? Specifically, which changes are you talking about? Are you arguing that the motto is interpreted as offensive by a larger portion of the population now than 40 years ago? keith
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) Subject: We don't need no stinking subjects! In article <1ql1avINN38a@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: >kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes: >>keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: >>>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes: > >>No, if you're going to claim something, then it is up to you to prove it. >>Think "Cold Fusion". > >Well, I've provided examples to show that the trend was general, and you >(or others) have provided some counterexamples, mostly ones surrounding >mating practices, etc. I don't think that these few cases are enough to >disprove the general trend of natural morality. And, again, the mating >practices need to be reexamined... So what you're saying is that your mind is made up, and you'll just explain away any differences at being statistically insignificant? >>>Try to find "immoral" non-mating-related activities. >>So you're excluding mating-related-activities from your "natural morality"? > >No, but mating practices are a special case. I'll have to think about it >some more. So you'll just explain away any inconsistancies in your "theory" as being "a special case". >>>Yes, I think that the natural system can be objectively deduced with the >>>goal of species propogation in mind. But, I am not equating the two >>>as you so think. That is, an objective system isn't necessarily the >>>natural one. >>Are you or are you not the man who wrote: >>"A natural moral system is the objective moral system that most animals >> follow". > >Indeed. But, while the natural system is objective, all objective systems >are not the natural one. So, the terms can not be equated. The natural >system is a subset of the objective ones. You just equated them. Re-read your own words. >>Now, since homosexuality has been observed in most animals (including >>birds and dolphins), are you going to claim that "most animals" have >>the capacity of being immoral? > >I don't claim that homosexuality is immoral. It isn't harmful, although >it isn't helpful either (to the mating process). And, when you say that >homosexuality is observed in the animal kingdom, don't you mean "bisexuality?" A study release in 1991 found that 11% of female seagulls are lesbians. >>>Well, I'm saying that these goals are not inherent. That is why they must >>>be postulates, because there is not really a way to determine them >>>otherwise (although it could be argued that they arise from the natural >>>goal--but they are somewhat removed). >>Postulate: To assume; posit. > >That's right. The goals themselves aren't inherent. > >>I can create a theory with a postulate that the Sun revolves around the >>Earth, that the moon is actually made of green cheese, and the stars are >>the portions of Angels that intrudes into three-dimensional reality. > >You could, but such would contradict observations. Now, apply this last sentence of your to YOUR theory. Notice how your are contridicting observations? >>I can build a mathematical proof with a postulate that given the length >>of one side of a triangle, the length of a second side of the triangle, and >>the degree of angle connecting them, I can determine the length of the >>third side. > >But a postulate is something that is generally (or always) found to be >true. I don't think your postulate would be valid. You don't know much math, do you? The ability to use SAS to determine the length of the third side of the triangle is fundemental to geometry. >>Guess which one people are going to be more receptive to. In order to assume >>something about your system, you have to be able to show that your postulates >>work. > >Yes, and I think the goals of survival and happiness do work. You think >they don't? Or are they not good goals? Goals <> postulates. Again, if one of the "goals" of this "objective/natural morality" system you are proposing is "survival of the species", then homosexuality is immoral. -- =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: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk Subject: Re: Gulf War (was Re: Death Penalty was Re: Political Atheists?) Mark McCullough (mccullou@snake12.cs.wisc.edu) wrote: [...details of US built chemical plant at Al Alteer near Baghdad...] : However, the plant's intended use was to aid the Iraqi infrastructure. : It is not an example of selling a weapon. May sound nitpicking, : but are we going to refuse to sell valuable parts that build the : infrastructure because of dual use technology? I am contending that in this case (and in the case of the sale of pesticides by UK companies) that they knew full well that it was to be used for the production of chemical weapons even if that was not its officially stated purpose. : I personally don't think that letting Iran conquer Iraq would have been a : good thing. For that matter, neither do I (for the reasons you state). It is the hypocrisy and claims the US did not help Iraq that make me angry, plus the fact that the USA seems to believe it has the right to interfere where is sees fit (i.e. has an interest) rather than a duty to intervene where it is required. This is demonstrated by the failure of the US to do anything about East Timor (and the region is becoming destabilised). The USA might have done something approaching the right thing, given my reservations about the uncessary number of civillian casualites, but for wholly the wrong reasons and after having a hand in creating the situation. : That in no way would affect the US later military action against Iraq. I did not suggest it would and it would be ridiculous to assert otherwise. I was simply indicating the USA has previously aided Iraq. : Intel on manufacturing techniques, or something of that nature? No, apparently data (orginally from satellites although I doubt that Iraq would have been given the raw data) concerning troop concentrations. Aaron Turner aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) Subject: Re: islamic authority over women In article <1993Apr19.120352.1574@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) wrote: >> The problem with your argument is that you do not _know_ who is a _real_ > believer and who may be "faking it". This is something known only by > the person him/herself (and God). Your assumption that anyone who > _claims_ to be a "believer" _is_ a "believer" is not necessarily true. So that still leaves the door totally open for Khomeini, Hussein et rest. They could still be considered true Muslims, and you can't judge them, because this is something between God and the person. You have to apply your rule as well with atheists/agnostics, you don't know their belief, this is something between them and God. So why the hoopla about Khomeini not being a real Muslim, and the hoopla about atheists being not real human beings? Cheers, Kent --- sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) Subject: Re: Morality? (was Re: <Political Atheists?) kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes: >>So, you are saying that it isn't possible for an instinctive act >>to be moral one? That is, in order for an act to be an act of morality, >>the person must consider the immoral action but then disregard it? >No, I'm saying that in order for an act to be moral or immoral, somebody/ >someone/something must _consider_ it to be so. That implies intelligence, >not instinct. Who has to consider it? The being that does the action? I'm still not sure I know what you are trying to say. keith
