From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Atheist Resources
Summary: Books, addresses, music -- anything related to atheism
Keywords: FAQ, atheism, books, music, fiction, addresses, contacts
Expires: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 11:57:19 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
Supersedes: <19930301143317@mantis.co.uk>
Lines: 290
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: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Introduction to Atheism
Summary: Please read this file before posting to alt.atheism
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Expires: Thu, 6 May 1993 12:22:45 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
Supersedes: <19930308134439@mantis.co.uk>
Lines: 646
Archive-name: atheism/introduction
Alt-atheism-archive-name: introduction
Last-modified: 5 April 1993
Version: 1.2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
An Introduction to Atheism
by mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
This article attempts to provide a general introduction to atheism.  Whilst I
have tried to be as neutral as possible regarding contentious issues, you
should always remember that this document represents only one viewpoint.  I
would encourage you to read widely and draw your own conclusions; some
relevant books are listed in a companion article.
To provide a sense of cohesion and progression, I have presented this article
as an imaginary conversation between an atheist and a theist.  All the
questions asked by the imaginary theist are questions which have been cropped
up repeatedly on alt.atheism since the newsgroup was created.  Some other
frequently asked questions are answered in a companion article.
Please note that this article is arguably slanted towards answering questions
posed from a Christian viewpoint.  This is because the FAQ files reflect
questions which have actually been asked, and it is predominantly Christians
who proselytize on alt.atheism.
So when I talk of religion, I am talking primarily about religions such as
Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which involve some sort of superhuman divine
being.  Much of the discussion will apply to other religions, but some of it
may not.
"What is atheism?"
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of God.
Some atheists go further, and believe that God does not exist.  The former is
often referred to as the "weak atheist" position, and the latter as "strong
atheism".
It is important to note the difference between these two positions.  "Weak
atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God.  "Strong
atheism" is a positive belief that God does not exist.  Please do not
fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists".
Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their
atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making
flat-out denials.
"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"
Definitely not.  Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe
it to be true.  Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to
believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or
not.  Which brings us to agnosticism.
"What is agnosticism then?"
The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor Huxley at a meeting of the
Metaphysical Society in 1876.  He defined an agnostic as someone who
disclaimed ("strong") atheism and believed that the ultimate origin of things
must be some cause unknown and unknowable.
Thus an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not and cannot know for
sure whether God exists.
Words are slippery things, and language is inexact.  Beware of assuming that
you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact
that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic.  For example, many people
use agnosticism to mean "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when
referring to "strong atheism".
Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it
is very difficult to generalize about atheists.  About all you can say for
sure is that atheists don't believe in God.  For example, it certainly isn't
the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out
about the universe.
"So what is the philosophical justification or basis for atheism?"
There are many philosophical justifications for atheism.  To find out why a
particular person chooses to be an atheist, it's best to ask her.
Many atheists feel that the idea of God as presented by the major religions
is essentially self-contradictory, and that it is logically impossible that
such a God could exist.  Others are atheists through scepticism, because they
see no evidence that God exists.
"But isn't it impossible to prove the non-existence of something?"
There are many counter-examples to such a statement.  For example, it is
quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number larger than
all other prime numbers.  Of course, this deals with well-defined objects
obeying well-defined rules.  Whether Gods or universes are similarly
well-defined is a matter for debate.
However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a God is not provably
impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the non-existence of
God.  If we assume that something does not exist, it is always possible to
show that this assumption is invalid by finding a single counter-example.
If on the other hand we assume that something does exist, and if the thing in
question is not provably impossible, showing that the assumption is invalid
may require an exhaustive search of all possible places where such a thing
might be found, to show that it isn't there.  Such an exhaustive search is
often impractical or impossible.  There is no such problem with largest
primes, because we can prove that they don't exist.
Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist
unless we have evidence that they do.  Even theists follow this rule most of
the time; they don't believe in unicorns, even though they can't conclusively
prove that no unicorns exist anywhere.
To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which probably cannot be
tested.  We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere God might be to
prove that he doesn't exist anywhere.  So the sceptical atheist assumes by
default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test.
Those who profess strong atheism usually do not claim that no sort of God
exists; instead, they generally restrict their claims so as to cover
varieties of God described by followers of various religions.  So whilst it
may be impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists, it may be
possible to prove that (say) a God as described by a particular religious
book does not exist.  It may even be possible to prove that no God described
by any present-day religion exists.
In practice, believing that no God described by any religion exists is very
close to believing that no God exists.  However, it is sufficiently different
that counter-arguments based on the impossibility of disproving every kind of
God are not really applicable.
"But what if God is essentially non-detectable?"
If God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his interaction
must be measurable.  Hence his interaction with our universe must be
detectable.
If God is essentially non-detectable, it must therefore be the case that he
does not interact with our universe in any way.  Many atheists would argue
that if God does not interact with our universe at all, it is of no
importance whether he exists or not.
If the Bible is to be believed, God was easily detectable by the Israelites.
Surely he should still be detectable today?
Note that I am not demanding that God interact in a scientifically
verifiable, physical way.  It must surely be possible to perceive some
effect caused by his presence, though; otherwise, how can I distinguish him
from all the other things that don't exist?
"OK, you may think there's a philosophical justification for atheism, but
isn't it still a religious belief?"
One of the most common pastimes in philosophical discussion is "the
redefinition game".  The cynical view of this game is as follows:
Person A begins by making a contentious statement.  When person B points out
that it can't be true, person A gradually re-defines the words he used in the
statement until he arrives at something person B is prepared to accept.  He
then records the statement, along with the fact that person B has agreed to
it, and continues.  Eventually A uses the statement as an "agreed fact", but
uses his original definitions of all the words in it rather than the obscure
redefinitions originally needed to get B to agree to it.  Rather than be seen
to be apparently inconsistent, B will tend to play along.
The point of this digression is that the answer to the question "Isn't
atheism a religious belief?" depends crucially upon what is meant by
"religious".  "Religion" is generally characterized by belief in a superhuman
controlling power -- especially in some sort of God -- and by faith and
worship.
[ It's worth pointing out in passing that some varieties of Buddhism are not
"religion" according to such a definition. ]
Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it
categorized by worship in any meaningful sense.  Widening the definition of
"religious" to encompass atheism tends to result in many other aspects of
human behaviour suddenly becoming classed as "religious" as well -- such as
science, politics, and watching TV.
"OK, so it's not a religion.  But surely belief in atheism (or science) is
still just an act of faith, like religion is?"
Firstly, it's not entirely clear that sceptical atheism is something one
actually believes in.
Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or assumptions to
make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience.  Most atheists
try to adopt as few core beliefs as possible; and even those are subject to
questioning if experience throws them into doubt.
Science has a number of core assumptions.  For example, it is generally
assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers.  These are
the sort of core assumptions atheists make.  If such basic ideas are called
"acts of faith", then almost everything we know must be said to be based on
acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning.
Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in something.
According to such a definition, atheism and science are certainly not acts of
faith.  Of course, individual atheists or scientists can be as dogmatic as
religious followers when claiming that something is "certain".  This is not a
general tendency, however; there are many atheists who would be reluctant to
state with certainty that the universe exists.
Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or proof.
Sceptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as sceptical atheism
has no beliefs.  Strong atheism is closer, but still doesn't really match, as
even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to refer to experimental data (or
the lack of it) when asserting that God does not exist.
"If atheism is not religious, surely it's anti-religious?"
It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for" or
"against", "friend" or "enemy".  The truth is not so clear-cut.
Atheism is the position that runs logically counter to theism; in that sense,
it can be said to be "anti-religion".  However, when religious believers
speak of atheists being "anti-religious" they usually mean that the atheists
have some sort of antipathy or hatred towards theists.
This categorization of atheists as hostile towards religion is quite unfair.
Atheist attitudes towards theists in fact cover a broad spectrum.
Most atheists take a "live and let live" attitude.  Unless questioned, they
will not usually mention their atheism, except perhaps to close friends.  Of
course, this may be in part because atheism is not "socially acceptable" in
many countries.
A few atheists are quite anti-religious, and may even try to "convert" others
when possible.  Historically, such anti-religious atheists have made little
impact on society outside the Eastern Bloc countries.
(To digress slightly: the Soviet Union was originally dedicated to separation
of church and state, just like the USA.  Soviet citizens were legally free to
worship as they wished.  The institution of "state atheism" came about when
Stalin took control of the Soviet Union and tried to destroy the churches in
order to gain complete power over the population.)
Some atheists are quite vocal about their beliefs, but only where they see
religion encroaching on matters which are not its business -- for example,
the government of the USA.  Such individuals are usually concerned that
church and state should remain separate.
"But if you don't allow religion to have a say in the running of the state,
surely that's the same as state atheism?"
The principle of the separation of church and state is that the state shall
not legislate concerning matters of religious belief.  In particular, it
means not only that the state cannot promote one religion at the expense of
another, but also that it cannot promote any belief which is religious in
nature.
Religions can still have a say in discussion of purely secular matters.  For
example, religious believers have historically been responsible for
encouraging many political reforms.  Even today, many organizations
campaigning for an increase in spending on foreign aid are founded as
religious campaigns.  So long as they campaign concerning secular matters,
and so long as they do not discriminate on religious grounds, most atheists
are quite happy to see them have their say.
"What about prayer in schools? If there's no God, why do you care if people
pray?"
Because people who do pray are voters and lawmakers, and tend to do things
that those who don't pray can't just ignore.  Also, Christian prayer in
schools is intimidating to non-Christians, even if they are told that they
need not join in.  The diversity of religious and non-religious belief means
that it is impossible to formulate a meaningful prayer that will be
acceptable to all those present at any public event.
Also, non-prayers tend to have friends and family who pray.  It is reasonable
to care about friends and family wasting their time, even without other
motives.
"You mentioned Christians who campaign for increased foreign aid.  What about
atheists?  Why aren't there any atheist charities or hospitals?  Don't
atheists object to the religious charities?"
There are many charities without religious purpose that atheists can
contribute to.  Some atheists contribute to religious charities as well, for
the sake of the practical good they do.  Some atheists even do voluntary work
for charities founded on a theistic basis.
Most atheists seem to feel that atheism isn't worth shouting about in
connection with charity.  To them, atheism is just a simple, obvious everyday
matter, and so is charity.  Many feel that it's somewhat cheap, not to say
self-righteous, to use simple charity as an excuse to plug a particular set
of religious beliefs.
To "weak" atheists, building a hospital to say "I do not believe in God" is a
rather strange idea; it's rather like holding a party to say "Today is not my
birthday".  Why the fuss?  Atheism is rarely evangelical.
"You said atheism isn't anti-religious.  But is it perhaps a backlash against
one's upbringing, a way of rebelling?"
Perhaps it is, for some.  But many people have parents who do not attempt to
force any religious (or atheist) ideas upon them, and many of those people
choose to call themselves atheists.
It's also doubtless the case that some religious people chose religion as a
backlash against an atheist upbringing, as a way of being different.  On the
other hand, many people choose religion as a way of conforming to the
expectations of others.
On the whole, we can't conclude much about whether atheism or religion are
backlash or conformism; although in general, people have a tendency to go
along with a group rather than act or think independently.
"How do atheists differ from religious people?"
They don't believe in God.  That's all there is to it.
Atheists may listen to heavy metal -- backwards, even -- or they may prefer a
Verdi Requiem, even if they know the words.  They may wear Hawaiian shirts,
they may dress all in black, they may even wear orange robes.  (Many
Buddhists lack a belief in any sort of God.)  Some atheists even carry a copy
of the Bible around -- for arguing against, of course!
Whoever you are, the chances are you have met several atheists without
realising it.  Atheists are usually unexceptional in behaviour and
appearance.
"Unexceptional? But aren't atheists less moral than religious people?"
That depends.  If you define morality as obedience to God, then of course
atheists are less moral as they don't obey any God.  But usually when one
talks of morality, one talks of what is acceptable ("right") and unacceptable
("wrong") behaviour within society.
Humans are social animals, and to be maximally successful they must
co-operate with each other.  This is a good enough reason to discourage most
atheists from "anti-social" or "immoral" behaviour, purely for the purposes
of self-preservation.
Many atheists behave in a "moral" or "compassionate" way simply because they
feel a natural tendency to empathize with other humans.  So why do they care
what happens to others?  They don't know, they simply are that way.
Naturally, there are some people who behave "immorally" and try to use
atheism to justify their actions.  However, there are equally many people who
behave "immorally" and then try to use religious beliefs to justify their
actions.  For example:
"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Jesus Christ
came into the world to save sinners...  But for that very reason, I was
shown mercy so that in me...  Jesus Christ might display His unlimited
patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive
eternal life.  Now to the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God,
be honor and glory forever and ever."
The above quote is from a statement made to the court on February 17th 1992
by Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious cannibal serial killer of Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.  It seems that for every atheist mass-murderer, there is a
religious mass-murderer.  But what of more trivial morality?
A survey conducted by the Roper Organization found that behavior
deteriorated after "born again" experiences.  While only 4% of respondents
said they had driven intoxicated before being "born again," 12% had done
so after conversion.  Similarly, 5% had used illegal drugs before
conversion, 9% after.  Two percent admitted to engaging in illicit sex
before salvation; 5% after.
["Freethought Today", September 1991, p. 12.]
So it seems that at best, religion does not have a monopoly on moral
behaviour.
"Is there such a thing as atheist morality?"
If you mean "Is there such a thing as morality for atheists?", then the
answer is yes, as explained above.  Many atheists have ideas about morality
which are at least as strong as those held by religious people.
If you mean "Does atheism have a characteristic moral code?", then the answer
is no.  Atheism by itself does not imply anything much about how a person
will behave.  Most atheists follow many of the same "moral rules" as theists,
but for different reasons.  Atheists view morality as something created by
humans, according to the way humans feel the world 'ought' to work, rather
than seeing it as a set of rules decreed by a supernatural being.
"Then aren't atheists just theists who are denying God?"
A study by the Freedom From Religion Foundation found that over 90% of the
atheists who responded became atheists because religion did not work for
them.  They had found that religious beliefs were fundamentally incompatible
with what they observed around them.
Atheists are not unbelievers through ignorance or denial; they are
unbelievers through choice.  The vast majority of them have spent time
studying one or more religions, sometimes in very great depth.  They have
made a careful and considered decision to reject religious beliefs.
This decision may, of course, be an inevitable consequence of that
individual's personality.  For a naturally sceptical person, the choice
of atheism is often the only one that makes sense, and hence the only
choice that person can honestly make.
"But don't atheists want to believe in God?"
Atheists live their lives as though there is nobody watching over them.  Many
of them have no desire to be watched over, no matter how good-natured the
"Big Brother" figure might be.
Some atheists would like to be able to believe in God -- but so what? Should
one believe things merely because one wants them to be true?  The risks of
such an approach should be obvious.  Atheists often decide that wanting to
believe something is not enough; there must be evidence for the belief.
"But of course atheists see no evidence for the existence of God -- they are
unwilling in their souls to see!"
Many, if not most atheists were previously religious.  As has been explained
above, the vast majority have seriously considered the possibility that God
exists.  Many atheists have spent time in prayer trying to reach God.
Of course, it is true that some atheists lack an open mind; but assuming that
all atheists are biased and insincere is offensive and closed-minded.
Comments such as "Of course God is there, you just aren't looking properly"
are likely to be viewed as patronizing.
Certainly, if you wish to engage in philosophical debate with atheists it is
vital that you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are
being sincere if they say that they have searched for God.  If you are not
willing to believe that they are basically telling the truth, debate is
futile.
"Isn't the whole of life completely pointless to an atheist?"
Many atheists live a purposeful life.  They decide what they think gives
meaning to life, and they pursue those goals.  They try to make their lives
count, not by wishing for eternal life, but by having an influence on other
people who will live on.  For example, an atheist may dedicate his life to
political reform, in the hope of leaving his mark on history.
It is a natural human tendency to look for "meaning" or "purpose" in random
events.  However, it is by no means obvious that "life" is the sort of thing
that has a "meaning".
To put it another way, not everything which looks like a question is actually
a sensible thing to ask.  Some atheists believe that asking "What is the
meaning of life?" is as silly as asking "What is the meaning of a cup of
coffee?".  They believe that life has no purpose or meaning, it just is.
"So how do atheists find comfort in time of danger?"
There are many ways of obtaining comfort; from family, friends, or even pets.
Or on a less spiritual level, from food or drink or TV.
That may sound rather an empty and vulnerable way to face danger, but so
what?  Should individuals believe in things because they are comforting, or
should they face reality no matter how harsh it might be?
In the end, it's a decision for the individual concerned.  Most atheists are
unable to believe something they would not otherwise believe merely because
it makes them feel comfortable.  They put truth before comfort, and consider
that if searching for truth sometimes makes them feel unhappy, that's just
hard luck.
"Don't atheists worry that they might suddenly be shown to be wrong?"
The short answer is "No, do you?"
Many atheists have been atheists for years.  They have encountered many
arguments and much supposed evidence for the existence of God, but they have
found all of it to be invalid or inconclusive.
Thousands of years of religious belief haven't resulted in any good proof of
the existence of God.  Atheists therefore tend to feel that they are unlikely
to be proved wrong in the immediate future, and they stop worrying about it.
"So why should theists question their beliefs? Don't the same arguments
apply?"
No, because the beliefs being questioned are not similar.  Weak atheism is
the sceptical "default position" to take; it asserts nothing.  Strong atheism
is a negative belief.  Theism is a very strong positive belief.
Atheists sometimes also argue that theists should question their beliefs
because of the very real harm they can cause -- not just to the believers,
but to everyone else.
"What sort of harm?"
Religion represents a huge financial and work burden on mankind.  It's not
just a matter of religious believers wasting their money on church buildings;
think of all the time and effort spent building churches, praying, and so on.
Imagine how that effort could be better spent.
Many theists believe in miracle healing.  There have been plenty of instances
of ill people being "healed" by a priest, ceasing to take the medicines
prescribed to them by doctors, and dying as a result.  Some theists have died
because they have refused blood transfusions on religious grounds.
It is arguable that the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control -- and
condoms in particular -- is increasing the problem of overpopulation in many
third-world countries and contributing to the spread of AIDS world-wide.
Religious believers have been known to murder their children rather than
allow their children to become atheists or marry someone of a different
religion.
"Those weren't REAL believers.  They just claimed to be believers as some
sort of excuse."
What makes a real believer?  There are so many One True Religions it's hard
to tell.  Look at Christianity: there are many competing groups, all
convinced that they are the only true Christians.  Sometimes they even fight
and kill each other.  How is an atheist supposed to decide who's a REAL
Christian and who isn't, when even the major Christian churches like the
Catholic Church and the Church of England can't decide amongst themselves?
In the end, most atheists take a pragmatic view, and decide that anyone who
calls himself a Christian, and uses Christian belief or dogma to justify his
actions, should be considered a Christian.  Maybe some of those Christians
are just perverting Christian teaching for their own ends -- but surely if
the Bible can be so readily used to support un-Christian acts it can't be
much of a moral code? If the Bible is the word of God, why couldn't he have
made it less easy to misinterpret? And how do you know that your beliefs
aren't a perversion of what your God intended?
If there is no single unambiguous interpretation of the Bible, then why
should an atheist take one interpretation over another just on your say-so?
Sorry, but if someone claims that he believes in Jesus and that he murdered
others because Jesus and the Bible told him to do so, we must call him a
Christian.
"Obviously those extreme sorts of beliefs should be questioned.  But since
nobody has ever proved that God does not exist, it must be very unlikely
that more basic religious beliefs, shared by all faiths, are nonsense."
That does not hold, because as was pointed out at the start of this dialogue,
positive assertions concerning the existence of entities are inherently much
harder to disprove than negative ones.  Nobody has ever proved that unicorns
don't exist, but that doesn't make it unlikely that they are myths.
It is therefore much more valid to hold a negative assertion by default than
it is to hold a positive assertion by default.  Of course, "weak" atheists
would argue that asserting nothing is better still.
"Well, if atheism's so great, why are there so many theists?"
Unfortunately, the popularity of a belief has little to do with how "correct"
it is, or whether it "works"; consider how many people believe in astrology,
graphology, and other pseudo-sciences.
Many atheists feel that it is simply a human weakness to want to believe in
gods.  Certainly in many primitive human societies, religion allows the
people to deal with phenomena that they do not adequately understand.
Of course, there's more to religion than that.  In the industrialized world,
we find people believing in religious explanations of phenomena even when
there are perfectly adequate natural explanations.  Religion may have started
as a means of attempting to explain the world, but nowadays it serves other
purposes as well.
"But so many cultures have developed religions.  Surely that must say
something?"
Not really.  Most religions are only superficially similar; for example, it's
worth remembering that religions such as Buddhism and Taoism lack any sort of
concept of God in the Christian sense.
Of course, most religions are quick to denounce competing religions, so it's
rather odd to use one religion to try and justify another.
"What about all the famous scientists and philosophers who have concluded
that God exists?"
For every scientist or philosopher who believes in a god, there is one who
does not.  Besides, as has already been pointed out, the truth of a belief is
not determined by how many people believe it.  Also, it is important to
realize that atheists do not view famous scientists or philosophers in the
same way that theists view their religious leaders.
A famous scientist is only human; she may be an expert in some fields, but
when she talks about other matters her words carry no special weight.  Many
respected scientists have made themselves look foolish by speaking on
subjects which lie outside their fields of expertise.
"So are you really saying that widespread belief in religion indicates
nothing?"
Not entirely.  It certainly indicates that the religion in question has
properties which have helped it so spread so far.
The theory of memetics talks of "memes" -- sets of ideas which can propagate
themselves between human minds, by analogy with genes.  Some atheists view
religions as sets of particularly successful parasitic memes, which spread by
encouraging their hosts to convert others.  Some memes avoid destruction by
discouraging believers from questioning doctrine, or by using peer pressure
to keep one-time believers from admitting that they were mistaken.  Some
religious memes even encourage their hosts to destroy hosts controlled by
other memes.
Of course, in the memetic view there is no particular virtue associated with
successful propagation of a meme.  Religion is not a good thing because of
the number of people who believe it, any more than a disease is a good thing
because of the number of people who have caught it.
"Even if religion is not entirely true, at least it puts across important
messages.  What are the fundamental messages of atheism?"
There are many important ideas atheists promote.  The following are just a
few of them; don't be surprised to see ideas which are also present in some
religions.
There is more to moral behaviour than mindlessly following rules.
Be especially sceptical of positive claims.
If you want your life to have some sort of meaning, it's up to you to
find it.
Search for what is true, even if it makes you uncomfortable.
Make the most of your life, as it's probably the only one you'll have.
It's no good relying on some external power to change you; you must change
yourself.
Just because something's popular doesn't mean it's good.
If you must assume something, assume something it's easy to test.
Don't believe things just because you want them to be true.
and finally (and most importantly):
All beliefs should be open to question.
Thanks for taking the time to read this article.
mathew
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.2
iQCVAgUBK8AjRXzXN+VrOblFAQFSbwP+MHePY4g7ge8Mo5wpsivX+kHYYxMErFAO
7ltVtMVTu66Nz6sBbPw9QkbjArbY/S2sZ9NF5htdii0R6SsEyPl0R6/9bV9okE/q
nihqnzXE8pGvLt7tlez4EoeHZjXLEFrdEyPVayT54yQqGb4HARbOEHDcrTe2atmP
q0Z4hSSPpAU=
=q2V5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
For information about PGP 2.2, send mail to pgpinfo@mantis.co.uk.
�
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 93
In article <65974@mimsy.umd.edu>
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>>Well, John has a quite different, not necessarily more elaborated theology.
>>There is some evidence that he must have known Luke, and that the content
>>of Q was known to him, but not in a 'canonized' form.
>
>This is a new argument to me.  Could you elaborate a little?
>
The argument goes as follows: Q-oid quotes appear in John, but not in
the almost codified way they were in Matthew or Luke. However, they are
considered to be similar enough to point to knowledge of Q as such, and
not an entirely different source.
>>Assuming that he knew Luke would obviously put him after Luke, and would
>>give evidence for the latter assumption.
>
>I don't think this follows.  If you take the most traditional attributions,
>then Luke might have known John, but John is an elder figure in either case.
>We're talking spans of time here which are well within the range of
>lifetimes.
We are talking date of texts here, not the age of the authors. The usual
explanation for the time order of Mark, Matthew and Luke does not consider
their respective ages. It says Matthew has read the text of Mark, and Luke
that of Matthew (and probably that of Mark).
As it is assumed that John knew the content of Luke's text. The evidence
for that is not overwhelming, admittedly.
>>>(1)  Earlier manuscripts of John have been discovered.
>
>>Interesting, where and which? How are they dated? How old are they?
>
>Unfortunately, I haven't got the info at hand.  It was (I think) in the late
>'70s or early '80s, and it was possibly as old as CE 200.
>
When they are from about 200, why do they shed doubt on the order on
putting John after the rest of the three?
>>I don't see your point, it is exactly what James Felder said.  They had no
>>first hand knowledge of the events, and it obvious that at least two of them
>>used older texts as the base of their account.  And even the association of
>>Luke to Paul or Mark to Peter are not generally accepted.
>
>Well, a genuine letter of Peter would be close enough, wouldn't it?
>
Sure, an original together with Id card of sender and receiver would be
fine. So what's that supposed to say? Am I missing something?
>And I don't think a "one step removed" source is that bad.  If Luke and Mark
>and Matthew learned their stories directly from diciples, then I really
>cannot believe in the sort of "big transformation from Jesus to gospel" that
>some people posit.  In news reports, one generally gets no better
>information than this.
>
>And if John IS a diciple, then there's nothing more to be said.
>
That John was a disciple is not generally accepted. The style and language
together with the theology are usually used as counterargument.
The argument that John was a disciple relies on the claim in the gospel
of John itself. Is there any other evidence for it?
One step and one generation removed is bad even in our times. Compare that
to reports of similar events in our century in almost illiterate societies.
Not even to speak off that believers are not necessarily the best sources.
>>It is also obvious that Mark has been edited. How old are the oldest
>>manuscripts? To my knowledge (which can be antiquated) the oldest is
>>quite after any of these estimates, and it is not even complete.
>
>The only clear "editing" is problem of the ending, and it's basically a
>hopeless mess.  The oldest versions give a strong sense of incompleteness,
>to the point where the shortest versions seem to break off in midsentence.
>The most obvious solution is that at some point part of the text was lost.
>The material from verse 9 on is pretty clearly later and seems to represent
>a synopsys of the end of Luke.
>
In other words, one does not know what the original of Mark did look like
and arguments based on Mark are pretty weak.
But how is that connected to a redating of John?
Benedikt
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: university violating separation of church/state?
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01
Lines: 29
dmn@kepler.unh.edu (...until kings become philosophers or philosophers become kings) writes:
>      Recently, RAs have been ordered (and none have resisted or cared about
> it apparently) to post a religious flyer entitled _The Soul Scroll: Thoughts
> on religion, spirituality, and matters of the soul_ on the inside of bathroom
> stall doors. (at my school, the University of New Hampshire) It is some sort
> of newsletter assembled by a Hall Director somewhere on campus. It poses a
> question about 'spirituality' each issue, and solicits responses to be
> included in the next 'issue.' It's all pretty vague. I assume it's put out
> by a Christian, but they're very careful not to mention Jesus or the bible.
> I've heard someone defend it, saying "Well it doesn't support any one religion.
> " So what??? This is a STATE university, and as a strong supporter of the
> separation of church and state, I was enraged.
>
>      What can I do about this?
It sounds to me like it's just SCREAMING OUT for parody.  Give a copy to your
friendly neighbourhood SubGenius preacher; with luck, he'll run it through the
mental mincer and hand you back an outrageously offensive and gut-bustingly
funny parody you can paste over the originals.
I can see it now:
The Stool Scroll
Thoughts on Religion, Spirituality, and Matters of the Colon
(You can use this text to wipe)
mathew
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM Research
Lines: 15
In article <N4HY.93Apr5120934@harder.ccr-p.ida.org>, n4hy@harder.ccr-p.ida.org (Bob McGwier) writes:
|> [1] HOWEVER, I hate economic terrorism and political correctness
|> worse than I hate this policy.
|> [2] A more effective approach is to stop donating
|> to ANY organizating that directly or indirectly supports gay rights issues
|> until they end the boycott on funding of scouts.
Can somebody reconcile the apparent contradiction between [1] and [2]?
--
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 114
In article <1993Apr5.091139.823@batman.bmd.trw.com>
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>> Didn't you say Lucifer was created with a perfect nature?
>
>Yes.
>
Define perfect then.
>> I think you
>> are playing the usual game here, make sweeping statements like omni-,
>> holy, or perfect, and don't note that they mean exactly what they say.
>> And that says that you must not use this terms when it leads to
>> contradictions.
>
>I'm not trying to play games here.  But I understand how it might seem
>that way especially when one is coming from a completely different point
>of view such as atheism.
>
Take your foot out of your mouth, I wondered about that already when I
was a Catholic Christian. The fact that the contradiction is unresolvable
is one of the reasons why I am an atheist.
Believe me, I believed similar sentences for a long time. But that shows
the power of religion and not anything about its claims.
>>>Now God could have prevented Lucifer's fall by taking away his ability
>>>to choose between moral alternatives (worship God or worship himself),
>>>but that would mean that God was in error to have make Lucifer or any
>>>being with free will in the first place.
>>
>> Exactly. God allows evil, an evil if there ever was one.
>>
>
>Now that's an opinion, or at best a premise.  But from my point of view,
>it is not a premise which is necessary true, specifically, that it is
>an evil to allow evil to occur.
>
It follows from a definition of evil as ordinarily used. Letting evil
happen or allowing evil to take place, in this place even causing evil,
is another evil.
>> But could you give a definition of free will? Especially in the
>> presence of an omniscient being?
>>
>"Will" is "self-determination".  In other words, God created conscious
>beings who have the ability to choose between moral choices independently
>of God.  All "will", therefore, is "free will".
>
The omniscient attribute of god will know what the creatures will do even
before the omnipotent has created them. There is no choice left. All is known,
the course of events is fixed.
Not even for the omniscient itself, to extend an argument by James Tims.
>>>If God is omniscient, then
>>>clearly, creating beings with free moral choice is a greater good than
>>>the emergence of ungodliness (evil/sin) since He created them knowing
>>>the outcome in advance.
>>
>> Why is it the greater good to allow evil with the knowledge that it
>> will happen? Why not make a unipolar system with the possibility of
>> doing good or not doing good, but that does not necessarily imply
>> doing evil. It is logically possible, but your god has not done it.
>
>I do not know that such is logically possible.  If God restrains a
>free being's choice to choose to do evil and simply do "not good",
>then can it be said that the being truly has a free moral choice?
>And if "good" is defined as loving and obeying God, and avoiding
>those behaviors which God prohibits, then how can you say that one
>who is "not good" is not evil as well?  Like I said, I am not sure
>that doing "not good" without doing evil is logically possible.
And when I am not omnipotent, how can I have free will? You have said
something about choices and the scenario gives them. Therefore we have
what you define as free will.
Imagine the following. I can do good to other beings, but I cannot harm them.
Easily implemented by making everyone appreciate being the object of good
deeds, but don't make them long for them, so they can not feel the absence
of good as evil.
But whose case am I arguing? It is conceivable, so the omnipotent can do it.
Or it would not be omnipotent. If you want logically consistent as well, you
have to give up the pet idea of an omnipotent first.
(Deletion)
>
>Perhaps it is weak, in a way.  If I were just speculating about the
>ubiquitous pink unicorns, then there would be no basis for such
>speculation.  But this idea of God didn't just fall on me out of the
>blue :), or while reading science fiction or fantasy.  (I know that
>some will disagree)  :)  The Bible describes a God who is omniscient,
>and nevertheless created beings with free moral choice, from which
>the definitional logic follows.  But that's not all there is to it.
>There seems to be (at least in my mind) a certain amount of evidence
>which indicates that God exists and that the Biblical description
>of Him may be a fair one.  It is that evidence which bolsters the
>argument in my view.
That the bible describes an omniscient and omnipotent god destroys
the credibility of the bible, nothing less.
And a lot of people would be interested in evidence for a god,
unfortunately, there can't be any with these definitions.
Benedikt
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 11
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>The motto originated in the Star-Spangled Banner.  Tell me that this has
>>something to do with atheists.
>The motto _on_coins_ originated as a McCarthyite smear which equated atheism
>with Communism and called both unamerican.
No it didn't.  The motto has been on various coins since the Civil War.
It was just required to be on *all* currency in the 50's.
keith
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: An Anecdote about Islam
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 28
In article <114127@bu.edu>
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>>When they are victimized they are Muslims. When they victimize others
>>they are not True Muslims (tm) or no Muslims at all.
>
>>Quite annoying.
>
>I don't understand the point of this petty sarcasm. It is a basic
>principle of Islam that if one is born muslim or one says "I testify
>that there is no god but God and Mohammad is a prophet of God" that,
>so long as one does not explicitly reject Islam by word then one _must_
>be considered muslim by all muslims. So the phenomenon you're attempting
>to make into a general rule or psychology is a direct odds with basic
>Islamic principles. If you want to attack Islam you could do better than
>than to argue against something that Islam explicitly contradicts.
>
It was no criticism of Islam for a change, it was a criticism of the
arguments used. Namely, whenever people you identify as Muslims are
the victims of the attacks of others, they are used an argument for
the bad situation of Muslims. But whenever deeds by Muslim that victimize
others are named, they do not count as an argument because what these
people did was not done as a true Muslims. No mention is made how Muslims
are the cause of a bad situation of another party.
Double standards.
Benedikt
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 54
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
(reference line trimmed)
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
[...]
>There is a good deal more confusion here.   You started off with the
>assertion that there was some "objective" morality, and as you admit
>here, you finished up with a recursive definition.   Murder is
>"objectively" immoral, but eactly what is murder and what is not itself
>requires an appeal to morality.
Yes.
>Now you have switch targets a little, but only a little.   Now you are
>asking what is the "goal"?   What do you mean by "goal?".   Are you
>suggesting that there is some "objective" "goal" out there somewhere,
>and we form our morals to achieve it?
Well, for example, the goal of "natural" morality is the survival and
propogation of the species.  Another example of a moral system is
presented within the Declaration of Independence, which states that we
should be guaranteed life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  You see,
to have a moral system, we must define the purpose of the system.  That is,
we shall be moral unto what end?
>>Murder is certainly a violation of the golden rule.  And, I thought I had
>>defined murder as an intentional killing of a non-murderer, against his will.
>>And you responded to this by asking whether or not the execution of an
>>innocent person under our system of capital punishment was a murder or not.
>>I fail to see what this has to do with anything.  I never claimed that our
>>system of morality was an objective one.
>I thought that was your very first claim.   That there was
>some kind of "objective" morality, and that an example of that was
>that murder is wrong.   If you don't want to claim that any more,
>that's fine.
Well, murder violates the golen rule, which is certainly a pillar of most
every moral system.  However, I am not assuming that our current system
and the manner of its implementation are objectively moral.  I think that
it is a very good approximation, but we can't be perfect.
>And by the way, you don't seem to understand the difference between
>"arbitrary" and "objective".   If Keith Schneider "defines" murder
>to be this that and the other, that's arbitrary.   Jon Livesey may
>still say "Well, according to my personal system of morality, all
>killing of humans against their will is murder, and wrong, and what
>the legal definition of murder may be in the USA, Kuweit, Saudi
>Arabia, or the PRC may be matters not a whit to me".
Well, "objective" would assume a system based on clear and fundamental
concepts, while "arbitary" implies no clear line of reasoning.
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: >>>>>>Pompous ass
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 9
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>>Then why do people keep asking the same questions over and over?
>Because you rarely ever answer them.
Nope, I've answered each question posed, and most were answered multiple
times.
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: >>>>>>Pompous ass
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 14
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
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: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 12
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
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
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 25
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>But, if you were to discuss the merits of racism, or its psycholgical
>>benefits, you would do well to have experienced it personally.
>When you speak of "experiencing religion" you mean someone should believe in
>a religion.
That's right, and this is pretty impossible, right?  It would be ideal if
we could believe for a while, just to try out religion, and only then
determine which course of thought suits us best.  But again, this is not
possible.  Not that religion warrants belief, but the belief carries with
it some psychological benefits.  There are also some psychological
burdens, too.
>When you speak of "experiencing racism", do you mean that someone should
>believe in racism, or that they should have racist things done to them?  For
>parallelism, the former must be what you meant, but it seems to be an odd
>usage of the phrase.
Well, if there were some psychological or other benefits gained from racism,
they could only be fully understood or judged by persons actually "believing"
in racism.  Of course, the parallel happens to be a poor one, but you
originated it.
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 44
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>But, you don't know that capital punishment is wrong, so it isn't the same
>>as shooting.  A better analogy would be that you continue to drive your car,
>>realizing that sooner or later, someone is going to be killed in an automobile
>>accident.  You *know* people get killed as a result of driving, yet you
>>continue to do it anyway.
>Uh uh.  You do not know that you will be the one to do the
>killing.  I'm not sure I'd drive a car if I had sufficient evidence to
>conclude that I would necessarily kill someone during my lifetime.
Yes, and everyone thinks as you do.  No one thinks that he is going to cause
or be involved in a fatal accident, but the likelihood is surprisingly high.
Just because you are the man on the firing squad whose gun is shooting
blanks does not mean that you are less guilty.
>I don't know about Jon, but I say *ALL* taking of human life is
>murder.  And I say murder is wrong in all but one situation:  when
>it is the only action that will prevent another murder, either of
>myself or another.
You mean that killing is wrong in all but one situtation?  And, you should
note that that situation will never occur.  There are always other options
thank killing.  Why don't you just say that all killing is wrong.  This
is basically what you are saying.
>I'm getting a bit tired of your probabilistic arguments.
Are you attempting to be condescending?
>That the system usually works pretty well is small consolation to
>the poor innocent bastard getting the lethal injection.  Is your
>personal value of human life based solely on a statistical approach?
>You sound like an unswerving adherent to the needs of the many
>outweighing the needs of the few, so fuck the few.
But, most people have found the risk to be acceptable.  You are probably
much more likely to die in a plane crash, or even using an electric
blender, than you are to be executed as an innocent.  I personally think
that the risk is acceptable, but in an ideal moral system, no such risk
is acceptable.  "Acceptable" is the fudge factor necessary in such an
approximation to the ideal.
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 50
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>I think that about 70% (or so) people approve of the
>>death penalty, even realizing all of its shortcomings.  Doesn't this make
>>it reasonable?  Or are *you* the sole judge of reasonability?
>Aside from revenge, what merits do you find in capital punishment?
Are we talking about me, or the majority of the people that support it?
Anyway, I think that "revenge" or "fairness" is why most people are in
favor of the punishment.  If a murderer is going to be punished, people
that think that he should "get what he deserves."  Most people wouldn't
think it would be fair for the murderer to live, while his victim died.
>Revenge?  Petty and pathetic.
Perhaps you think that it is petty and pathetic, but your views are in the
minority.
>We have a local televised hot topic talk show that very recently
>did a segment on capital punishment.  Each and every advocate of
>the use of this portion of our system of "jurisprudence" cited the
>main reason for supporting it:  "That bastard deserved it".  True
>human compassion, forgiveness, and sympathy.
Where are we required to have compassion, forgiveness, and sympathy?  If
someone wrongs me, I will take great lengths to make sure that his advantage
is removed, or a similar situation is forced upon him.  If someone kills
another, then we can apply the golden rule and kill this person in turn.
Is not our entire moral system based on such a concept?
Or, are you stating that human life is sacred, somehow, and that it should
never be violated?  This would sound like some sort of religious view.
>>I mean, how reasonable is imprisonment, really, when you think about it?
>>Sure, the person could be released if found innocent, but you still
>>can't undo the imiprisonment that was served.  Perhaps we shouldn't
>>imprision people if we could watch them closely instead.  The cost would
>>probably be similar, especially if we just implanted some sort of
>>electronic device.
>Would you rather be alive in prison or dead in the chair?
Once a criminal has committed a murder, his desires are irrelevant.
And, you still have not answered my question.  If you are concerned about
the death penalty due to the possibility of the execution of an innocent,
then why isn't this same concern shared with imprisonment.  Shouldn't we,
by your logic, administer as minimum as punishment as possible, to avoid
violating the liberty or happiness of an innocent person?
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 26
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>If I kill this person [an innocent person convicted of murder],
>>then a murder would be committed, but I would not be the murderer.  At least,
>>I wouldn't "reasonably" be considered a murderer, with "reasonable" being
>>introduced as a fudge factor necessary to account for the inability to be
>>totally objective due to a lack of absolutely true information.
>If society collective decides to carry the burden of executing
>it's citizens, then it also carries the blame for their innocent
>blood.  Each and every voter who casts a ballot in favor of
>capital punishment is in part guilty of the murder of each and
>every innocent victim of the system.
Why are only those people in favor of the system to blame.  If society
accepts such a system, then each member of society is to blame when
an innocent person gets executed.  Those that are not in favor should
work to convince others.
And, most members of our society have accepted the blame--they've considered
the risk to be acceptable.  Similarly, every person who drives must accept
the blame for fatal traffic accidents.  This is something that is surely
going to happen when so many people are driving.  It is all a question of
what risk is acceptable.  It is much more likely that an innocent person
will be killed driving than it is that one will be executed.
keith
Subject: Re: Don't more innocents die without the death penalty?
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 26
In article <2942881697.0.p00168@psilink.com> p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) writes:
>
>By maintaining classes D and E, even in prison, it seems as if we
>place more innocent people at a higher risk of an unjust death than
>we would if the state executed classes D and E with an occasional error.
>
I answer from the position that we would indeed place these people
in prison for life.
That depends not only on their predisposition towards murder, but
also in their success rate at escape and therefore their ability
to commit the same crimes again.
In other words, if lifetime imprisonment doesn't work, perhaps
it's not because we're not executing these people, but because
we're not being careful enough about how we lock them up.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Subject: Re: Ancient islamic rituals
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 33
In article <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>I propose
>that these two trends -- greater level of general depression in society
>(and other psychological problems) and greater sexual promiscuity -- are
>linked, with the latter being a prime cause of the former.  I cannot
>provide any evidence beyond this at this stage, but the whole thesis
>seems very reasonable to me and I request that people ponder upon it.
>
Damn right you can't provide any evidence for it.
Rarely are any widespread social phenomenon reducible to such a
simple premise.  If they were, psychology would be a hard science
with roughly the same mathematical soundness as physics.
Your premise may well be right.  It is much more likely, however,
that it reflects your socialization and religious background, as
well as your need to validate your religious beliefs.  Were I to
pretend to have all the answers (and I don't), I would say that the
xenophobia, guilt, and intolerance brought about by adherence to
fundamentalist religions play just as large a role in depressing
the members of our society.
Your mileage obviously varies.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 47
In article <1993Apr3.212139.14076@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1pj9bs$d4j@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>I would say that one innocent person killed is in some sense
>>as bad as many.   We certainly feel that way when we punish
>>someone for a single murder.
>>Now if we reform system X, by reducing the number of deaths
>>by one, we produce system XX.    I'd say we should not go back
>>to system X, even though by doing so we would re-introduce only
>>a single extra death.
>
>Bob seems to think that one is as bad as many in a sense somewhat stronger than
>the one you indicate.
>--
Yes, I do.
My argument is that the sole purpose of the death penalty is to
kill people.  That is it's primary (and I would argue only)
purpose.  To continue to kill people by a practice that has
almost no utility, especially when you know you will be killing
innocents, is unconscionable.
At the very least, the existence of the prison system and our
transportation system are based on their merits to society, not
their detriments.  We are willing to accept a few lost innocent
lives because there is an overwhelming benefit to the continued
existence of these systems.  One has to stretch the evidence and
the arguments to make the same claim for capital punishment.
Just in case I wasn't clear again:  We maintain a capital
punsihment system that kills innocent people and provides us with
no net positive gain.  Why?
Were you to pin me in a corner and ask, I would have to respond
that I don't belief the state should have the right to take life
at all.  But I won't open that debate, as it seems others are
tiring of this thread on a.a anyway.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Subject: Re: There must be a creator! (Maybe)
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Reply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Lines: 24
In article <16BA1E927.DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU>, DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU (Brad Porter) writes:
>
>   Science is wonderful at answering most of our questions.  I'm not the type
>to question scientific findings very often, but...  Personally, I find the
>theory of evolution to be unfathomable.  Could humans, a highly evolved,
>complex organism that thinks, learns, and develops truly be an organism
>that resulted from random genetic mutations and natural selection?
[...stuff deleted...]
Computers are an excellent example...of evolution without "a" creator.
We did not "create" computers.  We did not create the sand that goes
into the silicon that goes into the integrated circuits that go into
processor board.  We took these things and put them together in an
interesting way. Just like plants "create" oxygen using light through
photosynthesis.  It's a much bigger leap to talk about something that
created "everything" from nothing.  I find it unfathomable to resort
to believing in a creator when a much simpler alternative exists: we
simply are incapable of understanding our beginnings -- if there even
were beginnings at all.  And that's ok with me.  The present keeps me
perfectly busy.
-jim halat
Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Reply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Lines: 10
In article <j0=5l3=@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@jec322.its.rpi.edu (Dan Johnson) writes:
>In article 143048IO30436@MAINE.MAINE.EDU, <IO30436@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> () writes:
Dan Johnson-
You don't know me, but take this hand anyway.  Bravo for GO(DS) = 0.
Beautiful!  Simply beautiful!
-jim halat
Subject: Re: Speculations
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 17
In article <930405.172903.4w6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>> If this god is truly omnipotent as you folks like to claim, then why can't
>> he terminate eternity?
>
>For the same reason he can't flibble glop ork groink.
>
>The thing you are demanding that he must be able to do, has no meaning in its
>own terms.
This is a classic example of excessive faith in reason.  The fact that we
have trouble talking about something doesn't imply that it is impossible; it
simply implies that it is hard to talk about.  There is a very good chance
that God *can* flibble glop ork groink.  Charlie Wingate can flibble glop
ork groink, and he isn't even God.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 191
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>Much though it might be fun to debate capital punishment itself,
>this is probably the wrong group for it.  The only relevance here
>is that you don't seem to be able to tell us what capital punishment
>actually is, and when it is murder.  That is, when you tell us murder
>is wrong, you are using a term you have not yet defined.
Well, I've said that when an innocent person has been executed, this is
objectively a murder.  However, who is at blame is another question.
It seems that the entire society that sanctions any sorts of executions--
realizing the risks--is to blame.
>There is a *probability* of
>killing an innocent person by shooting at random into the air, and
>there is a *probability* of killing an innocent person when the
>state administers a system of capital punishment.  So when you do
>either, you know that they actions you are taking will sooner or
>later result in the killing of an innocent person.
Yes, but there is also a probablity that you will kill someone doing
any raondom activity.  Presumably, you had not isolated yourself totally
from the rest of society because of this.
>>And, driving will kill people, as will airlines, but people continue to do
>>both.
>Driving and flying are not punishments inflicted on unwilling
>prisoners by Courts.  They are risks that we take upon ourselves
>willingly.
And I argue that our law system is a similar risk.  Perhaps an innocent
person will be punished someday, but we work to prevent this.  In fact,
many criminals go free as a result of our trying to prevent punishment
of innocents.
>If our own driving kills someone else, then sure, there is a moral
>issue.  I know at least one person who was involved in a fatal
>accident, and they felt vey guilty afterwards.
But, such accidents are to be totally expected, given the numner of vehicals
on the road.  Again, the blame is on society.
>>No I'm not.  This is what you said.  You were saying that if there were such
>>a false witness that resulted in an innocent person being convicted and killed
>>, it would still be the fault of the state, since it did the actual killing.
>No, I just commented that the state does the killing.  It does not
>depend on there being false witnesses.  How could it?  The state
>does the killing even in the case of sincere mistakes
Yes, but the state is not at fault in such a case.  The state can only do
so much to prevent false witnesses.
>>It is possible.  So, what are you trying to say, that capital punishment
>>is always murder because of the possibilty of human error invalidating
>>the system?
>I'm saying capital punishment is murder, period.  Not because of
>this that and the other, but because it involves taking human life.
>That's *my* definition of murder.  I make no appeals to dictionaries
>or to "objective" morals.
Okay, so this is what you call murder.  But, the question is whether or not
all such "murders" are wrong.  Are you saying that all taking of human life
is wrong, no matter what the circumstances?
>If we, as a society, decide to murder someone, then we should say
>that, and lists our reasons for doing so, and live with the moral
>consequences.  We should not play word games and pretend that
>murder isn't murder.  And that's *my* opinion about how society
>ought to be run.
But, this is basically how it works.  Society accepts the risk that an
innocent person will be murdered by execution.  And, every member of
society shares this blame.  And, most people's definitions of murder
include some sort of malicious intent, which is not involved in an
execution, is it?
>>But, we were trying to discuss an objective moral system, or at least its
>>possibilty.  What ramifications does your personal system have on an
>>objective one?
>No, we were not discussing an objective moral system.  I was showing
>you that you didn't have one, because, for one thing, you were incapable
>of defining the terms in it, for example, "murder".
Murder violates the golden rule.  Executions do not, because by allowing
it at all, society implicitly accepts the consequences no matter who the
innocent victim is.
>>We're not talking about reading minds, we are just talking about knowing the
>>truth.  Yes, we can never be absolutely certain that we have the truth, but
>>the court systems work on a principle of knowing the "truth" "beyond a
>>reasonable doubt."
>Sorry, but you simply are not quoting yourself accurately.  Here
>is what you said:
>	"And, since we are looking totally objectively at this case,
>	then we know what people are thinking when they are voting to
>	execute the person or not.  If the intent is malicious and
>	unfair, then the execution would be murder."
>What you are doing now is to slide into another claim, which is
>quite different.  The jury being *persuaded* beyond a serious
>doubt is not the same as us knowing what is in their minds beyond
>a serious doubt.
Reading the minds of the jury would certainly tell whether or not a conviction
was moral or not.  But, in an objective system, only the absolute truth
matters, and the jury system is one method to approximate such a truth.  That
is, twelve members must be convinced of a truth.
>Moreover, a jury which comes from a sufficiently prejudiced background
>may allow itself to be persuaded beyond a serious doubt on evidence
>that you and I would laugh at.
But then, if we read the minds of these people, we would know that the
conviction was unfair.
>>But, would it be perfectly fair if we could read minds?  If we assume that
>>it would be fair if we knew the absolute truth, why is it so much less
>>fair, in your opinion, if we only have a good approximation of the absolute
>>truth?
>It's not a question of fairness.  Your claim, which I have quoted
>above is a claim about whether we can *know* it was fair, so as to
>be able to distinguish capital punishnment from murder.
Yes, while we could objectively determine the difference (if we knew all
possible information), we can't always determine the difference in our
flawed system.  I think that our system is almost as good as possible,
but it still isn't objectively perfect.  You see, it doesn't matter if
we *know* it is fair or not.  Objectively, it is either fair or it is not.
>Now there's a huge difference.  If we can read minds, we can know,
>and if we cannot read minds, we can know nothing.  The difference
>is not in degree of fairness, but in what we can know.
But what we know has no effect on an objective system.
>>I think it is possible to produce a fairly objective system, if we are
>>clear on which goals it is supposed to promote.
>I'm not going to waste my time trying to devise a system that I am
>pretty sure does not exist.
Why are you so sure?
>I simply want people to confront reality.  *My* reality, remember.
Why is *your* reality important?
>In this case, the reality is that, "ideal theories' apart, we can
>never know, even after the fact, about the fairness of the justice
>system.  For every innocent person released from Death Row, there
>may have been a dozen innocent people executed, or a hundred, or
>none at all.  We simply don't know.
But, we can assume that the system is fairly decent, at least most likely.
And, you realize that the correctness of our system says nothing about a
totally ideal and objective system.
>Now what are we going to do?  On the one hand, we can pretend
>that we have an 'ideal' theory, and that we can know things we can
>never know, and the Justie System is fair, and that we can wave a
>magic wand and make certain types of killing not murder, and go
>on our way.
Well, we can have an ideal system, but the working system can not be ideal.
We can only hope to create a system that is as close an approximation to
the ideal system as possible.
>On the other hand, we can recognize that all Justice has a small
>- we hope - probability of punishing the innocent, and that in the
>end we do bear moral responsibility even for the probabilistic
>consequences of the systems we set up, and then say, "Well, here
>we go, murdering again."  Maybe some of us will even say "Gee, I
>wonder if all this is strictly necessary?"
Yes, we all bear the responsibility.  Most people seem willing to do this.
>I think that the second is preferable in that if requires people
>to face the moral consequences of what we do as a society, instead
>of sheltering ourselves from them by magic ceremonies and word
>games.
We must realize the consequences of all our actions.  Why do you keep
separating the justice system from the pack?
>And lest I forget, I also don't think we have an objective moral
>system, and I believe I only have to take that idea seriously
>when someone presents evidence of it.
I don't think our country has an objective system, but I think such an
objective system can exist, in theory.  Without omniscience, an objective
system is not possible in practice.
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 12
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>Now along comes Mr Keith Schneider and says "Here is an "objective
>moral system".  And then I start to ask him about the definitions
>that this "objective" system depends on, and, predictably, the whole
>thing falls apart.
It only falls apart if you attempt to apply it.  This doesn't mean that
an objective system can't exist.  It just means that one cannot be
implemented.
keith
From: rm03@ic.ac.uk (Mr R. Mellish)
Subject: Re: university violating separation of church/state?
Organization: Imperial College
Lines: 33
Nntp-Posting-Host: 129.31.80.14
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: kilman2y@fiu.edu (Yevgeny (Gene) Kilman)
Subject: Re: USAToday ad ("family values")
Organization: Florida International University, Miami
Lines: 15
In article <C4rzz2.47J@unix.portal.com> danb@shell.portal.com (Dan E Babcock) writes:
>There was a funny ad in USAToday from "American Family Association".
>I'll post a few choice parts for your enjoyment (all emphases is in
>the ad; I'm not adding anything). All the typos are mine. :)
[Dan's article deleted]
I found the same add in our local Sunday newspaper.
The add was placed in the ..... cartoon section!
The perfect place for it ! :-)
Y.K.
Subject: Re: islamic authority over women
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
Lines: 11
In article <1993Apr3.214741.14026@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>
> My claim is that a person that committs a crime doesn't believe in
> God, for the moment that the crime is committed, at least, whether
> they are originally believers or not.  To believe is to do good.
> Your statistics indicate people that have declared atheism.
And doubtless, when an atheist does an act of charity
they temporarily become a Baptist.
jon.
Subject: Re: Ancient islamic rituals
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
Lines: 20
In article <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>
>  I propose that these two trends -- greater level of general
> depression in society (and other psychological problems) and
> greater sexual promiscuity -- are linked, with the latter being
> a prime cause of the former.  I cannot provide any evidence beyond
> this at this stage, but the whole thesis seems very reasonable to
> me and I request that people ponder upon it.
I pondered it for all of ten seconds when I realised that since
we don't have any reliable statistics for sexual promiscuity,
and since the whole issue of "depression" isn't at all well
defined for earlier centuries, you are probably talking crap.
Of course, you could pull a Mozumder on us, and say that people
who are having sex outside marriage are *defined* to be depressed.
I can't say I'd ever noticed, myself.
jon.
From: anthropo@carina.unm.edu (Dominick V. Zurlo)
Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 30
NNTP-Posting-Host: carina.unm.edu
In article <1993Apr5.011255.7295@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
>Now can we please use rec.scouting for the purpose for which it was
>established?  Clearly we netnews voters decided that we did not want to
>provide a scouting newsgroup to give fringe groups a forum for their
>anti-societal political views.
Ok, this is the only thing I will comment on from Stan at this time...
part of this forum we call rec.scouting is for policy discussions and
related topics.  This is a policy discussion, and involves related
topics.  this is not a "fringe" group discussion.  obviously, it
engenders strong feelings from all sides of the issues at hand.
Wether a particular view is anti-societal or not is your opinion,
and yours alone, don't try to make it seem otherwise.
If you do not wish to engage in this discussion, use a kill file.
If you wish to continue in this discussion, please do so, knowing
full well the implications that apply.
I know for myself that I plan on continuing with the discussion when
i have the wish to have input.  I for one am tired of people trying to
say that this is not a matter significant for this group!  It is, and
quite so. Especially for those of us who feel the impact more closely.
****************************************************************
*  Dominick V. Zurlo              *    "If the world's an      *
*  WWW                            *    oyster, why am I        *
*  Eagle Scout '87                *    allergic to Mollusks?"  *
*  blacklisted '88                *                            *
****************************************************************
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 8
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>As for rape, surely there the burden of guilt is solely on the rapist?
Not so.  If you are thrown into a cage with a tiger and get mauled, do you
blame the tiger?
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 12
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>Perhaps we shouldn't imprision people if we could watch them closely
>>instead.  The cost would probably be similar, especially if we just
>>implanted some sort of electronic device.
>Why wait until they commit the crime?  Why not implant such devices in
>potential criminals like Communists and atheists?
Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning.  You are proposing to punish people
*before* they commit a crime?  What justification do you have for this?
keith
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: EnviroLeague
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 117
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com
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: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
Subject: Idle questions for fellow atheists
Organization: Macalester College
Lines: 26
I wonder how many atheists out there care to speculate on the face of the world
if atheists were the majority rather than the minority group of the population.
It is rather a ridiculous question in some ways, I know, but my newsreader is
down so I am not getting any new postings for a bit, so I figure I might as
well post something new myself.
Also, how many atheists out there would actually take the stance and accor a
higher value to their way of thinking over the theistic way of thinking.  The
typical selfish argument would be that both lines of thinking evolved from the
same inherent motivation, so one is not, intrinsically, different from the
other, qualitatively.  But then again a measuring stick must be drawn
somewhere, and if we cannot assign value to a system of beliefs at its core,
than the only other alternative is to apply it to its periphery; ie, how it
expresses its own selfishness.
Idle thoughts...
Adam
********************************************************************************
* Adam John Cooper		"Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings *
*				   who thought themselves good simply because  *
* acooper@macalstr.edu				they had no claws."	       *
********************************************************************************
From: bobs@thnext.mit.edu (Robert Singleton)
Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Lines: 122
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: thnext.mit.edu
In article <1993Apr5.163738.2447@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
[deleted]
>
> ... over on alt.atheism we tend to recognise two
> categories of atheism. Function format due to mathew@mantis.co.uk, I
think:
>
> (i) weak  -  not(believe(gods))
>
> (ii) strong  -  believe(not(gods))
>
[deleted]
>
>
>
> I ... am [a strong atheist], and I must quibble with your assertion
> that the `strong' position requires faith. I believe that no god/s,
> as commonly described by theists, exist. This belief is merely an
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> opinion, formed on the basis of observation, including a certain
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> amount of introspection.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I fully accept that I could be wrong, and will be swayed by suitably
> convincing evidence. Thus while I believe that no gods exist, this does
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> not imply *faith* on my part that it is so.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Let me first say that "to believe that no gods exist" is in fact
different than "not believing in a god or gods".
I will argue that your latter statement, "I believe that no gods exist"
does rest upon faith - that is, if you are making a POSITIVE statement
that "no gods exist" (strong atheism) rather than merely saying I don't
know and therefore don't believe in them and don't NOT believe in then
(weak atheism). Once again, to not believe in God is different than saying
I BELIEVE that God does not exist. I still maintain the position, even
after reading the FAQs, that strong atheism requires faith.
But first let me say the following.
We might have a language problem here - in regards to "faith" and
"existence". I, as a Christian, maintain that God does not exist.
To exist means to have being in space and time. God does not HAVE
being - God IS Being. Kierkegaard once said that God does not
exist, He is eternal. With this said, I feel it's rather pointless
to debate the so called "existence" of God - and that is not what
I'm doing here. I believe that God is the source and ground of
being. When you say that "god does not exist", I also accept this
statement - but we obviously mean two different things by it. However,
in what follows I will use the phrase "the existence of God" in it's
'usual sense' - and this is the sense that I think you are using it.
I would like a clarification upon what you mean by "the existence of
God".
We also might differ upon what it means to have faith. Here is what
Webster says:
faith
1a: allegiance to duty or a person: LOYALTY
b  (1): fidelity to one's promises
(2): sincerity of intentions
2a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b  (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(2): complete trust
3: something that is believed esp. with strong conviction; esp: a system
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of religious beliefs
syn see BELIEF
One can never prove that God does or does not exist. When you say
that you believe God does not exist, and that this is an opinion
"based upon observation", I will have to ask "what observtions are
you refering to?" There are NO observations - pro or con - that
are valid here in establishing a POSITIVE belief. All observations
can only point you in a direction - a direction that we might even
be predisposed to (by predisposed I mean, for example, people whoes
partents "believe in God" also tend to). To actually draw a conclusion
about the "existence" or "non-existence" of God requires a leap - and
you have made this leap when you actively say "I believe that God
does/does not exist". Personally, I think that both statements are
misguided. Arguing over the "existence" of God is precisely the wrong way
to find Him (and yes, I use "Him" because a personal God is the only
viable concept (IMO) - if a person wants to use "She" go ahead. Of course
God is neither He nor She - but we have no choice but to
anthropomorphise. If you want me to explain myself further I'll be
glad to.)
And please, if someone does not agree with me - even if they violently
disagree - it's in no ones advantage to start name calling. If a person
thinks I've misunderstood something in the FAQs, or if they they think
I have not read them well enough, just point out to me the error of my
ways and I correct the situation. I'm interested in a polite and well
thought out discussion.
> Cheers
>
> Simon
> --
> Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
> Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
> University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
> Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
--
bob singleton
bobs@thnext.mit.edu
From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
Organization: Sponsored account, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 27
NNTP-Posting-Host: andrew.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <1993Apr5.020504.19326@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
> More horrible deaths resulted from atheism than anything else.
There are definitely quite a few horrible deaths as the result of both
atheists AND theists.  I'm sure Bobby can list quite a few for the atheist
side but fails to recognize that the theists are equally proficient at
genocide.  Perhaps, since I'm a bit weak on history, somone here would like
to give a list of wars caused/led by theists?  I can think of a few (Hitler
claimed to be a Christian for example) but a more complete list would
probably be more effective in showing Bobby just how absurd his statement
is.
> Peace,
On a side note, I notice you always sign your posts "Peace".  Perhaps you
should take your own advice and leave the atheists in peace with their
beliefs?
> Bobby Mozumder
Nanci
.........................................................................
If you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me
email (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):
Lying to ourselves is more deeply ingrained than lying to others.
From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Dear Mr. Theist
Organization: Sponsored account, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 31
<1993Apr5.024150.10193@wam.umd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: po2.andrew.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <1993Apr5.024150.10193@wam.umd.edu>
west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
> means to me.  The full quote (Michael Crichton, _Jurrasic_Park_) was
> something like "The earth has existed quite contently for billions of
> years.  We have been here but for the blink of an eye, and if we were gone
> tomorrow, the earth would not miss us.".  I remember this quote to keep
> myself humble when thinking that we have progressed so far or that we
> are masters of this planet.
Cool quote.
> The earth doesn't need saving, it's existed quite happily with-
> out us, we are the ones who need saving.
Better watch it.  The theists will jump on you for that... :-)
> Brian West.
> --
> THIS IS NOT A SIG FILE            *    -"To the Earth, we have been
> THIS IS NOT A SIG FILE            *     here but for the blink of an
> OK, SO IT'S A SIG FILE            *     eye, if we were gone tomorrow,
> posted by west@wam.umd.edu        *     we would not be missed."-
> who doesn't care who knows it.    *        (Jurassic Park)
> ** DICLAIMER: I said this, I meant this, nobody made me do it.**
Nanci
.........................................................................
If you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me
email (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):
Lying to ourselves is more deeply ingrained than lying to others.
From: mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
Lines: 109
My turn to jump in! :)
In article <1pi8h5INNq40@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>(reference line trimmed)
>
>livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>There is a good deal more confusion here.   You started off with the
>>assertion that there was some "objective" morality, and as you admit
>>here, you finished up with a recursive definition.   Murder is
>>"objectively" immoral, but eactly what is murder and what is not itself
>>requires an appeal to morality.
>
I think you mean circular, not recursive, but that is semantics.
Recursiveness has no problems, it is just horribly inefficient (just ask
any assembly programmer.)
>Yes.
>
>>Now you have switch targets a little, but only a little.   Now you are
>>asking what is the "goal"?   What do you mean by "goal?".   Are you
>>suggesting that there is some "objective" "goal" out there somewhere,
>>and we form our morals to achieve it?
>
>Well, for example, the goal of "natural" morality is the survival and
>propogation of the species.  Another example of a moral system is
>presented within the Declaration of Independence, which states that we
>should be guaranteed life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  You see,
>to have a moral system, we must define the purpose of the system.  That is,
>we shall be moral unto what end?
The oft-quoted line that says people should be guaranteed life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights, is a complete lie
and deception, as the very authors of that line were in the process of
proving.  Liberty is never free, it is always purchased at some cost,
almost always at the cost to another.  Whos liberty is more inalienable?
Similarly for right of life.  When one person must die if he is to save
another, or even a group of others, whos life is more inalienable?
That leads into the classic question of the value of the death penalty,
especially for serial killers.  Whos life and liberty is more valuable,
the serial killer, or the victim?  According to that beautiful line,
those two rights should be completely inviolate, that is, noone should be
able to remove them.  This _includes_ government.  Admittedly the serial
killer has restricted some people's life and/or liberty, but is not his
own life/liberty inviolate also?  According to the declaration of independence,
it is.
>>>Murder is certainly a violation of the golden rule.  And, I thought I had
>>>defined murder as an intentional killing of a non-murderer, against his will.
Oooh, I like that.  It means that killing an infant is not murder because
it cannot be against its will.  Reason, an infant has no will as such.
Similarly for people who are brain dead (easier to see), in a coma, etc.
Also, under current law, accidental killing is still murder.  How will you
include that?
>>>And you responded to this by asking whether or not the execution of an
>>>innocent person under our system of capital punishment was a murder or not.
>>>I fail to see what this has to do with anything.  I never claimed that our
>>>system of morality was an objective one.
>>I thought that was your very first claim.   That there was
>>some kind of "objective" morality, and that an example of that was
>>that murder is wrong.   If you don't want to claim that any more,
>>that's fine.
The only real golden rule in life is, he who has the gold, makes the
rules.  I.e. Might Makes Right.  That is survival.  Now what is wrong
with that?
>Well, murder violates the golen rule, which is certainly a pillar of most
>every moral system.  However, I am not assuming that our current system
>and the manner of its implementation are objectively moral.  I think that
>it is a very good approximation, but we can't be perfect.
If you mean the golden rule as I stated, yes, almost every system as
implemented has used that in reality.  Sorry, I don't deal as much in
fiction, as I do in reality.
>>And by the way, you don't seem to understand the difference between
>>"arbitrary" and "objective".   If Keith Schneider "defines" murder
>>to be this that and the other, that's arbitrary.   Jon Livesey may
>>still say "Well, according to my personal system of morality, all
>>killing of humans against their will is murder, and wrong, and what
>>the legal definition of murder may be in the USA, Kuweit, Saudi
>>Arabia, or the PRC may be matters not a whit to me".
WELCOME TO OZLAND!!!!!!! :)
What is NOT arbitrary?  If you can find some part of society, some societal
rules, morals, etc. that are not arbitrary, please tell me.  I don't think
there are any.
>Well, "objective" would assume a system based on clear and fundamental
>concepts, while "arbitary" implies no clear line of reasoning.
>
>keith
Sounds like euphemisms to me.  The difference seems to be, that objective
is some reasoning that I like, while arbitrary is some reasoning that
I don't like OR don't understand.
M^2
cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!portal.austin.ibm.com!awdprime.austin.ibm.com!zazen
Subject: Re: Radical Agnostic... NOT!
From: zazen@austin.ibm.com (E. H. Welbon)
Organization: Brownian Motion Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 34
The One and Only (jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: In article <dl2021-310393180711@m249-66.bgsu.edu> dl2021@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes:
: [first post I've seen from the ol' Bug-Zoo (BGSU)]
: >     There is no means that i can possibly think of to prove beyond doubt
: >that a god does not exist (but if anyone has one, by all means, tell me
: >what it is).  Therefore, lacking this ability of absolute proof, being an
: >atheist becomes an act of faith in and of itself, and this I cannot accept.
: > I accept nothing on blind faith.
: Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns!  Need I say more?
There is also the question of what is meant by "atheist".  A familiar
example of the importance of the meaning of the word is as follows.
The two statements following ARE consistent:
(1) I do not believe that you are wearing lilac socks
(2) I do not believe that you are are not wearing lilac socks
The two statements following are NOT consistent:
(3) I do believe that you are wearing lilac socks
(4) I do believe that you are are not wearing lilac socks
Statements (1) and (2) require no faith, they make no presumptions about
the nature of reality.  Statements (3) and (4) require belief.  Many
atheists (myself included) take the following position:
(5) I do not believe that there is a god.
(6) I do not believe that there is not a god.
That is , I harbor no beliefs at all, there is no good evidence
for god existing or not.  Some folks call this agnosticism.  It does not
suffer from "blind faith" at all.  I think of it as "Don't worry, be happy".
Subject: So what is Maddi?
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Lines: 12
As I was created in the image of Gaea, therefore I must
be the pinnacle of creation, She which Creates, She which
Births, She which Continues.
Or, to cut all the religious crap, I'm a woman, thanks.
And it's sexism that started me on the road to atheism.
--
Maddi Hausmann                       madhaus@netcom.com
Centigram Communications Corp        San Jose California  408/428-3553
Kids, please don't try this at home.  Remember, I post professionally.
cs.utexas.edu!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!bdunn
Subject: Re: The wrong and the right.
From: bdunn@cco.caltech.edu (Brendan Dunn)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
Lines: 25
In article <93090.141001E62763@TRMETU.BITNET> <E62763@TRMETU.BITNET> writes:
>Hi.I'm a Turkish guy who had tried atheism,satenism and buddism at some instant
>s of hislife.Finally I decided on Islambecause of many facts which I intend to
> write here.From my point of view,you atheists are people who has dropped to a
>deep,dark well and thinking the only reality is the dusty walls of the well.But
> if you had looked a little bit upward you would see the blue skies.You'dsee t
>he truth but you close your eyes.Allah is the only GOD and Mohammed is his mess
> ager.now,let's generate some entropy in means of theology and thermodynamics.W
>hat's your point of view to the problem of the ''FIRST KISS''?That is,the first
> spark which was generated for the formation of the universe.Has it formed by i
>tself?You are bothering yourselves with the Big Bang but where is the first spa
>rk?Please think a bit.Think and return to the only reality of the universe:ISLA
>M|
Uh oh.  This looks a bit too much like Bobby's "Atheism Is False" stuff.  Are
we really going to have to go through this again?  Maybe the universe is
cyclical!  :)  :(
--Brendan Dunn
cs.utexas.edu!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
<930401.112329.0u1.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> <11710@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
Lines: 17
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>  And in the US, even that argument doesn't stand.  It costs far
>  more to execute a criminal in this country than it does to feed,
>  clothe, and shelter them for the remainder of their natural life.
>  Some people believe this is a fault of our judicial system.  I
>  find it to be one of it's greatest virtues.
I assume that you are talking about the appeals processes, etc.?
Well, it should be noted that people who are imprisoned for life
will also tend to appeal (though not quite as much in the "final
hours."
Anyway, economics is not a very good reason to either favor or oppose
the punishment.
keith
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!juliet.caltech.edu!lmh
Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
From: lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.)
Distribution: world,local
Organization: California Institute of Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: juliet.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Lines: 18
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: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 62
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
(reference line trimmed)
SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu (SCOTT D. SAUYET) writes:
>First, I'll make the assumption that you agree that a murderer is one
>who has commited murder.
Well, I'd say that a murderer is one who intentionally committed a murder.
For instance, if you put a bullet into a gun that was thought to contain
blanks, and someone was killed with such a gun, the person who actually
performed the action isn't the murderer (but I guess this is actually made
clear in the below definition).
>I'd be interested to see a more reasonable definition.
What do you mean by "reasonable?"
>Otherwise, your inductive definition doesn't bottom out:
>Your definition, in essence, is that
>>Murder is the intentional killing of someone who has not commited
>>murder, against his will.
>Expanding the second occurence of `murder' in the above, we see that
[...]
Yes, it is bad to include the word being defined in the definition.  But,
even though the series is recursively infinite, I think the meaning can
still be deduced.
>I assume you can see the problem here.  To do a correct inductive
>definition, you must define something in terms of a simpler case, and
>you must have one or several "bottoming out" cases.  For instance, we
>can define the factorial function (the function which assigns to a
>positive integer the product of the positive integers less than or
>equal to it) on the positive integers inductively as follows:
[math lesson deleted]
Okay, let's look at this situation:  suppose there is a longstanding
feud between two families which claim that the other committed some
travesty in the distant past.  Each time a member of the one family
kills a member of the other, the other family thinks that it is justified
in killing a that member of the first family.  Now, let's suppose that this
sequence has occurred an infinite number of times.  Or, if you don't
like dealing with infinities, suppose that one member of the family
goes back into time and essentially begins the whole thing.  That is, there
is a never-ending loop of slayings based on some non-existent travesty.
How do you resolve this?
Well, they are all murders.
Now, I suppose that this isn't totally applicable to your "problem," but
it still is possible to reduce an uninduced system.
And, in any case, the nested "murderer" in the definition of murder
cannot be infintely recursive, given the finite existence of humanity.
And, a murder cannot be committed without a killing involved.  So, the
first person to intentionally cause someone to get killed is necessarily
a murderer.  Is this enough of an induction to solve the apparently
unreducable definition?  See, in a totally objective system where all the
information is available, such a nested definition isn't really a problem.
keith
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 29
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
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: mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Idle questions for fellow atheists
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
Lines: 43
In article <1993Apr5.124216.4374@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu writes:
>
>I wonder how many atheists out there care to speculate on the face of the world
>if atheists were the majority rather than the minority group of the population.
Probably we would have much the same problems with only a slight shift in
emphasis.  Weekends might not be so inviolate (more common to work 7 days
a week in a business), and instead of American Atheists, we would have
similar, religious organizations.  A persons religious belief seems more
as a crutch and justification for actions than a guide to determine actions.
Of course, people would have to come up with more fascinating
rationalizations for their actions, but that could be fun to watch...
It seems to me, that for most people, religion in America doesn't matter
that much.  You have extreemists on both ends, but a large majority don't
make too much of an issue about it as long as you don't.  Now, admittedly,
I have never had to suffer the "Bible Belt", but I am just north of it
and see the fringes, and the reasonable people in most things tend to be
reasonable in religion as well.
>Also, how many atheists out there would actually take the stance and accor a
>higher value to their way of thinking over the theistic way of thinking.  The
>typical selfish argument would be that both lines of thinking evolved from the
>same inherent motivation, so one is not, intrinsically, different from the
>other, qualitatively.  But then again a measuring stick must be drawn
>somewhere, and if we cannot assign value to a system of beliefs at its core,
>than the only other alternative is to apply it to its periphery; ie, how it
>expresses its own selfishness.
>
I don't bother according a higher value to my thinking, or just about
anybodys thinking.  I don't want to fall in that trap.  Because if you
do start that, then you are then to decide which is better, says whom,
why, is there a best, and also what to do about those who have inferior
modes of thinking.  IDIC  (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.)
I'll argue it over a soda, but not over much more.
Just my $.12  (What inflation has done...)
M^2
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: The Problem of Satan (used to be: islamic authority over women)
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Lines: 103
In article <1993Apr5.165233.1007@news.unomaha.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu
(Stephen McIntyre) writes:
> Of course, Bobby then states that Satan has no free will, that
>    he does as God wants him to.  This brings up a host of
>    paradoxes:  is God therefore evil; do I have free will
>    or is God directing me also; if God is evil, which part
>    of his infinite self is good and which is evil; etc.?
> I would like for once a solid answer, not a run-about.
# I hope I gave you a fairly solid answer to this one: I simply don't agree
# with the embodied version of a Satan who is a separate creation or a force.
# I wrote:
>> The belief to which I ascribe is that evil is not a creation;
>> rather, it is "the absence of good."  This fits with all the
>> logic about things having dual use: e.g., a knife can be used
>> to sculpt and it can be used to kill.  Like entropy, evil is
>> seen in this view as neither force nor entity.  Satan is,
>> therefore, metaphorical.  In fact, there are several verses
>> of the Holy Qur'an which appear to support this view and several
>> Traditions as well.
>
>> For example, there is a Tradition that food should never be left open
>> on a shelf or table overnight, lest "Satan" enter it.  It appears
>> that this is a reference to as yet undiscovered germs; thus, the
>> evil effect of spoiled food is described as "Satan."
>But there are many examples of Satan personified.  Which am I
>     to believe?
# And there are quite physical descriptions of Heaven and Hell in the
# Holy Qur'an, the Bible, etc.  There have been times in the spiritual
# and intellectual evolution of the modern human when these physical
# descriptions of Heaven, Hell, and Satan were taken quite literally
# and that *worked* for the time.  As I mentioned in the Tradition
# cited above, for example, it was sufficient in the absence of a theory
# about germs and disease spread by worms to simply describe the "evil"
# which was passed to a consumer of spoiled food as "satanic."
Which begs the question: if Satan in this case is
metaphorical, how can you be certain Allah is not
the same way?
# The bottom line here, however, is that describing a spiritual plane
# in human language is something like describing "color" to a person
# who has been blind from birth.  You may want to read the book
# FLATLAND (if you haven't already) or THE DRAGON'S EGG.  The first
# is intended as a light hearted description of a mathematical con-
# cept...
[some deleted for space saving]
# When language fails because it cannot be used to adequately describe
# another dimension which cannot be experienced by the speakers, then
# such conventions as metaphor, allegory, and the like come to be
# necessary.  The "unseen" is described in terms which have reference`
# and meaning for the reader/listener.  But, like all models, a compro-
# mise must be made when speaking metaphorically: clarity and directness
# of meaning, equivalence of perception, and the like are all
# crippled.  But what else can you do?
This is why I asked the above.  How would you then
know God exists as a spirit or being rather than
just being metaphorical?  I mean, it's okay to say
"well, Satan is just metaphorical," but then you
have to justify this belief AND justify that God is
not some metaphor for something else.
I say this because there are many, many instances of
Satan described as a being (such as the tormentor in
the Old Testament book of Job, or the temptor in the
New Testament Gospels).  In the same way, God too is
described as a being (or spirit.)  How am I to know
one is metaphorical and not the other.
Further, belief in God isn't a bar to evil.  Let's
consider the case of Satanists: even if Satan were
metaphorical, the Satanist would have to believe
in God to justify this belief.  Again, we have a
case where someone does believe in God, but by
religious standards, they are "evil."  If Bobby
does see this, let him address this question also.
[deleted some more on "metaphor"]
>> Obviously more philosophizing on this issue is possible, but I'm
>> not sure that the readers of this newsgroup would want to delve
>> into religious interpretation further.  However, if anyone wishes
>> to discuss this, I'm certainly willing (either off line - e-mail - or
>> on line - posting).
Stephen
_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/       _/    * Atheist
_/        _/    _/   _/ _/ _/ _/     * Libertarian
_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/   _/  _/      * Pro-individuality
_/  _/     _/  _/       _/       * Pro-responsibility
_/_/_/_/  _/      _/ _/       _/ Jr.    * and all that jazz...
--
From: jvigneau@cs.ulowell.edu (Joe Vigneau)
Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
In-Reply-To: bevans@carina.unm.edu's message of 4 Apr 1993 12:19:20 GMT
Organization: -
<1993Apr3.214557.24073@midway.uchicago.edu> <1pmjo8INN2l0@lynx.unm.edu>
Lines: 21
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.
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
From: p00261@psilink.com (Robert Knowles)
Organization: Kupajava, East of Krakatoa
In-Reply-To: <1993Apr5.163050.13308@wam.umd.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)
Lines: 22
>DATE:   Mon, 5 Apr 1993 16:30:50 GMT
>FROM:   Stilgar <west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu>
>
>In article <kmr4.1422.733983061@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.
>Ryan) writes:
>> In article <1993Apr5.025924.11361@wam.umd.edu>
>west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
>>
>> >THE ILLIAD IS THE UNDISPUTED WORD OF GOD(tm)    *prove me wrong*
>>
>> 	I dispute it.
>>
>> 	Ergo: by counter-example: you are proven wrong.
>
>	I dispute your counter-example
>
>	Ergo: by counter-counter-example: you are wrong and
>	I am right so nanny-nanny-boo-boo TBBBBBBBTTTTTTHHHHH
>			8^p
>
This looks like a serious case of temporary Islam.
Subject: A word of advice
From: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Summary: was Re: Yeah, Right
Lines: 14
In article <65882@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>
>I've said enough times that there is no "alternative" that should think you
>might have caught on by now.  And there is no "alternative", but the point
>is, "rationality" isn't an alternative either.  The problems of metaphysical
>and religious knowledge are unsolvable-- or I should say, humans cannot
>solve them.
How does that saying go: Those who say it can't be done shouldn't interrupt
those who are doing it.
Jim
--
Have you washed your brain today?
From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Concerning God's Morality (long)
Organization: Sponsored account, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 56
<1993Apr5.084042.822@batman.bmd.trw.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: po5.andrew.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <1993Apr5.084042.822@batman.bmd.trw.com>
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
> > Sorry, but there are no supernatural
> > forces necessary to create a pathogen.  You are saying, "Since
> > diseases are bad, the bad entity must have created it."  So
> > what would you say about acid rain, meteors falling from the
> > sky, volcanoes, earthquakes, and other QUOTE UNQUOTE "Acts
> > of God?"
>
> I would say that they are not "acts of God" but natural
> occurrences.
It amazes me that you have the audacity to say that human creation was not
the result of the natural process of evolution (but rather an "act of God")
and then in the same post say that these other processes (volcanos et al.)
are natural occurrences.  Who gave YOU the right to choose what things are
natural processes and what are direct acts of God?  How do you know that
God doesn't cause each and every natural disaster with a specific purpose
in mind?  It would certainly go along with the sadistic nature I've seen in
the bible.
> >>Even if Satan had nothing to do with the original inception of
> >>disease, evolution by random chance would have produced them since
> >>humanity forsook God's protection.  If we choose to live apart from
> >>God's law (humanity collectively), then it should come as no surprise
> >>that there are adverse consequences to our (collective) action.  One
> >>of these is that we are left to deal with disease and disorders which
> >>inevitably result in an entropic universe.
> >
> > May I ask, where is this 'collective' bullcrap coming from?
>
> By "collective" I was referring to the idea that God works with
> humanity on two levels, individually and collectively.  If mankind
> as a whole decides to undertake a certain action (the majority of
> mankind), then God will allow the consequences of that action to
> affect mankind as a whole.
Adam & Eve (TWO PEOPLE), even tho they had the honor (or so you christians
claim) of being the first two, definitely do NOT represent a majority in
the billions and trillions (probably more) of people that have come after
them.  Perhaps they were the majority then, but *I* (and YOU) weren't
around to vote, and perhaps we might have voted differently about what to
do with that tree.  But your god never asked us.  He just assumes that if
you have two bad people then they ALL must be bad.  Hmm.  Sounds like the
same kind of false generalization that I see many of the theists posting
here resorting to.  So THAT's where they get it... shoulda known.
> Jim B.
Nanci
.........................................................................
If you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me
email (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):
Lying to ourselves is more deeply ingrained than lying to others.
Subject: Re: islamic authority over women
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 46
In article <1993Apr5.023044.19580@ultb.isc.rit.edu) snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
)
)That's your mistake.  It would be better for the children if the mother
)raised the child.
)
)One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that say "Mom",
)because of the love of their mom.  It makes for more virile men.
)Compare that with how homos are raised.  Do a study and you will get my
)point.
)
)But in no way do you have a claim that it would be better if the men
)stayed home and raised the child.  That is something false made up by
)feminists that seek a status above men.  You do not recognize the fact
)that men and women have natural differences.  Not just physically, but
)mentally also.
) [...]
)Your logic.  I didn't say americans were the cause of worlds problems, I
)said atheists.
) [...]
)Becuase they have no code of ethics to follow, which means that atheists
)can do whatever they want which they feel is right.  Something totally
)based on their feelings and those feelings cloud their rational
)thinking.
) [...]
)Yeah.  I didn't say that all atheists are bad, but that they could be
)bad or good, with nothing to define bad or good.
)
Awright!  Bobby's back, in all of his shit-for-brains glory.  Just
when I thought he'd turned the corner of progress, his Thorazine
prescription runs out.
I'd put him in my kill file, but man, this is good stuff.  I wish
I had his staying power.
Fortunately, I learned not to take him too seriously long,long,long
ago.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Subject: Re: islamic authority over women
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 17
In article <1993Apr5.024626.19942@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>
>Peace,
Bobby:
Get this the hell out of your .sig until you 1) learn what it
stands for and 2) really mean it.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Subject: Omnipotence (was Re: Speculations)
From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com
Lines: 55
In article <2942949719.2.p00261@psilink.com>, "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
>>DATE:   Fri, 2 Apr 1993 23:02:22 -0500
>>FROM:   Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
>>
>>
>>> > 3. Can god uncreate itself?
>>>
>>> No.  For if He did, He would violate His own nature which He cannot do.
>>> It is God's nature to Exist.  He is, after all, the "I AM" which is
>>> a statement of His inherent Existence.  He is existence itself.
>>> Existence cannot "not-exist".
>>
>>Then, as mentioned above, he must not be very omnipotent.
>>
What do you mean by omnipotent here?  Do you mean by "omnipotent"
that God should be able to do anything/everything?  This creates
a self-contradictory definition of omnipotence which is effectively
useless.
To be descriptive, omnipotence must mean "being all-powerful" and
not "being able to do anything/everything".
Let me illustrate by analogy.
Suppose the United States were the only nuclear power on earth.  Suppose
further that the US military could not effectively be countered by any
nation or group of nations.  The US has the power to go into any country
at any time for any reason to straighten things out as the leaders of the
US see fit.  The US would be militarily "omnipotent".
But suppose further that the US holds to a doctrine/philosophy of not
interfering in the internal affairs of any nation, such as the current
civil war in the former Yugoslavian states.
Technically (in this scenario) the US would have the power to
unilaterally go into Yugoslavia and straighten out the mess.  But
effectively the US could not intervene without violating its own policy
of non-interference.  If the policy of non-interference were held to
strongly enough, then there would never be a question that it would
ever be violated.  Effectively, the US would be limited in what it
could actually do, although it had the power to do "whatever it wanted".
The US would simply "never want to interfere" for such an idea would
be beyond the consideration of its leaders given such an inviolate
non-interference policy.
God is effectively limited in the same sense.  He is all powerful, but
He cannot use His power in a way that would violate the essence of what
He, Himself is.
I hope this helps to clear up some of the misunderstanding concerning
omnipotence.
Regards,
Jim B.
cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!portal.austin.ibm.com!awdprime.austin.ibm.com!karner
Subject: Re: Islamic marriage?
From: karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)
<C4qAv2.24wG@austin.ibm.com> <1993Apr2.103237.4627@Cadence.COM>
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division
Originator: frank@karner.austin.ibm.com
Lines: 50
In article <1993Apr2.103237.4627@Cadence.COM>, mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan) writes:
> In article <C4qAv2.24wG@austin.ibm.com> karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:
> >
> >Okay.  So you want me to name names?  There are obviously no official
> >records of these pseudo-marriages because they are performed for
> >convenience.  What happens typically is that the woman is willing to move
> >in with her lover without any scruples or legal contracts to speak of.