From: timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics Robert Knowles writes: >> >>My my, there _are_ a few atheists with time on their hands. :) >> >>OK, first I apologize. I didn't bother reading the FAQ first and so fired an >>imprecise flame. That was inexcusable. >> >How about the nickname Bake "Flamethrower" Timmons? Sure, but Robert "Koresh-Fetesh" (sic) Knowles seems good, too. :) > >You weren't at the Koresh compound around noon today by any chance, were you? > >Remember, Koresh "dried" for your sins. > >And pass that beef jerky. Umm Umm. Though I wasn't there, at least I can rely on you now to keep me posted on what what he's doing. Have you any other fetishes besides those for beef jerky and David Koresh? -- Bake Timmons, III -- "...there's nothing higher, stronger, more wholesome and more useful in life than some good memory..." -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)
From: cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics In article <timmbake.735265296@mcl>, timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu ("Clam" Bake Timmons) writes: > > >Fallacy #1: Atheism is a faith. Lo! I hear the FAQ beckoning once again... > >[wonderful Rule #3 deleted - you're correct, you didn't say anything >about > >a conspiracy] > > Correction: _hard_ atheism is a faith. Yes. > > >>Rule #4: Don't mix apples with oranges. How can you say that the > >>extermination by the Mongols was worse than Stalin? Khan conquered people > >>unsympathetic to his cause.That was atrocious.But Stalin killed millions of > >>his own people who loved and worshipped _him_ and his atheist state!!How can ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >>anyone be worse than that? > > >I will not explain this to you again: Stalin did nothing in the name of > >atheism. Whethe he was or was not an atheist is irrelevant. > > Get a grip, man. The Stalin example was brought up not as an > indictment of atheism, but merely as another example of how people will > kill others under any name that's fit for the occasion. No, look again. While you never said it, the implication is pretty clear. I'm sorry, but I can only respond to your words, not your true meaning. Usenet is a slippery medium. [deleted wrt the burden of proof] > > So hard atheism has nothing to prove? Then how does it justify that > God does not exist? I know, there's the FAQ, etc. But guess what -- if > those justifications were so compelling why aren't people flocking to > _hard_ atheism? They're not, and they won't. I for one will discourage > people from hard atheism by pointing out those very sources as reliable > statements on hard atheism. > Look, I'm not supporting any dogmatic position. I'd be a fool to say that in the large group of people that are atheists, no people exist who wish to proselytize in the same fashion as religion. How many hard atheists do you see posting here, anyway? Maybe I'mm just not looking hard enough... > Second, what makes you think I'm defending any given religion? I'm merely > recognizing hard atheism for what it is, a faith. I never meant to do so, although I understand where you might get that idea. I was merely using the 'bible' example as an allegory to illustrate my point. > > And yes, by "we" I am referring to every reader of the post. Where is the > evidence that the poster stated that he relied upon? Evidence for what? Who? I think I may have lost this thread... [why theists are arrogant deleted] > >Because they say, "Such-and-such is absolutely unalterably True, because > ^^^^ > >my dogma says it is True." I am not prepared to issue blanket statements > >indicting all theists of arrogance as you are wont to do with atheists. > > Bzzt! By virtue of your innocent little pronoun, "they", you've just issued > a blanket statement. At least I will apologize by qualifying my original > statement with "hard atheist" in place of atheist. Would you call John the > Baptist arrogant, who boasted of one greater than he? That's what many > Christians do today. How is that _in itself_ arrogant? Guilty as charged. What I meant to say was, the theists who are arrogant are this way because they say ... Other than that, I thought my meaning was clear enough. Any position that claims itself as superior to another with no supporting evidence is arrogant. Thanks for your apology, btw. > > > >> I'm not worthy! > >Only seriously misinformed. > With your sophisticated put-down of "they", the theists, _your_ serious > misinformation shines through. Explained above. > > -- > Bake Timmons, III > > -- "...there's nothing higher, stronger, more wholesome and more useful in life > than some good memory..." -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) Subject: Re: It's all Mary's fault! In article <w_briggs-250493154912@ccresources6h59.cc.utas.edu.au> w_briggs@postoffice.utas.edu.au (William Briggs) writes: (Deletion) >> 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.... :-) > >A few points guys, (oops guy and gal but I use the term guy asexually): > >- Has the same sort of conspiracy ever occurred since, (I mean there must >have been dozen of times in the past two thousand years when it would have >been opportune time for a 'messiah' to be born. > It has. There is a guy running around in Switzerland who claims to have been conceived similarly. His mother says the same. His father is said to be a bit surprised. But anyway, there have been a lot of Messiahs, and many have had a similar story about their birth. Or their death. A list of Messiahs could be quite interesting. >- Wouldn't you feel bad if you turned out to be wrong and the conception of >Christ was via God? I can just imagine your faces as Mary asks you if >you've ever had a child yourself. > I would wonder why an omnipotent god pulls such stunts instead of providing evidence for everyone to check. And the whole question is absurd. Wouldn't you feel bad if you'd find out that stones are sentient, and that you have stepped on them all your life? And wouldn't you feel bad when you'd see the proof that Jesus was just a plot of Satan? >- If they wanted to save image they could have done what Joseph planned to >do in the first place - have a quite wedding and an equally quite divorce, >(I think it was quite easy to do under Jewish law). In that regard they >would have been pretty DUMB to think up a conspiracy like the one you've >outlined in that they a bringing attention on themselves. (Messiah >appearances were like Royal Scandals in zero AD Israel, (see the part in >Acts when the Sandhedrin are discussing what to do about the growth of the >new Church, (i.e. one wise guy said - leave it alone and if it is what it >says it is nothing can stop it and if it isn't then it will just fizzle out >anyway)). > You've forgotten the pride factor. >- It didn't fizzle, (the Church I mean). > The argument is a fallacy. It is like "thanks for reading this far" on the end of a letter. Most religions claim that they won't fizzle because they contain some eternal truth. So does Christianity. Since there are old religions it is no wonder to find old religions that have it that they would last. Roll twelve dice. Calculate the chance for the result. Argue that there must be something special about the result because an event with a chance of 1/(6**12) could hardly happen by chance only. Feel elevated because you have participated in letting that special event take place. Benedikt
From: kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) Subject: Re: Consciousness part II - Kev Strikes Back! Kevin Anthoney (kax@cs.nott.ac.uk) wrote: (about my reply) > Diplomatic :-) It a society that is constantly on the verge of flaming, Usenet, diplomacy is the best way to ensure the voice of reason gets through, isn't it? > I realize I'm fighting Occam's razor in this argument, so I'll try to > explain why I feel a mind is necessary. Kevin, unfortunately you are now delving into field I know too little about, algorithms. Your reasoning, as I see it, is very much along the lines of Roger Penrose, who claimed that mathematical 'insight' cannot be algorithmic in his book _The emperor's new mind: Concerning computers, minds, and the laws of physics_. However, Penrose's claim that he _has_ mathematical insight, or your similar claim that wavefunctions collapse only when we consciously take a look, could be just illusions. We are obviouslu taking very different viewpoints - I try to ponder on the problem of consciousness from an evolutionary perspective, realising that it might not be anything special, but certainly useful. Thinking back of what I wrote, do you think worms have minds or not? They are able to experience pain, at least they behave just like that. Yet it is conceivable that we might some day in the future perform a "total synthesis of C. elegans" from the elements. Would such a worm have a mind? > Firstly, I'm not impressed with the ability of algorithms. They're > great at solving problems once the method has been worked out, but not > at working out the method itself. This is true to some extent. However, I do not think that our brains work like computers, at all. In fact, there is substantial evidence (Skarda, 1985; Skarda & Freeman 1987) that brains work more or less chaotically, generating enough randomness for mental states to evolve. Our brains work much like genetic algorithm generators, I suppose. > the trick still has to be there in some form to be discovered. Does > this mean that all the ideas we will ever have are already > pre-programmed into our brains? This is somewhat unlikely, given that > our brains ultimately are encoded in 46 chromosomes worth of genetic > material, much of which isn't used. Indeed, this is extremely unlikely, given the vast impact of nurture on our mind and brain. I suggest, however, that before trying to understand our consciousness as a collection of algorithms. Kevin, take a look at the references I mentioned, and think again. I still think the best experts on the nature of a conscious mind are neurologists, neuropsychologists and biologists (but do not flame me for my opinions), since they study beings that are conscious. The reason I am repeating my advice is that this discussion cannot lead to anywhere if our backgrounds are too different. And please, do not bring QM into this discussion at all - not all physicists are happy with the claim that our consciousness plays some special role in physics. I would say it doesn't. > The other problem with algorithms is their instability. Not many > algorithms survive if you take out a large portion of their code, yet > people survive strokes without going completely haywire (there are > side-effects, but patients still seem remarkably stable.) Also, > neurons in perfectly healthy people are dying at an alarming rate - > can an algorithm survive if I randomly corrupt various bits of it's > code? Again, _brains are not computers_. Don't forget this. This does not mean they need something else to work - they just work differently. Their primary 'purpose' is perception and guidance of action, self-awareness and high intelligence are later appearances. > The next problem is the sticky question of "What is colour?" (replace > 'colour' with the sensation of your choice.) Presumably, the > materialist viewpoint is that it's the product of some kind of > chemical reaction. The usual products of such a reaction are energy + > different chemicals. Is colour a mixture of these? You are still expecting that we could find the idea of 'green' in our brains somewhere, perhaps in the form of some chemical. This is not how I see it. The sensation 'green' is a certain time-dependent pattern in the area V4 of our visual cortex, and it is distributed with the help of areas V1 and V2 to the rest of the brain. Indeed, a firing pattern. I have sometimes thought of our consciousness as a global free induction pattern of these local firing patterns, but this is just idle speculation. Scientific American's September 1992 issue was a special issue on mind and brain. Have you already read it from cover to cover? ;-) There are two articles on visual perception, so you might be interested. But again, please note that subjective experiences cannot be observed from a third-person perspective. If we see nothing but neuronal activity, we cannot go on to conclude that this is not the mind. Kalat (1988) writes about numerous examples where electric stimulation of different areas of brain have led to various changes in the patients' state of mind. For instance, a patient whose septal area was stimulated (without his knowledge) by remote control during a psychiatric interview was quickly cured of his depression, and started discussing a plan to seduce his girlfriend. Stimulations in the temporal lobe have sometimes led to embarrassing situations, when the patients have started flirting with the therapist. In conclusion, there is evidence that 1) brains are essentially necessary for subjective experiences, brain damage is usually equivalent to some sort of mind damage 2) conscious processes involve substantial brain activity in various areas of brain - when we think of colours, our visual cortex is activated etc. 3) consciousness is an afterthought - we become conscious of our actions with a half a second delay, and our brains are ahead of our 'conscious will' by at least 350 ms. Thus, I think it is fruitful to turn the question "Why do 'I' see colours" around and ask "What is this 'I' that seems to be observing?", since it seems that our conscious mind is not the king of our brains. > If this is so, a > computer won't see colour, because the chemistry is