> >The man is merely utilizing a loophole by entering into a temporary
> >religious "marriage" contract in order to have sex.  Nobody complains,
> >nobody cares, nobody needs to know.
> >
> >Perhaps you should alert your imam.  It could be that this practice is
> >far more widespread than you may think.  Or maybe it takes 4 muslim men
> >to witness the penetration to decide if the practice exists!
> >--
> >
>
> Again you astound me with the level of ignorance you display, Muslims
> are NOT allowed to enter temporary marriages, got that? There is
> no evidence for it it an outlawed practise so get your facts
> straight buddy. Give me references for it or just tell everyone you
> were lying. It is not a widespread as you may think (fantasise) in
> fact contrary to your fantasies it is not practised at all amongst
> Muslims.
First of all, I'm not your buddy!  Second, read what I wrote.  I'm not
talking about what muslims are ALLOWED to do, merely what *SOME*
practice.  They consider themselves as muslim as you, so don't retort
with the old and tired "they MUST NOT BE TRUE MUSLIMS" bullshit.  If I
gave you the names what will you do with this information?  Is a fatwa
going to be leashed out against the perpetrators?  Do you honestly think
that someone who did it would voluntarily come forward and confess?
With the kind of extremism shown by your co-religionaries?  Fat chance.
At any rate, there can be no conclusive "proof" by the very nature of
the act.  Perhaps people that indulge in this practice agree with you in
theory, but hope that Allah will forgive them in the end.
I think it's rather arrogant of you to pretend to speak for all muslims
in this regard.  Also, kind of silly.  Are you insinuating that because
the Koranic law forbids it, there are no criminals in muslim countries?
This is as far as I care to go on this subject.  The weakness of your
arguments are for all netters to see.  Over and out...
--
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
Lines: 28
In article <1pi8h5INNq40@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> (reference line trimmed)
|>
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> [...]
|>
|> >There is a good deal more confusion here.   You started off with the
|> >assertion that there was some "objective" morality, and as you admit
|> >here, you finished up with a recursive definition.   Murder is
|> >"objectively" immoral, but eactly what is murder and what is not itself
|> >requires an appeal to morality.
|>
|> Yes.
|>
|> >Now you have switch targets a little, but only a little.   Now you are
|> >asking what is the "goal"?   What do you mean by "goal?".   Are you
|> >suggesting that there is some "objective" "goal" out there somewhere,
|> >and we form our morals to achieve it?
|>
|> Well, for example, the goal of "natural" morality is the survival and
|> propogation of the species.
I got just this far.   What do you mean by "goal"?    I hope you
don't mean to imply that evolution has a conscious "goal".
jon.
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
<1993Mar31.230523.13892@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <11705@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> <1pic4lINNrau@gap.caltech.edu>
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
Lines: 15
In article <1pic4lINNrau@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
|>
|> >My personal objection is that I find capital punishment to be
|> >cruel and unusual punishment under all circumstances.
|>
|> It can be painless, so it isn't cruel.  And, it has occurred frequently
|> since the dawn of time, so it is hardly unusual.
Koff!  You mean that as long as I put you to sleep first,
I can kill you without being cruel?
This changes everything.
jon.
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
<1p6rgcINNhfb@gap.caltech.edu> <1p88fi$4vv@fido.asd.sgi.com>
<1993Mar30.051246.29911@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1p8nd7$e9f@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pa0stINNpqa@gap.caltech.edu> <1pan4f$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com>
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
Lines: 20
In article <1pieg7INNs09@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >Now along comes Mr Keith Schneider and says "Here is an "objective
|> >moral system".  And then I start to ask him about the definitions
|> >that this "objective" system depends on, and, predictably, the whole
|> >thing falls apart.
|>
|> It only falls apart if you attempt to apply it.  This doesn't mean that
|> an objective system can't exist.  It just means that one cannot be
|> implemented.
It's not the fact that it can't exist that bothers me.   It's
the fact that you don't seem to be able to define it.
If I wanted to hear about indefinable things that might in
principle exist as long as you don't think about them too
carefully, I could ask a religious person, now couldn't I?
jon.
wupost!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgi!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
Subject: Re: >>>>>>Pompous ass
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
<93089.050046MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <1pa6ntINNs5d@gap.caltech.edu>
<1993Mar30.210423.1302@bmerh85.bnr.ca> <1pcnqjINNpon@gap.caltech.edu> <kmr4.1344.733611641@po.CWRU.edu> <1pi9btINNqa5@gap.calte
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
Lines: 20
In article <1pi9btINNqa5@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
|>
|> >>Then why do people keep asking the same questions over and over?
|> >Because you rarely ever answer them.
|>
|> Nope, I've answered each question posed, and most were answered multiple
|> times.
He:   Fifty dollars if I can't answer your question.
She:  What is the Big Bang theory.
He:   The Big Bang theory is a recipe for cookies.
She:  Fifty dollars, please.
He:   Hey, I didn't say the answers would make sense.
jon.
wupost!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgi!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
Subject: Re: >>>>>>Pompous ass
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
<93089.050046MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <1pa6ntINNs5d@gap.caltech.edu>
<1993Mar30.205919.26390@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1pcnp3INNpom@gap.caltech.edu> <1pdjip$jsi@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pi9jkINNqe2@gap.caltec
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
Lines: 20
In article <1pi9jkINNqe2@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> 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?
No, do I have to?    I'm just commenting that it makes very
little sense to consider everything we inherit to be the default.
Seen any steam trains recently?
jon.
Subject: Re: Concerning God's Morality (long)
From: J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
<1993Apr3.095220.24632@leland.Stanford.EDU><1993Apr5.084042.822@batman.bmd.trw.com>
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 48
In article <1993Apr5.084042.822@batman.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com
responds to a lot of grief given to him
>In article <1993Apr3.095220.24632@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
>galahad@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Compton)
a.k.a. "The Sagemaster"
[ . . .]
>But then I ask, So?  Where is this relevant to my discussion in
>answering John's question of why?  Why are there genetic diseases,
>and why are there so many bacterial and viral diseases which require
>babies to develop antibodies.  Is it God's fault? (the original
>question) -- I say no, it is not.
Most of Scotty's followup *was* irrelevant to the original question,
but this is not unusual, as threads often quickly evolve away from
the original topic.  What I could not understand is why Jim spent so
much time responding to what he regarded as irrelevancies.
[ . . . ]
>> May I ask, where is this 'collective' bullcrap coming from?
[ . . . ]
>
>By "collective" I was referring to the idea that God works with
>humanity on two levels, individually and collectively.  If mankind
>as a whole decides to undertake a certain action (the majority of
>mankind),
Well, I guess hypothetical Adam was "the majority of mankind"
seeing how he was the ONLY man at the time.
>then God will allow the consequences of that action to
>affect mankind as a whole.  If you didn't understand that, then I
>apologize for not using one and two syllable words in my discussion.
I understand what you mean by "collective," but I think it is an
insane perversion of justice.  What sort of judge would punish the
descendants for a crime committed by their ancestor?
>If you want to be sure that I read your post and to provide a
>response, send a copy to Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com.  I can't read
>a.a. every day, and some posts slip by.  Thanks.
Well, I must admit that you probably read a.a. more often than I read
the Bible these days.  But you missed a couple of good followups to
your post.  I'm sending you a personal copy of my followup which I
hope you will respond to publically in a.a.
John
The Sageless
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Jews can't hide from keith@cco.
Organization: sgi
Lines: 36
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
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: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Jews can't hide from keith@cco.
Organization: sgi
Lines: 16
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1993Apr3.153552.4334@mac.cc.macalstr.edu>, acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu writes:
|> In article <1pint5$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes
>
> Well, Germany was hardly the ONLY country to discriminate against the
> Jews, although it has the worst reputation because it did the best job
> of expressing a general European dislike of them.  This should not turn
> into a debate on antisemitism, but you should also point out that Luther's
>  antiSemitism was based on religious grounds, while Hitler's was on racial
> grounds, and Wagnmer's on aesthetic grounds.  Just blanketing the whole
> group is poor analysis, even if they all are bigots.
I find these to be intriguing remarks.   Could you give us a bit
more explanation here?   For example, which religion is anti-semitic,
and which aesthetic?
jon.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
Organization: sgi
Lines: 28
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1993Apr3.100039.15879@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
|> In <1p8ivt$cfj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >Should we British go around blowing up skyscrapers next?
|>
|> I don't know if you are doing so, but it seems you are implying
|> (1) that the person accused of blowing up the WTC in NY actually did it,
|> and
|> (2) that Islamic teachings have something to do with blowing up the WTC.
I was replying to a person who attempted to justify the fatwa
against Rushdie on the grounds that his work was intentionally
insulting.
I think that to take a single sentence from a fairly long
posting, and to say
"I don't know if you are doing so, but it
seems you are implying....."
is at the very best quite disingenuous, and perhaps even
dishonest.    If anyone care to dig back and read the full
posting, they will see nothing of the kind.
I trust you don't deny that Islamic teaching has "something
to do" with the fatwa against Rushdie?
jon.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: An Anecdote about Islam
Organization: sgi
Lines: 15
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <114127@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
|>
|> I don't understand the point of this petty sarcasm. It is a basic
|> principle of Islam that if one is born muslim or one says "I testify
|> that there is no god but God and Mohammad is a prophet of God" that,
|> so long as one does not explicitly reject Islam by word then one _must_
|> be considered muslim by all muslims. So the phenomenon you're attempting
|> to make into a general rule or psychology is a direct odds with basic
|> Islamic principles. If you want to attack Islam you could do better than
|> than to argue against something that Islam explicitly contradicts.
Then Mr Mozumder is incorrect when he says that when committing
bad acts, people temporarily become atheists?
jon.
From: marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA
Lines: 42
NNTP-Posting-Host: csugrad.cs.vt.edu
snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>If Saddam believed in God, he would pray five times a
>day.
>
>Communism, on the other hand, actually committed genocide in the name of
>atheism, as Lenin and Stalin have said themselves.  These two were die
>hard atheist (Look! A pun!) and believed in atheism as an integral part
>of communism.
No, Bobby.  Stalin killed millions in the name of Socialism.  Atheism was a
characteristic of the Lenin-Stalin version of Socialism, nothing more.
Another characteristic of Lenin-Stalin Socialism was the centralization of
food distribution.  Would you therefore say that Stalin and Lenin killed
millions in the name of rationing bread?  Of course not.
>More horrible deaths resulted from atheism than anything else.
In earlier posts you stated that true (Muslim) believers were incapable of
evil.  I suppose if you believe that, you could reason that no one has ever
been killed in the name of religion.  What a perfect world you live in,
Bobby.
>One of the reasons that you are atheist is that you limit God by giving
>God a form.  God does not have a "face".
Bobby is referring to a rather obscure law in _The Good Atheist's
Handbook_:
Law XXVI.A.3: Give that which you do not believe in a face.
You must excuse us, Bobby.  When we argue against theism, we usually argue
against the Christian idea of God.  In the realm of Christianity, man was
created in God's image.
--
|""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""|
| Kevin Marshall                         Sophomore, Computer Science |
| Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA  USA     marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu  |
|____________________________________________________________________|
From: cfairman@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 26
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: suopanki@stekt6.oulu.fi (Heikki T. Suopanki)
Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses
In-Reply-To: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com's message of 5 Apr 93 11:24:30 MST
Lines: 17
Reply-To: suopanki@stekt.oulu.fi
Organization: Unixverstas Olutensin, Finlandia
<1993Apr3.183519.14721@proxima.alt.za>
<1993Apr5.112430.825@batman.bmd.trw.com>
>>>>> On 5 Apr 93 11:24:30 MST, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com said:
:> God is eternal.    [A = B]
:> Jesus is God.      [C = A]
:> Therefore, Jesus is eternal.  [C = B]
:> This works both logically and mathematically.  God is of the set of
:> things which are eternal.  Jesus is a subset of God.   Therefore
:> Jesus belongs to the set of things which are eternal.
Everything isn't always so logical....
Mercedes is a car.
That girl is Mercedes.
Therefore, that girl is a car?
-Heikki
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: sgi
Lines: 15
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <930404.111651.1K0.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr2.065230.18676@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
|> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
|> >The "automobile system" kills non-driving passengers, not to mention
|> >pedestrians.  You need not drive or even use a car to be killed by one.
|>
|> Indeed, and it kills far more than a system of public transport would.  I am
|> therefore entirely in favour of banning private cars and replacing them with
|> trains, buses, taxis, bicycles, and so on.
Seconded.   I cycle to work each day, and if we could just get
those damned cars and their cretinous drivers off the road, it
would be a lot more fun.
jon.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: sgi
Lines: 15
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <930404.112127.2h6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >                                      And we, meaning people who drive,
|> > accept the risks of doing so, and contribute tax money to design systems
|> > to minimize those risks.
|>
|> Eh?  We already have systems to minimize those risks.  It's just that you car
|> drivers don't want to use them.
|>
|> They're called bicycles, trains and buses.
Poor Matthew.   A million posters to call "you car drivers" and he
chooses me, a non car owner.
jon.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Omnipotence (was Re: Speculations)
Organization: sgi
Lines: 35
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1993Apr5.171143.828@batman.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
|> In article <2942949719.2.p00261@psilink.com>, "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
|> >>DATE:   Fri, 2 Apr 1993 23:02:22 -0500
|> >>FROM:   Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
|> >>
|> >>
|> >>> > 3. Can god uncreate itself?
|> >>>
|> >>> No.  For if He did, He would violate His own nature which He cannot do.
|> >>> It is God's nature to Exist.  He is, after all, the "I AM" which is
|> >>> a statement of His inherent Existence.  He is existence itself.
|> >>> Existence cannot "not-exist".
|> >>
|> >>Then, as mentioned above, he must not be very omnipotent.
|> >>
|>
|> What do you mean by omnipotent here?  Do you mean by "omnipotent"
|> that God should be able to do anything/everything?  This creates
|> a self-contradictory definition of omnipotence which is effectively
|> useless.
|>
|> To be descriptive, omnipotence must mean "being all-powerful" and
|> not "being able to do anything/everything".
|>
|> Let me illustrate by analogy.
|> Suppose the United States were the only nuclear power on earth.  Suppose
|> further that the US military could not effectively be countered by any
|> nation or group of nations.  The US has the power to go into any country
|> at any time for any reason to straighten things out as the leaders of the
|> US see fit.  The US would be militarily "omnipotent".
Did you check with the Afghans before posting this?   They
might disagree.
jon.
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: A Little Too Satanic
Nntp-Posting-Host: kraken.itc.gu.edu.au
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Lines: 33
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>Nanci Ann Miller writes:
>>My favorite reply to the "you are being too literal-minded" complaint is
>>that if the bible is really inspired by God and if it is really THAT
>>important to him, then he would make damn certain all the translators and
>>scribes and people interpreting and copying it were getting it right,
>>literally.  If not, then why should I put ANY merit at all in something
>>that has been corrupted over and over and over by man even if it was
>>originally inspired by God?
>The "corrupted over and over" theory is pretty weak.  Comparison of the
>current hebrew text with old versions and translations shows that the text
>has in fact changed very little over a space of some two millennia.  This
>shouldn't be all that suprising; people who believe in a text in this manner
>are likely to makes some pains to make good copies.
>--
Do you honestly hold to that tripe Charley? For a start there are enough
current versions of the Bible to make comparisons to show that what you write
above is utter garbage. Witness JW, Mormon, Catholic, Anglican, and Greek
Orthodox Bibles. But to really convince you I'd have to take you to a good
old library. In our local library we had a 1804 King James which I compared
to a brand new, hot of God's tongue Good News Bible. Genesis was almost
unrecognisable, many of the discrepencies between the four gospels had been
edited from the Good News Bible. In fact the God of Good News was a much
more congenial fellow I must say.
If you like I'll get the 1804 King James out again and actually give you
some quotes. At least the headings haven't changed much.
Jeff.
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Ancient islamic rituals
Nntp-Posting-Host: kraken.itc.gu.edu.au
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Lines: 27
cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes:
>Why is it more reasonable than the trend towards obesity and the trend towards
>depression? You can't just pick your two favorite trends, notice a correlation
>in them, and make a sweeping statement of generality. I mean, you CAN, and
>people HAVE, but that does not mean that it is a valid or reasonable thesis.
>At best it's a gross oversimplification of the push-pull factors people
>experience.
I agree, I reckon it's television and the increase in fundamentalism.. You
think its the increase in pre-marital sex... others thinks its because
psychologists have taken over the criminal justice system and let violent
criminals con them into letting them out into the streets... others think
it's the increase in designer drugs... others think it's a communist plot.
Basically the social interactions of all the changing factors in our society
are far too complicated for us to control. We just have to hold on to the
panic handles and hope that we are heading for a soft landing. But one
things for sure, depression and the destruction of the nuclear family is not
due solely to sex out of marriage.
Jeff.
>>
>>  Fred Rice <-- a Muslim, giving his point of view.
>>  darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
>cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu
From: lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.)
Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 13
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: juliet.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
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: karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)
Subject: Re: Jews can't hide from keith@cco.
Originator: frank@karner.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division
Lines: 50
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:
> |> In article <1pint5$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> |> >
> |> Deletions...
> |> 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.
>
> Hitler and the Nazis didn't spring fully formed from the forehead
> of Athena.   They didn't invent anti-semitism.   They built on a
> foundation of anti-semitism that was already present in Germany.
> This foundation of anti-semitism was laid down, not by the Nazis,
> but by the people I listed, and also by hundreds of years of unthinking,
> knee-jerk bigotry, on the part of perfectly ordinary people, and, of
> course, their pastors and priests.
>
> What we have to worry about today is not whether some Hollywood
> Hitler in a black uniform is going to come striding onto the German
> stage in one unprepared step, but whether those same bedrock foundations
> of anti-semitism are being laid down, little by little, in Germany,
> as we speak.
>
> And if so, they will be laid down, not by Hitlers and Himmlers, who
> will come later, but by "people like" the poster in question.   The
> people who think that casual anti-semitism is acceptable, or even fun.
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
Deletions...
> I did.     Now may I suggest, with the greatest possible respect, that
> you go read some history?
>
> jon.
So, you consider the german poster's remark anti-semitic?  Perhaps you
imply that anyone in Germany who doesn't agree with israely policy in a
nazi?  Pray tell, how does it even qualify as "casual anti-semitism"?
If the term doesn't apply, why then bring it up?
Your own bigotry is shining through.
--
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: Omnipotence (was Re: Speculations)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 19
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
In article <1993Apr5.171143.828@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>God is effectively limited in the same sense.  He is all powerful, but
>He cannot use His power in a way that would violate the essence of what
>He, Himself is.
Cannot? Try, will not.
---
"One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that
say "Mom", because of the love of their mom.  It makes for more
virile men."
Bobby Mozumder  ( snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu )
April 4, 1993
The one TRUE Muslim left in the world.
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 48
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
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: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Subject: Islam vs the Jehovah's Witnesses
Organization: Society for Trying Really Hard
Lines: 25
In article <1993Apr2.223248.19014@Princeton.EDU> qpliu@princeton.edu writes:
>In article <1993Apr2.115300.803@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>But God created Lucifer with a perfect nature and gave him along with
>>the other angels free moral will.
>
>>Now God could have prevented Lucifer's fall by taking away his ability
>>to choose between moral alternatives (worship God or worship himself),
>
>So Lucifer's moral choices are determined by his will.
>What determines what his will is?
>--
>qpliu@princeton.edu           Standard opinion: Opinions are delta-correlated.
Bobby-
A few posts ago you said that Lucifer had no free will.  From the above
it seems the JW believes the contrary.
Are you talking about the same Lucifer?
If so, can you suggest an experiment to determine which of you is wrong?
Or do you claim that you are both right?
-Norman
From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Subject: Re: Had to share this
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.
Lines: 66
In article <1993Apr03.232325.23178@acme.gen.nz> kilroy@acme.gen.nz (earthbound misfit, I) writes:
>bena@dec07.cs.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling) writes:
>
>> Warning - if you are anything like a devout Christian this post is
>> really going to offend and/or upset you.
>
>[...numerous Ctrl-Ls deleted...hehehe...]
>
>> I assume everyone here is familiar with the Christian `fish' symbol.
>> The one on the back of all those Volvos.
>> The one that looks (something) like
>>                __
>>               /  \/
>>               \__/\
>>
>> Or perhaps more like () ?
>>                      '`
>>
>> Well, I found out this morning where it comes from ...
>>
>> It's been stolen from the pagans, like so much else ...
>>
>> (Last last chance to be blisfully ignorant ;-]
>> 
>> Hmm, how can I put it.
>>
>> Well, it comes from, this ...
>>
>>
>>
>>                  __
>>                  \/
>>                  ()
>>              `__-'`-__'
>>
>>
>>
>> Sigh, I hate drawing with ascii chars.
>> Still, I think you can work it out from there ...
>
>If you haven't, go read "Skinny Legs and All" by Tom Robbins. If he's even
>50% accurate then most of the modern religions have been "appropriated".
>It's also a great book.
>
>Followups to alt.atheism, whose readers are probably slightly more authorative
>on this.
>
>						- k
>--
>Craig Harding            kilroy@acme.gen.nz             ACME BBS +64 6 3551342
>"Jub'er lbh pnyyvat n obmb?"
Craig-
I thought it was derived from a Greek acronym.  My Greek isn't up to much, but
it goes something like this:
Jesus Christ, God => Iesus CHristos, THeos => Ichthos
which is the Greek for "fish" (as in, eg "ichthysaurus").
Apologies for my dreadful Greek!  Perhaps someone will correct it.
By the way, what does your sig mean?
-Norman
From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
Organization: Association Against Having Fun With Your Clothes On
Lines: 23
In article <1993Apr5.020504.19326@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
[...]
>One of the reasons that you are atheist is that you limit God by giving
>God a form.  God does not have a "face".
Wait a minute.  I thought you said that Allah (I presume Allah == God) was unknowable,
and yet here you are claiming to know a very concrete fact about him.
You say that God does not have a "face".  Doesn't the bible say that God has hindparts?
How do you suggest I decide which (if any) of you is right?  Or are you both right?
God has hindparts but no face?  Or does your use of quotation marks:
God does not have a "face".
allow you to interpret this to mean whatever you like?
>
>Peace,
>
>Bobby Mozumder
-Norman
From: qpliu@ernie.Princeton.EDU (q.p.liu)
Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses
Originator: news@nimaster
Nntp-Posting-Host: ernie.princeton.edu
Reply-To: qpliu@princeton.edu
Organization: Princeton University
Lines: 34
In article <1993Apr5.091139.823@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>In article <16BA5DA01.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>, I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>> But could you give a definition of free will? Especially in the
>> presence of an omniscient being?
>"Will" is "self-determination".  In other words, God created conscious
>beings who have the ability to choose between moral choices independently
>of God.  All "will", therefore, is "free will".
So these hypothetical conscious beings can ignore any influences of
their circumstances (their genetics, their environment, their experiences)
which are not all self-determined?
(Of course, the idea of Hell makes the idea of "free will" dubious.
On the other hand, the idea of Hell is not a very powerful idea.
"A Parable for You
"There was once our main character who blah blah blah.
"One day, a thug pointed a mean looking gun at OMC, and
said, 'Do what I say, or I'm blasting you to hell.'
"OMC thought, 'If I believe this thug, and follow the
instructions that will be given, I'll avoid getting blasted to
hell.  On the other hand, if I believe this thug, and do not
follow the instructions that will be given, I'll get blasted to
hell.  Hmm... the more attractive choice is obvious, I'll
follow the instructions.'  Now, OMC found the choice obvious
because everything OMC had learned about getting blasted to
hell made it appear very undesirable.
"But then OMC noticed that the thug's gun wasn't a real
gun.  The thug's threats were make believe.
"So OMC ignored the thug and resumed blah blah blah.")
--
qpliu@princeton.edu           Standard opinion: Opinions are delta-correlated.
From: west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar)
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
Nntp-Posting-Host: next15csc.wam.umd.edu
Reply-To: west@next02.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 35
In article <kmr4.1433.734039535@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.
Ryan) writes:
> In article <1993Apr5.163050.13308@wam.umd.edu>
west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
> >In article <kmr4.1422.733983061@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.
> >Ryan) writes:
> >> In article <1993Apr5.025924.11361@wam.umd.edu>
> >west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
> >>
> >> >THE ILLIAD IS THE UNDISPUTED WORD OF GOD(tm)    *prove me wrong*
> >>
> >> 	I dispute it.
> >>
> >> 	Ergo: by counter-example: you are proven wrong.
> >
> >	I dispute your counter-example
> >
> >	Ergo: by counter-counter-example: you are wrong and
> >	I am right so nanny-nanny-boo-boo TBBBBBBBTTTTTTHHHHH
>
> 	No. The premis stated that it was undisputed.
>
Fine... THE ILLIAD IS THE WORD OF GOD(tm)  (disputed or not, it is)
Dispute that.  It won't matter.  Prove me wrong.
Brian West
--
THIS IS NOT A SIG FILE            *    -"To the Earth, we have been
THIS IS NOT A SIG FILE            *     here but for the blink of an
OK, SO IT'S A SIG FILE            *     eye, if we were gone tomorrow,
posted by west@wam.umd.edu        *     we would not be missed."-
who doesn't care who knows it.    *        (Jurassic Park)
** DICLAIMER: I said this, I meant this, nobody made me do it.**
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 26
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
In article <1993Apr6.021635.20958@wam.umd.edu> west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
>Fine... THE ILLIAD IS THE WORD OF GOD(tm)  (disputed or not, it is)
>
>Dispute that.  It won't matter.  Prove me wrong.
The Illiad contains more than one word. Ergo: it can not be
the Word of God.
But, if you will humbly agree that it is the WORDS of God, I
will conceed.
:-D
---
"One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that
say "Mom", because of the love of their mom.  It makes for more
virile men."
Bobby Mozumder  ( snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu )
April 4, 1993
The one TRUE Muslim left in the world.
Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)
Reply-To: rfox@charlie.usd.edu
Organization: The University of South Dakota Computer Science Dept.
Nntp-Posting-Host: charlie
Lines: 26
In article <1pik3i$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <C4u51L.8Bv@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>|>
>|>
>|> Why do you spend so much time posting here if your atheism is so
>|> incidental, if the question of God is trivial? Fess up, it matters to
>|> you a great deal.
>
>Ask yourself two questions.
>
>	1.   How important is Mithras in your life today?
>
>	2.   How important would Mithras become if there was a
>	     well funded group of fanatics trying to get the
>	     schools system to teach your children that Mithras
>	     was the one true God?
>
>jon.
Right on, Jon!  Who cares who or whose, as long as it works for the individual.
But don't try to impose those beliefs on us or our children.  I would add the
well-funded group tries also to purge science, to deny children access to great
wonders and skills.  And how about the kids born to creationists?  What a
burden with which to begin adult life.  It must be a cruel awakening for those
who finally see the light, provided it is possible to escape from the depths of
this type of ignorance.
From: chrisb@tafe.sa.edu.au (Chris BELL)
Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses
Organization: South Australian Regional Academic and Research Network
Lines: 26
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: baarnie.tafe.sa.edu.au
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>My syllogism is of the form:
>A is B.
>C is A.
>Therefore C is B.
>This is a logically valid construction.
>Your syllogism, however, is of the form:
>A is B.
>C is B.
>Therefore C is A.
>Therefore yours is a logically invalid construction,
>and your comments don't apply.
>I appeal to Mathew (Mantis) here who wrote the excellent
>post (now part of the FAQ) on logical argument.
>Jim B.
I am not Mathew (Mantis) but any (successful) first year logic student will see that you are logically correct, the other poster is logically incorrect.
--
"I know" is nothing more than "I believe" with pretentions.
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Concerning God's Morality (was: Americans and Evolution)
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Lines: 110
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: syndicoot.engin.umich.edu
In article <1993Apr2.155057.808@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
[why do babies get diseases, etc.]
>What God did create was life according to a protein code which is
>mutable and can evolve.  Without delving into a deep discussion of
>creationism vs evolutionism,
Here's the (main) problem. The scenario you outline is reasonably
consistent, but all the evidence that I am familiar with not only does
not support it, but indicates something far different. The Earth, by
latest estimates, is about 4.6 billion years old, and has had life for
about 3.5 billion of those years. Humans have only been around for (at
most) about 200,000 years. But, the fossil evidence inidcates that life
has been changing and evolving, and, in fact, disease-ridden, long before
there were people. (Yes, there are fossils that show signs of disease...
mostly bone disorders, of course, but there are some.) Heck, not just
fossil evidence, but what we've been able to glean from genetic study shows
that disease has been around for a long, long time. If human sin was what
brought about disease (at least, indirectly, though necessarily) then
how could it exist before humans?
>                             God created the original genetic code
>perfect and without flaw.  And without getting sidetracked into
>the theological ramifications of the original sin, the main effect
>of the so-called original sin for this discussion was to remove
>humanity from God's protection since by their choice A&E cut
>themselves off from intimate fellowship with God.  In addition, their
>sin caused them to come under the dominion of Satan, who then assumed
>dominion over the earth...
[deletions]
>Since humanity was no longer under God's protection but under Satan's
>dominion, it was no great feat for Satan to genetically engineer
>diseases, both bacterial/viral and genetic.  Although the forces of
>natural selection tend to improve the survivability of species, the
>degeneration of the genetic code tends to more than offset this.
Uh... I know of many evolutionary biologists, who know more about
biology than you claim to, who will strongly disagree with this. There
is no evidence that the human genetic code (or any other) 'started off'
in perfect condition. It seems to adapt to its envionment, in a
collective sense. I'm really curious as to what you mean by 'the
degeneration of the genetic code'.
>Human DNA, being more "complex", tends to accumulate errors adversely
>affecting our well-being and ability to fight off disease, while the
>simpler DNA of bacteria and viruses tend to become more efficient in
>causing infection and disease.  It is a bad combination.
Umm. Nah, we seem to do a pretty good job of adapting to viruses and
bacteria, and they to us. Only a very small percentage of microlife is
harmful to humans... and that small percentage seems to be reasonalby
constant in size, but the ranks keep changing. For example, bubonic
plague used to be a really nasty disease, I'm sure you'll agree. But
it still pops up from time to time, even today... and doesn't do as
much damage. Part of that is because of better sanitation, but even
when people get the disease, the symptoms tend to be less severe than in
the past. This seems to be partly because people who were very susceptible
died off long ago, and because the really nasty variants 'overgrazed',
(forgive the poor terminology, I'm an engineer, not a doctor! :-> ) and
died off for lack of nearby hosts.
I could be wrong on this, but from what I gather acne is only a few
hundred years old, and used to be nastier, though no killer. It seems to
be getting less nasty w/age...
>                                                          Hence
>we have newborns that suffer from genetic, viral, and bacterial
>diseases/disorders.
Now, wait a minute. I have a question. Humans were created perfect, right?
And, you admit that we have an inbuilt abiliy to fight off disease. It
seems unlikely that Satan, who's making the diseases, would also gift
humans with the means to fight them off. Simpler to make the diseases less
lethal, if he wants survivors. As far as I can see, our immune systems,
imperfect though they may (presently?) be, must have been built into us
by God. I want to be clear on this: are you saying that God was planning
ahead for the time when Satan would be in charge by building an immune
system that was not, at the time of design, necessary? That is, God made
our immune systems ahead of time, knowing that Adam and Eve would sin and
their descendents would need to fight off diseases?
>This may be more of a mystical/supernatural explanation than you
>are prepared to accept, but God is not responsible for disease.
>Even if Satan had nothing to do with the original inception of
>disease, evolution by random chance would have produced them since
>humanity forsook God's protection.
Here's another puzzle. What, exactly, do you mean by 'perfect' in the
phrase, 'created... perfect and without flaw'? To my mind, a 'perfect'
system would be incapable of degrading over time. A 'perfect' system
that will, without constant intervention, become imperfect is *not* a
perfect system. At least, IMHO.
Or is it that God did something like writing a masterpiece novel on a
bunch of gum wrappers held together with Elmer's glue? That is, the
original genetic 'instructions' were perfect, but were 'written' in
inferior materials that had to be carefully tended or would fall apart?
If so, why could God not have used better materials?
Was God *incapable* of creating a system that could maintain itself,
of did It just choose not to?
[deletions]
>In summary, newborns are innocent, but God does not cause their suffering.
My main point, as I said, was that there really isn't any evidence for
the explanation you give. (At least, that I'm aware of.) But, I couldn't
help making a few nitpicks here and there. :->
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
|| not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Concerning God's Morality (long)
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Lines: 32
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: syndicoot.engin.umich.edu
In article <1993Apr5.084042.822@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>In article <1993Apr3.095220.24632@leland.Stanford.EDU>, galahad@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Compton) writes:
[deletions]
>> Now, back to your post.  You have done a fine job at using
>> your seventh grade 'life science' course to explain why
>> bad diseases are caused by Satan and good things are a
>> result of God.  But I want to let you in on a little secret.
>> "We can create an amino acid sequence in lab! -- And guess
>> what, the sequence curls into a helix!  Wow!  That's right,
>> it can happen without a supernatural force."
>
>Wow!  All it takes is a few advanced science degrees and millions
>of dollars of state of the art equipment.  And I thought it took
>*intelligence* to create the building blocks of life.  Foolish me!
People with advanced science degrees use state of the art equipment
and spend millions of dollars to simulate tornadoes. But tornadoes
do not require intelligence to exist.
Not only that, the equipment needed is not really 'state of the art.'
To study the *products*, yes, but not to generate them.
>If you want to be sure that I read your post and to provide a
>response, send a copy to Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com.  I can't read
>a.a. every day, and some posts slip by.  Thanks.
Oh, I will. :->
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
|| not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: An Anecdote about Islam
In-Reply-To: <1pqfic$9s2@fido.asd.sgi.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
Organization: Kupajava, East of Krakatoa
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)
Lines: 32
>DATE:   5 Apr 1993 23:32:28 GMT
>FROM:   Jon Livesey <livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com>
>
>In article <114127@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>|>
>|> I don't understand the point of this petty sarcasm. It is a basic
>|> principle of Islam that if one is born muslim or one says "I testify
>|> that there is no god but God and Mohammad is a prophet of God" that,
>|> so long as one does not explicitly reject Islam by word then one _must_
>|> be considered muslim by all muslims. So the phenomenon you're attempting
>|> to make into a general rule or psychology is a direct odds with basic
>|> Islamic principles. If you want to attack Islam you could do better than
>|> than to argue against something that Islam explicitly contradicts.
>
>Then Mr Mozumder is incorrect when he says that when committing
>bad acts, people temporarily become atheists?
>
>jon.
Of course B.M. is not incorrect.  He is defending Islam.  When defending
Islam against infidels you can say anything and no one will dare criticize
you.  But when an atheist uses the same argument he is using "petty sarcasm".  So
B.M. can have his "temporary atheists" whenever he needs them and all the
"temporary atheists" can later say that they were always good Muslims because
they never explicitly rejected Islam.
Temporary atheism, temporary Islam, temporary marriage.  None of it sticks.
A teflon religion.  How convenient.  And so easy to clean up after.  But
then, what would you expect from a bunch of people who can't even agree on
the phases of the moon?
From: kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko)
Subject: Re: Concerning God's Morality (long)
Organization: University of Oulu, Finland
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Lines: 215
This kind of argument cries for a comment...
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com wrote:
: In article <1993Apr3.095220.24632@leland.Stanford.EDU>, galahad@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Compton) writes:
Jim, you originally wrote:
: >>...God did not create
: >>disease nor is He responsible for the maladies of newborns.
: >
: >>What God did create was life according to a protein code which is
: >>mutable and can evolve.  Without delving into a deep discussion of
: >>creationism vs evolutionism, God created the original genetic code
: >>perfect and without flaw.
: >  ~~~~~~~     ~~~~~~~ ~~~~
Do you have any evidence for this? If the code was once perfect, and
has degraded ever since, we _should_ have some evidence in favour
of this statement, shouldn't we?
Perhaps the biggest "imperfection" of the code is that it is full
of non-coding regions, introns, which are so called because they
intervene with the coding regions (exons). An impressive amount of
evidence suggests that introns are of very ancient origin; it is
likely that early exons represented early protein domains.
Is the number of introns decreasing or increasing? It appears that
intron loss can occur, and species with common ancestry usually
have quite similar exon-intron structure in their genes.
On the other hand, the possibility that introns have been inserted
later, presents several logical difficulties. Introns are removed
by a splicing mechanism - this would have to be present, but unused,
if introns are inserted. Moreover, intron insertion would have
required _precise_ targeting - random insertion would not be tolerated,
since sequences for intron removal (self-splicing of mRNA) are
conserved. Besides, transposition of a sequence usually leaves a
trace - long terminal repeats and target - site duplications, and
these are not found in or near intron sequences.
I seriously recommend reading textbooks on molecular biology and
genetics before posting "theological arguments" like this.
Try Watson's Molecular Biology of the Gene or Darnell, Lodish
& Baltimore's Molecular Biology of the Cell for starters.
: Remember, the question was posed in a theological context (Why does
: God cause disease in newborns?), and my answer is likewise from a
: theological perspective -- my own.  It is no less valid than a purely
: scientific perspective, just different.
Scientific perspective is supported by the evidence, whereas
theological perspectives often fail to fulfil this criterion.
: I think you misread my meaning.  I said God made the genetic code perfect,
: but that doesn't mean it's perfect now.  It has certainly evolved since.
For the worse? Would you please cite a few references that support
your assertion? Your assertion is less valid than the scientific
perspective, unless you support it by some evidence.
In fact, it has been claimed that parasites and diseases are perhaps
more important than we've thought - for instance, sex might
have evolved as defence against parasites. (This view is supported by
computer simulations of evolution, eg Tierra.)
: Perhaps.  I thought it was higher energy rays like X-rays, gamma
: rays, and cosmic rays that caused most of the damage.
In fact, it is thermal energy that does most of the damage, although
it is usually mild and easily fixed by enzymatic action.
: Actually, neither of us "knows" what the atmosphere was like at the
: time when God created life.  According to my recollection, most
: biologists do not claim that life began 4 billion years ago -- after
: all, that would only be a half billion years or so after the earth
: was created.  It would still be too primitive to support life.  I
: seem to remember a figure more like 2.5 to 3 billion years ago for
: the origination of life on earth.  Anyone with a better estimate?
I'd replace "created" with "formed", since there is no need to
invoke any creator if the Earth can be formed without one.
Most recent estimates of the age of the Earth range between 4.6 - 4.8
billion years, and earliest signs of life (not true fossils, but
organic, stromatolite-like layers) date back to 3.5 billion years.
This would leave more than billion years for the first cells to
evolve.
I'm sorry I can't give any references, this is based on the course
on evolutionary biochemistry I attended here.
: >>dominion, it was no great feat for Satan to genetically engineer
: >>diseases, both bacterial/viral and genetic.  Although the forces of
: >>natural selection tend to improve the survivability of species, the
: >>degeneration of the genetic code tends to more than offset this.
Again, do you _want_ this be true, or do you have any evidence for
this supposed "degeneration"?
I can understand Scott's reaction:
: > Excuse me, but this is so far-fetched that I know you must be
: > jesting.  Do you know what pathogens are?  Do you know what
: > Point Mutations are?  Do you know that EVERYTHING CAN COME
: > ABOUT SPONTANEOUSLY?!!!!!
:
: In response to your last statement, no, and neither do you.
: You may very well believe that and accept it as fact, but you
: cannot *know* that.
I hope you don't forget this: We have _evidence_ that suggests
everything can come about spontaneously. Do you have evidence against
this conclusion? In science, one does not have to _believe_ in
anything. It is a healthy sign to doubt and disbelieve. But the
right path to walk is to take a look at the evidence if you do so,
and not to present one's own conclusions prior to this.
Theology does not use this method. Therefore, I seriously doubt
it could ever come to right conclusions.
: >>Human DNA, being more "complex", tends to accumulate errors adversely
: >>affecting our well-being and ability to fight off disease, while the
: >>simpler DNA of bacteria and viruses tend to become more efficient in
: >>causing infection and disease.  It is a bad combination.  Hence
: >>we have newborns that suffer from genetic, viral, and bacterial
: >>diseases/disorders.
You are supposing a purpose, not a valid move. Bacteria and viruses
do not exist to cause disease. They are just another manifests of
a general principle of evolution - only replication saves replicators
from degradiation. We are just an efficient method for our DNA to
survive and replicate. The less efficient methods didn't make it
to the present.
And for the last time.  Please present some evidence for your claim that
human DNA is degrading through evolutionary processes. Some people have
claimed that the opposite is true - we have suppressed our selection,
and thus are bound to degrade. I haven't seen much evidence for either
claim.
: But then I ask, So?  Where is this relevant to my discussion in
: answering John's question of why?  Why are there genetic diseases,
: and why are there so many bacterial and viral diseases which require
: babies to develop antibodies.  Is it God's fault? (the original
: question) -- I say no, it is not.
Of course, nothing "evil" is god's fault.  But your explanation does
not work, it fails miserably.
: You may be right.  But the fact is that you don't know that
: Satan is not responsible, and neither do I.
:
: Suppose that a powerful, evil being like Satan exists.  Would it
: be inconceivable that he might be responsible for many of the ills
: that affect mankind?  I don't think so.
He could have done a much better Job. (Pun intended.) The problem is,
it seems no Satan is necessary to explain any diseases, they are
just as inevitable as any product of evolution.
: Did I say that?  Where?  Seems to me like another bad inference.
: Actually what you've done is to oversimplify what I said to the
: point that your summary of my words takes on a new context.  I
: never said that people are "meant" (presumably by God) "to be
: punished by getting diseases".  Why I did say is that free moral
: choices have attendent consequences.  If mankind chooses to reject
: God, as people have done since the beginning, then they should not
: expect God to protect them from adverse events in an entropic
: universe.
I am not expecting this. If god exists, I expect him to leave us alone.
I would also like to hear why do you believe your choices are indeed
free. This is an interesting philosophical question, and the answer
is not as clear-cut as it seems to be.
What consequences would you expect from rejecting Allah?
: Oh, I admit it's not perfect (yet).  But I'm working on it.  :)
A good library or a bookstore is a good starting point.
: What does this have to do with the price of tea in China, or the
: question to which I provided an answer?  Biology and Genetics are
: fine subjects and important scientific endeavors.  But they explain
: *how* God created and set up life processes.  They don't explain
: the why behind creation, life, or its subsequent evolution.
Why is there a "why behind"? And your proposition was something
that is not supported by the evidence. This is why we recommend
these books.
Is there any need to invoke any why behind, a prime mover? Evidence
for this? If the whole universe can come into existence without
any intervention, as recent cosmological theories (Hawking et al)
suggest, why do people still insist on this?
: Thanks Scotty, for your fine and sagely advice.  But I am
: not highly motivated to learn all the nitty-gritty details
: of biology and genetics, although I'm sure I'd find it a
: fascinating subject.  For I realize that the details do
: not change the Big Picture, that God created life in the
: beginning with the ability to change and adapt to its
: environment.
I'm sorry, but they do. There is no evidence for your big picture,
and no need to create anything that is capable of adaptation.
It can come into existence without a Supreme Being.
Try reading P.W. Atkins' Creation Revisited (Freeman, 1992).
Petri
--
___. .'*''.*        Petri Pihko    kem-pmp@          Mathematics is the Truth.
!___.'* '.'*' ' .    Pihatie 15 C    finou.oulu.fi    Physics is the Rule of
' *' .* '*    SF-90650 OULU  kempmp@           the Game.
*'  *  .*  FINLAND         phoenix.oulu.fi  -> Chemistry is The Game.
From: guncer@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Selim Guncer )
Subject: Re: Islam & Dress Code for women
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
Lines: 53
In article <16BA7103C3.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>In article <1993Apr5.091258.11830@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
>darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>
>>(2) Do women have souls in Islam?
>>
>>People have said here that some Muslims say that women do not have
>>souls.  I must admit I have never heard of such a view being held by
>>Muslims of any era.  I have heard of some Christians of some eras
>>holding this viewpoint, but not Muslims.  Are you sure you might not be
>>confusing Christian history with Islamic history?
>>
>
>Yes, it is supposed to have been a predominant view in the Turkish
>Caliphate.
>
I am not aware of any "Turkish Caliphate" viewpoint on this. Can you
reference?
However, I found a quote due to Imam Ali, whom the Shias follow:
"Men, never obey your women in any way whatsoever. Never let them give their
advice on any matter whatsoever, even those of everyday life. Indeed, allow
them freely to give advice on anything and they will fritter away one's
wealth and disobey the wishes of the owner of this wealth.
We see them without religion, when, alone, they are left to their own
devices; they are lacking in both pity and virtue when their carnal
desires are at stake. It is easy to enjoy them, but they cause great
anxiety. The most virtious among them are libertines. But the most
corrupt are whores. Only those of them whom age has deprived of any
charm are untainted by vice. They have three qualities particular to
miscreants; they complain of being oppressed, whereas it is they
who oppress; they make oaths, whereas they are lying; they pretend
to refuse men's solicitations, whereas they desire them most ardently.
Let us beg the help of God to emerge victorious from their evil deeds.
And preserve us in any case from their good ones."
(Quote from Mas'ud al-Qanawi, ref. A. Bouhdiba, Sexuality in Islam,
p. 118).
I wouldn't consider this quote as being exemplary of the Islamic (TM)
viewpoint though.  For all we know, the prophet's cousin and
the Fourth Khalif Hazret-i Ali may have said this after a frustrating
night with a woman.
Selim Guncer
--
Selim E. Guncer               | Jaca negra, luna grande,
CSSER-ASU                     | y aceitunas en mi alforja.
(602)-965-4096                | Aunque sepa los caminos
guncer@enuxha.eas.asu.edu     | yo nunca llegare a Cordoba.. (FGL)
From: jen187@its.CSIRO.AU (Graham Jenkins +61 6 276 6812)
Subject: Re: islamic authority over women
Organization: CSIRO ITS
Lines: 41
In article <1993Apr5.023044.19580@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
|>
|> That's your mistake.  It would be better for the children if the mother
|> raised the child.
|>
|> One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that say "Mom",
|> because of the love of their mom.  It makes for more virile men.
|> Compare that with how homos are raised.  Do a study and you will get my
|> point.
|>
|> But in no way do you have a claim that it would be better if the men
|> stayed home and raised the child.  That is something false made up by
|> feminists that seek a status above men.  You do not recognize the fact
|> that men and women have natural differences.  Not just physically, but
|> mentally also.
|>
Bobby, there's a question here that I just HAVE to ask. If all
of your posts aren't some sort of extended, elaborate hoax, why
are you trying so hard to convince the entire civilised world
that you're feeble minded? You have a talent for saying the most
absurd things. Here's a little sign for you, print it, cut it out
and put it on top of your computer/terminal.
ENGAGE BRAIN PRIOR TO OPERATING KEYBOARD
(Having said all that, I must admit we all get a laugh from
your stuff.)
--
|  Graham Jenkins          |  graham.jenkins@its.csiro.au           |
|  CSIRO                   |  (Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial |
|  Canberra,  AUSTRALIA    |  Research Organisation)                |
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Jews can't hide from keith@cco.
Organization: sgi
Lines: 16
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <C51DAq.2Fqs@austin.ibm.com>, karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:
>
> So, you consider the german poster's remark anti-semitic?
When someone says:
"So after 1000 years of sightseeing and roaming around its
ok to come back, kill Palastinians, and get their land back,
right?"
Yes, that's casual antisemitism.    I can think of plenty of ways
to criticize Israeli policy without insulting Jews or Jewish history.
Can't you?
jon
From: chrisb@tafe.sa.edu.au (Chris BELL)
Subject: Re: Don't more innocents die without the death penalty?
Organization: South Australian Regional Academic and Research Network
Lines: 19
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: baarnie.tafe.sa.edu.au
"James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>By maintaining classes D and E, even in prison, it seems as if we
>place more innocent people at a higher risk of an unjust death than
>we would if the state executed classes D and E with an occasional error.
I would rather be at a higher risk of being killed than actually killed by
^^^^                      ^^^^^^^^
mistake.  Though I do agree with the concept that the type D and E murderers
are a massive waste of space and resources I don't agree with the concept:
killing is wrong
if you kill we will punish you
our punishment will be to kill you.
Seems to be lacking in consistency.
--
"I know" is nothing more than "I believe" with pretentions.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Islam & Dress Code for women
Organization: sgi
Lines: 12
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1993Apr6.030734.28563@ennews.eas.asu.edu>, guncer@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Selim Guncer ) writes:
>
> I wouldn't consider this quote as being exemplary of the Islamic
> (TM) viewpoint though.  For all we know, the prophet's cousin and
> the Fourth Khalif Hazret-i Ali may have said this after a
> frustrating night with a woman.
That's very interesting.    I wonder, are women's reactions
recorded after a frustrating night with a man?   Is that
considered to be important?
jon.
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: There must be a creator! (Maybe)
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Lines: 51
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: syndicoot.engin.umich.edu
In article <1993Apr2.144909.806@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>In article <1993Apr2.165032.3356@bradford.ac.uk>, L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:
[deletions]
>>...Argument from incredulity has not been considered a valid form of
>> reasoning since medieval times.
[deletions]
>Interesting that you should mention that "Argument from incredulity has
>not been considered a valid form of reasoning since medieval times."  I
>quite agree.  Why then, do some atheists here engage in it?  More than
>a few times I have read posts where the atheists posting state that
>they 'cannot see how a gracious and loving God can allow such evil and
>suffering to occur as we see on the earth.'  Simply because they cannot
>envision it, it must not be true.  If this is not an argument from
>incredulity, I don't know what is!
As you have presented it, it is indeed an argument from incredulity.
However, from what I have seen, it is not often presented in this manner.
It is usually presented more in the form, "And *besides*, I cannot see...
...nor have I ever been offered a convincing explanation."
Moreover, it is not unreasonable to ask for an explanation for such
phenomena. That theism does not provide a convincing explanation is not
an argument in theism's favor. Especially when different theisms offer
different explanations, and even different adherents of what is purportedly
the same theism give different explanations...
>                                    God has far more complex motivations
>and reasons for action or non-action than to simply "fix" evil whenever
>and however it occurs, or even *before* it occurs.  And yet, it is this
>very same argument from incredulity which ranks high among reasons
>why atheists (in general) reject God and in particular the Christian God.
Not im my experience. In my experience, the most common reason is the
lack of evidence in theism's favor. You mileage may vary. :->
>This seems to be the universal bane of human reasoning and rationality,
>to wit, that it is far easier to see the logical fallacy or inept reasoning
>on the part of one's opponents than it is to see it in oneself.
Oh, heck, I'll be snide this once. :-> It's also fairly easy to attack
arguments that are not made. (I.e. 'strawmen'.)
>As one Man of Wisdom put it, take the log out of your own eye before you
>try to remove the splinter from your neighbor's eye.
Sage advice indeed.
Sincerely,
Raymond Ingles                       ingles@engin.umich.edu
"An apple every eight hours keeps three doctors away." - B. Kliban
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Nntp-Posting-Host: kraken.itc.gu.edu.au
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Lines: 31
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>>Perhaps we shouldn't imprision people if we could watch them closely
>>>instead.  The cost would probably be similar, especially if we just
>>>implanted some sort of electronic device.
>>Why wait until they commit the crime?  Why not implant such devices in
>>potential criminals like Communists and atheists?
>Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning.  You are proposing to punish people
>*before* they commit a crime?  What justification do you have for this?
No, Mathew is proposing a public defence mechanism, not treating the
electronic device as an impropriety on the wearer. What he is saying is that
the next step beyond what you propose is the permanent bugging of potential
criminals.  This may not, on the surface, sound like a bad thing, but who
defines what a potential criminal is? If the government of the day decides
that being a member of an opposition party makes you a potential criminal
then openly defying the government becomes a lethal practice, this is not
conducive to a free society.
Mathew is saying that implanting electronic surveillance devices upon people
is an impropriety upon that person, regardless of what type of crime or
what chance of recidivism there is. Basically you see the criminal justice
system as a punishment for the offender and possibly, therefore, a deterrant
to future offenders. Mathew sees it, most probably, as a means of
rehabilitation for the offender. So he was being cynical at you, okay?
Jeff.
From: JDB1145@tamvm1.tamu.edu
Subject: Re: A Little Too Satanic
Organization: Texas A&M University
Lines: 21
NNTP-Posting-Host: tamvm1.tamu.edu
In article <65934@mimsy.umd.edu>
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>
>Nanci Ann Miller writes:
>
]The "corrupted over and over" theory is pretty weak.  Comparison of the
]current hebrew text with old versions and translations shows that the text
]has in fact changed very little over a space of some two millennia.  This
]shouldn't be all that suprising; people who believe in a text in this manner
]are likely to makes some pains to make good copies.
Tell it to King James, mate.
]C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
]                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
]mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
]tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
John Burke, jdb1145@summa.tamu.edu
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Islamic marriage?
In-Reply-To: <C51CJp.1LF8@austin.ibm.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
Organization: Kupajava, East of Krakatoa
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)
Lines: 44
>DATE:   Tue, 6 Apr 1993 00:11:49 GMT
>FROM:   F. Karner <karner@austin.ibm.com>
>
>In article <1993Apr2.103237.4627@Cadence.COM>, mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan) writes:
>> In article <C4qAv2.24wG@austin.ibm.com> karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:
>> >
>> >Okay.  So you want me to name names?  There are obviously no official
>> >records of these pseudo-marriages because they are performed for
>> >convenience.  What happens typically is that the woman is willing to move
>> >in with her lover without any scruples or legal contracts to speak of.
>> >The man is merely utilizing a loophole by entering into a temporary
>> >religious "marriage" contract in order to have sex.  Nobody complains,
>> >nobody cares, nobody needs to know.
>> >
>> >Perhaps you should alert your imam.  It could be that this practice is
>> >far more widespread than you may think.  Or maybe it takes 4 muslim men
>> >to witness the penetration to decide if the practice exists!
>> >--
>> >
>>
>> Again you astound me with the level of ignorance you display, Muslims
>> are NOT allowed to enter temporary marriages, got that? There is
>> no evidence for it it an outlawed practise so get your facts
>> straight buddy. Give me references for it or just tell everyone you
>> were lying. It is not a widespread as you may think (fantasise) in
>> fact contrary to your fantasies it is not practised at all amongst
>> Muslims.
Did you miss my post on this topic with the quote from The Indonesian
Handbook and Fred Rice's comments about temporary marriages?  If so,
I will be glad to repost them.  Will you accept that it just may be
a practice among some Muslims, if I do?  Or will you continue to claim
that we are all lying and that it is "not practised at all amongst Muslims".
I don't think F. Karner has to tell everyone anything.  Least of all that
he is lying.
Since you obviously know nothing about this practice, there is very little
you can contribute to the discussion except to accuse everyone of lying.
Perhaps it is your ignorance which is showing.  Learn more about Islam.
Learn more about Muslims.  Open your eyes.  Maybe you will also see some
of the things the atheists see.
Subject: Re: Don't more innocents die without the death penalty?
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-Host: skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Lines: 21
In article <chrisb.734068710@bAARNie>, chrisb@tafe.sa.edu.au (Chris BELL) writes...
>	killing is wrong
>	if you kill we will punish you
>	our punishment will be to kill you.
>
>Seems to be lacking in consistency.
Not any more so than
holding people against their will is wrong
if you hold people against their will we will punish you
our punishment will be to hold you against your will
Is there any punishment which isn't something which, if done by a private
person to another private person for no apparent reason, would lead to
punishment?  (Fines, I suppose.)
Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
<SUOPANKI.93Apr6024902@stekt6.oulu.fi> <kmr4.1444.734058912@po.CWRU.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-Host: skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Lines: 26
In article <kmr4.1444.734058912@po.CWRU.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes...
>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.
The first premise and the conclusion are not properly translated as identity
statements, since the "is" in those statements is the "is" of predication
rather than of identity.  Instead, they should be translated using a
predicate letter.  Using "g" to designate God and "j" to designate Jesus,
and the predicate letter "E" for the property of being eternal, the
first premise is Eg and the conclusion is Ej.
The second premise appears to contain an "is" of identity, in which
case it can be properly symbolized as j = g.  But your remark that "Jesus
is a subset of God" suggests that strict identity is not desired here.
If, however, the first premise means that all members making up the set
God have the property of being eternal, the same conclusion follows.
Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-Host: skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Lines: 27
In article <chrisb.734064380@bAARNie>, chrisb@tafe.sa.edu.au (Chris BELL) writes...
>jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>
>>My syllogism is of the form:
>>A is B.
>>C is A.
>>Therefore C is B.
>
>>This is a logically valid construction.
>
>>Your syllogism, however, is of the form:
>>A is B.
>>C is B.
>>Therefore C is A.
>
>>Therefore yours is a logically invalid construction,
>>and your comments don't apply.
If all of those are "is"'s of identity, both syllogisms are valid.
If, however, B is a predicate, then the second syllogism is invalid.
(The first syllogism, as you have pointed out, is valid--whether B
is a predicate or designates an individual.)
Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger)
Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
Article-I.D.: cbnewsl.1993Apr6.041343.24997
Organization: Summit NJ
Lines: 39
student writes:
>Somewhere, roger colin shouse writes about "radical gay dogma."  Somewhere else
>he claims not to claim to have a claim to knowing those he doesn't know.
>There are at least twenty instances of this kind of muddleheaded fourth-
>reich-sophistique shit in his postings.  Maybe more.  In fact I'm not sure
>the instances could be counted, because they reproduce like a virus the more
>you consider his words.
>	My question is this: what is the best response to weasels like
>shouse and Stan Krieger?  Possibilities:
>	(a) study them dispassionately and figure out how they work, then
>(1) remember what you've learned so as to combat them when they or their clones
>get into office
>(2) contribute your insights to your favorite abnormal psych ward
>	(b) learn to overcome your repugnance for serial murder
This posting is totally uncalled for in rec.scouting.
The point has been raised and has been answered.  Roger and I have
clearly stated our support of the BSA position on the issue;
specifically, that homosexual behavior constitutes a violation of
the Scout Oath (specifically, the promise to live "morally straight").
There is really nothing else to discuss.  Trying to cloud the issue
with comparisons to Blacks or other minorities is also meaningless
because it's like comparing apples to oranges (i.e., people can't
control their race but they can control their behavior).
What else is there to possibly discuss on rec.scouting on this issue?
Nobody, including BSA, is denying anybody the right to live and/or
worship as they please or don't please,  but it doesn't mean that BSA
is the big bad wolf for adhering to the recognized, positive, religious
and moral standards on which our society has been established and on
which it should continue to be based.
--
Stan Krieger                 All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
UNIX System Laboratories     if related to my employment, are my own.
Summit, NJ
smk@usl.com
From: davidk@welch.jhu.edu (David "Go-Go" Kitaguchi)
Subject: Re: A Little Too Satanic
Nntp-Posting-Host: uss1.welch.jhu.edu
Reply-To: davidk@welch.jhu.edu
Organization: Welch Medical Library
Lines: 21
In article 65934@mimsy.umd.edu, mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
:PNanci Ann Miller writes:
:P
:P>My favorite reply to the "you are being too literal-minded" complaint is
:P>that if the bible is really inspired by God and if it is really THAT
:P>important to him, then he would make damn certain all the translators and
:P>scribes and people interpreting and copying it were getting it right,
:P>literally.  If not, then why should I put ANY merit at all in something
:P>that has been corrupted over and over and over by man even if it was
:P>originally inspired by God?
:P
:PThe "corrupted over and over" theory is pretty weak.  Comparison of the
:Pcurrent hebrew text with old versions and translations shows that the text
:Phas in fact changed very little over a space of some two millennia.  This
:Pshouldn't be all that suprising; people who believe in a text in this manner
:Pare likely to makes some pains to make good copies.
Well corrupted the first time is good enough.  Seeing that the bible was constructed
400 years after Jesus's death, in the text of merchants (ie-owe this and owe that) I wonder how anyone can take the literal word seriously.  Obviously it was not intended for such nonsense, otherwise the authors of the bible would not need to plagerize (sp)
off of the Asians for most of the contents that can be interperated to make sense.
From: davidk@welch.jhu.edu (David "Go-Go" Kitaguchi)
Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
Nntp-Posting-Host: uss1.welch.jhu.edu
Reply-To: davidk@welch.jhu.edu
Organization: Welch Medical Library
Lines: 56
:P>My atheism is incidental, and the question of "God" is trivial.
:P
:P>But........
:P
:P>It matters a great deal to me when idiots try to force their belief on me,
:P>when they try to enforce their creation myths to be taught as scientific
:P>fact in school, when they tell me I can have no morals because morals are
:P>from "God", when a successful presidential candidate says that an atheist
:P>shouldn't be considered a citizen and couldn't be patriotic because "after
:P>all this is one nation under God", when the fundies try to take over the
:P>party that may well provide the next President of The United States of
:P>America so that they can force their beliefs on the rest of the country,
:P>et cetera..........
:P
:P>That's why I subscribe to alt.atheism.
:P
:P>And in the middle of this, people who aren't mind readers pop up on
:P>alt.atheism to tell me what I do or don't believe, or to concoct some
:P>straw-man reason why I don't share their particular belief.
:P
:P>You think I should just accept this?
:P
:P>This isn't particularly a dig at fundamentalist christians. I have been
:P>told on alt.atheism that I reject Allah because I am too proud to embrace
:P>islam, and that I reject Krishna because my eyes are closed. But most of
:P>the religious nuts who post on alt.atheism are some kind of militant
:P>christian who can't accept that others don't share their beliefs. This
:P>kind of stuff should be kept on talk.religion.misc, where it belongs.
:P
:P>ATHEISM ISN'T A BELIEF, IT'S THE ABSENCE OF BELIEF IN ANY GODS.
:P>                                 -------
:P
:P>Do you have a problem with this?
:P
:P>>
:P>>Bill
:PFirst, I would like to say that atheism is in fact a belief.  It is a beilief
:Pbecause a belief in something you hold to with ador and faith.  An atheist says there are no gods.  This cannot be proven. therefore you are excepting this on
:Pfaith alone.  That is a belief.  Secondly, you complain so much about how the
:Pfundamental christians are trying to force their beliefs on you, but you don't
:Pmention anything about how the atheists, such as; Madamme Murry O'hare(founder
:Pof the Atheists Association in Austin Texas), and Robert Sherman(from the       Chicago area) have been trying to force their beliefs on everyone by trying to  get rid of God from our society by banning religious paintings from parks during Chistmas,  forcing cities to change their town seals if there is any mention of God in it (like Sherman has done), or trying to get the slogan "In God We Trust" off of the American currency? You also talk about creation "myths" as if they are in fact myths and tha
:P
:P
:P
:Phave concrete evidece of this.  You probably
:Pdon't and that just enforces my point that your atheism is just as much belief as my christianity.  If this is not so please do show me why it isn't.
:PMark Covalt
The only real problem I have with the argument of christianity is that they seem to ignore their origin that being Asiatic in origin.  As soon as christians become the
good non ego-centric Buddhists they are supposed to be, then I might listen.
My opinion, I speak not for my place of employment... But I should...
"Christ was over-rated, and will the ATF follow Koresh (the current Christ) through
his ascention to heaven?"
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Introduction to Atheism
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli
Lines: 12
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: carina.unm.edu
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
I have an addition to the FAQ regarding "why are there no atheist
hospitals."
If I recall correctly, Johns Hopkins was built to provide medical
services without the "backing" of a religious group...thus making it a
hospital "dedicated to the glory of [weak] atheism."
Might someone check up on this?
--
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
From: naren@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Naren Bala)
Subject: Re: Theists posting
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 21
In article <C4ux99.AIC@ra.nrl.navy.mil> khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes:
Stuff deleted
>Is there a concordance for the FAQ?  WHich translation is considered
>most authoritative?  Is there an orthodox commentary for the FAQ
>available?  Is there one FAQ for militant atheists and another for
>moderate atheists; or, do you all read from the same FAQ?  If so,
>how do you resolve differences of interpretation?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.............................................
I can put the same question to followers of any religion. How do you
Moslems resolve differences of opinion ?? Don't tell me that there
is one interpretation of the Quran. Read the soc.culture.* newsgroups.
You will zillions of different interpretations.
-- Naren
naren@TEKIG1.PEN.TEK.COM
All standard disclaimers apply
From: naren@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Naren Bala)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 19
>snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
> More horrible deaths resulted from atheism than anything else.
>
LIST OF KILLINGS IN THE NAME OF RELIGION
1. Iran-Iraq War: 1,000,000
2. Civil War in Sudan: 1,000,000
3, Riots in India-Pakistan in 1947: 1,000,000
4. Massacares in Bangladesh in 1971: 1,000,000
5. Inquistions in America in 1500s: x million (x=??)
6. Crusades: ??
I am sure that people can add a lot more to the list.
I wonder what Bobby has to say about the above.
Standard Excuses will not be accepted.
-- Naren
All standard disclaimers apply
From: richard@harlqn.co.uk (Richard Brooksby)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
Organization: Harlequin Ltd, Cambridge, UK
Lines: 21
Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
> > More horrible deaths resulted from atheism than anything else.
>
> There are definitely quite a few horrible deaths as the result of
> both atheists AND theists.  ...  Perhaps, since I'm a bit weak on
> history, somone here would like to give a list of wars caused/led by
> theists? ...
This thread seems to be arguing the validity of a religious viewpoint
according to some utilitarian principle, i.e. atheism/religion is
wrong because it causes death.  The underlying `moral' is that death
is `wrong'.  This is a rather arbitrary measure of validity.
Get some epistemology.
---
richard@harlequin.com		  (Internet)
richard@harlequin.co.uk           (Internet)
RPTB1@UK.AC.CAMBRIDGE.PHOENIX     (JANET)
Zen Buddhist
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Subject: Re: Radical Agnostic... NOT!
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire
Lines: 51
[reply to zazen@austin.ibm.com (E. H. Welbon)]
>>>     There is no means that i can possibly think of to prove beyond doubt
>>>that a god does not exist (but if anyone has one, by all means, tell me
>>>what it is).  Therefore, lacking this ability of absolute proof, being an
>>>atheist becomes an act of faith in and of itself, and this I cannot accept.
>>> I accept nothing on blind faith.
>>Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns!  Need I say more?
>...I harbor no beliefs at all, there is no good evidence for god
>existing or not.  Some folks call this agnosticism.  It does not suffer
>from "blind faith" at all.  I think of it as "Don't worry, be happy".
For many atheists, the lack of belief in gods is secondary to an
epistemological consideration:  what do we accept as a reliable way of
knowing?  There are no known valid logical arguments for the existence
of gods, nor is there any empirical evidence that they exist.  Most
philosophers and theologians agree that the idea of a god is one that
must be accepted on faith.  Faith is belief without a sound logical
basis or empirical evidence.  It is a reliable way of knowing?
There is probably nothing else most people would accept in the absence
of any possibility of proof.  Even when we agree to take someone elses
word "on faith", we just mean that having found this person to be
reliable in the past, we judge him likely to be a reliable source now.
If we find faith less reliable than logic and empirical evidence
everywhere else, why assume it will provide reliable knowledge about
gods?
The difference between the atheist and the theist is fundamentally then
one of whether or not faith is held to be a reliable way of knowing,
rather than, as some agnostic posters would have it, whether ones faith
is in gods or no gods.  The theist believes that faith is an acceptable
basis for a belief in gods, even if he rejects faith as reliable at
other times, for example in his work as a scientist.  The atheist
believes that only logic and empirical evidence lead to reliable
knowledge.  Agnosticism seems to me a less defensible position than
theism or atheism, unless one is a sceptic in regards to all other
knowledge.  Without evidence, why should we believe in gods rather than
Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?
I would also like to point out as others have that the atheist doesn't
require absolute knowledge of the lack of gods.  I don't believe that
there is any such thing as absolute knowledge.  Atheism is the best and
simplest theory to fit the (lack of) facts and so should be held until
contrary evidence is found.
David Nye (nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu).  Midelfort Clinic, Eau Claire WI
This is patently absurd; but whoever wishes to become a philosopher
must learn not to be frightened by absurdities. -- Bertrand Russell
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Is Keith as ignorant as he seems?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 16
NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
mam@mouse.cmhnet.org (Mike McAngus) writes:
>>>No, everything wouldn't be OK, but it would be a start.
>>Now wait, if the religious organizations were no longer tax-exempt, what
>>other beef could you have?  They would then have as much right to lobby
>>as would any other group.
>You asked "would everything be okay".  I answered no.  Everything
>encompasses more than just the tax-exempt status of religious
>organizations.
Well, if everything wouldn't be okay, then tell us what it is that
wouldn't be okay.   That is, if religions were no longer tax-exempt, then
what would be wrong with their lobbying or otherwise attempting to
influence politics?
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 19
NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
mam@mouse.cmhnet.org (Mike McAngus) writes:
>Let me see if I understand what you are saying.  In order to talk
>knowledgeably about religion, Atheists must first have been so immersed
>in a religion that only the rare individual could have left.
No, you don't understand.  I said that I don't think people can discuss
the subjective merits of religion objectively.  This should be obvious.
People here have said that everyone would be better off without religion,
but this almost certainly isn't true.
>>But really, are you threatened by the motto, or by the people that use it?
>The motto is a tool.  Let's try to take away the tool.
But, guns and axes are tools, both of which have been used for murder.
Should both be taken away?  That is to say, I don't think motto misuse
warrants its removal.  At least not in this case.
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 26
NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
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: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 57
NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:
>I was looking for a rigorous definition because otherwise we would be
>spending the rest of our lives arguing what a "Christian" really
>believes.
I don't think we need to argue about this.
>KS>Do you think that the motto points out that this country is proud
>KS>of its freedom of religion, and that this is something that
>KS>distinguishes us from many other countries?
>MW>No.
>KS>Well, your opinion is not shared by most people, I gather.
>Perhaps not, but that is because those seeking to make government
>recognize Christianity as the dominant religion in this country do not
>think they are infringing on the rights of others who do not share
>their beliefs.
Yes, but also many people who are not trying to make government recognize
Christianity as the dominant religion in this country do no think
the motto infringes upon the rights of others who do not share their
beliefs.
And actually, I think that the government already does recognize that
Christianity is the dominant religion in this country.  I mean, it is.
Don't you realize/recognize this?
This isn't to say that we are supposed to believe the teachings of
Christianity, just that most people do.
>Like I've said before I personally don't think the motto is a major
>concern.
If you agree with me, then what are we discussing?
>KS>Since most people don't seem to associate Christmas with Jesus much
>KS>anymore, I don't see what the problem is.
>Can you prove your assertion that most people in the U.S. don't
>associate Christmas with Jesus anymore?
No, but I hear quite a bit about Christmas, and little if anything about
Jesus.  Wouldn't this figure be more prominent if the holiday were really
associated to a high degree with him?  Or are you saying that the
association with Jesus is on a personal level, and that everyone thinks
about it but just never talks about it?
That is, can *you* prove that most people *do* associate Christmas
most importantly with Jesus?
>Anyways, the point again is that there are people who do associate
>Christmas with Jesus. It doesn't matter if these people are a majority
>or not.
I think the numbers *do* matter.  It takes a majority, or at least a
majority of those in power, to discriminate.  Doesn't it?
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 25
NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>> The probability that the "automobile system" will kill someone
>> innocent in an accident goes asymptotically close to 1, just
>> like the court system.
>However, anyone who doesn't like the "automobile system" can
>opt out, as I have.
This isn't true.  Many people are forced to use the "automobile system."
I certainly don't use it by choice.  If there were other ways of getting
around, I'd do it.
>Secondly, we do try to make the "automobile system" as safe
>as possible, because we *do* recognize the danger to the
>innocent, whereas the US - the current example - is not trying
>to make the "Court System" safer, which it could fairly easily
>do by replacing fatal punishments with non-fatal punishments.
But I think that the Court system has been refined--over hundreds of
years in the US, Britain, and other countries.  We have tried to make
it as fair as possible.  Can it be made better (without removing the
death penalty)?  Besides, life imprisonment sounds like a fatal punishment
to me.
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 12
NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) writes:
>Keith Allan Schneider (keith@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
>Some soldiers are dependent on religion, for a number of purposes.
>And some are no doubt dependent on cocaine, yet I don't see the military paying
>for coca fields.
While religion certainly has some benefits in a combat situation, what are
the benefits of cocaine?
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: >>>>>>Pompous ass
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 226
NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
<MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>Many people would probably think (especially if the fanatics propogandized
>>this) that this was a conflict between the atheists and the religious.
>>Many would get the impression that we were trying to outlaw religion, if
>>we contintue to try to remove all things with a religious reference.
>That's not what the people I've asked think. Perhaps you would be right
>if you said the fundamentalists would think this way; after all, they think
>they are being oppressed when they are not allowed to oppress. However,
>you have not shown where you get this idea that 'many' people would
>'probably' think it's atheism vs. religion, winner take all. As far as I can
>tell, it is your groundless prediction that this will happen.
But you haven't taken into the account of propoganda.  Remember, if you
asked Germans before WWII if the Jews shoudl be slaughtered, they would
probably answer no, but, after the propoganda machine rolled through, at
least some were able to tolerate it.
You see, it only takes a small group of fanatics to whip up a general
frenzy.
>>THe propoganda machines have been in gear over a number of issues, including
>>abortion and gays...  look at some of the things that have happened.
>Well, so far they have passed one amendment, which is currently under
>intense scrutiny, and they have failed to outlaw abortion, which is their
>prime goal on that issue. Yep, they seem sooo effective. Sure.
Well, they haven't managed to outlaw abortion due to the possible objectivity
of the courts.  But, they have managed to create quite a few problems for
people that wanted to have an abortion.  They could create similar problems
for us.  And, it could be worse.  They can try to stop abortions by blocking
clinics, etc., but imagine what they'd have to do to stop atheism.
>>>>Besides, the margin of error is very large when you only talk to two people.
>>>Better than your one, that is, your opinion. Also, I have branched
>>>out and the informal survey is up over half a dozen now.
>>And, what have they said?  Were you questions unbiased?
>Keith, you would claim that my questions are biased the minute I posted
>them, because the answers agreed with me. Everyone I have asked about
>the possible removal of the motto (the christian portion) has expressed
>regret about its loss, because they like it. However, when it is pointed
>out to them that a new motto will not be in the works, none have expressed
>the desire to rape, murder, pillage, etc., which you have basically claimed.
So, you are able to convince them individually, but could you convince a
whole room of them?  A whole nation?
>As for the atheist portion (I know some around here), they have all
>expressed disgust with the motto. Some noted being harassed by christians
>who used the motto to try to seem justified. And all would see it gone.
Yes, I'd be glad if it were gone to.  I've never supported it.  However,
I think that it is a minor problem that can be easily ignored, contrasted
with what *could* happen (an what may be likely).
>>Which Christians designed the motto?  Does the motto say anything about
>>Jesus?  Why do you think that it refers *only* to Christians?
>Christians wrote it; christians think that their religion is right, and
>all others are wrong; therefore, why would they 'include' other religions
>in the realm of being correct? I doubt that any other religions were meant
>to be included.
Well, I am not clear on the religious convictions of Francis Scott Key (the
motto can be attributed to him), but it is at least clear that he believed
in a god.  And, surely there are a few Christians that think as you say,
but I don't think that most do.  Do you think that all Christians actively
despise other religions?  Most that I have met haven't and don't do so.
>>>No christian
>>>that I have queried thinks it means anything but them, and only them.
>>Why not ask some people of other faiths?
>Sorry, I would, but christianity is just so awfully popular around here.
>Suppose you could ask a few people?
Well, I have asked a Hindu, Moselem, and a few Jews, and all of them think
that it is applicable to them.  Of course, I can't say that these people
(just some that I know pretty well) are accurate representations of their
faiths.
>>It is always a good idea to assume that there were dissenting views on any
>>given issue.  You are assuming that all the views were the same, and nothing
>>leads to this conclusion.
>Without evidence to the contrary, I doubt that there were dissenting
>opinions. You claim there were. Provide some evidence for your assertion.
Well, I'd really like to, and I've tried, but I really don't know where to
get access to _Congressional Records_ from the 1950's.  Can anyone help
out here?
>Comparing christians to Nazis? Interesting.
Only in the sense that neither can probably convinced to change their beliefs.
>>>>No, again, the motto on the money doesn't cost you anything extra.  However,
>>>>if you abolished the motto, we'd all have to pay to have all the dies and
>>>>plates redone.
>>>Like people paid before to get them changed to have the motto on them.
>>You now need to show that there is a good reason to change everything again.
>... Also, I doubt that they use th3
>same plates for more than a year's printing; this would make it easy
>to remove the motto (simply make next year's plates without it). Your
>claim, evidently, is that they will have to pay extra somewhere.
>Provide some evidence for this assertion.
So, are you saying that they redesign the plates each year?
Anyway, your whole argument (conveniently deleted I see) was that the motto
somehow costs us all a lot of money.  This is just not correct.
>>The ones I read didn't mention anything about Jesus.  I think the issue was
>>concerning the distinction between religion and not.
>How could it be between religious and not religious? The motto
>refers to god; it is a religious motto. The question is whether or
>not it is only christian. You say it is more. I doubt this. Provide
>some evidence for this assertion.
That is to say, the religion of this country, and the non-religion of
the USSR.  That was what most of those quotes were about, and some included
all atheists, in general, as well.  I don't think that any of the quotes
(although I seem to have lost them) mentioned anything at all about Jesus.
They advocated religion over non-religion.  A specific religion was not
mentioned.
>>You have missed this point.  I said that the motto didn't say anything
>>about anyone in particular.  That is, the motto doesn't imply anything
>>about *your* particular beliefs.  It doesn't say that everyone trusts
>>in some form of god, only that the nation on the whole does.
>We have been through this before. It's obvious it does not include me;
>this much is beyond doubt. Your claim, again, is that the motto refers
>to more than christians. Based on the facts that christianity says all
>other religions are wrong, and because it seems that the motto was
>written by christians, I doubt your claim.
So, you are saying that all Christians must believe that all other religions
should be outlawed, just because they think they are wrong?  That's silly.
I think the Flat-Earthers are wrong, but I don't advocate their banishment.
>[...]  Based on this idea I doubt that any additional expense would
>even be incurred by removing the motto. Provide some evidence for your
>claim that it would.
I think that any such cost would be insignificant.  I mentioned the slight
cost because you said that the motto was costing us a lot of money by
being on our currency.
>Disregarding the digression of the other motto...If it is used for
>harassment, and no other purpose has been found for it, why should
>it not be removed?
Well, mottos in general don't really have purposes...  I don't think it
should be removed because I think the benefit would be outweighed by the
consequences.
>>And do you know what the vote was?  Were there other opinions?  Do you
>>think that the main reason the motto was required by law was to bother
>>atheists?  Do you think that this is what the majority of congress at
>>the time had in mind?  If you do, then show why.
>Again, it is the opinion of the people who put it there that I am
>concerned with.
Then you should be concerned with the opinion of the entire congress.
>Again, it is not necessary that the complete majority
>shared the purpose of confronting 'godless Communism' with this motto.
Why not?  It is the majority that put it there.
>>The general public probably does not know about the anti-atheist intent
>>of a few people in the 50's either.
>I daresay more people remember the 50's than the time when Key wrote
>the anthem.
But do they remember the debate surrounding the motto?  Do they remember
that some people intended it to be a message against atheists?  Why don't
you include this in your little survey that you were conducting?
[...]
>You claim here that scientists would believe someone's claims. I doubt
>this. Provide evidence for your assertion.
What?  Should I ask some scientists the probability that something Einstein
said about relativity is worthy?  I mean, if Einstein said it, there's a
good chance that it was right (at least at the time).
>As for the courts, the
>method scientists use can be applied. I need not agree with the court
>by default because of a 'good record.'
You need not agree with them all of the time, but you would certainly think
that their decisions would be good evidence in favor of some point.
>>What?  But you said you didn't agree with the court because they "allowed
>>Congress to attempt to make an amendment prohibiting flag burning."  If
>>you don't realize that something like this is external to the realm of
>>the court's power, then how can I be confident that you know *anything*
>>about the court's powers?  I mean, if you don't know how the court works,
>>how can you participate in a discussion of the court?
>A judge can go to speak before Congress. And still you ignore the
>abortion gag rule, as you make your claims on abortion.
No, I think that it would be clearly inappropriate for a Supreme Court
Justice to testify before Congress during the consideration of a
Constitutional Amendment.
And, in order for the Court to rule on something, a case usually must be
presented.
>>Mushrooms, flowers, trees, buildings, signs, whatever...  the analogy is
>>the same.  Just because something that I might find offensive is present
>>doesn't mean that my rights are being violated.
>We are talking about something put there by people, Keith...not
>a mushroom. No one caused that mushroom to exist, unless you're
>finding things offensive in a mushroom farm.
Yes, some mushrooms can be planted.  And, I don't appreciate mushrooms on
my pizza, either.
>This is not the case
>with the motto. And you're ignoring the harassment which is the
>only known result of the motto, and you're ignoring that somewhere
>along the line people were forced to put the motto there.
Who was forced to put the motto there?  What do you mean?
keith
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01
Lines: 37
suopanki@stekt.oulu.fi writes:
> On 5 Apr 93 11:24:30 MST, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com said:
> :> God is eternal.    [A = B]
> :> Jesus is God.      [C = A]
> :> Therefore, Jesus is eternal.  [C = B]
>
> :> This works both logically and mathematically.  God is of the set of
> :> things which are eternal.  Jesus is a subset of God.   Therefore
> :> Jesus belongs to the set of things which are eternal.
>
> Everything isn't always so logical....
>
> Mercedes is a car.
> That girl is Mercedes.
> Therefore, that girl is a car?
Unfortunately your phrasing is ambiguous.  Re-writing more carefully, we have
(at least) two possibilities.  The first:
Things called "Mercedes" are cars
That girl is called "Mercedes"
Therefore that girl is a car
That is entirely valid as a piece of logical deduction.  It is not sound,
because the first statement is false.  Similarly, I would hold that Jim's
example is valid but not sound.
Another possible interpretation of what you wrote is:
There exists at least one car called "Mercedes"
That girl is called "Mercedes"
Therefore that girl is a car
-- which isn't valid.
mathew
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01
Lines: 15
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>>Perhaps we shouldn't imprision people if we could watch them closely
>>>instead.  The cost would probably be similar, especially if we just
>>>implanted some sort of electronic device.
>>Why wait until they commit the crime?  Why not implant such devices in
>>potential criminals like Communists and atheists?
>
> Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning.  You are proposing to punish people
> *before* they commit a crime?  What justification do you have for this?
Look up "irony", Keith.
mathew
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01
Lines: 19
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?
As far as I know, tigers are not sentient.  If I were pushed into a pool with
some dolphins and they attacked me, I might be inclined to blame the dolphins
rather than the person doing the pushing, as (a) dolphins are not usually
aggressive and (b) they seem to have well-developed brains and a capacity for
abstract thought.
As a matter of fact, tigers rarely attack humans unless the human provokes
them.  Of course, if they are in a cage which is far too small, that might
count as provocation...
mathew
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01
Lines: 22
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
> ( I am almost sure that Zyklon-B is immediate and painless method of
> death. If not, insert soem other form. )
>
>         And, ethnic and minority groups have been killed, mutilated and
> exterminated through out history, so I guess it was not unusual.
>
>         So, you would agree that the holocost would be allowed under the US
> Constitution?  [ in so far, the punishment. I doubt they recieved what would
> be considered a "fair" trial by US standards.
Don't be so sure.  Look what happened to Japanese citizens in the US during
World War II.  If you're prepared to say "Let's round these people up and
stick them in a concentration camp without trial", it's only a short step to
gassing them without trial.  After all, it seems that the Nazis originally
only intended to imprison the Jews; the Final Solution was dreamt up partly
because they couldn't afford to run the camps because of the devastation
caused by Goering's Total War.  Those who weren't gassed generally died of
malnutrition or disease.
mathew
From: Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: atheist?
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
Lines: 50
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
> In article <ii1i2B1w165w@mantis.co.uk>
> Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>
> (Deletion)
> >
> >My opinion is that the strong atheist position requires too much
> >belief for me to be comfortable with. Any strong atheists out there
> >care to comment?
>[...]
> Humans just come up with the idea of a spiritual parent. It is one
> of the artifacts of human thought. The evidence for that is quite
> overwhelming. And the information content of the conceived is vanishing.
>
> In other words, if there were gods, they would hardly make sense, and
> it is possible to explain the phenomenon of religion without gods.
>
> The concept is useless, and I don't have to introduce new assumptions
> in order to show that.
>
> No leap of faith required for me. Your mileage may vary.
Yes I fully agree with that, but is it "I don't believe gods exist", or
"I believe no gods exist"? As MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
pointed out, it all hinges on what you take the word "believe" to mean.
Unfortunately this is bound up in the definitions of strong and weak
atheism, at least according to the FAQ:
# Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of God.
# Some atheists go further, and believe that God does not exist.  The former is
# often referred to as the "weak atheist" position, and the latter as "strong
# atheism".
#
# It is important to note the difference between these two positions.  "Weak
# atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God.  "Strong
# atheism" is a positive belief that God does not exist.  Please do not
# fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists".
(From mathew's "An Introduction to Atheism" version 1.2 last modified 5-Apr-93)
Should the FAQ be clarified to try to pin down this notion of "belief"?
Can it?
--
Tony Lezard IS tony@mantis.co.uk OR tony%mantis.co.uk@uknet.ac.uk OR things
like tony%uk.co.mantis@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay OR (last resort) arl10@phx.cam.ac.uk
PGP 2.2 public key available on request.
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01
Lines: 11
mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
> I think you mean circular, not recursive, but that is semantics.
> Recursiveness has no problems, it is just horribly inefficient (just ask
> any assembly programmer.)
Tail-recursive functions in Scheme are at least as efficient as iterative
loops.  Anyone who doesn't program in assembler will have heard of optimizing
compilers.
mathew
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: An Anecdote about Islam
In-Reply-To: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu's message of 5 Apr 93 16:49:14 GMT
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24
Lines: 24
In <114127@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu writes:
[deletia]
> I don't understand the point of this petty sarcasm. It is a basic
> principle of Islam that if one is born muslim or one says "I testify
> that there is no god but God and Mohammad is a prophet of God" that,
> so long as one does not explicitly reject Islam by word then one _must_
> be considered muslim by all muslims. So the phenomenon you're attempting
> to make into a general rule or psychology is a direct odds with basic
> Islamic principles. If you want to attack Islam you could do better than
> than to argue against something that Islam explicitly contradicts.
In the deletions somewhere, it mentioned something about chopping
off of hands being a punishment for theft in Saudi Arabia. Assuming this
is so (I wouldn't know), and assuming it is done by people fitting your
requirement for "muslim" (which I find highly likely), then would you
please try to convince Bobby Mozumder that muslims chop people's hands
off?
Come back when you've succeeded.
--
Disclaimer?   "It's great to be young and insane!"
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za (Lucio de Re)
Subject: A fundamental contradiction (was: A visit from JWs)
Reply-To: lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA
Organization: MegaByte Digital Telecommunications
Lines: 35
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>"Will" is "self-determination".  In other words, God created conscious
>beings who have the ability to choose between moral choices independently
>of God.  All "will", therefore, is "free will".