different. Does an > algorithm that sees colour have a selective advantage over an > equivalent that doesn't? It shouldn't, because the outputs of each > algorithm ought to be the same in equivalent circumstances. So why do > we see colour? This depends on what is meant by 'seeing colours'. Does a neural network that is capable of recognising handwritten numbers from 0 to 9 see the numbers, if it is capable of sorting them? If you are asking, "why does an animal who is conscious of itself as an observer have an evolutionary advantage over an animal who doesn't", I have a good answer - read my previous posting, where I wrote why a sense of identity helps social animals to swap roles and act more morally, so that they don't unconsciously kill each other with newly discovered weapons. (A bit extreme, but this is the basic idea.) When early _Homo_ became more and more efficient in using tools, a sense of identity and the concept of 'self' had to evolve in line with this development. Indeed, respect for others and conscious altruistic behaviour might be evolutionary advantages for social animals, such as early humans. > If I remember correctly, quantum mechanics consists of a wavefunction, > with two processes acting on it. The first process has been called > 'Unitary Evolution' (or 'U'), is governed by Schroedinger's equation > and is well known. The second process, called various things such as > 'collapse of the wavefunction' or 'state vector reduction' (or 'R'), > and is more mysterious. It is usually said to occur when a > 'measurement' takes place, although nobody seems to know precisely > when that occurs. When it does occur, the effect of R is to abruptly > change the wavefunction. If minds are required for this, does this mean that until human minds came to the scene, wavefunctions never collapsed, but remained in the superpositions for aeons? My, how powerful we are. This has been discussed before, and I think this topic is irrelevant, since we do not agree that minds are necessary, and neither do physicists. > Anyway, I'm speculating that minds would be in part X. There seems to > be some link between consciousness and R, in that we never see linear > superpositions of anything, although there are alternative > explainations for this. I've no idea how a brain is supposed to access > part X, but since this is only speculation, that won't matter too > much :-) My main point is that there might be a place for minds in > physics. I agree, but not in the sense you apparently mean above - physics needs sharp minds to solve many real problems. ;-) > I'll go back to my nice padded cell now, if that's OK with you :-) It's OK, if you don't forget to take with you the references I wrote about in my previous posting, plus the following: Kalat, James W. (1988): Biological Psychology. 3rd ed., Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA 1988. Skarda, C. (1985): Explaining behavior: Bringing the brain back in. Inquiry 29:187-202. Skarda, C. & Freeman, W. (1987): How brains make chaos in order to make sense of the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10:161-173. 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: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is In article <1r3inr$lvi@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: (Deletion) >#>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. > >It's not a fallacy - note the IF. IF a supermajority of disinterested people >agree on a fundamantal value (we're not doing ethics YET Benedikt), then what >is the difference between that and those people agreeing on a trivial >observation? > The reference to it's not yet being ethics is dubious. You have used the terms absolute, objective and others interchangeably. Same with moral values, values, at all, worth, measuers, and usefulness. You infer from them as if they were the same. To the IF. When the If is not fulfilled, your intermission is a waste of time. Assuming that you don't intend this, it is reasonable to conclude that you want to argue a point. You have made a interesting statement here, namely that of the disinterested observer. There is no such thing in morals. Probably the shortest proof for objective and morality being a contradiction. >#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. > >I have, however, given an example of a VALUE people agree on, and explained >why. People will agree that their freedom is valuable. I have also >stated that such a value is a necessary condition for doing objective >ethics - the IF assertion above. And that is what I'm talking about, there >isn't a point in talking about ethics if this can't be agreed. > Fine. And that freedom is valuable is not generally agreed upon. I could name quite a lot of people who state the opposite. (Not that that wasn't mentioned before). In other words, you have nothing to fulfill your strong claims with. >#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. > >I'm not doing morals (ethics) if we can't get past values. As I say, >the only cogent objection to my 'freedom' example is that maybe people >aren't talking about the same thing when they answer that it is valuable. >Maybe not, and I want to think about this some, especially the implications >of its being true. > Clutching a straw. I don't believe in mappings into metaphysical sets were loaded terms are fixpoints. Those who deny the morality of freedom make quite clear what they say, their practice is telling. Yes, there are even those who are willingly unfree. It is quite common in religions, by the way. For one, there is a religion which is named Submission. Don't even try to argue that submission is freedom. >#Further, the above is evidence, not proof. Proof would evolve out of testing >#your theory of absolute morals against competing theories. > >Garbage. That's not proof either. > If it were so, it would argue my case. But I am afraid that that is considered proof. >#The above is one of the arguments you reiterate while you never answer >#the objections. Evidence that you are a preacher. > >Name that fallacy. There is something universally valued in a moral context. Benedikt
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) 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. \|> \|> >jon. \|> \|> Grow up, childish propagandist. Gregg, I'm really sorry if having it pointed out that in practice things aren't quite the wonderful utopia you folks seem to claim them to be upsets you, but exactly who is being childish here is open to question. BBCI was an example of an Islamically owned and operated bank - what will someone bet me they weren't "real" Islamic owners and operators? - and yet it actually turned out to be a long-running and quite ruthless operation to steal money from small and often quite naive depositors. And why did these naive depositors put their life savings into BCCI rather than the nasty interest-motivated western bank down the street? Could it be that they believed an Islamically owned and operated bank couldn't possibly cheat them? So please don't try to con us into thinking that it will all work out right next time. jon.