The above is probably not the most representative paragraph, but I
thought I'd hop on, anyway...
What strikes me as self-contradicting in the fable of Lucifer's
fall - which, by the way, I seem to recall to be more speculation
than based on biblical text, but my ex RCism may be showing - is
that, as Benedikt pointed out, Lucifer had perfect nature, yet he
had the free will to "choose" evil.  But where did that choice come
from?
We know from Genesis that Eve was offered an opportunity to sin by a
tempter which many assume was Satan, but how did Lucifer discover,
invent, create, call the action what you will, something that God
had not given origin to?
Also, where in the Bible is there mention of Lucifer's free will?
We make a big fuss about mankind having free will, but it strikes me
as being an after-the-fact rationalisation, and in fact, like
salvation, not one that all Christians believe in identically.
At least in my mind, salvation and free will are very tightly
coupled, but then my theology was Roman Catholic...
Still, how do theologian explain Lucifer's fall?  If Lucifer had
perfect nature (did man?) how could he fall?  How could he execute an
act that (a) contradicted his nature and (b) in effect cause evil to
exist for the first time?
--
Lucio de Re (lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA) - tab stops at four.
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za (Lucio de Re)
Subject: Re: atheist?
Reply-To: lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA
Organization: MegaByte Digital Telecommunications
Lines: 33
Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>My opinion is that the strong atheist position requires too much
>belief for me to be comfortable with. Any strong atheists out there
>care to comment? As far as I can tell, strong atheists are far
>outnumbered on alt.atheism by weak atheists.
At the cost of repudiating the FAQ, I think too much is made of the
strong vs weak atheism issue, although in the context of alt.atheism,
where we're continually attacked on the basis that strong atheists
"believe" in the non-existence of god, I think the separation is a
valid one.
To cover my arse, what I'm trying to say is that there is an
infinitely grey area between weak and strong, as well as between
strong and the unattainable mathematical atheism (I wish!).  Whereas I
_logically_ can only support the weak atheist position, in effect I am
a strong atheist (and wish I could be a mathematical one).  To
justify my strong atheist position I believe I need only show that
the evidence presented in favour of any of the gods under scrutiny
is faulty.
If I read the FAQ correctly, no argument for the existence of god
(generic, as represented by mainstream theologians) has ever been
found to be unassailable.  To me this is adequate evidence that the
_real_god_ is undefinable (or at least no definition has yet been
found to be watertight), which in turn I accept as sufficient to
base a disbelief in each and every conceivable god.
I'm a little fuzzy on the edges, though, so opinions are welcome
(but perhaps we should change the thread subject).
--
Lucio de Re (lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA) - tab stops at four.
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01
Lines: 32
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
> Why would the Rushdie case be particularly legitimate? As I've said
> elsewhere on this issue, Rushdie's actions had effects in Islamic
> countries so that it is not so simple to say that he didn't commit
> a crime in an Islamic country.
Actually, it is simple.
A person P has committed a crime C in country X if P was within the borders
of X at the time when C was committed.  It doesn't matter if the physical
manifestation of C is outside X.
For instance, if I hack into NASA's Ames Research Lab and delete all their
files, I have committed a crime in the United Kingdom.  If the US authorities
wish to prosecute me under US law rather than UK law, they have no automatic
right to do so.
This is why the net authorities in the US tried to put pressure on some sites
in Holland.  Holland had no anti-cracking legislation, and so it was viewed
as a "hacker haven" by some US system administrators.
Similarly, a company called Red Hot Television is broadcasting pornographic
material which can be received in Britain.  If they were broadcasting in
Britain, they would be committing a crime.  But they are not, they are
broadcasting from Denmark, so the British Government is powerless to do
anything about it, in spite of the apparent law-breaking.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong.  More confusingly, I could
be right in some countries but not in others...
mathew
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: An Anecdote about Islam
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 74
In article <114140@bu.edu>
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>>>>> In cases of prostitution
>>>>>both the man and the prostitute would be punished in public, quite
>>>>>severely.
(Deletion)
>
>>No Gregg, you cannot say A is lenient and A punishes severely in public.
>>Unless, of course, it is one of the exceptions implied by "almost all
>>matters".
>
>That depends on the statistics and who is punished in public. If some
>power (for example, nothing Islamic about it) allows men to rape women
>five times before blowing the rapist's head off in public then I'd call
>that leniency, wouldn't you?
>
You have given that example. It is not lenient. End of argument.
And chopping off the hands or heads of people is not lenient either. It
rather appears that you are internalized the claims about the legal system
without checking if they suit the description.
And wasn't the argument that it takes five men to rape a woman according
to Islamic law?
>>While I don't approve of it, I think both the prostitute and the customer
>>have the right to do what they do. In other words, punishing them is a
>>violation of their rights. And to punish them severely in public is just
>>another pointer to the hysteria connected with sexuality in so many
>>religions.
>
>Believe what you like.
>
No, I even believe what I don't like. Can you give better answers than that?
Have you got any evidence for your probably opposite claims?
>>In this case, I don't see why I should accept the complex ridden views
>>of an oriental goatherd.
>
>Ah, yes, I forget that the West is historically so much without sexual
>neurosis :)
>
>"Oriental goatherd", _really_ intellectual.
>
A fact, if memory serves. And most will see the connection between the
primitive machism in the Orient and in Islam.
>>If people agree on having sex it is fine. And I would assume that a
>>god would have a clue of what the detrimental effects of supressing it
>>are.
>
>Huh? Ever heard of AIDs? (Of course you'll probably go on to say that
>God must be evil because he allows the disease to exist, bla bla).
>
As usually you miss the point. Aids is  neither spread only through sex
nor necessarily spread by having sex. Futher, the point is, a very important
point, the urge for sex is stronger than the fear of AIDS. It is even
stronger than the religious attempts to channel or to forbid sex. The
consequences of suppressing sex are worse than the consequences of Aids.
Please note that the idea that everybody would end up with AIDS when sex
is not controlled is completely counterfactual.
And since you have brought up the point, is your god evil or not?
Benedikt
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Biblical Rape
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 14
In article <1993Apr05.174537.14962@watson.ibm.com>
strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>
>In article <16BA7F16C.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>, I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>
>I didn't have time to read the rest of the posting, but
>I had to respond to this.
>
>I am absolutely NOT a "Messianic Jew".
>
Another mistake. Sorry, I should have read alt.,messianic more carefully.
Benedikt
From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
Article-I.D.: dsi.1pq6skINNhi4
Distribution: usa
Organization: Decision Support Inc.
Lines: 28
NNTP-Posting-Host: dsi.dsinc.com
In article <1993Apr3.221101.25314@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1pi0dhINN8ub@dsi.dsinc.com> perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes:
>>Bigots never concede that their bigotry is irrational; it
>>is other people who determine that by examining their arguments.
>[...]
>No!  I  expected it! You've set yourself up a wonderful little
>world where a bigot is whomever you say it is.  This is very
>comfortable for you--imagine, never having to entertain an
>argument against your belief system.  Simply accuse the person
>making of being a bigot.
Well, this particular thread of vituperation slopped its venom over
into alt.atheism, where we spend most of our time entertaining
arguments against our belief system, without resorting to accusing
others of bigotry.  It's somewhat ironic that our exposure to bigotry
happens in this instance to have originated in rec.scouting, since I
always understood scouting to teach tolerance and diversity.  I
understand bigotry to be irrational prejudice against other people who
happen to be of a different race, religion, ethnic background, sex, or
other inconsequential characteristics.  All the evidence I've seen
indicates that sexual orientation and lack of belief in gods are
exactly such inconsequential characteristics.  Thus, pending further
evidence, I conclude that those who show prejudice against such people
are bigots, and organizations that exclude such people are
discriminatory.
--
Jim Perry   perry@dsinc.com   Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions.  For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 67
In article <1pq47tINN8lp@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
bobs@thnext.mit.edu (Robert Singleton) writes:
(Deletion)
>
>I will argue that your latter statement, "I believe that no gods exist"
>does rest upon faith - that is, if you are making a POSITIVE statement
>that "no gods exist" (strong atheism) rather than merely saying I don't
>know and therefore don't believe in them and don't NOT believe in then
>(weak atheism). Once again, to not believe in God is different than saying
>I BELIEVE that God does not exist. I still maintain the position, even
>after reading the FAQs, that strong atheism requires faith.
>
No it in the way it is usually used. In my view, you are saying here that
driving a car requires faith that the car drives.
For me it is a conclusion, and I have no more faith in it than I have in the
premises and the argument used.
>But first let me say the following.
>We might have a language problem here - in regards to "faith" and
>"existence". I, as a Christian, maintain that God does not exist.
>To exist means to have being in space and time. God does not HAVE
>being - God IS Being. Kierkegaard once said that God does not
>exist, He is eternal. With this said, I feel it's rather pointless
>to debate the so called "existence" of God - and that is not what
>I'm doing here. I believe that God is the source and ground of
>being. When you say that "god does not exist", I also accept this
>statement - but we obviously mean two different things by it. However,
>in what follows I will use the phrase "the existence of God" in it's
>'usual sense' - and this is the sense that I think you are using it.
>I would like a clarification upon what you mean by "the existence of
>God".
>
No, that's a word game. The term god is used in a different way usually.
When you use a different definition it is your thing, but until it is
commonly accepted you would have to say the way I define god is ... and
that does not exist, it is existence itself, so I say it does not exist.
Interestingly, there are those who say that "existence exists" is one of
the indubitable statements possible.
Further, saying god is existence is either a waste of time, existence is
already used and there is no need to replace it by god, or you are implying
more with it, in which case your definition and your argument so far
are incomplete, making it a fallacy.
(Deletion)
>One can never prove that God does or does not exist. When you say
>that you believe God does not exist, and that this is an opinion
>"based upon observation", I will have to ask "what observtions are
>you refering to?" There are NO observations - pro or con - that
>are valid here in establishing a POSITIVE belief.
(Deletion)
Where does that follow? Aren't observations based on the assumption
that something exists?
And wouldn't you say there is a level of definition that the assumption
"god is" is meaningful. If not, I would reject that concept anyway.
So, where is your evidence for that "god is" is meaningful at some level?
Benedikt
From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Is Morality Constant (was Re: Biblical Rape)
Organization: Decision Support Inc.
Lines: 51
NNTP-Posting-Host: dsi.dsinc.com
This (frayed) thread has turned into a patented alt.atheism 5-on-1
ping-pong game, and I don't have any strong disagreement, so I'll try
to stick to the one thing I don't quite follow about the argument:
It seems to me that there is a contradiction in arguing that the Bible
was "enlightened for its times" (i.e. closer to what we would consider
morally good based on our standards and past experience) on the one
hand [I hope this summarizes this argument adequately], and on the
other hand:
In article <1993Apr03.001125.23294@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
}In article <1phpe1INN8g6@dsi.dsinc.com>, perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes:
}|> }Disclaimer:  I'm speaking from the Jewish perspective,
}|> }where "the Bible" means what many call the Old Testament,
}|> }and where the interpretation is not necessarily the
}|> }raw text, but instead the court cases, commentaries
}|> }and traditions passed down through Jewish communities.
}|>
}|> This seems the crux to me: if you judge the Bible according to a long
}|> line of traditions and interpretations coming down to the current day,
}|> rather than on its own merits as a cultural artifact, then of course
}|> it will correspond more closely with more contemporary values.
}
}But if that's how the Bible is actually being used today,
}shouldn't that be how we should judge it?  If most people
}use scissors to cut paper, shouldn't Consumer's Reports
}test scissors for paper-cutting ability, even though
}scissors may have been designed originally to cut cloth?
That's possibly a good way to judge the use of the Bible in teaching
Jewish morality today, but it hardly seems fair to claim that this
highly-interpreted version is what was "enlightened for its times".
To (attempt to) extend the analogy, this is like saying that the
original scissor-makers were unusually advanced at paper-cutting for
their times, even though they only ever cut cloth, and had never even
heard of paper.
I'm not arguing that the Bible is "disgusting", though some of the
history depicted in it is, by modern standards.  However, history is
full of similar abuses, and I don't think the Biblical accounts are
worse than their contemporaries--or possibly ours.  On the other hand,
I don't know of any reason to think the history described in the Bible
shows *less* abuse than their contemporaries, or ours.  That complex
and benign moral traditions have evolved based on particular mythic
interpretations of that history is interesting, but I still don't
think it fair to take that long tradition of interpretation and use it
to attack condemnation of the original history.
--
Jim Perry   perry@dsinc.com   Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions.  For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>>As for rape, surely there the burden of guilt is solely on the rapist?
>>Unless you force someone to live with the rapist against his will, in which
>>case part of the responsibility is yours.
>I'm sorry, but I can't accept that.  Unless the rapist was hypnotized or
>something, I view him as solely responsible for his actions.
Not necessarily, especially if the rapist is known as such.  For instance,
if you intentionally stick your finger into a loaded mousetrap and get
snapped, whose fault is it?
keith
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: islamic authority over women
Nntp-Posting-Host: nin
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Lines: 49
In article <1993Apr5.023044.19580@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
> One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that say "Mom",
> because of the love of their mom.  It makes for more virile men.
> Compare that with how homos are raised.  Do a study and you will get my
> point.
Oh, Bobby. You're priceless. Did I ever tell you that?
My policy with Bobby's posts, should anyone give a damn, is to flick
through the thread at high speed, searching for posts of Bobby's which
have generated a whole pile of followups, then go in and extract the
hilarious quote inevitably present for .sig purposes. Works for me.
For the guy who said he's just arrived, and asked whether Bobby's for real,
you betcha. Welcome to alt.atheism, and rest assured that it gets worse.
I have a few pearls of wisdom from Bobby which I reproduce below. Is anyone
(Keith?) keeping a big file of such stuff?
"In Allah's infinite wisdom, the universe was created from nothing,
just by saying "Be", and it became. Therefore Allah exists."
--- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #1
"Wait. You just said that humans are rarely reasonable. Doesn't that
contradict atheism, where everything is explained through logic and
reason? This is THE contradiction in atheism that proves it false."
--- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #2
"Plus, to the believer, it would be contradictory
to the Quran for Allah not to exist."
--- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #3
and now
"One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that say "Mom",
because of the love of their mom. It makes for more virile men. Compare
that with how homos are raised.  Do a study and you will get my point."
-- Bobby Mozumder being Islamically Rigorous on alt.atheism
Mmmmm. Quality *and* quantity from the New Voice of Islam (pbuh).
Cheers
Simon
--
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
Article-I.D.: po.kmr4.1447.734101641
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 28
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
In article <1993Apr6.041343.24997@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
>The point has been raised and has been answered.  Roger and I have
>clearly stated our support of the BSA position on the issue;
>specifically, that homosexual behavior constitutes a violation of
>the Scout Oath (specifically, the promise to live "morally straight").
Please define "morally straight".
And, don't even try saying that "straight", as it is used here,
implies only hetersexual behavior. [ eg: "straight" as in the slang word
opposite to "gay" ]
This is alot like "family values". Everyone is talking about them,
but misteriously, no one knows what they are.
---
"One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that
say "Mom", because of the love of their mom.  It makes for more
virile men."
Bobby Mozumder  ( snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu )
April 4, 1993
The one TRUE Muslim left in the world.
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
Article-I.D.: unix.C52Cw7.I6t
Organization: Blasny Blasny, Consolidated (Amherst, MA Offices)
Lines: 37
In article <1993Apr6.041343.24997@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
>Roger and I have
>clearly stated our support of the BSA position on the issue;
>specifically, that homosexual behavior constitutes a violation of
>the Scout Oath (specifically, the promise to live "morally straight").
>
>There is really nothing else to discuss.
Apparently not.
In response to his claim that it "terrifies" gay people not to be able
to "indoctrinate children to our lifestyle" (or words to that effect),
I sent Roger a very calm, carefully-written, detailed letter
explaining simply why the BSA policy does, indeed terrify me.  I did
not use inflammatory language and left myself extremely open for an
answer.  Thus far, I have not received an answer.  I can conclude only
that Roger considers his position either indefensible or simply not
worth defending.
>Trying to cloud the issue
>with comparisons to Blacks or other minorities is also meaningless
>because it's like comparing apples to oranges (i.e., people can't
>control their race but they can control their behavior).
In fact, that's exactly the point: people can control their behavior.
Because of that fact, there is no need for a blanket ban on
homosexuals.
>What else is there to possibly discuss on rec.scouting on this issue?
You tell me.
--
____ Tim Pierce                /  ?Usted es la de la tele, eh?  !La madre
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  del asesino!  !Ay, que graciosa!
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /    -- Pedro Almodovar
Subject: Re: Biblical Rape
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
<1p387f$jh3@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1993Mar29.010116.18203@watson.ibm.com>
<16BA0D964.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>
<1993Apr01.184110.33851@watson.ibm.com>
<16BA4ADAC.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>
<1993Apr03.012536.18323@watson.ibm.com> <16BA6C534.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> <1993Apr04.225107.39364@watson.ibm.com>
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 154
In article <1993Apr04.225107.39364@watson.ibm.com>
strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
(Deletion)
>
>The thread "Biblical Rape" was initiated by David O Hunt.
>Here is his posting:
>In article <8feu_KO00XsF0kpc5p@andrew.cmu.edu>, David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU> writes:
>|> I'm pretty sure I've seen biblical rules for when it's allowable to rape
>|> prisoners, what the codes are about that, etc.  Could some more
>|> knowledgable soul than I please let me know some references?
>
>He asked a very narrow question, and I gave a very narrow answer.
>
Yes, sorry. I have got that wrong. My apology.
(Deletion)
>No. David Hunt's post didn't mention a god, nor did my response.
>You were the first to bring up the idea of the Bible being "given
>by god".  Most Jews don't believe this in any literal sense.
>
So? No fun, but I must have met the minority then.
And "given by god" refers to any action whereby a god
god causes or better effects something.
Rob, I am not intimate with Jewish theology, but I understand
that you are a Messianic Jew. Correct me if I am wrong, but
it appears that the views of Messianic Jews on metaphysics
is different to that of the majority of Jews. While Jewish
theology overall is quite distinct from the Christianic god
views, I have heard that it is possible for Jews to attribute
evil to their god, an no-no for Christians, the Bible is
still seen as effect of the interaction of some god with man.
(Deletion)
>No.  I thought we agreed that though Jews disagree,
>there are a set of core beliefs that they do agree upon,
>one of which is that the commandments are accessible
>and written in the language of the time, and another
>of which is that there must be a legal system to update them.
>
The context was metaphysics, even when the process of adapting
the commandments is not transcendent, the justification of the
process lie in metaphysic specualtion. I wonder how you break
out of the shackles of having metaphysics in your system.
(Deletion)
>Could you explain this with respect to the original commandments
>being discussed --- that is, the commandment that says if
>you feel like raping a woman prisoner, you should instead
>wait and marry her?  What about "the way this commandment
>is given" invalidates it?
>
Is is in a book that commands to commit genocide among other
reprehensible deeds. The context is repulsive, and it is
foul play, IMO, to invoke some relatively enlightened passages
as an example for the content of the whole book.
(Big deletion)
>|>
>|> The point is that I see that there is a necessary connection
>|> between the theology you use and the interpretation of the Bible.
>|>
>
>Only very loosely.  My interpretation of the Bible is
>based on a long tradition of Jewish scholars interpreting
>the Bible.  Theology doesn't really enter into it ---
>there are Jewish atheists who interpret the laws of
>charity essentially the same way I do.
>
No, not the interpretation of some laws, but the interpretation of
the bible. As in the example that Sodom and Gomorrha mean argue
with god. The whole idea that it is metaphorically and yet allows
you to argue with a god (whatever that means, that alone is a theo-
logic question) is proof of a theology used.
>|> >You pose another metaphysical riddle!
>|>
>|> No, you do.
>|>
>
>Well, you wrote this:
>|> Fine. So we have some major spirit with neither absolute power
>|> nor absolute knowledge. And, as it appears, limited means or will
>|> to communicate with us. Some form of spiritual big friend.
>|> Do you admit that using god in this context is somewhat unusual?
>|>
>|> Am I right in the assumption that it cannot have created the
>|> universe as well? And that the passages in the Bible referring
>|> to that or its omnipotence are crap?
>
>That's what I meant by the "riddle".
>
It is an important question in the light of what for instance the
passage witrh Sodom and Gomorrha means. Either there is some connection
between the text, the fact that it exists, and your interpretation of
it, or it is purely arbitrary.. Further, the question is why is has
one to carry the burden of Biblical texts when one could simply write
other books that convey the message better. You might answer that one
can't becuase  some peculiar Biblical information might be lost, but
that holds true of every other book, and the question remains why has
the Bible still a special place? Can't it be replaced somehow? Is it
ok to bargain the dangerous content of the Bible against some other
message that is included as well?
(Deletion)
>|> Do you see the danger in doing so? Especially with the metaphers used
>|> in the Bible?
>
>I think the danger of doing so is less than either the
>danger of having a frozen system of laws, or having no laws.
>
Sorry, but there are worse systems does not say anything about if
one could not have a better system.
(Deletion)
>If we
>read two stories about the importance of helping the poor,
>and in one God is a spirit, and in the other God has a body,
>which is more important, helping the poor, or resolving
>the contradiction about the corporeal nature of God?
>
If we read two stories in the Bible, one that god commands people
to kill children for being idolaters and another where god kills
children directly, what is more important to resolve, the message that
children are to be killed or if it has  to be done by god?
And the argument you have given is a fallacy, while it may not be important
in the context you have given to find out if god is corporeal or not, it
can be crucial in other questions. Religious believers resolve contradictions
with that they choose one of the possibilities given in an arbitrary way,
and have the advantage of being able to attribute their decision to some
god.
One cannot resolve questions by the statement do what is good when what
is good depends on the question.
Benedikt
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: atheist?
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 38
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: a137490@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Aario Sami)
Subject: Re: Why is sex only allowed in marriage: Rationality (was: Islamic marriage)?
Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Computing Centre
Lines: 26
Distribution: sfnet
NNTP-Posting-Host: cc.tut.fi
In <1993Mar31.013034.27070@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>My case is that everything wrong in the world will end if people start
>believing in Islam.  And that horrors to mankind are all caused by the
>lack of belief- Atheism.
For the last time, Bobby. Lack of belief in YOUR god does NOT imply
atheism. Just because some moslems aren't moral does not mean they don't
believe in a god named Allah, although their Allah may not do the things
your Allah does. If a moslem says he/she believes that a god exists, he/she
is a theist (though maybe not a TRUE follower of islam).
>30,000 murder victims a year caused by atheism. Poverty. Massive hate crimes.
>Such low respect for the human body.  Distrust among people.  Everything
>wrong, all caused by atheism.
>Peace,
Jerk.
>Bobby Mozumder
--
Sami Aario         |  "Can you see or measure an atom? Yet you can explode
a137490@cc.tut.fi  |   one. Sunlight is comprised of many atoms."
-------------------'  "Your stupid minds! Stupid, stupid!"
Eros in "Plan 9 From Outer Space"     DISCLAIMER: I don't agree with Eros.
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: Motto Mania
Lines: 33
mathew writes:
>I prefer Mark-Jason Dominus's suggestion that the motto should be changed to
>"Mind your own fucking business".
In this era of AIDS, isn't someone's fucking *everyone's* interest?  (semi
:-))
I propose "We have no motto."
Recently in the glorious state of Maryland (the only state whose state song
refers to Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant), people have gotten all wound up over
the state motto (which we inherited from the Calverts):
"Fatti Maschii, Parole Femine"
which, if you read Italian, says,
"Manly deeds, womanly words"
or something to that effect.  In the state which not so long ago had four
women out of seven representatives, this represents a problem.  The official
solution was to change the translation, so now it means:
"Strong deeds, gentle words"
My personal suggestion was changing it to "walk softly and carry a big
stick."
--
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: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses (good grief!)
Lines: 7
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: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Benediktine Metaphysics
Lines: 24
Benedikt Rosenau writes, with great authority:
>     IF IT IS CONTRADICTORY IT CANNOT EXIST.
"Contradictory" is a property of language.  If I correct this to
THINGS DEFINED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST
I will object to definitions as reality.  If you then amend it to
THINGS DESCRIBED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST
then we've come to something which is plainly false.  Failures in
description are merely failures in description.
(I'm not an objectivist, remember.)
--
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: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
Lines: 48
>So then, you require the same amount of evidence to believe that I
>a) own a pair of bluejeans and b) have superhuman powers?
Well, I could use the argument that some here use about "nature" and claim
that you cannot have superhuman powers because you are a human; superhuman
powers are beyond what a human has, and since you are a human, any powers
you have are not beyond those of a human.  Hence, you cannot have superhuman
powers.  Sound good to you?
Anyway, to the evidence question: it depends on the context.  In this group,
since you are posting from a american college site, I'm willing to take it
as given that you have a pair of blue jeans.  And, assuming there is some
coherency in your position, I will take it as a given that you do not have
superhuman powers.  Arguments are evidence in themselves, in some respects.
>When you say the "existence of [ sic ] Jesus", I assume that you
>mean just the man, without any special powers, etc.
Yep.
>Many will agree that it is very possible that a man called Jesus DID
>in fact live. In fact, I am willing to agree that there was some man named
>Jesus. I have no reason to believe that there wasn't ever a man.
Good.
>However, most of the claims ARE extradinary: eg virgin birth
>[ virgin in the sense of not having any sexual intercourse ], resurection,
>Son of God, etc. THOSE claims require extra evidence.
"Extra" evidence?  Why don't we start with evidence at all?
I cannot see any evidence for the V. B. which the cynics in this group would
ever accept.  As for the second, it is the foundation of the religion.
Anyone who claims to have seen the risen Jesus (back in the 40 day period)
is a believer, and therefore is discounted by those in this group; since
these are all ancients anyway, one again to choose to dismiss the whole
thing.  The third is as much a metaphysical relationship as anything else--
even those who agree to it have argued at length over what it *means*, so
again I don't see how evidence is possible.
I thus interpret the "extraordinary claims" claim as a statement that the
speaker will not accept *any* evidence on the matter.
--
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
+    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Subject: A Remarkable Admission
Lines: 19
Jon Livesey writes:
>I'm certainly not going to attempt to distinguish between different
>flavours of Christian, all loudly claiming to be the One True Christian.
Well, it's obvious that you *don't* attempt, otherwise you would be aware
that they *don't* all "loudly [claim] to be the One True Christian".
I've tried to avoid using the phrase "is/is not christian" because of these
ownership issues; instead, I've tried the phrase "Nicene christianity" in an
attempt to identify the vast majority of "christianity" which has roughly
similar viewpoints on the core theological issues.  The JWs do not fall
within this group and in fact espouse a position known as Arianism, which is
rejected by all the nicene churches and virtually everyone else as well.
--
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
+    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
Lines: 73
Benedikt Rosenau writes:
>The argument goes as follows: Q-oid quotes appear in John, but not in
>the almost codified way they were in Matthew or Luke. However, they are
>considered to be similar enough to point to knowledge of Q as such, and
>not an entirely different source.
Assuming you are presenting it accurately, I don't see how this argument
really leads to any firm conclusion.  The material in John (I'm not sure
exactly what is referred to here, but I'll take for granted the similarity
to the Matt./Luke "Q" material) IS different; hence, one could have almost
any relationship between the two, right up to John getting it straight from
Jesus' mouth.
>We are talking date of texts here, not the age of the authors. The usual
>explanation for the time order of Mark, Matthew and Luke does not consider
>their respective ages. It says Matthew has read the text of Mark, and Luke
>that of Matthew (and probably that of Mark).
The version of the "usual theory" I have heard has Matthew and Luke
independently relying on Mark and "Q".  One would think that if Luke relied
on Matthew, we wouldn't have the grating inconsistencies in the geneologies,
for one thing.
>As it is assumed that John knew the content of Luke's text. The evidence
>for that is not overwhelming, admittedly.
This is the part that is particularly new to me.  If it were possible that
you could point me to a reference, I'd be grateful.
>>Unfortunately, I haven't got the info at hand.  It was (I think) in the late
>>'70s or early '80s, and it was possibly as old as CE 200.
>When they are from about 200, why do they shed doubt on the order on
>putting John after the rest of the three?
Because it closes up the gap between (supposed) writing and the existing
copy quit a bit.  The further away from the original, the more copies can be
written, and therefore survival becomes more probable.
>>And I don't think a "one step removed" source is that bad.  If Luke and Mark
>>and Matthew learned their stories directly from diciples, then I really
>>cannot believe in the sort of "big transformation from Jesus to gospel" that
>>some people posit.  In news reports, one generally gets no better
>>information than this.
>>And if John IS a diciple, then there's nothing more to be said.
>That John was a disciple is not generally accepted. The style and language
>together with the theology are usually used as counterargument.
I'm not really impressed with the "theology" argument.  But I'm really
pointing this out as an "if".  And as I pointed out earlier, one cannot make
these arguments about I Peter; I see no reason not to accept it as an
authentic letter.
>One step and one generation removed is bad even in our times. Compare that
>to reports of similar events in our century in almost illiterate societies.
The best analogy would be reporters talking to the participants, which is
not so bad.
>In other words, one does not know what the original of Mark did look like
>and arguments based on Mark are pretty weak.
But the statement of divinity is not in that section, and in any case, it's
agreed that the most important epistles predate Mark.
--
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: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: Yeah, Right
Lines: 30
Benedikt Rosenau writes:
>And what about that revelation thing, Charley?
If you're talking about this intellectual engagement of revelation, well,
it's obviously a risk one takes.
>Many people say that the concept of metaphysical and religious knowledge
>is contradictive.
I'm not an objectivist, so I'm not particularly impressed with problems of
conceptualization.  The problem in this case is at least as bad as that of
trying to explain quantum mechanics and relativity in the terms of ordinary
experience.  One can get some rough understanding, but the language is, from
the perspective of ordinary phenomena, inconsistent, and from the
perspective of what's being described, rather inexact (to be charitable).
An analogous situation (supposedly) obtains in metaphysics; the problem is
that the "better" descriptive language is not available.
>And in case it holds reliable information, can you show how you establish
>that?
This word "reliable" is essentially meaningless in the context-- unless you
can show how reliability can be determined.
--
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: gmiller@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller)
Subject: Re: Radical Agnostic... NOT!
Organization: worldbank.org
Lines: 37
In article <1993Apr6.013657.5691@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
(David Nye) wrote:
>
> [reply to zazen@austin.ibm.com (E. H. Welbon)]
>
> >>>     There is no means that i can possibly think of to prove beyond doubt
> >>>that a god does not exist (but if anyone has one, by all means, tell me
> >>>what it is).  Therefore, lacking this ability of absolute proof, being an
> >>>atheist becomes an act of faith in and of itself, and this I cannot accept.
> >>> I accept nothing on blind faith.
>
> >>Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns!  Need I say more?
>
> >...I harbor no beliefs at all, there is no good evidence for god
> >existing or not.  Some folks call this agnosticism.  It does not suffer
> >from "blind faith" at all.  I think of it as "Don't worry, be happy".
>
> For many atheists, the lack of belief in gods is secondary to an
> epistemological consideration:  what do we accept as a reliable way of
> knowing?  There are no known valid logical arguments for the existence
> of gods, nor is there any empirical evidence that they exist.  Most
> philosophers and theologians agree that the idea of a god is one that
> must be accepted on faith.  Faith is belief without a sound logical
> basis or empirical evidence.  It is a reliable way of knowing?
>
Could you expand on your definition of knowing? It seems a bit monolithic
here, but I'm not sure that you intend that. Don't we need, for example, to
distinguish between "knowing" 2 plus 2 equals 4 (or 2 apples plus 2 apples
equals 4 apples), the French "knowing" that Jerry Lewis is an auteur, and
what it means to say we "know" what Socrates said?
> This is patently absurd; but whoever wishes to become a philosopher
> must learn not to be frightened by absurdities. -- Bertrand Russell
I like this epigraph. Perhaps the issue is learning which, if any,
absurdities merit further exploration...Gene
uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
Lines: 15
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>My personal objection is that I find capital punishment to be
>cruel and unusual punishment under all circumstances.
It can be painless, so it isn't cruel.  And, it has occurred frequently
since the dawn of time, so it is hardly unusual.
>I don't take issue with the numbers.  A single innocent life taken
>is one too many.
But, innocents die due to many causes.  Why have you singled out
accidental or false execution as the one to take issue with?
keith
From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Yeah, Right
Organization: Decision Support Inc.
Lines: 27
NNTP-Posting-Host: dsi.dsinc.com
In article <65882@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
}>For several years I've periodically asked Charley Wingate to explain this
}>mythical alternative to rationality which he propounds so enthusiastically
}>when he pops up every few months.  His reluctance to explain indicates to me
}>that it's not so hot.
}
}I've said enough times that there is no "alternative" that should think you
}might have caught on by now.  And there is no "alternative", but the point
}is, "rationality" isn't an alternative either.  The problems of metaphysical
}and religious knowledge are unsolvable-- or I should say, humans cannot
}solve them.
If there is truly no alternative, then you have no basis whatsoever
for your claim.  The usual line here, which you call "a prejudgment of
atheism", and dispute, is that reason is all we have.  Here you admit
that you have no alternative, no possible basis for the claim that
there is anything other than reason or that reason is inapplicable in
religious knowledge, except possibly that reason conflicts with
"religious knowledge".
This sounds very much like "I can't provide a rational defense for my
belief, but prefer to discard rationality rather than accept that it
may be false".  I hope it makes you happy, but your repeated and
unfounded assertions to this effect don't advance your cause.
--
Jim Perry   perry@dsinc.com   Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions.  For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Yeah, Right
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Lines: 49
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: agar.engin.umich.edu
In article <66014@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>Benedikt Rosenau writes:
>
>>And what about that revelation thing, Charley?
>
>If you're talking about this intellectual engagement of revelation, well,
>it's obviously a risk one takes.
Ah, now here is the core question. Let me suggest a scenario.
We will grant that a God exists, and uses revelation to communicate
with humans. (Said revelation taking the form (paraphrased from your
own words) 'This infinitely powerful deity grabs some poor schmuck,
makes him take dictation, and then hides away for a few hundred years'.)
Now, there exists a human who has not personally experienced a
revelation. This person observes that not only do these revelations seem
to contain elements that contradict rather strongly aspects of the
observed world (which is all this person has ever seen), but there are
many mutually contradictory claims of revelation.
Now, based on this, can this person be blamed for concluding, absent
a personal revelation of their own, that there is almost certainly
nothing to this 'revelation' thing?
>I'm not an objectivist, so I'm not particularly impressed with problems of
>conceptualization.  The problem in this case is at least as bad as that of
>trying to explain quantum mechanics and relativity in the terms of ordinary
>experience.  One can get some rough understanding, but the language is, from
>the perspective of ordinary phenomena, inconsistent, and from the
>perspective of what's being described, rather inexact (to be charitable).
>
>An analogous situation (supposedly) obtains in metaphysics; the problem is
>that the "better" descriptive language is not available.
Absent this better language, and absent observations in support of the
claims of revelation, can one be blamed for doubting the whole thing?
Here is what I am driving at: I have thought a long time about this. I
have come to the honest conclusion that if there is a deity, it is
nothing like the ones proposed by any religion that I am familiar with.
Now, if there does happen to be, say, a Christian God, will I be held
accountable for such an honest mistake?
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles               ingles@engin.umich.edu
"The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Ancient islamic rituals
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Lines: 72
In <1pkqe2INN54n@lynx.unm.edu> cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes:
>In article <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>[deleted, to get to the point:]
>>
>> Therefore, in a nutshell, my opinion is that pre-marital sex makes the
>> likelihood of extra-marital sex more probable.  Furthermore,
>> in my opinion, extra-marital sex helps break down partnerships and leads
>> to greater divorce rates.  This in turn, in my opinion, creates trauma
>> and a less stable environment for children, who are then, in my opinion,
>> more likely to grow up with psychological problems such as depression,
>> etc.  And thus, sex outside of marriage is, in the long run, harmful to
>> society.
>I think that you are drawing links where there are none - having sex before
>marriage has nothing to do with adultery once committed into marriage. The
>issue as I see it is more of how committed you are to not foisting pain on
>your spouse, and how confident you are about yourself.
>	In addition, what someone does within their marriage is their own
>business, not mine, and not yours. I have witnessed strong relationships
>that incorporate extra-marital sex.
>	I would agree with your assertion about children - children should not  be witness to such confusing relationships - if adultery is stressful to
>adults, which I assume it in general is, how can we expect children to
>understand it?
>>
>> Where is the evidence for my opinions?  At the moment, there are just
>> generalities I can cite.  For example, I read that in the 20th century,
>> the percentage of youth (and people in general) who suffer from
>> depression has been steadily climbing in Western societies (probably
>> what I was reading referred particularly to the USA).  Similarly, one
>> can detect a trend towards greater occurrence of sex outside of marriage
>> in this century in Western societies -- particularly with the "sexual
>> revolution" of the 60's, but even before that I think (otherwise the
>> "sexual revolution" of the 60's would not have been possible),
>> particularly with the gradual weakening of Christianity and consequently
>> Christian moral teachings against sex outside of marriage.  I propose
>> that these two trends -- greater level of general depression in society
>> (and other psychological problems) and greater sexual promiscuity -- are
>> linked, with the latter being a prime cause of the former.  I cannot
>> provide any evidence beyond this at this stage, but the whole thesis
>> seems very reasonable to me and I request that people ponder upon it.
>Why is it more reasonable than the trend towards obesity and the trend towards
>depression? You can't just pick your two favorite trends, notice a correlation
>in them, and make a sweeping statement of generality. I mean, you CAN, and
>people HAVE, but that does not mean that it is a valid or reasonable thesis.
>At best it's a gross oversimplification of the push-pull factors people
>experience.
My argument is mainly a proposal of what I think is a plausible argument
against extra-marital sex -- one which I personally believe has some
truth.  My main purpose for posting it here is to show that a
_plausible_ argument can be made against extra-marital sex.  At this
stage I am not saying that this particular viewpoint is proven or
anything like that, just that it is plausible.  To try to convince you
all of this particular point of view, I would probably have to do a lot
of work researching what has been done in this field, etc., in order to
gather further evidence, which I simply do not have time to do now.
Also note that I said that I think extra-marital sex is "a prime cause"
(in my opinion) of the generally greater levels of psychological
problems, especially depression, in Western societies.  I am not saying
it is "the prime cause" or "the only cause", just "a prime cause" --
i.e. one of the significant contributions to this trend.  I think when
you say you think my view is simplistic, you have forgotten this -- I
admit that there are probably other factors, but I do think that
extra-marital sex (and, IMO, subsequent destabilization of the family)
is a significant factor in the rise in psychological problems like
depression in Western society this century.
Fred Rice
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Ancient islamic rituals
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Lines: 29
In <ednclark.734054731@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes:
>>Why is it more reasonable than the trend towards obesity and the trend towards
>>depression? You can't just pick your two favorite trends, notice a correlation
>>in them, and make a sweeping statement of generality. I mean, you CAN, and
>>people HAVE, but that does not mean that it is a valid or reasonable thesis.
>>At best it's a gross oversimplification of the push-pull factors people
>>experience.
[...]
>Basically the social interactions of all the changing factors in our society
>are far too complicated for us to control. We just have to hold on to the
>panic handles and hope that we are heading for a soft landing. But one
>things for sure, depression and the destruction of the nuclear family is not
>due solely to sex out of marriage.
Note that I _never_ said that depression and the destruction of the
nuclear family is due _solely_ to extra-marital sex.  I specifically
said that it was "a prime cause" of this, not "the prime cause" or "the
only cause" of this -- I recognize that there are probably other factors
too, but I think that extra-marital sex and subsequent destabilization
of the family is probably a significant factor to the rise in
psychological problems, including depression, in the West in the 20th
century.
Fred Rice
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Why is sex only allowed in marriage: Rationality (was: Islamic marriage)?
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Lines: 115
In <1993Apr4.093904.20517@proxima.alt.za> lucio@proxima.alt.za (Lucio de Re) writes:
>darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>>My point of view is that the argument "all sexism is bad" just simply
>>does not hold.  Let me give you an example.  How about permitting a
>>woman to temporarily leave her job due to pregnancy -- should that be
>>allowed?  It happens to be sexist, as it gives a particular right only
>>to women.  Nevertheless, despite the fact that it is sexist, I completely
>>support such a law, because I think it is just.
>Fred, you're exasperating...  Sexism, like racialism, is a form of
>discrimination, using obvious physical or cultural differences to deny
>one portion of the population the same rights as another.
>In this context, your example above holds no water whatsoever:
>there's no discrimination in "denying" men maternity leave, in fact
>I'm quite convinced that, were anyone to experiment with male
>pregnancy, it would be possible for such a future father to take
>leave on medical grounds.
Okay... I argued this thoroughly about 3-4 weeks ago.  Men and women are
different ... physically, physiologically, and psychologically.  Much
recent evidence for this statement is present in the book "Brainsex" by
Anne Moir and David Jessel.  I recommend you find a copy and read it.
Their book is an overview of recent scientific research on this topic
and is well referenced.
Now, if women and men are different in some ways, the law can only
adequately take into account their needs in these areas where they are
different by also taking into account the ways in which men and women
are different.  Maternity leave is an example of this -- it takes into
account that women get pregnant.  It does not give women the same rules
it would give to men, because to treat women like it treats men in this
instance would be unjust.  This is just simply an obvious example of
where men and women are intrinsically different!!!!!
Now, people make the _naive_ argument that sexism = oppression.
However, maternity leave is sexist because MEN DO NOT GET PREGNANT.
Men do not have the same access to leave that women do (not to the same
extent or degree), and therefore IT IS SEXIST.  No matter however much a
man _wants_ to get pregnant and have maternity leave, HE NEVER CAN.  And
therefore the law IS SEXIST.  No man can have access to maternity leave,
NO MATTER HOW HARD HE TRIES TO GET PREGNANT.  I hope this is clear.
Maternity leave is an example where a sexist law is just, because the
sexism here just reflects the "sexism" of nature in making men and women
different.  There are many other differences between men and women which
are far more subtle than pregnancy, and to find out more of these I
recommend you have a look at the book "Brainsex".
Your point that perhaps some day men can also be pregnant is fallacious.
If men can one day become pregnant it will be by having biologically
become women!  To have a womb and the other factors required for
pregnancy is usually wrapped up in the definition of what a woman is --
so your argument, when it is examined, is seen to be fallacious.  You
are saying that men can have the sexist maternity leave privilege that
women can have if they also become women -- which actually just supports
my statement that maternity leave is sexist.
>The discrimination comes in when a woman is denied opportunities
>because of her (legally determined) sexual inferiorities.  As I
>understand most religious sexual discrimination, and I doubt that
>Islam is exceptional, the female is not allowed into the priestly
>caste and in general is subjugated so that she has no aspirations to
>rights which, as an equal human, she ought to be entitled to.
There is no official priesthood in Islam -- much of this function is
taken by Islamic scholars.  There are female Islamic scholars and
female Islamic scholars have always existed in Islam.  An example from
early Islamic history is the Prophet's widow, Aisha, who was recognized
in her time and is recognized in our time as an Islamic scholar.
>No matter how sweetly you coat it, part of the role of religions
>seems, historically, to have served the function of oppressing the
>female, whether by forcing her to procreate to the extent where
>there is no opportunity for self-improvement, or by denying her
>access to the same facilities the males are offered.
You have no evidence for your blanket statement about all religions, and
I dispute it.  I could go on and on about women in Islam, etc., but I
recently reposted something here under the heading "Islam and Women" --
if it is still at your news-site I suggest you read it.  It is reposted
from soc.religion.islam, so if it has disappeared from alt.atheism it
still might be in soc.religion.islam (I forgot what its original title
was though).  I will email it to you if you like.
>The Roman Catholic Church is the most blatant of the culprit,
>because they actually istitutionalised a celibate clergy, but the
>other religious are no different: let a woman attempt to escape her
>role as child bearer and the wrath of god descends on her.
Your statement that "other religions are no different" is, I think, a
statement based simply on lack of knowledge about religions other than
Christianity and perhaps Judaism.
>I'll accept your affirmation that Islam grants women the same rights
>as men when you can show me that any muslim woman can aspire to the
>same position as (say) Khomeini and there are no artificial religious
>or social obstacles on her path to achieve this.
Aisha, who I mentioned earlier, was not only an Islamic scholar but also
was, at one stage, a military leader.
>Show me the equivalent of Hillary Rhodam-Clinton within Islam, and I
>may consider discussing the issue with you.
The Prophet's first wife, who died just before the "Hijra" (the
Prophet's journey from Mecca to Medina) was a successful businesswoman.
Lucio, you cannot make a strong case for your viewpoint when your
viewpoint is based on ignorance about world religions.
Fred Rice
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Ancient islamic rituals
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Lines: 21
In <16BA6C947.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>In article <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
>darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>
>>There has been some discussion on the pros and cons about sex outside of
>>marriage.
>>
>>I personally think that part of the value of having lasting partnerships
>>between men and women is that this helps to provide a stable and secure
>>environment for children to grow up in.
>(Deletion)
>
>As an addition to Chris Faehl's post, what about homosexuals?
Well, from an Islamic viewpoint, homosexuality is not the norm for
society.  I cannot really say much about the Islamic viewpoint on homosexuality
as it is not something I have done much research on.
Fred Rice
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Benediktine Metaphysics
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Lines: 45
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: agar.engin.umich.edu
In article <66019@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>Benedikt Rosenau writes, with great authority:
>
>>     IF IT IS CONTRADICTORY IT CANNOT EXIST.
>
>"Contradictory" is a property of language.  If I correct this to
>
>      THINGS DEFINED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST
>
>I will object to definitions as reality.  If you then amend it to
>
>      THINGS DESCRIBED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST
>
>then we've come to something which is plainly false.  Failures in
>description are merely failures in description.
How about this description: "An object that is, at one time, both a
Euclidean square and a Euclidean circle"? I hold that no object satisfying
this description could exist. The description is inconsistent, and hence
describes an object that could not exist.
Now, suppose someone pointed to a bicycle, and said, "That object is,
at one time, both a Euclidean square and a Euclidean circle." This does
not mean that the bicycle does not exist, it measn that the description
was incorrectly applied.
The atheist says, "The descriptions of God that I have been presented with
are contradictory, and hence describe something that cannot exist."
Now, your position (so far as I can gather) is that God exists, but the
descriptions atheists have been presented with are simply bad descriptions
of It.
This is roughly analogous to someone who has never seen a bicycle, and,
when they ask for a description from people who claim to have seen one,
are told that it is a "Euclidean circle-square". Can they be blamed for
doubting rather strongly that this 'bicycle' exists at all?
>(I'm not an objectivist, remember.)
No kidding. :->
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles               ingles@engin.umich.edu
"The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein
Subject: Re: islamic authority over women
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
Lines: 29
In article <1993Apr6.124112.12959@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>For the guy who said he's just arrived, and asked whether Bobby's for real,
>you betcha. Welcome to alt.atheism, and rest assured that it gets worse.
>I have a few pearls of wisdom from Bobby which I reproduce below. Is anyone
>(Keith?) keeping a big file of such stuff?
Sorry, I was, but I somehow have misplaced my diskette from the last
couple of months or so. However, thanks to the efforts of Bobby, it is being
replenished rather quickly!
Here is a recent favorite:
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. "
S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu)
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. "
S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu)
Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses (good grief!)
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
Lines: 14
In article <66018@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>The amount of energy being spent on ONE LOUSY SYLLOGISM says volumes for the
>true position of reason in this group.
I agree, we spend too much energy on the nonexistance of God.
--
"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: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Evo. & Homosexuality (Was Re: Princeton etc.)
Article-I.D.: srvr1.1psosqINN3gg
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Lines: 51
NNTP-Posting-Host: wormwood.engin.umich.edu
Sorry, Bill, I had to clear this up. There may be good evolutionary
arguments against homosexuality, but these don't qualify.
In article <C4vwn0.JF5@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>C.Wainwright (eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk) wrote:
[deletions]
>: |> It would seem odd if homosexuality had any evolutionary function
[deletions]
>: So *every* time a man has sex with a woman they intend to produce children?
>: Hmm...no wonder the world is overpopulated.  Obviously you keep to the
>: Monty Python song:  "Every sperm is sacred".  And if, as *you* say, it has
>: a purpose as a means to limit population growth then it is, by your own
>: arguement, natural.
>
>Consider the context, I'm talking about an evolutionary function. One
>of the most basic requirements of evolution is that members of a
>species procreate, those who don't have no purpose in that context.
Oh? I guess all those social insects (e.g. ants, bees, etc.) which
have one breeding queen and a whole passel of sterile workers are on
the way out, huh?
>: These days is just ain't true!  People can decide whether or not to have
>: children and when.  Soon they will be able to choose it's sex &c (but that's
>: another arguement...) so it's more of a "lifestyle" decision.  Again by
>: your arguement, since homosexuals can not (or choose not) to reproduce they
>: must be akin to people who decide to have sex but not children.  Both are
>: as "unnatural" as each other.
>
>Yet another non-sequitur. Sex is an evolutionary function that exists
>for procreation, that it is also recreation is incidental. That
>homosexuals don't procreate means that sex is -only- recreation and
>nothing more; they serve no -evolutionary- purpose.
I refer you to the bonobos, a species of primate as closeley related to
humans as chimpanzees (that is, very closely). They have sex all the
time, homosexual as well as heterosexual. When the group finds food, they
have sex. Before the go to sleep at night, they have sex. After they
escape from or fight off prdators, they have sex. Sex serves a very important
social function above and beyond reproduction in this species. A species
closely related to humans. There is some indication that sex performs
a social function in humans, as well, but even if not, this shows that
such a function is not *impossible*.
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles               ingles@engin.umich.edu
"The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein
Subject: Vonnegut/atheism
From: dmn@kepler.unh.edu (...until kings become philosophers or philosophers become kings)
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Lines: 21
Yesterday, I got the chance to hear Kurt Vonnegut speak at the
University of New Hampshire. Vonnegut succeeded Isaac Asimov as the
(honorary?) head of the American Humanist Association. (Vonnegut is
an atheist, and so was Asimov) Before Asimov's funeral, Vonnegut stood up
and said about Asimov, "He's in heaven now," which ignited uproarious
laughter in the room. (from the people he was speaking to around the time
of the funeral)
"It's the funniest thing I could have possibly said
to a room full of humanists," Vonnegut said at yesterday's lecture.
If Vonnegut comes to speak at your university, I highly recommend
going to see him even if you've never read any of his novels. In my opinion,
he's the greatest living humorist. (greatest living humanist humorist as well)
Peace,
Dana
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
Lines: 27
In article <1993Apr6.151843.15240@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>I should clarify what Muslims usually mean when they say "Muslim".  In
>general, anyone who calls themselves a "Muslim" and does not do or
>outwardly profess
>something in clear contradiction with the essential teachings of Islam
>is considered to be a Muslim.  Thus, one who might do things contrary to
>Islam (through ignorance, for example) does not suddenly _not_ become a
>Muslim.  If one knowingly transgresses Islamic teachings and essential
>principles, though, then one does leave Islam.
You and Mr. bobby really need to sit down and decide what
exactly Islam  *is* before posting here.
According to 'Zlumber, one is NOT a muslim when one is doing evil.
[ A muslin can do no evil ] According to him, one who does evil is suffering
from "temporary athiesm."
Now, would the members who claim to be "Muslims" get their stories
straight????
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. "
S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu)
Subject: Re: Request for Support
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
Lines: 16
In article <1993Apr5.095148.5730@sei.cmu.edu> dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood) writes:
>2. If you must respond to one of his articles, include within it
>something similar to the following:
>
>    "Please answer the questions posed to you in the Charley Challenges."
Agreed.
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. "
S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu)
Subject: Re: Bill Conner:
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
Lines: 17
In article <C4y976.MLr@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>Could you explain what any of this pertains to? Is this a position
>statement on something or typing practice? And why are you using my
>name, do you think this relates to anything I've said and if so, what.
>
>Bill
Could you explain what any of the above pertains to? Is this a position
statement on something or typing practice?
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. "
S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu)
From: mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne)
Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
Organization: Florida State University Computer Science Department
Reply-To: mayne@cs.fsu.edu
Lines: 21
In article <JVIGNEAU.93Apr5182106@cs.ulowell.edu> jvigneau@cs.ulowell.edu (Joe Vigneau) writes:
>
>If anything, the BSA has taught me, I don't know, tolerance or something.
>Before I met this guy, I thought all gays were 'faries'.  So, the BSA HAS
>taught me to be an antibigot.
I could give much the same testimonial about my experience as a scout
back in the 1960s. The issue wasn't gays, but the principles were the
same. Thanks for a well put testimonial. Stan Krieger and his kind who
think this discussion doesn't belong here and his intolerance is the
only acceptable position in scouting should take notice. The BSA has
been hijacked by the religious right, but some of the core values have
survived in spite of the leadership and some scouts and former scouts
haven't given up. Seeing a testimonial like this reminds me that
scouting is still worth fighting for.
On a cautionary note, you must realize that if your experience with this
camp leader was in the BSA you may be putting him at risk by publicizing
it. Word could leak out to the BSA gestapo.
Bill Mayne
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Lines: 162
C.Wainwright (eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk) wrote:
: I
: |> Jim,
: |>
: |> I always thought that homophobe was only a word used at Act UP
: |> rallies, I didn't beleive real people used it. Let's see if we agree
: |> on the term's definition. A homophobe is one who actively and
: |> militantly attacks homosexuals because he is actually a latent
: |> homosexual who uses his hostility to conceal his true orientation.
: |> Since everyone who disapproves of or condemns homosexuality is a
: |> homophobe (your implication is clear), it must necessarily follow that
: |> all men are latent homosexuals or bisexual at the very least.
: |>
:
: Crap crap crap crap crap.  A definition of any type of 'phobe comes from
: phobia = an irrational fear of.  Hence a homophobe (not only in ACT UP meetings,
: the word is apparently in general use now.  Or perhaps it isn't in the bible?
: Wouldst thou prefer if I were to communicate with thou in bilespeak?)
:
: Does an arachnophobe have an irrational fear of being a spider?  Does an
: agoraphobe have an irrational fear of being a wide open space?  Do you
: understand English?
:
: Obviously someone who has  phobia will react to it.  They will do their best
: to avoid it and if that is not possible they will either strike out or
: run away.  Or do gaybashings occur because of natural processes?  People
: who definately have homophobia will either run away from gay people or
: cause them (or themselves) violence.
:
Isn't that what I said ...
What are you taking issue with here, your remarks are merely
parenthetical to mine and add nothing useful.
: [...]
:
: |> It would seem odd if homosexuality had any evolutionary function
: |> (other than limiting population growth) since evolution only occurs
: |> when the members of one generation pass along their traits to
: |> subsequent generations. Homosexuality is an evolutionary deadend. If I
: |> take your usage of the term, homophobe, in the sense you seem to
: |> intend, then all men are really homosexual and evolution of our
: |> species at least, is going nowhere.
: |>
:
: So *every* time a man has sex with a woman they intend to produce children?
: Hmm...no wonder the world is overpopulated.  Obviously you keep to the
: Monty Python song:  "Every sperm is sacred".  And if, as *you* say, it has
: a purpose as a means to limit population growth then it is, by your own
: arguement, natural.
Consider the context, I'm talking about an evolutionary function. One
of the most basic requirements of evolution is that members of a
species procreate, those who don't have no purpose in that context.
:
: |> Another point is that if the offspring of each generation is to
: |> survive, the participation of both parents is necessary - a family must
: |> exist, since homosexuals do not reproduce, they cannot constitute a
: |> family. Since the majority of humankind is part of a family,
: |> homosexuality is an evolutionary abberation, contrary to nature if you
: |> will.
: |>
:
: Well if that is true, by your own arguements homosexuals would have
: vanished *years* ago due to non-procreation.  Also the parent from single
: parent families should put the babies out in the cold now, cos they must,
: by your arguement, die.
By your argument, homosexuality is genetically determined. As to your
second point, you prove again that you have no idea what context
means. I am talking about evolution, the preservation of the species,
the fundamental premise of the whole process.
:
: |> But it gets worse. Since the overwhelming majority of people actually
: |> -prefer- a heterosexual relationship, homosexuality is a social
: |> abberation as well. The homosexual eschews the biological imperative
: |> to reproduce and then the social imperative to form and participate in
: |> the most fundamental social element, the family. But wait, there's
: |> more.
: |>
:
: Read the above.  I expect you to have at least ten children by now, with
: the family growing.  These days sex is less to do with procreation (admittedly
: without it there would be no-one) but more to do with pleasure.  In pre-pill
: and pre-condom days, if you had sex there was the chance of producing children.
: These days is just ain't true!  People can decide whether or not to have
: children and when.  Soon they will be able to choose it's sex &c (but that's
: another arguement...) so it's more of a "lifestyle" decision.  Again by
: your arguement, since homosexuals can not (or choose not) to reproduce they must
: be akin to people who decide to have sex but not children.  Both are
: as "unnatural" as each other.
Yet another non-sequitur. Sex is an evolutionary function that exists
for procreation, that it is also recreation is incidental. That
homosexuals don't procreate means that sex is -only- recreation and
nothing more; they serve no -evolutionary- purpose.
:
: |> Since homosexuals have come out the closet and have convinced some
: |> policy makers that they have civil rights, they are now claiming that
: |> their sexuality is a preference, a life-style, an orientation, a
: |> choice that should be protected by law. Now if homosexuality is a mere
: |> choice and if it is both contrary to nature and anti-social, then it
: |> is a perverse choice; they have even less credibility than before they
: |> became prominent.
: |>
:
: People are people are people.  Who are you to tell anyone else how to live
: their life?  Are you god(tm)?  If so, fancy a date?
Here's pretty obvious dodge, do you really think you've said anything
or do you just feel obligated to respond to every statement? I am not
telling anyone anything, I am demonstrating that there are arguments
against the practice of homosexuality (providing it's a merely an
alternate lifestlye) that are not homophobic, that one can reasonably
call it perverse in a context even a atheist can understand. I realize
of course that this comes dangerously close to establishing  a value,
and that atheists are compelled to object on that basis, but if you
are to be consistent, you have no case in this regard.
:
: |> To characterize any opposition to homosexuality as homophobic is to
: |> ignore some very compelling arguments against the legitimization of
: |> the homosexual "life-style". But since the charge is only intended to
: |> intimidate, it's really just demogoguery and not to be taken
: |> seriously. Fact is, Jim, there are far more persuasive arguments for
: |> suppressing homosexuality than those given, but consider this a start.
: |>
:
: Again crap.  All your arguments are based on outdated ideals.  Likewise the
: bible.  Would any honest Christian condemn the ten generations spawned by
: a "bastard" to eternal damnation?  Or someone who crushes his penis (either
: accidently or not..!).  Both are in Deuteronomy.
I'm sure your comment pertains to something, but you've disguised it
so well I can't see what. Where did I mention ideals, out-dated or
otherwise? Your arguments are very reactionary; do you have anything
at all to contribute?
:
: |> As to why homosexuals should be excluded from participation in
: |> scouting, the reasons are the same as those used to restrict them from
: |> teaching; by their own logic, homosexuals are deviates, social and
: |> biological. Since any adult is a role model for a child, it is
: |> incumbent on the parent to ensure that the child be isolated from
: |> those who would do the child harm. In this case, harm means primarily
: |> social, though that could be extended easily enough.
: |>
: |>
:
: You show me *anyone* who has sex in a way that everyone would describe as
: normal, and will take of my hat (Puma baseball cap) to you.  "One man's meat
: is another man's poison"!
:
What has this got to do with anything? Would you pick a single point
that you find offensive and explain your objections, I would really
like to believe that you can discuss this issue intelligibly.
Bill
Subject: Fluids vs Liquids
From: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Micheal Cranford)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 18
west@next02.wam.umd.edu (Brian West) writes:
[ deleted ]
>A similar analogy can be made with glass. For those of you who don't
>know, glass is a liquid (go ask your science teacher) and DOES flow.
[ deleted ]
If your science teacher tells you glass is a liquid, try to get a different
science teacher B^).  Glass is a supercooled fluid, it is not a liquid (except
at very high temperatures).  The definition of liquid includes "readily takes
the form of its container".  Let's try to be more accurate here.  We don't want
people to think we're creationists now do we?
UUCP:  uunet!tektronix!sail!mikec  or                  M.Cranford
uunet!tektronix!sail.labs.tek.com!mikec         Principal Troll
ARPA:  mikec%sail.LABS.TEK.COM@RELAY.CS.NET            Resident Skeptic
CSNet: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM                         TekLabs, Tektronix
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
Lines: 64
In article <C4vyFu.JJ6@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>Keith M. Ryan (kmr4@po.CWRU.edu) wrote:
>:
>: 	Wild and fanciful claims require greater evidence. If you state that
>: one of the books in your room is blue, I certainly do not need as much
>: evidence to believe than if you were to claim that there is a two headed
>: leapard in your bed. [ and I don't mean a male lover in a leotard! ]
>
>Keith,
>
>If the issue is, "What is Truth" then the consequences of whatever
>proposition argued is irrelevent. If the issue is, "What are the consequences
>if such and such -is- True", then Truth is irrelevent. Which is it to
>be?
I disagree: every proposition needs a certain amount of evidence
and support, before one can believe it. There are a miriad of factors for
each individual. As we are all different, we quite obviously require
different levels of evidence.
As one pointed out, one's history is important. While in FUSSR, one
may not believe a comrade who states that he owns five pairs of blue jeans.
One would need more evidence, than if one lived in the United States. The
only time such a statement here would raise an eyebrow in the US, is if the
individual always wear business suits, etc.
The degree of the effect upon the world, and the strength of the
claim also determine the amount of evidence necessary. When determining the
level of evidence one needs, it is most certainly relevent what the
consequences of the proposition are.
If the consequences of a proposition is irrelvent, please explain
why one would not accept: The electro-magnetic force of attraction between
two charged particles is inversely proportional to the cube of their
distance apart.
Remember, if the consequences of the law are not relevent, then
we can not use experimental evidence as a disproof. If one of the
consequences of the law is an incongruency between the law and the state of
affairs, or an incongruency between this law and any other natural law,
they are irrelevent when theorizing about the "Truth" of the law.
Given that any consequences of a proposition is irrelvent, including
the consequence of self-contradiction or contradiction with the state of
affiars, how are we ever able to  judge what is true or not; let alone find
"The Truth"?
By the way, what is "Truth"? Please define before inserting it in
the conversation. Please explain what "Truth" or "TRUTH" is. I do think that
anything is ever known for certain. Even if there IS a "Truth", we could
never possibly know if it were. I find the concept to be meaningless.
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. "
S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu)
Subject: Re: Is Morality Constant (was Re: Biblical Rape)
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
Lines: 28
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)
howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!tubsibr!dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de!I3150101
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 35
In article <66015@mimsy.umd.edu>
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
(Deletion)
>I cannot see any evidence for the V. B. which the cynics in this group would
>ever accept.  As for the second, it is the foundation of the religion.
>Anyone who claims to have seen the risen Jesus (back in the 40 day period)
>is a believer, and therefore is discounted by those in this group; since
>these are all ancients anyway, one again to choose to dismiss the whole
>thing.  The third is as much a metaphysical relationship as anything else--
>even those who agree to it have argued at length over what it *means*, so
>again I don't see how evidence is possible.
>
No cookies, Charlie. The claims that Jesus have been seen are discredited
as extraordinary claims that don't match their evidence. In this case, it
is for one that the gospels cannot even agree if it was Jesus who has been
seen. Further, there are zillions of other spook stories, and one would
hardly consider others even in a religious context to be some evidence of
a resurrection.
There have been more elaborate arguments made, but it looks as if they have
not passed your post filtering.
>I thus interpret the "extraordinary claims" claim as a statement that the
>speaker will not accept *any* evidence on the matter.
It is no evidence in the strict meaning. If there was actual evidence it would
probably be part of it, but the says nothing about the claims.
Charlie, I have seen Invisible Pink Unicorns!
By your standards we have evidence for IPUs now.
Benedikt
Subject: Re: Contradictions
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
Lines: 49
In article <C52oys.2CLJ@austin.ibm.com> yoder@austin.ibm.com (Stuart R. Yoder) writes:
>:
>: Then what would it have to do with "in the universe"?  You theists
>: cannot understand that inside the universe and outside the universe
>: are two different places.  Put God outside the universe and you
>: subtract from it the ability to interact with the inside of the
>: universe, put it inside the universe and you impose the rules of
>: physics on it.
>
>1.  God is outside the universe.
>2.  Things outside the universe do not have 'the ability to interact
>    with the inside of the universe'.
>3.  Therefore God cannot interact inside the universe.
>
>(2) has no basis whatsoever.  You seem to have positive knowledge
>about this.
(2) is a corrallary of (1).
The negation of (2) would contridict (1).
>
>: Although we do not have a complete model of the physical rules
>: governing the inside of the universe, we expect that there are no
>: contradictory events likely to destroy the fabric of modern physics.
>: On the other hand, your notion of an omnipotent, omniscient and
>: infinitely benevolent god, is not subject to physical laws: you
>: attempt to explain this away by describing it as being outside of
>: them, beyond measurement.  To me, beyond measurement means it can
>: have no measurable effect on reality, so it cannot interact: ergo,
>: your god is IRRELEVANT.
>
>1.  God is beyond measure.
>2.  Beyond measurement means it can have no measurable effect on
>    reality.
>3.  Therefore God cannot have a measurable effect on reality.
>
>(2) has no basis whatsoever.
(2) Is a corrallary of (1)
The negation of (2) would contradict (1).
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. "
S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu)
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Ontology (was: Benediktine Metaphysics)
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 46
In article <66019@mimsy.umd.edu>
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>
>>     IF IT IS CONTRADICTORY IT CANNOT EXIST.
>
>"Contradictory" is a property of language.  If I correct this to
>
>
>      THINGS DEFINED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST
>
No need to correct it, it stands as it is said.
>I will object to definitions as reality.  If you then amend it to
>
>      THINGS DESCRIBED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST
>
>then we've come to something which is plainly false.  Failures in
>description are merely failures in description.
>
You miss the point entirely. Things defined by contradictory language
do not exist. Though something existing might be meant, conclusions
drawn from the description are wrong, unless there is the possibility
to find the described, and draw conclusions from direct knowledge of
the described then. Another possibility is to drop the contradictory
part, but that implies that one can trust the concept as presented
and that one has not got to doubt the source of it as well.
>(I'm not an objectivist, remember.)
>
Neither am I. But either things are directly sensed (which includes
some form of modelling, by the way) or they are used in modelling.
Using something contradictive in modelling is not approved of.
Wonder why?
We remain with the question if something contradictory can be sensed
as contradictory. An important point is that either one manages to
resolve the contradictions or one is forced not to use or to refer
to the contradictory part in drawing conclusions, or one will fall
in the garbage in garbage out trap.
Benedikt
From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
Organization: Decision Support Inc.
Lines: 80
NNTP-Posting-Host: dsi.dsinc.com
(References: deleted to move this to a new thread)
In article <114133@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>In article <1phkf7INN86p@dsi.dsinc.com> perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes:
>>}Rushdie is, however, as I understand, a muslim.
>>}The fact that he's a British citizen does not preclude his being muslim.
>
>>Rushdie was an atheist (to use local terminology, not to put words in
>>his mouth) at the time of writing TSV and at the time of the fatwa in
>>February 1989.[...]
>
>Well, if he was born muslim (I am fairly certain he was) then he _is_
>muslim until he explicitly renounces Islam. So far as I know he has never
>explicitly renounced Islam, though he may have been in extreme doubt
>about the existence of God. Being muslim is a legal as well as
>intellectual issue, according to Islam.
"To put it as simply as possible: *I am not a Muslim*.[...] I do not
accept the charge of apostacy, because I have never in my adult life
affirmed any belief, and what one has not affirmed one can not be
said to have apostasized from.  The Islam I know states clearly that
'there can be no coercion in matters of religion'.  The many Muslims
I respect would be horrified by the idea that they belong to their
faith *purely by virtue of birth*, and that a person who freely chose
not to be a Muslim could therefore be put to death."
Salman Rushdie, "In Good Faith", 1990
"God, Satan, Paradise, and Hell all vanished one day in my fifteenth
year, when I quite abruptly lost my faith.  [...]and afterwards, to
prove my new-found atheism, I bought myself a rather tasteless ham
sandwich, and so partook for the first time of the forbidden flesh of
the swine.  No thunderbolt arrived to strike me down. [...] From that
day to this I have thought of myself as a wholly seculat person."
Salman Rushdie, "In God We Trust", 1985
>>[I] think the Rushdie affair has discredited Islam more in my eyes than
>>Khomeini -- I know there are fanatics and fringe elements in all
>>religions, but even apparently "moderate" Muslims have participated or
>>refused to distance themselves from the witch-hunt against Rushdie.
>
>Yes, I think this is true, but there Khomenei's motivations are quite
>irrelevant to the issue. The fact of the matter is that Rushdie made
>false statements (fiction, I know, but where is the line between fact
>and fiction?) about the life of Mohammad.
Only a functional illiterate with absolutely no conception of the
nature of the novel could think such a thing.  I'll accept it
(reluctantly) from mobs in Pakistan, but not from you.  What is
presented in the fictional dream of a demented character cannot by the
wildest stretch of the imagination be considered a reflection on the
actual Mohammad.  What's worse, the novel doesn't present the
Mahound/Mohammed character in any worse light than secular histories
of Islam; in particular, there is no "lewd" misrepresentation of his
life or that of his wives.
>That is why
>few people rush to his defense -- he's considered an absolute fool for
>his writings in _The Satanic Verses_.
Don't hold back; he's considered an apostate and a blasphemer.
However, it's not for his writing in _The Satanic Verses_, but for
what people have accepted as a propagandistic version of what is
contained in that book.  I have yet to find *one single muslim* who
has convinced me that they have read the book.  Some have initially
claimed to have done so, but none has shown more knowledge of the book
than a superficial Newsweek story might impart, and all have made
factual misstatements about events in the book.
>If you wish to understand the
>reasons behind this as well has the origin of the concept of "the
>satanic verses" [...] see the
>Penguin paperback by Rafiq Zakariyah called _Mohammad and the Quran_.
I'll keep an eye out for it.  I have a counter-proposal: I suggest
that you see the Viking hardcover by Salman Rushdie called _The
Satanic Verses_.  Perhaps then you'll understand.
--
Jim Perry   perry@dsinc.com   Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions.  For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
From: bcash@crchh410.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses
Nntp-Posting-Host: crchh410
Organization: BNR, Inc.
Lines: 51
In article <1993Apr2.115300.803@batman.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
|> In article <C4twso.8M2@HQ.Ileaf.COM>, mukesh@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Mukesh Prasad) writes:
|> > In article <1993Apr1.142854.794@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
|> >> In article <1p8v1aINN9e9@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
|> >> > bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
|> >> >
|> >> >>- The Earth is evil because Satan rules over it.
|> >> >
|> >> > This is a new one to me.  I guess it's been a while since a Witness
|> >> > bothered with me.  Are they implying that Satan is omniscient?  You
|> >> > might try tricking them into saying that Satan is 'all-knowing' and
|> >> > then use that statement to show them how their beliefs are
|> >> > self-contradictary.
|> >>
|> >> No, Satan is not omniscient, but he does hold dominion over the earth
|> >> according to Christian theology (note, not to be confused with JW's
|> >> theology).
|> >>
|> >
|> > What are the standard theologies on who/what created Satan,
|> > and why?
|> >
|>
|> Orthodox Christian theology states that God created Lucifer (Satan)
|> along with the other angels, presumably because He wanted beings to
|> celebrate (glorify) existence and life (and thereby, God) along with
|> Him.  Actually the whys and wherefores of God's motivations for
|> creating the angels are not a big issue within Christian theology.
|>
|> But God created Lucifer with a perfect nature and gave him along with
|> the other angels free moral will.  Lucifer was a high angel (perhaps
|> the highest) with great authority.  It seems that his greatness caused
|> him to begin to take pride in himself and desire to be equal to or
|> greater than God.  He forgot his place as a created being.  He exalted
|> himself above God, and thereby evil and sin entered creation.
Actually, the story goes that Lucifer refused to bow before MAN as
God commanded him to.  Lucifer was devoted to God.
Oh yeah, there is nothing in Genesis that says the snake was anything
more than a snake (well, a talking one...had legs at the time, too).
I don't think pointing out contradictions in STORIES is the best way
to show the error in theology:  if they think a supernatural entity
kicked the first humans out of paradise because they bit into a
fruit that gave them special powers...well, they might not respond
well to reason and logic.  :^)
Brian /-|-\
From: bcash@crchh410.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Ancient islamic rituals
Nntp-Posting-Host: crchh410
Organization: BNR, Inc.
Lines: 38
In article <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
|> There has been some discussion on the pros and cons about sex outside of
|> marriage.
...
|>
|> Where is the evidence for my opinions?  At the moment, there are just
|> generalities I can cite.  For example, I read that in the 20th century,
|> the percentage of youth (and people in general) who suffer from
|> depression has been steadily climbing in Western societies (probably
|> what I was reading referred particularly to the USA).  Similarly, one
|> can detect a trend towards greater occurrence of sex outside of marriage
|> in this century in Western societies -- particularly with the "sexual
|> revolution" of the 60's, but even before that I think (otherwise the
|> "sexual revolution" of the 60's would not have been possible),
|> particularly with the gradual weakening of Christianity and consequently
|> Christian moral teachings against sex outside of marriage.  I propose
|> that these two trends -- greater level of general depression in society
|> (and other psychological problems) and greater sexual promiscuity -- are
|> linked, with the latter being a prime cause of the former.  I cannot
|> provide any evidence beyond this at this stage, but the whole thesis
|> seems very reasonable to me and I request that people ponder upon it.
|>
|>  Fred Rice <-- a Muslim, giving his point of view.
|>  darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
I think this is a big leap sex->depression.  One example is myself,
where no sex->depression :)  But, seriously 1) promiscuity is on a decline,
depression is not and 2) it might be more reasonable to say
depression->promiscuity.  I think depression is more likely to come
from emotional problems (relationships, family, job, friends) and
promiscuity is used as an escape.
Since I see marriage as a civil and religious bond rather than an
emotional bond, I don't see a problem with sex before (not outside of)
marriage so long as you have the same commitment and devotion as
what is expected from a married couple.  Of course, this is just
my opinion.
Brian /-|-\
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Yeah, Right
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 54
In article <66014@mimsy.umd.edu>
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>>And what about that revelation thing, Charley?
>
>If you're talking about this intellectual engagement of revelation, well,
>it's obviously a risk one takes.
>
I see, it is not rational, but it is intellectual. Does madness qualify
as intellectual engagement, too?
>>Many people say that the concept of metaphysical and religious knowledge
>>is contradictive.
>
>I'm not an objectivist, so I'm not particularly impressed with problems of
>conceptualization.  The problem in this case is at least as bad as that of
>trying to explain quantum mechanics and relativity in the terms of ordinary
>experience.  One can get some rough understanding, but the language is, from
>the perspective of ordinary phenomena, inconsistent, and from the
>perspective of what's being described, rather inexact (to be charitable).
>
Exactly why science uses mathematics. QM representation in natural language
is not supposed to replace the elaborate representation in mathematical
terminology. Nor is it supposed to be the truth, as opposed to the
representation of gods or religions in ordinary language. Admittedly,
not  every religion says so, but a fancy side effect of their inept
representations are the eternal hassles between religions.
And QM allows for making experiments that will lead to results that will
be agreed upon as being similar. Show me something similar in religion.
>An analogous situation (supposedly) obtains in metaphysics; the problem is
>that the "better" descriptive language is not available.
>
With the effect that the models presented are useless. And one can argue
that the other way around, namely that the only reason metaphysics still
flourish is because it makes no statements that can be verified or falsified -
showing that it is bogus.
>>And in case it holds reliable information, can you show how you establish
>>that?
>
>This word "reliable" is essentially meaningless in the context-- unless you
>can show how reliability can be determined.
Haven't you read the many posts about what reliability is and how it can
be acheived respectively determined?
Benedikt
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Lines: 131
In <2942956021.3.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
>>DATE:   Sat, 3 Apr 1993 10:00:39 GMT
>>FROM:   Fred Rice <darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au>
>>
>>In <1p8ivt$cfj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>
>>>Should we British go around blowing up skyscrapers next?
>>
>>I don't know if you are doing so, but it seems you are implying
>>(1) that the person accused of blowing up the WTC in NY actually did it,
>>and
>>(2) that Islamic teachings have something to do with blowing up the WTC.
>>
>>[WTC = World Trade Centre, which was the building that was blown up, I
>>think.]
>>
>>Okay... to make some comments...
>>
>>(1) The person has only been accused -- innocent until proven guilty,
>>remember?  Secondly, there seem to be some holes in his accusation that
>>I read about.  For instance, if they guy used that particular van to
>>blow up the building, and then to go back and claim his deposit back
>>afterwards, he must be incredibly stupid.
>Perhaps Salamen was one of those "uneducated" Muslims we hear so much about.
>>Nevertheless, he was
>>apparently smart enough to put together a very sophisticated bomb.  It
>>doesn't seem to fit together, somehow.
>Actually, Salameh was not the ONLY person involved.  The other fellow was
>a chemical engineer working for Allied Signal who had specifically studied
>explosive devices in school (believe it or not - we actually allow radical
>Muslim types to study things like this in our universities - so much for
>the price of freedom)
From what I read, the other fellow told Salameh how to put it together
over the phone.  The bomb was supposedly some sort of sophisticated
type, so to put a (I assume complicated) sophisticated bomb together
from instructions _over the phone_ (!) one must need some brains I would
expect.
>>Despite this, there have
>>already been many attacks and threats against mosques and Muslims in the
>>United States as a consequence of his accusation, I have read.
>>
>O.K., now please tell us where this is happening.  I live in the U.S. and
>I have heard very little about these mosque attacks.  There are many mosques
>in Houston, Texas and I would like to know what is going on so I can verify
>this.  Or is the Great Jewish Media Conspiracy keeping us from knowing about
>this in the U.S.  We heard about the mosque attacks during the Desert Storm
>venture, so why is it so quiet now?  Maybe it is localized to New Jersey?
I read this in an article in "The Australian Muslim Times", the
newspaper (weekly) of the Australian Muslim community.
If this is true, perhaps one of the Muslims based in North America (if
they see this posting) can elaborate.
>>(2) Islamic teachings teach against harming the innocent.  In the Qur'an
>>it explicitly teaches against harming innocents even in times of war.
>>The blowing up of the WTC and harming innocents is therefore in blatant
>>contradiction to Islamic teachings.
>This means absolutely nothing.  Plenty of people commit violence while
>following what they think are valid religious principles.  I have seen
>people post many things here from the Koran which could be "misinterpreted"
>(if that is the explanation you wish to use) by an "uneducated" Muslim to
>allow them to harm idolators and unbelievers.  The first thing every Muslim
>says is that no Muslim could have done that because Islam teaches against
>harming innocents.  And we are supposed to take you WORD that it NEVER
>happens.   What do you think is the consequence?  Does Allah strike them
>down before the "alleged" violence occurs?  Of course not.  Muslims commit
>the violent act and then everyone hides behind verses in the Koran.  We're
>pretty hip to that trick.  And I even doubt that it will come up in the
>trials.
>"My defense is that I am Muslim and Islam teaches me not to harm the innocent.
>Therefore, the people who were killed must not have been innocent.  Sure we
>set off the bomb, your honor, but you must remember, sir, I am a Muslim.
>Allah is all-powerful.  Allah would not have allowed this.  Are you insulting
>my religion?"
>Great defense, eh?
>Just admit that there are some incredibly stupid, violent Muslims in the
>world and stop hiding from that fact.  It does no one any good to deny it.
>It only makes the more reasonable Muslims look like they are protecting the
>bad ones.  Can you see that?
I don't deny this fact.
The thrust of my argument here is that
(a) Salameh is, according to US law, innocent as he has not been found
guilty in a court of law.  As his guilt has not been established, it is
wrong for people to make postings based on this assumption.
(b) Islam teaches us _not_ to harm innocents.  If Muslims -- who perhaps
have not realized that Islam teaches this -- perform such actions, it is
_not_ _because_ of the teachings of Islam, but rather _in spite of_ and
_in contradiction to_ the  teachings of Islam.  This is an important
distinction.
I should clarify what Muslims usually mean when they say "Muslim".  In
general, anyone who calls themselves a "Muslim" and does not do or
outwardly profess
something in clear contradiction with the essential teachings of Islam
is considered to be a Muslim.  Thus, one who might do things contrary to
Islam (through ignorance, for example) does not suddenly _not_ become a
Muslim.  If one knowingly transgresses Islamic teachings and essential
principles, though, then one does leave Islam.
The term "Muslim" is to be contrasted with "Mu'min", which means "true
believer".  However, whether a Muslim is in reality a Mu'min is
something known only by God (and perhaps that person himself).  So you
will not find the term Mu'min used very much by Muslims in alt.atheism,
because it is not known to anybody (except myself and God), whether I,
for example, am a "true believer" or not.  For example, I could just be
putting on a show here, and in reality believe something opposite to
what I write here, without anyone knowing.  Thus, when we say "Muslims"
we mean all those who outwardly profess to follow Islam, whether in
practice they might, in ignorance, transgress Islamic teachings.  By
"Muslim" we do not necessarily mean "Mu'min", or "true believer" in
Islam.
Fred Rice
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
From: dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood)
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
In-Reply-To: mangoe@cs.umd.edu's message of 4 Apr 93 10:56:03 GMT
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Lines: 33
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>>David Wood writes:
>>
>>    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
>
>More seriously, this is just a high-falutin' way of saying "I don't believe
>what you're saying".
Are you making a meta-argument here?  In any case, you are wrong.
Think of those invisible pink unicorns.
>Also, the existence if Jesus is not an extradinary claim.
I was responding to the "historical accuracy... of Biblical claims",
of which the existence of Jesus is only one, and one that was not even
mentioned in my post.
>You may want to
>complain that the miracles attributed to him do constitute such claims (and
>I won't argue otherwise), but that is a different issue.
Wrong.  That was exactly the issue.  Go back and read the context
included within my post, and you'll see what I mean.
Now that I've done you the kindness of responding to your questions,
please do the same for me.  Answer the Charley Challenges.  Your claim
that they are of the "did not!/ did so!" variety is a dishonest dodge
that I feel certain fools only one person.
--Dave Wood
From: dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood)
Subject: Re: And Another THing:
In-Reply-To: mangoe@cs.umd.edu's message of 3 Apr 93 00:46:07 GMT
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Lines: 39
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>Keith Ryan writes:
>>
>>You will ignore any criticism of your logic, or any possible incongruenties
>>in your stance?  You will not answer any questions on the validity of any
>>opinion and/or facts you state?
>When I have to start saying "that's not what I said", and the response is
>"did so!", there's no reason to continue.  If someone is not going to argue
>with MY version of MY position, then they cannot be argued with.
But of course YOUR version of YOUR position has been included in the
Charley Challenges, so your claim above is a flat-out lie.  Further,
only last week you claimed that you "might not" answer the Challenges
because you were turned off by "included text".  So which is it, do
you want your context included in my articles or not?  Come to think
of it, this contradiction has the makings of a new entry in the next
Challenges post.
By the way, I've kept every bloody thing that you've written related
to this thread, and will be only too pleased to re-post any of it to
back my position.  You seem to have forgotten that you leave an
electronic paper trail on the net.
>>This is the usual theist approach.  No matter how many times a certain
>>argument has been disproven, shown to be non-applicable or non-sequitur;
>>they keep cropping up- time after time.
>Speaking of non-sequiturs, this has little to do with what I just said.  And
>have some sauce for the goose: some of the "disproof" is fallacies repeated
>over and over (such as the "law of nature" argument someone posted recently).
Now, now, let's not change the subject.  Wouldn't it be best to finish
up the thread in question before you begin new ones?
--Dave Wood
howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!dpw
Subject: Periodic Post of Charley Challenges, #3, with additions
From: dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood)
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Lines: 250
New in this version:  challenge #5, plus an addendum summarizing
Charley's responses to-date..
-----------------------------------------
*** This is a posting made periodically in an attempt to encourage
*** Charley Wingate to address direct challenges to his evidently
*** specious claims.  I'll continue to re-post periodically until
*** he answers them, publicly indicates that he won't answer them,
*** stops posting to alt.atheism, the alt.atheism community tells
*** me to stop, or I get totally bored.  I apologize for the
*** somewhat juvenile nature of this approach, but I'm at a loss
*** to figure out another way to crack his intransigence and
*** seeming intellectual dishonesty.
***
*** This is re-post #3.
Charley,
I can't help but notice that you have still failed to provide answers
to substantive questions that have been raised in response to your
previous posts.  I submit that you don't answer them because you
cannot answer them without running afoul of your own logic, and I once
again challenge you to prove me wrong.  To make the task as easy for
you as possible, I'll present concise re-statements of some of the
questions that you have failed to answer, in the hope that you may
address them one at a time for all to see.
Should you fail to answer again within a reasonable time period, I
will re-post this article, with suitable additions and deletions, at
such time that I notice a post by you on another topic.  I will repeat
this procedure until you either address the outstanding challenges or
you cease to post to this newsgroup.
I would like to apologize in advance if you have answered any of these
questions previously and your answer missed my notice.  If you can be
kind enough to re-post or e-mail such articles, I will be only too
pleased to publicly rescind the challenge in question, and remove it
from this list.
Now, to the questions...
1. After claiming that all atheists fit into neat psychological
patterns that you proposed, then semi-retracting that claim by stating
that you weren't referring to *all* atheists, I asked you to name some
atheists who you feel don't fit your patterns, to show that you indeed
were not referring to all atheists that you are aware of.  You failed
to do so.  Please do so now.
Question: Can you name any a.a posters who do not fit into your
stereotype?
Here is the context for the question:
>>> This is not true for everyone on this board, and you are out of line
>>> in assuming that it is.
>>
>>YOU, however, deleted the text further along where I said that I didn't mean
>>to imply that everybody's experience was along the same lines.
>
>Whether or not you *mean* to make such implications, you do so
>repeatedly.
>
>Allow me to approach the issue from another viewpoint: can you name
>those atheists that you've come across who *do not* fit into the
>patterns that you theorize?
2. You have taken umbrage to statements to the effect that "senses and
reason are all we have to go by", and when pressed, you have implied
that we have an alternative called revelation.  I have repeatedly
asked you to explain what revelation is and how one can both
experience and interpret revelation without doing so via our senses
and reason.  You failed to do so.  Please do so now.
Question: Can you explain what is revelation and how one can
experience and interpret it without using senses and inherent
reasoning?
Here is the context for the question:
>>Revelation is not reason, and if we DO have revelation, then
>>reasoning is NOT all we have.
>First, show me that revelation exists.  Second, if revelation is not
>perceived through the senses, how exactly is it perceived?  According
>to my Webster's, revelation is "an act of revealing or communicating
>divine truth."  Now, tell me how such a thing can be revealed/
>communicated other than via the senses?  Tell me how you can interpret
>this revelation other than with reason, that is, using your brain to
>interpret what you are sensing.  When I say there is no way for a
>human being to interface with the universe other than via the senses as
>interpreted by reason (your brain), it is because this is the simple
>truth.  If you have another mechanism of interface, by all means,
>share it with us.
then later...
>>>You CANNOT escape the fact that our entire interface with the universe is
>>>our senses and our reason, period.
>>
>>Again, this is indefensible.
>
>No, it is simple truth.  I challenge you to show me otherwise.
then later...
>>Few mystics will agree to this assertion, and the common defense of
>>redefining "senses" to absorb (for instance) mystical experiences is
>>begs the question of whether some senses are better than others.
>
>I allow you the broadest definition of senses, to make things easier
>for you.  Now, show me that "mystical experiences" exist.  Remember,
>you aren't allowed to go by testimony of others (e.g., mystics), since
>you have dismissed my testimony as unreliable - you know, tainted by
>my own bias.  Further, once these mystical thingies are absorbed, show
>me evidence that a human can recognize and respond to them short of
>interpretation via that person's reasoning capabilities.
>
>I challenge you to show me these things.  If you cannot do so, you
>might as well give up the fight.
then later...
>Let me reiterate, you have NOT explained your interpretation of your
>experiences, so it is not possible for me to have attacked them.  In
>point of fact, I specifically challenged you to explain this
>revelation stuff that you were talking about, and I note for the
>record that you appear to have declined my challenge.
>
>*What* is it?  *How* is it sensed?  *How* is it interpreted?  And
>*how* does this sensing and interpretation occur without the conduit
>of our senses and reasoning abilities?  You have answered none of
>these questions that go straight to the heart of your claims.  If you
>can't answer them, your claims are entirely specious.
3.  You have stated that all claims to dispassionate analysis made by
a.a posters are unverifiable and fantastical.  I asked you to identify
one such claim that I have made.  You have failed to do so.  Please do
so now.
Question: Have I made any claims at all that are unverifiable and
fantastical?  If so, please repeat them.
Here is the context for the question:
>>I must thank David Wood a most sensitive and intelligent (if wrong :-))
>>posting.
then later...
>>Likewise, the reference to "unverifiable, fantastical
>>claims" represents fairly accurately my reaction to all of the claims to
>>dispassionate analysis that are repeated in this group.
>
>Give me your address and I'll be pleased to send you a dictionary.
>Failing that, can you name ONE claim that I have made that is in any
>sense unverifiable or fantastical?  I demand that you retract this
>statement if you cannot offer up evidence.  If you follow your usual
>pattern of ignoring the challenge, then you are simply an asshole.
4.  First you dismissed claims by atheists that they became atheists as
a result of reason, then later you stated that if one accepted the
"axioms" of reason that one couldn't help but become atheist.  I asked
you to explain the contradiction.  Your only response was a statement
that the question was incoherent, an opinion not shared by others that
I have asked, be they atheist or theist.  You have failed to answer
the question.  Please do so now.
Question: Do you retract your claim that a.a posters have not become
atheists as a result of reason, despite their testimony to that
effect?  If you don't retract that claim, do you retract the
subsequent claim that acceptance of the axioms of reason inevitably
result in atheism?
Here is the context for the question:
[First quote]
>>...we have here a bunch of people who claim that their position is
>>based on reason... it is up to atheists to prove it to me...
>
>then,
>
[Second quote]
>>...but I do not see how one can accept these axioms and not end up with
>>an atheistic point of view.
5.  First, you claimed that you would (probably) not answer these
Challenges because they contained too much in the way of "included
text" from previous posts.  Later, you implied that you wouldn't
respond because I was putting words in your mouth.  Please clarify
this seeming contradiction.
Question:  Do you prefer to respond to Challenges that include context
from your own posts, or that I paraphrase your positions in order to
avoid "included text"?
Here is the context for the question:
First you said:
>>My ordinary rules are that I don't read articles over over 150 lines
>>or articles in which there is nothing but included text on the first
>>screen.  THese are not rules of morality, but practicality.
then later...
>>If someone is not going to argue with MY version of MY position, then
>>they cannot be argued with.
As usual, your responses are awaited with anticipation.
--Dave Wood
p.s., For the record, below is a compilation of Charley's responses to
these challenges to date.
3/18/93
>>This makes no sense to me at all; it gives the appearance either of utter
>>incoherence, or of answering some question of Mr. Wood's imagination.
3/31/93 (#1)
>>Mr. Wood, I do not subscribe to the opinion that a gauntlet thrown down on
>>the net requires any response whatsoever.  At some point I might read and
>>respond to your article, and then again, I might not.  My ordinary rules are
>>that I don't read articles over over 150 lines or articles in which there is
>>nothing but included text on the first screen.  THese are not rules of
>>morality, but practicality.
3/31/93 (#2)
>>I left out something else I don't respond to.
>>...
>>Utmost on my list of things to avoid are arguments about the arguments
>>(meta-arguments, as some call them).
4/3/93
>>When I have to start saying "that's not what I said", and the response is
>>"did so!", there's no reason to continue.  If someone is not going to argue
>>with MY version of MY position, then they cannot be argued with.
sgiblab!adagio.panasonic.com!nntp-server.caltech.edu!keith
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
<1p6rgcINNhfb@gap.caltech.edu> <1p88fi$4vv@fido.asd.sgi.com>
<1p9bseINNi6o@gap.caltech.edu> <1pamva$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1pcq4pINNqp1@gap.caltech.edu> <30071@ursa.bear.com>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
Lines: 22
halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
>>I think an objective morality does exist, but that most flavors of morality
>>are only approximations to it.  Once again, a natural or objective morality
>>is fairly easily defined, as long as you have a goal in mind--that is, what
>>is the purpose of this morality.
>Maybe I'm not quite getting what you mean by this, but I think objective
>morality is an oxymoron.  By definition, it seems, any _goal_ oriented
>issue like this is subjective by nature.  I don't get how you're using
>the word objective.
But, the goal need not be a subjective one.  For instance, the goal of
natural morality is the propogation of a species, perhaps.  It wasn't
really until the more intelligent animals came along that some revisions
to this were necessary.  Intelligent animals have different needs than
the others, and hence a morality suited to them must be a bit more
complicated than "the law of the jungle."  I don't think that
self-actualization is so subjective as you might think.  And, by
objectivity, I am assuming that the ideals of any such system could be
carried out completely.
keith
From: dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood)
Subject: Request for Support
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Lines: 35
I have a request for those who would like to see Charley Wingate
respond to the "Charley Challenges" (and judging from my e-mail, there
appear to be quite a few of you.)
It is clear that Mr. Wingate intends to continue to post tangential or
unrelated articles while ingoring the Challenges themselves.  Between
the last two re-postings of the Challenges, I noted perhaps a dozen or
more posts by Mr. Wingate, none of which answered a single Challenge.
It seems unmistakable to me that Mr. Wingate hopes that the questions
will just go away, and he is doing his level best to change the
subject.  Given that this seems a rather common net.theist tactic, I
would like to suggest that we impress upon him our desire for answers,
in the following manner:
1. Ignore any future articles by Mr. Wingate that do not address the
Challenges, until he answers them or explictly announces that he
refuses to do so.
--or--
2. If you must respond to one of his articles, include within it
something similar to the following:
"Please answer the questions posed to you in the Charley Challenges."
Really, I'm not looking to humiliate anyone here, I just want some
honest answers.  You wouldn't think that honesty would be too much to
ask from a devout Christian, would you?
Nevermind, that was a rhetorical question.
--Dave Wood
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 102
In article <66020@mimsy.umd.edu>
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
>Assuming you are presenting it accurately, I don't see how this argument
>really leads to any firm conclusion.  The material in John (I'm not sure
>exactly what is referred to here, but I'll take for granted the similarity
>to the Matt./Luke "Q" material) IS different; hence, one could have almost
>any relationship between the two, right up to John getting it straight from
>Jesus' mouth.
>
No, the argument says John has known Q, ie a codified version of the logia,
and not the original, assuming that there has been one. It has weaknesses,
of course, like that John might have known the original, yet rather referred
to Q in his text, or that the logia were given in a codified version in
the first place.
The argument alone does not allow a firm conclusion, but it fits well into
the dating usually given for the gospels.
>>We are talking date of texts here, not the age of the authors. The usual
>>explanation for the time order of Mark, Matthew and Luke does not consider
>>their respective ages. It says Matthew has read the text of Mark, and Luke
>>that of Matthew (and probably that of Mark).
>
>The version of the "usual theory" I have heard has Matthew and Luke
>independently relying on Mark and "Q".  One would think that if Luke relied
>on Matthew, we wouldn't have the grating inconsistencies in the geneologies,
>for one thing.
>
Not necessarily, Luke may have trusted the version he knew better than the
version given by Matthew. Improving on Matthew would give a motive, for
instance.
As far as I know, the theory that Luke has known Matthew is based on a
statistical analysis of the texts.
>>As it is assumed that John knew the content of Luke's text. The evidence
>>for that is not overwhelming, admittedly.
>
>This is the part that is particularly new to me.  If it were possible that
>you could point me to a reference, I'd be grateful.
>
Yep, but it will take another day or so to get the source. I hope your German
is good enough. :-)
>>>Unfortunately, I haven't got the info at hand.  It was (I think) in the late
>>>'70s or early '80s, and it was possibly as old as CE 200.
>
>>When they are from about 200, why do they shed doubt on the order on
>>putting John after the rest of the three?
>
>Because it closes up the gap between (supposed) writing and the existing
>copy quit a bit.  The further away from the original, the more copies can be
>written, and therefore survival becomes more probable.
>
I still do not see how copies from 200 allow to change the dating of John.
>>That John was a disciple is not generally accepted. The style and language
>>together with the theology are usually used as counterargument.
>
>I'm not really impressed with the "theology" argument.  But I'm really
>pointing this out as an "if".  And as I pointed out earlier, one cannot make
>these arguments about I Peter; I see no reason not to accept it as an
>authentic letter.
>
Yes, but an if gives only possibilities and no evidence. The authencity of
many letters is still discussed. It looks as if conclusions about them are not
drawn because some pet dogmas of the churches would probably fall with them as
well.
>>One step and one generation removed is bad even in our times. Compare that
>>to reports of similar events in our century in almost illiterate societies.
>
>The best analogy would be reporters talking to the participants, which is
>not so bad.
>
Well, rather like some newsletter of a political party reporting from the
big meeting. Not necessarily wrong, but certainly bad.
>>In other words, one does not know what the original of Mark did look like
>>and arguments based on Mark are pretty weak.
>
>But the statement of divinity is not in that section, and in any case, it's
>agreed that the most important epistles predate Mark.
Yes, but the accuracy of their tradition is another problem.
Question: Are there letters not from Paul and predating Mark claiming the
divinity of Jesus?
Benedikt
From: bobs@thnext.mit.edu (Robert Singleton)
Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Lines: 138
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: thnext.mit.edu
In article <16BA8C4AC.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
> In article <1pq47tINN8lp@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
> bobs@thnext.mit.edu (Robert Singleton) writes:
>
> (Deletion)
> >
> >I will argue that your latter statement, "I believe that no gods exist"
> >does rest upon faith - that is, if you are making a POSITIVE statement
> >that "no gods exist" (strong atheism) rather than merely saying I don't
> >know and therefore don't believe in them and don't NOT believe in then
> >(weak atheism). Once again, to not believe in God is different than
> >saying I BELIEVE that God does not exist. I still maintain the
> >position, even after reading the FAQs, that strong atheism requires
> >faith.
> >
>
> No it in the way it is usually used. In my view, you are saying here
> that driving a car requires faith that the car drives.
>
I'm not saying this at all - it requires no faith on my part to
say the car drives because I've seen it drive - I've done more
than at in fact - I've actually driven it. (now what does require
some faith is the belief that my senses give an accurate representation
of what's out there....) But there is NO evidence - pro or con -
for the existence or non-existence of God (see what I have to
say below on this).
> For me it is a conclusion, and I have no more faith in it than I
> have in the premises and the argument used.
>
Sorry if I remain skeptical - I don't believe it's entirely a
conclusion. That you have seen no evidence that there IS a God
is correct - neither have I. But lack of evidence for the existence
of something is in NO WAY evidence for the non-existence of something
(the creationist have a similar mode of argumentation in which if they
disprove evolution the establish creation). You (personally) have never
seen a neutrino before, but they exist. The "pink unicorn" analogy breaks
down and is rather naive. I have a scientific theory that explains the
appearance of animal life - evolution. When I draw the conclusion that
"pink unicorns" don't exist because I haven't seen them, this conclusion
has it's foundation in observation and theory. A "pink unicorn", if
it did exist, would be qualitatively similar to other known entities.
That is to say, since there is good evidence that all life on earth has
evolved from "more primitive" ancestors these pink unicorns would share
a common anscestory with horses and zebras and such. God, however,
has no such correspondence with anything (IMO). There is no physical
frame work of observation to draw ANY conclusions FROM.
> >But first let me say the following.
> >We might have a language problem here - in regards to "faith" and
> >"existence". I, as a Christian, maintain that God does not exist.
> >To exist means to have being in space and time. God does not HAVE
> >being - God IS Being. Kierkegaard once said that God does not
> >exist, He is eternal. With this said, I feel it's rather pointless
> >to debate the so called "existence" of God - and that is not what
> >I'm doing here. I believe that God is the source and ground of
> >being. When you say that "god does not exist", I also accept this
> >statement - but we obviously mean two different things by it. However,
> >in what follows I will use the phrase "the existence of God" in it's
> >'usual sense' - and this is the sense that I think you are using it.
> >I would like a clarification upon what you mean by "the existence of
> >God".
> >
>
> No, that's a word game.
I disagree with you profoundly on this. I haven't defined God as
existence - in fact, I haven't defined God. But this might be
getting off the subject - although if you think it's relevant
we can come back to it.
>
> Further, saying god is existence is either a waste of time, existence is
> already used and there is no need to replace it by god, or you are
> implying more with it, in which case your definition and your argument
> so far are incomplete, making it a fallacy.
>
You are using wrong categories here - or perhaps you misunderstand
what I'm saying. I'm making no argument what so ever and offering no
definition so there is no fallacy. I'm not trying to convince you of
anything. *I* Believe - and that rests upon Faith. And it is inappropriate
to apply the category of logic in this realm (unless someone tells you
that they can logically prove God or that they have "evidence" or ...,
then the use of logic to disprove their claims if fine and necessary).
BTW, an incomplete argument is not a fallacy - some things are not
EVEN wrong.
>
> (Deletion)
> >One can never prove that God does or does not exist. When you say
> >that you believe God does not exist, and that this is an opinion
> >"based upon observation", I will have to ask "what observtions are
> >you refering to?" There are NO observations - pro or con - that
> >are valid here in establishing a POSITIVE belief.
> (Deletion)
>
> Where does that follow? Aren't observations based on the assumption
> that something exists?
>
I don't follow you here. Certainly one can make observations of
things that they didn't know existed. I still maintain that one
cannot use observation to infer that "God does not exist". Such
a positive assertion requires a leap.
> And wouldn't you say there is a level of definition that the assumption
> "god is" is meaningful. If not, I would reject that concept anyway.
>
> So, where is your evidence for that "god is" is meaningful at some
> level?
Once again you seem to completely misunderstand me. I have no
EVIDENCE that "'god is' is meaningful" at ANY level. Maybe such
a response as you gave just comes naturally to you because so
many people try to run their own private conception of God down
your throat. I, however, am not doing this. I am arguing one, and
only one, thing - that to make a positive assertion about something
for which there can in principle be no evidence for or against
requires a leap - it requires faith. I am, as you would say, a
"theist"; however, there is a form of atheism that I can respect -
but it must be founded upon honesty.
>    Benedikt
--
bob singleton
bobs@thnext.mit.edu
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Second Law (was: Albert Sabin)
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Lines: 20
Joel Hanes (jjh00@diag.amdahl.com) wrote:
: Mr Connor's assertion that "more complex" == later in paleontology
: is simply incorrect.  Many lineages are known in which whole
: structures are lost -- for example, snakes have lost their legs.
: Cave fish have lost their eyes.  Some species have almost completely
: lost their males.  Kiwis are descended from birds with functional
: wings.
Joel,
The statements I made were illustrative of the inescapably
anthrpomorphic quality of any desciption of an evolutionary process.
There is no way evolution can be described or explained in terms other
than teleological, that is my whole point. Even those who have reason
to believe they understand evolution (biologists for instance) tend to
personify nature and I can't help but wonder if it's because of the
limits of the language or the nature of nature.
Bill
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Lines: 16
Keith M. Ryan (kmr4@po.CWRU.edu) wrote:
:
: 	Wild and fanciful claims require greater evidence. If you state that
: one of the books in your room is blue, I certainly do not need as much
: evidence to believe than if you were to claim that there is a two headed
: leapard in your bed. [ and I don't mean a male lover in a leotard! ]
Keith,
If the issue is, "What is Truth" then the consequences of whatever
proposition argued is irrelevent. If the issue is, "What are the consequences
if such and such -is- True", then Truth is irrelevent. Which is it to
be?
Bill
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Gospel Dating
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Lines: 22
Jim Perry (perry@dsinc.com) wrote:
: The Bible says there is a God; if that is true then our atheism is
: mistaken.  What of it?  Seems pretty obvious to me.  Socrates said
: there were many gods; if that is true then your monotheism (and our
: atheism) is mistaken, even if Socrates never existed.
Jim,
I think you must have come in late. The discussion (on my part at
least) began with Benedikt's questioning of the historical acuuracy of
the NT. I was making the point that, if the same standards are used to
validate secular history that are used here to discredit NT history,
then virtually nothing is known of the first century.
You seem to be saying that the Bible -cannot- be true because it
speaks of the existence of God as it it were a fact. Your objection
has nothing to do with history, it is merely another statement of
atheism.
Bill
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Not the Omni!
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Lines: 18
Charley Wingate (mangoe@cs.umd.edu) wrote:
:
: >> Please enlighten me.  How is omnipotence contradictory?
:
: >By definition, all that can occur in the universe is governed by the rules
: >of nature. Thus god cannot break them. Anything that god does must be allowed
: >in the rules somewhere. Therefore, omnipotence CANNOT exist! It contradicts
: >the rules of nature.
:
: Obviously, an omnipotent god can change the rules.
When you say, "By definition", what exactly is being defined;
certainly not omnipotence. You seem to be saying that the "rules of
nature" are pre-existant somehow, that they not only define nature but
actually cause it. If that's what you mean I'd like to hear your
further thoughts on the question.
Bill
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: IF ONLY HE KNEW
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Lines: 20
prudenti@juncol.juniata.edu wrote:
: Upon arriving at home, Joseph probably took advantage of Mary...had his way
: with her so to speak.  Of course, word of this couldn't get around so Mary,
: being the highly-religious follower that she was decided "Hey, I'll just say
: that GOD impregnated me...no one will ever know!"
:
: Thus, seen as a trustworthy and honorable soul, she was believed...
:
: And then came Jesus, the child born from violence.
:
:
:
Dave,
Can you explain the purpose of your post, I can't imagine what you
must have thougt it meant.
Bill
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Allah Akbar and Praise the Lord.
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Lines: 15
Maddi Hausmann (madhaus@netcom.com) wrote:
:
: And thank the Lord that Bill Connor has returned to set
: us straight!  Now I know I can die happy when my Lexus
: SE400 wipes out on that rain-slick curve in 1997.  The
: rest of you had best straighten up, because your time
: is even more limited.  Most of you are going in the Flu
: of 1994.
Maddi,
You know you're glad to have me visit ...
But I won't stay long this time, just shopping around.
Bill
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Dear Mr. Theist
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Lines: 20
Pixie (dl2021@andy.bgsu.edu) wrote:
:      For all the problems technology has caused, your types have made
: things even worse.  Must we be reminded of the Inquisition, Operation
: Rescue, the Ku Klux Klan, Posse Comitatus, the 700 Club, David Duke, Salem
: Witch Trials, the Crusades, gay bashings, etc.
:      PLUS virtually each and every single war, regardless of the level of
: technology, has had theistic organizations cheering on the carnage
: (chaplains, etc.), and claiming that god was in favor of the whole ordeal.
: Don't forget to pray for our troops!
:
This is really tedious. Every bad thing that's ever happened is
because the malefactors were under the influence of religion - does
anyone -really- believe that. I've seen it so often it must be a
pretty general opinion in a.a, but I want to believe that atheists are
really not THAT dishonest. Please, stick to the facts and, having
accomplished that, interpret them correctly.
Bill
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Is Morality Constant (was Re: Biblical Rape)
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Lines: 65
Jim Perry (perry@dsinc.com) wrote:
: }Xenophobia, both *de facto* and *de jure* as implemented
: }in legal systems, is widespread, while the Bible,
: }although not 100% egalitarian, specifically preaches
: }kindness to the stranger, and emphasizes in the Book
: }of Ruth, that a foreigner can join the nation and
: }give rise to one of the great heroes of the nation.
:
: Clearly better than the alternative, but as an American what strikes
: me as strange about this story is that it should have even been
: considered an issue.
Jim,
There are a couple of things about your post and others in this thread
that are a little confusing. An atheist is one for whom all things can
be understood as processes of nature - exclusively. There is no need
for any recourse to Divnity to describe or explain anything. There is
no purpose or direction for any event beyond those required by
physics, chemistry, biology, etc.; everything is random, nothing is
determnined.
This would also have to include human intelligence of course and all
its products. There is nothing requiring that life evolve or that it
acquire intelligence, it's just a happy accident. For an atheist, no
event can be preferred to another or be said to have more or less
value than another in any naturalistic sense, and no thought -about-
an event can have value.
The products of our intelligence are acquired from our environment,
from teaching, training, observation and experience and are only
significant to the individual mind wherein they reside. These mental
processes and the images they produce for us are just electrical
activity and nothing more; content is of no consequence. The human
mind is as much a response to natural forces as water running down a
hill.
How then can an atheist judge value? What is the basis for criticizing
the values ennumerated in the Bible or the purposes imputed to God? On
what grounds can the the behavior of the reliogious be condemned? It
seems that, in judging the values that motivate others to action, you
have to have some standard against which conduct is measured, but what
in nature can serve that purpose? What law of nature can you invoke to
establish your values.
Since every event is entirely and exclusively a physical event, what
difference could it possibly make what -anyone- does, religious or
otherwise, there can be no -meaning- or gradation of value. The only
way an atheist can object to -any- behaviour is to admit that the
objection is entirely subjective and that he(she) just doesn't like it
- that's it. Any value judgement must be prefaced by the disclaimer
that it is nothing more than a matter of personal opinion and carries
no weight in any "absolute" sense.
That you don't like what God told people to do says nothing about God
or God's commands, it says only that there was an electrical event in your
nervous system that created an emotional state that your mind coupled
with a pre-existing thought-set to form that reaction. That your
objections -seem- well founded is due to the way you've been
conditioned; there is no "truth" content. The whole of your
intellectual landscape is an illusion, a virtual reality.
I didn't make these rules, it's inherent in naturalistic atheism and
to be consistent, you have to accept the non-significance of any human
thought, even your own. All of this being so, you have excluded
yourself from any discussion of values, right, wrong, goood, evil,
etc. and cannot participate. Your opinion about the Bible can have no
weight whatsoever.
Bill
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Bill Conner:
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 6
Could you explain what any of this pertains to? Is this a position
statement on something or typing practice? And why are you using my
name, do you think this relates to anything I've said and if so, what.
Bill
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Islam & Dress Code for women
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Lines: 120
In <16BA7103C3.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>In article <1993Apr5.091258.11830@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
>darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>
>(Deletion)
>>>>Of course people say what they think to be the religion, and that this
>>>>is not exactly the same coming from different people within the
>>>>religion.  There is nothing with there existing different perspectives
>>>>within the religion -- perhaps one can say that they tend to converge on
>>>>the truth.
>>
>>>My point is that they are doing a lot of harm on the way in the meantime.
>>>
>>>And that they converge is counterfactual, religions appear to split and
>>>diverge. Even when there might be a 'True Religion' at the core, the layers
>>>above determine what happens in practise, and they are quite inhumane
>>>usually.
>>>
>
>What you post then is supposed to be an answer, but I don't see what is has
>got to do with what I say.
>
>I will repeat it. Religions as are harm people. And religions don't
>converge, they split. Giving more to disagree upon. And there is a lot
>of disagreement to whom one should be tolerant or if one should be
>tolerant at all.
Ideologies also split, giving more to disagree upon, and may also lead
to intolerance.  So do you also oppose all ideologies?
I don't think your argument is an argument against religion at all, but
just points out the weaknesses of human nature.
>(Big deletion)
>>(2) Do women have souls in Islam?
>>
>>People have said here that some Muslims say that women do not have
>>souls.  I must admit I have never heard of such a view being held by
>>Muslims of any era.  I have heard of some Christians of some eras
>>holding this viewpoint, but not Muslims.  Are you sure you might not be
>>confusing Christian history with Islamic history?
>
>Yes, it is supposed to have been a predominant view in the Turkish
>Caliphate.
I would like a reference if you have got one, for this is news to me.
>>Anyhow, that women are the spiritual equals of men can be clearly shown
>>from many verses of the Qur'an.  For example, the Qur'an says:
>>
>>"For Muslim men and women, --
>>for believing men and women,
>>for devout men and women,
>>for true men and women,
>>for men and women who are patient and constant,
>>for men and women who humble themselves,
>>for men and women who give in charity,
>>for men and women who fast (and deny themselves),
>>for men and women who guard their chastity,
>>and for men and women who engage much in God's praise --
>>For them has God prepared forgiveness and a great reward."
>>
>>[Qur'an 33:35, Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation]
>>
>>There are other quotes too, but I think the above quote shows that men
>>and women are spiritual equals (and thus, that women have souls just as
>>men do) very clearly.
>>
>
>No, it does not. It implies that they have souls, but it does not say they
>have souls. And it is not given that the quote above is given a high
>priority in all interpretations.
One must approach the Qur'an with intelligence.  Any thinking approach
to the Qur'an cannot but interpret the above verse and others like it
that women and men are spiritual equals.
I think that the above verse does clearly imply that women have
souls.  Does it make any sense for something without a soul to be
forgiven?  Or to have a great reward (understood to be in the
after-life)?  I think the usual answer would be no -- in which case, the
part saying "For them has God prepared forgiveness and a great reward"
says they have souls.
(If it makes sense to say that things without souls can be forgiven, then
I have no idea _what_ a soul is.)
As for your saying that the quote above may not be given a high priority
in all interpretations, any thinking approach to the Qur'an has to give
all verses of the Qur'an equal priority.  That is because, according to
Muslim belief, the _whole_ Qur'an is the revelation of God -- in fact,
denying the truth of any part of the Qur'an is sufficient to be
considered a disbeliever in Islam.
>Quite similar to you other post, even when the Quran does not encourage
>slavery, it is not justified to say that iit forbids or puts an end to
>slavery. It is a non sequitur.
Look, any approach to the Qur'an must be done with intelligence and
thought.  It is in this fashion that one can try to understand the
Quran's message.  In a book of finite length, it cannot explicitly
answer every question you want to put to it, but through its teachings
it can guide you.  I think, however, that women are the spiritual equals
of men is clearly and unambiguously implied in the above verse, and that
since women can clearly be "forgiven" and "rewarded" they _must_ have
souls (from the above verse).
Let's try to understand what the Qur'an is trying to teach, rather than
try to see how many ways it can be misinterpreted by ignoring this
passage or that passage.  The misinterpretations of the Qur'an based on
ignoring this verse or that verse are infinite, but the interpretations
fully consistent are more limited.  Let's try to discuss these
interpretations consistent with the text rather than how people can
ignore this bit or that bit, for that is just showing how people can try
to twist Islam for their own ends -- something I do not deny -- but
provides no reflection on the true teachings of Islam whatsoever.
Fred Rice
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Slavery (was Re: Why is sex only allowed in marriage:...)
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Lines: 208
In <1993Apr4.200253.21409@ennews.eas.asu.edu> guncer@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Selim Guncer ) writes:
>You might not like what Bernard Lewis writes about, label him
>as a Zionist or such to discredit him etc.
You misrepresent me, Selim.  The hard evidence for my statements about
his lack of objectivity are presented quite clearly in the book
"Orientalism" by Edward Said.  Edward Said, by the way, is a Christian,
not a Muslim.
>I think he is
>pretty much objective in his treatment in "Race and Slavery in
>the Middle East", since he clearly distinguishes between
>slavery under Islam, and the practice of slavery in other countries,
>like the US prior to the civil war. He also does not conceal
>that there are verses in the Quran which promote the liberation
>of slaves. What he doesn't, and I don't think nobody can,
>deduce from these verses is that slavery will eventually be
>abolished in Islamic countries. Now you might, rather conveniently,
>blame the practice of slavery on Muslims, but the facts are out
>there. I also fail to see the relevance of the claim of Lewis being
>a "Zionist" to what I wrote.
Regarding Bernard Lewis:
Him being a Zionist gives him a political motive for his
giving misrepresentations and half-truths about Islam.
Read "Orientalism" by Edward Said -- see the evidence for yourself.
In fact, I may post some of it here (if it isn't too long).
>They were encyclopaedic information
>which anybody can access - that slavery was abolished at certain
>dates some 1200 years after Muhammed, that this was the cause
>of tensions in the Ottoman empire between the Arab slave traders
>and the government etc.. We also have in the ASU library volumes
>of British documents on slavery where reports and documents
>concerning slavery all around the world can be found, which I
>checked some of the incidents Lewis mentions. So I don't think
>ones political stance has anything to do with documentary evidence.
I haven't read Lewis's article, so I can't comment directly upon it, and
have only spoken about his writings _in general_ so far, that his
political motives make him a biased writer on Islam.  His anti-Islamic
polemics, as I understand it, are often quite subtle and are often based
on telling half-truths.
Again, read "Orientalism" by Edward Said.  I am _not_ asking you to take
what I say on trust, in fact I am urging you not to do so but to get
this book (it is a well-known book) and check the evidence out for
_yourself_.
>The issue I raised was that slaves WERE USED FOR SEXUAL PURPOSES,
>when it was claimed that Islam prohibits extra-marital sex.
>I wrote that the Prophet himself had concubines, I wrote an
>incident in which the prophet advised on someone who did not
>want his concubine to get pregnant etc., which is contrary
>to the notion that "sex is for procreation only". In other
>words, such claims are baseless in the Quran and the Hadith.
If slavery is _in reality_ (as opposed to in the practice of some
Muslims) opposed by Islam, then using slaves for sexual
purposes is necessarily opposed too.
>I seem to be unsuccesful in getting through to you. Islam is
>not "advocating" slavery. Slavery was an existing institution in the
>7th century. It advised on slaves being freed for good
>deeds etc., which is nothing new. Many cultures saw this as a
>good thing. What is the problem here? But I can argue rightfully
>that slaves were discouraged about thinking about their statuses
>politically - the Quran rewards the good slave, so obey your
>master and perhaps one day you'll be free.  But, it is very
>understandable that I do not communicate with Muslims, since
>they assume the Quran is from a "God", and I think it is a rule-based
>system imposed on the society for preservation of the status quo.
>Slaves are a part of this system, the subordination of women
>so that their function in society boils down to child-making
>is a part of this system, etc.
I understand your point of view, Selim -- I think, rather, it is _us_
who are not getting through to _you_.
Some of the points you repeat above I have already answered before.
Regarding women, I have made posting after posting on this subject,
showing that Islam is not anti-woman, etc.  However, have you been
completely ignoring my postings or just missing them?  I just reposted a
very good one, under the title "Islam and Women", reposted from
soc.religion.islam.  If this has already disappeared from your site,
then please email me telling me so and I will email you a copy of this
excellent article.
IMHO, your understanding of the issue of women in Islam is sadly deficient.
Regarding slaves, _my_ posting on slavery -- the second one I made,
which is a repost of an article I wrote early last year -- is based
completely on the Qur'an and contains numerous Qur'anic verses and
hadiths to support its point of view.
Our approaches are different -- you are arguing from a historical
standpoint and I am arguing directly from the teachings of the Qur'an
and hadiths.  Now, just because people say they are Muslims and perform
a particular action, does that automatically mean that their action is
part of Islam, even if it is opposed by the Qur'an and Sunnah?  No!  Of
course not.
Let me give you a concrete example, which might help clarify this for
you.  The Qur'an prohibits drinking.  Now, if a person says "I am a
Muslim" and then proceeds to drink a bottle of beer, does this now mean
that Islam teaches that people should drink beer?  Of course not, and
only an idiot would think so.
Do you see my point?
>It is very natural to think that
>the author/authors of the Quran had no idea that the socio-economic
>structure they were advocating would experience at least two paradigm
>shifts in 1400 years in the western cultures - first with the end of
>the feudal era and the rise of commerce, second with the industrial
>revolution.  Well, rules have changed and the status quo has driven
>Muslim countries into misery trying to survive in a "heathen" world.
>Muslim countries have failed economically, they were unable to
>accumulate any wealth - directly due to the uncomprimising economic
>rules in the Quran. In fact, the rise of Islam can easily be modeled
>after the pyramid effect - you do not produce any wealth at home,
>but increase your wealth by conquering places.
You are judging Islam here on capitalist terms.  Capitalism is an
ideology based largely on the assumption that people want to maximise
their wealth -- this assumption is in opposition to Islamic teachings.
To say Islam is bad because it is not capitalist is pretty unthinking --
Islam does not pretend to be capitalist and does not try to be
capitalist.  (This does not mean that Islam does not support a
free-market -- for it does in general -- but there are other parts of
capitalism which are opposed to Islam as I understand it.)
>When this stopped,
>you (and I) were left bare in the open for emperialists to devour.
>No capital, no industry, very poor social services - the education
>level in Muslim countries are the lowest in the world, the health
>statistics are miserable etc..
One can postulate numerous reasons for this.  Your theory is that it is
because Islam is not secularist and capitalist, etc. etc.
Selim, I will give you a clear historical example to show you the
fallacy of your views if you think (as you obviously do) that
Islam => lack of education and power.
For a large part of history, the Islamic world was very powerful.  For a
significant section of history, the Islamic world was the foremost in
the sciences.  So to say that Islam is, for example, anti-education is
completely absurd.  You try to blame this situation on Islam -- history
shows that your conclusion is false and that, instead, there must be
other reasons for this situation.
>You blame Muslims for not following the Quran, but I blame Muslims
>for following the Quran.
Well, Selim, your viewpoint on women in Islam makes me question the extent
of your knowledge of Islam.  I really think you are not
knowledgeable enough to be able to judge whether the Muslims are
following the Qur'an or not.
>Your idea is baseless from historical
>facts, it is a poor utopia,
The Islamic world was at the forefront of the world in science at one
stage -- yet somehow, in your theory, it is by "following the Qur'an"
that Muslims are backwards in education.  Selim, it is _your_ thesis
that is anti-historical, for you conveniently overlook this historical
fact which contradicts your theory.
>while my ideas are derived from social
>and economic history.
You have certainly not shown this; you have merely stated it.
So far, it seems to me that your view on Islam being anti-education is
quite contrary to history.  That you are so convinced of your views
makes me wonder just how objectively you are trying to look at all of
this.
>My solution to all Muslims is simple:
>CUT THE CRAP,
I think, Selim, you should consider taking your own advice.
>GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT
Here too.
>AND WORK HARD TO REVERSE
>THE EFFECTS OF 1300 YEARS OF IGNORANCE.
Selim, you have such conviction of your viewpoint, yet you demonstrate
ignorance, not only of Islam but also of Islamic history (particularly
with respect to Muslims being leaders of science till about 1400 or so I
think).  Yet you say that your viewpoint is based on history!
Selim, if I remember right, you say in one of your earlier posts that
you are an apostate from Islam.  I think you should slow down and start
thinking clearly about the issues, and start _reading_ some of our
postings about Islam rather than ignoring them as you so obviously
have.
Fred Rice
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Jews can't hide from keith@cco.
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 40
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: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions
Summary: Please read this file before posting to alt.atheism
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Expires: Fri, 14 May 1993 09:39:55 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
Supersedes: <19930315114603@mantis.co.uk>
Lines: 733
Archive-name: atheism/faq
Alt-atheism-archive-name: faq
Last-modified: 5 April 1993
Version: 1.1
Alt.Atheism Frequently-Asked Questions
This file contains responses to articles which occur repeatedly in
alt.atheism.  Points covered here are ones which are not covered in the
"Introduction to Atheism"; you are advised to read that article as well
before posting.
These answers are not intended to be exhaustive or definitive. The purpose of
the periodic FAQ postings is not to stifle debate, but to raise its level. If
you have something to say concerning one of these questions and which isn't
covered by the answer given, please feel free to make your point.
Overview of contents:
"What is the purpose of this newsgroup?"
"Hitler was an atheist!"
"The Bible proves it"
"Pascal's Wager"
"What is Occam's Razor?"
"Why it's good to believe in Jesus"
"Why I know that God exists"
"Einstein and "God does not play dice""
"Everyone worships something"
"Why there must be a causeless cause"
"The universe is so complex it must have been designed"
"Independent evidence that the Bible is true"
"Godel's Incompleteness Theorem"
"George Bush on atheism and patriotism"
"I know where hell is!"
"Biblical contradictions wanted"
"The USA is a Christian nation"
"The USA is not a Christian nation"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: What is the purpose of this newsgroup?
Typical posting:
Why have a newsgroup about atheism?  Why do atheists organize in groups?
What is there to discuss?
Response:
Many things are discussed here, including:
* Whether it is reasonable to feign theism in order to avoid upsetting one's
family
* Prayer in schools
* Discrimination against atheists
* Sunday trading laws
* The Satanic Child Abuse myth
* Whether one should be an overt atheist or 'stay in the closet'
* How religious societies prey (sic) on new college students
* How to get rid of unwanted proselytizers
* Whether religion is a danger to society and/or the individual
* Why people become atheists
Of course, inevitably alt.atheism tends to attract evangelical Christians
looking for someone to convert.  Most readers of the newsgroup don't
want to be preached to, although a few seem to derive perverse pleasure
from tearing apart particularly ill-considered or uninformed postings.
------------------------------
Subject: Hitler was an atheist!
Typical posting:
Hitler was an atheist, and look at what he did!
Response:
Adolf Hitler was emphatically not an atheist.  As he said himself:
The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in
his own denomination, of making _people_stop_just_talking_
superficially_of_God's_will,_and_actually_fulfill_God's_will,_and_
not_let_God's_word_be_desecrated._[orig. ital.]
For God's will gave men their form, their essence, and their
abilities.  Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the
Lord's creation, the divine will.  Therefore, let every man be
active, each in his own denomination if you please, and let every
man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who
in his activity by word or deed steps outside the confines of his
religious community and tries to butt into the other.
[...]
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will
of the Almighty Creator: _by_defending_myself_against_the_Jew,_I_am_
fighting_for_the_work_of_the_Lord._[orig. ital.]
-- Adolf Hitler, from "Mein Kampf", trans. Ralph Mannheim.
Of course, someone bad believing something does not make that belief
wrong.  It's also entirely possible that Hitler was lying when he claimed
to believe in God.  We certainly can't conclude that he's an atheist,
though.
------------------------------
Subject: The Bible proves it
Typical posting:
In the Bible it says that...
Response:
Most of the readers of alt.atheism feel that the Bible is of questionable
accuracy, as it was written thousands of years ago by many authors who were
recording oral tradition that existed many years before.  Thus, any claimed
'truth' in it is of questionable legitimacy.  This isn't to say that The
Bible has no truth in it; simply that any truth must be examined before being
accepted.
Many of the readers of this group also feel that because any passage is
subject to "interpretation", any claim that a passage 'means' one thing and
one thing only is not legitimate.
Note that this feeling tends to extend to other books.
It is also remarkable to many atheists that theists tend to ignore other
equally plausible religious books in favour of those of their own religion.
------------------------------
Subject: Pascal's Wager
Typical posting:
If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing --
but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to
hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist.
Response:
This argument is known as Pascal's Wager.  It has several flaws.
Firstly, it does not indicate which religion to follow.  Indeed, there are
many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there.  This is often
described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem.  If a person is a
follower of religion X, he may end up in religion Y's version of hell.
Secondly, the statement that "If you believe in God and turn out to be
incorrect, you have lost nothing" is not true.  Suppose you're believing in
the wrong God -- the true God might punish you for your foolishness.
Consider also the deaths that have resulted from people rejecting medicine in
favour of prayer.
Another flaw in the argument is that it is based on the assumption that
the two possibilities are equally likely -- or at least, that they are of
comparable likelihood.  If, in fact, the possibility of there being a God
is close to zero, the argument becomes much less persuasive.  So sadly the
argument is only likely to convince those who believe already.
Also, many feel that for intellectually honest people, belief is based on
evidence, with some amount of intuition.  It is not a matter of will or
cost-benefit analysis.
Formally speaking, the argument consists of four statements:
1. One does not know whether God exists.
2. Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if God does
exist.
3. Believing in God is of no consequence if God does not exist.
4. Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in God.
There are two approaches to the argument.  The first is to view 1 as an
assumption, and 2 as a consequence of it.  One problem with this approach, in
the abstract, is that it creates information from no information.  This is
considered invalid in information theory.  Statement 1 indicates one has no
information about God -- but statement 2 indicates that beneficial information
can be gained from the absolute lack of information about God.  This violates
information entropy -- information has been extracted from no information, at
no "cost".
The alternative approach is to claim that 1 and 2 are both assumptions.  The
problem with this is that 2 is then basically an assumption which states the
Christian position, and only a Christian will agree with that assumption. The
argument thus collapses to "If you are a Christian, it is in your interests
to believe in God" -- a rather vacuous tautology, and not the way Pascal
intended the argument to be viewed.
The biggest reason why Pascal's wager is a failure is that if God is
omniscient he will certainly know who really believes and who believes as
a wager.  He will spurn the latter... assuming he actually cares at all
whether people believe in him.
------------------------------
Subject: What is Occam's Razor?
Typical posting:
People keep talking about Occam's Razor.  What is it?
Response:
William of Occam formulated a principle which has become known as Occam's
Razor.  In its original form, it said "Do not multiply entities
unnecessarily."  That is, if you can explain something without supposing
the existence of some entity, then do so.
Nowadays when people refer to Occam's Razor, they generally express it
more generally, for example as "Take the simplest solution".
The relevance to atheism is that we can look at two possible explanations
for what we see around us:
1. There is an incredibly intricate and complex universe out there, which
came into being as a result of natural processes.
2. There is an incredibly intricate and complex universe out there, and
there is also a God who created the universe.  Clearly this God must be
of non-zero complexity.
Given that both explanations fit the facts, Occam's Razor might suggest
that we should take the simpler of the two -- solution number one.
Unfortunately, some argue that there is a third even more simple solution:
3. There isn't an incredibly intricate and complex universe out there.
We just imagine that there is.
This third option leads us logically towards solipsism, which many people
find unacceptable.
------------------------------
Subject: Why it's good to believe in Jesus
Typical posting:
I want to tell people about the virtues and benefits of my religion.
Response:
Preaching is not appreciated.
Feel free to talk about your religion, but please do not write postings that
are on a "conversion" theme.  Such postings do not belong on alt.atheism and
will be rejected from alt.atheism.moderated (try the newsgroup
talk.religion.misc).
You would doubtless not welcome postings from atheists to your favourite
newsgroup in an attempt to convert you; please do unto others as you would
have them do unto you!
Often theists make their basic claims about God in the form of lengthy
analogies or parables.  Be aware that atheists have heard of God and know the
basic claims about him; if the sole purpose of your parable is to tell
atheists that God exists and brings salvation, you may as well not post it,
since it tells us nothing we have not been told before.
------------------------------
Subject: Why I know that God exists
Typical posting:
I *know* from personal experience and prayer that God exists.
Response:
Just as many theists have personal evidence that the being they worship
exists, so many atheists have personal evidence that such beings do not
exist.  That evidence varies from person to person.
Furthermore, without wishing to dismiss your evidence out of hand, many
people have claimed all kinds of unlikely things -- that they have been
abducted by UFOs, visited by the ghost of Elvis, and so on.
------------------------------
Subject: Einstein and "God does not play dice"
Typical posting:
Albert Einstein believed in God.  Do you think you're cleverer than him?
Response:
Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the universe]".
This quotation is commonly mentioned to show that Einstein believed in the
Christian God.  Used this way, it is out of context; it refers to Einstein's
refusal to accept the uncertainties indicated by quantum theory. Furthermore,
Einstein's religious background was Jewish rather than Christian.
A better quotation showing what Einstein thought about God is the following:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of
what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of
human beings."
Einstein was unable to accept Quantum Theory because of his belief in an
objective, orderly reality; a reality which would not be subject to random
events and which would not be dependent upon the observer.  He believed that
QM was incomplete, and that a better theory would have no need for
statistical interpretations.  So far no such better theory has been found,
and much evidence suggests that it never will be.
A longer quote from Einstein appears in "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A
Symposium", published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion
in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.  In
it he says:
"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events
the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side
of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature.  For him
neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an
independent cause of natural events.  To be sure, the doctrine of a
personal God interfering with natural events could never be
*refuted* [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for this
doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific
knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives
of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal.  For a doctrine
which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark,
will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm
to human progress.  In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers
of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal
God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past
placed such vast power in the hands of priests.  In their labors they
will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable
of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity
itself.  This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably
more worthy task..."
Einstein has also said:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religous convictions,
a lie which is being systematically repeated.  I do not believe in a
personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the
unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it."
The latter quote is from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen
Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.
Also from the same book:
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics
to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind
it."
Of course, the fact that Einstein chose not to believe in Christianity does
not in itself imply that Christianity is false.
------------------------------
Subject: Everyone worships something
Typical posting:
Everyone worships something, whether it's money, power or God.
Response:
If that is true, everyone is a polytheist.  Theists care just as much about
those things that atheists care about.  If the atheists' reactions to (for
example) their families amount to worship then so do the theists'.
------------------------------
Subject: Why there must be a causeless cause
Typical posting:
Sets of integers that have a lower bound each have a smallest member, so
chains of causes must all have a first element, a causeless cause.
Response:
The set of real numbers greater than zero has a definite lower bound, but has
no smallest member.
Further, even if it is true that there must be a causeless cause, that does
not imply that that cause must be a conscious supernatural entity, and
especially not that any such entity must match the description favoured by
any particular religion.
------------------------------
Subject: The universe is so complex it must have been designed
Typical posting:
The presence of design in the universe proves there is a God.  Surely you
don't think all this appeared here just by chance?
Response:
This is known as the Argument From Design.
It is a matter of dispute whether there is any element of design in the
universe. Those who believe that the complexity and diversity of living
creatures on the earth is evidence of a creator are best advised to read the
newsgroup talk.origins for a while.
There is insufficient space to summarize both sides of that debate here.
However, the conclusion is that there is no scientific evidence in favour of
so-called Scientific Creationism. Furthermore, there is much evidence,
observation and theory that can explain many of the complexities of the
universe and life on earth.
The origin of the Argument by Design is a feeling that the existence of
something as incredibly intricate as, say, a human is so improbable that
surely it can't have come about by chance; that surely there must be some
external intelligence directing things so that humans come from the chaos
deliberately.
But if human intelligence is so improbable, surely the existence of a mind
capable of fashioning an entire universe complete with conscious beings must
be immeasurably more unlikely?  The approach used to argue in favour of the
existence of a creator can be turned around and applied to the Creationist
position.
This leads us to the familiar theme of "If a creator created the universe,
what created the creator?", but with the addition of spiralling
improbability.  The only way out is to declare that the creator was not
created and just "is" (or "was").
From here we might as well ask what is wrong with saying that the universe
just "is" without introducing a creator?  Indeed Stephen Hawking, in his book
"A Brief History of Time", explains his theory that the universe is closed
and finite in extent, with no beginning or end.
The Argument From Design is often stated by analogy, in the so-called
Watchmaker Argument.  One is asked to imagine that one has found a watch on
the beach.  Does one assume that it was created by a watchmaker, or that it
evolved naturally?  Of course one assumes a watchmaker.  Yet like the
watch, the universe is intricate and complex; so, the argument goes, the
universe too must have a creator.
The Watchmaker analogy suffers from three particular flaws, over and above
those common to all Arguments By Design.  Firstly, a watchmaker creates
watches from pre-existing materials, whereas God is claimed to have
created the universe from nothing.  These two sorts of creation are
clearly fundamentally different, and the analogy is therefore rather weak.
Secondly, a watchmaker makes watches, but there are many other things in
the world.  If we walked further along the beach and found a nuclear
reactor, we wouldn't assume it was created by the watchmaker.  The argument
would therefore suggest a multitude of creators, each responsible for a
different part of creation.
Finally, in the first part of the watchmaker argument we conclude that
the watch is not part of nature because it is ordered, and therefore
stands out from the randomness of nature.  Yet in the second part of the
argument, we start from the position that the universe is obviously not
random, but shows elements of order.  The Watchmaker argument is thus
internally inconsistent.
------------------------------
Subject: Independent evidence that the Bible is true
Typical posting:
The events of the New Testament are confirmed by independent documentary
evidence.  For example...
Response:
The writings of Josephus are often mentioned as independent documentary
evidence.
Early versions of Josephus's work are thought not to have mentioned Jesus or
James; the extant version discusses John in a non-Christian context.  Many
scholars believe that the original mentioned Jesus and James in passing, but
that this was expanded by Christian copyists.  Several "reconstructions" of
the original text have been published to this effect.
Much information appears in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius (about 320
C.E.).  It is worthless as historical material because of the deliberate
falsification of the wily Eusebius who is generally acknowledged as 'the
first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.' It is Eusebius who is
generally given the title of authorship for this material.
Aside from the New Testament, the biographical information about Jesus is
more well-documented.  For further information, please consult the Frequently
Asked Questions file for the newsgroup soc.religion.christian.
------------------------------
Subject: Godel's Incompleteness Theorem
Typical posting:
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates that it is impossible for the
Bible to be both true and complete.
Response:
Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem says that in any consistent formal
system which is sufficiently expressive that it can model ordinary
arithmetic, one can formulate expressions which can never be proven to be
valid or invalid ('true' or 'false') within that formal system.  (Technically
speaking, the system must also be recursive; that is, there must be a decision
procedure for determining whether a given string is an axiom within the formal
system.)
Essentially, all such systems can formulate what is known as a "Liar
Paradox."  The classic Liar Paradox sentence in ordinary English is "This
sentence is false."  Note that if a proposition is undecidable, the formal
system cannot even deduce that it is undecidable.
The logic used in theological discussions is rarely well defined, so claims
that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates that it is impossible to
prove or disprove) the existence of God are worthless in isolation.
One can trivially define a formal system in which it is possible to prove the
existence of God, simply by having the existence of God stated as an axiom.
This is unlikely to be viewed by atheists as a convincing proof, however.
It may be possible to succeed in producing a formal system built on axioms
that both atheists and theists agree with.  It may then be possible to show
that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem holds for that system.  However, that
would still not demonstrate that it is impossible to prove that God exists
within the system.  Furthermore, it certainly wouldn't tell us anything about
whether it is possible to prove the existence of God generally.
Note also that all of these hypothetical formal systems tell us nothing about
the actual existence of God; the formal systems are just abstractions.
Another frequent claim is that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates
that a religious text (the Bible, the Book of Mormon or whatever) cannot be
both consistent and universally applicable. Religious texts are not formal
systems, so such claims are nonsense.
------------------------------
Subject: George Bush on atheism and patriotism
Typical posting:
Did George Bush really say that atheists should not be considered citizens?
Response:
The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I.
Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1988. Sherman
is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of
the press corps.  The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce
federal disaster relief for Illinois.  The discussion turned to the
presidential primary:
RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community.  Faith in
God is important to me."
RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
Americans who are atheists?"
GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under
God."
RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation
of state and church?"
GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state.  I'm just not
very high on atheists."
UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were
still angry over the remarks.
The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27,
1989.  It can also be found in "Free Enquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue,
Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.
On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane,
cochairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign.  This concerned a
lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School
District 21 (Chicago, Illinois) from forcing his first-grade Atheist son to
pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States as "one nation under God"
(Bush's phrase).  The following conversation took place:
RS: "American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday.
Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?"
EM: "It's bullshit."
RS: "What is bullshit?"
EM: "Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit."
RS: "Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush
campaign is on this issue."
EM: "You're welcome."
After Bush's election, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking him to retract
his statement.  On February 21st 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the
President, replied on White House stationery that Bush substantively stood by
his original statement, and wrote:
"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports
atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or
supported by the government."
For further information, contact American Atheist Veterans at the American
Atheist Press's Cameron Road address.
------------------------------
Subject: I know where hell is!
Typical posting:
I know where Hell is!  Hell is in Norway!
Response:
There are several towns called "Hell" in various countries around the
world, including Norway and the USA.  Whilst this information is mildly
amusing the first time one hears it, readers of alt.atheism are now
getting pretty fed up with hearing it every week.
------------------------------
Subject: Biblical contradictions wanted
Typical posting:
Does anyone have a list of Biblical contradictions?
Response:
American Atheist Press publish an atheist's handbook detailing Biblical
contradictions. See the accompanying posting on Atheist Resources for
details.
There is a file containing some Biblical contradictions available from the
archive-server@mantis.co.uk. See the contacts file for more information.
------------------------------
Subject: The USA is a Christian nation
Typical posting:
Because of the religious beliefs of the founding fathers, shouldn't the
United States be considered a Christian nation?
Response:
Based upon the writings of several important founding fathers, it is clear
that they never intended the US to be a Christian nation.  Here are some
quotes; there are many more.
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society?
In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the
ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen
upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been
the guardians of the liberties of the people.  Rulers who wish to subvert
the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient
auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it,
needs them not."
- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of
the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross.
Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
- John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson
"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government.  This marks the lowest grade of
ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will
always avail themselves for their own purpose."
- Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or
requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely
above it."
- Benjamin Franklin, from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion",
Nov. 20, 1728
------------------------------
Subject: The USA is not a Christian nation
Typical posting:
Is it true that George Washington said that the United States is not in any
sense founded upon the Christian religion?
Response:
No.  The quotation often given is in fact from Article XI of the 1797 Treaty
of Tripoli (8 Stat 154, Treaty Series 358):
Article 11
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian Religion, -- as it has in itself no character of
enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, -- and as
the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility
against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no
pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption
of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The text may be found in the Congressional Record or in treaty collections
such as Charles Bevans' "Treaties and Other International Agreements of the
United States of America 1776-1949", vol. 11 (pp. 1070-1080).
The English text of the Treaty of Tripoli was approved by the U.S. Senate on
June 7, 1797 and ratified by President John Adams on June 10, 1797.  It was
recently discovered that the Arabic version of the treaty not only lacks the
quotation, it lacks Article XI altogether.
The person who translated the Arabic to English was Joel Barlow, Consul
General at Algiers, a close friend of Thomas Paine -- and an opponent of
Christianity.  It is possible that Barlow made up Article XI, but since there
is no Arabic version of that article to be found, it's hard to say.
In 1806 a new Treaty of Tripoli was ratified which no longer contained the
quotation.
End of FAQ Digest
*****************
�
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Constructing a Logical Argument
Summary: Includes a list of logical fallacies
Keywords: FAQ, atheism, argument, fallacies, logic
Expires: Thu, 20 May 1993 10:52:14 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
Supersedes: <19930322114724@mantis.co.uk>
Lines: 632
Archive-name: atheism/logic
Alt-atheism-archive-name: logic
Last-modified: 5 April 1993
Version: 1.4
Constructing a Logical Argument
Although there is much argument on Usenet, the general quality of argument
found is poor.  This article attempts to provide a gentle introduction to
logic, in the hope of improving the general level of debate.
Logic is the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference [Concise
OED].  Logic allows us to analyze a piece of reasoning and determine whether
it is correct or not (valid or invalid).  Of course, one does not need to
study logic in order to reason correctly; nevertheless, a little basic
knowledge of logic is often helpful when constructing or analyzing an
argument.
Note that no claim is being made here about whether logic is universally
applicable.  The matter is very much open for debate.  This document merely
explains how to use logic, given that you have already decided that logic is
the right tool for the job.
Propositions (or statements) are the building blocks of a logical argument. A
proposition is a statement which is either true or false; for example, "It is
raining" or "Today is Tuesday".  Propositions may be either asserted (said to
be true) or denied (said to be false).  Note that this is a technical meaning
of "deny", not the everyday meaning.
The proposition is the meaning of the statement, not the particular
arrangement of words used to express it.  So "God exists" and "There exists a
God" both express the same proposition.
An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of
statements to establish a definite proposition".  An argument consists of
three stages.
First of all, the propositions which are necessary for the argument to
continue are stated.  These are called the premises of the argument.  They
are the evidence or reasons for accepting the argument and its conclusions.
Premises (or assertions) are often indicated by phrases such as "because",
"since", "obviously" and so on.  (The phrase "obviously" is often viewed with
suspicion, as it can be used to intimidate others into accepting suspicious
premises.  If something doesn't seem obvious to you, don't be afraid to
question it.  You can always say "Oh, yes, you're right, it is obvious" when
you've heard the explanation.)
Next, the premises are used to derive further propositions by a process known
as inference.  In inference, one proposition is arrived at on the basis of
one or more other propositions already accepted.  There are various forms of
valid inference.
The propositions arrived at by inference may then be used in further
inference.  Inference is often denoted by phrases such as "implies that" or
"therefore".
Finally, we arrive at the conclusion of the argument -- the proposition which
is affirmed on the basis of the premises and inference.  Conclusions are often
indicated by phrases such as "therefore", "it follows that", "we conclude"
and so on.  The conclusion is often stated as the final stage of inference.
For example:
Every event has a cause (premise)
The universe has a beginning (premise)
All beginnings involve an event (premise)
This implies that the beginning of the universe involved an event (inference)
Therefore the universe has a cause (inference and conclusion)
Note that the conclusion of one argument might be a premise in another
argument.  A proposition can only be called a premise or a conclusion with
respect to a particular argument; the terms do not make sense in isolation.
Sometimes an argument will not follow the order given above; for example,
the conclusions might be stated first and the premises stated
afterwards in support of the conclusion.  This is perfectly valid, if
sometimes a little confusing.
Recognizing an argument is much harder than recognizing premises or
conclusions.  Many people shower their writing with assertions without ever
producing anything which one might reasonably describe as an argument.  Some
statements look like arguments, but are not.  For example:
"If the Bible is accurate, Jesus must either have been insane, an evil liar,
or the Son of God."
This is not an argument, it is a conditional statement.  It does not assert
the premises which are necessary to support what appears to be its
conclusion.  (It also suffers from a number of other logical flaws, but we'll
come to those later.)
Another example:
"God created you; therefore do your duty to God."
The phrase "do your duty to God" is not a proposition, since it is neither
true nor false.  Therefore it is not a conclusion, and the sentence is not an
argument.
Finally, causality is important.  Consider a statement of the form "A because
B".  If we're interested in establishing A and B is offered as evidence, the
statement is an argument.  If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then
it is not an argument, it is an explanation.
For example:
"There must be something wrong with the engine of my car, because it will not
start." -- This is an argument.
"My car will not start because there is something wrong with the engine."
-- This is an explanation.
There are two traditional types of argument, deductive and inductive.  A
deductive argument is one which provides conclusive proof of its conclusions
-- that is, an argument where if the premises are true, the conclusion must
also be true.  A deductive argument is either valid or invalid.  A valid
argument is defined as one where if the premises are true, then the
conclusion is true.
An inductive argument is one where the premises provide some evidence for the
truth of the conclusion.  Inductive arguments are not valid or invalid;
however, we can talk about whether they are better or worse than other
arguments, and about how probable their premises are.
There are forms of argument in ordinary language which are neither deductive
nor inductive.  However, we will concentrate for the moment on deductive
arguments, as they are often viewed as the most rigorous and convincing.
It is important to note that the fact that a deductive argument is valid does
not imply that its conclusion holds.  This is because of the slightly
counter-intuitive nature of implication, which we must now consider more
carefully.
Obviously a valid argument can consist of true propositions.  However, an
argument may be entirely valid even if it contains only false propositions.
For example:
All insects have wings (premise)
Woodlice are insects (premise)
Therefore woodlice have wings (conclusion)
Here, the conclusion is not true because the argument's premises are false.
If the argument's premises were true, however, the conclusion would be true.
The argument is thus entirely valid.
More subtly, we can reach a true conclusion from one or more false premises,
as in:
All fish live in the sea (premise)
Dolphins are fish (premise)
Therefore dolphins live in the sea (conclusion)
However, the one thing we cannot do is reach a false conclusion through valid
inference from true premises.  We can therefore draw up a "truth table" for
implication.
The symbol "=>" denotes implication; "A" is the premise, "B" the conclusion.
"T" and "F" represent true and false respectively.
Premise Conclusion Inference
A        B        A=>B
----------------------------
F        F         T      If the premises are false and the inference
F        T         T      valid, the conclusion can be true or false.
T        F         F      If the premises are true and the conclusion
false, the inference must be invalid.
T        T         T      If the premises are true and the inference valid,
the conclusion must be true.
A sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are true.  A sound
argument therefore arrives at a true conclusion.  Be careful not to confuse
valid arguments with sound arguments.
To delve further into the structure of logical arguments would require
lengthy discussion of linguistics and philosophy.  It is simpler and probably
more useful to summarize the major pitfalls to be avoided when constructing
an argument.  These pitfalls are known as fallacies.
In everyday English the term "fallacy" is used to refer to mistaken beliefs
as well as to the faulty reasoning that leads to those beliefs.  This is fair
enough, but in logic the term is generally used to refer to a form of
technically incorrect argument, especially if the argument appears valid or
convincing.
So for the purposes of this discussion, we define a fallacy as a logical
argument which appears to be correct, but which can be seen to be incorrect
when examined more closely.  By studying fallacies we aim to avoid being
misled by them.  The following list of fallacies is not intended to be
exhaustive.
ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM (APPEAL TO FORCE)
The Appeal to Force is committed when the arguer resorts to force or the
threat of force in order to try and push the acceptance of a conclusion.  It
is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as "might makes right".
The force threatened need not be a direct threat from the arguer.
For example:
"... Thus there is ample proof of the truth of the Bible.  All those who
refuse to accept that truth will burn in Hell."
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
Argumentum ad hominem is literally "argument directed at the man".
The Abusive variety of Argumentum ad Hominem occurs when, instead of trying
to disprove the truth of an assertion, the arguer attacks the person or
people making the assertion.  This is invalid because the truth of an
assertion does not depend upon the goodness of those asserting it.
For example:
"Atheism is an evil philosophy.  It is practised by Communists and murderers."
Sometimes in a court of law doubt is cast upon the testimony of a witness by
showing, for example, that he is a known perjurer.  This is a valid way of
reducing the credibility of the testimony given by the witness, and not
argumentum ad hominem; however, it does not demonstrate that the witness's
testimony is false.  To conclude otherwise is to fall victim of the
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (see elsewhere in this list).
The circumstantial form of Argumentum ad Hominem is committed when a person
argues that his opponent ought to accept the truth of an assertion because of
the opponent's particular circumstances.
For example:
"It is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food.  How can you argue
otherwise when you're quite happy to wear leather shoes?"
This is an abusive charge of inconsistency, used as an excuse for dismissing
the opponent's argument.
This fallacy can also be used as a means of rejecting a conclusion.  For
example:
"Of course you would argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing.
You're white."
This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when one alleges that one's
adversary is rationalizing a conclusion formed from selfish interests, is
also known as "poisoning the well".
ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIUM
Argumentum ad ignorantium means "argument from ignorance".  This fallacy
occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it
has not been proved false.  Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something must be false because it has not been proved true.  (Note that this
is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved
true, a basic scientific principle.)
Examples:
"Of course the Bible is true.  Nobody can prove otherwise."
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist.  Nobody has
shown any proof that they are real."
Note that this fallacy does not apply in a court of law, where one is
generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.
Also, in scientific investigation if it is known that an event would produce
certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can
validly be used to infer that the event did not occur.  For example:
"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water
to be present on the earth.  The earth does not have a tenth as much water,
even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles.  Therefore no
such flood occurred."
In science, we can validly assume from lack of evidence that something has
not occurred.  We cannot conclude with certainty that it has not occurred,
however.
ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM
This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading.  The fallacy is
committed when the arguer appeals to pity for the sake of getting a
conclusion accepted.  For example:
"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe.  Please don't find me
guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan."
ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM
This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People.  To
commit this fallacy is to attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by
appealing to a large group of people.  This form of fallacy is often
characterized by emotive language.  For example:
"Pornography must be banned.  It is violence against women."
"The Bible must be true.  Millions of people know that it is.  Are you trying
to tell them that they are all mistaken fools?"
ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERAM
This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum.  It consists of
asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more
likely it is that that proposition is correct.
ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM
The Appeal to Authority uses the admiration of the famous to try and win
support for an assertion.  For example:
"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."
This line of argument is not always completely bogus; for example, reference
to an admitted authority in a particular field may be relevant to a
discussion of that subject.  For example, we can distinguish quite clearly
between:
"Stephen Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"
and
"John Searle has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent
computer"
Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black
hole radiation to be informed.  Searle is a linguist, so it is questionable
whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.
THE FALLACY OF ACCIDENT
The Fallacy of Accident is committed when a general rule is applied to a
particular case whose "accidental" circumstances mean that the rule is
inapplicable.  It is the error made when one goes from the general to the
specific.  For example:
"Christians generally dislike atheists.  You are a Christian, so you must
dislike atheists."
This fallacy is often committed by moralists and legalists who try to decide
every moral and legal question by mechanically applying general rules.
CONVERSE ACCIDENT / HASTY GENERALIZATION
This fallacy is the reverse of the fallacy of accident.  It occurs when one
forms a general rule by examining only a few specific cases which are not
representative of all possible cases.
For example:
"Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian.  Therefore all Christians are
insincere."
SWEEPING GENERALIZATION / DICTO SIMPLICITER
A sweeping generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to a
particular situation in which the features of that particular situation
render the rule inapplicable.  A sweeping generalization is the opposite of a
hasty generalization.
NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA / POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC
These are known as False Cause fallacies.
The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa occurs when one identifies something as the
cause of an event but it has not actually been shown to be the cause.  For
example:
"I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache disappeared.  So God
cured me of the headache."
The fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc occurs when something is assumed to
be the cause of an event merely because it happened before the event.  For
example:
"The Soviet Union collapsed after taking up atheism.  Therefore we must avoid
atheism for the same reasons."
CUM HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC
This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc.  It asserts that
because two events occur together, they must be causally related, and leaves
no room for other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events.
PETITIO PRINCIPII
This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the
conclusion reached.
CIRCULUS IN DEMONSTRANDO
This fallacy occurs when one assumes as a premise the conclusion which one
wishes to reach.  Often, the proposition will be rephrased so that the
fallacy appears to be a valid argument.  For example:
"Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office.  Hence any
government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will lose his job.
Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their secret, and will be open
to blackmail.  Therefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold government
office."
Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same as the
conclusion.  An argument like the above has actually been cited as the reason
for the British Secret Services' official ban on homosexual employees.
Another example is the classic:
"We know that God exists because the Bible tells us so.  And we know that the
Bible is true because it is the word of God."
COMPLEX QUESTION / FALLACY OF INTERROGATION
This is the Fallacy of Presupposition.  One example is the classic loaded
question:
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
The question presupposes a definite answer to another question which has not
even been asked.  This trick is often used by lawyers in cross-examination,
when they ask questions like:
"Where did you hide the money you stole?"
Similarly, politicians often ask loaded questions such as:
"How long will this EC interference in our affairs be allowed to continue?"
or
"Does the Chancellor plan two more years of ruinous privatization?"
IGNORATIO ELENCHI
The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument
supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do
with that conclusion.
For example, a Christian may begin by saying that he will argue that the
teachings of Christianity are undoubtably true.  If he then argues at length
that Christianity is of great help to many people, no matter how well he
argues he will not have shown that Christian teachings are true.
Sadly, such fallacious arguments are often successful because they arouse
emotions which cause others to view the supposed conclusion in a more
favourable light.
EQUIVOCATION
Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different
meanings in the same argument.  For example:
"What could be more affordable than free software?  But to make sure that it
remains free, that users can do what they like with it, we must place a
license on it to make sure that will always be freely redistributable."
AMPHIBOLY
Amphiboly occurs when the premises used in an argument are ambiguous because
of careless or ungrammatical phrasing.
ACCENT
Accent is another form of fallacy through shifting meaning.  In this case,
the meaning is changed by altering which parts of a statement are
emphasized.  For example, consider:
"We should not speak ILL of our friends"
and
"We should not speak ill of our FRIENDS"
FALLACIES OF COMPOSITION
One fallacy of composition is to conclude that a property shared by the parts
of something must apply to the whole.  For example:
"The bicycle is made entirely of low mass components, and is therefore very
lightweight."
The other fallacy of composition is to conclude that a property of a number
of individual items is shared by a collection of those items.  For example:
"A car uses less petrol and causes less pollution than a bus.  Therefore cars
are less environmentally damaging than buses."
FALLACY OF DIVISION
The fallacy of division is the opposite of the fallacy of composition.  Like
its opposite, it exists in two varieties.  The first is to assume that a
property of some thing must apply to its parts.  For example:
"You are studying at a rich college.  Therefore you must be rich."
The other is to assume that a property of a collection of items is shared by
each item.  For example:
"Ants can destroy a tree.  Therefore this ant can destroy a tree."
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT
This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful
events.  There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the
first event.
For example:
"If we legalize marijuana, then we would have to legalize crack and heroin
and we'll have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare.  Therefore we cannot
legalize marijuana."
"A IS BASED ON B" FALLACIES / "IS A TYPE OF" FALLACIES
These fallacies occur when one attempts to argue that things are in some way
similar without actually specifying in what way they are similar.
Examples:
"Isn't history based upon faith?  If so, then isn't the Bible also a form of
history?"
"Islam is based on faith, Christianity is based on faith, so isn't Islam a
form of Christianity?"
"Cats are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, dogs are a form of
animal based on carbon chemistry, so aren't dogs a form of cat?"
AFFIRMATION OF THE CONSEQUENT
This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, B is true, therefore A
is true".  To understand why it is a fallacy, examine the truth table for
implication given earlier.
DENIAL OF THE ANTECEDENT
This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B
is false".  Again, the truth table for implication makes it clear why this is
a fallacy.
Note that this fallacy is different from Non Causa Pro Causa; the latter has
the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false", where A does NOT in
fact imply B at all.  Here, the problem is not that the implication is
invalid; rather it is that the falseness of A does not allow us to deduce
anything about B.
CONVERTING A CONDITIONAL
This fallacy is an argument of the form "If A then B, therefore if B then A".
ARGUMENTUM AD ANTIQUITAM
This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply
because it is old, or because "that's the way it's always been."
ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITAM
This is the opposite of the argumentum ad antiquitam; it is the fallacy of
asserting that something is more correct simply because it is new or newer
than something else.
ARGUMENTUM AD CRUMENAM
The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those
with more money are more likely to be right.
ARGUMENTUM AD LAZARUM
The fallacy of assuming that because someone is poor he or she is sounder or
more virtuous than one who is wealthier.  This fallacy is the opposite of the
argumentum ad crumenam.
ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEAM
This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the
more often it is heard.  An "argumentum ad nauseum" is one that employs
constant repetition in asserting something.
BIFURCATION
Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation occurs when
one presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other
alternatives exist or can exist.
PLURIUM INTERROGATIONUM / MANY QUESTIONS
This fallacy occurs when a questioner demands a simple answer to a complex
question.
NON SEQUITUR
A non-sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises
which are not logically connected with it.
RED HERRING
This fallacy is committed when irrelevant material is introduced to the issue
being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the
points being made, towards a different conclusion.
REIFICATION / HYPOSTATIZATION
Reification occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a concrete thing.
SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or
proposition.  Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad
ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who
denies or questions the assertion being made.  The source of the fallacy is
the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
STRAW MAN
The straw man fallacy is to misrepresent someone else's position so that it
can be attacked more easily, then to knock down that misrepresented position,
then to conclude that the original position has been demolished.  It is a
fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been
made.
THE EXTENDED ANALOGY
The fallacy of the Extended Analogy often occurs when some suggested general
rule is being argued over.  The fallacy is to assume that mentioning two
different situations, in an argument about a general rule, constitutes a
claim that those situations are analogous to each other.
This fallacy is best explained using a real example from a debate about
anti-cryptography legislation:
"I believe it is always wrong to oppose the law by breaking it."
"Such a position is odious: it implies that you would not have supported
Martin Luther King."
"Are you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as the
struggle for Black liberation?  How dare you!"
TU QUOQUE
This is the famous "you too" fallacy.  It occurs when an action is argued to
be acceptable because the other party has performed it.  For instance:
"You're just being randomly abusive."
"So?  You've been abusive too."
�
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Overview for New Readers
Summary: Hi.  Please read this before you post.
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Expires: Thu, 20 May 1993 10:52:53 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
Supersedes: <19930413094109@mantis.co.uk>
Lines: 145
Archive-name: atheism/overview
Alt-atheism-archive-name: overview
Last-modified: 5 April 1993
Version: 1.2
Overview
Welcome to alt.atheism and alt.atheism.moderated.
This is the first in a series of regular postings aimed at new readers of the
newsgroups.
Many groups of a 'controversial' nature have noticed that new readers often
come up with the same questions, mis-statements or misconceptions and post
them to the net.  In addition, people often request information which has
been posted time and time again.  In order to try and cut down on this, the
alt.atheism groups have a series of five regular postings under the following
titles:
1.  Alt.Atheism FAQ: Overview for New Readers
2.  Alt.Atheism FAQ: Introduction to Atheism
3.  Alt.Atheism FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
4.  Alt.Atheism FAQ: Constructing a Logical Argument
5.  Alt.Atheism FAQ: Atheist Resources
This is article number 1.  Please read numbers 2 and 3 before posting.  The
others are entirely optional.
If you are new to Usenet, you may also find it helpful to read the newsgroup
news.announce.newusers.  The articles titled "A Primer on How to Work With
the Usenet Community", "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Usenet"
and "Hints on writing style for Usenet" are particularly relevant.  Questions
concerning how news works are best asked in news.newusers.questions.
If you are unable to find any of the articles listed above, see the "Finding
Stuff" section below.
Credits
These files could not have been written without the assistance of the many
readers of alt.atheism and alt.atheism.moderated.  In particular, I'd like to
thank the following people:
kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold)
torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
kmldorf@utdallas.edu (George Kimeldorf)
roe2@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Roelofs)
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
mayne@open.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne)
ajr@bigbird.hri.com (Andy Rosen)
stoesser@ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser)
bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan)
lippard@ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
s1b3832@rigel.tamu.edu (S. Baum)
ydobyns@phoenix.princeton.edu (York H. Dobyns)
schroede@sdsc.edu (Wayne Schroeder)
baldwin@csservera.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
D_NIBBY@unhh.unh.edu (Dana Nibby)
dempsey@Kodak.COM (Richard C. Dempsey)
jmunch@hertz,elee.calpoly.edu (John David Munch)
pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
rz@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Richard Zach)
tycchow@math.mit.edu (Tim Chow)
simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
...and countless others I've forgotten.
These articles are free.  Truly free.  You may copy them and distribute them
to anyone you wish.  However, please send any changes or corrections to the
author, and please do not re-post copies of the articles to alt.atheism; it
does nobody any good to have multiple versions of the same document floating
around the network.
Finding Stuff
All of the FAQ files *should* be somewhere on your news system.  Here are
some suggestions on what to do if you can't find them:
1. Check the newsgroup alt.atheism.  Look for subject lines starting with
"Alt.Atheism FAQ:".
2. Check the newsgroup news.answers for the same subject lines.
If you don't find anything in steps 1 or 2, your news system isn't set up
correctly, and you may wish to tell your system administrator about the
problem.
3. If you have anonymous FTP access, connect to rtfm.mit.edu [18.172.1.27].
Go to the directory /pub/usenet/alt.atheism, and you'll find the latest
versions of the FAQ files there.
FTP is a a way of copying files between networked computers.  If you
need help in using or getting started with FTP, send e-mail to
mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with
send usenet/news.answers/ftp-list/faq
in the body.
4. There are other sites which also carry news.answers postings.  The article
"Introduction to the news.answers newsgroup" carries a list of these
sites; the article is posted regularly to news.answers.
5. If you don't have FTP, send mail to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu
consisting of the following lines:
send usenet/news.answers/finding-sources
send usenet/alt.atheism/faq
send usenet/alt.atheism/introduction
send usenet/alt.atheism/logic
send usenet/alt.atheism/resources
5. (Penultimate resort)  Send mail to mail-server@mantis.co.uk consisting of
the following lines:
send atheism/faq/faq.txt
send atheism/faq/logic.txt
send atheism/faq/intro.txt
send atheism/faq/resource.txt
and our poor overworked modems will try and send you a copy of the files.
There's other stuff, too; interesting commands to try are "help" and
"send atheism/index".
6. (Last resort)  Mail mathew@mantis.co.uk, or post an article to the
newsgroup asking how you can get the FAQ files.  You should only do this
if you've tried the above methods and they've failed; it's not nice to
clutter the newsgroup or people's mailboxes with requests for files.
it's better than posting without reading the FAQ, though!  For instance,
people whose email addresses get mangled in transit and who don't have
FTP will probably need assistance obtaining the FAQ files.
mathew
�
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
In-Reply-To: <timmbake.735175045@mcl>
Nntp-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
Organization: Kupajava, East of Krakatoa
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)
Lines: 19
>DATE:   18 Apr 93 23:17:25 GMT
>FROM:   Bake Timmons <timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu>
>
>	These Bible-lovers have got to chill out.  If we all could just relax
>and see atheism for what it is, the funny pages could have more material.
>
>	Atheism denies the existence of God.  This is logically bankrupt --
>where is the proof of this nonexistence?  It's a joke.
>
>	So nobody can take the above sense of atheism seriously.  Perhaps
Perhaps because you just made it up?
Now put your skateboard away and read the FAQ.  Learn something about atheism
before you get off on these tangents.
From: tclark@tlcslip.uncecs.edu (Thomas B. Clark)
Subject: Re: "So help you God" in court?
Reply-To: tclark@med.unc.edu
Organization: UNC School of Medicine
Lines: 11
I don't think there is really any question about which god the courts
mean.  The request for solemnly swearing, so help you god,
is always made after a request to pick up the bible in your left hand
and hold up your right hand.  In the courts of NC, at least, it is always
an old and new testament.
Though it is hard to imagine, picking up the bible and swearing to (whatever)
god is sometimes the least of the religious influence.  There is a court in
Greensboro, NC, where the judge routinely has everyone in the courtroom
stand to join him in prayer at the beginning of every session.  I've thought about
sitting through it, but I'm not terribly anxious to spend 30 days in jail...
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Nicknames
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 21
In article <1993Apr18.231914.143616@zeus.calpoly.edu>,
jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch) wrote:
> >Mathew "FAQ" can't remember his last name
> >Keith "Lie Tally .sig" Ryan
> >Kent "Finn-tastic" Sandvick
> >Cindy "Popsicle Toes" Kandolf
> >Jim "Face .sig" Tims
> >Simon "Clip-that-theist" Clippendale
> >Umar "Reasonable" Khan
> >Rob "Argue with G-d" Strom
> >Dave "Buckminster" Fuller
> >Maddi "Never a useful post" Hausmann
>
> Hey, what about an affectionate nickname for me?
You could take my wrongly spelled surname :-).
Cheers,
Kent Sandvik
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Lines: 86
timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes:
>	Atheism denies the existence of God.  This is logically bankrupt --
>where is the proof of this nonexistence?  It's a joke.
This is one of my favorite fallacious points against atheism, i.e. the
belief that you can't deny anything that you can't prove doesn't exist.
This is easily nailed by showing that an infinite number of beings are
conceivable but not observed to exist, does this mean that we would have
to believe in all of them?  According to the above poster, we must believe
in objects or beings that haven't been proved not to exist so why stop at
God?   (there could be a huge number of beings identical to Ronald Reagan
except for trivial differences, say one is missing a finger, one has blond
hair,... and they all live  on other planets so we can't see them)  The
reason no one but atheists bring this up is that none of these christians
have a vested interest in these unknown beings with the exception of God.
>Fine, but why do these people shoot themselves in the foot and mock the idea of
>a God?  Here again is a classic atheist fallacy.
How did they shoot themselves in the foot?
>	Radical Muslims, the Crusades, the Inquisition are common examples that
>atheists like to bring up as marks against religion.  How weak!  Only fools can
>take that drivel seriously.  How about the grand-daddy of all human atrocities,
>the Stalinist movement?
>	Twenty eight MILLION people _killed_ under this leadership, which
>proudly featured atheism.
There is a big difference here, Stalin didn't say that he stood for a
particular moral position (i.e. against murder and terrorism, etc.) and
then did the opposite (like the religious movements), he was at least
an honest killer.  (This is NOT a support of Stalin but an attack on this
viewpoint).  Saying that atheism supports murder and violence just because
one man was a tyrant and an atheist is just bad logic, look at all the
russians that helped Stalin that weren't atheists - don't they contradict
your point?  Besides your point assumes that his atheism was relevant
to his murdering people, this is just the common assumption that atheists
can't value life as much as theists (which you didn't support).
>	Agnostics are not as funny because they are more reasonable.  Yet
>they do in some sense seem funny because they believe that the existence of God
>is unknowable.  This in itself is every bit the assumption that atheism is,
>though it's less arrogant and pompous.
Ah, and here's another point you didn't get out of the FAQ.  An atheist
doesn't have to hold the positive view that god doesn't exist, he/she may
just have the non-existence of the positive belief.  Here's the example:
Strong atheism - "I believe god does not exist"   a positive belief
Weak atheism   - "I don't believe in a god"       a negative belief
these are NOT the same, some one that has never thought of the idea of
god in their whole life is technically an atheist, but not the kind that
you are calling unreasonable.  Or let's look at it this way (in sets)
suppose that a given person has a huge set of ideas that I will represent
as capital letters and these people then either believe that these ideas
exist as real objects or not.  So if S = santa, then E(S)= no is the person
not believing in santa but still having the idea of santa.  But notice that
even E(S) = no  is itself another idea!  This means you have lots of cases:
christian :  (A,E(A)=yes,B,E(B)=no,  . . . G,E(G)=yes......) where G = god
atheist (strong) : (A,E(A). . . . .G,E(G)=no)
atheist (weak) : (A,.....E)     i.e. no G at all in the set
agnostic :  (A,.......G, E(G) = indeterminate, E', ....)
>	Why are people so afraid to say "undecided"?  It must just be another
>feature of human nature -- "undecided" is not a sexy, trendy, or glamorous
>word.  It does not inspire much hate or conflict.  It's not blasphemous.
>It's not political.  In fact it is too often taken to mean unsophisticated.
Nietzsche once said that a man would rather will nonexistence than not
will at all but the darwinist way to put this is that humanity always
prefers no or yes to a maybe because indecision is not a useful survival
trait, evolution has drilled it in us to take positions, even false ones.
>Bake Timmons, III
M.S.
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Christian Morality is
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 51
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:
>>In <11825@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
writes:
>>
>>
>>>  Actually, my atheism is based on ignorance.  Ignorance of the
>>>  existence of any god.  Don't fall into the "atheists don't believe
>>>  because of their pride" mistake.
>>
>>How do you know it's based on ignorance, couldn't that be wrong? Why would it
>>be wrong
>>to fall into the trap that you mentioned?
>>
>  If I'm wrong, god is free at any time to correct my mistake.  That
>  he continues not to do so, while supposedly proclaiming his
>  undying love for my eternal soul, speaks volumes.
What are the volumes that it speaks besides the fact that he leaves your
choices up to you?
>  As for the trap, you are not in a position to tell me that I don't
>  believe in god because I do not wish to.  Unless you can know my
>  motivations better than I do myself, you should believe me when I
>  say that I earnestly searched for god for years and never found
>  him.
I definitely agree that it's rather presumptuous for either "side" to give some
psychological reasoning for another's belief.
MAC
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
>They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
>and sank Manhattan out at sea.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle     University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs."                 Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
With new taxes and spending cuts we'll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.
From: wilkins@scubed.com (Darin Wilkins)
Subject: Re: KORESH IS GOD!
Nntp-Posting-Host: renoir
Organization: S-CUBED, A Division of Maxwell Labs; San Diego CA
Lines: 22
>>FROM:   mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
>>The latest news seems to be that Koresh will give himself up once he's
>>finished writing a sequel to the Bible.
In article <2944079995.1.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
>Writing the Seven Seals or something along those lines.  He's already
>written the first of the Seven which was around 30 pages or so and has
>handed it over to an assistant for PROOFREADING!.  I would expect any
>decent messiah to have a built-in spellchecker.  Maybe Koresh 2.0 will
>come with one.
I heard he had asked the FBI to provide him with a word processor.  Does
anyone know if Koresh has requested that it be WordPerfect5.0?  WP5.0 was
written (and is owned) by Mormons, so the theological implications of
requesting (or refusing) WP5.0 are profound!
darin
wilkins@scubed.scubed.com
________________________________
|                              |
| I will be President for food |
|______________________________|
From: bdunn@cco.caltech.edu (Brendan Dunn)
Subject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!!
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 28
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
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: bdunn@cco.caltech.edu (Brendan Dunn)
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 8
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
Thanks to whoever posted this wonderful parody of people who post without
reading the FAQ!  I was laughing for a good 5 minutes.  Were there any
parts of the FAQ that weren't mentioned?  I think there might have been one
or two...
Please don't tell me this wasn't a joke.  I'm not ready to hear that yet...
Brendan
From: kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko)
Subject: Re: Is Morality Constant (was Re: Biblical Rape)
Organization: University of Oulu, Finland
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Lines: 187
Bill Conner (bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu) wrote:
: 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.
This definition does not include all atheists (see the FAQ). However,
I (for one) do think there is no need to invoke any divine or
spiritual explanations.
It makes a big difference to claim that all things can be understood
as natural processes, and to claim that our observations do not
require us to postulate any divine intervention, or anything spiritual,
for that matter. Humans are not omnipotent, and neither is science.
However, science has one advantage theology doesn't: it is self-
correcting, with nature as its judge.
It is delightful to see how scientific inquiry is revealing a self-
consistent, simple picture of our universe. Science is no longer
a bunch of separate branches, it is one. From particle physics to
psychology. And no aspect of our life, or our universe, is safe
from its stern and stony eye. Not even our consciousness.
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.
Actually, determinism vs. indeterminism is a philosophical question,
and science cannot say whether the whole thing is actually somehow
superdeterministic or not. I think the question does not have
any meaning, as far as individual human beings go. If their apparent
free will is an illusion, it does not appear to be so from their
perspective. Bill, can you say _for sure_ whether you have a free
will or not?
: This would also have to include human intelligence of course and all
: its products. There is nothing requiring that life evolve or that it
: acquire intelligence, it's just a happy accident.
Maybe. Who are we to tell? It seems intelligence is useful - when
during the history of Earth has _one species_ been able to control
one third of the whole biosphere? This can still be a result of
numerous happy accidents our genetic machinery blindly replicates
and preserves. Even that machinery can be result of the same
principle - only the systems that can start replicating will
survive, those which don't don't make it. (Recommended reading: t.o)
: For an atheist, no
: event can be preferred to another or be said to have more or less
: value than another in any naturalistic sense, and no thought -about-
: an event can have value.