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) Subject: Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?) In article <1qnpa6INN8av@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: >>Hanging? Hanging there slowing being strangled would be very >>painful, both physically and psychologicall, I imagine. > >Well, most hangings are very quick and, I imagine, painless. I think this is a misnomer. > >>Firing squad ? [ note: not a clean way to die back in those >>days ], etc. >>All would be considered cruel under your definition. >>All were allowed under the constitution by the founding fathers. > >And, hangings and firing squads are allowed today, too. And, if these >things were not considered cruel, then surely a medical execution >(painless) would not be, either. But, this just shows then that painful execution is not considered "cruel" and unusual punishment. This shows that "cruel" as used in the constitution does NOT refer to whether or not the punishment causes physical pain. Rather, it must be a different meaning. --- " I'd Cheat on Hillary Too." John Laws Local GOP Reprehensitive Extolling "Traditional Family Values."
From: markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is In <sandvik-250493163828@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: >In article <markp.735580401@avignon>, markp@avignon (Mark Pundurs) wrote: >> You take LSD, and it skews your perception of reality. You come down, >> and your perceptions unskew. >I've never taken LSD, but read about the strange lifes and times >of the Ashbury Heights culture. Something that was usually profound >was the way these LSD trippers mentioned that after their first trip >they changed their view of the world. In other words taking LSD would >change their reference frames. Which would indicate that deep changes >due to let us say rewiring of the brain temporarily will indeed >change frames. And this leads to the statement that there is no >solid reference frame; the LSD trippers modified their relative >view. Much of the Haight-Ashbury crowd probably had pre-existing dissatisfactions with their lives -- dissatisfactions ameliorated by mumbo-jumbo about 'new realities'. The only change I experienced after LSD was to gain the knowledge that I didn't enjoy how LSD twisted my perception. -- Mark Pundurs any resemblance between my opinions and those of Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental
From: ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray) Subject: Re: Who Says the Apostles Were Tortured? : The willingness of true believers : to die for their belief, be it in Jesus or Jim Jones, is : well-documented, so martyrdom in and of itself says little. It does say something about the depth of their belief. Religion has both deluded believers and con men. The difference is often how far they will follow their beliefs. I have no first hand, or even second hand, knowledge of how the original apostles died. If they began a myth in hopes of exploiting it for profit, and followed that myth to the death, that would be inconsistent. Real con men would bail out when it was obvious it would lead to discomfort, pain and death. The story in 1 Kings regarding the 450 prophets of Baal is of no help in this debate. One can easily assume that they believed that no overwhelming vindication of Elijah would be forthcoming. He was simply a fool, who would be shown to be so. The fire from heaven was swift and their seizure and deaths were equally swift.
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> Subject: Re: KORESH IS GOD! The latest news seems to be that Koresh will give himself up once he's finished writing a sequel to the Bible. mathew
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) Subject: Re: note to Bobby M. In article <1993Apr14.190904.21222@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes: >From: mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) >Subject: Re: note to Bobby M. >Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 19:09:04 GMT >In article <1993Apr14.131548.15938@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes: >>In <madhausC5CKIp.21H@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes: >> >>>Mark, how much do you REALLY know about vegetarian diets? >>>The problem is not "some" B-vitamins, it's balancing proteins. >>>There is also one vitamin that cannot be obtained from non-animal >>>products, and this is only of concern to VEGANS, who eat no >>>meat, dairy, or eggs. I believe it is B12, and it is the only >>>problem. Supplements are available for vegans; yes, the B12 >>>does come from animal by-products. If you are on an ovo-lacto >>>vegetarian diet (eat dairy and eggs) this is not an issue. > >I didn't see the original posting, but... >Yes, I do know about vegetarian diets, considering that several of my >close friends are devout vegetarians, and have to take vitamin supplements. >B12 was one of the ones I was thinking of, it has been a long time since >I read the article I once saw talking about the special dietary needs >of vegetarians so I didn't quote full numbers. (Considering how nice >this place is. ;) > >>B12 can also come from whole-grain rice, I understand. Some brands here >>in Australia (and other places too, I'm sure) get the B12 in the B12 >>tablets from whole-grain rice. > >Are you sure those aren't an enriched type? I know it is basically >rice and soybeans to get almost everything you need, but I hadn't heard >of any rice having B12. > >>Just thought I'd contribute on a different issue from the norm :) > >You should have contributed to the programming thread earlier. :) > >> Fred Rice >> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au > >M^2 > If one is a vegan (a vegetarian taht eats no animal products at at i.e eggs, milk, cheese, etc., after about 3 years of a vegan diet, you need to start taking B12 supplements because b12 is found only in animals.) Acutally our bodies make B12, I think, but our bodies use up our own B12 after 2 or 3 years. Lacto-oveo vegetarians, like myself, still get B12 through milk products and eggs, so we don't need supplements. And If anyone knows more, PLEASE post it. I'm nearly contridicting myself with the mish-mash of knowledge I've gleaned. Tammy