From whose perspective? I value events and things subjectively, from
my perspective. Nature does not have values, because it does not have
a perspective - values arise from awareness. If I have a subjective
perspective, it is easy to assume that other people also do, and if
I think about what it would it be like in their position, I will
eventually discover the Golden Rule. Morality is not necessarily
a gift from heavens, in fact, it may be a product of evolution.
Perhaps we are aware of ourselves because a sense of identity
is helpful, allows us to play the roles of others and make us respect
others who seem to have identity, too.
Bill, have you ever read Aristotle? Try his Ethica Nikomakhea (sp.)
for starters.
: How then can an atheist judge value? What is the basis for criticizing
: the values ennumerated in the Bible or the purposes imputed to God? On
: what grounds can the the behavior of the reliogious be condemned? It
: seems that, in judging the values that motivate others to action, you
: have to have some standard against which conduct is measured, but what
: in nature can serve that purpose? What law of nature can you invoke to
: establish your values.
C.S. Lewis tells us that this argument was the main reason why
he abandoned his atheism and became Christian. The argument is
severely flawed.
Some values, such as the Golden Rule, can have a rational basis. Some
others, like the basic idea of wanting to live, has probably its
roots in the way our brains are wired. Lewis ignored the very real
possiblity that natural selection could also favour altruistic
behaviour, and morality as well. Indeed, as humans evolved better
and better in building and using tools, they also became better
at killing each other. It is a logical necessity that evolution could
only favour those who knew how to use tools, but not against one's
own people.
The Bible reveals quite nicely that the morality of the early Jews
was not beyond this. A simple set of rules to hold the people
together, under one god. Their god did not care much about people
of other nations.
At the time of the NT, things were quite different - the Jews
were under rule of an _empire_, and could no longer simply ignore
the Gentiles. A new situation required a new morality, and along
with it a new religion was born. (A mutation in a meme pool.)
: Since every event is entirely and exclusively a physical event, what
: difference could it possibly make what -anyone- does, religious or
: otherwise, there can be no -meaning- or gradation of value. The only
: way an atheist can object to -any- behaviour is to admit that the
: objection is entirely subjective and that he(she) just doesn't like it
: - that's it. Any value judgement must be prefaced by the disclaimer
: that it is nothing more than a matter of personal opinion and carries
: no weight in any "absolute" sense.
It looks like you haven't bothered to read philosophy. Whenever there
is an observer, there is a subjective point of view, which may
value its existence and happiness (even if that were just a result
of some physical event), and other's happiness, too, if the observer
comes to think about it. In an absolutely objective sense, that is,
without any observers or subjects, moral judgments lose their
meaning.
It is not possible for a value to simply exist without a point of
view. This includes gods, too, their values are only _their_
personal judgments, not absolute truths, since such truths
do not exist.
The fact that most people do not deliberately want to hurt others
is a manifestation of the way we have fought for our existence
by becoming social beings who can think and value others'
existence.
Morality is not property of humans alone - chimps, dolphins and
many other species show great care for each other. Dolphins have
sometimes saved humans from drowning, a good deed indeed.
: That you don't like what God told people to do says nothing about God
: or God's commands, it says only that there was an electrical event in your
: nervous system that created an emotional state that your mind coupled
: with a pre-existing thought-set to form that reaction. That your
: objections -seem- well founded is due to the way you've been
: conditioned; there is no "truth" content. The whole of your
: intellectual landscape is an illusion, a virtual reality.
The last statement does not logically follow. In fact, there is
every reason to believe our thoughts can model reality very
well, and our senses can convey reliable information. Solipsism
is still a logical possibility, but not a very likely one.
You are continuously mixing two different views: the subjective
point of view (which we all share) and an objective point of view,
_which does not exist_. Any observer or thinker, any personal being,
has its own point of view. It does not matter whether this point
of view is a result of some physical events or not, it does not
cease to be subjective.
From a non-observers non-point of view, values do not exist. Neither
does pain, or pleasure, or beauty, or love. Such things are
inherently subjective.
Once again, if god wants wives to submit to their husbands, or even
to make a leap of faith into the unknown, or wants to punish us if
we don't, I disagree with his morals. I do not think my morals come
from any supreme being - to remove my morals means the same than
to make me a zombie, a machine without a single thought. If god
gave us morality to judge, but I disagree with him, it is not my
fault. He is free to replace my morals. I cannot see what is the
point of giving someone a moral system which disagrees with one's
own and then to get mad at this.
God must be schizophrenic.
: All of this being so, you have excluded
: yourself from any discussion of values, right, wrong, goood, evil,
: etc. and cannot participate. Your opinion about the Bible can have no
: weight whatsoever.
Neither can the opinion of any god, for that matter. I cannot understand
why a subjective opinion of a thing made of matter is in any way
less credible than an opinion of a thing made of something else.
Bill, take note: Absolute values must be independent of _any_ being,
_including_ gods. If god has a subjective viewpoint, it is his
own point of view, and his morals are his own.
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: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
Lines: 60
In article <11847@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <115670@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>>In article <11826@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>I am refuting nothing but simply telling you what I see, which is
>>childish propaganda and nothing to be refuted. BCCI was not
>>an Islamic bank, so this post has nothing to do with Islamic banks.
>>I am tiring of this infantile garbage, so I simply evaluated it
>>as such.
>>>  Could you maybe flesh it out just a bit?  Or did I miss the full
>>>  grandeur of it's content by virtue of my blinding atheism?
>>You may be having difficulty seeing the light because you
>>have your head up your ass. I suggest making sure this is
>>not the case before posting again.
>  It's time for your lesson in debate, Gregg.
Yeah, right.
>Begin included text:
>From vice!news.tek.com!uunet!psinntp!wrldlnk!usenet Sun Apr 18 10:01:11 PDT 1993
>I noticed a post on this topic in soc.religion.islam.   And since the topic
>of the BCCI being/not being an Islamic bank has come up, I have left in the
>one mention of the BCCI bank called "How BCCI adapted the Koran rules of
>banking" from this bibliography.
>Bennett, Neil.  "How BCCI adapted the Koran rules of banking".  The
>Times.  August 13, 1991.
So, let's see. If some guy writes a piece with a title that implies
something is the case then it must be so, is that it?
>  This is how you support a position if you intend to have anyone
>  respect it, Gregg.  Any questions?  And I even managed to include
>  the above reference with my head firmly engaged in my ass.  What's
>  your excuse?
This supports nothing. I have no reason to believe that this is
piece is anything other than another anti-Islamic slander job.
I have no respect for titles, only for real content. I can look
up this article if I want, true. But I can tell you BCCI was _not_
an Islamic bank. Seeing as I'm spending my time responding to
propaganda (in responding to this little sub-thread) I really
don't feel a deep need to do more than make statements to the
effect that the propaganda is false. If someone wants to discuss
the issue more seriously then I'd be glad to have a real discussion,
providing references, etc.
Gregg
From: nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor)
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 11
timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes:
>Rule #4:  Don't mix apples with oranges.  How can you say that the
>extermination by the Mongols was worse than Stalin?  Khan conquered people
>unsympathetic to his cause.  That was atrocious.  But Stalin killed millions of
>his own people who loved and worshipped _him_ and his atheist state!!  How can
>anyone be worse than that?
You're right.  And David Koresh claimed to be a Christian.
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
Keywords: Dan Bissell
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Lines: 14
bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
>	Niether was he a lunatic.  Would more than an entire nation be drawn
>to someone who was crazy.
Find an encyclopedia. Volume H. Now look up Hitler, Adolf. He had
many more people than just Germans enamoured with him.
P.
--
moorcockpratchettdenislearydelasoulu2iainmbanksneworderheathersbatmanpjorourke
clive p a u l  m o l o n e y  Come, let us retract the foreskin of misconception
james trinity college dublin  and apply the wire brush of enlightenment - GeoffM
brownbladerunnersugarcubeselectronicblaylockpowersspikeleekatebushhamcornpizza
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: THE POPE IS JEWISH!
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Lines: 47
west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
>The pope is jewish.... I guess they're right, and I always thought that
>the thing on his head was just a fancy hat, not a Jewish headpiece (I
>don't remember the name).  It's all so clear now (clear as mud.)
As to what that headpiece is....
(by chort@crl.nmsu.edu)
SOURCE: AP NEWSWIRE
The Vatican, Home Of Genetic Misfits?
Michael  A. Gillow, noted geneticist, has revealed  some unusual  data
after working undercover in  the Vatican for the past 18 years.   "The
Popehat(tm) is actually an advanced bone spur.", reveals Gillow in his
groundshaking report. Gillow, who had  secretly  studied the innermost
workings of the Vatican since returning from Vietnam in a wheel chair,
first approached the scientific community with his  theory in the late
1950's.
"The  whole hat  thing, that was just a cover  up. The  Vatican didn't
want the Catholic Community(tm) to realize  their  leader  was hefting
nearly  8 kilograms of extraneous  bone  tissue on    the  top of  his
skull.", notes Gillow in his report. "There are whole  laboratories in
the  Vatican  that experiment with tissue  transplants and bone marrow
experiments.  What started as a genetic fluke in the mid 1400's is now
scientifically engineered and bred for. The whole bone transplant idea
started  in  the  mid   sixties  inspired  by   doctor  Timothy  Leary
transplanting deer  bone cells into small white rats." Gillow is quick
to point  out  the  assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II and the
disappearance of Dr.  Leary from the public eye.
"When it becomes time to replace the pope", says Gillow, "The old pope
and the replacement pope are  locked  in a padded  chamber. They  butt
heads much  like  male yaks  fighting for dominance of the  herd.  The
victor emerges and has  earned the privilege of inseminating the choir
boys."
P.
--
moorcockpratchettdenislearydelasoulu2iainmbanksneworderheathersbatmanpjorourke
clive p a u l  m o l o n e y  Come, let us retract the foreskin of misconception
james trinity college dublin  and apply the wire brush of enlightenment - GeoffM
brownbladerunnersugarcubeselectronicblaylockpowersspikeleekatebushhamcornpizza
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: free moral agency and Jeff Clark
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 30
In article <healta.136.734813153@saturn.wwc.edu>
healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes:
(Deletion)
>You also said,"Why did millions suffer for what Adam and Ee did?  Seems a
>pretty sick way of going about creating a universe..."
>
>I'm gonna respond by giving a small theology lesson--forgive me, I used
>to be a theology major.
>First of all, I believe that this planet is involved in a cosmic struggle--
>"the Great Controversy betweed Christ and Satan" (i borrowed a book title).
>God has to consider the interests of the entire universe when making
>decisions.
(Deletion)
An universe it has created. By the way, can you tell me why it is less
tyrannic to let one of one's own creatures do what it likes to others?
By your definitions, your god has created Satan with full knowledge what
would happen - including every choice of Satan.
Can you explain us what Free Will is, and how it goes along with omniscience?
Didn't your god know everything that would happen even before it created the
world? Why is it concerned about being a tyrant when noone would care if
everything was fine for them? That the whole idea comes from the possibility
to abuse power, something your god introduced according to your description?
By the way, are you sure that you have read the FAQ? Especially the part
about preaching?
Benedikt
From: nancyo@shnext15.ucslabs.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor)
Subject: Re: THE POPE IS JEWISH!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 39
In article <1993Apr15.180024.19308@wam.umd.edu>
west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
+Last night, while watching the 2a.m. rebroadcast of Jerry Springer (a
+talk show) I heard this Jewel of a thought from a 12 year old racist.
+The focus of this show was on these kids and their hatred for the Jewish
+religion, and why.
[some stuff deleted]
+Interesting (and scary) no?  They went on to say how the Jews had
+killed their god, and how in the end of time that all the races would
+go to their homelands (of course, they would remain in America, which
+is New Jeruselem, as it says in Gen 2??? (what another kid said) but
+the rest of the races would go home) and then the great battle or plague
+or whatever Revel. says would happen, and the jews would be killed.
+
+The most interesting thing about this was that my roomate is Catholic,
+and had the KJV of the Bible on his desk.  He immediatly opened it up
+and began to search for the quoted passages (Gen, Rev, and John) to
+look for himself, and couldn't find what they said they saw.  I don't
+know
I saw this show a while back, and when I heard these kids
quote the Bible to justify their racist claims, I looked up
that quote about Jesus hating Jews (since Jesus himself was a
Jew, my curiousity had been piqued by such a claim).
The jist of the passage (and I am sorry but I can't recall
which passage it was exactly) was that Jesus was condemning
the Pharisees for being corrupt.
Of course, the Pharisees were Jewish too, but it wasn't Jews
as a whole that Jesus was condemning, just the powers that be.
--
Nancy O'Connor		 +
Psychology undergrad     +         The opinions I express
Simon Fraser University, +         are my own.
Burnaby, B.C.            +
CANADA			 +
From: chrisb@seachg.com (Chris Blask)
Subject: Re: A silly question on x-tianity
Reply-To: chrisb@seachg.com (Chris Blask)
Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 44
werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong) writes:
>mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>
>>Question 2: This attitude god character seems awfully egotistical
>>and proud.  But Christianity tells people to be humble.  What's the deal?
>
>Well, God pretty much has a right to be "egotistical and proud."  I
>mean, he created _you_, doesn't he have the right to be proud of such
>a job?
>
>Of course, people don't have much of a right to be proud.  What have
>they accomplished that can match God's accomplishments, anyways?  How
>do their abilities compare with those of God's.  We're an "imbecile
>worm of the earth," to quote Pascal.
Grumblegrumble...
>If you were God, and you created a universe, wouldn't you be just a
>little irked if some self-organizing cell globules on a tiny planet
>started thinking they were as great and awesome as you?
unfortunately the logic falls apart quick: all-perfect > insulted or
threatened by the actions of a lesser creature > actually by offspring >
???????????????????
How/why shuold any all-powerful all-perfect feel either proud or offended?
Anything capable of being aware of the relationship of every aspect of every
particle in the universe during every moment of time simultaneously should
be able to understand the cause of every action of every 'cell globule' on
each tniy planet...
>Well, actually, now that I think of it, it seems kinda odd that God
>would care at all about the Earth.  OK, so it was a bad example. But
>the amazing fact is that He does care, apparently, and that he was
>willing to make some grand sacrifices to ensure our happiness.
"All-powerful, Owner Of Everything in the Universe Makes Great Sacrifices"
makes a great headline but it doesn't make any sense.  What did he
sacrifice?  Where did it go that he couldn't get it back?  If he gave
something up, who'd he give it up to?
-chris
[you guys have fun, I'm agoin' to Key West!!]
From: bcash@crchh410.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: I don't beleive in you either.
Nntp-Posting-Host: crchh410
Organization: BNR, Inc.
Lines: 9
In article <1993Apr13.213055.818@antioc.antioch.edu>, smauldin@antioc.antioch.edu writes:
|> I stopped believing in you as well, long before the invention of technology.
|>
|> --GOD
|>
Ahhh go back to alt.autotheism where you belong!
Brian /-|-\
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Theism : Evidence?
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 26
In article <1qid04$fct@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>
>I don't see anything special about theism in general that makes it a
>particular hazard (more so than say, stupidity, anarchy, or patriotism).
>Of course, it depends on the religion, but I see nothing about believing
>in gods that in and of itself entails or even promotes xenophobia, genocide,
>etc.
If the emphasis is on the "in general", then of course you're
correct, since you haven't really said anything.  If we restrict
our observations to practiced religions, there are lots of
examples of god mandated genocide.  Just ask the Canaanites.  The
point is that if you believe in a god, and if you believe he has
ordered you to eliminate an entire race, you will likely make the
attempt.  After all, if it was OK in the past, it could surely be
OK in the present.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Re: free moral agency and Jeff Clark
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 21
In article <sandvik-140493185248@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>This is the reason I like the controversy of post-modernism, the
>issues of polarities -- evil and good -- are just artificial
>constructs, and they fall apart during a closer inspection.
>
>The more I look into the notion of a constant struggle between
>the evil and good forces, the more it sounds like a metaphor
>that people just assume without closer inspection.
>
More info please.  I'm not well exposed to these ideas.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 34
In article <1993Apr15.150938.975@news.wesleyan.edu> SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu (SCOTT D. SAUYET) writes:
>In <1qabe7INNaff@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu writes:
>
>>> Chimpanzees fight wars over land.
>>
>> But chimps are almost human...
>>
>> keith
>
>Could it be?  This is the last message from Mr. Schneider, and it's
>more than three days old!
>
>Are these his final words?  (And how many here would find that
>appropriate?)  Or is it just that finals got in the way?
>
No. The christians were leary of having an atheist spokesman
(seems so clandestine, and all that), so they had him removed.  Of
course, Keith is busy explaining to his fellow captives how he
isn't really being persecuted, since (after all) they *are*
feeding him, and any resistance on his part would only be viewed
as trouble making.
I understand he did make a bit of a fuss when they tatooed "In God
We Trust" on his forehead, though.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: bcash@crchh410.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: New Member
Nntp-Posting-Host: crchh410
Organization: BNR, Inc.
Lines: 47
In article <C5HIEw.7s1@portal.hq.videocart.com>, dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) writes:
|>   Hello. I just started reading this group today, and I think I am going
|> to be a large participant in its daily postings. I liked the section of
|> the FAQ about constructing logical arguments - well done. I am an atheist,
|> but I do not try to turn other people into atheists. I only try to figure
|> why people believe the way they do - I don't much care if they have a
|> different view than I do. When it comes down to it . . . I could be wrong.
|> I am willing to admit the possibility - something religious followers
|> dont seem to have the capability to do.
Welcome aboard!
|>
|>   I notice alot of posts from Bobby. Why does anybody ever respond to
|> his posts ? He always falls back on the same argument:
(I think you just answered your own question, there)
|>
|> "If the religion is followed it will cause no bad"
|>
|>   He is right. Just because an event was explained by a human to have been
|> done "in the name of religion", does not mean that it actually followed
|> the religion. He will always point to the "ideal" and say that it wasn't
|> followed so it can't be the reason for the event. There really is no way
|> to argue with him, so why bother. Sure, you may get upset because his
|> answer is blind and not supported factually - but he will win every time
|> with his little argument. I don't think there will be any postings from
|> me in direct response to one of his.
Most responses were against his postings that spouted the fact that
all atheists are fools/evil for not seeing how peachy Islam is.
I would leave the pro/con arguments of Islam to Fred Rice, who is more
level headed and seems to know more on the subject, anyway.
|>
|>   Happy to be aboard !
How did you know I was going to welcome you abord?!?
|>
|> Dave Fuller
|> dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com
|>
|>
Brian /-|-\
From: bcash@crchh410.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: free moral agency
Nntp-Posting-Host: crchh410
Organization: BNR, Inc.
Lines: 24
In article <house.734841689@helios>, house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house) writes:
|> marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall) writes:
|>
|> >healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes:
|>
|> >>     you might think "oh yeah. then why didn't god destroy it in the bud
|> >>before it got to the point it is now--with millions through the
|> >>ages suffering along in life?"
|> >>      the only answer i know is that satan made the claim that his way was
|> >>better than God's.  God is allowing satan the chance to prove that his way
|> >>is better than God's.  we all know what that has brought.
|>
|> >Come on!  God is allowing the wishes of one individual to supercede the
|> >well-being of billions?  I seriously doubt it.  Having read the Bible
|> >twice, I never got the impression that God and Satan were working in some
|> >sort of cooperative arrangement.
|>
|> Read the book of Job.
|>
Oh, that was just a bet.
Brian /-|-\
From: bcash@crchh410.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
Nntp-Posting-Host: crchh410
Organization: BNR, Inc.
Lines: 4
I'm sold!  Where do I sign up?
Brian /-|-\  The next book: "Charles Manson: Lord, Lunatic, or Liar"
From: marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA
Lines: 72
NNTP-Posting-Host: csugrad.cs.vt.edu
Keywords: Dan Bissell
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: a137490@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Aario Sami)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Computing Centre
Lines: 16
Distribution: sfnet
NNTP-Posting-Host: cc.tut.fi
In <kmr4.1466.734160929@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>     "Wait. You just said that humans are rarely reasonable. Doesn't that
>      contradict atheism, where everything is explained through logic and
>      reason? This is THE contradiction in atheism that proves it false."
>           --- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #2
Does anybody have Bobby's post in which he said something like "I don't
know why there are more men than women in islamic countries. Maybe it's
atheists killing the female children"? It's my personal favorite!
--
Sami Aario         |  "Can you see or measure an atom? Yet you can explode
a137490@cc.tut.fi  |   one. Sunlight is comprised of many atoms."
-------------------'  "Your stupid minds! Stupid, stupid!"
Eros in "Plan 9 From Outer Space"     DISCLAIMER: I don't agree with Eros.
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
Keywords: Dan Bissell
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Lines: 28
1.  Did you read the FAQs?
2.  If NO, Read the FAQs.
3.  IF YES, you wouldn't have posted such drivel.  The "Lord, Liar
or Lunatic" argument is a false trilemma.  Even if you disprove
Liar and Lunatic (which you haven't), you have not eliminated
the other possibilities, such as Mistaken, Misdirected, or
Misunderstood.  You have arbitrarily set up three and only
three possibilities without considering others.
4.  Read a good book on rhetoric and critical thinking.  If
you think the "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" discussion is an
example of a good argument, you are in need of learning.
5.  Read the FAQs again, especially "Constructing a Logical
Argument."
Ignore these instructions at your peril.  Disobeying them
leaves you open for righteous flaming.
--
Maddi Hausmann                       madhaus@netcom.com
Centigram Communications Corp        San Jose California  408/428-3553
Kids, please don't try this at home.  Remember, I post professionally.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Slavery (was Re: Why is sex only allowed in marriage: ...)
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 18
> Oh, this all sounds so nice!  Everyone helping each other and always smiling
> and fluffy bunnies everywhere.  Wake up!  People are just not like that.  It
> seems evident from history that no society has succeeded when it had to rely
> upon the goodwill and unselfishness of the people.  Isn't it obvious from
> places like Iran that even if there are only a few greedy people in society
> then they are going to be attracted to positions of power?  Sounds like a
> recipe for disaster.
Looking at historical evidence such 'perfect utopian' islamic states
didn't survive. I agree, people are people, and even if you might
start an Islamic revolution and create this perfect state, it takes
some time and the internal corruption will destroy the ground rules --
again.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Slavery (was Re: Why is sex only allowed in marriage: ...)
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 16
In article <1993Apr14.132813.16343@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>,
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) wrote:
> Anyhow, on the basis of the apparent success of Islamic banks, it seems
> to me that the statement that a zero-interest economy cannot survive in
> today's world may be a bit premature.
I'm sure zero-intested economical systems survive on a small-scale,
co-ops is not an Islamic invention, and we have co-operatives working
all around the world. However such systems don't stand the corruption
of a large scale operation. Actually, nothing could handle human
greed, IMHO. Not even Allah :-).
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: New Member
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 20
In article <C5HIEw.7s1@portal.hq.videocart.com>,
dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) wrote:
>   He is right. Just because an event was explained by a human to have been
> done "in the name of religion", does not mean that it actually followed
> the religion. He will always point to the "ideal" and say that it wasn't
> followed so it can't be the reason for the event. There really is no way
> to argue with him, so why bother. Sure, you may get upset because his
> answer is blind and not supported factually - but he will win every time
> with his little argument. I don't think there will be any postings from
> me in direct response to one of his.
Hey! Glad to have some serious and constructive contributors in this
newsgroup. I agree 100% on the statement above, you might argue with
Bobby for eons, and he still does not get it, so the best thing is
to spare your mental resources to discuss more interesting issues.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 27
In article <1qjfnv$ogt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
O'Dwyer) wrote:
> (1) Does the term "hero-worship" mean anything to you?
Yes, worshipping Jesus as the super-saver is indeed hero-worshipping
of the grand scale. Worshipping Lenin that will make life pleasant
for the working people is, eh, somehow similar, or what.
> (2) I understand that gods are defined to be supernatural, not merely
>     superhuman.
The notion of Lenin was on the borderline of supernatural insights
into how to change the world, he wasn't a communist God, but he was
the man who gave presents to kids during Christmas.
> #Actually, I agree. Things are always relative, and you can't have
> #a direct mapping between a movement and a cause. However, the notion
> #that communist Russia was somewhat the typical atheist country is
> #only something that Robertson, Tilton et rest would believe in.
>
> Those atheists were not True Unbelievers, huh?   :-)
Don't know what they were, but they were fanatics indeed.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 24
In article <bissda.4.734849678@saturn.wwc.edu>, bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN
LAWRENCE BISSELL) wrote:
>
> 	First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.  It
> makes sense to be one.  Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar,
> lunatic, or the real thing?  (I might be a little off on the title, but he
> writes the book.  Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity,
> in the process he became a Christian himself.
Seems he didn't understand anything about realities, liar, lunatic
or the real thing is a very narrow view of the possibilities of Jesus
message.
Sigh, it seems religion makes your mind/brain filter out anything
that does not fit into your personal scheme.
So anyone that thinks the possibilities with Jesus is bound to the
classical Lewis notion of 'liar, lunatic or saint' is indeed bound
to become a Christian.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
Organization: sgi
Lines: 38
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1qjf31$o7t@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1qimbe$sp@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> #In article <1qif1g$fp3@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> #|> In article <1qialf$p2m@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> #|>
|> #|> I forget the origin of the quote, but "I gotta use words when I talk to
|> #|> you".  An atheist is one who lacks belief in gods, yes?  If so, then
|> #|> it's entirely plausible that an atheist could dig Lenin or Lennon to
|> #|> such an extent that it might be considered "worship", and still be
|> #|> an atheist.  Anything else seems to be Newspeak.
|> #
|> #Ask yourself the following question.   Would you regard an ardent
|> #Nazi as a republican, simply because Germany no longer had a Kaiser?
|>
|> No, because that's based on false dichotomy.   There are more options
|> than you present me.
And that, of course, is the point.   You can't simply divide the
world into atheists and non-atheists on the basis of god-belief.
If all you care about is belief in a supernatural deity, and
have nothing to say about behaviour, then belief in a supernatural
being is your criterion.
But once you start talking about behaviour, then someone's suscept-
ibility to be led by bad people into doing bad things is what you
are - I assume - worried about.
And in that area, what you care about is whether someone is sceptical,
critical and autonomous on the one hand, or gullible, excitable and
easily led on the other.
I would say that a tendency to worship tyrants and ideologies indicates
that a person is easily led.   Whether they have a worship or belief
in a supernatural hero rather than an earthly one seems to me to be
beside the point.
jon.
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Lines: 13
In article <EDM.93Apr15104322@gocart.twisto.compaq.com>, edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:
> >>>>> On Thu, 15 Apr 1993 04:54:38 GMT, bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) said:
>
> DLB> 	First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.  It
> DLB> makes sense to be one.  Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar,
> DLB>lunatic, or the real thing?  (I might be a little off on the title, but he
> DLB>writes the book.  Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity,
> DLB> in the process he became a Christian himself.
>
> Here we go again...
Just the friendly folks at Christian Central, come to save you.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: islamic genocide
Organization: sgi
Lines: 48
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
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: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: I don't beleive in you either.
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 15
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu
In article <1993Apr13.213055.818@antioc.antioch.edu> smauldin@antioc.antioch.edu writes:
>I stopped believing in you as well, long before the invention of technology.
>
>--GOD
>
Don't listen to this guy, he's just a crank.  At first, this business
about being the "one true god" was tolerated by the rest of us,
but now it has gotten completely out of hand.
Besides, it really isn't so bad when people stop believing in you.
It's much more relaxing when mortals aren't always begging you for favors.
-- ZEUS
From: a137490@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Aario Sami)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Computing Centre
Lines: 48
Distribution: sfnet
NNTP-Posting-Host: cc.tut.fi
In <1993Apr9.154316.19778@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>In article <kmr4.1483.734243128@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>>	If I state that I know that there is a green marble in a closed box,
>>which I have _never_ seen, nor have any evidence for its existance; I would
>>be guilty of deceit, even if there is, in fact, a green marble inside.
>>
>>	The question of whether or not there is a green marble inside, is
>>irrelevent.
>You go ahead and play with your marbles.
I love it, I love it, I love it!! Wish I could fit all that into a .sig
file! (If someone is keeping a list of Bobby quotes, be sure to include
this one!)
>>
>>	Stating an unproven opinion as a fact, is deceit. And, knowingly
>>being decietful is a falsehood and a lie.
>So why do you think its an unproven opinion?  If I said something as
>fact but you think its opinion because you do not accept it, then who's
>right?
The Flat-Earthers state that "the Earth is flat" is a fact. I don't accept
this, I think it's an unproven opinion, and I think the Round-Earthers are
right because they have better evidence than the Flat-Earthers do.
Although I can't prove that a god doesn't exist, the arguments used to
support a god's existence are weak and often self-contradictory, and I'm not
going to believe in a god unless someone comes over to me and gives me a
reason to believe in a god that I absolutely can't ignore.
A while ago, I read an interesting book by a fellow called Von Daenicken,
in which he proved some of the wildest things, and on the last page, he
wrote something like "Can you prove it isn't so?" I certainly can't, but
I'm not going to believe him, because he based his "proof" on some really
questionable stuff, such as old myths (he called it "circumstancial
evidence" :] ).
So far, atheism hasn't made me kill anyone, and I'm regarded as quite an
agreeable fellow, really. :)
--
Sami Aario         |  "Can you see or measure an atom? Yet you can explode
a137490@cc.tut.fi  |   one. Sunlight is comprised of many atoms."
-------------------'  "Your stupid minds! Stupid, stupid!"
Eros in "Plan 9 From Outer Space"     DISCLAIMER: I don't agree with Eros.
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: islamic authority [sic] over women
X-Sender: newtout 0.08 Feb 23 1993
Lines: 62
who: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
what: <kmr4.1426.733987668@po.cwru.edu>
with: rush@leland.Stanford.EDU
what: <1993Apr5.050524.9361@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>>> Other readers: I just joined, but is this guy for real?
>>> I'm simply amazed.
KR> "Sadly yes. Don't loose any sleep over Old 'Zlumber. Just
KR> have some fun with him, but he is basically harmless.
KR> At least, if you don't work in NY city."
I don't find it hard to believe that "Ole 'Zlumber" really believes
the hate and ignorant prattle he writes. The frightening thought is,
there are people even worse than he! To say that feminism equals
"superiority" over men is laughable as long as he doesn't then proceed
to pick up a rifle and start to shoot women as a preemptive strike---
aka the Canada slaughter that occured a few years ago. But then, men
killing women is nothing new. Islamic Fundamentalists just have a
"better" excuse (Qu'ran).
from the Vancouver Sun, Thursday, October 4, 1990
by John Davidson, Canadian Press
MONTREAL-- Perhaps it's the letter to the five-year old
daughter that shocks the most.
"I hope one day you will be old enough to understand what
happened to your parents," wrote Patrick Prevost. "I loved
your mother with a passion that went as far as hatred."
Police found the piece of paper near Prevost's body in his
apartment in northeast Montreal.
They say the 39-year-old mechanic committed suicide after
killing his wife, Jocelyne Parent, 31.
The couple had been separated for a month and the woman had
gone to his apartment to talk about getting some more money
for food. A violent quarrel broke out and Prevost attacked
his wife with a kitchen knife, cutting her throat, police said.
She was only the latest of 13 women slain by a husband or
lover in Quebec in the last five weeks.
Five children have also been slain as a result of the same
domestic "battles."
Last year in Quebec alone, 29 [women] were slain by their
husbands. That was more than one-third of such cases across
Canada, according to statistics from the Canadian Centre for
Justice. [rest of article ommited]
Then to say that women are somehow "better" or "should" be the
one to "stay home" and raise a child is also laughable. Women
have traditionally done hard labor to support a family, often
more than men in many cultures, throughout history. Seems to me
it takes at least two adults to raise a child, and that BOTH should
stay home to do so!
--- Maximus 2.01wb
Subject: Re: Feminism and Islam, again
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Organization: Wesleyan University
Nntp-Posting-Host: wesleyan.edu
Lines: 30
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: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Lines: 28
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de
In article <1993Apr15.125245.12872@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) writes:
|In <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp writes:
|> In article <30114@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
|
|> #I'm one of those people who does not know what the word objective means
|> #when put next to the word morality.  I assume its an idiom and cannot
|> #be defined by its separate terms.
|> #
|> #Give it a try.
|>
|> Objective morality is morality built from objective values.
|
|      "And these objective values are ... ?"
|Please be specific, and more importantly, motivate.
I'll take a wild guess and say Freedom is objectively valuable.  I base
this on the assumption that if everyone in the world were deprived utterly
of their freedom (so that their every act was contrary to their volition),
almost all would want to complain.  Therefore I take it that to assert or
believe that "Freedom is not very valuable", when almost everyone can see
that it is, is every bit as absurd as to assert "it is not raining" on
a rainy day.  I take this to be a candidate for an objective value, and it
it is a necessary condition for objective morality that objective values
such as this exist.
--
Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
Lines: 63
In article <1993Apr14.121134.12187@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>>In article <C5C7Cn.5GB@ra.nrl.navy.mil> khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes:
>I just borrowed a book from the library on Khomeini's fatwa etc.
>I found this useful passage regarding the legitimacy of the "fatwa":
>"It was also common knowledge as prescribed by Islamic law, that the
>sentence was only applicable where the jurisdiction of Islamic law
>applies.  Moreover, the sentence has to be passed by an Islamic court
>and executed by the state machinery through the due process of the law.
>Even in Islamic countries, let alone in non-Muslim lands, individuals
>cannot take the law into their own hands.  The sentence when passed,
>must be carried out by the state through the usual machinery and not by
>individuals.  Indeed it becomes a criminal act to take the law into
>one's own hands and punish the offender unless it is in the process of
>self-defence.  Moreover, the offender must be brought to the notice of
>the court and it is the court who shoud decide how to deal with him.
>This law applies equally to Muslim as well as non-Muslim territories.
I agree fully with the above statement and is *precisely* what I meant
by my previous statements about Islam not being anarchist and the
law not being _enforcible_ despite the _law_ being applicable.
>Hence, on such clarification from the ulama [Islamic scholars], Muslims
>in Britain before and after Imam Khomeini's fatwa made it very clear
>that since Islamic law is not applicable to Britain, the hadd
>[compulsory] punishment cannot be applied here."
I disagree with this conclusion about the _applicability_ of the
Islamic law to all muslims, wherever they may be. The above conclusion
does not strictly follow from the foregoing, but only the conclusion
that the fatwa cannot be *enforced* according to Islamic law. However,
I do agree that the punishment cannot be applied to Rushdie even *were*
it well founded.
>Wow... from the above, it looks like that from an Islamic viewpoint
>Khomeini's "fatwa" constitutes a "criminal act" .... perhaps I could
>even go out on a limb and call Khomeini a "criminal" on this basis....
Certainly putting a price on the head of Rushdie in Britain is a criminal
act according to Islamic law.
>Anyhow, I think it is understood by _knowledgeable_ Muslims that
>Khomeini's "fatwa" is Islamically illegitimate, at least on the basis
>expounded above.  Others, such as myself and others who have posted here
>(particularly Umar Khan and Gregg Jaeger, I think) go further and say
>that even the punishment constituted in the fatwa is against Islamic law
>according to our understanding.
Yes.
Gregg
From:  (Rashid)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
Nntp-Posting-Host: 47.252.4.179
Organization: NH
Lines: 76
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:  (Rashid)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
Nntp-Posting-Host: 47.252.4.179
Organization: NH
Lines: 34
> What about the Twelve Imams, who he considered incapable of error
> or sin? Khomeini supports this view of the Twelve Imans. This is
> heresy for the very reasons I gave above.
I would be happy to discuss the  issue of the 12 Imams with you, although
my preference would be to move the discussion to another
newsgroup.  I feel a philosophy
or religion group would be more appropriate. The topic is deeply
embedded in the world view of Islam and the
esoteric teachings of the Prophet (S.A.). Heresy does not enter
into it at all except for those who see Islam only as an exoteric
religion that is only nominally (if at all) concerned with the metaphysical
substance of man's being and nature.
A good introductory book (in fact one of the best introductory
books to Islam in general) is Murtaza Mutahhari's "Fundamental's
of Islamic Thought - God, Man, and the Universe" - Mizan Press,
translated by R. Campbell. Truly a beautiful book. A follow-up book
(if you can find a decent translation) is "Wilaya - The Station
of the Master" by the same author. I think it also goes under the
title of "Master and Mastership" - It's a very small book - really
just a transcription of a lecture by the author.
The introduction to the beautiful "Psalms of Islam" - translated
by William C. Chittick (available through Muhammadi Trust of
Great Britain) is also an excellent introduction to the subject. We
have these books in our University library - I imagine any well
stocked University library will have them.
From your posts, you seem fairly well versed in Sunni thought. You
should seek to know Shi'ite thought through knowledgeable
Shi'ite authors as well - at least that much respect is due before the
charge of heresy is levelled.
As salaam a-laikum
From: davec@silicon.csci.csusb.edu (Dave Choweller)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
Organization: California State University, San Bernardino
Lines: 45
Nntp-Posting-Host: silicon.csci.csusb.edu
In article <1qif1g$fp3@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <1qialf$p2m@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|In article <1qi921$egl@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
[stuff deleted...]
>||> To the newsgroup at large, how about this for a deal: recognise that what
>||> happened in former Communist Russia has as much bearing on the validity
>||> of atheism as has the doings of sundry theists on the validity of their
>||> theism.  That's zip, nada, none.  The fallacy is known as ad hominem, and
>||> it's an old one. It should be in the Holy FAQ, in the Book of Constructing
>||> a Logical Argument :-)
>|
>|Apart from not making a lot of sense, this is wrong.   There
>|is no "atheist creed" that taught any communist what to do "in
>|the name of atheism".   There clearly are theistic creeds and
>|instructions on how to act for theists.    They all madly
>|conflict with one another, but that's another issue.
>
>Lack of instructions on how to act might also be evil.
That's like saying that, since mathematics includes no instructions on
how to act, it is evil.  Atheism is not a moral system, so why should
it speak of instructions on how to act?  *Atheism is simply lack of
belief in God*.
Plenty of theists
>think so.   So one could argue the case for "atheism causes whatever
>I didn't like about the former USSR" with as much validity as "theism
>causes genocide" - that is to say, no validity at all.
I think the argument that a particular theist system causes genocide
can be made more convincingly than an argument that atheism causes genocide.
This is because theist systems contain instructions on how to act,
and one or more of these can be shown to cause genocide.  However, since
the atheist set of instructions is the null set, how can you show that
atheism causes genocide?
--
David Choweller (davec@silicon.csci.csusb.edu)
There are scores of thousands of human insects who are
ready at a moment's notice to reveal the Will of God on
every possible subject.          --George Bernard Shaw.
--
There are scores of thousands of human insects who are
ready at a moment's notice to reveal the Will of God on
every possible subject.          --George Bernard Shaw.
Subject: Re: The nonexistance of Atheists?!
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Organization: Wesleyan University
Nntp-Posting-Host: wesleyan.edu
Lines: 22
In article <bskendigC5JCwx.Jzn@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
> [s.c.a quotes deleted]
>
> It really looks like these people have no idea at all of what it means
> to be atheist.  There are more Bobby Mozumder clones in the world than
> I thought...
Well, that explains some things; I posted on soc.religion.islam
with an attached quote by Bobby to the effect that all atheists
are lying evil scum, and asked if it was a commonly-held idea
among muslims.  I got no response.  Asking about the unknown,
I guess...
Karl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "Lastly, I come to China in the hope      | "All you touch and all you see  |
| of fulfilling a lifelong ambition -       | Is all your life will ever be." |
| dropping acid on the Great Wall."  --Duke |                 --Pink Floyd    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|         A Lie is still a Lie even if 3.8 billion people believe it.         |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 75
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu
Keywords: Dan Bissell
In article <bissda.4.734849678@saturn.wwc.edu> bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
It appears that Walla Walla College will fill the same role in alt.atheist
that Allegheny College fills in alt.fan.dan-quayle.
>	First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.  It
>makes sense to be one.  Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar,
>lunatic, or the real thing?  (I might be a little off on the title, but he
>writes the book.  Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity,
>in the process he became a Christian himself.
Converts to xtianity have this tendency to excessively darken their
pre-xtian past, frequently falsely.  Anyone who embarks on an
effort to "destroy" xtianity is suffering from deep megalomania, a
defect which is not cured by religious conversion.
>	The arguements he uses I am summing up.  The book is about whether
>Jesus was God or not.  I know many of you don't believe, but listen to a
>different perspective for we all have something to gain by listening to what
>others have to say.
Different perspective?  DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE??  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
>	The book says that Jesus was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a
>modern day Koresh) or he was actually who he said he was.
(sigh!)  Perhaps Big J was just mistaken about some of his claims.
Perhaps he was normally insightful, but had a few off days.  Perhaps
many (most?) of the statements attributed to Jesus were not made by
him, but were put into his mouth by later authors.  Other possibilities
abound.  Surely, someone seriously examining this question could
come up with a decent list of possible alternatives, unless the task
is not serious examination of the question (much less "destroying"
xtianity) but rather religious salesmanship.
>	Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows.  Who would
>die for a lie?
How many Germans died for Nazism?  How many Russians died in the name
of the proletarian dictatorship?  How many Americans died to make the
world safe for "democracy".  What a silly question!
>Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar?  People
>gathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing
>someone who was or had been healed.  Call me a fool, but I believe he did
>heal people.
Is everyone who performs a healing = God?
>	Niether was he a lunatic.  Would more than an entire nation be drawn
>to someone who was crazy.
It's probably hard to "draw" an entire nation to you unless you
are crazy.
>Very doubtful, in fact rediculous.  For example
>anyone who is drawn to David Koresh is obviously a fool, logical people see
>this right away.
>	Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the
>real thing.
Anyone who is convinced by this laughable logic deserves
to be a xtian.
>	Some other things to note.  He fulfilled loads of prophecies in
>the psalms, Isaiah and elsewhere in 24 hrs alone.  This in his betrayal
>and Crucifixion.  I don't have my Bible with me at this moment, next time I
>write I will use it.
Don't bother.  Many of the "prophecies" were "fulfilled" only in the
eyes of xtian apologists, who distort the meaning of Isaiah and
other OT books.
From: a137490@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Aario Sami)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Computing Centre
Lines: 37
Distribution: sfnet
NNTP-Posting-Host: cc.tut.fi
[deletions...]
In <1993Apr13.184227.1191@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>I really don't think you can imagine what it is like to be infinite.
First of all, infinity is a mathematical concept created by humans
to explain certain things in a certain way. We don't know if it actually
applies to reality, we don't know if anything in the world is infinite.
>It wouldn't be able to
>comprehend what reality is like for the programmer, because that would
>require an infinite memory or whatever because reality is continuous and
>based on infinietely small units- no units.
You don't know if the universe is actually continuous. Continuum is another
mathematical concept (based on infinity) used to explain things in a certain
way.
>Because humans do not know what infinite is.  We call it something
>beyond numbers.  We call it endless, but we do not know what it is.
I have a pretty good idea of what infinity is. It's a man-made concept, and
like many man-made concepts, it has evolved through time. Ancient Greeks had
a different understanding of it.
>So, we can call Allah infinitely powerful, knowledgeable, etc.., yet we
>cannot imagine what Allah actually is, because we just cannot imagine
>what it is like to be infinite.
Precicely. We don't even know if infinity applies to reality.
--
Sami Aario         |  "Can you see or measure an atom? Yet you can explode
a137490@cc.tut.fi  |   one. Sunlight is comprised of many atoms."
-------------------'  "Your stupid minds! Stupid, stupid!"
Eros in "Plan 9 From Outer Space"     DISCLAIMER: I don't agree with Eros.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
Organization: sgi
Lines: 24
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <115468@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
|> In article <1qg79g$kl5@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >You are amazed that I find it difficult to grasp it when
|> >people justify death-threats against Rushdie with the
|> >claim "he was born Muslim?"
|>
|> This is empty rhetoric. I am amazed at your inability to understand what
|> I am saying not that you find it difficult to "grasp it when people
|> justify death-threats...". I find it amazing that your ability to
|> consider abstract questions in isolation. You seem to believe in the
|> falsity of principles by the consequence of their abuse. You must *hate*
|> physics!
You're closer than you might imagine.   I certainly despised living
under the Soviet regime when it purported to organize society according
to what they fondly imagined to be the "objective" conclusions of
Marxist dialectic.
But I don't hate Physics so long as some clown doesn't start trying
to control my life on the assumption that we are all interchangeable
atoms, rather than individual human beings.
jon.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: A Little Too Satanic
Organization: sgi
Lines: 16
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <66486@mimsy.umd.edu>, mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:
|> Jeff West writes:
|>
|> >You claimed that people that took the time to translate the bible would
|> >also take the time to get it right.  But here in less than a couple
|> >generations you've been given ample proof (agreed to by yourself above)
|> >that the "new" versions "tends to be out of step with other modern
|> >translations."
|>
|> What I said was that people took time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly.
|> Translations present completely different issues.
So why do I read in the papers that the Qumram texts had "different
versions" of some OT texts.   Did I misunderstand?
jon.
From: a137490@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Aario Sami)
Subject: Re: note to Bobby M.
Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Computing Centre
Lines: 14
Distribution: sfnet
NNTP-Posting-Host: cc.tut.fi
In <1993Apr10.191100.16094@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>Insults about the atheistic genocide was totally unintentional.  Under
>atheism, anything can happen, good or bad, including genocide.
And you know why this is? Because you've conveniently _defined_ a theist as
someone who can do no wrong, and you've _defined_ people who do wrong as
atheists. The above statement is circular (not to mention bigoting), and,
as such, has no value.
--
Sami Aario         |  "Can you see or measure an atom? Yet you can explode
a137490@cc.tut.fi  |   one. Sunlight is comprised of many atoms."
-------------------'  "Your stupid minds! Stupid, stupid!"
Eros in "Plan 9 From Outer Space"     DISCLAIMER: I don't agree with Eros.
From:  (Rashid)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam
Nntp-Posting-Host: 47.252.4.179
Organization: NH
Lines: 31
In article <1993Apr14.121134.12187@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>,
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) wrote:
>
> >In article <C5C7Cn.5GB@ra.nrl.navy.mil> khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes:
Stuff deleted
> >>What we should be demanding, is for Khomeini and his ilk to publicly
> >>come clean and to show their proof that Islamic Law punishes
> >>apostacy with death or that it tolerates any similar form of
> >>coversion of freedom of conscience.
All five schools of law (to the best of my knowledge) support the
death sentence for apostasy WHEN it is accompanied by open, persistent,
and aggravated hostility to Islam. Otherwise
I agree, there is no legal support for punishment of disbelief.
The Qur'an makes it clear that belief is a matter of conscience. Public
or private disavowal of Islam or conversion to another faith is not
punishable (there are some jurists who have gone against this
trend and insisted that apostasy is punishable (even by death) - but
historically they are the exception.
Cursing and Insulting the Prophets falls under the category of "Shatim".
>
> I just borrowed a book from the library on Khomeini's fatwa etc.
>Lots of stuff deleted<
>
> And, according to the above analysis, it looks like Khomeini's offering
> of a reward for Rushdie's death in fact constitutes a criminal act
> according to Islamic law.
Please see my post under "Re: Yet more Rushdie (ISLAMIC LAW)".
From: naren@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Naren Bala)
Subject: Re: Slavery (was Re: Why is sex only allowed in marriage: ...)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 21
In article <sandvik-150493144638@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Looking at historical evidence such 'perfect utopian' islamic states
>didn't survive. I agree, people are people, and even if you might
>start an Islamic revolution and create this perfect state, it takes
>some time and the internal corruption will destroy the ground rules --
>again.
>
Nothing is perfect. Nothing is perpetual. i.e. even if it is perfect,
it isn't going to stay that way forever.
Perpetual machines cannot exist. I thought that there
were some laws in mechanics or thermodynamics stating that.
Not an atheist
BN
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
- Naren Bala (Software Evaluation Engineer)
- HOME: (503) 627-0380		WORK: (503) 627-2742
- All standard disclaimers apply.
Organization: Penn State University
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Distribution: world
<1pan4f$b6j@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1q0fngINNahu@gap.caltech.edu>
<C5C9FA.6zH@acsu.buffalo.edu> <1qabe7INNaff@gap.caltech.edu>
<1993Apr15.150938.975@news.wesleyan.edu>
Lines: 11
In article <1993Apr15.150938.975@news.wesleyan.edu>, SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu
(SCOTT D. SAUYET) says:
>Are these his final words?  (And how many here would find that
>appropriate?)  Or is it just that finals got in the way?
>Keep your fingers crossed!
Why should I keep my fingers crossed? I doubt it would do anything. :)
Martin Schulte
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: sgi
Lines: 23
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1qkq9t$66n@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|>
|> I'll take a wild guess and say Freedom is objectively valuable.  I base
|> this on the assumption that if everyone in the world were deprived utterly
|> of their freedom (so that their every act was contrary to their volition),
|> almost all would want to complain.  Therefore I take it that to assert or
|> believe that "Freedom is not very valuable", when almost everyone can see
|> that it is, is every bit as absurd as to assert "it is not raining" on
|> a rainy day.  I take this to be a candidate for an objective value, and it
|> it is a necessary condition for objective morality that objective values
|> such as this exist.
My own personal and highly subjective opinion is that freedom
is a good thing.
However, when I here people assert that the only "true" freedom
is in following the words of this and that Messiah, I realise
that people don't even agree on the meaning of the word.
What does it mean to say that word X represents an objective
value when word X has no objective meaning?
jon.
From: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
Subject: Re: Where are they now?
Organization: Macalester College
Lines: 38
In article <1qi156INNf9n@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, tcbruno@athena.mit.edu (Tom Bruno) writes:
>
> Wow.  Leave your terminal for a few months and everyone you remember goes
> away-- how depressing.  Actually, there are a few familiar faces out there,
> counting Bob and Kent, but I don't seem to recognize anyone else.  Has anyone
> heard from Graham Matthews recently, or has he gotten his degree and sailed
> for Greener Pastures (tm)?
>
> Which brings me to the point of my posting.  How many people out there have
> been around alt.atheism since 1990?  I've done my damnedest to stay on top of
> the newsgroup, but when you fall behind, you REALLY fall behind (it's still not
> as bad as rec.arts.startrek used to be, but I digress).  Has anyone tried to
> keep up with the deluge?  Inquiring minds want to know!  Also-- does anyone
> keep track of where the more infamous posters to alt.atheism end up, once they
> leave the newsgroup?  Just curious, I guess.
>
> cheers,
> tom bruno
I am one of those people who always willl have unlimited stores of unfounded
respect for people who have been on newsgroups/mailing lists longer than I
have, so you certainly have my sympathy Tom.  I have only been semi-regularly
posting (it is TOUGHto keep up) since this February, but I have been reading
and following the threads since last August: my school's newsreader was down
for months and our incompetent computing services never bothered to find a new
feed site, so it wasn't accepting outgoing postings.  I don't think anyone
keeps track of where other posters go: it's that old love 'em and leave 'em
Internet for you again...
best regards,
********************************************************************************
* Adam John Cooper		"Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings *
*				   who thought themselves good simply because  *
* acooper@macalstr.edu				they had no claws."	       *
********************************************************************************
From: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
Organization: Macalester College
Lines: 100
In article <bissda.4.734849678@saturn.wwc.edu>, bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
> 	First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.  It
That's okay:  it's what all the rest of them who come on here say...
> makes sense to be one.  Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar,
> lunatic, or the real thing?  (I might be a little off on the title, but he
> writes the book.  Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity,
> in the process he became a Christian himself.
This isn't the guy who was a lawyer was he?  Could you give more info on this
guy (never mind- I'm sure there will be PLENTY of responses to this post, and
it will appear there)
> 	The arguements he uses I am summing up.  The book is about whether
> Jesus was God or not.  I know many of you don't believe, but listen to a
> different perspective for we all have something to gain by listening to what
> others have to say.
This is true.  Make sure it is true for ALL cases.
> 	The book says that Jesus was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a
Why not both?  ;)
> modern day Koresh) or he was actually who he said he was.
> 	Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows.  Who would
> die for a lie?  Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar?
Why not die for a lie?  If you were poverty stricken and alunatic, sounds
perfecetly reasoable to me.  As to whether the societal dregs he had for
followers would be able to tell if he was a liar or not, not necessarily.
Even if he died for what he believed in, this still makes him completely
selfish.  Like us all.  So what's the difference.
People
> gathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing
> someone who was or had been healed.  Call me a fool, but I believe he did
> heal people.
There is no historical proof of this (see earlier threads).  Besides, he (or at
least his name), have been the cause of enough deaths to make up for whatever
healing he gave.
> 	Niether was he a lunatic.  Would more than an entire nation be drawn
> to someone who was crazy.
SIEG HEIL!!
>Very doubtful, in fact rediculous.  For example
> anyone who is drawn to David Koresh is obviously a fool, logical people see
> this right away.
>
Who is David Koresh?  I am curious.
Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the
> real thing.
How does this follow?  Your definition of lunatic (and "disproof" thereof seem
rather... uhhh.. SHAKY)
> 	Some other things to note.  He fulfilled loads of prophecies in
> the psalms, Isaiah and elsewhere in 24 hrs alone.  This in his betrayal
> and Crucifixion.  I don't have my Bible with me at this moment, next time I
> write I will use it.
Good idea.
> 	I don't think most people understand what a Christian is.  It
> is certainly not what I see a lot in churches.
Naturally, those or not TRUE Christians, right?  ;)
> Rather I think it
> should be a way of life, and a total sacrafice of everything for God's
> sake.  He loved us enough to die and save us so we should do the
> same.  Hey we can't do it, God himself inspires us to turn our lives
> over to him.  That's tuff and most people don't want to do it, to be a
> real Christian would be something for the strong to persevere at.  But
> just like weight lifting or guitar playing, drums, whatever it takes
> time.  We don't rush it in one day, Christianity is your whole life.
> It is not going to church once a week, or helping poor people once in
> a while.  We box everything into time units.  Such as work at this
> time, sports, Tv, social life.  God is above these boxes and should be
> carried with us into all these boxes that we have created for
> ourselves.
Someone else handle this, I don't know if it's worth it... *sigh*
********************************************************************************
* Adam John Cooper		"Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings *
*				   who thought themselves good simply because  *
* acooper@macalstr.edu				they had no claws."	       *
********************************************************************************
From: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
Subject: Re: thoughts on christians
Organization: Macalester College
Lines: 94
In article <1993Apr15.050750.3893@nuscc.nus.sg>, cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes:
> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> : In article <1q338l$cva@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>, gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric
> : Molas) wrote:
> : > Christianity is an infectious cult.  The reasons it flourishes are
> : > because 1) it gives people without hope or driven purpose in life
> : > a safety blanked to hide behind.  "Oh wow..all i have to do is
> : > follow this christian moral standard and I get eternal happiness."
> :
> : I agree that in many cases primitive emotional feelings based on
> : 'haha, you won't laugh in hell' mentalities makes certain religions
> : very attractive for certain personalities.
>
> I agree with both of u, but I would like to make a small point.  Xtianity, &
> other dogmatic religions, not only attract people without hope etc but
> also attract "average" people as well.  I believe that Xtainity, thru
> its escapist doctrines & absolutist attitudes, provides great psychological
> shelter from day-to-day frustrations, unhappiness & fear of uncertainty
> & unknown etc.
>
This is a good point, but I think "average" people do not take up Christianity
so much out of fear or escapism, but, quite simply, as a way to improve their
social life, or to get more involved with American culture, if they are kids of
immigrants for example.  Since it is the overwhelming major religion in the
Western World (in some form or other), it is simply the choice people take if
they are bored and want to do something new with their lives, but not somethong
TOO new, or TOO out of the ordinary.  Seems a little weak, but as long as it
doesn't hurt anybody...
> The Buddha had something to say about the attractiveness of religions:
>
>    "When driven by fear, man worships sacred mountains, sacred stones,
> 	and sacred trees."
>
> However, the Buddha also said,
>
> 	"If somebody finds peace in any religion, let him be".
>
>
These are good quotes, and I agree with both of them, but let's make sure to
alter the scond one so that includes something like "...let him be, as long as
he is not preventing others from finding their peace." or something like that.
(Of course, I suppose, if someone were REALLY "at peace", there would be no
need for inflicting evangelism)
> Personally, I feel that since religion have such a poweful
> psychological effect, we should let theists be.  But the problem is that
> religions cause enormous harm to non-believers and to humanity as a whole
> (holy wars, inquisitions, inter-religious hatred, impedence of science
> & intellectual progress, us-&-them attitudes etc etc.  Need I say more?).
> I really don't know what we can do about them.  Any comments?
>
Well, it is a sure thing we will have to live with them all our lives.  Their
popularity seems to come and go.  I remember when I first entered High School,
I was an atheist (always had been) and so were about 7 of my friends.  At this
time, 5 of those 7 have converted, always to Christianity (they were all also
immigrants from Taiwan, or sons of immigrants, hence my earlier gross
generalization).  Christianity seems a lot more popular to people now than it
ever has before (since I've been noticing).  Maybe it is just my perceptions
that are chagning.  Who knows?
I for one am perfectly willing to live and let live with them, so long as we
have some set of abstract rights/agreements on how we should treat each other:
I have no desire to be hurt by them or their notions.  For all the well-put
arguments on this usenet, it never does any good.  Argumentation does not
really seem to apply to Christians (or even some atheists)- it must simply be a
step the person takes naturally, almost, "instinctively"...
best regards,
********************************************************************************
* Adam John Cooper		"Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings *
*				   who thought themselves good simply because  *
* acooper@macalstr.edu				they had no claws."	       *
********************************************************************************
>
--
>
> The UnEnlightened One
> ------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
>                   | "Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be
> Tan Chade Meng    | expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it
> Singapore         | transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology;
> cmtan@iss.nus.sg  | it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is
>                   | based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience
>                   | of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful
>                   | unity"     --  Einstein
> ------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
From: geoff@East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top)
Subject: Re: Where are they now?
Organization: SunSelect
Lines: 22
Distribution: world
Reply-To: geoff@East.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: poori.east.sun.com
Your posting provoked me into checking my save file for memorable
posts. The first I captured was by Ken Arromdee on 19 Feb 1990, on the
subject "Re: atheist too?". That was article #473 here; your question
was article #53766, which is an average of about 48 articles a day for
the last three years. As others have noted, the current posting rate is
such that my kill file is depressing large...... Among the posting I
saved in the early days were articles from the following notables:
>From: loren@sunlight.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich)
>From: jchrist@nazareth.israel.rel (Jesus Christ of Nazareth)
>From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin)
>From: perry@apollo.HP.COM (Jim Perry)
>From: lippard@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
>From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
An interesting bunch.... I wonder where #2 is?
---
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)
--------------------------------------------------+-------------------
"What if they made the whole thing up?            | "The Great Lie" by
Four guys, two thousand years ago, over wine..." |    The Tear Garden
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 57
NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>I think that you are confusing the words "objective" and "inherent."
>>And objective system is simply one in which an outside observer who,
>>given the postulates of the system, could perfectly judge any situation
>>or action as consistent with the system (right) or not (wrong).  You seem
>>to be objecting because the goals of the system are not inherent.  That is,
>>you seem to want to define an objective system as one in which the
>>postulates themselves could be determined by some outside observer.
>>I don't think that this is a good definition of an objective system.
>Then you need to learn English.
Really>`?
>Gravity is an objective system.  Anybody can learn what it is, and perform
>experiments.  They will get the same results as every other person who
>has performed those experiments.
No, gravity is an inherent system.  You don't need any excess information
other than observations to determine anything.  It is possible to objectively
determine someone's guilt or innocence within an non-inherent system.
I agree that morality is not necessarily inherent (unless you state that
everything we do has an evolutionary basis), but this does not mean that
it cannot be objective in theory.
>This "natural morality" is not an objective system, as evidenced by
>your comments about lions, and mine.
Perhaps it can be objective, but not inherent.  Anyway, as I noted before,
the practices related to mating rituals, etc. among the animals are likely
the only ones to be considered "immoral" under the previous "definitions"
of the natural law.  Therefore, some revisions are in order, since the
class of activities surrounding mating seem to pose some general problems.
>>And in fact, the only way that the postulates could be determined by an
>>outsider would be if there were some sort of higher truth, like some
>>sort of god or something.  But, I do not think that a god is necessary
>>for an objective system, while it seems that you do.
>What are you trying to say here?
It seens that you are objecting to the notion of an objective system
because perhaps you think that it would imply inherence, which would
necessitate some sort of grand design?
>>No, I have classified behavior of most animals as in line with a
>>moral system.  It is certainly possible for animals to commit acts
>>which are outside of their rules of ethics, but they don't seem to
>>do so very often.  Perhaps they are not intelligent enough to be
>>immoral.
>And perhaps it's because you have yet to define a "moral" system.
I think I have.  It is a code of ethics which basically defines undesired
behaviors, etc.  An immoral behavior could be unwanted, unproductive,
or destructive, etc., depending on the goal of the system (that is,
immoral to what end?).
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 49
NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
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: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 9
NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
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.
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 14
NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>So how do you then explain sudden violent behavior of human beings?
>Your theory would state that the more the human is detached from
>primitive behavior, the more violent and non-moralistic the human
>becomes (please correct me if my understanding was wrong). So
>you have this bifurcation point where a madman is killing people
>from the roof of a campus. Could you explain how your 'theory'
>explains such a situation?
Madmen are mad.  Do we try to explain the output from a broken computer?
I think not.
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 14
NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>To show that the examples I and others
>have provided are *not* counter examples of your supposed inherent
>moral hypothesis, you have to successfully argue that
>domestication removes or alters this morality.
I think that domestication will change behavior to a large degree.
Domesticated animals exhibit behaviors not found in the wild.  I
don't think that they can be viewed as good representatives of the
wild animal kingdom, since they have been bred for thousands of years
to produce certain behaviors, etc.
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 17
NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:
>>Well, I have typed in the OED definitions.  As you will note upon reading
>>them, a punishment, being an inanimate object, is incapable of "showing
>>mercy."  So, you can not say that a merciless punishment is a cruel one.
>Sorry, you must have missed the stuff in parens when you read the
>definition (where transf. = transferred sense and fig. =
>figurative,-ly). "Things" can be cruel. Samples of text from the first
>definition include, "Because I would not see thy cruell nailes Plucke
>out his poore old eyes," and "The puniness of man in the centre of a
>cruel and frowning universe."
Sure nails can be cruel.  I'd imagine nails in your eyes would be
*very* painful.  But, this does not imply that a painless death is
cruel, which is what you are supposed to be trying to show.
keith
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 23
In <sfnNTrC00WBO43LRUK@andrew.cmu.edu> "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu>
writes:
>After tons of mail, could we move this discussion to alt.religion?
Yes.
MAC
>=============================================================
>--There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke. (Bob Dylan)
>--"If you were happy every day of your life you wouldn't be a human
>being, you'd be a game show host." (taken from the movie "Heathers.")
>--Lecture (LEK chur) - process by which the notes of the professor
>become the notes of the student without passing through the minds of
>either.
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle     University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs."                 Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
With new taxes and spending cuts we'll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 42
In <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
writes:
>In article <pww-140493214334@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu
(Peter Walker) writes:
>#In article <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
>#O'Dwyer) wrote:
>#> Objective morality is morality built from objective values.
>#
>#But where do those objective values come from? How can we measure them?
>#What mediated thair interaction with the real world, a moralon? Or a scalar
>#valuino field?
>Science ("the real world") has its basis in values, not the other way round,
>as you would wish it.  If there is no such thing as objective value, then
>science can not objectively be said to be more useful than a kick in the head.
>Simple theories with accurate predictions could not objectively be said
>to be more useful than a set of tarot cards.  You like those conclusions?
>I don't.
>#And how do we know they exist in the first place?
>One assumes objective reality, one doesn't know it.
>--
>Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
>odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon
How do we measure truth, beauty, goodness, love, friendship, trust, honesty,
etc.?  If things have no basis in objective fact then aren't we limited in what
we know to be true?  Can't we say that we can examples or instances of reason,
but cannot measure reason, or is that semantics?
MAC
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle     University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs."                 Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
With new taxes and spending cuts we'll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 36
In <kmr4.1576.734879396@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>In article <1qj9gq$mg7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
O'Dwyer) writes:
>>Is good logic *better* than bad?  Is good science better than bad?
> By definition.
> great - good - okay - bad - horrible
>    << better
>       worse >>
> Good is defined as being better than bad.
>---
How do we come up with this setup?  Is this subjective, if enough people agreed
we could switch the order?  Isn't this defining one unknown thing by another?
That is, good is that which is better than bad, and bad is that which is worse
than good?  Circular?
MAC
>   Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible.
>
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle     University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs."                 Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
With new taxes and spending cuts we'll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 47
In <lsran6INN14a@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric
Marsh) writes:
>In article <C5HqxJ.JDG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lis450bw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (lis450
Student) writes:
>>Hmmmm.  Define objective morality.  Well, depends upon who you talk to.
>>Some say it means you can't have your hair over your ears, and others say
>>it means Stryper is acceptable.  _I_ would say that general principles
>>of objective morality would be listed in one or two places.
>>Ten Commandments
>>Sayings of Jesus
>>the first depends on whether you trust the Bible,
>>the second depends on both whether you think Jesus is God, and whether
>>  you think we have accurate copies of the NT.
>Gong!
>Take a moment and look at what you just wrote. First you defined
>an "objective" morality and then you qualified this "objective" morality
>with subjective justifications. Do you see the error in this?
>Sorry, you have just disqualified yourself, but please play again.
>>MAC
>>
>eric
Huh?  Please explain.  Is there a problem because I based my morality on
something that COULD be wrong?  Gosh, there's a heck of a lot of stuff that I
believe that COULD be wrong, and that comes from sources that COULD be wrong.
What do you base your belief on atheism on?  Your knowledge and reasoning?
COuldn't that be wrong?
MAC
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle     University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs."                 Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
With new taxes and spending cuts we'll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: islamic genocide
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 21
> O.K., so pick former Yugoslavia instead and say their problems are caused
> by communism, it doesn't really matter.  But I guess religious leaders are
> calling for an end to that, too, so it can't be religiously motivated.  This
> despite the fact that the Christians carve crosses in dead Muslims chests.
> Maybe they just want land.  Maybe its something else they want.  Maybe the
> cross carvings are just accidental.  I don't know.  Just looks suspicious.
Most likely the tragic situation in Bosnia is a combination of ethnical
and religious motives, where religion is just one attribute that separates
the groups from each other.
But I must agree that the sad saga in Bosnia is a terrible example
of a case where religion is not helping, instead it is used as a weapon
against other humans. And my sympathies are mostly on the Bosnian side,
it looks like the Serbs are the oppressors, willing to use even
Christianity as a weapon against their former friends.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller)
Subject: Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Atheists?)
Organization: VideOcart Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Lines: 23
: >> The death penalty was conceived as a deterrent to crime,  but the legal
: >> shenanigans that have been added (automatic appeals, lengthy court
: >> battles, etc.) have relegated that purpose to a very small part of what
: >> it should be.  Hence the question is,  do we instate the death penalty as
: >> it was meant to be, and see if that deters crime, or do we get rid of
: >> it entirely?
I doubt the death penalty was supposed to be a "deterrent" to crime. If so,
why doesn't every crime carry a death penalty ? That would be effictive
wouldn't it ???
The death penalty is a punishment, much like a $50 fine for speeding is
a punishment. Anyway, somebody with murder on the mind doesn't much care
about the consequences. I think another problem is that people dont think
they will get caught. If I wanted to kill another person, I wouldn't
care what the penalty was if I didn't think I would get caught.
If it was to be strictly a deterrent, it should have been more along
the lines of torture.
Dave Fuller
dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com
From: dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller)
Subject: Re: thoughts on christians
Organization: VideOcart Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Lines: 40
cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes:
:
[ . . . . . ]
:
: Personally, I feel that since religion have such a poweful
: psychological effect, we should let theists be.  But the problem is that
: religions cause enormous harm to non-believers and to humanity as a whole
: (holy wars, inquisitions, inter-religious hatred, impedence of science
: & intellectual progress, us-&-them attitudes etc etc.  Need I say more?).
: I really don't know what we can do about them.  Any comments?
:
I have always held that there should be no attempt to change a persons
attitude or lifestyle as long as it makes them happy and does not tax
anybody else. This seems to be ok for atheists. You don't get an atheist
knocking on your door, stopping you in the airport, or handing out
literature at a social event. Theists seem to think that thier form of
happy should work for others and try to make it so.
My sister is a
born again, and she was a real thorn in the side for my entire family
for several years. She finally got the clue that she couldn't help.
During that period she bought me "I was atheist, now I'm Xtian" books
for my birthday and Xmas several times. Our birthday cards would contain
verses. It was a problem. I told my mom that I was going to send my
sister an atheist piece of reading material. I got a "Don't you dare".
My mom wasn't religious. Why did she insist that I not send it ??
Because our society has driven into us that religion is ok to
preach, non-religion should be self contained. What a crock of shit.
I finally told my sister that I didn't find her way of life attractive.
I have seen exactly 0 effort from her on trying to convert me since then.
I'm sick of religious types being pampered, looked out for, and WORST
OF ALL . . . . respected more than atheists. There must be an end
in sight.
Dave Fuller
dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com
From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Bible Quiz
Organization: Sponsored account, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 14
<kmr4.1582.734882394@po.CWRU.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: andrew.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <kmr4.1582.734882394@po.CWRU.edu>
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.
Organization: Penn State University
From: <SEC108@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Why the bible?
Lines: 38
One thing I think is interesting about alt.athiesm is the fact that
without bible-thumpers and their ilk this would be a much duller newsgroup.
It almost needs the deluded masses to write silly things for athiests to
tear apart. Oh well, that little tidbit aside here is what I really wanted
write about.
How can anyone believe in such a sorry document as the bible? If you
want to be religious aren't there more plausable books out there? Seriously,
the bible was written by multiple authors who repeatedly contradict each
other. One minute it tells you to kill your kid if he talks back and the next
it says not to kill at all. I think that if xtians really want to follow a
deity they should pick one that can be consistent, unlike the last one they
invented.
For people who say Jesus was the son of god, didn't god say not to
EVER put ANYONE else before him? Looks like you did just that. Didn't god
say not to make any symbols or idols? What are crosses then? Don't you think
that if you do in fact believe in the bible that you are rather far off track?
Was Jesus illiterate? Why didn't he write anything? Anyone know?
I honestly hope that people who believe in the bible understand that
it is just one of the religious texts out there and that it is one of the
poorer quality ones to boot. The only reason xtianity escaped the middle east
is because a certain roman who's wine was poisoned with lead made all of rome
xtian after a bad dream.
If this posting keeps one person, just ONE person, from standing on a
streetcorner and telling people they are going to hell I will be happy.
*** Only hatred and snap judgements can guide your robots through life. ***
***                                    Dr. Clayton Forester             ***
***                                       Mad Scientist                 ***
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 76
NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>How many contridictions do you want to see?
>>Good question. If I claim something is a general trend, then to disprove this,
>>I guess you'd have to show that it was not a general trend.
>No, if you're going to claim something, then it is up to you to prove it.
>Think "Cold Fusion".
Well, I've provided examples to show that the trend was general, and you
(or others) have provided some counterexamples, mostly ones surrounding
mating practices, etc.  I don't think that these few cases are enough to
disprove the general trend of natural morality.  And, again, the mating
practices need to be reexamined...
>>Try to find "immoral" non-mating-related activities.
>So you're excluding mating-related-activities from your "natural morality"?
No, but mating practices are a special case.  I'll have to think about it
some more.
>>Yes, I think that the natural system can be objectively deduced with the
>>goal of species propogation in mind.  But, I am not equating the two
>>as you so think.  That is, an objective system isn't necessarily the
>>natural one.
>Are you or are you not the man who wrote:
>"A natural moral system is the objective moral system that most animals
> follow".
Indeed.  But, while the natural system is objective, all objective systems
are not the natural one.  So, the terms can not be equated.  The natural
system is a subset of the objective ones.
>Now, since homosexuality has been observed in most animals (including
>birds and dolphins), are you going to claim that "most animals" have
>the capacity of being immoral?
I don't claim that homosexuality is immoral.  It isn't harmful, although
it isn't helpful either (to the mating process).  And, when you say that
homosexuality is observed in the animal kingdom, don't you mean "bisexuality?"
>>>>Because we can't determine to what end we should be "moral."
>Are you claiming to be a group?  "We" usually implies more than one entity.
This is standard jargon.  Read any textbook.  The "we" forms are used
throughout.
>>Well, I'm saying that these goals are not inherent.  That is why they must
>>be postulates, because there is not really a way to determine them
>>otherwise (although it could be argued that they arise from the natural
>>goal--but they are somewhat removed).
>Postulate: To assume; posit.
That's right.  The goals themselves aren't inherent.
>I can create a theory with a postulate that the Sun revolves around the
>Earth, that the moon is actually made of green cheese, and the stars are
>the portions of Angels that intrudes into three-dimensional reality.
You could, but such would contradict observations.
>I can build a mathematical proof with a postulate that given the length
>of one side of a triangle, the length of a second side of the triangle, and
>the degree of angle connecting them, I can determine the length of the
>third side.
But a postulate is something that is generally (or always) found to be
true.  I don't think your postulate would be valid.
>Guess which one people are going to be more receptive to.  In order to assume
>something about your system, you have to be able to show that your postulates
>work.
Yes, and I think the goals of survival and happiness *do* work.  You think
they don't?  Or are they not good goals?
keith
From: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: New Member
Organization: Salvation Army Draft Board
Lines: 28
In article <C5HIEw.7s1@portal.hq.videocart.com> dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) writes:
>
>  Hello. I just started reading this group today, and I think I am going
>to be a large participant in its daily postings. I liked the section of
>the FAQ about constructing logical arguments - well done. I am an atheist,
>but I do not try to turn other people into atheists. I only try to figure
>why people believe the way they do - I don't much care if they have a
>different view than I do. When it comes down to it . . . I could be wrong.
>I am willing to admit the possibility - something religious followers
>dont seem to have the capability to do.
>
>  Happy to be aboard !
>
>Dave Fuller
>dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com
Welcome.  I am the official keeper of the list of nicknames that people
are known by on alt.atheism (didn't know we had such a list, did you).
Your have been awarded the nickname of "Buckminster."  So the next time
you post an article, sign with your nickname like so:
Dave "Buckminster" Fuller.  Thanks again.
Jim "Humor means never having to say you're sorry" Copeland
--
If God is dead and the actor plays his part                    | -- Sting,
His words of fear will find their way to a place in your heart | History
Without the voice of reason every faith is its own curse       | Will Teach Us
Without freedom from the past things can only get worse        | Nothing
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
Lines: 41
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: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
Lines: 50
In article <1993Apr10.123858.25059@bradford.ac.uk> L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:
>Gregg Jaeger (jaeger@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
>> Khomenei was a jerk and so were plenty of
>>British "leaders", so what?
>>THE QUR'AN is the basis of judgement. Khomenei was clearly a heretic
>>by the standards of the Qur'an. End of story.
>Could you be a little more specific as to exactly why Khomanei was a
>heretic and a jerk as judged by the Koran.  I have no liking for the
>guy, but as far as I know he has done nothing contrary to the teachings
>of the Koran, or at least so I'm told by several Iranian research
>students that I share an office with.
>It is easy and convenient for you to denounce him.  But I have the
>feeling that your views are not as clear cut and widely accepted as you
>suggest.
I have made this clear elsewhere but will do so again. Khomeini put a
price on the head of someone in another country, this makes him a jerk
as well as an international outlaw. Khomeini advocates the view that
there was a series of twelve Islamic leaders (the Twelve Imams) who
are free of error or sin. This makes him a heretic. In the Qur'an
Muhammad is chastised for error directly by God; the Qur'an says that
Muhammad is the greatest example of proper Islamic behavior; thus
no muslim is free from error.
>As usual there seems to be almost as many Islamic viewpoints as there
>are Muslims.
Perhaps it seems so to you, but this is hardly the case. There is
widespread agreement about matters of Islam. There certainly are
many viewpoints on issues which are not particularly Islamic in
and of themselves, but this is so for any large group of people
under the same name.
>It all comes back to the Koran being so imprecise in its wording.
The Qur'an is not particularly imprecise in wording, though it is true
that several interpretations are possible in the interpretations of
many words. However, as an entire text the Qur'an makes its meanings
precise enough for intelligent people free from power lust to come
to agreement about them.
Gregg
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
Lines: 23
In article <1993Apr10.124753.25195@bradford.ac.uk> L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:
>Gregg Jaeger (jaeger@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
>>Well, it seemed slightly incongruous to find the Union Jack flying
>>at City Hall in Belfast.
>May I ask why?  It's there not because the British want it there (NI
>is just one big expensive problem), it's there because that is
>what the majority of the population of NI want.  Is there some
>problem with that?
The majority of those who can open their mouths in public perhaps.
There seems quite alot of incentive for the British to have control
of NI, like using the North Channel and Irish Sea as a waste dump (I was
appalled at the dumping I saw in the harbor in Belfast). It is my
understanding that quite alot of radioactivity enters the water --
it'd be quite a problem if NI got its independence from Britain and
then stopped accepting the waste. Are you suggesting that British
industry isn't making profit off the situation as well?
Gregg
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
Lines: 16
In article <1993Apr10.125109.25265@bradford.ac.uk> L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:
>Gregg Jaeger (jaeger@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
>>Could you please explain in what way the Qur'an in your eyes carries
>>"the excess baggage of another era"? The Qur'an in my opinion carries
>>no such baggage.
>How about trying to run a modern economy without charging interest on
>loans.  From what I hear, even fundamentalist Iran is having to
>compromise this ideal.
Which sort of loans and what have you heard exactly?
Gregg
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
Lines: 14
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
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
Lines: 32
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: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: free moral agency
Lines: 34
Organization: Walla Walla College
Distribution: na
Lines: 34
In article <11810@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
>Subject: Re: free moral agency
>Date: 14 Apr 93 21:41:31 GMT
>In article <healta.133.734810202@saturn.wwc.edu> healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes:
>>>
>>In the Old testement, Satan is RARELY mentioned, if at all.
>
>
>  Huh?  Doesn't the SDA Bible contain the book of Job?
>
>>This is why there is suffering in the world, we are caught inthe crossfire.
>>and sometimes, innocents as well as teh guilty get hurt.
>>That's my opinion and I hope I cleared up a few things.
>>
>
>  Seems like your omnipotent and omniscient god has "got some
>  'splainin' to do" then.  Or did he just create Satan for shits and
>  giggles?
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>
>Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
>
>They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
>and sank Manhattan out at sea.
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I didn't say it NEVER mentioned Satan, I said it RARELY, if at all.  Please
excuse me for my lack of perfect memory or omnipotence.
Tammy
P.S I'm soory if I sound cranky.  I apoplogize now before anyone's feelings
get hurt.
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: note to Bobby M.
Lines: 52
Organization: Walla Walla College
Lines: 52
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: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Morality? (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
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: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Morality? (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 23
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
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: Morality? (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 24
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>I don't expect the lion to know, or not know anything of the kind.
>In fact, I don't have any evidence that lions ever consider such
>issues.
>And that, of course, is why I don't think you can assign moral
>significance to the instinctive behaviour of lions.
What I've been saying is that moral behavior is likely the null behavior.
That is, it doesn't take much work to be moral, but it certainly does to
be immoral (in some cases).  Also, I've said that morality is a remnant
of evolution.  Our moral system is based on concepts well practiced in
the animal kingdom.
>>So you are basically saying that you think a "moral" is an undefinable
>>term, and that "moral systems" don't exist?  If we can't agree on a
>>definition of these terms, then how can we hope to discuss them?
>No, it's perfectly clear that I am saying that I know what a moral
>is in *my* system, but that I can't speak for other people.
But, this doesn't get us anywhere.  Your particular beliefs are irrelevant
unless you can share them or discuss them...
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: ? (was Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?))
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 13
Distribution: world,public
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
Keywords: Time for a consistency check, bub.
sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>Of course, if at some later time we think that the death penalty
>>*is* cruel or unusual, it will be outlawed.  But at the present,
>>most people don't seem to think this way.
>*This* from the same fellow who speaks of an "objective" or "natural"
>morality.  I suppose that if the majority decides slavery is OK, then
>it is no longer immoral?
I did not claim that our system was objective.
keith
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
Lines: 31
In article <2BCC892B.21864@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>In article <115290@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>>Well, seeing as you are not muslim the sort of fatwa issued by Khomeini
>>would not be relevant to you. I can understand your fear of persecution
>>and I share it even more than you (being muslim), however Rushdie's
>>behavior was not completely excusable.
>Why should a fatwa issued by Khomeini be relevant to anyone who
>doesn't live in Iran?
Issued by Khomeini it shouldn't be relevant to anyone. But issued
by an honest and learned scholar of Islam it would be relevant to
any muslim as it would be contrary to Islamic law which all muslims
are required to respect.
>  Who is it that decides whether Rushdie's behavior is excusable?
Anyone sufficiently well versed in Islamic law and capable of reasoning,
if you are talking about a weak sense of "excuse." It depends on what
sense of "excuse" you have in mind.
> And who cares if you think it is inexcusable?
Only someone who thinks my opinion is important, obviously.
Obviously you don't care, nor do I care that you don't care.
Gregg
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: Free Moral Agency and Kent S.
Lines: 37
Organization: Walla Walla College
Lines: 37
In article <sandvik-140493185034@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
>Subject: Re: Free Moral Agency and Kent S.
>Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 01:51:57 GMT
>In article <healta.135.734811375@saturn.wwc.edu>, healta@saturn.wwc.edu
>(TAMMY R HEALY) wrote:
>> Ezekiel 28:17 says, Your hart was filled with pride because of all your
>> beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.  Therefore
>> I have cast you down the the ground and exposed you helpless before the
>> curious gaze of Kings."
>
>> For those of you who are Bible scholars, you knowthat the 1st 11 verses
>> refer to the Prince of Tyre.  This is a prophesy about and addressed to the
>> human prince.  Verses 12-19 refer to the King of Tyre, which is a term for
>> Satan.
>
>Tammy, what's the rationale to connect the prince of Tyre with Satan,
>could you give us more rational bible cites, thanks? I'm afraid that
>if this is not the case, your thinking model falls apart like a house
>of cards. But let's see!
>
>Cheers,
>Kent
>---
>sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
At the time Ezekiel was written, Israel was in apostacy again and if I'm not
mistaken, Tyre was about to make war on Israel.  Like I said, the Prince of
Tyre was the human ruler of Tyre.  He was a wicked man.  By calling Satan
the King of Tyre, Ezekiel was saying that Satan is the real ruler over Tyre.
Don't think my interpretation is neccessarily the orthodox Christian one,
although most Christian Bible commentaries interpret the King of Tyre as
being a reference to Satan. (I haven't read Ezekiel throughly in a long
time.)
Tammy
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: free moral agency and Jeff Clark
Lines: 47
Organization: Walla Walla College
Lines: 47
In article <16BB112DFC.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
>Subject: Re: free moral agency and Jeff Clark
>Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 20:28:27 GMT
>In article <healta.136.734813153@saturn.wwc.edu>
>healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes:
>
>(Deletion)
>>You also said,"Why did millions suffer for what Adam and Ee did?  Seems a
>>pretty sick way of going about creating a universe..."
>>
>>I'm gonna respond by giving a small theology lesson--forgive me, I used
>>to be a theology major.
>>First of all, I believe that this planet is involved in a cosmic struggle--
>>"the Great Controversy betweed Christ and Satan" (i borrowed a book title).
>>God has to consider the interests of the entire universe when making
>>decisions.
>(Deletion)
>
>An universe it has created. By the way, can you tell me why it is less
>tyrannic to let one of one's own creatures do what it likes to others?
>By your definitions, your god has created Satan with full knowledge what
>would happen - including every choice of Satan.
>
>Can you explain us what Free Will is, and how it goes along with omniscience?
>Didn't your god know everything that would happen even before it created the
>world? Why is it concerned about being a tyrant when noone would care if
>everything was fine for them? That the whole idea comes from the possibility
>to abuse power, something your god introduced according to your description?
>
>
>By the way, are you sure that you have read the FAQ? Especially the part
>about preaching?
>   Benedikt
I don't feel that I'm preaching. I'm just trying to answer people's
questions and talking about my religion, my beliefs.
When it comes to what I post, I don't do it with the intent of converting
anyone.  I don't expect for the atheists in this newsgroup to take what I
say with a grain of salt if they so wish.
I just state what I beleve, they ask me how I believeit and why and we all
go on.
If that's preaching, then I'm soory and I'll get off the soapbox.
Tammy
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <<Pompous ass
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 28
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>Look, I'm not the one that made those Nazi comparisons.  Other people
>>compared what the religious people are doing now to Nazi Germany.  They
>>have said that it started out with little things (but no one really knew
>>about any of these "little" things, strangely enough) and grew to bigger
>>things.  They said that the motto is but one of the little things
>You just contradicted yourself.  The motto is one of those little things that
>nobody has bothered mentiopning to you, huh?
The "`little' things" above were in reference to Germany, clearly.  People
said that there were similar things in Germany, but no one could name any.
They said that these were things that everyone should know, and that they
weren't going to waste their time repeating them.  Sounds to me like no one
knew, either.  I looked in some books, but to no avail.
>>that is
>>going to pave the way for other "intrusions."  Of course, if the motto
>>hasn't caused problems in its 40 year history, then I doubt it is going to...
>It *has* caused problems.  You just ignore every instance when someone
>describes one to you.
It has *caused* problems?  Again, no one has shown that things were better
before the motto, or that they'd likely be better after.  I don't think
the motto initiates any sort of harassment.  Harassment will occur whether
or not the motto is present.
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <<Pompous ass
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 57
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>I think you should support your first claim, that people will simply
>>harass me no matter what, as I doubt this is true. I think *some* of the
>>theists will be at a loss, and that is enough reason for me.
>Because "IN GOD WE TRUST" is a motto on the coins, and the coins
>are a representation of the government, christians are given
>ammunition here to slander atheists as unpatriotic.
So, we should ban the ammunition?  Why not get rid of the guns?
>And yes, I have heard this used in conversation with christians.
>Sure, they may fall back on other things, but this is one they
>should not have available to use.
It is worse than others?  The National Anthem?  Should it be changed too?
God Bless America?  The list goes on...
>Imagine if the next year's set of coins were labeled with
>the motto:   "GOD IS DEAD".
>Certainly, such a statement on U.S. coins would offend almost
>every christian.  And I'd be tempted to rub that motto in the
>face of christians when debunking their standard motto slinging
>gets boring.
Then you'd be no better than the people you despise.
>Any statement printed on an item that represents
>the government is an endorsement by the government.
Oh?
>The coin motto is an endorsement of trusting in god.
An endorsement, or an acknowledgement?  I think gods are things that people
are proud of, but I don't think the motto encourages belief.
>I don't particularly feel like trusting in god,
>so the government IS putting me down with every
>coin it prints.
Is it?
[...]
>For the motto to be legitimate, it would have to read:
>   "In god, gods, or godlessness we trust"
Would you approve of such a motto?
>Whether the motto was intended to be anti-atheist or not,
>it turns up as an open invitation to use as an anti-atheist tool.
And removing the tool will solve the problem?
Or will it increase the problem?
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Objective morality (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 74
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>I want to know how this omniscient being is going to perform
>the feat of "definitely" terming actions right or wrong.
If you were omniscient, you'd know who exactly did what, and with what
purpose in mind.  Then, with a particular goal in mind, you sould be
able to methodically judge whether or not this action was in accordance
with the general goal.
>>>I don't think you've show the existence of *any* objective moral system.
>>They exist, but in practice, they are difficult to perfectly emulate.
>>I mean, you understand the concept of an objective system, right?
>I thought you were explaining it to us.   I certainly don't
>understand what you are explaining.
In an objective system, there are known goals.  Then, actions are judged
as either being compatible with these goals, or not.  Simple.  The problem
with most systems in current practice is that the goals differ.  That is,
the goals of each society are different.
Note that an objective system is not necessarily an inherent one.
>>The concept of innocence is dependent on whether certain actions are
>>"right" or "wrong," and this depends on the moral system.  But, if
>>we have an objective system, then someone can be deemed innocent or
>>not quite easily by an omniscient person.  Anyway, I think I cleared
>>up the recursive definition of "murder," because no one is complaining
>>about it.
>I don't think it solves anything to speculate where we would be
>if we *did* have an objective moral system.  The question is
>still whether you can even say what one is.
I've said it many, many times.
>And for what it's worth, I don't think you cleared up *anything*
>concerning murder.
Which part do you have a problem with?
>>>What do you mean by "harmed?"  Is it harm if you have to spend
>>>your existence metabolising food for another species?
>>Oh, most moral systems would be considered only within a species.  It
>>is okay for us to enslave other animals, right?  But not humans...
>>Of course, ideally, perhaps we wouldn't even have to bother any other
>>animals...
>One the first point, it's wrong to enslave humans according to my
>persoanl moral system.  On the second point, I'm a vegetarian.
But, we can enslave the animals, right?  But just not kill them?  Or
are you a vegetarian for health reasons?
>So, are you a vegetarian?
No.  I fail to see how my *personal* views are relevant, anyway.
>Is it wrong to eat animals in your personal moral system?
Of course not.  It seems perfectly valid to kill members of other species
for food.  It might be nice, though, if the other animals were not made
to suffer.  For instance, a cow in a field lives out its life just about
the same way it would in the wild.  They seem happy enough.  However,
the veal youngsters aren't treated very well.
>How about an "objective" moral system?
I don't know.  What is the goal of this particular system?  There is no
inherent system.
>How about a "natural" moral system.
Nope.  Again, it seems okay to kill other species for food.
keith
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: who are we to judge, Bobby?
Lines: 31
Organization: Walla Walla College
Lines: 31
In article <kmr4.1572.734847158@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
>Subject: Re: who are we to judge, Bobby?
>Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 04:12:38 GMT
>
>(S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>>(TAMMY R HEALY) writes:
>>>I would like to take the liberty to quote from a Christian writer named
>>>Ellen G. White.  I hope that what she said will help you to edit your
>>>remarks in this group in the future.
>>>
>>>"Do not set yourself as a standard.  Do not make your opinions, your views
>>>of duty, your interpretations of scripture, a criterion for others and in
>>>your heart condemn them if they do not come up to your ideal."
>>>                         Thoughts Fromthe Mount of Blessing p. 124
>>
>>Point?
>
>	Point: you have taken it upon yourself to judge others; when only
>God is the true judge.
>
>---
>
>   Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible.
>
>
I agree totally with you!  Amen!  You stated it better and in less world
than I did.
Tammy
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
Keywords: Dan Bissell
Lines: 31
Organization: Walla Walla College
Lines: 31
In article <11820@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
>Subject: Re: some thoughts.
>Keywords: Dan Bissell
>Date: 15 Apr 93 18:21:21 GMT
>In article <bissda.4.734849678@saturn.wwc.edu> bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
>>
>>	First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.  It
>>makes sense to be one.  Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar,
>>lunatic, or the real thing?  (I might be a little off on the title, but he
>>writes the book.  Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity,
>>in the process he became a Christian himself.
>
>  This should be good fun.  It's been a while since the group has
>  had such a ripe opportunity to gut, gill, and fillet some poor
>  bastard.
>
>  Ah well.  Off to get the popcorn...
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>
>Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
>
>They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
>and sank Manhattan out at sea.
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I hope you're not going to flame him.  Please give him the same coutesy you'
ve given me.
Tammy
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: who are we to judge, Bobby?
Lines: 38
Organization: Walla Walla College
Lines: 38
In article <1993Apr14.213356.22176@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>From: snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder )
>Subject: Re: who are we to judge, Bobby?
>Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 21:33:56 GMT
>In article <healta.56.734556346@saturn.wwc.edu> healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes:
>>Bobby,
>>
>>I would like to take the liberty to quote from a Christian writer named
>>Ellen G. White.  I hope that what she said will help you to edit your
>>remarks in this group in the future.
>>
>>"Do not set yourself as a standard.  Do not make your opinions, your views
>>of duty, your interpretations of scripture, a criterion for others and in
>>your heart condemn them if they do not come up to your ideal."
>>                         Thoughts Fromthe Mount of Blessing p. 124
>>
>>I hope quoting this doesn't make the atheists gag, but I think Ellen White
>>put it better than I could.
>>
>>Tammy
>
>Point?
>
>Peace,
>
>Bobby Mozumder
>
My point is that you set up your views as the only way to believe.  Saying
that all eveil in this world is caused by atheism is ridiculous and
counterproductive to dialogue in this newsgroups.  I see in your posts a
spirit of condemnation of the atheists in this newsgroup bacause they don'
t believe exactly as you do.  If you're here to try to convert the atheists
here, you're failing miserably.  Who wants to be in position of constantly
defending themselves agaist insulting attacks, like you seem to like to do?!
I'm sorry you're so blind that you didn't get the messgae in the quote,
everyone else has seemed to.
Tammy
From: rush@leland.Stanford.EDU (Voelkerding)
Subject: Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Atheists?)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 52
In article <11812@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.205414.3982@leland.Stanford.EDU> rush@leland.Stanford.EDU (Voelkerding) writes:
>>
>>If we worry about the one case in 20,000 (or more) where an innocent man is
>>convicted of something horrible enough to warrant the death penalty,  and
>>hence put laws into place which make it virtually impossible to actually
>>execute real criminals,  then the death penalty is not serving its original
>>purpose.  It should either be changed or done away with.
>>
>
>  I don't have numbers to back this up, so take the following
>  accordingly.
>
>  You use an off-the-cuff number of 1 in 20,000 innocent people
>  sentenced to die as an acceptable loss for the benefit of capital
>  punishment.  I'd be very, very surprised if the ratio were that
>  low.  There have been approximately a dozen known cases of the
>  execution of the innocent in the US since the turn of the century.
>  Have we in that same period sentenced 240,000 people to death?
>  Accounting for those cases that we don't know the truth, it seems
>  reasonable to assume that twice that many innocent people have in
>  fact been executed.  That would raise the number of death
>  sentences metered out since 1900 to half a million for your
>  acceptance ratio to hold.  I rather doubt that's the case.
>
>
>  The point, of course, is what *is* an acceptable loss.  1 in
>  10,000?  Seems we're probably not doing even that well.  1 in 100?
>  1 in 2?  Or should we perhaps find a better solution?
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>
>Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
>
Any suggestions as to what a better solution might be?  I realize the
off-hand nature of the numbers I used.  And I can't answer as to what
an acceptable loss rate is.  However,  as I said in another post,  I
despise the idea of supporting criminals for life.  It's the economics
of the situation that concern me most.  The money spent feeding, clothing,
housing and taking care of people who have demonstrated that they are
unfit to live in society could go to a number of places,  all of which
I, and probably others,  would consider far more worthwhile and which
would enrish the lives of all Americans.  Give people jobs,  give the
homeless shelter.  Any number of things.
Clyde
--
Little girls,  like butterflies, don't need a reason!
- Robert Heinlein
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
Keywords: Dan Bissell
Nntp-Posting-Host: kraken.itc.gu.edu.au
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Lines: 70
bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
>	The book says that Jesus was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a
>modern day Koresh) or he was actually who he said he was.
Or he was just convinced by religious fantasies of the time that he was the
Messiah, or he was just some rebel leader that an organisation of Jews built
into Godhood for the purpose off throwing of the yoke of Roman oppression,
or.......
>	Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows.  Who would
>die for a lie?
Are the Moslem fanatics who strap bombs to their backs and driving into
Jewish embassies dying for the truth (hint: they think they are)? Were the
NAZI soldiers in WWII dying for the truth?
People die for lies all the time.
>Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar?  People
Was Hitler a liar? How about Napoleon, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan? We spend
millions of dollars a year trying to find techniques to detect lying? So the
answer is no, they wouldn't be able to tell if he was a liar if he only lied
about some things.
>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.
Why do you think he healed people, because the Bible says so? But if God
doesn't exist (the other possibility) then the Bible is not divinely
inspired and one can't use it as a piece of evidence, as it was written by
unbiased observers.
>	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
Were Hitler or Mussolini lunatics? How about Genghis Khan, Jim Jones...
there are thousands of examples through history of people being drawn to
lunatics.
>anyone who is drawn to David Koresh is obviously a fool, logical people see
>this right away.
>	Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the
>real thing.
So we obviously cannot rule out liar or lunatic not to mention all the other
possibilities not given in this triad.
>	Some other things to note.  He fulfilled loads of prophecies in
>the psalms, Isaiah and elsewhere in 24 hrs alone.  This in his betrayal
Possibly self-fulfilling prophecy (ie he was aware what he should do in
order to fulfil these prophecies), possibly selective diting on behalf of
those keepers of the holy bible for a thousand years or so before the
general; public had access. possibly also that the text is written in such
riddles (like Nostradamus) that anything that happens can be twisted to fit
the words of raving fictional 'prophecy'.
>and Crucifixion.  I don't have my Bible with me at this moment, next time I
>write I will use it.
[stuff about how hard it is to be a christian deleted]
I severely recommend you reconsider the reasons you are a christian, they
are very unconvincing to an unbiased observer.
Jeff.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: sgi
Lines: 15
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
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: house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
Keywords: Dan Bissell
Organization: University of Southern Queensland
Lines: 42
bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
>	First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.  It
I _know_ I shouldn't get involved, but...   :-)
[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.
>	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.
>	Niether was he a lunatic.  Would more than an entire nation be drawn
>to someone who was crazy.  Very doubtful, in fact rediculous.  For example
>anyone who is drawn to David Koresh is obviously a fool, logical people see
>this right away.
>	Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the
>real thing.
Righto, DAN, try this one with your Cornflakes...
The book says that Muhammad was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a
modern day Mad Mahdi) or he was actually who he said he was.
Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows.  Who would
die for a lie?  Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar?  People
gathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing
how his son-in-law made the sun stand still.  Call me a fool, but I believe
he did make the sun stand still.
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 the Mad Mahdi is obviously a fool, logical people see
this right away.
Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the
real thing.
--
Ron House.                 USQ
(house@helios.usq.edu.au)  Toowoomba, Australia.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
Organization: sgi
Lines: 31
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
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: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Morality? (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: sgi
Lines: 51
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1ql5snINN4vm@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> 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...
Then not murdering would have no moral significance, since there
would be nothing voluntary about it.
|>
|> >>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?
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.
|> And, how much emphasis do you place on intelligence?
See above.
|> 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.
|> 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.
jon.
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Moraltiy? (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 34
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>>>What if I act morally for no particular reason?  Then am I moral?  What
>>>>if morality is instinctive, as in most animals?
>>>Saying that morality is instinctive in animals is an attempt to
>>>assume your conclusion.
>>Which conclusion?
>You conclusion - correct me if I err - that the behaviour which is
>instinctive in animals is a "natural" moral system.
See, we are disagreeing on the definition of moral here.  Earlier, you said
that it must be a conscious act.  By your definition, no instinctive
behavior pattern could be an act of morality.  You are trying to apply
human terms to non-humans.  I think that even if someone is not conscious
of an alternative, this does not prevent his behavior from being moral.
>>You don't think that morality is a behavior pattern?  What is human
>>morality?  A moral action is one that is consistent with a given
>>pattern.  That is, we enforce a certain behavior as moral.
>You keep getting this backwards.  *You* are trying to show that
>the behaviour pattern is a morality.  Whether morality is a behavior
>pattern is irrelevant, since there can be behavior pattern, for
>example the motions of the planets, that most (all?) people would
>not call a morality.
I try to show it, but by your definition, it can't be shown.
And, morality can be thought of a large class of princples.  It could be
defined in terms of many things--the laws of physics if you wish.  However,
it seems silly to talk of a "moral" planet because it obeys the laws of
phyics.  It is less silly to talk about animals, as they have at least
some free will.
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 26
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>This whole thread started because of a discussion about whether
>>or not the death penalty constituted cruel punishment, which is forbidden
>>by the US Constitution.
>Yes, but they didn't say what they meant by "cruel", which is why
>a) you have the Supreme Court, and b) it makes no sense to refer
>to the Constitution, which is quite silent on the meaning of the
>word "cruel".
They spent quite a bit of time on the wording of the Constitution.  They
picked words whose meanings implied the intent.  We have already looked
in the dictionary to define the word.  Isn't this sufficient?
>>Oh, but we were discussing the death penalty (and that discussion
>>resulted from the one about murder which resulted from an intial
>>discussion about objective morality--so this is already three times
>>removed from the morality discussion).
>Actually, we were discussing the mening of the word "cruel" and
>the US Constitution says nothing about that.
But we were discussing it in relation to the death penalty.  And, the
Constitution need not define each of the words within.  Anyone who doesn't
know what cruel is can look in the dictionary (and we did).
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 14
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>No, that's just what you thought the theory meant.  While all humans
>>are generally capable of overpowering their instincts, it does not
>>follow that those who do this often are necessarily more intelligent.
>Ok, so why aren't animals "generally capable of overpowering their instincts"?
Good question.  I'm sure some biologist could answer better than I,
but animals brains are just set up differently.
Animals *can* be trained, but if they're instincts serve them well, there is
no reason to contradict them.
keith
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Morality? (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: sgi
Lines: 47
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1ql667INN54a@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >I don't expect the lion to know, or not know anything of the kind.
|> >In fact, I don't have any evidence that lions ever consider such
|> >issues.
|> >And that, of course, is why I don't think you can assign moral
|> >significance to the instinctive behaviour of lions.
|>
|> What I've been saying is that moral behavior is likely the null behavior.
|> That is, it doesn't take much work to be moral, but it certainly does to
|> be immoral (in some cases).
That's the craziest thing I ever heard.   Are you serious?
"it doesn't take much work to be moral?"
|> Also, I've said that morality is a remnant of evolution.
Really?   And that's why people discuss morality on a daily basis?
Because it's a kind of evolutionary hangover, like your little toe?
|> Our moral system is based on concepts well practiced in the animal
|> kingdom.
This must be some novel use of the phrase "based on" with which I
am not sufficiently familiar.    What do you mean by "based on" and
what is the significance of it for your argument?
|>
|> >>So you are basically saying that you think a "moral" is an undefinable
|> >>term, and that "moral systems" don't exist?  If we can't agree on a
|> >>definition of these terms, then how can we hope to discuss them?
|> >
|> >No, it's perfectly clear that I am saying that I know what a moral
|> >is in *my* system, but that I can't speak for other people.
|>
|> But, this doesn't get us anywhere.  Your particular beliefs are irrelevant
|> unless you can share them or discuss them...
Well, we can.   What would you like to know about my particular moral
beliefs?
If you raise a topic I've never considered, I'll be quite happy to
invent a moral belief out of thin air.
jon.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: <<Pompous ass
Organization: sgi
Lines: 28
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1ql6jiINN5df@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
|>
|> >>Look, I'm not the one that made those Nazi comparisons.  Other people
|> >>compared what the religious people are doing now to Nazi Germany.  They
|> >>have said that it started out with little things (but no one really knew
|> >>about any of these "little" things, strangely enough) and grew to bigger
|> >>things.  They said that the motto is but one of the little things
|> >You just contradicted yourself.  The motto is one of those little things that
|> >nobody has bothered mentiopning to you, huh?
|>
|> The "`little' things" above were in reference to Germany, clearly.  People
|> said that there were similar things in Germany, but no one could name any.
|> They said that these were things that everyone should know, and that they
|> weren't going to waste their time repeating them.  Sounds to me like no one
|> knew, either.  I looked in some books, but to no avail.
That's not true.    I gave you two examples.   One was the rather
pevasive anti-semitism in German Christianity well before Hitler
arrived.   The other was the system of social ranks that were used
in Imperail Germany and Austria to distinguish Jews from the rest
of the population.
Neither of these were very terrible in themselves, but both helped
to set a psychology in which the gradual disenfranchisement of Jews
was made easier.
jon.
From: Patrick C Leger <pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: thoughts on christians
Organization: Sophomore, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 51
NNTP-Posting-Host: po3.andrew.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <C5JHBp.55w@portal.hq.videocart.com>
Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 15-Apr-93 Re: thoughts on christians
by Dave Fuller@portal.hq.vi
>    I'm sick of religious types being pampered, looked out for, and WORST
> OF ALL . . . . respected more than atheists. There must be an end
> in sight.
>
I think it'd help if we got a couple good atheists (or even some good,
steadfast agnostics) in some high political offices.  When was the last
time we had an (openly) atheist president?  Have we ever?  (I don't
actually know; these aren't rhetorical questions.)  How 'bout some
Supreme court justices?
One thing that really ticked me off a while ago was an ad for a news
program on a local station...The promo said something like "Who are
these cults, and why do they prey on the young?"  Ahem.  EVER HEAR OF
BAPTISM AT BIRTH?  If that isn't preying on the young, I don't know what
is...
I used to be (ack, barf) a Catholic, and was even confirmed...Shortly
thereafter I decided it was a load of BS.  My mom, who really insisted
that I continue to go to church, felt it was her duty (!) to bring me up
as a believer!  That was one of the more presumptuous things I've heard
in my life.  I suggested we go talk to the priest, and she agreed.  The
priest was amazingly cool about it...He basically said that if I didn't
believe it, there was no good in forcing it on me.  Actually, I guess he
wasn't amazingly cool about it--His response is what you'd hope for
(indeed, expect) from a human being.  I s'pose I just _didn't_ expect
it...
I find it absurd that religion exists; Yet, I can also see its
usefulness to people.  Facing up to the fact that you're just going to
be worm food in a few decades, and that there isn't some cosmic purpose
to humanity and the universe, can be pretty difficult for some people.
Having a readily-available, pre-digested solution to this is pretty
attractive, if you're either a) gullible enough, b) willing to suspend
your reasoning abilities for the piece of mind, or c) have had the stuff
rammed down your throat for as long as you can remember.  Religion in
general provides a nice patch for some human weaknesses; Organized
religion provides a nice way to keep a population under control.
Blech.
Chris
----------------------
Chris Leger
Sophomore, Carnegie Mellon Computer Engineering
Remember...if you don't like what somebody is saying, you can always
ignore them!
From: Patrick C Leger <pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: It's all Mary's fault!
Organization: Sophomore, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 23
NNTP-Posting-Host: po5.andrew.cmu.edu
You know, it just occurred to me today that this whole Christian thing
can be blamed solely on Mary.
So, she's married to Joseph.  She gets knocked up.  What do you think
ol' Joe will do if he finds she's been getting around?  So Mary comes up
with this ridiculous story about God making her pregnant.  Actually, it
can't be all THAT ridiculous, considering the number of people that
believe it.  Anyway, she never tells anyone the truth, and even tells
poor little Jesus that he's hot shit, the Son of God.  Everyone else
tells him this too, since they've bought Mary's story.  So, what does
Mary actually turn out to be?  An adultress and a liar, and the cause of
mankind's greatest folly...
Just my recently-minted two cents.
Chris
----------------------
Chris Leger
Sophomore, Carnegie Mellon Computer Engineering
Remember...if you don't like what somebody is saying, you can always
ignore them!
From: pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker)
Subject: Re: Rawlins debunks creationism
Organization: I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can't prove a thing.
Lines: 30
In article <1993Apr15.223844.16453@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>,
wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) wrote:
>
>     We are talking about origins, not merely science.   Science cannot
>     explain origins.  For a person to exclude anything but science from
>     the issue of origins is to say that there is no higher truth
>     than science.  This is a false premise.
Says who? Other than a hear-say god.
>     By the way, I enjoy science.
You sure don't understand it.
>     It is truly a wonder observing God's creation.  Macroevolution is
>     a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed
>     within three percent error :) ]
Bill, I hereby award you the Golden Shovel Award for the biggist pile of
bullshit I've seen in a whils. I'm afraid there's not a bit of religion in
macroevolution, and you've made a rather grand statement that Science can
not explain origins; to a large extent, it already has!
>             //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //
Peter W. Walker          "Yu, shall I tell you what knowledge is? When
Dept. of Space Physics    you know a thing, say that you know it. When
and Astronomy          you do not know a thing, admit you do not know
Rice University           it. This is knowledge."
Houston, TX                     - K'ung-fu Tzu
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 37
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
Keywords: Dan Bissell
bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
>First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.
Well, this is alt.atheism.  I hope you arent here to try to convert anyone.
>It makes sense to be one.
Many would disagree.
[...]
>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.
Well, you shouldn't give any particular book too much weight.  Actually,
I don't think that any of these statements is correct.  It is more likely
that most of Jesus' fame was attributed to him after his death by those
who had some strong motives...
[...]
>Some other things to note.  He fulfilled loads of prophecies in
>the psalms, Isaiah and elsewhere in 24 hrs alone.
What's a prophecy, and what's so significant about them?
>I don't think most people understand what a Christian is.
I think we understand.
>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.
Well, sell your computer and donate you life to your religion now...
Don't waste any time.
keith
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 26
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
In article <1qkq9t$66n@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>I'll take a wild guess and say Freedom is objectively valuable.  I base
>this on the assumption that if everyone in the world were deprived utterly
>of their freedom (so that their every act was contrary to their volition),
>almost all would want to complain.  Therefore I take it that to assert or
>believe that "Freedom is not very valuable", when almost everyone can see
>that it is, is every bit as absurd as to assert "it is not raining" on
>a rainy day.  I take this to be a candidate for an objective value, and it
>it is a necessary condition for objective morality that objective values
>such as this exist.
You have only shown that a vast majority ( if not all ) would
agree to this. However, there is nothing against a subjective majority.
In any event, I must challenge your assertion. I know many
societies- heck, many US citizens- willing to trade freedom for "security".
---
" Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "
John Laws, a man without the honor to keep his given word.
From: chrisb@seachg.com (Chris Blask)
Subject: Re: islamic authority over women
Reply-To: chrisb@seachg.com (Chris Blask)
Organization: Me, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 78
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: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Objective morality (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: sgi
Lines: 24
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1ql7utINN5sg@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >I want to know how this omniscient being is going to perform
|> >the feat of "definitely" terming actions right or wrong.
|>
|> If you were omniscient, you'd know who exactly did what, and with what
|> purpose in mind.  Then, with a particular goal in mind, you sould be
|> able to methodically judge whether or not this action was in accordance
|> with the general goal.
But now you are contradicting yourself in a pretty massive way,
and I don't think you've even noticed.
In another part of this thread, you've been telling us that the
"goal" of a natural morality is what animals do to survive.
But suppose that your omniscient being told you that the long
term survival of humanity requires us to exterminate some
other species, either terrestrial or alien.
Does that make it moral to do so?
jon.
Organization: Penn State University
From: Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: <<Pompous ass
<1q52q8INN6pi@gap.caltech.edu> <93099.234144MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
<1q8lk3INNitq@gap.caltech.edu> <93102.062908MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
<93105.022621TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu> <1ql71pINN5ef@gap.caltech.edu>
Lines: 36
In article <1ql71pINN5ef@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan
Schneider) says:
>
>Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>Sure, they may fall back on other things, but this is one they
>>should not have available to use.
>
>It is worse than others?  The National Anthem?  Should it be changed too?
>God Bless America?  The list goes on...
Worse?  Maybe not, but it is definately a violation of the
rules the US govt. supposedly follows.  Maybe the others
should be changed to?  But I'm not personally as concerned
about the anthem since I don't come across it in daily
nearly unavoidable routines.
>>every christian.  And I'd be tempted to rub that motto in the
>>face of christians when debunking their standard motto slinging
>>gets boring.
>
>Then you'd be no better than the people you despise.
I don't despise the people...just their opinions.  I meant
when chatting with the ones who refuse to listen to any idea
other than their own...then it just becomes an exercise for
amusement.
>[...]
>>For the motto to be legitimate, it would have to read:
>>   "In god, gods, or godlessness we trust"
>
>Would you approve of such a motto?
No.  ...not unless the only way to get rid of the current one
was to change it to such as that.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Moraltiy? (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: sgi
Lines: 63
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1ql8ekINN635@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >>>>What if I act morally for no particular reason?  Then am I moral?  What
|> >>>>if morality is instinctive, as in most animals?
|> >>>
|> >>>Saying that morality is instinctive in animals is an attempt to
|> >>>assume your conclusion.
|> >>
|> >>Which conclusion?
|> >
|> >You conclusion - correct me if I err - that the behaviour which is
|> >instinctive in animals is a "natural" moral system.
|>
|> See, we are disagreeing on the definition of moral here.  Earlier, you said
|> that it must be a conscious act.  By your definition, no instinctive
|> behavior pattern could be an act of morality.  You are trying to apply
|> human terms to non-humans.
Pardon me?   *I* am trying to apply human terms to non-humans?
I think there must be some confusion here.   I'm the guy who is
saying that if animal behaviour is instinctive then it does *not*
have any moral sugnificance.   How does refusing to apply human
terms to animals get turned into applying human terms?
|> I think that even if someone is not conscious of an alternative,
|> this does not prevent his behavior from being moral.
I'm sure you do think this, if you say so.   How about trying to
convince me?
|>
|> >>You don't think that morality is a behavior pattern?  What is human
|> >>morality?  A moral action is one that is consistent with a given
|> >>pattern.  That is, we enforce a certain behavior as moral.
|> >
|> >You keep getting this backwards.  *You* are trying to show that
|> >the behaviour pattern is a morality.  Whether morality is a behavior
|> >pattern is irrelevant, since there can be behavior pattern, for
|> >example the motions of the planets, that most (all?) people would
|> >not call a morality.
|>
|> I try to show it, but by your definition, it can't be shown.
I've offered, four times, I think, to accept your definition if
you allow me to ascribe moral significence to the orbital motion
of the planets.
|>
|> And, morality can be thought of a large class of princples.  It could be
|> defined in terms of many things--the laws of physics if you wish.  However,
|> it seems silly to talk of a "moral" planet because it obeys the laws of
|> phyics.  It is less silly to talk about animals, as they have at least
|> some free will.
Ah, the law of "silly" and "less silly".   what Mr Livesey finds
intuitive is "silly" but what Mr Schneider finds intuitive is "less
silly".
Now that's a devastating argument, isn't it.
jon.
From: jimh@carson.u.washington.edu (James Hogan)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 30
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu
In article <115571@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>In article <2BCC892B.21864@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>
>>In article <115290@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>
>>>Well, seeing as you are not muslim the sort of fatwa issued by Khomeini
>>>would not be relevant to you. I can understand your fear of persecution
>>>and I share it even more than you (being muslim), however Rushdie's
>>>behavior was not completely excusable.
As much as I considered some of the (so-called) Islam-related dialogue
here a total waste of time, I somehow can't restrain myself in this
instance, so, Gregg, try this:
20:52 P.S.T.  I come to my senses and accept the all-knowing
wisdom and power of the Quran and Allah.  Not only that, but Allah
himself drops by to congratulate me on my wise choice. Allah rolls a
few bones and we get down.  Then Allah gets out the Crisco, bends
over, and invites me to take a spin around the block.  Wow.
20:56 P.S.T.  I realize that maybe Allah is looking for more of a
commitment than I'm ready for, so I say "Man, I've got some
programming to do.  Gotta go.  I'll call you."
20:59 P.S.T   Thinking it over, I renounce Islam.
BTW, Gregg, Allah said he still thinks of you.
Jim
From: mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Lines: 48
In article <16BAFA9D9.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>
>
>Yes, but, fortunately, religions have been replaced by systems
>that value Human Rights higher.
Secular laws seem to value criminal life more than the victims life,
Islam places the rights of society and every member in it above
the rights of the individual, this is what I call true human rights.
>
>By the way, do you actually support the claim of precedence of Islamic
>Law? In case you do, what about the laws of other religions?
As a Muslim living in a non-Muslim land I am bound by the laws of the land
I live in, but I do not disregard Islamic Law it still remains a part of my
life. If the laws of a land conflict with my religion to such an extent
that I am prevented from being allowed to practise my religion then I must
leave the land. So in a way Islamic law does take precendence over secular law
but we are instructed to follow the laws of the land that we live in too.
In an Islamic state (one ruled by a Khaliphate) religions other than Islam
are allowed to rule by their own religious laws provided they don't affect
the genral population and don't come into direct conflict with state
laws, Dhimmis (non-Muslim population) are exempt from most Islamic laws
on religion, such as fighting in a Jihad, giving Zakat (alms giving)
etc but are given the benefit of these two acts such as Military
protection and if they are poor they will receive Zakat.
>
>If not, what has it got to do with Rushdie? And has anyone reliable
>information if he hadn't left Islam according to Islamic law?
>Or is the burden of proof on him?
>   Benedikt
After the Fatwa didn't Rushdie re-affirm his faith in Islam, didn't
he go thru' a very public "conversion" to Islam? If so he is binding
himself to Islamic Laws. He has to publicly renounce in his belief in Islam
so the burden is on him.
Mas
--
C I T I Z E N  +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
_____   _____  | C A D E N C E  D E S I G N  S Y S T E M S  Inc. |
\_/       | Masud Ahmed Khan mas@cadence.com All My Opinions|
_____/ \_____  +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
From: mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan)
Subject: Re: Slavery (was Re: Why is sex only allowed in marriage: ...)
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Lines: 39
In article <1993Apr12.124221.22592@bradford.ac.uk> L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:
>
>Oh, this all sounds so nice!  Everyone helping each other and always smiling
>and fluffy bunnies everywhere.  Wake up!  People are just not like that.  It
>seems evident from history that no society has succeeded when it had to rely
>upon the goodwill and unselfishness of the people.  Isn't it obvious from
>places like Iran that even if there are only a few greedy people in society
>then they are going to be attracted to positions of power?  Sounds like a
>recipe for disaster.
>
>--
>
>Leonard               e-mail:  L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk
Leonard, I'll give you an example of this....
My father recently bought a business, the business price was 150,000 pounds
and my father approached the people in the community for help, he raised
60,000 pounds in interest free loans from friends and relatives and
Muslims he knew, 50,000 had cash and the rest he got a business loan, after
paying off the Muslim lenders many of them helped him with further loans
to help him clear the bank debt and save him from further intrest, this
is an example of a Muslim community helping one another, why did they help
because of their common identity as Muslims. In turn my father has helped
with people buying houses to minimise the amount of intrest they pay
and in some cases buy houses intrest free with the help of those more
fortunate in the community.
The fact is Leonard it DOES work without a fluffy bunny in sight!
iThat is the beauty of Islam.
Mas
--
C I T I Z E N  +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
_____   _____  | C A D E N C E  D E S I G N  S Y S T E M S  Inc. |
\_/       | Masud Ahmed Khan mas@cadence.com All My Opinions|
_____/ \_____  +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <<Pompous ass
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 21
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
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: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <<Pompous ass
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 16
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
[...]
>>The "`little' things" above were in reference to Germany, clearly.  People
>>said that there were similar things in Germany, but no one could name any.
>That's not true.  I gave you two examples.  One was the rather
>pevasive anti-semitism in German Christianity well before Hitler
>arrived.  The other was the system of social ranks that were used
>in Imperail Germany and Austria to distinguish Jews from the rest
>of the population.
These don't seem like "little things" to me.  At least, they are orders
worse than the motto.  Do you think that the motto is a "little thing"
that will lead to worse things?
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Morality? (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 52
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
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?
And anyway, humans have the ability to disregard some of their instincts.
>>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?
Or do you think that animals are machines, and that nothing they do
is either right nor wrong?
>>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.
>>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?
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?
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Objective morality (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 22
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In another part of this thread, you've been telling us that the
>"goal" of a natural morality is what animals do to survive.
That's right.  Humans have gone somewhat beyond this though.  Perhaps
our goal is one of self-actualization.
>But suppose that your omniscient being told you that the long
>term survival of humanity requires us to exterminate some
>other species, either terrestrial or alien.
Now you are letting an omniscient being give information to me.  This
was not part of the original premise.
>Does that make it moral to do so?
Which type of morality are you talking about?  In a natural sense, it
is not at all immoral to harm another species (as long as it doesn't
adversely affect your own, I guess).
keith
From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: New Member
Organization: Sponsored account, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 16
<1993Apr16.015931.12153@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: andrew.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <1993Apr16.015931.12153@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only) writes:
> Welcome.  I am the official keeper of the list of nicknames that people
> are known by on alt.atheism (didn't know we had such a list, did you).
> Your have been awarded the nickname of "Buckminster."  So the next time
> you post an article, sign with your nickname like so:
> Dave "Buckminster" Fuller.  Thanks again.
>
> Jim "Humor means never having to say you're sorry" Copeland
Of course, the list has to agree with the nickname laws laid down by the
GIPU almost 2000 years ago (you know... the 9 of them that were written on
the iron tablets that melted once and had to be reinscribed?).  Since I am
a prophet of the GIPU I decree that you should post the whole list of
nicknames for the frequent posters here!
Nanci
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
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: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: <<Pompous ass
Organization: sgi
Lines: 20
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1qlef4INN8dn@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> [...]
|> >>The "`little' things" above were in reference to Germany, clearly.  People
|> >>said that there were similar things in Germany, but no one could name any.
|> >That's not true.  I gave you two examples.  One was the rather
|> >pevasive anti-semitism in German Christianity well before Hitler
|> >arrived.  The other was the system of social ranks that were used
|> >in Imperail Germany and Austria to distinguish Jews from the rest
|> >of the population.
|>
|> These don't seem like "little things" to me.  At least, they are orders
|> worse than the motto.  Do you think that the motto is a "little thing"
|> that will lead to worse things?
You don't think these are little things because with twenty-twenty
hindsight, you know what they led to.
jon.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Objective morality (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: sgi
Lines: 46
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1qlf7gINN8sn@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >In another part of this thread, you've been telling us that the
|> >"goal" of a natural morality is what animals do to survive.
|>
|> That's right.  Humans have gone somewhat beyond this though.  Perhaps
|> our goal is one of self-actualization.
Humans have "gone somewhat beyond" what, exactly?    In one thread
you're telling us that natural morality is what animals do to
survive, and in this thread you are claiming that an omniscient
being can "definitely" say what is right and what is wrong.   So
what does this omniscient being use for a criterion?   The long-
term survival of the human species, or what?
How does omniscient map into "definitely" being able to assign
"right" and "wrong" to actions?
|>
|> >But suppose that your omniscient being told you that the long
|> >term survival of humanity requires us to exterminate some
|> >other species, either terrestrial or alien.
|>
|> Now you are letting an omniscient being give information to me.  This
|> was not part of the original premise.
Well, your "original premises" have a habit of changing over time,
so perhaps you'd like to review it for us, and tell us what the
difference is between an omniscient being be able to assign "right"
and "wrong" to actions, and telling us the result, is.
|>
|> >Does that make it moral to do so?
|>
|> Which type of morality are you talking about?  In a natural sense, it
|> is not at all immoral to harm another species (as long as it doesn't
|> adversely affect your own, I guess).
I'm talking about the morality introduced by you, which was going to
be implemented by this omniscient being that can "definitely" assign
"right" and "wrong" to actions.
You tell us what type of morality that is.
jon.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Slavery (was Re: Why is sex only allowed in marriage: ...)
Organization: sgi
Lines: 37
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1993Apr15.081303.16532@Cadence.COM>, mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan) writes:
|>
|> Leonard, I'll give you an example of this....
|>
|> My father recently bought a business, the business price was 150,000 pounds
|> and my father approached the people in the community for help, he raised
|> 60,000 pounds in interest free loans from friends and relatives and
|> Muslims he knew, 50,000 had cash and the rest he got a business loan, after
|> paying off the Muslim lenders many of them helped him with further loans
|> to help him clear the bank debt and save him from further intrest, this
|> is an example of a Muslim community helping one another, why did they help
|> because of their common identity as Muslims. In turn my father has helped
|> with people buying houses to minimise the amount of intrest they pay
|> and in some cases buy houses intrest free with the help of those more
|> fortunate in the community.
Sorry.   Wrong.    This is how banks got started in the first place.
Sooner or later your father and his pals will lend money to someone
who eventually goes broke, and then they will realise that they
havn't been managing risk very well.   Then they will ask themselves
what it is that they need to quantify risk, and to persuade borrowers
not to take on greater loans than they can carry.    And since they
don't all want the worry of doing the calculations and handling the
money, some of them will specialise in that.
Then they'll reinvent interest, but like good Muslims, they'll call
it something else.
|>
|> The fact is Leonard it DOES work without a fluffy bunny in sight!
|> iThat is the beauty of Islam.
Riiiight.   That's why John Major opened a new government department
a couple of months ago to help to promote minority business.   Because
they can do it all themselves by lending one another cups of sugar.
jon.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Morality? (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: sgi
Lines: 93
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
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: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 18
In article <C5Jxru.2t8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>What do you base your belief on atheism on?  Your knowledge and reasoning?
>COuldn't that be wrong?
>
Actually, my atheism is based on ignorance.  Ignorance of the
existence of any god.  Don't fall into the "atheists don't believe
because of their pride" mistake.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 25
In article <115565@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>In article <1qi3l5$jkj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>>I hope an Islamic Bank is something other than BCCI, which
>>ripped off so many small depositors among the Muslim
>>community in the Uk and elsewhere.
>
>Grow up, childish propagandist.
>
Gosh, Gregg.  I'm pretty good a reading between the lines, but
you've given me precious little to work with in this refutation.
Could you maybe flesh it out just a bit?  Or did I miss the full
grandeur of it's content by virtue of my blinding atheism?
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Re: Morality? (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 15
In article <1ql667INN54a@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>
>What I've been saying is that moral behavior is likely the null behavior.
Do I smell .sig material here?
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 20
In article <1ql8mdINN674@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>
>But we were discussing it in relation to the death penalty.  And, the
>Constitution need not define each of the words within.  Anyone who doesn't
>know what cruel is can look in the dictionary (and we did).
>
Or, with no dictionary available, they could gain first hand
knowledge by suffering through one of your posts.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Re: <<Pompous ass
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 20
In article <1ql6jiINN5df@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>
>The "`little' things" above were in reference to Germany, clearly.  People
>said that there were similar things in Germany, but no one could name any.
>They said that these were things that everyone should know, and that they
>weren't going to waste their time repeating them.  Sounds to me like no one
>knew, either.  I looked in some books, but to no avail.
If the Anne Frank exhibit makes it to your small little world,
take an afternoon to go see it.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Re: thoughts on christians
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 19
In article <ofnWyG600WB699voA=@andrew.cmu.edu> pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Patrick C Leger) writes:
>EVER HEAR OF
>BAPTISM AT BIRTH?  If that isn't preying on the young, I don't know what
>is...
>
No, that's praying on the young.  Preying on the young comes
later, when the bright eyed little altar boy finds out what the
priest really wears under that chasible.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: sgi
Lines: 31
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1qlfd4INN935@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >>Well, chimps must have some system.  They live in social groups
|> >>as we do, so they must have some "laws" dictating undesired behavior.
|> >
|> >So, why "must" they have such laws?
|>
|> The quotation marks should enclose "laws," not "must."
Oh, Your Highness?   And exactly why "should" the quotation
marks enclose "laws," not "must."
In case you didn't notice, it's the function of the "must"
that I wish to ironicise.
|>
|> If there were no such rules, even instinctive ones or unwritten ones,
|> etc., then surely some sort of random chance would lead a chimp society
|> into chaos.
Perhaps the chimps that failed to evolve cooperative behaviour
died out, and we are left with the ones that did evolve such
behaviour, entirely by chance.
Are you going to proclaim a natural morality every time an
organism evolves cooperative behaviour?
What about the natural morality of bee dance?
jon.
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Objective morality (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 44
NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>Humans have "gone somewhat beyond" what, exactly?    In one thread
>you're telling us that natural morality is what animals do to
>survive, and in this thread you are claiming that an omniscient
>being can "definitely" say what is right and what is wrong.   So
>what does this omniscient being use for a criterion?   The long-
>term survival of the human species, or what?
Well, that's the question, isn't it?  The goals are probably not all that
obvious.  We can set up a few goals, like happiness and liberty and
the golden rule, etc.  But these goals aren't inherent.  They have to
be defined before an objective system is possible.
>How does omniscient map into "definitely" being able to assign
>"right" and "wrong" to actions?
It is not too difficult, one you have goals in mind, and absolute
knoweldge of everyone's intent, etc.
>>Now you are letting an omniscient being give information to me.  This
>>was not part of the original premise.
>Well, your "original premises" have a habit of changing over time,
>so perhaps you'd like to review it for us, and tell us what the
>difference is between an omniscient being be able to assign "right"
>and "wrong" to actions, and telling us the result, is.
Omniscience is fine, as long as information is not given away.  Isn't
this the resolution of the free will problem?  An interactive omniscient
being changes the situation.
>>Which type of morality are you talking about?  In a natural sense, it
>>is not at all immoral to harm another species (as long as it doesn't
>>adversely affect your own, I guess).
>I'm talking about the morality introduced by you, which was going to
>be implemented by this omniscient being that can "definitely" assign
>"right" and "wrong" to actions.
>You tell us what type of morality that is.
Well, I was speaking about an objective system in general.  I didn't
mention a specific goal, which would be necessary to determine the
morality of an action.
keith
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Islam is caused by believing (was Re: Genocide is Caused by Theism)
Reply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Lines: 40
In article <1993Apr13.173100.29861@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:
>>I'm only saying that anything can happen under atheism.  Being a
>>beleiver, a knowledgeable one in religion, only good can happen.
This is becoming a tiresome statement.  Coming from you it is
a definition, not an assertion:
Islam is good.  Belief in Islam is good.  Therefore, being a
believer in Islam can produce only good...because Islam is
good. Blah blah blah.
That's about as circular as it gets, and equally meaningless.  To
say that something produces only good because it is only good that
it produces is nothing more than an unapplied definition.  And
all you're application is saying that it's true if you really
believe it's true.  That's silly.
Conversely, you say off-handedly that _anything_ can happen under
atheism.  Again, just an offshoot of believe-it-and-it-becomes-true-
don't-believe-it-and-it-doesn't.
Like other religions I'm aquainted with, Islam teaches exclusion and
caste, and suggests harsh penalties for _behaviors_ that have no
logical call for punishment (certain limits on speech and sex, for
example).  To me this is not good.  I see much pain and suffering
without any justification, except for the _waving of the hand_ of
some inaccessible god.
By the by, you toss around the word knowledgable a bit carelessly.
For what is a _knowledgeable believer_ except a contradiction of
terms.  I infer that you mean believer in terms of having faith.
And If you need knowledge to believe then faith has nothing
to do with it, does it?
-jim halat
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam
Reply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Lines: 33
In article <115288@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>
>He'd have to be precise about is rejection of God and his leaving Islam.
>One is perfectly free to be muslim and to doubt and question the
>existence of God, so long as one does not _reject_ God. I am sure that
>Rushdie has be now made his atheism clear in front of a sufficient
>number of proper witnesses. The question in regard to the legal issue
>is his status at the time the crime was committed.
I'd have to say that I have a problem with any organization,
religious or not, where the idea that _simple speech_ such
as this is the basis for a crime.
-jim halat
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam
Reply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Lines: 37
In article <30121@ursa.bear.com>, halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
>In article <115288@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>>
>>He'd have to be precise about is rejection of God and his leaving Islam.
>>One is perfectly free to be muslim and to doubt and question the
>>existence of God, so long as one does not _reject_ God. I am sure that
>>Rushdie has be now made his atheism clear in front of a sufficient
>>number of proper witnesses. The question in regard to the legal issue
>>is his status at the time the crime was committed.
>
I'll also add that it is impossible to actually tell when one
_rejects_ god.  Therefore, you choose to punish only those who
_talk_ about it.
>
>-jim halat
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: A silly question on x-tianity
Reply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Lines: 23
In article <1993Apr14.175557.20296@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>Sorry to insult your homestate, but coming from where I do, Wisconsin
>is _very_ backwards.  I was never able to understand that people actually
>held such bigoted and backwards views until I came here.
I have never been to Wisconsin, though I have been to
neighbor Minnesota. Being a child of the Middle Atlantic (NY, NJ, PA)
I found that there were few states in the provences that stood
out in this youngster's mind: California, Texas, and Florida to
name the most obvious three.  However, both Minnesota and Wisconsin
stuck out, solely on the basis of their politics.  Both have
always translated to extremely liberal and progressive states.
And my recent trip to Minnestoa last summer served to support that
state's reputation.  My guess is that Wisconsin is probably the
same.  At least that was the impression the people of Minnesota left
with me about their neighbors.
The only question in my head about Wisconsin, though, is
whether or not there is a cause-effect relationship between
cheese and serial killers :)
-jim halat
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: The nonexistance of Atheists?!
In-Reply-To: <1993Apr15.192037.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
Organization: Kupajava, East of Krakatoa
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)
Lines: 26
>DATE:   15 Apr 93 19:20:37 EDT
>FROM:   kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
>
>In article <bskendigC5JCwx.Jzn@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>
>> [s.c.a quotes deleted]
>>
>> It really looks like these people have no idea at all of what it means
>> to be atheist.  There are more Bobby Mozumder clones in the world than
>> I thought...
>
>Well, that explains some things; I posted on soc.religion.islam
>with an attached quote by Bobby to the effect that all atheists
>are lying evil scum, and asked if it was a commonly-held idea
>among muslims.  I got no response.  Asking about the unknown,
>I guess...
You should have tried one of the soc.culture groups in the Middle East
or South Asia area (they are a little more open than the Islam channel).
I think someone defined atheists as polytheists cuz they say we think the
world created itself (or something like that) so each particle is a God
which created the other Gods.  The soc.culture.african is also nice for
some contrasting viewpoints on the benevolence of religion.  Especially
when Sudan is mentioned.
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Desert Brat)
Subject: Keith IS a relativist!
Organization: Cured, discharged
Lines: 25
In article <1pigidINNsot@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
> Not so.  If you are thrown into a cage with a tiger and get mauled, do you
> blame the tiger?
AHA! He admits it! He IS a moral relativist!
Keith, if you start wafffling on about how it is different for a human
to maul someone thrown into it's cage (so to speak), you'd better start
posting tome decent evidence or retract your 'I think there is an absolute
morality' blurb a few weeks ago.
> keith
The Desert Brat
--
John J McVey, Elc&Eltnc Eng, Whyalla, Uni S Australia,    ________
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au      T.S.A.K.C.            \/Darwin o\
For replies, mail to whjjm@wh.whyalla.unisa.edu.au      /\________/
Disclaimer: Unisa hates my opinions.                       bb  bb
+------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
|"It doesn't make a rainbow any less beautiful that we | "God's name is smack  |
|understand the refractive mechanisms that chance to   | for some."            |
|produce it." - Jim Perry, perry@dsinc.com             |    - Alice In Chains  |
+------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
From: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
Keywords: Dan Bissell
Reply-To: eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright)
Organization: Nottingham University
Lines: 28
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: 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)
Organization: Nottingham University
Lines: 38
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: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Desert Brat)
Subject: Victims of various 'Good Fight's
Organization: Cured, discharged
Lines: 30
In article <9454@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, naren@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Naren Bala) writes:
> LIST OF KILLINGS IN THE NAME OF RELIGION
> 1. Iran-Iraq War: 1,000,000
> 2. Civil War in Sudan: 1,000,000
> 3, Riots in India-Pakistan in 1947: 1,000,000
> 4. Massacares in Bangladesh in 1971: 1,000,000
> 5. Inquistions in America in 1500s: x million (x=??)
> 6. Crusades: ??
7. Massacre of Jews in WWII: 6.3 million
8. Massacre of other 'inferior races' in WWII: 10 million
9. Communist purges: 20-30 million? [Socialism is more or less a religion]
10. Catholics V Protestants : quite a few I'd imagine
11. Recent goings on in Bombay/Iodia (sp?) area: ??
12. Disease introduced to Brazilian * oher S.Am. tribes: x million
> -- Naren
The Desert Brat
--
John J McVey, Elc&Eltnc Eng, Whyalla, Uni S Australia,    ________
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au      T.S.A.K.C.            \/Darwin o\
For replies, mail to whjjm@wh.whyalla.unisa.edu.au      /\________/
Disclaimer: Unisa hates my opinions.                       bb  bb
+------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
|"It doesn't make a rainbow any less beautiful that we | "God's name is smack  |
|understand the refractive mechanisms that chance to   | for some."            |
|produce it." - Jim Perry, perry@dsinc.com             |    - Alice In Chains  |
+------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Desert Brat)
Subject: Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster?
Organization: Cured, discharged
Lines: 24
In article <1pa0f4INNpit@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
> But really, are you threatened by the motto, or by the people that use it?
Every time somone writes something and says it is merely describing the norm,
it is infact re-inforcing that norm upon those programmed not to think for
themselves. The motto is dangerous in itself, it tells the world that every
*true* American is god-fearing, and puts down those who do not fear gods. It
doesn't need anyone to make it dangerous, it does a good job itself by just
existing on your currency.
> keith
The Desert Brat
--
John J McVey, Elc&Eltnc Eng, Whyalla, Uni S Australia,    ________
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au      T.S.A.K.C.            \/Darwin o\
For replies, mail to whjjm@wh.whyalla.unisa.edu.au      /\________/
Disclaimer: Unisa hates my opinions.                       bb  bb
+------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
|"It doesn't make a rainbow any less beautiful that we | "God's name is smack  |
|understand the refractive mechanisms that chance to   | for some."            |
|produce it." - Jim Perry, perry@dsinc.com             |    - Alice In Chains  |
+------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
From: dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller)
Subject: Re: It's all Mary's fault!
Organization: VideOcart Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Lines: 23
pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Patrick C Leger) writes:
: You know, it just occurred to me today that this whole Christian thing
: can be blamed solely on Mary.
:
: So, she's married to Joseph.  She gets knocked up.  What do you think
: ol' Joe will do if he finds she's been getting around?  So Mary comes up
: with this ridiculous story about God making her pregnant.
:
Nice attempt Chris . . . verrry close.
You missed the conspiracy by 1 step. Joseph knew who knocked her up.
He couldn't let it be known that somebody ELSE got ol' Mary prego. That
wouldn't do well for his popularity in the local circles. So what
happened is that she was feeling guilty, he was feeling embarrassed, and
THEY decided to improve both of their images on what could have otherwise
been the downfall for both. Clever indeed. Come to think of it . . . I
have gained a new respect for the couple. Maybe Joseph and Mary should
receive all of the praise being paid to jesus.
Dave "Buckminster" Fuller
How is that one 'o keeper of the nicknames ?
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: Origins of the bible.
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 14
Adda Wainwright writes:
>He stated that thousands of bibles were discovered at a certain point in
>time which were syllable-perfect.  This therefore meant that there must have
>been one copy at a certain time; the time quoted by my acquaintance was
>approximately 50 years after the death of Jesus.
This is, as far as I know, complete nonsense.  The codification of the bible
as we have it now came very much later.
--
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: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
Organization: Decision Support Inc.
Lines: 72
NNTP-Posting-Host: bozo.dsinc.com
I apologize for the long delay in getting a response to this posted.
I've been working reduced hours the past couple of weeks because I had
a son born (the day after Umar's article was posted, btw).  I did
respond within a couple of days, but it turns out that a a
coincidental news software rearrangement caused postings from this
site to silently disappear rather than going out into the world.  This
is a revision of that original response.
In article <C52q47.7Ct@ra.nrl.navy.mil> khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes:
>In article <1ps98fINNm2u@dsi.dsinc.com> perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes:
>>Only a functional illiterate with absolutely no conception of the
>>nature of the novel could think such a thing.
[this was in response to the claim that "Rushdie made false statements
about the life of Mohammed", with the disclaimer "(fiction, I know,
but where is the line between fact and fiction?) - I stand by this
distinction between fiction and "false statements"]
>>However, it's not for his writing in _The Satanic Verses_, but for
>>what people have accepted as a propagandistic version of what is
>>contained in that book.  I have yet to find *one single muslim* who
>>has convinced me that they have read the book.  Some have initially
>>claimed to have done so, but none has shown more knowledge of the book
>>than a superficial Newsweek story might impart, and all have made
>>factual misstatements about events in the book.
>
>You keep saying things like this.  Then, you accuse people like me of
>making ad hominem arguments.  I repeat, as I have said in previous
>postings on AA: I *have* read TSV from cover to cover
I had not seen that claim, or I might have been less sweeping.  You
have made what I consider factual misstatements about events in the
book, which I have raised in the past, in the "ISLAM: a clearer view"
thread as well as the root of the "Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]"
thread.  My statement was not that you had not read the book, but that
you had not convinced me that you [inter alia] had.  As I said before,
if you want to defend your position, then produce evidence, and
respond to the evidence I have posted; so far you have not.  Of
course, my statement was not directly aimed at you, but broadly at a
number of Muslim posters who have repeated propaganda about the book,
indicating that they haven't read it, and narrowly at Gregg Jaeger,
who subsequently admitted that he hadn't in fact read the book,
vindicating my skepticism in at least that one case.
So far, the only things I have to go on regarding your own case are a)
the statements you made concerning the book in the "a clearer view"
posting, which I have challenged (not interpretation, but statements
of fact, for instance "Rushdie depicts the women of the most
respected family in all of Islam as whores"), and b) your claim (which
I had not seen before this) that you have indeed read it cover to
cover.  I am willing to try to resolve this down to a disagreement on
critical interpretation, but you'll have to support your end, by
responding to my criticism.  I have no doubt as to the ability of a
particular Muslim to go through this book with a highlighter finding
passages to take personal offense at, but you have upheld the view
that "TSV *is* intended as an attack on Islam and upon Muslims".  This
view must be defended by more than mere assertion, if you want anyone
to take it seriously.
>I am trying very hard to be amicable and rational.
And I appreciate it, but welcome to the club.  I am defending my
honest opinion that this book should not be construed as a calculated
(or otherwise) insulting attack on Islam, and the parallel opinion
that most of the criticism of the book I have seen is baseless
propaganda.  I have supported my statements and critical
interpretationa with in-context quotes from the book and Rushdie's
essays, which is more than my correspondents have done.  Of course,
you are more than welcome to do so.
--
Jim Perry   perry@dsinc.com   Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions.  For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
From: timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons)
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
Lines: 76
Chris Faehl writes:
> >Many atheists do not mock the concept of a god, they are shocked that
> >so many theists have fallen to such a low level that they actually
> >believe in a god.  You accuse all atheists of being part of a conspiracy,
> >again without evidence.
>
>> Rule *2:  Condescending to the population at large (i.e., theists) will >not
>> win many people to your faith anytime soon.  It only ruins your credibility.
>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.
>> 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.
>> Rule #6:  If you rely on evidence, state it.  We're waiting.
>As opposed to relying on a bunch of black ink on some crumbling old paper...
>Atheism has to prove nothing to you or anyone else. It is the burden of
>dogmatic religious bullshit to provide their 'evidence'. Which 'we'
>might you be referring to, and how long are you going to wait?
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.
Second, what makes you think I'm defending any given religion?  I'm merely
recognizing hard atheism for what it is, a faith.
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?
>
>> Oh yes, though I'm not a theist, I can say safely that *by definition* many
>> theists are not arrogant, since they boast about something _outside_
>> themselves, namely, a god or gods.  So in principle it's hard to see how
>> theists are necessarily arrogant.
>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?
>
>> I'm not worthy!
>Only seriously misinformed.
With your sophisticated put-down of "they", the theists, _your_ serious
misinformation shines through.
--
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: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism)
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Lines: 41
In <16BB4C522.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>In article <1993Apr17.122329.21438@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
>darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>
>>>>"AND IT IS HE (GOD ALMIGHTY) WHO CREATED THE NIGHT AND THE
>>>>DAY, AND THE SUN AND THE EARTH:  ALL (THE CELETIAL BODIES)
>>>>SWIM ALONG, EACH IN ITS ROUNDED COURSE."  (Holy Quran 21:33)
>>
>>>Hmm. This agrees with the Ptolemic system of the earth at the centre,
>>>with the planets orbitting round it. So Copernicus and Gallileo were
>>>wrong after all!
>>
>>You haven't read very carefully -- if you look again, you will see that
>>it doesn't say anything about what is circling what.
>
>Anyway, they are not moving in circles.
Oops, sorry, my words, not the words of the Qur'an.
>Nor is there any evidence that
>everything goes around in a rounded course in a general sense. Wishy-
>washy statements are not scientific.
Note that "(the celestial bodies)" in the above verse is an
interpolation (which is why it is in brackets) -- it is the translator's
(incorrect, IMHO) interpretation.
Here is Maurice Bucaille's translation (he studied Arabic for his
research into the Qur'an and science) of this verse:
"(God is) the One Who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon.
Each is travelling in an orbit with its own motion." (Qur'an :33)
The positive aspect of this verse noted by Dr. Maurice Bucaille is that
while geocentrism was the commonly accepted notion at the time (and for
a long time afterwards), there is no notion of geocentrism in this verse
(or anywhere in the Qur'an).
Fred Rice
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism)
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Lines: 60
In <CINDY.93Apr18124333@solan10.solan.unit.no> cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:
>Various quotes deleted in the interest of saving a little bit of
>bandwidth, but i will copy the Koran quote:
>>>>"AND IT IS HE (GOD ALMIGHTY) WHO CREATED THE NIGHT AND THE
>>>>DAY, AND THE SUN AND THE EARTH:  ALL (THE CELETIAL BODIES)
>>>>SWIM ALONG, EACH IN ITS ROUNDED COURSE."  (Holy Quran 21:33)
>As it has been pointed out, this quote makes no claim about what
>orbits what.  The idea that something orbited something had been held
>as true for many years before the Koran was written, so the fact that
>it says something orbits something is hardly surprising insight.  My
>concern is with the word "rounded".
>There are two interpretations of this word:
>1. It means in a circle.  This is wrong, although many believed it to
>be true at the time the Koran was written.  In other words, it is not
>describing our neighborhood of the universe as it really exists, but
>as it was thought to be at the time.  This has implications which i
>hope are obvious to everyone.
>2. It means "in a rounded shape", which could include elipses (the
>geometrical form which most nearly describes the orbits of the
>planets).  This is also not a great insight.  Look at the shapes you
>see in nature.  Very few of them even approach a square or rectangle;
>those are human-created shapes.  Everything in nature is rounded to
>some degree.  Even the flat-earthers don't try to claim Earth is a
>rectangle.  Children who draw imaginary animals seldom give them
>rectangular bodies.  We seem to instinctively recognize that nature
>produces rounded shapes; hence, the assumption that the orbits of the
>planets would be round hardly takes divine inspiration.
It is good to remember that every translation is to some extent an
interpretation, so (as you point out below) one must really go back to
the original Arabic.  Regarding the verses relevant to nature, I prefer
to use Dr. Maurice Bucaille's translations (in his book, "The Bible, the
Qur'an and Science") for in general his translations are more literal.
Maurice Bucaille translates the portion of the verse you are addressing
as
"...Each one is travelling with an orbit in its own motion."
(Also note that "the celestial bodies" in the first translation quoted
by you above is the translator's interpolation -- it is not existent in
the original Arabic, which is why it is included in brackets.)
>Perhaps someone who can read the original Arabic can eliminate one of
>these interpretations; at any rate, neither one of them is exactly
>impressive.
You're right, what the verses _do_ contain isn't all that remarkable.
However, Dr. Bucaille (a surgeon, that's how he's a "Dr.") thinks it is
significant that the above verse contains no geocentric ideas, even
though geocentrism was all the rage up until the 17th century (?) or so.
(And this goes for the rest of the Qur'an as well, which has about 750
verses or so regarding nature, I think I remember reading once.)
Fred Rice
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
From: yohan@citation.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Subject: Re: Societally acceptable behavior
Organization: Kansas State University
Lines: 35
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: citation.ksu.ksu.edu
In article <C5qGM3.DL8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>Merely a question for the basis of morality
>
>Moral/Ethical behavior = _Societally_ _acceptable_ _behavior_.
I disagree with these.  What society thinks should be irrelevant.  What the
individual decides is all that is important.
>
>1)Who is society
I think this is fairly obvious
>
>2)How do "they" define what is acceptable?
Generally by what they "feel" is right, which is the most idiotic policy I can
think of.
>
>3)How do we keep from a "whatever is legal is what is "moral" "position?
By thinking for ourselves.
>
>MAC
>--
>****************************************************************
>                                                    Michael A. Cobb
> "...and I won't raise taxes on the middle     University of Illinois
>    class to pay for my programs."                 Champaign-Urbana
>          -Bill Clinton 3rd Debate             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
>
>With new taxes and spending cuts we'll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.
From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com
Subject: Re: Origins of the bible.
Lines: 56
In article <1993Apr19.141112.15018@cs.nott.ac.uk>, eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes:
> Hi,
>
> I have been having an argument about the origins of the bible lately with
> a theist acquaintance.  He stated that thousands of bibles were discovered
> at a certain point in time which were syllable-perfect.  This therefore
> meant that there must have been one copy at a certain time; the time quoted
> by my acquaintace was approximately 50 years after the death of Jesus.
Hi Adda,
Most Bible scholars agree that there was one copy of each book at a certain
time -- the time when the author wrote it.  Unfortunately, like all works
from this time period and earlier, all that exists today are copies.
>
> Cutting all of the crap out of the way (ie god wrote it) could anyone answer
> the following:
>
> 1.  How old is the oldest surviving copy of the new testament?
There are parts of books, scraps really, that date from around the
mid second century (A.D. 130+).  There are some complete books, letters,
etc. from the middle third century.  The first complete collection of
the New Testament dates from the early 4th century (A.D. 325).  Throughout
this period are writings of various early church fathers/leaders who
quoted various scriptures in their writings.
> 2.  Is there any truth in my acquaintance's statements?
If you mean that someone discovered thousands of "Bibles" which were all
perfect copies dating from the last part of the 1st century...No!
If you mean that there are thousands of early manuscripts (within the
dates given above, but not letter perfect) and that the most probable
text can be reconstructed from these documents and that the earliest
original autographs (now lost) probably were written starting sometime
shortly after A.D. 50, then yes.
> 3.  From who/where did the bible originate?
From the original authors.  We call them Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter,
Paul, James, and one other not identified.
> 4.  How long is a piece of string? ;-)
As long as you make it.
>
> Adda
>
> --
Regards,
Jim B.
From: timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons)
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
Lines: 66
James Hogan writes:
timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes:
>>Jim Hogan quips:
>>... (summary of Jim's stuff)
>>Jim, I'm afraid _you've_ missed the point.
>>>Thus, I think you'll have to admit that  atheists have a lot
>>more up their sleeve than you might have suspected.
>>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
>>meager.  If you want I'll send them your address to learn less about your
>>faith.
>Faith?
Yeah, do you expect people to read the FAQ, etc. and actually accept hard
atheism?  No, you need a little leap of faith, Jimmy.  Your logic runs out
of steam!
>>>Fine, but why do these people shoot themselves in the foot and mock
>>>the idea of a God?  ....
>>>I hope you understand now.
>>Yes, Jim.  I do understand now.  Thank you for providing some healthy sarcasm
>>that would have dispelled any sympathies I would have had for your faith.
>Bake,
>Real glad you detected the sarcasm angle, but am really bummin' that
>I won't be getting any of your sympathy.  Still, if your inclined
>to have sympathy for somebody's *faith*, you might try one of the
>religion newsgroups.
>Just be careful over there, though. (make believe I'm
>whispering in your ear here)  They're all delusional!
Jim,
Sorry I can't pity you, Jim.  And I'm sorry that you have these feelings of
denial about the faith you need to get by.  Oh well, just pretend that it will
all end happily ever after anyway.  Maybe if you start a new newsgroup,
alt.atheist.hard, you won't be bummin' so much?
>Good job, Jim.
>.
>Bye, Bake.
>>[more slim-Jim (tm) deleted]
>Bye, Bake!
>Bye, Bye!
Bye-Bye, Big Jim.  Don't forget your Flintstone's Chewables!  :)
--
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: agrino@enkidu.mic.cl (Andres Grino Brandt)
Subject: Studies on Book of Mormon
Distribution: world
Organization: Orden del Lobo Estepario
Reply-To: agrino@enkidu.mic.cl
Lines: 20
Hi!
I don't know much about Mormons, and I want to know about serious independent
studies about the Book of Mormon.
I don't buy the 'official' story about the gold original taken to heaven,
but haven't read the Book of Mormon by myself (I have to much work learning
Biblical Hebrew), I will appreciate any comment about the results of study
in style, vocabulary, place-names, internal consistency, and so on.
For example: There is evidence for one-writer or multiple writers?
There are some mention about events, places, or historical persons later
discovered by archeologist?
Yours in Collen
Andres Grino Brandt               Casilla 14801 - Santiago 21
agrino@enkidu.mic.cl                        Chile
No hay mas realidad que la realidad, y la razon es su profeta
From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com
Subject: Re: Gulf War and Peace-niks
Lines: 67
In article <1993Apr20.062328.19776@bmerh85.bnr.ca>,
dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
[...]
>
> Wait a minute.  You said *never* play a Chamberlain.  Since the US
> *is* playing Chamberlain as far as East Timor is concerned, wouldn't
> that lead you to think that your argument is irrelevant and had nothing
> to do with the Gulf War?  Actually, I rather like your idea.  Perhaps
> the rest of the world should have bombed (or maybe missiled) Washington
> when the US invaded Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Vietnam, Mexico, Hawaii,
> or any number of other places.
Wait a minute, Doug.  I know you are better informed than that.  The US
has never invaded Nicaragua (as far as I know).  We liberated Grenada
from the Cubans	to protect US citizens there and to prevent the completion
of a strategic air strip.  Panama we invaded, true (twice this century).
Vietnam?  We were invited in by the government of S. Vietnam.  (I guess
we "invaded" Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, eh?)  Mexico?  We have
invaded Mexico 2 or 3 times, once this century, but there were no missiles
for anyone to shoot over here at that time.  Hawaii?  We liberated it from
Spain.
So if you mean by the word "invaded" some sort of military action where
we cross someone's border, you are right 5 out of 6.  But normally
"invaded" carries a connotation of attacking an autonomous nation.
(If some nation "invades" the U.S. Virgin Islands, would they be
invading the Virgin Islands or the U.S.?)  So from this point of
view, your score falls to 2 out of 6 (Mexico, Panama).
[...]
>
> What's a "peace-nik"?  Is that somebody who *doesn't* masturbate
> over "Guns'n'Ammo" or what?  Is it supposed to be bad to be a peace-nik?
No, it's someone who believes in "peace-at-all-costs".  In other words,
a person who would have supported giving Hitler not only Austria and
Czechoslakia, but Poland too if it could have averted the War.  And one
who would allow Hitler to wipe all *all* Jews, slavs, and political
dissidents in areas he controlled as long as he left the rest of us alone.
"Is it supposed to be bad to be a peace-nik," you ask?  Well, it depends
on what your values are.  If you value life over liberty, peace over
freedom, then I guess not.  But if liberty and freedom mean more to you
than life itself; if you'd rather die fighting for liberty than live
under a tyrant's heel, then yes, it's "bad" to be a peace-nik.
The problem with most peace-niks it they consider those of us who are
not like them to be "bad" and "unconscionable".  I would not have any
argument or problem with a peace-nik if they held to their ideals and
stayed out of all conflicts or issues, especially those dealing with
the national defense.  But no, they are not willing to allow us to
legitimately hold a different point-of-view.  They militate and
many times resort to violence all in the name of peace.  (What rank
hypocrisy!)  All to stop we "warmongers" who are willing to stand up
and defend our freedoms against tyrants, and who realize that to do
so requires a strong national defense.
Time to get off the soapbox now.  :)
[...]
> --
> Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Regards,
Jim B.
From: timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons)
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
Lines: 19
nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:
>timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes:
>>Rule #4:  Don't mix apples with oranges.  How can you say that the
>>extermination by the Mongols was worse than Stalin?  Khan conquered people
>>unsympathetic to his cause.  That was atrocious.  But Stalin killed millions of
>>his own people who loved and worshipped _him_ and his atheist state!!  How can
>>anyone be worse than that?
>You're right.  And David Koresh claimed to be a Christian.
Yup.  I can hear the _millions_ cheering for DK right now!  Josef Stalin eat
your heart out!  :)
--
Bake Timmons, III
-- "...there's nothing higher, stronger, more wholesome and more useful in life
than some good memory..." -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: He has risen!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 16
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
Our Lord and Savior David Keresh has risen!
He has been seen alive!
Spread the word!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My sole intention was learning to fly."
From: kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko)
Subject: Re: Idle questions for fellow atheists
Organization: University of Oulu, Finland
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Lines: 59
acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu wrote:
: I wonder how many atheists out there care to speculate on the face of
: the world  if atheists were the majority rather than the minority group
: of the population.
I've been thinking about this every now and then since I cut my ties
with Christianity. It is surprising to note that a large majority of
people, at least in Finland, seem to be apatheists - even though
90 % of the population are members of the Lutheran Church of Finland,
religious people are actually a minority.
Could it be possible that many people believe in god "just in case"?
It seems people do not want to seek the truth; they fall prey to Pascal's
Wager or other poor arguments. A small minority of those who do believe
reads the Bible regularly. The majority doesn't care - it believes,
but doesn't know what or how.
People don't usually allow their beliefs to change their lifestyle,
they only want to keep the virtual gate open. A Christian would say
that they are not "born in the Spirit", but this does not disturb them.
Religion is not something to think about.
I'm afraid a society with a true atheist majority is an impossible
dream. Religions have a strong appeal to people, nevertheless -
a promise of life after death is something humans eagerly listen to.
Coupled with threats of eternal torture and the idea that our
morality is under constant scrutiny of some cosmic cop, too many
people take the poison with a smile. Or just pretend to swallow
(and unconsciously hope god wouldn't notice ;-) )
: Also, how many atheists out there would actually take the stance and accor a
: higher value to their way of thinking over the theistic way of thinking.  The
: typical selfish argument would be that both lines of thinking evolved from the
: same inherent motivation, so one is not, intrinsically, different from the
: other, qualitatively.  But then again a measuring stick must be drawn
: somewhere, and if we cannot assign value to a system of beliefs at its core,
: than the only other alternative is to apply it to its periphery; ie, how it
: expresses its own selfishness.
If logic and reason are valued, then I would claim that atheistic thinking
is of higher value than the theistic exposition. Theists make unnecessary
assumptions they believe in - I've yet to see good reasons to believe
in gods, or to take a leap of faith at all. A revelation would do.
However, why do we value logic and reasoning? This questions bears
some resemblance to a long-disputed problem in science: why mathematics
works? Strong deep structuralists, like Atkins, have proposed that
perhaps, after all, everything _is_ mathematics.
Is usefulness any criterion?
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: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: Societally acceptable behavior
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Lines: 87
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de
In article <C5r9At.Asv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
#In <1qvabj$g1j@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
#writes:
#
#>In article <C5qGM3.DL8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike
#Cobb) writes:
#
#Am I making a wrong assumption for the basis of morals?  Where do they come
#from?  The question came from the idea that I heard that morals come from
#whatever is societally mandated.
It's only one aspect of morality.  Societal morality is necessarily
very crude and broad-brush stuff which attempts to deal with what
is necessary to keep that society going  - and often it's a little
over-enthusiastic about doing so.  Individual morality is a different
thing, it often includes societal mores (or society is in trouble),
but is stronger.  For example, some people are vegetarian, though eating
meat may be perfectly legal.
#
#>#Merely a question for the basis of morality
#>#
#>#Moral/Ethical behavior = _Societally_ _acceptable_ _behavior_.
#>#
#>#1)Who is society
#
#>Depends on the society.
#
#Doesn't help.  Is the point irrelevant?
No.  Often the answer is "we are".  But if society is those who make
the rules, that's a different question.  If society is who should
make the rules, that's yet another.  I don't claim to have the answers, either,
but I don't think we do it very well in Ireland, and I like some things
about the US system, at least in principle.
#
#>#2)How do "they" define what is acceptable?
#
#>Depends.
#On....  Again, this comes from a certain question (see above).
Well, ideally they don't, but if they must they should do it by consensus, IMO.
#
#>#3)How do we keep from a "whatever is legal is what is "moral" "position?
#
#>By adopting a default position that people's moral decisions
#>are none of society's business,
#
#So how can we put people in jail? How can we condemn other societies?
Because sometimes that's necessary.  The hard trick is to recognise when
it is, and equally importantly, when it isn't.
# and only interfering when it's truly
#>necessary.
#
#Why would it be necessary?  What right do we have to interfere?
IMO, it isn't often that interference (i.e. jail, and force of various
kinds and degrees) is both necessary and effective.  Where you derive
the right to interfere is a difficult question - it's a sort of
liar's paradox: "force is necessary for freedom".   One possible justification
is that people who wish to take away freedom shouldn't object if
their own freedom is taken away - the paradox doesn't arise if
we don't actively wish to take way anyone's freedom.
#
#  The introduction of permissible interference causes the problem
#>that it can be either too much or too little - but most people seem
#>to agree that some level of interference is necessary.
#
#They see the need for a "justice" system.  How can we even define that term?
Only by consensus, I guess.
#  Thus you
#>get a situation where "The law often allows what honour forbids", which I've
#>come to believe is as it should be.
#
#I admit I don't understand that statement.
What I mean is that, while thus-and-such may be legal, thus-and-such may
also be seen as immoral.   The law lets you do it, but you don't let yourself
do it.  Eating meat, for example.
--
Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: islamic genocide
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Lines: 49
In <2943927496.1.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
>>DATE:   14 Apr 1993 23:52:11 GMT
>>FROM:   Frank O'Dwyer <frank@D012S658.uucp>
>>
>>In article <1993Apr14.102810.6059@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>>
>>Just borrowing your post, Mr. Rice...
>>
>>#In <2943656910.0.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
>>#>Are you sure that democracy is the driving force behind
>>#>the massacres in East Timor?  It is certainly odd that so many of the worlds
>>#>massacres occur along religious lines, independently of any claims to a
>>#>democratic form of government.  Are Ireland and Northern Ireland considered
>>#>democracies?  Would you attribute their problems to democracy even though
>>#>they are democracies?  Which motivates them more, religion or democracy?
>>
>>Mr. Rice was pointing out a fallacy in the assertion that Islam is evil
>>because some of those who claim to follow it are evil, not asserting that
>>democracy causes massacres, as I read it.
>That is right, he was.  And I was pointing out that his use of Indonesians
>killing the East Timorese as a result of _democracy_ was a bit weak because
>democracy is not much of a motivation for doing much of anything in Indonesia
>from what I remember.  East Timor was a former Portguese territory which was
>forcibly annexed by Indonesia.  Last I heard over 10,000 Indonesians have
>died trying to keep East Timor a part of Indonesia.  Being a former
>Portuguese colony, there is a strong Catholic influence in East Timor as I
>recall.  So it seems a bit odd that yet again we have another war being
>fought between people who just "happen" to have different religions.  Purely
>coincidental, I guess.  But then the real motivation is to get the vote out
>and make democracy work in Indonesia.
I pointed out the secession movement in Aceh which has also been
brutally dealt with in the past by the Indonesian government.  The
harshly with all secessionist movements.
the evidence, it appears to me that the Indonesian government has dealt
very harshly with all secession movements.
I know that the head of the Indonesian armed forces for a very long time
was Benny Murdani -- a "Christian".  Indonesia has been heavy handed in
East Timor for a long time , even when Murdani was head of the armed
forces.  The people who make up the
Indonesian government are in general motivated by national interests,
not religious ones.
Fred Rice
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
From: timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons)
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
Lines: 29
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)
Organization: Penn State University
From: Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Christian Morality is
<C5prCA.590@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Lines: 32
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.
From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com
Subject: Re: Death Penalty / Gulf War
Lines: 232
In article <930419.115707.6f2.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>In article <930414.121019.7E4.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew
>><mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>> 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 o
>>> 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!
>
> Let's analyze this claim a little.  How is the "size" of a war defined?  By
> number of participants?  Geographical area?  Number of countries involved?
> Number of casualties?
Size of armies, duration, numbers of casualties both absolute and as a
percentage of those involved, geographical area and numbers of countries
too, are all measures of size.  In this case I'd say the relevant
statistic would be the number of combatants (total troops) compared to
total casualties from among the total civilian population in the
affected geographical area.
>
> Which other "comparable" wars are we talking about?
Vietnam and Korea might make good comparisons.
>
> Which "liberal news media" are we talking about?
>
Western news in general, but in particular the American "mass media":
CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.  The general tone of the news during the whole
war was one of "those poor, poor Iraqis" along with "look how precisely
this cruise missile blew this building to bits".
>>                                                    This was due mostly
>> to the short duration coupled with precise surgical bombing techniques
>> which were technically possible only recently.
>
> I suspect that medical advances may have something to do with it too.
I agree.
>
>> How about all the innocent people who died in blanket-bombing in WW2?
>> I don't hear you bemoaning them!
>
> Perhaps because the topic hasn't cropped up.  If you want my opinion, I think
> that the blanket bombing of German cities at the end of World War Two was the
> most appalling act of wholesale slaughter this country has committed in
> centuries.  Bomber Harris was no hero of mine.
Perhaps so.  And maybe the atomic bomb was a mistake too.  But that's easy
to say from our "enlightened" viewpoint here in the 90's, right?  Back
then, it was *all-out* war, and Germany and Japan had to be squashed.
After all, a million or more British had already died, hundreds of
thousands of French, a couple hundread thousand or so Americans, and
millions of Russians, not to mention a few million Jews, Poles, and
other people of slavic descent in German concentration camps.  All
things considered, the fire-bombings and the atomic bomb were
essential (and therefore justified) in bringing the war to a quick
end to avoid even greater allied losses.
I, for one, don't regret it.
>
>>                                 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.
>
> Entrenched political rulers operating in their own selfish interests without
> regard for the lives of other people, *that* is the way war really is.
Sure.  And it's the people who suffer because of them.  All the more
reason to depose these "entrenched political rulers operating in their
own selfish interests"!  Or do you mean that this applies to the allies
as well??
>
> Why all the fuss about Kuwait and not East Timor, Bosnia, or even Tibet?  If
> Iraq is so bad, why were we still selling them stuff a couple of weeks before
> we started bombing?
I make no claim or effort to justify the misguided foreign policy of the
West before the war.  It is evident that the West, especially America,
misjudged Hussein drastically.  But once Hussein invaded Kuwait and
threatened to militarily corner a significant portion of the world's
oil supply, he had to be stopped.  Sure the war could have been
prevented by judicious and concerted effort on the part of the West
before Hussein invaded Kuwait, but it is still *Hussein* who is
responsible for his decision to invade.  And once he did so, a
strong response from the West was required.
>
>> 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.
>
> What's your intent?  To sound like a Loving Christian?  Well, you aren't
> doing a very good job of it.
Well, it's not very "loving" to allow a Hussein or a Hitler to gobble up
nearby countries and keep them.  Or to allow them to continue with mass
slaughter of certain peoples under their dominion.  So, I'd have to
say yes, stopping Hussein was the most "loving" thing to do for the
most people involved once he set his mind on military conquest.
>
>> 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?
>
> Who even mentioned appeasement?  And what makes you think the situation is
> even remotely analogous to World War Two?
I mentioned it.
If we hadn't intervened, allowing Hussein to keep Kuwait, then it would
have been appeasement.  It is precisely the lessons the world learned
in WW2 that motivated the Western alliance to war.  Letting Hitler take
Austria and Czechoslavkia did not stop WW2 from happening, and letting
Hussein keep Kuwait would not have stopped an eventual Gulf War to
protect Saudi Arabia.
>
>>                                                           I guess we
>> shouldn't have fought WW2 either -- just think of all those innocent
>> German civilians killed in Dresden and Hamburg.
>
> Yes, do.  Germans are human too, you know.
>
Sure.  What was truly unfortunate was that they followed Hitler in
his grandiose quest for a "Thousand Year Reich".  The consequences
stemmed from that.
>> 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.
>
> I look forward to hearing your incisive comments about East Timor and Tibet.
>
What should I say about them?  Anything in particular?
>> And as for poor, poor Rodney King!  Did you ever stop and think *why*
>> the jury in the first trial brought back a verdict of "not guilty"?
>
> Yes.  Amongst the things I thought were "Hmm, there's an awful lot of white
> people in that jury."
So?  It was the *policemen* on trial not Rodney King!!  And under American
law they deserved a jury of *their* peers!  If there had been black
officers involved, I'm sure their would have been black jurors too.
This point (of allegedly racial motivations) is really shallow.
>
>> Those who have been foaming at the mouth for the blood of those
>> policemen certainly have looked no further than the video tape.
>> But the jury looked at *all* the evidence, evidence which you and I
>> have not seen.
>
> When I see a bunch of policemen beating someone who's lying defenceless on
> the ground, it's rather hard to imagine what this other evidence might have
> been.
So?  It's "hard to imagine"?  So when has Argument from Incredulity
gained acceptance from the revered author of "Constructing a Logical
Argument"?  Can we expect another revision soon??  :)  (Just kidding.)
>
> If there is some wonderful evidence, why is it seemingly being kept secret?
> Why not tell everyone what it is?  Then everyone could say "Oh, yes, you're
> right, King deserved a good beating", and we could all live happily ever
> after.
I have to admit that I wonder this too.  But *neither* the prosecution
nor the defense is talking.  So one cannot conclude either way due to
the silence of the principals.
>
>> 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.
>
> Fine, but I'm still finding it hard to imagine what the "reasonable doubt"
> was in this case.  I mean, the cops certainly seem to be beating someone
> who's lying defenceless on the ground.  What's your explanation?  Mass
> hallucination?  Orbital mind-control lasers?  Faked video footage?  Do tell.
>
OK.  It certainly seemed to me that there was excessive force involved.
And frankly, the original "not guilty" verdict baffled me too.  But then
I learned that the prosecution in the first case did not try to convict
on a charge of excessive force or simple assault which they probably
would have won, they tried to get a conviction on a charge of aggravated
assault with intent to inflict serious bodily harm.  A charge, which
news commentators said, was akin to attempted murder under California
law.  Based on what the prosecution was asking for, it's evident that
the first jury decided that the officers were "not guilty".  Note,
not "not guilty" of doing wrong, but "not guilty" of aggravated assault
with the *intent* of inflicting serious bodily harm.  The seeds of the
prosecutions defeat were in their own overconfidence in obtaining a
verdict such that they went for the most extreme charge they could.
If the facts as the news commentators presented them are true, then
I feel the "not guilty" verdict was a reasonable one.
>
> mathew
> [ "Thou shalt not kill... unless thou hast a pretty good reason for killing,
>    in which case thou shalt kill, and also kill anyone who gets in the way,
>    as unfortunately it cannot be helped."
>                                    -- Jim Brown Bible for Loving Christians ]
Thanks mathew, I like the quote.  Pretty funny actually.  (I'm a
Monty Python fan, you know.  Kind of seems in that vein.)
Of course, oversimplifying any moral argument can make it seem
contradictory.  But then, you know that already.
Regards,
Jim B.
Loving Christian  :)
Organization: Penn State University
From: Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: free moral agency
Distribution: na
<C5pxqs.LM5@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>
Lines: 119
In article <C5pxqs.LM5@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill
Conner) says:
>
>dean.kaflowitz (decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com) wrote:
>
>: Now, what I am interested in is the original notion you were discussing
>: on moral free agency.  That is, how can a god punish a person for
>: not believing in him when that person is only following his or her
>: nature and it is not possible for that person to deny what his or
>: her reason tells him or her, which is that there is no god?
>
>I think you're letting atheist mythology confuse you on the issue of
(WEBSTER:  myth:  "a traditional or legendary story...
...a belief...whose truth is accepted uncritically.")
How does that qualify?
Indeed, it's almost oxymoronic...a rather amusing instance.
I've found that most atheists hold almost no atheist-views as
"accepted uncritically," especially the few that are legend.
Many are trying to explain basic truths, as myths do, but
they don't meet the other criterions.
Also...
>Divine justice. According to the most fundamental doctrines of
>Christianity, When the first man sinned, he was at that time the
You accuse him of referencing mythology, then you procede to
launch your own xtian mythology.  (This time meeting all the
requirements of myth.)
>salvation. The idea of punishment is based on the proposition that
>everyone knows (instinctively?) that God exists, is their creator and
Ah, but not everyone "knows" that god exists.  So you have
a fallacy.
>There's nothing terribly difficult in all this and is well known to
>any reasonably Biblically literate Christian. The only controversy is
And that makes it true?  Holding with the Bible rules out controversy?
Read the FAQ.  If you've read it, you missed something, so re-read.
(Not a bad suggestion for anyone...I re-read it just before this.)
>with those who pretend not to know what is being said and what it
>means. When atheists claim that they do -not- know if God exists and
>don't know what He wants, they contradict the Bible which clearly says
>that -everyone- knows. The authority of the Bible is its claim to be
...should I repeat what I wrote above for the sake of getting
it across?  You may trust the Bible, but your trusting it doesn't
make it any more credible to me.
If the Bible says that everyone knows, that's clearly reason
to doubt the Bible, because not everyone "knows" your alleged
god's alleged existance.
>refuted while the species-wide condemnation is justified. Those that
>claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God or that His will is
>unknown, must deliberately ignore the Bible; the ignorance itself is
>no excuse.
1) No, they don't have to ignore the Bible.  The Bible is far
from universally accepted.  The Bible is NOT a proof of god;
it is only a proof that some people have thought that there
was a god.  (Or does it prove even that?  They might have been
writing it as series of fiction short-stories.  As in the
case of Dionetics.)  Assuming the writers believed it, the
only thing it could possibly prove is that they believed it.
And that's ignoring the problem of whether or not all the
interpretations and Biblical-philosophers were correct.
2) There are people who have truly never heard of the Bible.
3) Again, read the FAQ.
>freedom. You are free to ignore God in the same way you are free to
>ignore gravity and the consequences are inevitable and well known
>in both cases. That an atheist can't accept the evidence means only
Bzzt...wrong answer!
Gravity is directly THERE.  It doesn't stop exerting a direct and
rationally undeniable influence if you ignore it.  God, on the
other hand, doesn't generally show up in the supermarket, except
on the tabloids.  God doesn't exert a rationally undeniable influence.
Gravity is obvious; gods aren't.
>Secondly, human reason is very comforatble with the concept of God, so
>much so that it is, in itself, intrinsic to our nature. Human reason
>always comes back to the question of God, in every generation and in
No, human reason hasn't always come back to the existance of
"God"; it has usually come back to the existance of "god".