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: Morality? (was Re: <Political Atheists?) In article <1qlettINN8oi@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: \|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: \|> \|> >>>Explain to me \|> >>>how instinctive acts can be moral acts, and I am happy to listen. \|> >>For example, if it were instinctive not to murder... \|> > \|> >Then not murdering would have no moral significance, since there \|> >would be nothing voluntary about it. \|> \|> See, there you go again, saying that a moral act is only significant \|> if it is "voluntary." Why do you think this? If you force me to do something, am I morally responsible for it? \|> \|> And anyway, humans have the ability to disregard some of their instincts. Well, make up your mind. Is it to be "instinctive not to murder" or not? \|> \|> >>So, only intelligent beings can be moral, even if the bahavior of other \|> >>beings mimics theirs? \|> > \|> >You are starting to get the point. Mimicry is not necessarily the \|> >same as the action being imitated. A Parrot saying "Pretty Polly" \|> >isn't necessarily commenting on the pulchritude of Polly. \|> \|> You are attaching too many things to the term "moral," I think. \|> Let's try this: is it "good" that animals of the same species \|> don't kill each other. Or, do you think this is right? It's not even correct. Animals of the same species do kill one another. \|> \|> Or do you think that animals are machines, and that nothing they do \|> is either right nor wrong? Sigh. I wonder how many times we have been round this loop. I think that instinctive bahaviour has no moral significance. I am quite prepared to believe that higher animals, such as primates, have the beginnings of a moral sense, since they seem to exhibit self-awareness. \|> \|> \|> >>Animals of the same species could kill each other arbitarily, but \|> >>they don't. \|> > \|> >They do. I and other posters have given you many examples of exactly \|> >this, but you seem to have a very short memory. \|> \|> Those weren't arbitrary killings. They were slayings related to some \|> sort of mating ritual or whatnot. So what? Are you trying to say that some killing in animals has a moral significance and some does not? Is this your natural morality> \|> \|> >>Are you trying to say that this isn't an act of morality because \|> >>most animals aren't intelligent enough to think like we do? \|> > \|> >I'm saying: \|> > "There must be the possibility that the organism - it's not \|> > just people we are talking about - can consider alternatives." \|> > \|> >It's right there in the posting you are replying to. \|> \|> Yes it was, but I still don't understand your distinctions. What \|> do you mean by "consider?" Can a small child be moral? How about \|> a gorilla? A dolphin? A platypus? Where is the line drawn? Does \|> the being need to be self aware? Are you blind? What do you think that this sentence means? "There must be the possibility that the organism - it's not just people we are talking about - can consider alternatives." What would that imply? \|> \|> What do you call the mechanism which seems to prevent animals of \|> the same species from (arbitrarily) killing each other? Don't \|> you find the fact that they don't at all significant? I find the fact that they do to be significant. jon.
From: tgk@cs.toronto.edu (Todd Kelley) Subject: Re: Faith and Dogma marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall) <1r2eba$hsq@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> wrote: >I don't necessarily disagree with your assertion, but I disagree with >your reasoning. (Faith = Bad. Dogma = Bad. Religion -> (Faith ^ Dogma). >Religion -> (Bad ^ Bad). Religion -> Bad.) Unfortunately, you never >state why faith and dogma are dangerous. Faith and dogma are dangerous because they cause people to act on faith alone, which by its nature is without justification. That is what I mean by the word ``faith'': belief without justification, or belief with arbitrary justification, or with emotional (irrational) justification. For example, when someone says that God exists, that they don't know why they believe God exists, they can just feel it, that's faith. Dogma is bad because it precludes positive change in belief based on new information, or increased mental faculty. > >So Christians are totally irrational? Irrational with respect to their >religion only? What are you saying? One's belief in a Christian God does >not make one totally irrational. I think I know what you were getting at, >but I'd rather hear you expand on the subject. Faith and dogma are irrational. The faith and dogma part of any religion are responsible for the irrationality of the individuals. I claim that faith and dogma are the quintessential part of any religion. If that makes (the much overused in this context) Buddism a philosophy rather than a religion, I can live with that. Science is not a religion, because there is no faith nor dogma. > >>A philosopher cannot be a Christian because a philosopher can change his mind, >>whereas a Christian cannot, due to the nature of faith and dogma present >>in any religion. > >Again, this statement is too general. A Christian is perfectly capable of >being a philosopher, and absolutely capable of changing his/her mind. Faith in >God is a belief, and all beliefs may change. Would you assert that atheists >would make poor philosophers because they are predisposed to not believe in a >God which, of course, may show unfair bias when studying, say, religion? Have you noticed that philosophers tend to be atheists? If a philosopher is not an atheist, s/he tends to be called a theologian. A Christian tends to consider Christianity sacred. Christianity is a special set of beliefs, sanctioned by God himself, and therefore, to conceive of changing those beliefs is to question the existence of That Being Who Makes No Mistakes. Faith comes into play. Dogma comes into play. ``The lord works in mysterious ways'' is an example of faith being used to reconcile evidence that the beliefs are flawed. Sure, interpretations of what ``God said'' are changed to satisfy the needs of society, but when God says something, that's it. It was said, and that's that. Since God said it, it is unflawed, even if the interpretations are flawed. Science, (as would be practiced by atheists) in contrast, has a BUILT IN defence against faith and dogma. A scientist holds sacred the idea that beliefs should change to suit whatever is the best information available at the time, AND, AND, **AND*, a scientist understands that any current beliefs are deficient in some way. The goal is to keep improving the beliefs. The goal is to keep changing the beliefs to reflect the best information currently available. That's the only rational thing to do. That's good philosophy. Can you see the difference? Science views beliefs as being flawed, and new information can be obtained to improve them. (How many scientists would claim to have complete and perfect understanding of everything? None---it would put them out of a job!) Religion views its beliefs as being perfect, and the interpretations of those beliefs must be changed as new information is acquired which conflicts with them. > >Please explain how "just because" thinking kills people. (And please >state more in your answer than "Waco.") It's easier for someone to kill a person when s/he doesn't require a good rational justification of the killing. I don't consider ``he's Jewish'', or ``he was born of Jewish parents'', or ``this document says he's Jewish'' to be good rational justification. >By the way, I wasn't aware mass suicide >was a problem. Waco and Jonestown were isolated incidents. >Mass suicides are far from common. Clinton and the FBI would love for you to convince them of this. It would save the US taxpayer a lot of money if you could. Todd