In other words, it doesn't generally come back to the xtian
god, it comes back to whether there is any god.  And, in much
of oriental philosophic history, it generally doesn't pop up as
the idea of a god so much as the question of what natural forces
are and which ones are out there.  From a world-wide view,
human nature just makes us wonder how the universe came to
be and/or what force(s) are currently in control.  A natural
tendancy to believe in "God" only exists in religious wishful
thinking.
>I said all this to make the point that Christianity is eminently
>reasonable, that Divine justice is just and human nature is much
>different than what atheists think it is. Whether you agree or not
Xtianity is no more reasonable than most other religions, and
it's reasonableness certainly doesn't merit eminence.
Divine justice...well, it only seems just to those who already
believe in the divinity.
First, not all atheists believe the same things about human
nature. Second, whether most atheists are correct or not,
YOU certainly are not correct on human nature.  You are, at
the least, basing your views on a completely eurocentric
approach.  Try looking at the outside world as well when
you attempt to sum up all of humanity.
Andrew
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Theism : Evidence?
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 21
In article <1qibo2$f4o@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>
>#>In the absence of some convincing evidence that theist fanatics are more
>#>dangerous than atheist fanatics, I'll continue to be wary of fanatics of
>#>any stripe.
>#
>#I think that the agnostic fanatics are the most dangerous of the lot.
>
>Fair point, actually.  I mentioned theists and atheists, but left out
>agnostics.  Mea culpa.
>
No wonder in the light of that you are a probably a theist who tries
to pass as an agnostic. I still remember your post about your daughter
singing Chrismas Carols and your feelings of it well.
By the way, would you show marginal honesty and answer the many questions
you left open when you ceased to respond last time?
Benedikt
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: islamic genocide
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 23
In article <1qi83b$ec4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
(Deletion)
>#>Few people can imagine dying for capitalism, a few
>#>more can imagine dying for democracy, but a lot more will die for their
>#>Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who Died on the Cross for their Sins.
>#>Motivation, pure and simple.
>
>Got any cites for this nonsense?   How many people will die for Mom?
>Patriotism? Freedom?   Money?  Their Kids?  Fast cars and swimming pools?
>A night with Kim Basinger or Mel Gibson?  And which of these things are evil?
>
Read a history book, Fred. And tell me why so many religions command to
commit genocide when it has got nothing to do with religion. Or why so many
religions say that not living up to the standards of the religion is worse
than dieing? Coincidence, I assume. Or ist part of the absolute morality
you describe so often?
Theism is strongly correlated with irrational belief in absolutes. Irrational
belief in absolutes is strongly correlated with fanatism.
Benedikt
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: Where are they now?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 34
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
In article <1ql0d3$5vo@dr-pepper.East.Sun.COM> geoff@East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top) writes:
>Your posting provoked me into checking my save file for memorable
>posts. The first I captured was by Ken Arromdee on 19 Feb 1990, on the
>subject "Re: atheist too?". That was article #473 here; your question
>was article #53766, which is an average of about 48 articles a day for
>the last three years. As others have noted, the current posting rate is
>such that my kill file is depressing large...... Among the posting I
>saved in the early days were articles from the following notables:
Hey, it might to interesting to read some of these posts...
Especially from ones who still regularly posts on alt.atheism!
>>From: loren@sunlight.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich)
>>From: jchrist@nazareth.israel.rel (Jesus Christ of Nazareth)
>>From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin)
>>From: perry@apollo.HP.COM (Jim Perry)
>>From: lippard@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
>>From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
>
>An interesting bunch.... I wonder where #2 is?
Hee hee hee.
*I* ain't going to say....
---
" Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "
John Laws, a man without the honor to keep his given word.
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 33
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
In article <1ql8mdINN674@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>>This whole thread started because of a discussion about whether
>>>or not the death penalty constituted cruel punishment, which is forbidden
>>>by the US Constitution.
>>Yes, but they didn't say what they meant by "cruel", which is why
>>a) you have the Supreme Court, and b) it makes no sense to refer
>>to the Constitution, which is quite silent on the meaning of the
>>word "cruel".
>
>They spent quite a bit of time on the wording of the Constitution.  They
>picked words whose meanings implied the intent.  We have already looked
>in the dictionary to define the word.  Isn't this sufficient?
We only need to ask the question: what did the founding fathers
consider cruel and unusual punishment?
Hanging? Hanging there slowing being strangled would be very
painful, both physically and psychologicall, I imagine.
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.
---
" Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "
John Laws, a man without the honor to keep his given word.
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Lines: 14
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
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.
Why "must"?
---
" Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "
John Laws, a man without the honor to keep his given word.
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 12
In article <bissda.4.734849678@saturn.wwc.edu>
bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
>        The arguements he uses I am summing up.  The book is about whether
>Jesus was God or not.  I know many of you don't believe, but listen to a
>different perspective for we all have something to gain by listening to what
>others have to say.
Read the FAQ first, watch the list fr some weeks, and come back then.
And read some other books on the matter in order to broaden your view first.
Benedikt
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Who Says the Apostles Were Tortured?
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 17
In article <1qiu97INNpq6@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>
ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>
> As evidence for the Resurrection, it is often claimed that the Disciples
>were tortured to death for their beliefs and still did not renounce
>their claim that Jesus had come back from the dead.
> Now, I skimmed Acts and such, and I found a reference to this happening
>to Stephen, but no others. Where does this apparently very widely held
>belief come from? Is there any evidence outside the Bible? Is there any
>evidence *in* the Bible? I sure haven't found any...
>
Early authors and legends. The most important sources can be found in the
Martyriologia of the Catholic Church. Makes the Grimms look like exact
science.
Benedikt
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Lines: 26
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
In article <1qlfd4INN935@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>>>Well, chimps must have some system.  They live in social groups
>>>as we do, so they must have some "laws" dictating undesired behavior.
>>So, why "must" they have such laws?
>
>The quotation marks should enclose "laws," not "must."
>
>If there were no such rules, even instinctive ones or unwritten ones,
>etc., then surely some sort of random chance would lead a chimp society
>into chaos.
The "System" refered to a "moral system". You havn't shown any
reason that chimps "must" have a moral system.
Except if you would like to redefine everything.
---
" Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "
John Laws, a man without the honor to keep his given word.
From: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Where are they now?
Organization: Salvation Army Draft Board
Lines: 31
In article <1ql0d3$5vo@dr-pepper.East.Sun.COM> geoff@East.Sun.COM writes:
>Your posting provoked me into checking my save file for memorable
>posts. The first I captured was by Ken Arromdee on 19 Feb 1990, on the
>subject "Re: atheist too?". That was article #473 here; your question
>was article #53766, which is an average of about 48 articles a day for
>the last three years. As others have noted, the current posting rate is
>such that my kill file is depressing large...... Among the posting I
>saved in the early days were articles from the following notables:
>
>>From: loren@sunlight.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich)
>>From: jchrist@nazareth.israel.rel (Jesus Christ of Nazareth)
>>From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin)
>>From: perry@apollo.HP.COM (Jim Perry)
>>From: lippard@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
>>From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
>
>An interesting bunch.... I wonder where #2 is?
Didn't you hear?  His address has changed.  He can be reached at the
following address:
dkoresh@branch.davidian.compound.waco.tx.us
I think he was last seen posting to alt.messianic.
Jim
--
If God is dead and the actor plays his part                    | -- Sting,
His words of fear will find their way to a place in your heart | History
Without the voice of reason every faith is its own curse       | Will Teach Us
Without freedom from the past things can only get worse        | Nothing
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Subject: Re: free moral agency
Distribution: world
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
Lines: 11
: Are you saying that their was a physical Adam and Eve, and that all
: humans are direct decendents of only these two human beings.?  Then who
: were Cain and Able's wives?  Couldn't be their sisters, because A&E
: didn't have daughters.  Were they non-humans?
Genesis 5:4
and the days of Adam after he begat Seth were eight hundred years, and
he begat sons and daughters:
Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart
From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com
Subject: Re: Death Penalty / Gulf War (long)
Lines: 346
In article <930420.105805.0x8.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>In article <930419.115707.6f2.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew
>><mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>> Which "liberal news media" are we talking about?
>>
>> Western news in general, but in particular the American "mass media":
>> CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.  The general tone of the news during the whole
>> war was one of "those poor, poor Iraqis" along with "look how precisely
>> this cruise missile blew this building to bits".
>
> Most odd.  Over here there was very little about the suffering of the Iraqi
> civilians until towards the end of the war; and then it was confined to the
> few remaining quality newspapers.
True.  At first, the news media seemed entranced by all the new gizmos
the military was using, not to mention the taped video transmissions from
the missiles as they zeroed in on their targets.  But later, and especially
after the bunker full of civilians was hit, they changed their tone.  It
seemed to me that they didn't have the stomach for the reality of war,
that innocent people really do die and are maimed in warfare.  It's like
they were only pro-Gulf-War as long as it was "nice and clean" (smart
missiles dropping in on military HQs), but not when pictures of dead,
dying, and maimed civilians started cropping up.  What naive hypocrites!
>
>>>> How about all the innocent people who died in blanket-bombing in WW2?
>>>> I don't hear you bemoaning them!
[ discussion about blanket-bombing and A-bombs deleted.]
>>>
>> All things considered, the fire-bombings and the atomic bomb were
>> essential (and therefore justified) in bringing the war to a quick
^^^^^^^^^
>> end to avoid even greater allied losses.
I should have said here "militarily justified".  It seems from your
comments below that you understood this as meaning "morally justified".
I apologize.
>
> What about the evidence that America knew Japan was about to surrender after
> Hiroshima but *before* Nagasaki?  Is that another lie peddled by the liberal
> media conspiracy?
I have often wondered about this.  I've always thought that the first bomb
should have been dropped on Japan's island fortress of Truk.  A good,
inpenatrable military target.  The second bomb could've been held back
for use on an industrial center if need be.  But I digress.
Yes, I have heard that we found evidence (after the war, BTW) that Japan
was seriously considering surrender after the first bomb.  Unfortunately,
the military junta won out over the moderates and rejected the US's
ulimatum.  Therefore the second bomb was dropped.  Most unfortunate, IMO.
>
>> I, for one, don't regret it.
>
> Nuke a Jap for Jesus!
>
I don't regret the fact that sometimes military decisions have to be made
which affect the lives of innocent people.  But I do regret the
circumstances which make those decisions necessary, and I regret the
suffering caused by those decisions.
[...]
>>> Why all the fuss about Kuwait and not East Timor, Bosnia, or even Tibet?
>>> If Iraq is so bad, why were we still selling them stuff a couple of weeks
>>> before we started bombing?
>>
>> I make no claim or effort to justify the misguided foreign policy of the
>> West before the war.  It is evident that the West, especially America,
>> misjudged Hussein drastically.  But once Hussein invaded Kuwait and
>> threatened to militarily corner a significant portion of the world's
>> oil supply, he had to be stopped.
>
> Oh, I see.  So we can overlook his using chemical weapons on thousands of
> people, but if he threatens your right to drive a huge gas-guzzling car,
> well, the man's gotta go.
Actually, it was the fact that both situations existed that prompted US
and allied action.  If some back-water country took over some other
back-water country, we probably wouldn't intervene.  Not that we don't
care, but we can't be the world's policman.  Or if a coup had occured
in Kuwait (instead of an invasion), then we still wouldn't have acted
because there would not have been the imminent danger perceived to
Saudi Arabia.  But the combination of the two, an unprovoked invasion
by a genocidal tyrant AND the potential danger to the West's oil
interests, caused us to take action.
>
> [ I've moved a paragraph from here to later on ]
>
[...]
>>
>> If we hadn't intervened, allowing Hussein to keep Kuwait, then it would
>> have been appeasement.
>
> Right.  But did you ever hear anyone advocate such a course of action?  Or
> are you just setting up a strawman?
>
I'm not setting up a strawman at all.  If you want to argue against the
war, then the only logical alternative was to allow Hussein to keep
Kuwait.  Diplomatic alternatives, including sanctions, were ineffective.
>>>>                                                           I guess we
>>>> shouldn't have fought WW2 either -- just think of all those innocent
>>>> German civilians killed in Dresden and Hamburg.
>>>
>>> Yes, do.  Germans are human too, you know.
>>
>> Sure.  What was truly unfortunate was that they followed Hitler in
>> his grandiose quest for a "Thousand Year Reich".  The consequences
>> stemmed from that.
>
> Translation: "They were asking for it".
>
Well, in a sense, yes.  They probably had no idea of what end Hitler
would lead their nation to.
> But what about those who didn't support Hitler's dreams of conquest?  It's
> not as if they democratically voted for all his policies.  The NSDAP got 43%
> in the elections of 1933, and that was the last chance the German people got
> to vote on the matter.
They suffered along with the rest.  Why does this bother you so much?
The world is full of evil, and circumstances are not perfect.  Many
innocents suffer due to the wrongful actions of others.  It it regretable,
but that's The-Way-It-Is.  There are no perfect solutions.
[...]
>>>
>>> I look forward to hearing your incisive comments about East Timor and
>>> Tibet.
>>
>> What should I say about them?  Anything in particular?
>
> The people of East Timor are still being killed by a dictatorship that
> invaded their country.  Hell, even Western journalists have been killed.  All
> this was happening before the Gulf War.  Why didn't we send in the bombers to
> East Timor?  Why aren't we sending in the bombers NOW?
Probably because we're not the saviors of the world.  We can't police each
and every country that decides to self-destruct or invade another.  Nor
are we in a strategic position to get relief to Tibet, East Timor, or
some other places.
>
> [ Here's that paragraph I moved ]
>
>>> What's your intent?  To sound like a Loving Christian?  Well, you aren't
>>> doing a very good job of it.
>>
>> Well, it's not very "loving" to allow a Hussein or a Hitler to gobble up
>> nearby countries and keep them.  Or to allow them to continue with mass
>> slaughter of certain peoples under their dominion.  So, I'd have to
>> say yes, stopping Hussein was the most "loving" thing to do for the
>> most people involved once he set his mind on military conquest.
>
> The Chinese government has a policy of mandatory abortion and sterilization
> of Tibetans.  Tibetan people are rounded up, tortured, and executed.  Amnesty
> International recently reported that torture is still widespread in China.
>
> Why aren't we stopping them?  In fact, why are we actively sucking up to them
> by trading freely with them?
Tell me how we could stop them and I'll support it.  I, for one, do not
agree with the present US policy of "sucking up to them" as you put it.
I agree that it is deplorable.
>
>>>> And as for poor, poor Rodney King!  Did you ever stop and think *why*
>>>> the jury in the first trial brought back a verdict of "not guilty"?
>>>
>>> Yes.  Amongst the things I thought were "Hmm, there's an awful lot of white
>>> people in that jury."
>>
>> So?  It was the *policemen* on trial not Rodney King!!
>
> Erm, surely it's irrelevant who's on trial?  Juries are supposed to represent
> a cross-section of the population.
Are they?  Or are they supposed to reflect the population of the locale
where the trial is held?  (Normally this is where the crime is committed
unless one party or the other can convince the judge a change of venue
is in order.)  I'm not an expert on California law, or even US law, but
it seems that this is the way the system is set up.  You can criticize
the system, but let's not have unfounded allegations of racial
prejudice thrown around.
>
>> And under American law they deserved a jury of *their* peers!
>
> You are saying that black people are not the peers of white people?
No, not at all.  The point is that the fact that there were no blacks
on the first jury and that Rodney King is black is totally irrelevant.
>
>> This point (of allegedly racial motivations) is really shallow.
>
> This idea of people only being tried before a jury of people just like them
> is really stupid.  Should the Nuremburg trials have had a jury entirely made
> up of Nazis?
Germans, perhaps.  "Peers" doesn't mean "those who do the same thing",
like having murderers judge murderers.  It means "having people from
the same station in life", presumably because they are in a better
position to understand the defendent's motivation(s).
>
>>>> Those who have been foaming at the mouth for the blood of those
>>>> policemen certainly have looked no further than the video tape.
>>>> But the jury looked at *all* the evidence, evidence which you and I
>>>> have not seen.
>>>
>>> When I see a bunch of policemen beating someone who's lying defenceless on
>>> the ground, it's rather hard to imagine what this other evidence might have
>>> been.
>>
>> So?  It's "hard to imagine"?  So when has Argument from Incredulity
>> gained acceptance from the revered author of "Constructing a Logical
>> Argument"?
>
> We're not talking about a logical argument.  We're talking about a court of
> law.  As the FAQ points out, some fallacious arguments are not viewed as
> fallacies in a court of law.
OK, granted.  However, you are using this reasoning as part of *your*
logical argument in this discussion.  This is not a court of law.
>
>> If the facts as the news commentators presented them are true, then
>> I feel the "not guilty" verdict was a reasonable one.
>
> Were you not talking earlier about the bias of the liberal media conspiracy?
>
The media is not totally monolithic.  Even though there is a prevailing
liberal bias, programs such as the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour try to give
a balanced and fair reporting of the news.  There are even conservative
sources out there if you know where to look.  (Hurrah for Rush!)
BTW, I never used the word "conspiracy".  I don't accept (without *far*
more evidence) theories that there is some all-pervading liberal
conspiracy attempting to take over all news sources.
>>> "Thou shalt not kill... unless thou hast a pretty good reason for killing,
>>>  in which case thou shalt kill, and also kill anyone who gets in the way,
>>>  as unfortunately it cannot be helped."
>>>                                  -- Jim Brown Bible for Loving Christians
>>
>> Thanks mathew, I like the quote.  Pretty funny actually.  (I'm a
>> Monty Python fan, you know.  Kind of seems in that vein.)
>>
>> Of course, oversimplifying any moral argument can make it seem
>> contradictory.  But then, you know that already.
>
> Ha ha, only serious.
>
> I, an atheist, am arguing against killing innocent people.
>
> You, a supposed Christian, are arguing that it's OK to kill innocent people
> so long as you get some guilty ones as well.
Hardly.  I didn't say that it's a Good Thing [tm] to kill innocent people
if the end is just.  Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and
there are no perfect solutions.  If one is going to  resist tyranny, then
innocent people on both sides are going to suffer and die.  I didn't say
it is OK -- it is unfortunate, but sometimes necessary.
>
> I, a moral relativist, am arguing that saturation bombing of German cities at
> the end of World War II was (as far as I can see) an evil and unnecessary act.
I would agree that it was evil in the sense that it caused much pain
and suffering.  I'm not so sure that it was unnecessary as you say.  That
conclusion can only be arrived at by evaluating all the factors involved.
And perhaps it *was* unnecessary as (let's say) we now know.  That doesn't
mean that those who had to make the decision to bomb didn't see it as
being necessary.  Rarely can one have full known of the consequences of
an action before making a decision.  At the time it may have seemed
necessary enough to go ahead with it.
But don't assume that I feel the bombing was *morally* justified -- I
don't!  I just don't condemn those who had to make a difficult
decision under difficult circumstances.
>
> You, having criticised moral relativism in the past, are now arguing that I am
> in no position to judge the morality of allied actions at the end of the
> War.
You certainly are not in such a position if you are a moral relativist.
I, as an absolutist, am in a position to judge, but I defer judgment.
> You are arguing that the actions need to be assessed in the particular
> context of the time, and that they might have been moral then but not moral
> now.
Wrong.  They were neither moral then nor now.  They seemed necessary to
those making the decisions to bring a quick end to the war.  I simply
refuse to condemn them for their decision.
>
> Where's your Christian love?  Where's your absolute morality?  Oh, how quick
> you are to discard them when it suits you.  As Ivan Stang would say, "Jesus
> would puke!"
One day I will stand before Jesus and give account of every word and action;
even this discourse in this forum.  I understand the full ramifications of
that, and I am prepared to do so.  I don't believe that you can make the
same claim.
>
> mathew
And BTW, the reason I brought up the blanket-bombing in Germany was
because you were bemoaning the Iraqi civilian casualties as being
"so deplorable".  Yet blanket bombing was instituted because bombing
wasn't accurate enough to hit industrial/military targets in a
decisive way by any other method at that time.  But in the Gulf War,
precision bombing was the norm.  So the point was, why make a big
stink about the relatively few civilian casualties that resulted
*in spite of* precision bombing, when so many more civilians
(proportionately and quantitatively) died under the blanket bombing
in WW2?  Even with precision bombing, mistakes happen and some
civilians suffer.  But less civilians suffered in this war than
any other iany other in history!  Many Iraqi civilians went about their lives
with minimal interference from the allied air raids.  The stories
of "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi civilian dead is just plain bunk.
Yes, bunk.  The US lost 230,000 servicemen in WW2 over four years
and the majority of them were directly involved in fighting!  But
we are expected to swallow that "hundreds of thousands" of
*civilian* Iraqis died in a war lasting about 2 months!  And with
the Allies using the most precise bombs ever created at that!
What hogwash.  If "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi civilians died,
it was due to actions Hussein took on his own people, not due to
the Allied bombing.
Regards,
Jim B.
From: timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons)
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
Lines: 32
Maddi Hausmann chirps:
>timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes: >
>>First of all, you seem to be a reasonable guy.  Why not try to be more >honest
>>and include my sentence afterwards that
>Honest, it just ended like that, I swear!
That's nice.
>Hmmmm...I recognize the warning signs...alternating polite and
>rude...coming into newsgroup with huge chip on shoulder...calls
>people names and then makes nice...whirrr...click...whirrr
You forgot the third equality...whirrr...click...whirrr...see below...
>Whirr click whirr...Frank O'Dwyer might also be contained
>in that shell...pop stack to determine...whirr...click..whirr
>"Killfile" Keith Allen Schneider = Frank "Closet Theist" O'Dwyer = ...
= Maddi "The Mad Sound-O-Geek" Hausmann
...whirrr...click...whirrr
--
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: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 14
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
In article <1993Apr19.231641.21652@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>The positive aspect of this verse noted by Dr. Maurice Bucaille is that
>while geocentrism was the commonly accepted notion at the time (and for
>a long time afterwards), there is no notion of geocentrism in this verse
>(or anywhere in the Qur'an).
There is no notion of heliocentric, or even galacticentric either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My sole intention was learning to fly."
From: timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons)
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and anarchists
Lines: 117
mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>My turn
>I went back and reread your post.  All you did is attack atheism, and
>say that agnosticism wasn't as funny as atheism.  Nowhere does that
>imply that you are agnostic, or weak atheist.  As most people who post
>such inflammatory remarks are theists, it was a reasonable assumption.
Sorry, you're right.  I did not clearly state it.
>>Rule *2:  Condescending to the population at large (i.e., theists) will not
>>win many people to your faith anytime soon.  It only ruins your credibility.
>How am I being condescending to the population at large?  I am stating
>something that happened to be true for a long time, I couldn't believe
>that people actually believed in this god idea.  It was an alien concept
>to me.  I am not trying to win people to my faith as you put it.  I have
>no faith.  Religion was a non issue when I had the attitude above because
>it never even occurred to me to believe.  Atheist by default I guess you
>could say.
The most common form of condescending is the rational versus irrational
attitude.  Once one has accepted the _assumption_ that there is no god(s),
and then consider other faiths to be irrational simply because their
assumption(s) contradict your assumption, then I would say there's a
lack of consistency here.
Now I know you'll get on me about faith.  If the _positive_ belief that God
does not exist were a closed, logical argument, why do so many rational
people have problems with that "logic"?
But you, probably like me, seem to be a soft atheist.  Sorry for the flamage.
>The line about atheists haveing something up their sleeves is what seemed
>to imply that.  Sorry, been reading too much on the CLIPPER project lately,
>and the paranoia over there may have seeped in some.
;)  What is the CLIPPER project BTW?
>>Rule #4:  Don't mix apples with oranges.  How can you say that the
>>extermination by the Mongols was worse than Stalin?  Khan conquered >people
>>unsympathetic to his cause.  That was atrocious.  But Stalin killed >millions of
>>his own people who loved and worshipped _him_ and his atheist state!!  >>How can
>>anyone be worse than that?
>Many rulers have done similar things in the past, only Stalin did it
>when there was plenty of documentation to afix the blame on him.  The
>evidence is that some of the early European rulers ruled with an iron
>fist much like Stalin's.  You threw in numbers, and I am sick of hearing
>about Stalin as an example because the example doesn't apply.  You
>managed to get me angry with your post because it appeared to attack
>all forms of atheism.
It might have appeared to attack atheism in general, but its point was
that mass killing happens for all sorts of reasons.  People will hate who
they will and will wave whatever flag to justify it, be it cross or
hammer&sickle.  The Stalin example _is_ important not only because it's
still a widely unappreciated era that people want to forget but also
because people really did love him and his ideas, even after all that he
had wrought.
>The evidence I am referring to is more a lack of evidence than negative
>evidence.  Say I claim there are no pink crows.  I have never seen
>a pink crow, but that doesn't mean it couldn't exist.  But, this person
>here claims that there are pink crows, even though he admits he hasn't
>been able to capture one or get a photo, or find one with me etc.
>In a sense that is evidence to not believe in the existence of pink crows.
>That is what I am saying when I look at the evidence.  I look at the
>suppossed evidence for a deity, show how it is flawed, and doesn't show
>what theists want it to show, and go on.
First, all the pink crows/unicorns/elves arguments in the world will not
sway most people, for they simply do not accept the analogy.  Why?
One of the big reasons is that many, many people want something
beyond this life.  You can pretend that they don't want this, but I for
one can accept it and even want it myself sometimes.
And there is nothing unique in this example of why people want a God.
Can love as a truth be proven, logically?
>>themselves, namely, a god or gods.  So in principle it's hard to see how
>>theists are necessarily arrogant.
>Makes no sense to me.  They seem arrogant to make such a claim to me.
>But my previous refutation still stands, and I believe there may be
>another one on the net.
John the Baptist boasted of Jesus to many people.  I find it hard to see
how that behavior is arrogant at all.  Many Christians I know also boast
in this way, but I still do not necessarily see it as arrogance.  Of course,
I do know arrogant Christians, doctors, and teachers as well.  Technically,
you might consider the person who originally made a given claim to be arrogant,
Jesus, for instance.
>Are you talking about all atheism or just strong atheism?  If you are
>talking about weak atheism which I believe in, then I refuse such a claim.
>Atheism is a lack of belief.  I used good ol' Occam's Razor to make the
>final rejection of a deity, in that, as I see things, even if I
>present the hypothesises in an equal fasion, I find the theist argument
>not plausible.
I speak against strong atheism.  I also often find that the evidence
supporting a faith is very subjective, just as, say, the evidence supporting
love as truth is subjective.
>I believe I answered that.  I apologize for the (as you stated) incorrect
>assumption on your theism, but I saw nothing to indicate that you
>were an agnostic, only that you were just another newbie Christian
>on the net trying to get some cheap shots in.
No apology necessary.  :)
--
Bake Timmons, III
-- "...there's nothing higher, stronger, more wholesome and more useful in life
than some good memory..." -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)
From: spbach@lerc.nasa.gov (James Felder)
Subject: Re: "So help you God" in court?
Organization: NASA Lewis Resaerch Center
Lines: 35
Distribution: world
Reply-To: spbach@lerc.nasa.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: hopper3.lerc.nasa.gov
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: cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 12
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: vesta.unm.edu
Keywords: Dan Bissell
In article <healta.145.734928689@saturn.wwc.edu>, healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes:
[deletia wrt pathetic Jee-zus posting by Bissel]
> I hope you're not going to flame him.  Please give him the same coutesy you'
> ve given me.
NO. He hasn't extended to US the courtesy you've shown us, so he don't get no
pie. Tammy, I respect your beliefs because you don't try to stamp them into
my being. I have scorn for posters whose sole purpose appears to be to
evangelize.
>
> Tammy
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: Who Says the Apostles Were Tortured?
Lines: 9
The traditions of the church hold that all the "apostles" (meaning the 11
surviving disciples, Matthias, Barnabas and Paul) were martyred, except for
John.  "Tradition" should be understood to read "early church writings other
than the bible and heteroorthodox scriptures".
--
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
+    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
From: spbach@lerc.nasa.gov (James Felder)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
Organization: NASA Lewis Resaerch Center
Lines: 100
Distribution: world
Reply-To: spbach@lerc.nasa.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: hopper3.lerc.nasa.gov
In article 734849678@saturn.wwc.edu, bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
->	First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.  It
->makes sense to be one.  Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar,
->lunatic, or the real thing?  (I might be a little off on the title, but he
->writes the book.  Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity,
->in the process he became a Christian himself.
Sounds like you are saying he was a part of some conspiracy.  Just what organization did he
belong to? Does it have a name?
->	The book says that Jesus was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a
->modern day Koresh) or he was actually who he said he was.
Logic alert - artificial trifercation.  The are many other possible explainations.  Could have been
that he never existed.  There have been some good points made in this group that is not
impossible  that JC is an amalgam of a number of different myths, Mithra comes to mind.
->	Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows.  Who would
->die for a lie?  Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar?  People
->gathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing
->someone who was or had been healed.  Call me a fool, but I believe he did
->heal people.
Logic alert -  argument from incredulity.  Just because it is hard for you to believe this doesn't
mean that it isn't true.  Liars can be very pursuasive, just look at Koresh that you yourself site.
He has followers that don't think he is a fake and they have shown that they are willing to die.
By not giving up after getting shot himself, Koresh has shown that he too is will to die for what
he believes.  As far as healing goes.  If I rememer right the healing that was attributed is not
consistent between the different gospels.  In one of them the healing that is done is not any more
that faith healers can pull off today.  Seems to me that the early gospels weren't that compeling,
so the stories got bigger to appeal better.
->	Niether was he a lunatic.  Would more than an entire nation be drawn
->to someone who was crazy.  Very doubtful, in fact rediculous.  For example
->anyone who is drawn to David Koresh is obviously a fool, logical people see
->this right away.
->	Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the
->real thing.
Or might not have existed, or any number of things.  That is the logical pitfall that those who
use flawed logic like this fall into.  There are bifurcations (or tri, quad, etc) that are valid, because
in the proceeding steps, the person shows conclusively that the alternatives are all that are
possible.  Once everyone agrees that the given set is indeed all there are, then arguments among
the alternatives can be presentent, and one mostly likely to be true can be deduced by excluding
all other possible alternatives.
However, if it can be shown that the set is not all inclusive, then any conclusions bases on the
incomplete set are invalid, even if the true choice is one of the original choices.  I have given at
least one valid alternative, so the conclusion that JC is the real McCoy just because he isn't one of
the other two alternative is no longer valid.
->	Some other things to note.  He fulfilled loads of prophecies in
->the psalms, Isaiah and elsewhere in 24 hrs alone.  This in his betrayal
->and Crucifixion.  I don't have my Bible with me at this moment, next time I
->write I will use it.
JC was a rabbi.  He knew what those prophecies were.  It wouldn't be any great shakes to make
sure one does a list of actions that would fullfill prophecy.  What would be compeling is if there
were a set of clear and explicit prophecies AND JC had absolutely NO knowledge of then,  yet
fullfilled them anyway.
->	I don't think most people understand what a Christian is.  It
->is certainly not what I see a lot in churches.  Rather I think it
->should be a way of life, and a total sacrafice of everything for God's
->sake.  He loved us enough to die and save us so we should do the
->same.  Hey we can't do it, God himself inspires us to turn our lives
->over to him.  That's tuff and most people don't want to do it, to be a
->real Christian would be something for the strong to persevere at.  But
->just like weight lifting or guitar playing, drums, whatever it takes
->time.  We don't rush it in one day, Christianity is your whole life.
->It is not going to church once a week, or helping poor people once in
->a while.  We box everything into time units.  Such as work at this
->time, sports, Tv, social life.  God is above these boxes and should be
->carried with us into all these boxes that we have created for
->ourselves.
Here I agree with you.  Anyone who buys into this load of mythology should take what it says
seriously, and what it says is that it must be a total way of life.  I have very little respect for
Xians that don't.  If the myth is true, then it is true in its entirity.  The picking and choosing
that I see a lot of leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Jim
---
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
James L. Felder			|
Sverdrup Technology,Inc.	|     phone: 216-891-4019
NASA Lewis Research Center     	|
Cleveland, Ohio  44135         	|     email: jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov
"Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge, other people gargle"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
In-Reply-To: healta@saturn.wwc.edu's message of Fri, 16 Apr 1993 02: 51:29 GMT
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp
<healta.145.734928689@saturn.wwc.edu>
Lines: 47
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 1993 02:51:29 GMT, healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) said:
TRH> I hope you're not going to flame him.  Please give him the same coutesy you'
TRH> ve given me.
But you have been courteous and therefore received courtesy in return.  This
person instead has posted one of the worst arguments I have ever seen
made from the pro-Christian people.  I've known several Jesuits who would
laugh in his face if he presented such an argument to them.
Let's ignore the fact that it's not a true trilemma for the moment (nice
word Maddi, original or is it a real word?) and concentrate on the
liar, lunatic part.
The argument claims that no one would follow a liar, let alone thousands
of people.  Look at L. Ron Hubbard.  Now, he was probably not all there,
but I think he was mostly a liar and a con-artist.  But look at how many
thousands of people follow Dianetics and Scientology.  I think the
Baker's and Swaggert along with several other televangelists lie all
the time, but look at the number of follower they have.
As for lunatics, the best example is Hitler.  He was obviously insane,
his advisors certainly thought so.  Yet he had a whole country entralled
and came close to ruling all of Europe.  How many Germans gave their lives
for him?  To this day he has his followers.
I'm just amazed that people still try to use this argument.  It's just
so obviously *wrong*.
--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com                                   _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: thoughts on christians
In-Reply-To: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM's message of 16 Apr 93 05: 10:18 GMT
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp
Lines: 26
>>>>> On 16 Apr 93 05:10:18 GMT, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) said:
RB> In article <ofnWyG600WB699voA=@andrew.cmu.edu> pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Patrick C Leger) writes:
>EVER HEAR OF
>BAPTISM AT BIRTH?  If that isn't preying on the young, I don't know what
>is...
>
RB>
RB>   No, that's praying on the young.  Preying on the young comes
RB>   later, when the bright eyed little altar boy finds out what the
RB>   priest really wears under that chasible.
The same thing Scotsmen where under there kilt.
I'll never forget the day when I was about tweleve and accidently
walked in on a roomfull of priests sitting around in their underware
drinking beer and watching football.
Kind of changed my opinion a bit.  They didn't seem so menacing after
that.
--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com                                   _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Victims of various 'Good Fight's
In-Reply-To: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au's message of 12 Apr 93 21: 36:33 +0930
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp
<9454@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> <1993Apr12.213633.20143@levels.unisa.edu.au>
Lines: 12
>>>>> On 12 Apr 93 21:36:33 +0930, 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Desert Brat) said:
TDB> 12. Disease introduced to Brazilian * oher S.Am. tribes: x million
To be fair, this was going to happen eventually.  Given time, the Americans
would have reached Europe on their own and the same thing would have
happened.  It was just a matter of who got together first.
--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com                                   _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01
Lines: 13
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: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: KORESH IS GOD!
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01
Lines: 5
The latest news seems to be that Koresh will give himself up once he's
finished writing a sequel to the Bible.
mathew
From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Where are they now?
In-Reply-To: acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu's message of 15 Apr 93 11: 17:13 -0600
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp
<1993Apr15.111713.4726@mac.cc.macalstr.edu>
Lines: 18
a> In article <1qi156INNf9n@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, tcbruno@athena.mit.edu (Tom Bruno) writes:
>
..stuff deleted...
>
> Which brings me to the point of my posting.  How many people out there have
> been around alt.atheism since 1990?  I've done my damnedest to stay on top of
...more stuff deleted...
Hmm, USENET got it's collective hooks into me around 1987 or so right after I
switched to engineering.  I'd say I started reading alt.atheism around 1988-89.
I've probably not posted more than 50 messages in the time since then though.
I'll never understand how people can find the time to write so much.  I
can barely keep up as it is.
--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com                                   _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire
Lines: 38
[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: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
Lines: 35
In article <1993Apr15.135650.28926@st-andrews.ac.uk> nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:
>I don't think you're right about Germany.  My daughter was born there and
>I don't think she has any German rights eg to vote or live there (beyond the
>rights of all EC citizens).  She is a British citizen by virtue of
>her parentage, but that's not "full" citizenship.  For example, I don't think
>her children could be British by virtue of her in the same way.
I am fairly sure that she could obtain citizenship by making an
application for it. It might require immigration to Germany, but
I am almost certain that once applied for citizenship is inevitable
in this case.
>More interesting is your sentence,
>>In fact, many people try to come to the US to have their children
>>born here so that they will have some human rights.
>How does the US compare to an Islamic country in this respect?  Do people
>go to Iran so their children will have some human rights?  Would you?
More interesting only for your propaganda purposes. I have said several
times now that I don't consider Iran particularly exemplary as a good
Islamic state. We might talk about the rights of people in "capitalist
secular" third world countries to give other examples of the lack of
rights in third world countries broadly. Say, for example, Central
American secular capitalist countries whose govt's the US supports
but who Amnesty International has pointed out are human rights vacua.
Gregg
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 39
In <11825@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <C5Jxru.2t8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike
Cobb) writes:
>>What do you base your belief on atheism on?  Your knowledge and reasoning?
>>COuldn't that be wrong?
>>
>  Actually, my atheism is based on ignorance.  Ignorance of the
>  existence of any god.  Don't fall into the "atheists don't believe
>  because of their pride" mistake.
How do you know it's based on ignorance, couldn't that be wrong? Why would it
be wrong
to fall into the trap that you mentioned?
Also, if I may, what the heck where we talking about and why didn't I keep
some comments on there to see what the line of thoughts were?
MAC
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
>They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
>and sank Manhattan out at sea.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle     University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs."                 Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
With new taxes and spending cuts we'll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.
From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: KORESH IS GOD!
In-Reply-To: mathew's message of Fri, 16 Apr 1993 14: 15:20 +0100
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp
<930416.141520.7h1.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
Lines: 12
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 1993 14:15:20 +0100, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> said:
m> The latest news seems to be that Koresh will give himself up once he's
m> finished writing a sequel to the Bible.
Also, it's the 16th now.  Can the Feds get him on tax evasion?  I don't
remember hearing about him running to the Post Office last night.
--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com                                   _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
From: mcgoy@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu (David McGaughey)
Subject: Re: THE POPE IS JEWISH!
Organization: Texas Tech University
Lines: 12
west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:
> THE POPE IS JEWISH
I always thought that the Pope was a bear.
You know, because of that little saying:
Does a bear shit in the woods?
Is the Pope Catholic?
There MUST be SOME connection between those two lines!
From: kellyb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu
Subject: Re: Bible Quiz
Lines: 12
Nntp-Posting-Host: ccsua.ctstateu.edu
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
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: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: islamic authority over women
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 37
Benedikt Rosenau (I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de) wrote:
: When the object of their belief is said to be perfect and make the believers
: act in a certain way and we observe that they don't, we have a contradiction.
: Something defined contradictorily cannot exist. That what the believe in does
: not exist. Secondly, there are better explanations for why they believe than
: the existence of the object of their belief.
:
:
: Have you read the FAQ already?
:    Benedikt
Benedikt,
I can't recall anyone claiming that God -makes- anyone act a particlar
way, I think that you're attempting to manufacture a contradiction.
God is said to require certain behavior, but the only compulsion is
the believer's sense of duty. A standard of conduct does exist, but we
are free to ignore it or misunderstand it or distort it in whatever
ways we find convenient, but our response to God's edicts can in no
way be used to question God's existence. The behavior of believers is
a completely separate question from that of God's existence; there is
nothing contradictory here.
To say that something defined contadictorily cannot exist, is really
asking too much; you would have existence depend on grammar. All you
can really say is that something is poorly defined, but that in itself
is insufficient to decide anything (other than confusion of course).
Your point that there are better reasons for the phenomenon of belief
than the object of belief may lead to a rat's nest of unnecessary
complexity. I think I know what you're implying, but I'd like to see
your version of this better alternative just the same.
Bill
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: islamic authority over women
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 30
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: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 12
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: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 18
Kent Sandvik (sandvik@newton.apple.com) wrote:
: In article <11838@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert
: Beauchaine) wrote:
: >   Someone spank me if I'm wrong, but didn't Lord, Liar, or Lunatic
: >   originate with C.S. Lewis?  Who's this Campollo fellow anyway?
: I do think so, and isn't there a clear connection with the "I do
: believe, because it is absurd" notion by one of the original
: Christians (Origen?).
There is a similar statement attributed to Anselm, "I believe so that
I may understand". In both cases reason is somewhat less exalted than
anyone posting here could accept, which means that neither statement
can be properly analysed in this venue.
Bill
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: thoughts on christians
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 17
Ed McCreary (edm@twisto.compaq.com) wrote:
: >>>>> On 16 Apr 93 05:10:18 GMT, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) said:
: RB> In article <ofnWyG600WB699voA=@andrew.cmu.edu> pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Patrick C Leger) writes:
: >EVER HEAR OF
: >BAPTISM AT BIRTH?  If that isn't preying on the young, I don't know what
: >is...
: >
: RB>
: RB>   No, that's praying on the young.  Preying on the young comes
: RB>   later, when the bright eyed little altar boy finds out what the
: RB>   priest really wears under that chasible.
Does this statement further the atheist cause in some way, surely it's
not intended as wit ...
Bill
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: thoughts on christians
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 24
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: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Nicknames
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 36
Maddi Hausmann (madhaus@netcom.com) wrote:
: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only) writes: >
: >We could start with those posters who annoy us the most, like Bobby or
: >Bill.
: Your wish is my command.
: Bill "Shit-stirrer" Connor
: Bobby "Circular" Mozumder
I'm not sure my new nom d'net is exactly appropriate, but it comes
very close. Considering what I have to wade through before I make one
of my insightful, dead-on-the-money repsonses, I have to agree that
something's getting stirred up. I would like to believe my
characterization of what I respond to would be kinder though, but if
you insist ...
I am also surprised to find that I have offended anyone, but in some
cases it's unavoidable if I am to say anything at all. For those to
whom fairness is important, check out my contributions, haven't I been
most generous and patient, a veritable paragon of gentility?
Oh, BTW, I don't mind being paired with Bobby; I admire his tenacity.
How many of you would do as well in this hostile environment - you
think -I'm- offensive ?! read your own posts ...
Love and kisses,
Bill
P.S.
My name is Conner, not Connor. No point in humiliating the innocents.
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: islamic authority over women
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 8
Keith M. Ryan (kmr4@po.CWRU.edu) wrote:
: 	Nice cop out bill.
I'm sure you're right, but I have no idea to what you refer. Would you
mind explaining how I copped out?
Bill
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Atheists?)
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 14
This is fascinating. Atheists argue for abortion, defend homosexuality
as a means of population control, insist that the only values are
biological and condemn war and capital punishment. According to
Benedikt, if something is contardictory, it cannot exist, which in
this case means atheists I suppose.
I would like to understand how an atheist can object to war (an
excellent means of controlling population growth), or to capital
punishment, I'm sorry but the logic escapes me.
And why just capital punishment, what is being questioned here, the
propriety of killing or of punishment? What is the basis of the
ecomplaint?
Bill
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Americans and Evolution
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 30
Robert Singleton (bobs@thnext.mit.edu) wrote:
: > Sure it isn't mutually exclusive, but it lends weight to (i.e. increases
: > notional running estimates of the posterior probability of) the
: > atheist's pitch in the partition, and thus necessarily reduces the same
: > quantity in the theist's pitch. This is because the `divine component'
: > falls prey to Ockham's Razor, the phenomenon being satisfactorily
:                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > explained without it, and there being no independent evidence of any
:   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > such component. More detail in the next post.
: >
Occam's Razor is not a law of nature, it is way of analyzing an
argument, even so, it interesting how often it's cited here and to
what end.
It seems odd that religion is simultaneously condemned as being
primitive, simple-minded and unscientific, anti-intellectual and
childish, and yet again condemned as being too complex (Occam's
razor), the scientific explanation of things being much more
straightforeward and, apparently, simpler. Which is it to be - which
is the "non-essential", and how do you know?
Considering that even scientists don't fully comprehend science due to
its complexity and diversity. Maybe William of Occam has performed a
lobotomy, kept the frontal lobe and thrown everything else away ...
This is all very confusing, I'm sure one of you will straighten me out
tough.
Bill
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Lines: 40
timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes: >
>OK, you have disproved one thing, but you failed to "nail" me.
>
>See, nowhere in my post did I claim that something _must_ be believed in.  Here
>are the three possibilities:
>
>	1) God exists.
>	2) God does not exist.
>	3) I don't know.
>
>My attack was on strong atheism, (2).  Since I am (3), I guess by what you said
>below that makes me a weak atheist.
[snip]
>First of all, you seem to be a reasonable guy.  Why not try to be more honest
>and include my sentence afterwards that
Honest, it just ended like that, I swear!
Hmmmm...I recognize the warning signs...alternating polite and
rude...coming into newsgroup with huge chip on shoulder...calls
people names and then makes nice...whirrr...click...whirrr
"Clam" Bake Timmons = Bill "Shit Stirrer Connor"
Q.E.D.
Whirr click whirr...Frank O'Dwyer might also be contained
in that shell...pop stack to determine...whirr...click..whirr
"Killfile" Keith Allen Schneider = Frank "Closet Theist" O'Dwyer =
the mind reels.  Maybe they're all Bobby Mozumder.
--
Maddi Hausmann                       madhaus@netcom.com
Centigram Communications Corp        San Jose California  408/428-3553
Kids, please don't try this at home.  Remember, I post professionally.
Subject: Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Athei
From: sham@cs.arizona.edu (Shamim Zvonko Mohamed)
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson
Lines: 29
In article <1993Apr19.151120.14068@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) writes:
>In <930419.125145.9O3.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew writes:
>> I wonder if Noam Chomsky is reading this?
>
>      I could be wrong, but is he actually talking about outright
>_government_ control of the media, aka censorship?
>
>      If he doesn't, any quick one-stop-shopping reference to his works
>that'll tell me, in short, what he _does_ argue for?
"Manufacturing Consent," a film about the media. You alternative movie source
may have this; or to book it in your local alternative theatre, contact:
FILMS TRANSIT * INTERNATIONAL SALES
Jan Rofekamp
402 Notre Dame E.
Montreal, Quebec
Canada H2Y 1C8
Tel (514) 844-3358 * Fax (514) 844-7298
Telex 5560074 Filmtransmtl
(US readers: call Zeitgeist Films at 212 274 1989.)
-s
--
Shamim Mohamed / {uunet,noao,cmcl2..}!arizona!shamim / shamim@cs.arizona.edu
"Take this cross and garlic; here's a Mezuzah if he's Jewish; a page of the
Koran if he's a Muslim; and if he's a Zen Buddhist, you're on your own."
Member of the League for Programming Freedom - write to lpf@uunet.uu.net
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: Requests
Lines: 53
Organization: Walla Walla College
Lines: 53
In article <11857@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
>Subject: Re: Requests
>Date: 19 Apr 93 18:25:08 GMT
>In article <C5qLLG.4BC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> mayne@cs.fsu.edu writes:
>>
(excess stuff deleted...)
>  However, it seems that a local church elder has been getting
>  revelations from god about a devastating quake scheduled to level
>  the area on May 3rd.  He has independent corroboration from
>  several friends, who apparently have had similar revelations.  The
>  5.7 quake was, in fact, in response to a request from the lot of
>  them seeking a sign from god on the veracity of their visions.
>
>  None of this would be terribly interesting, except for the amount
>  of stir it has created in the area.  Many, many people are taking
>  these claims very seriously.  There are some making plans to be
>  out of the are on the target date.  My local religious radio
>  station devoted 4 hours of discussion on the topic.
>
>  I even called up during one of the live broadcasts to tell the
>  host that he would have a full account of my conversion on May
>  4th, provided my family and I survived the devastation and ruin
>  that will invariably follow the quake.
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>
>Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
>
>They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
>and sank Manhattan out at sea.
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I know of a similar incident about 3 years ago.  A climatologist( Ithink
that was his profession) named Iben Browning predicted that an earthquake
would hit the New Madrid fault on Dec.3.  Some schools in Missouri that were
on the fault line actually cancelled school for the day.  Many people
evacuated New Madrid and other towns in teh are.  I wouldn't be suprised if
there were more journalists in the area than residents.  Of course, teh
earthquake never occured.  HOw do I know about his?  I used to live in
Southern Illinois and the lican middle school was built directly on the
fault line.  No we still had school... We laughed at the poor idiots who
believed the prediction. :):):):)
Bob, if you're wanting an excuse to convert to Christianity, you gonna have
to look elsewhere.
Tammy "No Trim" Healy
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: Studies on Book of Mormon
Lines: 31
Organization: Walla Walla College
Lines: 31
In article <735023059snx@enkidu.mic.cl> agrino@enkidu.mic.cl (Andres Grino Brandt) writes:
>From: agrino@enkidu.mic.cl (Andres Grino Brandt)
>Subject: Studies on Book of Mormon
>Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 14:15:33 CST
>Hi!
>
>I don't know much about Mormons, and I want to know about serious independent
>studies about the Book of Mormon.
>
>I don't buy the 'official' story about the gold original taken to heaven,
>but haven't read the Book of Mormon by myself (I have to much work learning
>Biblical Hebrew), I will appreciate any comment about the results of study
>in style, vocabulary, place-names, internal consistency, and so on.
>
>For example: There is evidence for one-writer or multiple writers?
>There are some mention about events, places, or historical persons later
>discovered by archeologist?
>
>Yours in Collen
>
>Andres Grino Brandt               Casilla 14801 - Santiago 21
>agrino@enkidu.mic.cl                        Chile
>
>No hay mas realidad que la realidad, y la razon es su profeta
I don't think the Book of Mormon was supposedly translated from Biblical
Hebrew.  I've read that "prophet Joseph Smith" traslated the gold tablets
from some sort of Egyptian-ish language.
Former Mormons, PLEASE post.
Tammy "no trim" Healy
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Societal basis for morality
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 18
In article <C5prv8.5nI@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike
Cobb) wrote:
> we have to expect others to follow our notion of societally mandated morality?
> Pardon the extremism, but couldn't I murder your "brother" and say that I was
> exercising my rights as I saw them, was doing what felt good, didn't want
> anyone forcing their morality on me, or I don't follow your "morality" ?
Good statement! Should we apply empirical measurements to define exact
social morals? Should morals be based on social rules? On ancient
religious doctrines? It seems there will *NEVER* be a common and single
denominator for defining morals, and as such defining absolute
and objective morals is doomed to fail as long as humans have
this incredible talent of creative thinking.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 26
In article <1993Apr19.113255.27550@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>,
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) wrote:
> >Fred, the problem with such reasoning is that for us non-believers
> >we need a better measurement tool to state that person A is a
> >real Muslim/Christian, while person B is not. As I know there are
> >no such tools, and anyone could believe in a religion, misuse its
> >power and otherwise make bad PR. It clearly shows the sore points
> >with religion -- in other words show me a movement that can't spin
> >off Khomeinis, Stalins, Davidians, Husseins... *).
>
> I don't think such a system exists.  I think the reason for that is an
> condition known as "free will".  We humans have got it.  Anybody, using
> their free-will, can tell lies and half-truths about *any* system and
> thus abuse it for their own ends.
I don't think such tools exist either. In addition, there's no such
thing as objective information. All together, it looks like religion
and any doctrines could be freely misused to whatever purpose.
This all reminds me of Descartes' whispering deamon. You can't trust
anything. So why bother.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: free moral agency
Distribution: na
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 20
In article <C5pxqs.LM5@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu
(Bill Conner) wrote:
> As for your question of moral free-agency, given the Christian
> position above, the freedom we have is to acknowledge God. The
> morality we practice is a direct outgrowth of how we excercise that
> freedom. You are free to ignore God in the same way you are free to
> ignore gravity and the consequences are inevitable and well known
> in both cases. That an atheist can't accept the evidence means only
> that he prefers not to accept it, it says nothing about the evidence
> itself.
I agree, I had a hard feeling not believing my grand-grand mother
who told me of elves dancing outside barns in the early mornings.
I preferred not to accept it, even if her statement provided
the truth itself. Life is hard.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 29
In article <C5qt5p.Mvo@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>
> In article <115694@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
> >I think many reading this group would also benefit by knowing how
> >deviant the view _as I've articulated it above_ (which may not be
> >the true view of Khomeini) is from the basic principles of Islam.
>
> From the point ov view of an atheist, I see you claim Khomeini wasn't
> practicing true Islam.  But I'm sure that he would have said the same about
> you.  How am I, a member of neither group, supposed to be able to tell which
> one of you two is really a true Muslim?
Fred Rice answered this already in an early posting:
"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."
In other words it seems that nobody could define who is a true and
false Muslim. We are back to square one, Khomeini and Hussein are
still innocent and can't be defined as evil or good Islamic
worshippers.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: islamic authority over women
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 21
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: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Suggestion for "resources" FAQ
In-Reply-To: <C5qKDy.40D@liverpool.ac.uk>
Nntp-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
Organization: Kupajava, East of Krakatoa
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)
Lines: 34
>DATE:   Mon, 19 Apr 1993 15:01:10 GMT
>FROM:   Bruce Stephens <bruce@liverpool.ac.uk>
>
>I think a good book summarizing and comparing religions would be good.
>
>I confess I don't know of any---indeed that's why I checked the FAQ to see
>if it had one---but I'm sure some alert reader does.
>
>I think the list of books suffers far too much from being Christian based;
>I agree that most of the traffic is of this nature (although a few Islamic
>references might be good) but I still think an overview would be nice.
One book I have which presents a fairly unbiased account of many religions
is called _Man's Religions_ by John B. Noss.  It was a textbook in a class
I had on comparative religion or some such thing.  It has some decent
bibliographies on each chapter as a jumping off point for further reading.
It doesn't "compare" religions directly but describes each one individually
and notes a few similarities.  But nothing I have read in it could be even
remotely described as preachy or Christian based.  In fact, Christianity
mercifully consumes only 90 or so of its nearly 600 pages.  The book is
divided according to major regions of the world where the biggies began
(India, East Asia, Near East).  There is nothing about New World religions
from the Aztecs, Mayas, Incas, etc.  Just the stuff people kill each
other over nowadays.  And a few of the older religions snuffed out along
the way.
If you like the old stuff, then a couple of books called "The Ancient Near
East" by James B. Pritchard are pretty cool.  Got the Epic of Gilgamesh,
Code of Hammurabi, all the stuff from way back when men were gods and gods
were men.  Essential reading for anyone who wishes to make up their own
religion and make it sound real good.
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics
In-Reply-To: <timmbake.735261806@mcl>
Nntp-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
Organization: Kupajava, East of Krakatoa
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)
Lines: 18
>DATE:   19 Apr 93 23:23:26 GMT
>FROM:   Bake Timmons <timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu>
>
>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?
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.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Objective Values 'v' Scientific Accuracy (was Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is)
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 17
In article <930419.122738.5s2.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew
<mathew@mantis.co.uk> wrote:
>
> lpzsml@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (Steve Lang) writes:
> > Values can also refer to meaning.  For example in computer science the
> > value of 1 is TRUE, and 0 is FALSE.
>
> Not in Lisp.
True, all you need to define is one statement that defined one
polarity, and all the other states are considered the other
polarity. Then again what is the meaning of nil, false or true :-) ?
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: It's all Mary's fault!
Organization: Sponsored account, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 28
<C5KEqu.4xo@portal.hq.videocart.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: po5.andrew.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <C5KEqu.4xo@portal.hq.videocart.com>
dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) writes:
>   Nice attempt Chris . . . verrry close.
>
>   You missed the conspiracy by 1 step. Joseph knew who knocked her up.
> He couldn't let it be known that somebody ELSE got ol' Mary prego. That
> wouldn't do well for his popularity in the local circles. So what
> happened is that she was feeling guilty, he was feeling embarrassed, and
> THEY decided to improve both of their images on what could have otherwise
> been the downfall for both. Clever indeed. Come to think of it . . . I
> have gained a new respect for the couple. Maybe Joseph and Mary should
> receive all of the praise being paid to jesus.
Lucky for them that the baby didn't have any obvious deformities!  I could
just see it now: Mary gets pregnant out of wedlock so to save face she and
Joseph say that it was God that got her pregnant and then the baby turns
out to be deformed, or even worse, stillborn!  They'd have a lot of
explaining to do.... :-)
> Dave "Buckminster" Fuller
> How is that one 'o keeper of the nicknames ?
Nanci
.........................................................................
If you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me
email (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):
Life does not cease to be funny when people die, any more than it ceases to
be serious when people laugh.
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Re:  Islam And Scientific Predictions (was
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 24
In article <C5L1Fv.H9r@ra.nrl.navy.mil> khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes:
>How would a man of 7th Century Arabia have known
>what *not to include* in the Holy Qur'an (assuming he had authored
>it)?
>
So now we're judging the Qur'an by what's not in it?
How many mutton headed arguments am I going to have to wade
through today?
>Lots of other books have been written on this subject.  Those
>books can speak far more eloquently than I.
One would hope.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Lines: 11
In article <1993Apr15.212943.15118@bnr.ca> (Rashid) writes:
>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.
Please define the words "shatim" and "fasad" before you use them again.
/---- John David Munch ------------------ jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu ----\
|...." the heart can change, be full of hate, or love. If people are allowed|
|to base their lives through their hearts, anything can happen. A dangerous |
|situation, in my opinion." -Bobby Mozumder describing problems with atheism|
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
Lines: 40
In article <1993Apr15.163317.20805@cs.nott.ac.uk> eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (C.Wainwright) writes:
>In article <115437@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>|> The authorities I am referring to is the authority of the world
>|> Islamic community over itself. My point was simply that Islamic
>|> law does apply to muslims wherever they are despite the fact that
>|> Islamic law may not be enforcable in non-Islamic countries.
>Muslims residing in the UK may decide to be 'tried' (or whatever) by the
>Islamic community, but their rulings have no legal consequences in these
>isles.
It's not really their _decision_ to be tried. The rulings _do_ have
legal consequences, but only in Islamic law and not in UK law (this
should be obvious). Enforcing a judgment is distinct from the making
of a judgment. Take for example the judgments of the World Court. This
is an internationally recognized tribunal whose judgments often have no
physical or economic effect but which _are_ important despite the fact
that their judgments cannot be enforced
>The person may be excommunicated (or similar) but if it decided to
>mete out violent laws such as the fatwa then it would be breaking UK laws
>itself, and the persons doing such would be liable to prosecution.
Of course, have you read any of this thread before this post?
> To ignore
>the country's laws in preference to religious laws which are not indigenous
>to the country in question is an absurd and arrogant notion.
Of course, it is a sort of anarchism. Anarchism is explicitly against
Islam. Thank you for your well reasoned response, but it is beside the
points I've been making in this thread.
Gregg
From: kutluk@ccl.umist.ac.uk (Kutluk Ozguven)
Subject: Re: Jewish Settlers Demolish a Mosque in Gaza
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Lines: 41
In <C5IwxM.G0z@news.chalmers.se> d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:
>In article <kutluk.734797558@ccl.umist.ac.uk> kutluk@ccl.umist.ac.uk (Kutluk Ozguven) writes:
>>Atheists are not
>>mentioned in the Quran because from a Quranic point of view, and a
>>minute's reasoning, one can see that there is no such thing.
>  But there are people who say that they are Atheists. If they aren't Atheists,
>what are they?
When the Quran uses the word *din* it means way of individual thinking, behaving,
communal order and protocols based on a set of beliefs. This is often
interpreted as the much weaker term religion.
The atheists are not mentioned in the Quran along with Jews,
Mushriqin, Christians, etc. because the  latter are all din. To have a
din you need a set of beliefs, assumptions, etc, to forma a social
code. For example the Marxist have those, such as History, Conflict,
etc. That they do not put idols (sometimes they did) to represent
those assuptions  does not mean they are any different from the other
Mushriq, or roughly polytheists.
There cannot be social Atheism, because when there is a community,
that community needs common ideas or standard beliefs to coordinate
the society. When they inscribe assumptions, say Nation, or "Progress is
the natural consequence of Human activity" or "parlamentarian
democracy is doubtlessly the best way of government", however
they individually insist they do not have gods, from the Quranic point
of view they do. Therefore by definition, atheism does not exist.
"We are a atheist society" in fact means "we reject the din other than
ours".
Atheism can only exist when people reject all the idols/gods/dogmas/
suppositions/.. of the society that they part, and in that case that
is a personal deviation of belief, and Quran tells about such
deviations and disbelief. But as I mentioned, from a Quranic point of
looking at things, there is no Atheism in the macro level.
I think it took more than one minute.
Kutluk
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Nostalgia
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 1049
The recent rise of nostalgia in this group, combined with the
incredible level of utter bullshit, has prompted me to comb
through my archives and pull out some of "The Best of Alt.Atheism"
for your reading pleasure.  I'll post a couple of these a day
unless group concensus demands that I stop, or I run out of good
material.
I haven't been particularly careful in the past about saving
attributions.  I think the following comes from John A. Johnson,
but someone correct me if I'm wrong.  This is probably the longest
of my entire collection.
________________________________________________________
So that the
Prophecy be
Fulfilled
* * *
In considering the Christian religion, and judging it
according to its claims, it is important to look at its claims at
fulfilling earlier Jewish prophecy.  The scribe Matthew is perhaps
the most eager to draw out what he thinks are prophetic answers in
the career of Jesus of Nazareth.  As you will see, Matthew's main
strategy is to take various Old Testament passages, often not even
about the promised Messiah, and apply them to the circumstances in
the New Testament.  We must also bear in mind the question of the
authenticity of the accounts.  Since the gospels were written at
least 35 years after Jesus was executed, we do not know how much
happened exactly as stated.  But, for purposes of analysis, we
will take particular claims at face value.
Immanuel:
We begin, of course, at the beginning.
(Mt 1.21-22):  "[Mary] will bear a son, and you,
Joseph, will name him 'Jesus' (which means G'd is
salvation), for he will save his people from their
sins."  All this happened to fulfil what the lord had
spoken by a prophet:
[Isaiah 7.1-16]:  In the days of Ahaz (c. 750 BCE),
king of Judah, Rezin of Syria and Pekah of Israel made
war on Jerusalem (capitol of Judah), but could not
quite conquer it.  When the house of David (i.e. Ahaz
and his court in Judah) were told of this, ...its
heart and the heart of its people shook...   And, the
lord G'd said to Isaiah, "go to meet with Ahaz..."
...And the lord spoke to Ahaz (through prophet Isaiah,
naturally) saying, "Ask a sign of G'd your lord.  It
can be as deep as Sheol or as high as heaven."  But,
Ahaz said, "I won't ask; I will not put the lord to a
test."  Then (Isaiah) said, "Hear then, O house of
David.  Is it not enough for you to weary men, that
you must weary my god too?  Therefore, the lord
himself will give you a sign:  Behold, a young woman
is with child and will bear a son, and name him
"Immanuel," which means, "G'd is with us."   He will
eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse evil
and choose good.  For, before the child knows how to
refuse evil and choose good, the land of the two kings
you dread will have been deserted...
Matthew homes in on just the sentence that is in italics.
Further, he the Hebrew word "almah," (young woman), as
specifically, "virgin."  But, this is not a prophecy about the
Messiah.  It is not a prophecy about an event to happen 750 years
later.  It is not a prophecy about a virgin (bethulah) mother.  In
short, it not about Jesus.  Matthew has made use of a verse out of
context, and tries to make it fit the specific case of Mary.  It
should be noted that if we want to read the prophecy in a general
manner, a very general one, it can be made to fit Mary.  Mary,
virgin or not, was indeed a young woman with child.  Of course,
the fit is shady and has problems.  Jesus, while thought of by
later Christians to be G'd walking among men, was never called by
the name, Immanuel.  If Christianity wished to claim this prophecy
for Jesus, it becomes at best a cut-and-paste prophecy... a second
class prophecy.   Not too convincing.
Egypt:
After Jesus's birth in Bethlehem, Matthew tells about a
quick (and elsewhere unmentioned) excursion to Egypt, as if he
wishes to liken Jesus to Moses.  This was done to escape an
alleged infanticidal rampage of the king, Herod.
[Mt 2.15]  ...and remained there until the death of
Herod.  This was to fulfil what the lord had spoken:
"Out of Egypt I have cal-led my son."
What the lord really said was this.
[Hosea 11.1]  When Israel was a child, I loved him.
And, out of Egypt I called my son.  The more I called
them (my people), the more they went from me; they
kept sacrificing to the Ba'als, and kept burning
incense to idols.
Matthew conveniently omits the rest of Hosea's oracle.  But, it
was indeed Israel that, once called out of Egypt, wanted to
return.  This is history.  Jesus is certainly not being spoken of
here.  And, if we are to draw some kind of parallel here, we wind
up with a Jesus that flees and resists G'd.   Again, this prophecy
is just not as convincing as Matthew probably had hoped.
Rachel Weeps:
While Jesus is off vacationing in Egypt, Matthew says that
King Herod sought to kill him, and thus ordered the executions of
all young male children.  Matthew then writes,
[Mt 2.17-18]   By this, that which was spoken by the
prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
"A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud
lamentation-- Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be consoled, because they were
no more."
The reference is to a passage in Jeremiah 31.15, referring to the
carrying off of Israel into exile by Sargon (of Assyria) in 722
BCE.  Rachel, the ancestor of the major tribes of Israel, Ephraim,
and Manasseh, is said to weep for her descendants who are "no
more."  It is metaphorical, of course, since Rachel lived and dies
before the Hebrews were even in the Egyptian exile.
It is interesting to note that it was Leah, not Rachel, who
was the ancestor of the Judeans (the land where Jesus and
Bethlehem were).  If anyone should do weeping for her "children,"
it is Leah.  The only connexion that Rachel has with Bethlehem is
that the legends have it that she was buried north of the city,
"on the way to Ephrath, (Bethlehem)."
As for Herod and his infanticide, it is rather unlikely
that such an event actually occurred.  One never knows, but the
event is not mentioned or alluded to anywhere else in the Bible,
nor is it mentioned in any of the secular records of the time.
Herod was particularly unliked in his reign, and many far less
evil deeds of Herod were carefully recorded.  This might be a
prime example of how events were added to Jesus's life to enhance
the message of the church's gospel.
Because of the whole story's similarity to the tale of the
infant Moses in Egypt, it is highly likely that it is a device set
up by Matthew to add prophetic, yet artificial, approval of Jesus.
It is not surprising that Matthew conveniently neglects to mention
the rest of the Jeremiah quote.   The "children" the prophet
speaks of are not dead, but exiled in the Assyrian Empire.  G'd
comforts the weeping Rachel, saying that the children will be
returned-- he will gather them back together.  Of course, this
would not suit Matthew's purpose, as the children he speaks of are
dead for good.  Again, the "prophecy" Matthew sets up is not even
that, and to anyone who bothers to check it out, is not too
convincing.
The Nazarene:
We do not even have to go to the next chapter to find
another Matthean prophecy.  After leaving Egypt, Joseph & wife
take the infant Jesus to live in the city of Nazareth,
[Mt 2.23]  ...that what was spoken of by the prophets
might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."
First thing we notice is that Matthew does not mention the name of
the prophet(s) this time.  Second, we have to ask who "He" is.
There are no Messianic prophecies speaking of a Nazarene.  Worse,
there are no prophecies, period, mentioning a Nazarene.  Still
worse, there are no Nazarenes mentioned in the Old Testament at
all.  In the book of Judges, an angel tells Samson's mother that
she will,
[Judges 13.5]  "...conceive and bear a son.  No razor
shall tough his head, for he will be a Nazirite to his
god from the day of his birth.  He will deliver Israel
from the hands of the Philistines."
This is of course not a prophecy of Jesus, or the messiah of G'd.
But, it is the best that can be found.  Obviously, Matthew has
begun to go overboard in cut-and-paste prophecies, in that he is
simple making them up now.
Bearing our
Diseases:
Jesus next goes around healing people of physical illnesses
and disabilities.
[Mt 8.17]   This was to fulfil what was spoken by the
prophet Isaiah, "He took our infirmities and bore our
diseases."
As expected, the verse quoted in Isaiah is quoted out of context,
and a few words are skewed to fit the Christian scheme.  We have,
[Is 53.4]  Surely he, [the suffering servant], has
borne our sickness, and carried our pains.
From a reading of the surrounding passages in Isaiah, we know that
the prophet is speaking in present tense of the collective nation
of Israel, Jehovah's chosen servant and people.  He speaks to the
Israelites suffering in exile, in the voice of the gentile nations
that look upon it.  This image is deeply ingrained in Jewish
identity --an image of a chastised, yet cherished, Israel as the
instrument of the nations' salvation by G'd.
The verses speak of Israel taking on the sicknesses which
are the literal and metaphorical manifestations of guilt and
discipline.  They do not speak of a "servant" going around and
healing people.  Notice that the servant in Isaiah takes on the
sicknesses and pains of the nations (and individual Jews).  Jesus,
as we all know, did not take the diseases onto himself.  The
verses here in Isaiah are not a prophecy of something to come, but
rather something that had already happened.  While it is believed
that Jesus took on the eternal punishment of hell, he did not bear
the illnesses he healed.  So, while someone might want to say
that, figuratively, Jesus reenacted the deeds of Israel in his
spiritual atonement, he has to admit that Matthew's parallel
misses where he intended it to have its effect.
Silent Messiah:
Upon healing multitudes of commoners, it is said that Jesus
ordered them to keep quiet, presumable so that he wouldn't arouse
the attention of the local rulers.
[Mt 12.15-21]  This was to fulfill what was spoken by
the prophet Isaiah.
"Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved,
with whom my soul is pleased.  I will put my spirit on
him, and he will announce justice to the Gentiles.  He
will not wrangle or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear
his voice in the streets.  He will not break a bruised
reed or quench a smoldering wick until he brings
justice to victory, and the gentiles will hope in his
name."
The Isaiah passage quoted reads,
[Is 42.1-4]  Behold my servant whom I uphold, my
chosen, in whom my soul delights.  I have put my
spirit on him, and he will bring forth justice to the
nations.  We will not cry or lift up his voice, or
make it heard in the street.  He will not break a
bruised reed, or quench a smoldering wick.  He will
faithfully bring forth justice.  He will not fail
(burn dimly) or be discouraged (bruised) until he has
established justice in the earth.  And the coastlands
await his law.
You see, Matthew has conveniently left out part of the passage,
because it does not suit the dealings of Jesus.  Christians could
never think of Jesus failing, never would the "light" of mankind
burn dimly.  But, the servant nation of Israel will indeed come to
an end when its job is done.  When the gentiles come to embrace
G'd there will no longer be a chosen people, but rather all will
be the children of G'd.  Also, the ending phrase has been changed
from the Judaic "...the coastlands await his law." to the
Christologic, "the Gentiles will hope in his name."   While the
original proclaims the Torah law of Jehovah, the other rewrites it
to fit its strange doctrine of "believing in the name."  If one
has any doubt the servant referred to is not Jesus, one has only
to read the whole chapter, Isaiah 42, and hear about the beloved
but blind and imperfect servant, "a people robbed and
plundered..."   So, we see that when Matthew's attempt at
"prophecy" is examined, it crumbles.
Three Days and
Three Nights:
Now we come upon a prophecy supposedly uttered by the very
mouth of the god Jesus himself.  He speaks of his crucifixion and
resurrection.
[Mt 12.40]   For as Jonah was in the belly of the
whale for three days and three nights, so will the Son
of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and
three nights.
Before any further discussion can occur, it is necessary to know
how the Jews understood days.  As far as day names went, each was
24 hours long, lasting from sunset 6pm to the following sunset
6pm.  What was referred to as a "day" was the period of light from
6am to the ending sunset at 6pm.  Thus, according to our time
scale, a sabbath day began at 6pm Friday evening, and lasted until
6pm saturday evening.  This is why the Jews celebrate their
sabbath on the daylight portion of Saturdays, instead of Sundays.
(It seems like a real miracle that Christians didn't forget that
Saturday was indeed the seventh and last day of the week!)  Thus,
when days and nights are referred to together, 12 hour daylight
portions and 12 hour night periods are being spoken of.  Thus,
Jesus says that he will be in the grave, or in hell, or otherwise
unresurrected for three days and three nights.
As the good book tells us, Jesus was crucified on the "ninth
hour," which is 3pm, Friday afternoon.  He then was put into the
grave sometime after that.  Then, Jesus left the grave, "rose,"
before dawn of what we call Sunday (The dawn after the sabbath was
over).  What this means is that Jesus was, using our time for
clarity, in the grave from 6pm Friday night to some time before
6am Sunday morning.  We could also add a little time before 6pm
Friday, since the bible is not specific here.  What this means
using Jewish time is that he was in the grave for one day, two
nights, and possibly a couple of hours of one day.  Certainly this
is a problem for Jesus prediction.  There is absolutely no way we
are even able to have his death involve three days and three
nights --even using modern time measurements.   We then are led to
suspect that this error is another one of Matthew's little
mistakes, and that the gospel writer put false words into his
god's mouth.   And no matter who made the prediction, it is more
than unconvincing... it is counter-convincing.
Hearing &
Understanding:
Jesus tool on a habit of speaking to his vast audiences in
parables-- stories in which a deeper meaning could be found, if
you were already one of the elect, those chosen to understand the
message of Jesus.  He reasons that those who can understand the
parables are the ones he wants.  If the people cannot understand
them, there is no need to bother with them, since they will not
accept the "plain" message any better.  Matthew says,
[Mt 13.14-16]  With them [the audience] indeed in
fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says,
"You will indeed hear but never understand; and you
will indeed see, but never perceive.  Because this
people's heart has grown dull, their ears are heavy of
hearing, and they have shut their eyes so the they
would not perceive with them, her with their ears, and
understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal
them."
The original Isaiah passages are part of his earlier works, his
call to the ministry.  This is in 740 BCE, when Israel is
flourishing, right before it falls under the authority of Assyria.
Isaiah sees the good times ending, and also a vision from G'd,
calling him to bring reform to Israel and Judah.
[Is 6.9-13]  And G'd said, "Go, and say to this
people, `Hear and hear, but do not understand; see and
see, but do not perceive.'   Make the heart of this
people fat, make their ears heavy, and shut their
eyes, so they will not see with their eyes, or hear
with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and
turn and be healed."  Then Isaiah said, "How long,
lord?"  And he said, "Until the cities lie waste
without inhabitant, and houses without men, and the
land is utterly desolate, and the G'ds take men far
away, and forsaken places are many in the land.  And
though a tenth will remain in it, it will be burned
again, like a terebinth or an oak whose stump still
stands when the tree is felled." The holy seed is its
stump.
Here we see that it is really G'd who causes the people of Israel
to stop listening to the prophet's warnings, but reaffirms the
promise made to Solomon's (and David's) seed/lineage.  If you read
the rest of Isaiah, you find that this is done to fulfil the plan
of G'd to use Israel as a servant, a light to the nations.  (Look
at Isaiah 42.18-25, 48.20, 49.3)
We see that Matthew has cut-and-pasted just a little portion
of Isaiah's verse, to suit his own gospel needs.  More than that,
he has altered the words, to make it fit the people who didn't
understand Jesus's stories.  And, as we see, Isaiah's verses are
not prophecies, but rather commands from G'd to him, in the
present.   Once again, Matthew's prophecy falls flat on its face.
Matthew tries again to make Jesus's parables look like they
have the prophetic approval.
[Mt 13.35]  ...he said nothing to them without a
parable.  This was to fulfil what was spoken of by the
prophet, "I will open my mouth to them in parables.  I
will utter that which has been hidden since the
foundation of the world."
Matthew really botches up here.  He attempts to quote not from a
prophet, but from the Psalms.
[Ps 78.2-4]  I will open my mouth in parable.  I will
utter dark sayings of old, things that we all have
heard and known, things that our fathers have told us.
We will not hide them from their children, but tell to
the coming generation the glorious deeds of the
lord...
As was pointed out, the verses in the Psalms do not really come
from a prophet.  You might also want to know that earlier copies
of Matthew's gospel even inserted Isaiah's name as this prophet.
Apparently, later scribes caught the error and tried to cover some
of it up.
Perhaps the most significant part of this is that, once
again, Matthew has altered the Old Testament Scriptures.  As Jesus
has said earlier, he speaks in parables so that some will not
understand them.  The parables in the Psalms are not to be hidden.
Further, they speak of things "known, that our fathers have told
us."  Jesus deals with things "hidden since the foundation of the
world."  Indeed Jesus dealt in a lot of secrecy and confusion.
This is in direct opposition to the parables in the Psalms.  No
wonder Matthew had to rewrite them!   And still once again,
Matthew's artificial prophecies fall flat on their face.  But,
Christians rarely look at this.  Matthew's prophecies aren't the
only things about Christianity that are beginning to look bad.
Excuses of
Little Faith:
In Mt. 17.14-21, we see that the disciples are able to go
around casting out demons, except in one case.  Not knowing what
epilepsy was, the people thought those with the disease were
possesed with demons.  It is no wonder that the disciples were
unable to "dispossess" the epileptic.  But, Jesus, perhaps no more
enlightened than they, is reported to have rebuked them, saying
they didn't have enough faith.   This seems strange.  Why was this
demon special?  It seems that either a true believer has faith or
he does not.  Apparently, enough faith will allow someone to move
mountains.  Of course, you will find no one, these days that can
move real mountains.  No one parts seas.  The only miracles the
Charismatics can speak of are those rumoured to happen on trips to
Mexico or some faraway place.  Major miracles are making some old
woman's arthritis feel better on Sunday morning T.V.
And the gods, including Jesus, are always shrouded in
ancient lore and writings, protected from the skeptics in their
sacred pasts.  They are either dead, sleeping, or hiding in
heaven, with people rumouring about their imminent return and
their great miracles of days long gone.  Yet, life goes on.
Tales of mystics, stories of miracles-- all in a distant time
or a distant place.  Gods used to reveal themselves to men in the
old days, Jehovah too.  But, now they are silent.  All the
theologians give are various excuses as to why we don't get to see
God anymore.
We're too lazy; we're not zealous enough; we're
sinful; it's just his "plan"; we put too many of our
own demands on G'd's appearance; if we had the right
faith, if we  were willing to meet G'd on his terms...
Yet, even the most pious of men have not seen G'd.  You, dear
reader, have not seen G'd.  Not literally, you know that to be
true. (I know that's presumptuous and bold.  But, searching your
heart, you know what I mean.)  All that we've seen religions do is
make people feel good and content about not seeing G'd.  They say
our little faith does not merit us to see G'd.  Sometimes, they
say, "See the love in these people you worship with... see the
lives of people change... that is seeing G'd."   Thus people get
lulled to sleep, satisfied with turning G'd into the everyday
sights.   But, that is not seeing G'd as I am speaking of... it is
not seeing G'd the way people used to see.
What we see in the world that is good, is the compassion of
human hearts, the love given and taken by men and women, the
forgiveness practised by Christian & Atheist alike, beauty created
by the mind of man.  These are the things that are done; these are
what we see.  But, it is said this is so only because everybody
has little faith.

Jesus Rides on
an Ass:
Shortly after accepting the role of the Jewish messiah
king, Jesus requests a donkey be brought in for him to ride into
Jerusalem.
[Mt 21.5]  This took place to fulfil what was spoken
by the prophet, saying,
Tell the daughter of Zion, "Behold, your king is
coming to you, humble, mounted on an ass, and on a
ass-colt."
Of course, the passage quoted from Zechariah 9.9 reads a little
differently.
Lo, your king comes to you; he is triumphant and
victorious, humble, and riding on an ass, on an ass-
colt... he will command peace to the nations.
There isn't all that much difference here, except that Zechariah
only involves one animal  --an ass-colt--  while Matthew reads the
poetic wording slightly differently.  Thus, he has Jesus call for
both a colt and an adult ass.  From Matthew's version, we get a
comical picture of the divine Christ sweating it to straddle two
donkeys.  This could inevitably lead to a theological,
proctological dilemma!   We find that in the account written
earlier by St. Mark, only the colt was called for and brought to
Jesus.  This indeed fits the verses of Zechariah properly, and
shows us that in Matthew attempt to use prophetic verses, he has
bungled.  Now, excluding many respectable Christians I have met, I
have noticed that while Christ is thought to have ridden on asses,
the situation is often reversed nowadays...
Then, entering the Jerusalem temple, the priests were
angered at people and youngsters calling Jesus the messiah.  But,
Jesus replied as we might expect Matthew to have done,
[Mt 21.16]  Haven't you read?  `Out of the mouth of
babes and sucklings thou has brought perfect praise.'
It is more likely that Matthew made this response up since Jesus
was never one to point out such little "prophetic" things AND
since, as we might expect, the quote is in error, which seems to
fit Matthew's track record quite well.  We might ask Jesus or
Matthew, "Haven't you read?" for the source reads,
[Psalms 8.1-2]  O YaHWeH our lord, how majestic is
your name in the whole world!   You, whose glory is
chanted above the heavens by babes and infants, you
have founded a bulwark against your foes to still the
enemy and the avenger.
The passages hardly need comment.  There is no "perfect praise"
spoken of in the psalm, and what praise is there is given to G'd,
not his messiah king, and not Jesus.  As mentioned, it seems to be
just one more case of Matthew's pen making up convenient prophetic
scripture.
YHVH said to
my lord...:
Jesus is said to have asked from whom the promised Jewish
messiah-king is to be descended.  The Jews agree-- it is king
David.  But, then Jesus counters by quoting Psalms 110,
"The LORD said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until
I put your enemies under your feet."
Taken at face value, Jesus is denying the necessity of Davidic
descent.  One assumes he is in opposition to their answer.  Of
course, the Christian answer is that he agrees, but is trying to
make some hidden point, to reveal some mystery about the divine
nature of the messiah-king.  It's tempting to believe this, if one
is a Christian and not interested in matters of investigation.
But, there are problems.
In Jesus's time, the psalm was thought to be about the
messiah.  And, it is easy to see why David might refer to the
messiah as his superior.  We need only look at the scriptures
about the messiah to see that he is expected to be a great king,
bringing the Jews to times even better than those under David's
rule.  Of course, the Jews listening had no good answer, and the
passage could indeed refer to a divine messiah, such as the
Christians worship.  The problem lies in the meaning of this
psalm, an error that apparently several Jews of Jesus's time had
also made.  One must remember that there were various factions
among the Jews, often as a result of different expectations of the
messiah-king.  Jesus was apparently one of these adventists, like
his audience, who thought the messiah's advent was imminent, and
who interpreted Psalms 110, among others, as being messianic.
What is the problem, then?  Psalm 110 literally reads,
YHVH's utterance to my lord:
"Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your
footstool."
YHVH sends forth your mighty scepter from Zion.  Rule
in the midst of your foes!  Your people will offer
themselves freely on the day you lead your host on the
holy mountains.
"You are a priest of the order of Melchizedek
forever."
The word "lord" is often mistakenly capitalised by Christian
bibles to denote divinity in this lord.  But, in the Hebrew, the
word is "adoni," and no capitalisation exists.  Adoni simply means
"lord," a generic term as we would use it.  It is used often in
the scriptures to refer to kings and to G'd.  It is merely an
address of respect.
There is nothing in the text itself to imply that the word
refers either to divinity or to the messiah-king.  That this is
supposed to be written by David is not certain.  The title of the
psalm translates to either "a psalm of David," or "a psalm about
David."  It seems fitting to assume it to be written by a court
poet, about David's covenant and endorsement from G'd.  If the
psalm had been written by David, it is unlikely that he would be
talking about the messiah.  The idea of a perfect king, descended
from David, was not present in David's age.  We have extensive
tales of David's doings and sayings-- none of which include any
praises of a messiah.
Many of the psalms show evidence of being written long after
David was dead, in times of the exile when G'd had put his show of
favour for David's kingdom on hold.
The description in the psalm fit David very well.  David was
promised by G'd a rise to power, victory over his enemies,
successful judgement among the nations he conquered.  He achieved
the priesthood common to Melchizedek in being a righteous king,
enabled to bless the people.   It all fits.
We do not have to blame this problem on Matthew alone,
though.  Here, there is not artificial prophecy alluded to, though
his use of the scripture is rather questionable.  Still, this
event is common to the other gospels too.  So, we let Matthew off
a little more easily this time.  It is interesting to note,
though, how Matthew dresses up the event.  The earlier gospel of
Mark tells the tale with Jesus simply speaking to a crowd.
Matthew has the Pharisees, who became the religious competition of
an infant Christianity, be the target of Jesus's question.  As we
might expect, Matthew writes that the event ends up by
embarrassing the Pharisees.  Such power is the pen.
Moses & Jesus,
Had it Together
All Along...:
We leave the gospel story of Matthew momentarily to see a
pseudo-prophecy in John's gospel.  The gospel story of John
deserves special treatment, because it seems to be so far removed
from the real events of Jesus's career as told by even Matthew.
But, for the moment, we will just look at one verse.  The early
church leaders founded a religion on the Jewish hopes of a messiah
king, and on an artificial extension of the original promises made
by G'd.  When constructing the history of Abraham, Moses wrote of
a promise of land and nationhood to the Jewish people.  While this
was accomplished eventually, under the rule of king David, the
Christians who came along later decided that they would claim the
fulfillment of the promise.  But, to do so, they expanded on the
promise, preaching about a heavenly kingdom.
[John 8.56] (J.C. speaking) Your father, Abraham,
rejoiced to see My day.  He say it and was glad.
It would be nice to tie in approval for Jesus from Abraham, but,
Abraham knew nothing of Jesus or a messiah, or anything Christian.
I have tried, and failed to find any event in the Old Testament
which corresponds to John's little prophecy.  It is par for the
course to see St. John making up Old Testament backings, just like
his forerunner Matthew.  Many Christians know that their faith has
many of its foundations in such fraud, and it is surprising they
still cling to it.
The Potter's
Field:
We are told that Jesus was betrayed while in Jerusalem by
one of his followers, Judas Iscariot.   Matthew writes,
[Mt 27.5-10]  And throwing down the pieces of silver
in the temple, [Judas] departed... But, the chief
priests, taking the silver, said, "It isn't lawful for
us to put it in the treasury, since it is blood
money."  So they... bought a potter's field with it to
bury strangers in... Then was fulfilled what was
spoken by the prophet Jeremiah,
"And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price
of him on whom a price had been set by some of the
sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's
field, as the lord directed me."
This prophecy is an utterly gross bastardisation of Old Testament
Scripture.  First, Matthew has made a mistake regarding the name
of the prophet.  It is Zechariah who utters the verses which
Matthew makes use of.
[Zech. 11.12-13]  ...And they weighed out my wages,
thirty shekels of silver.  Then YHVH said to me, "Cast
them to the treasury," --the lordly price at which I
was paid off by them.  So I took the thirty shekels of
silver and cast them into the treasury in the house of
YHVH.
First of all, the verses of Zechariah do not deal with a betrayer
of the messiah, or of G'd.  The deal with a shepherd, most likely
a priest, chosen to serve a function of presiding over the people
shortly before G'd would send Judah and Israel into conflict with
one another.  The word, "treasury," had been replaced by the King
James Scholars with "to the potter," precisely because this made
Matthew's quote fit better.  But, this is a blatant error.  The
correct translation of the Hebrew is indeed "treasury," which also
makes perfect sense in Zechariah's context, whereas "potter's
field" is totally unrelated.  Whether the mistranslation was
intentional or not seems to be beyond speculation.  However, given
Matthew's track record, one finds it hard to resist the notion of
intentional dishonesty.