From: cfairman@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes: >Someone writes: >>I found a list of Biblical contradictions and cleaned it up a bit, >>but now I'd like some help with it. >I'm curious to know what purpose people think these lists serve. It's about time. Why do atheists spend so much time paying attention to the bible, anyway? Face it, there are better things to do with your life! I used to chuckle and snort over the silliness in that book and the absurdity of people believing in it as truth, etc. Why do we spend so little time on the Mayan religion, or the Native Americans? Heck, the Native Americans have signifigantly more interesting myths. Also, what about the Egyptians. I think we pay so much attention to Christianity because we accept it as a _religion_ and not a mythology, which I find more accurate. I try to be tolerant. It gets very hard when someone places a book under my nose and tells me it's special. It's not. Carolyn
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) Subject: Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism) In article <1993Apr19.231641.21652@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes: (Deletion) >"(God is) the One Who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. >Each is travelling in an orbit with its own motion." (Qur'an :33) > >The positive aspect of this verse noted by Dr. Maurice Bucaille is that >while geocentrism was the commonly accepted notion at the time (and for >a long time afterwards), there is no notion of geocentrism in this verse >(or anywhere in the Qur'an). > Well, that is certainly different, but it looks as if there is a translation found for everything. By the way, I am most surprised to hear that night and day move in an orbit. And that the sun travels in an orbit without saying that earth does, too, sounds geocentric to me. Benedikt
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie In article <1993Apr10.130112.25440@bradford.ac.uk> L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes: >Gregg Jaeger (jaeger@buphy.bu.edu) wrote: >>>And no, in Western countries, it isn't a "legal" concept >>>at all, so it's not the slightest bit pertinent to the >>>topic, which is a British author living in the United >>>Kingdom under the protection of British law. >>Ah, yes, I keep forgetting, governments are superior entities to >>religious organizations. Forgive me -- the gun is the higher law. >This is degenerating to 'Zumder logic. Of course governments are >superior entities, they are elected by the people, whereas religious >leaders certainly are not. Perhaps not in Christianity, but in Islam the choice of religious leaders is to be made by the people. So much for your superiority argument. > Those who the people trust to make the law >obviously represents the higher law. That is democracy. Democracy is a basic element of Islam. Learn that one! Ever notice that the so-called "fundamentalists" in Algeria who are being repressed by the secular government won in free and democratic elections. Gregg
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam In article <115437@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) wrote: > As I have stated on a parallel thread, I am not an anarchist, nor is > Islam anarchist. Therefore the UK should have control over itself. > However, this does not change the fact that it is possible for citizens > of the UK residing within the UK to be in violation of Islamic law. This is an interesting notion -- and one I'm scared of. In my case I'm a Finnish citizen, I live in USA, and I have to conform to the US laws. However, the Finnish government is not actively checking out what I'm doing in this country, in other words checking out if I conform to the Finnish laws. However, Islamic law seems to be a 'curse' that is following you everywhere in the world. Shades of 1984, eh? Cheers, Kent --- sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.) Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution In article <1993Apr3.195642.25261@njitgw.njit.edu>, dmu5391@hertz.njit.edu (David Utidjian Eng.Sci.) writes... >In article <31MAR199321091163@juliet.caltech.edu> lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.) writes: > For a complete description of what is, and is not atheism >or agnosticism see the FAQ for alt.atheism in alt.answers... I think. >utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu I apologize for posting this. I thought it was only going to talk.origins. I also took my definitions from a 1938 Websters. Nonetheless, the apparent past arguments over these words imply that like 'bimonthly' and 'biweekly' they have no commonly accepted definitions and should be used with care. larry henling lmh@shakes.caltech.edu
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW] In article <1993Apr22.001442.27396@bnr.ca> (Rashid) writes: >In article <116171@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) wrote: >>I have already made the clear claim that >> Khomeini advocates views which are in contradition with the Qur'an >> and have given my arguments for this. This is something that can be >> checked by anyone sufficiently interested. Khomeini, being dead, >> really can't respond, but another poster who supports Khomeini has >> responded with what is clearly obfuscationist sophistry. This should >> be quite clear to atheists as they are less susceptible to religionist >> modes of obfuscationism. >Don't mind my saying this but the best example of obfuscation is to >condemn without having even your most basic facts straight. If you >want some examples, go back and look at your previous posts, where >you manage to get your facts wrong about the fatwa and Khomeini's >supposed infallibility. Why shouldn't I mind? It sounds as if you are proceeding with just the sort of obfuscation you have accused me of. I always preceeded my statements with "it is my understanding that..." Now, I have made my claim clear with regard to the issue of both the Twelve Imams and with Khomeini's supposed claim of infalibility. After hearing your seemingly more knowledgable claim that Khomeini made no such claim regarding himself, I have withdrawn that portion of my statement regarding that claim. However, I have received _no_ such response regarding the infallibility of the Twelve Imams. There is nothing obfuscationist about my claims, which are always made clearly. I have received no such clear response regarding the Twelve Imams but rather abstruse references to unusual metaphysical natures and other such opaque "concepts" often used by people to camoflage the baselessness of their positions, particularly in matters of theology. These are just the sorts of "concepts" used by Christian churches the perverting of their religion. >As salaam a-laikum Alaikum Wassalam, Gregg
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?) In article <1r5emjINNmk@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: \|> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: \|> \|> >But, this just shows then that painful execution is not considered \|> >"cruel" and unusual punishment. This shows that "cruel" as used in the \|> >constitution does NOT refer to whether or not the punishment causes physical \|> >pain. \|> >Rather, it must be a different meaning. \|> \|> I don't think so. Although some forms of execution are painful (the electric \|> chair looks particularly so), I think the pain is relatively short-lived. \|> Drawing and quartering, on the other hand, looks very painful, and the \|> victim wouldn't die right away (he'd bleed to death, I'd imagine). So what do we have now, an integral over pain X time? I get to lash you with a wet noodle for ever, but I only get to cut you up with a power saw if I'm quick about it? jon.
From: mtabbott@unix.amherst.edu (MTA) Subject: Atheism survey I am doing research on atheism, part of which involves field research here on the net. The following is a survey directed towards all readers of this group, intended to get data about the basis of atheistic belief. I would seriously appreciate it if each and every one of you would fill it out and mail it back to me at mtabbott@unix.amherst.edu. First of all, I've tried to structure questions that can be answered in a variety of ways, with varying amounts of detail; it's possible to give succinct answers to most everything, but there's enough here to keep most of you typing for hours, I'm sure. As much detail as you want to give me (I mean it) is great, but it's also important for me to have as broad a base of individuals as possible, so even minimal responses are far better than nothing -- it's a short survey if you just answer the questions without elaboration. Secondly, I hope some of the questions don't come off as obnoxious; I know that phrases like "What would convince you of the existence of God" imply that I am a seminary student intent on proving you all to be ignorant Godless heathens. In fact, I'm not too sure about the existence of a higher power myself, so my use of "God" is a question of locution rather than ideology -- it's easier than just repeating "a deity or higher power" every time. Also, I tend to use a lot of anthropological buzzwords like "belief system" although I know some of you might contend that you don't have ANY beliefs, but are skeptical towards everything. I understand; but you know what I mean. Think of such buzzwords as abbreviations for the rather unweildy phrases required to get the precise idea across. Lastly, thanks! Please fill out as much as you can, in as much detail as you can, and send them to me. My research and I thank you. --------------- Where would you place your beliefs, on the spectrum Theism <--> Agnosticism <--> Weak Atheism <--> Strong Atheism? Feel free to elaborate on your specific beliefs. In what, if any, religious tradition were you raised? Did you ever believe in the existence of a God? (Several of the following questions presume that the answer to this is "yes;" if you've always been an atheist, or at least never a theist, you may have to modify the question/answer somewhat.) How serious was your/your family's involvement? How and when did you start to doubt the tenets you were raised to believe? How and when did your "final break" with your beliefs, if any, occur? I realize that this is often more of an ongoing process than an "event" per se; whatever the case, just describe it in whatever detail you wish. What contact with other atheists have you had; before and after (and during) your "conversion" to atheism? (Certainly your involvement with alt.atheism counts -- how have net discussions affected your beliefs?) To what extent do you think other atheists have influenced you in your beliefs? Did you come by your beliefs through discussion, through independent means, or by some combination of the two or other means? Are you convinced that your beliefs were acquired through wholly rational means (proofs of the non-existence of God, etc), or was it perhaps, at least in part, through other means (alienation from mainstream religion, etc)? To what extent do you feel you "understand" the universe through your beliefs? What phenomena of the universe and of human existence (anything from physical phenomena to the problem of the existence of evil in human affairs) do you feel are adequately dealt with by your beliefs, and where are they lacking as an explanatory method? What would it take for you to question, or change, your beliefs? What would convince you of the existence of God, what would convince you of the plausibility of God's existence, and so forth? How dynamic are your beliefs -- are they constantly changing; have they stayed more or less the same for some time? Are you involved in a career or education in science? To what extent do you think science has influenced your beliefs? (Issac Asimov claimed that science was the new "secular religion," and that "scientists are, in a very real sense, the new priesthood." Do you see the pursuit of science as having a quasi- religious base, or even a religious element?) --------------- This survey is intended to get data from a broad range of individuals, but also to help me narrow down the field to a small group of people whose ideas and histories could be very useful to me. Would you be willing to have me, on the basis of this survey, write you to find out more about you and your beliefs? If not, fine; your filling out the survey alone is great. --------------- Thanks again. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about what I'm doing with this data, or if you have anything to say in addition to what I've asked about above. Mark Abbott mtabbott@unix.amherst.ed
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics In article <1r10jcINNt1g@lynx.unm.edu> cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes: >> Correction: _hard_ atheism is a faith. > >Yes. > Can be a faith. Like weak atheism. We had that before. Benedikt