Of course, Matthew would have ample reason for altering the
text.  The thirty pieces of silver match Judas's situation, and if
as most Christians seem to be, the reader is willing to disregard
the contextual incongruity, Matthew might have another prophecy to
toss around.  However, the correct translation of Zechariah
directly contradicts the situation with Judas and the high
priests.  The high priests would not put the money in the
treasury.  The worthless shepherd of Zechariah does exactly the
opposite!  Of course, to the average Thursday-Night Bible student,
the "prophecy" as presented by Matthew would be taken at New
Testament face value.  To those, Matthew's work is convincing
enough.
Wine, Vinegar,
& Casting Lots:
Then, Jesus is led away to be crucified.
[Mt 27.34-35]  ...they gave him vinegar to drink,
mingled with gall; but when he tasted it, he would not
drink it.  And, when they had crucified him, they
divided his garments among them by casting lots: that
it might be fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet,
"They parted my garments among them, and upon my
vesture did they cast lots."
First of all, the vinegar offered to Jesus is actually common sour
wine, of the type that Roman soldiers drank regularly.  We find
that right before Jesus dies, the soldiers themselves give him
some to drink --not polluted with gall.
[Jn 19.28-30]  Jesus... said, "I thirst."  A bowl of
vinegar stood there, so they put a sponge full of the
vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth.  When he
had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished;"
But, Matthew seems to be drawing on, not a passage from the
prophets, but one from the Psalms.
[Ps 69.20-28]  I looked for pity, but there was none;
and for comforters, but I found none.  They gave me
poison for food (lit. they put gall in my meat), and
for my thirst, they gave me vinegar to drink...  Add
to them punishment upon punishment, may they have no
acquittal from thee.  Let them be blotted out of the
Book of the Living.
Of course, the sour wine offered to Jesus is done at his request
of drink.  This does indeed seem to be a show of pity.  The psalm
quoted is about David and his political and military enemies.  It
is not about the messiah or Jesus.  It is then not surprising that
we run into further problem when we see that the "Jesus" in the
psalm asks G'd for the damnation of the "crucifiers," whereas the
Jesus of the gospels says,
[Lk 23.34]  Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, the
don't know what they do!"
Further, Matthew misses with his attempt to create prophecy by
having gall (a bitter substance) put into Jesus's drink, not his
meat, as the psalm stipulates.
With the "prophecy" of the vinegar faulty, we naturally
ask, "What of the casting of lots?"  This brings up the 22nd
Psalm, which deserves discussion all by itself.  Suffice it now to
say that the fact that Jesus's clothes were divided as told is no
great thing.  It turns out that this happened often to any felon
in those days.  As we will soon see, it is perhaps the least
erroneous passage of the psalm when applied to Jesus.  It does
indeed bring up the interesting question as to the quality of
Jesus's clothes.  For a man so removed from worldly possessions,
his ownership of clothes worthy of casting lots raises some
suspicions.
The 22nd Psalm:
This psalm is attributed to David, as a lament of his
condition under the attack of his enemies.  It becomes a song of
praise to YHVH and of hope.  Taken out of context, parts of it
seem to fit the plight of Jesus at the crucifixion quite well.  We
will examine the primary passages.
Verse 1-2:  My god, my god! why have you forsaken me?!
Why are you so far from helping me, far from the words
of my groaning?  Oh, my god, I cry by day, but you
don't answer, and by night, but find no rest.
Jesus is said to have cried the first sentence while on the cross.
This suggests that the whole psalm is really about Jesus, rather
than king David.  Of course, the rest of the first stanza does not
fit as nicely to Jesus or his execution.  Jesus is not pictured as
complaining about the whole ordeal, he is supposed to be like "the
lamb led mute before its shearers."  Indeed, Jesus doesn't do much
groaning, even when on the cross.  He certainly does not cry by
both day and night on the cross.
6-8:  But, I am a worm, and no man-- scorned by men...
All who see me mock at me.  They make faces and wag
their heads;  "He committed his cause to YHVH.  So let
him deliver him... for he delights in him."
This seems to fit Jesus's execution pretty well, with the
exception of the Holy messiah being called a worm.
12-13:  Many bulls encompass me... they open their
mouths widely at me like a ravening and roaring lion.
16-18:  Yea, dogs are round about me, a company of
evildoers encir-cle me, they have pierced my hands and
feet.  I can see all my bones... They divide my
garments among them, and cast lost for my raiment.
19-21:  But you, YHVH, be not far away!  ...Deliver my
soul from the sword, my life from the power of the
dog!  Save me from the mouth of the lion, and my
afflicted soul from the horns of the wild bull!
It would seem quite convincing, and I'm sure the early Christian
fathers who wrote of this prophecy thought so too.  Unfortunately,
this prophecy has a fatal flaw.  The words "have pierced" really
do not exist in the psalm.  The correct Hebrew translation is,
16:  Yea, dogs are round about me, a company of
evildoers encircles me, like the lion, they are at my
hands and feet...
In Hebrew the phrase "like the lion" and a very rare verb form
which can mean "pierced" differ by one phonetic character.  The
word in the Hebrew text is literally, "like the lion" (ka'ari),
which makes sense in the context, and even further fits the animal
imagery employed by the psalm writer.  It is convenience that
would urge a Christian to change the word to "ka'aru."   But, to
add the needed (yet artificial) weight to the "prophecy" this is
just what the Christian translators have chosen to do.  While the
correct translation does not eliminate the psalm from referring to
Jesus, its absence does not say much for the honesty of the
translators.
Apart from the erroneous verse 16, the psalm does not lend
itself to Jesus so easily.  Verse 20 speaks of the sufferer being
saved from a sword rather than a cross.  This naturally fits the
psalm's true subject, king David.  As a side note, we now know
that crucifixions did not pierce the hands, the palms, but rather
the forearms.  This doesn't say much in favour of the traditional
thought of a resurrected Jesus showing his disciples the scars on
his palms.  But then, facts aren't bound by our religious beliefs.
Matthew escapes culpability this time, as he does not
attempt to draw many direct links between this psalm and his lord
Jesus.  But the psalm, like many others, was on the minds of all
the gospel writers when they compiled the stories and
interpretations of Jesus's life and death.  How much these
scriptures may have contributed to what actually got written down
is a question that has serious repercussions for Christian
theology.  It is easy to see, for those who are not faithful
fundamentalists, how some of the events in the New Testament might
have been "enhanced" by scribes such as the eager Matthew.  But,
it does less to speculate than to simply investigate scriptural
matters and prophetic claims.  So far, this has not said good
things for St. Matthew.
The reference to the piercing looks a lot like Jesus's
crucifixion.  John's gospel recount, written about 70 years after
the fact, tells us at Jesus's execution,
[Jn 19.34,37]  But one of the soldiers pierced his
side with a spear, and out came blood and water...
these things took place that Scripture be fulfilled...
"The will look on him whom they've pierced."
Of course, this is built on a passage taken blatantly out of
context.   Prophet Zechariah tells us how much of the nation of
Israel will split off from Jerusalem and Judah and go to war with
them.
[Zc 12.7-10]  And YHVH will give victory to Judah...
And on that day, I will seek to destroy the nations
that come against Jerusalem (in Judah).  And I will
pour a spirit of compassion and supplication... on
Jerusalem so that when they look on him who they have
pierced, they will mourn, and weep bitterly over him
like you weep over a firstborn child.
John's attempt to make up prophecy is perhaps weaker that
Matthew's attempts.  Matthew, at least, usually excontexts more
than just one passage.  John's errors are grossly obvious and
blatant here.  It does not speak well for any of the gospel
writers, as it helps to show how the prophetic aspects of their
religion were founded.

Reckoned with
Transgressors:
After his arrest, Jesus is quickly executed for claiming
the Jewish kingship, messiahship.   According to one version of
the gospel tale, Jesus gets executed along with two thieves.
[Mk 15.27]  And with him they crucified two robbers,
one on his right, one on his left.  And so the
scripture was fulfilled which says,
"He was reckoned with the transgressors."
Here, Mark is trying to link Jesus to a passage in Isaiah 53,
about the servant nation of Israel.  The passage is not about the
messiah, for if one reads the whole chapter of Isaiah 53, and its
surrounding chapters, one sees that the servant is a nation.  The
verses are also about what this servant has gone through in the
past, not a prediction of what is to come, in any event.  The
servant is thought of as a criminal.  This also happens to fit the
description of Jesus.  Had the passage really been about the
messiah, it still is not at all clear why executing Jesus between
two thieves would fulfill the "prophecy" in Isaiah.  Jesus would
more fittingly fulfill it with his whole ministry.  He was
considered a blasphemer and troublemaker all throughout his
career.   Locking onto a single event is a rather poor way to
steal prophecy, at least in this case, as we see that Mark could
have had made a better analogy with general comparisons.
Mark goes on to tell us how "those who were crucified with
[Jesus] also reviled him." [15.32]  This is to be expected from a
couple of robbers.  Of course in his later recount, St. Luke
decides to change some things.  Luke tells us,
[Lk 23.39-43]  And one of the criminals who was hanged
with him railed, "Aren't you the messiah?! Save
yourself, and us!"
This certainly fits with Mark's recount, which tells how the
people who crucified Jesus said, "Save yourself!" and that the
robbers did the same.  But then Luke goes on,
But the other [criminal] rebuked [the first] saying,
"Don't you fear G'd, since you are under the same
sentence of condemnation?  And we, indeed justly so,
for we are receiving the due reward for our deeds.
But, this man has done nothing wrong. And he said,
"Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom."
And Jesus answered, "Verily I say to you, today you
will be with me in paradise."
Now, this little dialogue seems highly contrived.  It stretches
the imagination a bit to see this picture of one ruffian rebuking
his fellow criminal with such eloquent speech.  We have a rather
strange picture of a criminal lamenting over the goodness of his
punishment and the justness of his suffering.   Such a man,
apparently noble and of principle, doesn't seem likely to have
been a robber.  We wonder at the amount of theatrics created by
Luke.  Of course, Luke's recount also disagrees with Mark's.
Luke has only one criminal revile Jesus, not both.  It is easy
enough to discount the discrepancy because the account was made
up, but those who wish to believe it is all part of the error free
words of G'd do not have this avenue open.  This is yet another
example of a writer trying to take an Old Testament passage and
expand it and reinterpret it to suit his theology.  In this case,
the embroidery creates some embarrassing problems, as we have
seen.
The End of the
World--
Mt. 24:
Now comes perhaps one of the most extraordinary and
embarrassing passages in the New Testament.  It is found in all
three of the synoptic gospel stories, and casts some of the most
unfavourable doubt on the whole theory of Christianity.  Jesus
mentions the destruction of the Jewish temples and buildings, and
his disciples ask him about this, and about the end of the world
which he has been warning about.
The disciples: Tell us, when will this [the temple's
destruction] be, and what will be the sign of your
coming, and of the close of the age?
Jesus: Take care that no one leads you astray, for
many will come in my name, saying, "I am the christ."
...you will hear of wars and rumours of wars... for
this must take place, but the end is not yet.   For,
nation will rise against nation... all this is but the
beginning of the birthpangs.
They will deliver you up... put you to death,
and false prophets will arise and lead many astray.
...But he who endures to the end will be saved.  This
gospel will be preached throughout the whole world, a
testimony to the nations, and then the end will come.
So, when you see the desolation spoken of by the
prophet Daniel, ...let those who are in Judea flee to
the mountains.
Immediately after the tribulation of those days,
the sun will be darkened... the stars will fall from
heaven... then will appear the sign of the Son of Man
in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn,
and see the Son of Man coming... and he will send out
his angels... and gather his elect...
Learn the lesson of the fig tree: as soon as its
branch becomes tender and puts forth leaves, you know
that summer is near.  So also, when you see all these
things, you will know that He is near, at the very
gate.  Truly I say to you, this generation will not
pass away until all these things take place...
But, of the day and hour, no one knows; not the
angels, not the Son, but only the Father... Therefore,
you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming
at an hour you do not expect.
From this, it is clear that Jesus thought the world would in
within the lifetimes of at least some of his disciples.  He tells
them that although he doesn't know the exact day or hour, that it
will come, and thus they must be ready.  Theologians have wet
their pants in panic to find some way out of this Holy Error.
But, unfortunately, Jesus made himself to explicit.  He told his
disciples that their generation would still be around at the End,
and that they in particular should prepare for it, prepare to be
swept away.
There have been some who resorted to removing the inerrant
nature of the Bible, and said that the phrase, "this generation
shall not pass away..." really means "this race of people will not
pass away..."  Of course, the word for generation is used many
times to refer to exactly that, the generation of the disciples.
It is an interesting notion that when God decided to learn Greek,
he didn't learn it well enough to make himself clear.  But. it is
quite obvious from the rest of the dialogue that the disciples (at
least some of them) are supposed to live to the End of the World.
The charge of mistranslation is completely blown away by looking
at the Apostles' responses.  It becomes abundantly clear from
Rev. 22.7, 1 Peter 4.7, 1 John 2.18, and Rev. 22.20, that Jesus
meant exactly what he said.  The End was very near.
For 2,000 years, Christians have rationalised this 24th
chapter of Matthew, or ignored its meaning altogether.  For 2,000
years, they have waited for their executed leader to come back,
hearing of wars, and rumours of wars, sure that He is coming soon.
Surely He must be.  All we must do is wait.  Can you imagine how
tired He must be, sitting around up there, being holy, waiting for
just the right moment to spring?
So, shortly after his crucifixion, Jesus of Nazareth,
(Joshua-ben-Joseph), died.   It is said that after three days, or
three days and three nights, or three periods of time, or three
eternal seconds --or three of whatever they can decide makes for
less trouble-- he was seen again, resurrected, glowing with divine
radiance.  Then the Saviour decided it wasn't in the best
interests of his new religion to stick around, and therefore
disappeared from sight into heaven.  So the story goes, anyway.
As has been seen, there were many things attributed to Jesus when
people got around to writing the gospel stories down.  To them,
Jesus was the fulfiller of all prophecy and scripture.  We have
seen, though, that this matter is quite shaky.  But, throughout
Church history, Christians have held fast to faith, in simple
belief.  What doctrinal objections could not be solved with
argumentation or brute force, faith and forgetfulness kept away
from question.  To question and investigate has never been the
easiest way to treat matters.  Thus for 2,000 years, the
prophecies cited in the New Testament have gone on largely
accepted.  Things may well continue that way for some time.
Pausing a moment to consider the way the doctrines of Christianity
have been accepted and used (properly or improperly) to support
wars and persecution, I suppose there is one prophecy of which
Christianity can securely keep hold.
[Mt 10.34]  Jesus: "Don't think that I have come to
bring peace on earth.  I haven't come to bring peace,
but rather a sword."
From: cbrasted@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Charles Brasted)
Subject: Re: some thoughts.
Organization: The University of Adelaide
Lines: 123
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: adelphi.itd.adelaide.edu.au
Keywords: Dan Bissell
bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
>	First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.  It
>makes sense to be one.  Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar,
>lunatic, or the real thing?  (I might be a little off on the title, but he
>writes the book.  Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity,
>in the process he became a Christian himself.
I assume you are posting to encourage comments - how much history has
Tony Campello read?  Not much it seems.
>	The arguements he uses I am summing up.  The book is about whether
>Jesus was God or not.  I know many of you don't believe, but listen to a
>different perspective for we all have something to gain by listening to what
>others have to say.
It is good to hear that there are a few reasonable Christians about.
If only those christian "scientists" would take note.
(In Australia there is a very strong movement, a bunch of christian
scientists who believe that every single event in the bible is exactly
true, and that there is a rational explanation for it all that can be justified
by using the laws of physics.  For example, there are a few chaps who are
trying to prove that the age of the universe is 6000 years old, and that the
error in conventional calculations is the result of the fact that the speed
light has been rapidly decaying over the years, and this has not been
accounted for. :-] )
>	The book says that Jesus was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a
>modern day Koresh) or he was actually who he said he was.
Or (of course), that he never existed, and the bible was a story, and was never
intended to become a manifesto for a billion people.  Did Tony follow that one
up?
>	Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows.  Who would
>die for a lie?  Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar?  People
>gathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing
>someone who was or had been healed.
Millions of people have "died for a lie".  This  point is difficult to
substantiate since it is not well defined (a great many religious arguments
work in that way), but consider the many Aztec warriors who sacrificed
themselves to their gods in the belief that this act would bring them victory
of the Spanish invaders.  The list is endless.  The Aztecs lost, BTW.
>Call me a fool, but I believe he did heal people.
That is perfectly reasonable, but it is not grounds for me (or anyone)
to become a christian.  More to the point, it does not add weight to
the claim that Jesus was the "real thing".
>	Niether was he a lunatic.  Would more than an entire nation be drawn
>to someone who was crazy.  Very doubtful, in fact rediculous.  For example
>anyone who is drawn to David Koresh is obviously a fool, logical people see
>this right away.
Have you ever seen a documentary about the rise of Nazi Germany?  More to the
point, did Tony mention this?  One could hardly call Werner Heisenberg and his
many colleagues  fools, or  illogical men, their support of Hitler was based
(I presume) upon an emotional issue rather than a rational agreement with
his principles.  Obviously my argument is invalid if Tony thought that Hitler
was sane....
>	Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the
>real thing.
Hmmm.... I don't think his arguments warrant the use of a "Therefore..."
>	Some other things to note.  He fulfilled loads of prophecies in
>the psalms, Isaiah and elsewhere in 24 hrs alone.  This in his betrayal
>and Crucifixion.  I don't have my Bible with me at this moment, next time I
>write I will use it.
This is (unfortunately) what alot of religious discussions I have had with
people result in - quoting the bible.  The only reasonable way I think
people can look at the bible is to treat the stories as some sort of
metaphorical representation of the messages that the authors were trying to
present.  If someone tries to interpret parts of the bible literally, he or
she will end up in all sorts of shit.
Tony's argument would be perfectly reasonable for people who believe
the events described in the bible took place, but to convince someone,
who thinks the bible is total fiction, that Jesus is real by quoting the
book is totally pointless.  For example, in mathematics you cannot say "a is
equal to b because a is equal to b".
>	I don't think most people understand what a Christian is.
That would possibly explain why there have so many people being killed
in religious wars, and why there are hundreds of different versions all
claiming to be correct.
It
>is certainly not what I see a lot in churches.  Rather I think it
>should be a way of life, and a total sacrafice of everything for God's
>sake.  He loved us enough to die and save us so we should do the
>same.  Hey we can't do it, God himself inspires us to turn our lives
>over to him.  That's tuff and most people don't want to do it, to be a
>real Christian would be something for the strong to persevere at.  But
>just like weight lifting or guitar playing, drums, whatever it takes
>time.  We don't rush it in one day, Christianity is your whole life.
>It is not going to church once a week, or helping poor people once in
>a while.  We box everything into time units.  Such as work at this
>time, sports, Tv, social life.  God is above these boxes and should be
>carried with us into all these boxes that we have created for
>ourselves.
I think if you posted this part to alt.religion you would get more flames
than here :-).  I have never really understood why the emotional sentiments
of a stranger should be of interest to other people.
Someone famous said that there two evils in life, polititians and churchs, one
rules by fear of the living, the other by fear of the dead.  If I am pressed I
could probably find the exact quotation.
Cheers,
Charles.
From: Steve_Mullins@vos.stratus.com
Subject: Re: Bible Quiz
Organization: Stratus Computer, Marlboro Ma.
Lines: 20
NNTP-Posting-Host: m72.eng.stratus.com
In article <1993Apr16.130430.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu> kellyb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu wrote:
>In article <kmr4.1563.734805744@po.CWRU.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>>    Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible.
>>
>     Since when does atheism mean trashing other religions?There must be a God
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     of inbreeding to which you are his only son.
a) I think that he has a rather witty .sig file.  It sums up a great
deal of atheistic thought (IMO) in one simple sentence.
b) Atheism isn't an "other religion".
sm
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Steve_Mullins@vos.stratus.com    () "If a man empties his purse into his
My opinions <> Stratus' opinions ()   head, no one can take it from him
------------------------------   ()   ---------------Benjamin Franklin
From: vdp@mayo.edu (Vinayak Dutt)
Subject: Re:  Islam And Scientific Predictions (was
Reply-To: vdp@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Foundation/Mayo Graduate School :Rochester, MN
Lines: 53
In article H9r@ra.nrl.navy.mil,  khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes:
##I strongly suggest that you look up a book called THE BIBLE, THE QURAN, AND
##SCIENCE by Maurice Baucaille, a French surgeon.  It is not comprehensive,
##but, it is well researched.  I imagine your library has it or can get it
##for you through interlibrary loan.
##
I shall try to get hold of it (when I have time to read of course :-)
##In short, Dr Baucaille began investigating the Bible because of pre-
##ceived scientific inaccuracies and inconsistencies.  He assumed that
##some of the problems may have been caused by poor translations in by-
##gone days.  So, he read what he could find in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic.
##What he found was that the problems didn't go away, they got worse.
##Then, he decided to see if other religions had the same problems.
##So, he picked up the Holy Qur'an (in French) and found similar prob-
##lems, but not as many.  SO, he applied the same logoic as he had
##with the Bible: he learned to read it in Arabic.  The problems he
##had found with the French version went away in Arabic.  He was unable
##to find a wealth of scientific statements in the Holy Qur'an, but,
##what he did find made sense with modern understanding.  So, he
##investigated the Traditions (the hadith) to see what they had to
##say about science.  they were filled with science problems; after
##all, they were contemporary narratives from a time which had, by
##pour standards, a primitive world view.  His conclusion was that,
##while he was impressed that what little the Holy Qur'an had to
##say about science was accurate, he was far more impressed that the
##Holy Qur'an did not contain the same rampant errors evidenced in
##the Traditions.  How would a man of 7th Century Arabia have known
##what *not to include* in the Holy Qur'an (assuming he had authored
##it)?
##
So in short the writer (or writers) of Quran decided to stay away from
science.  (if you do not open your mouth, then you don't put you foot into
your mouth either).
But then if you say Quran does not talk much about science, then one can
not make claims (like Bobby does) that you have great science in Quran.
Basically I want to say that *none* of the religious texts are supposed to
be scientific treatises. So I am just requesting the theists to stop making
such wild claims.
--- Vinayak
-------------------------------------------------------
vinayak dutt
e-mail: vdp@mayo.edu
standard disclaimers apply
-------------------------------------------------------
From: b711zbr@utarlg.uta.edu (JUNYAN WANG)
Subject: Bible contradictions
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Nntp-Posting-Host: utarlg.uta.edu
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Lines: 2
I would like a list of Bible contadictions from those of you who dispite
being free from Christianity are well versed in the Bible.
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 33
In article <C5L1Ey.Jts@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>In <11825@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>
>
>>  Actually, my atheism is based on ignorance.  Ignorance of the
>>  existence of any god.  Don't fall into the "atheists don't believe
>>  because of their pride" mistake.
>
>How do you know it's based on ignorance, couldn't that be wrong? Why would it
>be wrong
>to fall into the trap that you mentioned?
>
If I'm wrong, god is free at any time to correct my mistake.  That
he continues not to do so, while supposedly proclaiming his
undying love for my eternal soul, speaks volumes.
As for the trap, you are not in a position to tell me that I don't
believe in god because I do not wish to.  Unless you can know my
motivations better than I do myself, you should believe me when I
say that I earnestly searched for god for years and never found
him.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: william.vaughan@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (WILLIAM DANIEL VAUGHAN)
Subject: Re: A silly question on x-tianity
Lines: 9
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
In article <pww-120493020107@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) writes:
>From: pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker)
>Subject: Re: A silly question on x-tianity
>Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1993 07:06:33 GMT
>In article <1qaqi1INNgje@gap.caltech.edu>, werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew
>Tong) wrote:
>>
so what
From: L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham)
Subject: Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Lines: 54
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Umar Khan (khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil) wrote:
>I strongly suggest that you look up a book called THE BIBLE, THE QURAN, AND
>SCIENCE by Maurice Baucaille, a French surgeon.  It is not comprehensive,
>  He was unable
>to find a wealth of scientific statements in the Holy Qur'an, but,
>what he did find made sense with modern understanding.  So, he
>investigated the Traditions (the hadith) to see what they had to
>say about science.  they were filled with science problems; after
>all, they were contemporary narratives from a time which had, by
>pour standards, a primitive world view.  His conclusion was that,
>while he was impressed that what little the Holy Qur'an had to
>say about science was accurate, he was far more impressed that the
>Holy Qur'an did not contain the same rampant errors evidenced in
>the Traditions.  How would a man of 7th Century Arabia have known
>what *not to include* in the Holy Qur'an (assuming he had authored
>it)?
This book is worth a read to get a sensible view of this issue.
The book is in two sections.  Section 1 contains a fairly reasonable
analysis of the Bible, showing many inconsistencies between the Bible
and modern science.  Well we all know that, no surprises.
Section 2 analyses the Koran's version of the Old Testament stories,
and seems, on the face of it, to present a good case showing the Koran
is consistent with modern science.  However, it was plain to me, that
this consistency was only possible by the vague phraseology of the
Koran.  Take the flood, for example, the bible is full of detail,
("forty days and forty nights", "pair of every animal", etc.), we all
know this is nonsense.  The Koran's description of the same event is
so obscure as to make possible an interpretation such as "A big river
flooded for a few days and caused much damage".  Yes, no contradiction
but also not much fact.
The Koran might be consistent with modern science, but being
consistent due to its vagueness compared with other books of that
time, does not seem much of an achievement.
The book concludes by saying something like, the Koran must have had
divine inspiration because at the time it was written there were a lot
of (to us now) ridiculous ideas about the universe, and none of them
can be found in the Koran!  Arguing for the greatness of a book by
talking about what it does not contain seems absurd in the extreme.
The above is, of course, from memory so I may have missed some points.
--
Leonard               e-mail:  L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk
From: ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray)
Subject: Re: The Bible and Abortion
Organization: Louisiana Tech University
Lines: 38
Distribution: world,local
NNTP-Posting-Host: ee02.engr.latech.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
James J. Lippard (lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu) wrote:
: Exodus 21:22-25:
:        22 And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with
:           child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further
:           injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may
:           demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.
:        23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint
:           as a penalty life for life,
:        24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
:        25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
: The most straightforward interpretation of these verses is that if
: men in a fight strike a woman and cause her to miscarry, the penalty
: is only a fine.  If, however, the woman is injured or dies, the
: *lex talionis* doctrine of "an eye for an eye" applies.  This is the
: Jewish interpretation, and is supported by Jewish commentaries on
: these verses.
:    This is quite an embarrassment for pro-lifer Christians, so there is
: of course an alternate explanation.  The alternative interprets the
: word "miscarriage" to mean "premature birth"--i.e., the child is born
: alive--and "further injury" to mean injury to either the woman or
: the fetus.  This is not a straightforward interpretation, it is not
: (so far as I know) supported by any Jewish commentaries, and it does
: not appeared to be supported by any other part of the Bible.
What if any, historical reference do we have to abortion at this time?  Did
the ancient Jew have appropriate reference to understand abortion? (I am
truly asking, not making a point veiled as a question).  If there is
little understanding of the medical procedure we know as abortion, it is
not surprising the Bible makes little reference to it, as it makes little
reference to nuclear power and contamination.
While your interpretation is a reasonable one, I see no reason to reject
the other out of hand.  The King Jimmy translation says "if there is no
further mischief."  This does not necessarily imply to the woman.  I know
if my wife we expecting and someone cause her to spontaneously abort, we
would feel that a life was truly taken, not simply a process halted.
Organization: Penn State University
From: <JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!!
Lines: 2
YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!!  BE
PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!!
From:  ()
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
Nntp-Posting-Host: nstlm66
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 21
In article <115561@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) wrote:
>Khomeini advocates the view that
> there was a series of twelve Islamic leaders (the Twelve Imams) who
> are free of error or sin. This makes him a heretic.
>
Wow, you're quicker to point out heresy than the Church in the
Middle ages. Seriously though, even the Sheiks at Al-Azhar don't
claim that the Shi'ites are heretics. Most of the accusations
and fabrications about Shi'ites come out of Saudi Arabia from the
Wahabis. For that matter you should read the original works of
the Sunni Imams (Imams of the four madhabs). The teacher of
at least two of them was Imam Jafar Sadiq (the sixth Imam of the
Shi'ites).
Although there is plenty of false propaganda floating around
about the Shi'ites (esp. since the revolution), there are also
many good works by Shi'ites which present the views and teachings
of their school. Why make assumptions and allegations (like
people in this group have done about Islam in general) about Shi'ites.
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: note to Bobby M., again
Nntp-Posting-Host: nin
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Lines: 30
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: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: ISLAM: a clearer view
Lines: 25
Organization: Walla Walla College
Lines: 25
In article <16BAFC876.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
>Subject: Re: ISLAM: a clearer view
>Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 13:15:18 GMT
>In article <healta.60.734567658@saturn.wwc.edu>
>healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes:
>
>>>Sorry, it is generally accepted that the rise of the inquisition is
>>>the reason why torture was introduced outside the Romanic countries
>>>at the end of the Middle Ages. In other words, the Holy Mother Church
>>>which is lead infallibly by the Holy Ghost has spread it.
>>
>>The Roman Catholic Church claims to be lead by the "infallable" pope.
>>That's why she (the RC Church) has done so many wicked things to Xtians and
>>non-believers alike.
>
>
>The rationale that the pope speaking ex cathedra is infallible is based
>on the claim above. The dogma about the pope is of Jesuitic origin and
>has not been been accepted before the mid of the last century.
>   Benedikt
You're right.  Thanks for enlightening me.
Tammy
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Cannanite genocide in the Bible
Lines: 6
Organization: Walla Walla College
Lines: 6
excuse me for my ignorance. But I remember reading once that the
Biblical tribe known as the Philistines still exists...they are the modern
day Palestinians.
Anyone out there with more info, please post it!!!
Tammy
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: getting to the point!
Lines: 12
Organization: Walla Walla College
Lines: 12
To all a.a readers:
I have been asked be several of you to post a list of the SDA Church's
27 Fundamental beliefs.  I warn you now, it's a long list.  However, I'll
post it on Sunday.  Sabbath is coming up soon so I won't be reading on
Saturday.  And I don't have time to do it now.
I would GREATLY appreciate it if you would keep me in touch with what's
going on.
I hope all of you have a reastful and relaxing weekend.  I hope it's
the best one so far!!
Tammy
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 16
In article <115288@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) wrote:
> He'd have to be precise about is rejection of God and his leaving Islam.
> One is perfectly free to be muslim and to doubt and question the
> existence of God, so long as one does not _reject_ God. I am sure that
> Rushdie has be now made his atheism clear in front of a sufficient
> number of proper witnesses. The question in regard to the legal issue
> is his status at the time the crime was committed.
Gregg, so would you consider that Rushdie would now be left alone,
and he could have a normal life? In other words, does Islam support
the notion of forgiving?
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 19
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: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Objective morality (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 14
In article <1qlf7gINN8sn@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith
Allan Schneider) wrote:
> Which type of morality are you talking about?  In a natural sense, it
> is not at all immoral to harm another species (as long as it doesn't
> adversely affect your own, I guess).
Hehehe, so you say, but this objective morality somehere tells you
that this is not the case, and you don't know all the rules of such
transcendental game systems...
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Free Moral Agency and Kent S.
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 19
In article <healta.140.734925835@saturn.wwc.edu>, healta@saturn.wwc.edu
(Tammy R Healy) wrote:
> At the time Ezekiel was written, Israel was in apostacy again and if I'm not
> mistaken, Tyre was about to make war on Israel.  Like I said, the Prince of
> Tyre was the human ruler of Tyre.  He was a wicked man.  By calling Satan
> the King of Tyre, Ezekiel was saying that Satan is the real ruler over Tyre.
Tammy, is this all explicitly stated in the bible, or do you assume
that you know that Ezekiel indirectly mentioned? It could have been
another metaphor, for instance Ezekiel was mad at his landlord, so he
talked about him when he wrote about the prince of Tyre.
Sorry, but my interpretation is more mundane, Ezekiel wrote about
the prince of Tyre when we wrote about the prince of Tyre.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: dewey@risc.sps.mot.com (Dewey Henize)
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic.religion (Was: Why ALT.atheism?)
Organization: Motorola, Inc. -- Austin,TX
Lines: 33
NNTP-Posting-Host: thug.sps.mot.com
In article <93103.071613J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>Standard groups (sci, soc, talk) must conform to stricter rules when being
>established and must show a certain volume of postings or else they will
>cease to exist.  These groups also reach more sites on USENET than alt
>groups.  I already posted my opinion to mathew's suggestion, which was that
>alt.atheism is on the verge of having too many garbage postings from
>fundies, and "elevating" its status to a standard group (and consequently,
>the volume of such postings) could make it unreadable.
I tend to agree.  I came here when it first started and watched it grow
from the roots on talk.religion.misc.  It seemed to take a while for enough
atheists to come forward to get past the "Let's trash Xians" and such.
Now there's a stable core, and frankly there's a feeling that this is
_our_ group.
If we go mainstream, we're going to be in a lot more places.  And every
fucking fundy loonie freshman will be dumping on us to find Jeesus! and
warn us that we're all going to Hell.
Want to see what we'll get?  Go real alt.fan.brother-jed and imagine that
those imbecilic tirades will be here.  All the time.  Every other post.
I'm being selfish.  I find I really learn a lot here and the S/N isn't too
bad.  The Browns and the Boobys are a distraction, but they are few enough
that they even bring in some of the leavening needed to offset them.  But
I greatly fear that mainstreaming would basically put us at the swamping
level of the Conners of the world.
Regards,
Dew
--
Dewey Henize Sys/Net admin RISC hardware (512) 891-8637 pager 928-7447 x 9637
From: dewey@risc.sps.mot.com (Dewey Henize)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
Organization: Motorola, Inc. -- Austin,TX
Lines: 43
NNTP-Posting-Host: rtfm.sps.mot.com
Is it just me, or has this part gotten beyond useful?
Gregg is not, as I understand his posts, giving any support to the bounty
on Rushdie's life.  If that's correct, end of one point...
Gregg is using the concept of legal in a way most Westerners don't accept.
His comments about Islamic Law I think make a great deal of sense to him,
and are even making a _little_ sense to me now - if a person is a member
of a group (religion or whatever) they bind themselves to follow the ways
of the group within the bounds of what the group requires as a minimum.
The big bone of contention here that I'm picking up is that in the West
we have secular governments that maintain, more or less, a level of control
and of requirements outside the requirements of optional groups.  I think
the majority of us reading this thread are in tune (note - I didn't say
"in agreement") with the idea that you are finally responsible to the
secular government,  and within that to the group or groups a person may
have chosen.
With that in mind, it not possible under secular law ("legally" as most
people would define the term) to hold a person to a particular group once
they decide to separate from it.  Only if the secular authorities agree
that there is a requirement of some sort (contractual, etc) is there
any secular _enforcement_ allowed by a group to a group member or past
group member.
A religion can, and often does, believe in and require additional duties
of a group member.  And it can enforce the fulfillment of those duties
in many ways - ostracism is common for example.  But the limit comes when
the enforcement would impose unwanted and/or unaccepted onus on a person
_in conflict with secular law_.
This is the difference.  In a theocracy, the requirements of the secular
authorities are, by definition, congruent with the religious authorities.
Outside a theocracy, this is not _necessarily_ true.  Religious requirements
_may_ coincide or may not.  Similiarly, religious consequences _may_ or
may not coincide with secular consequences (if any).
Regards,
Dew
--
Dewey Henize Sys/Net admin RISC hardware (512) 891-8637 pager 928-7447 x 9637
From: dewey@risc.sps.mot.com (Dewey Henize)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
Organization: Motorola, Inc. -- Austin,TX
Lines: 48
NNTP-Posting-Host: rtfm.sps.mot.com
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: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Nicknames
Summary: was Re: New Member
Organization: Salvation Army Draft Board
Lines: 36
In article <UfnYJ2a00VoqIT9VpA@andrew.cmu.edu> nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nanci Ann Miller) writes:
>jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>> Welcome.  I am the official keeper of the list of nicknames that people
>> are known by on alt.atheism (didn't know we had such a list, did you).
>> Your have been awarded the nickname of "Buckminster."  So the next time
>> you post an article, sign with your nickname like so:
>> Dave "Buckminster" Fuller.  Thanks again.
>>
>> Jim "Humor means never having to say you're sorry" Copeland
>
>Of course, the list has to agree with the nickname laws laid down by the
>GIPU almost 2000 years ago (you know... the 9 of them that were written on
>the iron tablets that melted once and had to be reinscribed?).  Since I am
>a prophet of the GIPU I decree that you should post the whole list of
>nicknames for the frequent posters here!
If the first rule of humor is never having to say you're sorry then the
second rule must be never having to explain yourself.  Few things are
worse that a joke explained.  In spite of this, and because of requests
for me to post my list o' nicknames, I must admit that no such list
exists.  It was simply a plot device, along with me being the keeper
o' the list, to make the obvious play on the last name of Fuller and to
advance the idea that such a list should be made.
I assumed that the ol' timers would recognize it for what it is.
Nevertheless, how about a list o' nicknames for alt.atheism posters?
If you think of a good one, just post it and see if others like it.
We could start with those posters who annoy us the most, like Bobby or
Bill.
Jim "D'oh! I broke the second rule of humor" Copeland
--
If God is dead and the actor plays his part                    | -- Sting,
His words of fear will find their way to a place in your heart | History
Without the voice of reason every faith is its own curse       | Will Teach Us
Without freedom from the past things can only get worse        | Nothing
From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com
Subject: Re: Death Penalty / Gulf War
Lines: 128
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.
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Organization: Wesleyan University
Nntp-Posting-Host: wesleyan.edu
Lines: 28
In article <115621@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
> In article <1993Apr15.135650.28926@st-andrews.ac.uk> nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:
>
>>I don't think you're right about Germany.  My daughter was born there and
>>I don't think she has any German rights eg to vote or live there (beyond the
>>rights of all EC citizens).  She is a British citizen by virtue of
>>her parentage, but that's not "full" citizenship.  For example, I don't think
>>her children could be British by virtue of her in the same way.
>
> I am fairly sure that she could obtain citizenship by making an
> application for it. It might require immigration to Germany, but
> I am almost certain that once applied for citizenship is inevitable
> in this case.
Nope, Germany has extremely restrictive citizenship laws.  The
ethnic Germans who have lived in Russia for over 100 years
automatically become citizens if they move to Germany, but the
Turks who are now in their third generation in Germany can't.
It's not a very good example to show citizenship without descent.
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: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!!
In-Reply-To: 's message of Fri, 16 Apr 1993 15: 50:02 EDT
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp
Lines: 11
>>>>> 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: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
Lines: 17
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: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: An Anecdote about Islam
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
Lines: 117
In article <16BB112949.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>In article <115287@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>>>>>A brutal system filtered through "leniency" is not lenient.
>>>>Huh?
>>>How do you rate public floggings or floggings at all? Chopping off the
>>>hands, heads, or other body  parts? What about stoning?
>>I don't have a problem with floggings, particularly, when the offenders
>>have been given a chance to change their behavior before floggings are
>>given. I do have a problem with maiming in general, by whatever means.
>>In my opinion no-one who has not maimed another should be maimed. In
>>the case of rape the victim _is_ maimed, physically and emotionally,
>>so I wouldn't have a problem with maiming rapists. Obviously I wouldn't
>>have a problem with maiming murderers either.
>May I ask if you had the same opinion before you became a Muslim?
Sure. Yes, I did. You see I don't think that rape and murder should
be dealt with lightly. You, being so interested in leniency for
leniency's sake, apparently think that people should simply be
told the "did a _bad_ thing."
>And what about the simple chance of misjudgements?
Misjudgments should be avoided as much as possible.
I suspect that it's pretty unlikely that, given my requirement
of repeated offenses, that misjudgments are very likely.
>>>>>>"Orient" is not a place having a single character. Your ignorance
>>>>>>exposes itself nicely here.
>>>>>Read carefully, I have not said all the Orient shows primitive machism.
>>>>Well then, why not use more specific words than "Orient"? Probably
>>>>because in your mind there is no need to (it's all the same).
>>>Because it contains sufficient information. While more detail is possible,
>>>it is not necessary.
>>And Europe shows civilized bullshit. This is bullshit. Time to put out
>>or shut up. You've substantiated nothing and are blabbering on like
>>"Islamists" who talk about the West as the "Great Satan." You're both
>>guilty of stupidities.
>I just love to compare such lines to the common plea of your fellow believers
>not to call each others names. In this case, to substantiate it: The Quran
>allows that one beATs one's wife into submission.
Really? Care to give chapter and verse? We could discuss it.
>Primitive Machism refers to
>that. (I have misspelt that before, my fault).
Again, not all of the Orient follows the Qur'an. So you'll have to do
better than that.
Sorry, you haven't "put out" enough.
>>>Islam expresses extramarital sex. Extramarital sex is a subset of sex. It is
>>>suppressedin Islam. That marial sexis  allowed or encouraged in Islam, as
>>>it is in many branches of Christianity, too, misses the point.
>>>Read the part about the urge for sex again. Religions that run around telling
>>>people how to have sex are not my piece of cake for two reasons: Suppressing
>>>a strong urge needs  strong measures, and it is not their business anyway.
>>Believe what you wish. I thought you were trying to make an argument.
>>All I am reading are opinions.
>It is an argument. That you doubt the validity of the premises does not change
>it. If you want to criticize it, do so. Time for you to put up or shut up.
This is an argument for why _you_ don't like religions that suppress
sex. A such it's an irrelevant argument.
If you'd like to generalize it to an objective statement then
fine. My response is then: you have given no reason for your statement
that sex is not the business of religion (one of your "arguments").
The urge for sex in adolescents is not so strong that any overly strong
measures are required to suppress it. If the urge to have sex is so
strong in an adult then that adult can make a commensurate effort to
find a marriage partner.
Gregg
From: qpliu@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (q.p.liu)
Subject: Re: free moral agency
Originator: news@nimaster
Nntp-Posting-Host: phoenix.princeton.edu
Reply-To: qpliu@princeton.edu
Organization: Princeton University
Lines: 26
In article <kmr4.1575.734879106@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.000406.10984@Princeton.EDU> qpliu@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (q.p.liu) writes:
>
>>>So while Faith itself is a Gift, obedience is what makes Faith possible.
>>What makes obeying different from believing?
>	I am still wondering how it is that I am to be obedient, when I have
>no idea to whom I am to be obedient!
It is all written in _The_Wholly_Babble:_the_Users_Guide_to_Invisible_
_Pink_Unicorns_.
To be granted faith in invisible pink unicorns, you must read the Babble,
and obey what is written in it.
To obey what is written in the Babble, you must believe that doing so is
the way to be granted faith in invisible pink unicorns.
To believe that obeying what is written in the Babble leads to believing
in invisible pink unicorns, you must, essentially, believe in invisible
pink unicorns.
This bit of circular reasoning begs the question:
What makes obeying different from believing?
--
qpliu@princeton.edu           Standard opinion: Opinions are delta-correlated.
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
Lines: 57
In article <1993Apr15.215833.15970@bnr.ca> (Rashid) writes:
>> What about the Twelve Imams, who he considered incapable of error
>> or sin? Khomeini supports this view of the Twelve Imans. This is
>> heresy for the very reasons I gave above.
>I would be happy to discuss the  issue of the 12 Imams with you, although
>my preference would be to move the discussion to another
>newsgroup.  I feel a philosophy or religion group would be more
>appropriate.
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.
>The topic is deeply embedded in the world view of Islam and the
>esoteric teachings of the Prophet (S.A.). Heresy does not enter
>into it at all except for those who see Islam only as an exoteric
>religion that is only nominally (if at all) concerned with the metaphysical
>substance of man's being and nature.
In my opinion considering any human being as having a substance
or metaphysical fundamentally different from that of any other human
being _is_ a heretical notion and one proscribed by Islam.
>From your posts, you seem fairly well versed in Sunni thought. You
>should seek to know Shi'ite thought through knowledgeable
>Shi'ite authors as well - at least that much respect is due before the
>charge of heresy is levelled.
Absolutely! I would be interested in discussing this privately and
I am interested in hearing how one might try to make the concept of
error-free and sinless human beings philosophically consistent with
the teachings of the Qur'an. However, _prima facie_ such attemptsa
are highly susceptible to degenerating into monkery, explicitly
proscribed by the Qur'an.
>As salaam a-laikum
Alaikum Wassalam
Gregg
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: KORESH IS GOD!
In-Reply-To: <930416.141520.7h1.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
Nntp-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
Organization: Kupajava, East of Krakatoa
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)
Lines: 15
>DATE:   Fri, 16 Apr 1993 14:15:20 +0100
>FROM:   mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
>
>The latest news seems to be that Koresh will give himself up once he's
>finished writing a sequel to the Bible.
>
>mathew
Writing the Seven Seals or something along those lines.  He's already
written the first of the Seven which was around 30 pages or so and has
handed it over to an assistant for PROOFREADING!.  I would expect any
decent messiah to have a built-in spellchecker.  Maybe Koresh 2.0 will
come with one.
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was
In-Reply-To: <C5L1Fv.H9r@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
Nntp-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
Organization: Kupajava, East of Krakatoa
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)
Lines: 35
>DATE:   Fri, 16 Apr 1993 15:23:54 GMT
>FROM:   Umar Khan <khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil>
>
> His conclusion was that,
>while he was impressed that what little the Holy Qur'an had to
>say about science was accurate, he was far more impressed that the
>Holy Qur'an did not contain the same rampant errors evidenced in
>the Traditions.  How would a man of 7th Century Arabia have known
>what *not to include* in the Holy Qur'an (assuming he had authored
>it)?
>
Well, it looks like the folks in soc.religion.islam have loosened up
a bit and are discussing this topic as well as the banking/interest
topic.  A few books on the subject have also been mentioned in addition
to the one you mentioned.  These may be hard to find, but I think I may
take a stab at it out of curiosity.  I know the one film I saw on this
subject was pretty weak and the only two quotes I have seen which were
used to show science in the Koran (which I posted here) were also pretty
vague.  I suspect that these books will extrapolate an awful lot on the
quotes they have.
At least one poster on the Islam channel seems to have some misgivings
about the practice of using the Koran to decide what is good science.
I wonder if Islam has ever come up with the equivalent of the Christians
"Creation Science" on any topic.  It would be interesting to find a history
of scientific interpretations of the Koran, to see if anyone used the Koran
to support earlier science which has since been discarded.  It is all too
easy to look at science as it exists today and then "interpret" passages
to match those findings.  People do similar things with the sayings of
Nostradamus all the time.
Anyway, it is a rather unique claim of Islam and may be worth checking.
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Keith IS a relativist!
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 10
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Desert Brat) writes:
>Keith, if you start wafffling on about how it is different for a human
>to maul someone thrown into it's cage (so to speak), you'd better start
>posting tome decent evidence or retract your 'I think there is an absolute
>morality' blurb a few weeks ago.
Did I claim that there was an absolute morality, or just an objective one?
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 20
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>Perhaps the chimps that failed to evolve cooperative behaviour
>died out, and we are left with the ones that did evolve such
>behaviour, entirely by chance.
That's the entire point!
>Are you going to proclaim a natural morality every time an
>organism evolves cooperative behaviour?
Yes!
Natural morality is a morality that developed naturally.
>What about the natural morality of bee dance?
Huh?
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Objective morality (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> Which type of morality are you talking about?  In a natural sense, it
>> is not at all immoral to harm another species (as long as it doesn't
>> adversely affect your own, I guess).
>Hehehe, so you say, but this objective morality somehere tells you
>that this is not the case, and you don't know all the rules of such
>transcendental game systems...
Which objective system are you talking about?  What is its goal?
Again, which brand of morality are you talking about?
keith
From: jimh@carson.u.washington.edu (James Hogan)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
Keywords: slander calumny
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 60
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu
In article <1993Apr16.222525.16024@bnr.ca> (Rashid) writes:
>In article <1993Apr16.171722.159590@zeus.calpoly.edu>,
>jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch) wrote:
>>
>> In article <1993Apr15.212943.15118@bnr.ca> (Rashid) writes:
>> >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.
>>
>> Please define the words "shatim" and "fasad" before you use them again.
>
>My apologies. "Shatim", I believe, refers to slandering or spreading
>slander and lies about the Prophets(a.s) - any of the Prophets.
Basically, any prophet I've ever dealt with has either been busy
hawking stolen merchandise or selling swampland house lots in
Florida.  Then you hear all the stories of sexual abuse by prophets
and how the families of victims were paid to keep quiet about it.
>It's a kind of willful caulmny and "cursing" that's indicated by the
>word. This is the best explanation I can come up with off the top
>of my head - I'll try and look up a more technical definition when I
>have the time.
Never mind that, but let me tell you about this Chevelle I bought
from this dude (you guessed it, a prophet) named Mohammed.  I've
got the car for like two days when the tranny kicks, then Manny,
my mechanic, tells me it was loaded with sawdust!  Take a guess
whether "Mohammed" was anywhere to be found.  I don't think so.
>
>"Fasad" is a little more difficult to describe. Again, this is not
>a technical definition - I'll try and get that later. Literally,
Oh, Mohammed!
>the word "fasad" means mischief. But it's a mischief on the order of
>magnitude indicated by the word "corruption". It's when someone who
>is doing something wrong to begin with, seeks to escalate the hurt,
Yeah, you, Mohammed!
>disorder, concern, harm etc. (the mischief) initially caused by their
>actions. The "wrong" is specifically related to attacks against
>"God and His Messenger" and mischief, corruption, disorder etc.
You slimy mass of pond scum!
>resulting from that. The attack need not be a physical attack and there
>are different levels of penalty proscribed, depending on the extent
>of the mischief and whether the person or persons sought to
>"make hay" of the situation. The severest punishment is death.
Yeah, right!  You're the one should be watching your butt.  You and
your buddy Allah.  The stereo he sold me croaked after two days.
Your ass is grass!
Jim
Yeah, that's right, Jim.
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 23
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>>They spent quite a bit of time on the wording of the Constitution.  They
>>picked words whose meanings implied the intent.  We have already looked
>>in the dictionary to define the word.  Isn't this sufficient?
>We only need to ask the question: what did the founding fathers
>consider cruel and unusual punishment?
>Hanging? Hanging there slowing being strangled would be very
>painful, both physically and psychologicall, I imagine.
Well, most hangings are very quick and, I imagine, painless.
>Firing squad ? [ note: not a clean way to die back in those
>days ], etc.
>All would be considered cruel under your definition.
>All were allowed under the constitution by the founding fathers.
And, hangings and firing squads are allowed today, too.  And, if these
things were not considered cruel, then surely a medical execution
(painless) would not be, either.
keith
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 18
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>They spent quite a bit of time on the wording of the Constitution.
>I realise that this is widely held belief in America, but in fact
>the clause on cruel and unusual punishments, like a lot of the
>rest, was lifted from the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
Just because the wording is elsewhere does not mean they didn't spend
much time on the wording.
>>We have already looked in the dictionary to define the word.  Isn't
>>this sufficient?
>Since the dictionary said that a lack of mercy or an intent to
>inflict injury or grief counted as "cruel", sure.
People can be described as cruel in this way, but punishments cannot.
keith
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 20
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
In article <115686@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>No, I say religious law applies to those who are categorized as
>belonging to the religion when event being judged applies. This
Who does the categorizing?
---
" I'd Cheat on Hillary Too."
John Laws
Local GOP Reprehensitive
Extolling "Traditional Family Values."
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: "Cruel" (was Re: <Political Atheists?)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Lines: 35
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
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: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: The nonexistance of Atheists?!
Reply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Lines: 38
>In article <kutluk.734797558@ccl.umist.ac.uk> kutluk@ccl.umist.ac.uk (Kutluk Ozguven) writes:
>>Atheists are not
>>mentioned in the Quran because from a Quranic point of view, and a
>>minute's reasoning, one can see that there is no such thing.
I guess that's why scientists probably aren't mentioned either.  Or
stock brokers.  Or television repairmen.
It's precious to know just how deep the brainwashing from childhood
( that it takes to progress a religion ) cleans away a very substantial
part of the reasoning neurons.
But don't mind me;  I don't exist.
-jim halat
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: An Anecdote about Islam
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 76
In article <115687@bu.edu>
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
(deletion)
>Sure. Yes, I did. You see I don't think that rape and murder should
>be dealt with lightly. You, being so interested in leniency for
>leniency's sake, apparently think that people should simply be
>told the "did a _bad_ thing."
>
Straw man. And you brought up leniency.
>>And what about the simple chance of misjudgements?
>
>Misjudgments should be avoided as much as possible.
>I suspect that it's pretty unlikely that, given my requirement
>of repeated offenses, that misjudgments are very likely.
>
Assuming that misjudgements are not correlated.
(Deletion)
>>I just love to compare such lines to the common plea of your fellow believers
>>not to call each others names. In this case, to substantiate it: The Quran
>>allows that one beATs one's wife into submission.
>
>
>Really? Care to give chapter and verse? We could discuss it.
>
Has been discussed here. Chapter and verse were cited, I assume that you
weren't looking then.
Let's be more exact, do you think it is not in the Quran?. And what would
your consequences be when it it was shown to be in it?
>>Primitive Machism refers to
>>that. (I have misspelt that before, my fault).
>
>Again, not all of the Orient follows the Qur'an. So you'll have to do
>better than that.
>
I have not claimed that. It is sufficient for the argument when there are
a lot of male dominated societies that qualify as Machistic. Are you going
to say that the situation of women is better in sufficeint areas of the
Orient?
(Deletion)
>This is an argument for why _you_ don't like religions that suppress
>sex. A such it's an irrelevant argument.
>
>If you'd like to generalize it to an objective statement then
>fine. My response is then: you have given no reason for your statement
>that sex is not the business of religion (one of your "arguments").
>
>The urge for sex in adolescents is not so strong that any overly strong
>measures are required to suppress it. If the urge to have sex is so
>strong in an adult then that adult can make a commensurate effort to
>find a marriage partner.
>
You apparently have trouble reading things you don't like. The point was
having sex the way one wishes being a strong desire. Marriage is a red
herring. Tell me about homosexuals, for one. You simply ignore everything
that doesn't fit into the world as you would like to have it.
And as for the situation of adolescents, one has probably keep your
combination of leniency and maiming in mind, whe you say that it does
not take *overly* strong measures to suppress the urge for sex in
adolescents.
Benedikt
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 11
In article <1993Apr16.211458.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
(deletion)
>Nope, Germany has extremely restrictive citizenship laws.  The
>ethnic Germans who have lived in Russia for over 100 years
>automatically become citizens if they move to Germany, but the
>Turks who are now in their third generation in Germany can't.
That's wrong. They can.
Benedikt
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: A Little Too Satanic
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 43
Jon Livesey writes:
>So why do I read in the papers that the Qumram texts had "different
>versions" of some OT texts.   Did I misunderstand?
Reading newspapers to learn about this kind of stuff is not the best idea in
the world.  Newspaper reporters are notoriously ignorant on the subject of
religion, and are prone to exaggeration in the interests of having a "real"
story (that is, a bigger headline).
Let's back up to 1935.  At this point, we have the Masoretic text, the
various targums (translations/commentaries in aramaic, etc.), and the
Septuagint, the ancient greek translation.  The Masoretic text is the
standard Jewish text and essentially does not vary.  In some places it has
obvious corruptions, all of which are copied faithfully from copy to copy.
These passages in the past were interpreted by reference to the targums and
to the Septuagint.
Now, the septuagint differs from the masoretic text in two particulars:
first, it includes additional texts, and second, in some passages there are
variant readings from the masoretic text (in addition to "fixing"/predating
the various corrupted passages).  It must be emphasized that, to the best of
my knowledge, these variations are only signifcant to bible scholars, and
have little theological import.
The dead sea scroll materials add to this an ancient *copy* of almost all of
Isaiah and fragments of various sizes of almost all other OT books.  There
is also an abundance of other material, but as far as I know, there is no
sign there of any hebrew antecdent to the apocrypha (the extra texts in the
septuagint).  As far as analysis has proceeded, there are also variations
between the DSS texts and the masoretic versions.  These tend to reflect the
septuagint, where the latter isn't obviously in error.  Again, though, the
differences (thus far) are not significant theologically.  There is this big
expectation that there are great theological surprises lurking in the
material, but so far this hasn't happened.
The DSS *are* important because there is almost no textual tradition in the
OT, unlike for the NT.
--
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
+    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Lines: 91
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>#frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
>#>Plus questions for you:  why do subjectivists/relativists/nihilists get so
>#>het up about the idea that relativism is *better* than objectivism?
>#
>#To the degree that relativism is a more accurate decription of the
>#truth than is objectivism, it provides more power and ability to
>#control events.
>
>I think you lose the right to talk about THE truth once you say values are
>relative.   Accuracy is a value judgement, too.  It so happens I agree with
>the substance of what you say below, but it's clear to me that at least
>*some* values are objective.  Truth is better than falsehood, peace is
>better than war, education is better than ignorance.  We know these things,
>if we know anything.
While I'll agree that these are generally held to be "good things", I
question whether they come very close to being objective values.
Especially considering that at one time or another each has been
viewed as being undesirable.  I doubt you could even come up with
anything that could be said to be universally "good" or "bad".
And when I referred to "the truth" I was using the term
hypothetically, realizing full well that there may not even be such a
thing.
>#Assuming, for the moment, that morals _are_ relative, then two
>#relativists can recognize that neither has a lock on the absolute
>#truth and they can proceed to negotiate a workable compromise that
>#produces the desired results.
>
>No they cannot, because they acknowledge up front that THE desired
>results do not exist.  That, after all, is the meaning of compromise.
>
>Plus some problems: If the relativists have no values in common, compromise
>is impossible - what happens then?    Who, if anyone, is right?  What happens
>if one relativist has a value "Never compromise?".  A value "plant bombs in
>crowded shopping areas"?  After all, if morals are relative, these values
>cannot *meaningfully* be said to be incorrect.
True enough.  But they cannot be said to be anything more than
personal morals.  One thing notably lacking in most extremists is any
sense of _personal_ accountability - the justification for any
socially unacceptable behaviour is invariably some "higher authority"
(aka, absolute moral truth).
>#Assuming that there is an absolute morality, two disagreeing
>#objectivists can either be both wrong or just one of them right; there
>#is no room for compromise.  Once you beleive in absolute morals,
>#you must accept that you are amoral or that everyone who disagrees
>#with you is amoral.
>
>Untrue.  One can accept that one does not know the whole truth.  Part
>of the objective truth about morality may well be that flexibility is
>better than rigidity, compromise is better than believing you have a lock
>on morals, etc.  In the same way, I can believe in an objective reality
>without claiming to know the mechanism for quantum collapse, or who shot
>JFK.
An objective truth that says one cannot know the objective truth?
Interesting notion.   :-)
Certainly one can have as one's morals a belief that compromise is
good.  But to compromise on the absolute truth is not something most
people do very successfully.  I suppose one could hold compromise as
being an absolute moral, but then what happens when someone else
insists on no compromise?  How do you compromise on compromising?
>#Given a choice between a peaceful compromise or endless contention,
>#I'd say that compromise seems to be "better".
>
>And I would agree.   But it's bloody to pointless to speak of it if it's
>merely a matter of taste.  Is your liking for peace any better founded
>than someone else's liking for ice-cream?  I'm looking for a way to say
>"yes" to that question, and relativism isn't it.
Almost invariably when considering the relative value of one thing
over another, be it morals or consequences, people only consider those
aspects which justify a desired action or belief.  In justifying a
commitement to peace I might argue that it lets people live long &
healthy and peaceful lives.  While that much may well be true, it is
incomplete in ignoring the benefits of war - killing off the most
agressive member of society, trimming down the population, stimulating
production.  The equation is always more complex than presented.
To characterize relative morals as merely following one's own
conscience / desires is to unduly simplify it.
--
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietzsche
From: vdp@mayo.edu (Vinayak Dutt)
Subject: Re: Islamic Banks (was Re: Slavery
Reply-To: vdp@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Foundation/Mayo Graduate School :Rochester, MN
Lines: 39
In article 28833@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au,  darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
#In <1993Apr14.143121.26376@bmw.mayo.edu> vdp@mayo.edu (Vinayak Dutt) writes:
#>So instead of calling it interest on deposits, you call it *returns on investements*
#>and instead of calling loans you call it *investing in business* (that is in other words
#>floating stocks in your company).
#
#No, interest is different from a return on an investment.  For one
#thing, a return on an investment has greater risk, and not a set return
#(i.e. the amount of money you make can go up or down, or you might even
#lose money).  The difference is, the risk of loss is shared by the
#investor, rather than practically all the risk being taken by the
#borrower when the borrower borrows from the bank.
#
But is it different from stocks ?  If you wish to call an investor in stocks as
a banker, well then its your choice .....
#>Relabeling does not make it interest free !!
#
#It is not just relabeling, as I have explained above.
It  *is* relabeling ...
Also its still not interest free. The investor is still taking some money ... as
dividend on his investment ... ofcourse the investor (in islamic *banking*, its your
so called *bank*)  is taking more risk than the usual bank, but its still getting some
thing back in return ....
Also have you heard of junk bonds ???
---Vinayak
-------------------------------------------------------
vinayak dutt
e-mail: vdp@mayo.edu
standard disclaimers apply
-------------------------------------------------------
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: We don't need no stinking subjects!
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: The Loyal Order Of Keiths.
Lines: 93
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: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Lines: 24
In-Reply-To: frank@D012S658.uucp's message of 15 Apr 1993 23:15:09 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24
In <1qkq9t$66n@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp writes:
(Attempting to define 'objective morality'):
> I'll take a wild guess and say Freedom is objectively valuable.  I base
> this on the assumption that if everyone in the world were deprived utterly
> of their freedom (so that their every act was contrary to their volition),
> almost all would want to complain.
So long as you keep that "almost" in there, freedom will be a
mostly valuable thing, to most people. That is, I think you're really
saying, "a real big lot of people agree freedom is subjectively valuable
to them". That's good, and a quite nice starting point for a moral
system, but it's NOT UNIVERSAL, and thus not "objective".
> Therefore I take it that to assert or
> believe that "Freedom is not very valuable", when almost everyone can see
> that it is, is every bit as absurd as to assert "it is not raining" on
> a rainy day.
It isn't in Sahara.
--
Disclaimer?   "It's great to be young and insane!"
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: <Political Atheists?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Lines: 66
In article <1ql06qINN2kf@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>Schneider
>>>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?
Yes.
>>>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.
Please describe these "number of ways" in detail.  Then explain the any
contradictions that may arise.
>>>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.
Define "difficult".
>>>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?
Explain the laws in America stating that you have to drive on the right-
hand side of the road.
>>>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.
So if every member of the species was homosexual, this wouldn't be destructive
to the survival of the species?
>>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...
The whole "theory" needs to be reexamined...
--
=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: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Originator: news@nimaster
Nntp-Posting-Host: phoenix.princeton.edu
Organization: Princeton University
Lines: 28
In article <30136@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
>In article <1qjd3o$nlv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>Firstly, science has its basis in values, not the other way round.
>>So you better explain what objective atoms are, and how we get them
>>from subjective values, before we go any further.
>
>Atoms are not objective.  They aren't even real.  What scientists call
>an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes
>certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings.  All
>of which is subjective.
[rest deleted...]
You were a liberal arts major, weren'tcha?
Guess you never saw that photo of the smallest logo in the world--
"IBM" made with noble gas atoms (krypton? xenon? I forget the
specifics).
Atoms, trees, electrons are all independently observable and
verifiable. Morals aren't. See the difference?
Tep
--
Men who love brown tend to be warm and deep, sensitive to the needs and
desires of their partners. Sex is a 24 hour a day thing. Snuggling by
the fire, walking in the rain or catching snowflakes on their tongue is
a real turn-on to a lover of brown. (thanx becka!)
Subject: Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Atheists?)
From: SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu (SCOTT D. SAUYET)
Distribution: world
Organization: Wesleyan University
Nntp-Posting-Host: wesleyan.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20In-Reply-To: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com's message of 16 Apr 93 16:37:29 MSTLines: 34
Lines: 34
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:   >
( in <1993Apr16.163729.867@batman.bmd.trw.com> )
( responding to Dave "First With Official A.A Nickname" Fuller )
[ ... ]
> The death penalty IS a deterrent, Dave.  The person executed will never
> commit a crime again.  Guaranteed.      [ ... ]
That means that it is an effective anti-recidivism measure.  It does
not say that it deters an individual from committing a capital crime
in the first place.
The true question is whether the threat of death is likely to actually
stop one from murdering.  (Or commiting treason -- are there any other
capital crimes anywhere in the USA?)  That is, if there were no death
penalty, would its introduction deter a would-be criminal from
committing her/his crime?  I doubt it.
This is only the first step.  Even if it were a strong deterrent
(short of being a complete deterrent) I would reject it.  For what
about the case of the innocent executed?
And even if we could eliminate this possibility, I would reject the
death penalty as immoral. This makes me something of a radical on
the issue, although I think there are many opponents of captial
punishment who agree with me, but who find the innocent executed the
strongest argument to make.
I would, if magically placed in charge, facilitate state-aided suicide
for criminals who have life-sentences.  This could be a replacement
for capital punishment.  Those who don't want to live the rest of
their lives in jail would always have this option.
-- Scott Sauyet                 ssauyet@eagle.wesleyan.edu
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Lines: 51
In-Reply-To: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu's message of Fri, 16 Apr 1993 15:32:04 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24
In <C5L1tG.K5q@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu writes:
> If some society came up with a good reason for why rape and murder are ok I
> would be consistent with my position and hold that it was still wrong.  My
> basis of morality is not on societal norms, or on current legalities.  My
> basis is, surprise surprise, on both the Bible and on inherent moral
> abhorrences,
AH! But what, exactly, is "inherently abhorrent" and WHY is it so?
What you're saying is, in effect, "I think some things are repulsive,
and I know a whole bunch of other people who agree with me, so they
should be deemed absolutely immoral now and forever, period".
Which in and of itself is nice enough; to some extent I agree with
you. But I do _not_ agree that things are 'inherently' or 'absolutely'
immoral; they are labeled 'immoral' each for its own good reason, and if
the reason can even theoretically change, then so can the label.
[...]
> Yes, that's vague, and the only way I know off the top of my head to
> defend it is to say that all humans are similarly made. Yes, that falls
> into the trap of creation,
No it doesn't. Humans are to some extent similar, because we all
belong to the same species; that that species has evolved is another
story altogether. To a certain extent evolution can even lend credence
to moral absolutism (of a flavour).
[...]
> My arguments are that it is better to exhibit trust, goodness,
> love, respect, courage, and honesty in any society rather than deceipt,
> hatred, disrespect, "cowardness", and dishonesty.
You're saying morality is what'll keep society alive and kicking.
It is, I think, up to a point; but societies are not all alike, and
neither are their moralities.
> No, I haven't been everywhere and
> seen everyone, but, according to my thesis, I don't have to, since I hold that
> we were all created similarly.
Similar != identical.
> If that makes an unfalsifiable thesis, just say
> so, and I'll both work out what I can and punt to fellow theists.
No, it's falsifiable through finding someoe who was "created
different", whatever that might be in the "real" world.
--
Disclaimer?   "It's great to be young and insane!"
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
Lines: 46
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: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
Lines: 27
In article <1qlb7oINN684@shelley.u.washington.edu>
jimh@carson.u.washington.edu (James Hogan) writes:
>20:52 P.S.T.  I come to my senses and accept the all-knowing
>wisdom and power of the Quran and Allah.  Not only that, but Allah
>himself drops by to congratulate me on my wise choice. Allah rolls a
>few bones and we get down.  Then Allah gets out the Crisco, bends
>over, and invites me to take a spin around the block.  Wow.
>20:56 P.S.T.  I realize that maybe Allah is looking for more of a
>commitment than I'm ready for, so I say "Man, I've got some
>programming to do.  Gotta go.  I'll call you."
>20:59 P.S.T   Thinking it over, I renounce Islam.
What loyalty!
Jim, it seems you've been reading a little too much Russell Hoban
lately. As Hemingway said, my imitators always imitate the _bad_
aspects of my writing. Hoban would, no doubt, say the same here.
Gregg
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Lines: 28
In article <C5L184.Jo9@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
writes:
>In <1qlapk$d7v@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
>writes:
>>In article <C5JrDE.M4z@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike
>Cobb) writes:
>>>Theory of Creationism: MY theistic view of the theory of creationism, (there
>>>are many others) is stated in Genesis 1.  In the beginning God created
>>>the heavens and the earth.
>
>> Wonderful, now try alittle imaginative thinking!
>
>Huh? Imaginative thinking? What did that have to do with what I said? Would it
>have been better if I said the world has existed forever and never was created
>and has an endless supply of energy and there was spontaneous generation of
>life from non-life?  WOuld that make me all-wise, and knowing, and
imaginative?
No, but at least it would be a theory.
|  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
|  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
|/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
|  |___| 400 Carver Hall
|  |___| Ames, IA  50011
J  _____
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!!
In-Reply-To: <JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu>'s message of Fri, 16 Apr 1993 15:50:02 EDT
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24
Lines: 12
In <93106.155002JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu> <JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
Who cares what the fellow wrote anyway? I mean, it came from
PSUVM, so how could it possibly have been of any importance?
=====
(disperse smileys until no longer offended)
--
Disclaimer?   "It's great to be young and insane!"
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 19
Distribution: world,public
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
In article <115847@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>Well, in 1984 one was not allowed to leave the domain of authority. One
>_is_ free to leave Islam. If one regards Islamic law as a curse one
>should consider leaving Islam.
The only way out seems to be death.
---
" I'd Cheat on Hillary Too."
John Laws
Local GOP Reprehensitive
Extolling "Traditional Family Values."
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Atheists?)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 28
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
In article <1993Apr17.225127.25062@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>You exagerate to the point of libel.  I gave only unpopular reasons
>deliberately.  Or do you think that we should have let Iraq absorb Kuwait?
>I could make the tired old 1939 Poland comparison, but I think you've
>heard it.  But the principle aplies, never play a Chamberlain and
>roll over to another country being invaded.  That only invites further
>invasions.
Perhaps we ought not to have supported a known genocidist?
Provided him with weapon systems, tactical support, technology,
etc.
We made Suddam Hussein.
What did Bush call him? Oh yes, an ally and a freind.
---
" I'd Cheat on Hillary Too."
John Laws
Local GOP Reprehensitive
Extolling "Traditional Family Values."
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!!
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 18
In article <93108.020701TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu>
Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>In article <93106.155002JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu> <JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!!  BE
>>>PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!!
>>
>>readers of the group.  How convenient that he doesn't have a real name...
>>Let's start up the letters to the sysadmin, shall we?
>
>His real name is Jeremy Scott Noonan.
>vmoper@psuvm.psu.edu should have at least some authority,
>or at least know who to email.
>
POSTMAST@PSUVM.BITNET respectively P_RFOWLES or P_WVERITY (the sys admins)
at the same node are probably a better idea than the operator.
Benedikt
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: The Inimitable Rushdie (Re: An Anecdote about Islam
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 19
In article <115846@bu.edu>
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
(Deletion)
>Certainly. It is a central aspect of Islam to show mercy and to give
>those who've done wrong (even presuming Rushdie _did_ violate Islamic
>Law) and committed crimes. This was the basis for my posts regarding
>leniency which seemed not to have penetrated Benedikt's skull.
You have demanded harsh punishments of several crimes. Repeating
offenders have slipped in only as justification of harsh punishment at
all. Typically religious doublespeak. Whenever you have contradictory
statements you choose the possibility that suits your current argument.
It is disgusting that someone with ideas that would make Theodore KKKaldis
feel cozy can go along under the protection of religion.
Gregg, tell us, would you kill idolaters?
Benedikt
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism)
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 19
In article <1993Apr17.122329.21438@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>>>"AND IT IS HE (GOD ALMIGHTY) WHO CREATED THE NIGHT AND THE
>>>DAY, AND THE SUN AND THE EARTH:  ALL (THE CELETIAL BODIES)
>>>SWIM ALONG, EACH IN ITS ROUNDED COURSE."  (Holy Quran 21:33)
>
>>Hmm. This agrees with the Ptolemic system of the earth at the centre,
>>with the planets orbitting round it. So Copernicus and Gallileo were
>>wrong after all!
>
>You haven't read very carefully -- if you look again, you will see that
>it doesn't say anything about what is circling what.
>
Anyway, they are not moving in circles.  Nor is there any evidence that
everything goes around in a rounded course in a general sense. Wishy-
washy statements are not scientific.
Benedikt
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Wholly Babble (Was Re: free moral agency)
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Lines: 10
In article <2944159064.5.p00261@psilink.com>
"Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
(Deletion)
>Of course, there is also the
>Book of the SubGenius and that whole collection of writings as well.
Does someone know a FTP site with it?
Benedikt
From: lipman@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Robert Lipman)
Subject: CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS: Navy SciViz/VR Seminar
Article-I.D.: oasys.32850
Expires: 30 Apr 93 04:00:00 GMT
Reply-To: lipman@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Robert Lipman)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
Lines: 65
CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS
NAVY SCIENTIFIC VISUALIZATION AND VIRTUAL REALITY SEMINAR
Tuesday, June 22, 1993
Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center
(formerly the David Taylor Research Center)
Bethesda, Maryland
SPONSOR: NESS (Navy Engineering Software System) is sponsoring a
one-day Navy Scientific Visualization and Virtual Reality Seminar.
The purpose of the seminar is to present and exchange information for
Navy-related scientific visualization and virtual reality programs,
research, developments, and applications.
PRESENTATIONS: Presentations are solicited on all aspects of
Navy-related scientific visualization and virtual reality.  All
current work, works-in-progress, and proposed work by Navy
organizations will be considered.  Four types of presentations are
available.
1. Regular presentation: 20-30 minutes in length
2. Short presentation: 10 minutes in length
3. Video presentation: a stand-alone videotape (author need not
attend the seminar)
4. Scientific visualization or virtual reality demonstration (BYOH)
Accepted presentations will not be published in any proceedings,
however, viewgraphs and other materials will be reproduced for
seminar attendees.
ABSTRACTS: Authors should submit a one page abstract and/or videotape to:
Robert Lipman
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division
Code 2042
Bethesda, Maryland  20084-5000
VOICE (301) 227-3618;  FAX (301) 227-5753
E-MAIL  lipman@oasys.dt.navy.mil
Authors should include the type of presentation, their affiliations,
addresses, telephone and FAX numbers, and addresses.  Multi-author
papers should designate one point of contact.
DEADLINES: The abstact submission deadline is April 30, 1993.
Notification of acceptance will be sent by May 14, 1993.
Materials for reproduction must be received by June 1, 1993.
For further information, contact Robert Lipman at the above address.
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE, THANKS.
Robert Lipman                     | Internet: lipman@oasys.dt.navy.mil
David Taylor Model Basin - CDNSWC |       or: lip@ocean.dt.navy.mil
Computational Signatures and      | Voicenet: (301) 227-3618
Structures Group, Code 2042    | Factsnet: (301) 227-5753
Bethesda, Maryland  20084-5000    | Phishnet: stockings@long.legs
The sixth sick shiek's sixth sheep's sick.
From: weston@ucssun1.sdsu.edu (weston t)
Subject: graphical representation of vector-valued functions
Organization: SDSU Computing Services
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucssun1.sdsu.edu
gnuplot, etc. make it easy to plot real valued functions of 2 variables
but I want to plot functions whose values are 2-vectors. I have been
doing this by plotting arrays of arrows (complete with arrowheads) but
before going further, I thought I would ask whether someone has already
done the work. Any pointers??
thanx in advance
Tom Weston                    | USENET: weston@ucssun1.sdsu.edu
Department of Philosophy      | (619) 594-6218 (office)
San Diego State Univ.         | (619) 575-7477 (home)
San Diego, CA 92182-0303      |
From: rap@coconut.cis.ufl.edu (Ryan Porter)
Subject: Re: DMORPH
Article-I.D.: snoopy.1pqlhnINN8k1
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.
Lines: 34
NNTP-Posting-Host: coconut.cis.ufl.edu
In article <1993Apr3.183303.6442@usl.edu> jna8182@ucs.usl.edu (Armstrong Jay N) writes:
>Can someone please tell me where I can ftp DTA or DMORPH?
DMorf (Dave's Morph, I think is what it means) and DTax (Dave's
TGA Assembler) are available in the MSDOS_UPLOADS directory
on the wuarchive.
They are arjed and bundled with their respective xmemory versions,
dmorfx.exe and dtax.exe, you can also find a version of aaplay.exe
there, with which you can view files you create with dta.exe or
dtax.exe.
I downloaded the whole bunch last week and have been morphing
away the afternoons since.  The programmes are all a bit buggy and
definitely not-ready-to-spread-to-the-masses, but they are very
well written.
The interface is frustrating at first, but it gets easy once you
figure out the tricks.
I have noticed that dmorfx will crash horribly if you try to morph
without using the splines option.  Not sure why, since I don't have
the source.  I think it was written for TP 6.0.
If anyone else comes up with any other hints on getting the thing
to work right, tell me; it took me several hours the first time
just to figure out that if I just used the durned splines then
it would work...
>JNA
>jna8182@usl.edu
-Ryan
rap@cis.ufl.edu
From: kph2q@onyx.cs.Virginia.EDU (Kenneth Hinckley)
Subject:   VOICE INPUT -- vendor information needed
Reply-To: kph2q@onyx.cs.Virginia.EDU (Kenneth Hinckley)
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 27
Hello,
I am looking to add voice input capability to a user interface I am
developing on an HP730 (UNIX) workstation.  I would greatly appreciate
information anyone would care to offer about voice input systems that are
easily accessible from the UNIX environment.
The names or adresses of applicable vendors, as well as any
experiences you have had with specific systems, would be very helpful.
Please respond via email; I will post a summary if there is
sufficient interest.
Thanks,
Ken
P.S.  I have found several impressive systems for IBM PC's, but I would
like to avoid the hassle of purchasing and maintaining a separate PC if
at all possible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Hinckley (kph2q@virginia.edu)
University of Virginia
Neurosurgical Visualization Laboratory
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: joth@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Joe Tham)
Subject: Where can I find SIPP?
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #2, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Lines: 11
I recently got a file describing a library of rendering routines
called SIPP (SImple Polygon Processor).  Could anyone tell me where I can
FTP the source code and which is the newest version around?
Also, I've never used Renderman so I was wondering if Renderman
is like SIPP?  ie. a library of rendering routines which one uses to make
a program that creates the image...
Thanks,  Joe Tham
--
Joe Tham              joth@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
From: andrey@cco.caltech.edu (Andre T. Yew)
Subject: Re: 16 million vs 65 thousand colors
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 28
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
d9hh@dtek.chalmers.se (Henrik Harmsen) writes:
>1-4 bits per R/G/B gives horrible machbanding visible in almost any picture.
>5 bits per R/G/B (32768, 65000 colors) gives visible machbanding
>color-gradient picture has _almost_ no machbanding. This color-resolution is
>see some small machbanding on the smooth color-gradient picture, but all in all,
>There _ARE_ situiations where you get visible mach-banding even in
>a 24 bit card. If
>you create a very smooth color gradient of dark-green-white-yellow
>or something and turn
>up the contrast on the monitor, you will probably see some mach-banding.
While I don't mean to damn Henrik's attempt to be helpful here,
he's using a common misconception that should be corrected.
Mach banding will occur for any image.  It is not the color
quantization you see when you don't have enough bits.  It is the
human eye's response to transitions or edges between intensities.
The result is that colors near the transistion look brighter on
the brighter side and darker on the darker side.
--Andre
--
Andre Yew andrey@cco.caltech.edu (131.215.139.2)
From: oehler@picard.cs.wisc.edu (Eric Oehler)
Subject: Translating TTTDDD to DXF or Swiv3D.
Article-I.D.: cs.1993Apr6.020751.13389
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
Lines: 8
I am a Mac-user when it comes to graphics (that's what I own software and hardware for) and
I've recently come across a large number of TTTDDD format modeling databases.  Is there any
software, mac or unix, for translating those to something I could use, like DXF?  Please
reply via email.
Thanx.
Eric Oehler
oehler@picard.cs.wisc.edu
From: alex@talus.msk.su (Alex Kolesov)
Subject: Help on RenderMan language wanted!
Reply-To: alex@talus.msk.su
Organization: unknown
Lines: 17
Hello everybody !
If you are using PIXAR'S RenderMan 3D scene description language for creating 3D worlds, please, help me.
I'm using RenderMan library on my NeXT but there is no documentation about NeXTSTEP version of RenderMan available. I can create very complicated scenes and render them using surface shaders,
but I can not bring them to life by applying shadows and reflections.
As far as I understand I have to define environmental and shadows maps to produce reflections and shadows, but I do not know how to use them.
Any advises or simple RIB or C examples will be appreciated.
Thanks in advance...
---
Alex Kolesov                             Moscow, Russia.
Talus Imaging & Communications Corporation
e-mail: <alex@talus.msk.su> 		(NeXT mail accepted)
.
From: rowlands@pocomoco.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Jon Rowlands)
Subject: Re: More gray levels out of the screen
Nntp-Posting-Host: pocomoco.hc.ti.com
Reply-To: rowlands@hc.ti.com (Jon Rowlands)
Organization: Texas Instruments, SPDC, DSP Technology Branch, Dallas
Lines: 51
In article <1pp991$t63@cc.tut.fi>, jk87377@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Kouhia Juhana)
writes:
>In article <1993Apr5.040819.14943@kpc.com> hollasch@kpc.com (Steve
>Hollasch) writes:
>>
>>    I think you're proposal would work to get an extra one, maybe two extra
>>bits of color resolution.  However, if you had a display that chould do only
>>zero or full intensity for each primary, I don't think you'd get great
>>equivalent 24-bit photographs.
>
>I have not suggested to do so; I wrote about problems, and the problem
>were clearly visible with 7 bit b&w images; not to mention 24 bit images.
[ description of experiment deleted ]
>If the 1 bit images are viewed quickly and in sync with screen,
>then 100 intensities could be better than we have -- I dunno.
[ more deleted ]
>In any case, getting black color with slow machines is problem.
>I could try it on our 8 bit screens but I don't know how to
>render pixels with X in constant time. I recall our double buffer
>has other image color and one b&w -- that doesn't help either.
>Maybe I should dump photos to screen with low level code; how?
A few years ago a friend and I took some 256 grey-level photos from
a 1 bit Mac Plus screen using this method. Displaying all 256 levels
synchronized to the 60Hz display took about 10 seconds. After
experimenting with different aperture settings and screen
brightnesses we found a range that worked well, giving respectable
contrast. The quality of the images was pretty good. There were no
visible contrast bands.
To minimize the exposure time the display program built 255
different 1 bit frames. The first contained a dot only for pixels
that had value 255, the second only for pixels that had value 254,
etc. These frames were stored using a sparse data structure that was
very fast to 'or' onto the screen in sequence. Creating these
frames sometimes took 5-10 minutes on that old Mac, but the camera
shutter was closed during that time anyway. And yes, we wrote
directly to the screen memory. Mea culpa.
Our biggest problem was that small images were displayed in the
top left corner of the screen instead of the center. It took
an extra week to have the film developed and printed, because the
processors took the trouble to manually move the all images into
the center of the print. Who'd have guessed?
regards,
Jon Rowlands
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: More gray levels out of the screen
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Lines: 22
In article <C51C4r.BtG@csc.ti.com> rowlands@hc.ti.com (Jon Rowlands) writes:
>
>A few years ago a friend and I took some 256 grey-level photos from
>a 1 bit Mac Plus screen using this method. Displaying all 256 levels
>synchronized to the 60Hz display took about 10 seconds.
Why didn't you create 8 grey-level images, and display them for
1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128... time slices?
This requires the same total exposure time, and the same precision in
timing, but drastically reduces the image-preparation time, no?
--
Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
From: lex@optimla.aimla.com (Lex van Sonderen)
Subject: Re: Rumours about 3DO ???
Nntp-Posting-Host: emerald
Organization: Philips Interactive Media of America
Lines: 20
In article <h1p4s4g@zola.esd.sgi.com> erik@westworld.esd.sgi.com (Erik Fortune) writes:
>> better than CDI
>*Much* better than CDI.
Of course, I do not agree.  It does have more horsepower.  Horsepower is not
the only measurement for 'better'.  It does not have full motion, full screen
video yet.  Does it have CD-ROM XA?
>> starting in the 4 quarter of 1993
>The first 3DO "multiplayer" will be manufactured by panasonic and will be
>available late this year.   A number of other manufacturers are reported to
>have 3DO compatible boxes in the works.
Which other manufacturers?
We shall see about the date.
>All this information is third hand or so and worth what you paid for it:-).
This is second hand, but it still hard to look to the future ;-).
Lex van Sonderen
lex@aimla.com
Philips Interactive Media
From: teckjoo@iti.gov.sg (Chua Teck Joo)
Subject: Visuallib (3D graphics for Windows)
Organization: Information Technology Institute, National Computer Board, Singapore.
Lines: 17
I am currently looking for a 3D graphics library that runs on MS
Windows 3.1.  Are there any such libraries out there other than
Visuallib?  (It must run on VGA and should not require any other
add-on graphics cards).
For Visuallib, will it run with Metaware High C compiler v3.0?  Any
email contact for the author of Visuallib?
Any help would be much appreciated.  Thanks.
--
* Chua, Teck Joo	    | Information Technology Institute *
* Email: teckjoo@iti.gov.sg | 71 Science Park Drive	       *
* Phone: (65) 772-0237 	    | Singapore (0511)		       *
* Fax:   (65) 779-1827      |			   	       *
From: cst@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Caroline Tsang)
Subject: Graphics Library Package
Article-I.D.: ncsu.1993Apr6.051201.9535
Organization: Computer and Technologies Theme Program, NCSU, Raleigh
Lines: 15
Hi all,
I am looking for a recommandation on a good royalty free graphics
library package for C and C++ program.  This is mainly use to write
children games and education software.  I heard someone mentioned Genus
and also GFX ?  Are they any good?
Please pardon me if my question sounds a little strange, I am asking
this question for a friend.
Thanks in advance!
Caroline Tsang
<cst@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu>
From: bprofane@netcom.com (Gert Niewahr)
Subject: Re: Rumours about 3DO ???
Article-I.D.: netcom.bprofaneC51wHz.HIo
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Lines: 39
In article <C51Eyz.4Ix@optimla.aimla.com> lex@optimla.aimla.com (Lex van Sonderen) writes:
>In article <h1p4s4g@zola.esd.sgi.com> erik@westworld.esd.sgi.com (Erik Fortune) writes:
>>> better than CDI
>>*Much* better than CDI.
>Of course, I do not agree.  It does have more horsepower.  Horsepower is not
>the only measurement for 'better'.  It does not have full motion, full screen
>video yet.  Does it have CD-ROM XA?
>
>>> starting in the 4 quarter of 1993
>>The first 3DO "multiplayer" will be manufactured by panasonic and will be
>>available late this year.   A number of other manufacturers are reported to
>>have 3DO compatible boxes in the works.
>Which other manufacturers?
>We shall see about the date.
A 3DO marketing rep. recently offered a Phillips marketing rep. a $100
bet that 3DO would have boxes on the market on schedule.  The Phillips
rep. declined the bet, probably because he knew that 3DO players are
already in pre-production manufacturing runs, 6 months before the
commercial release date.
By the time of commercial release, there will be other manufacturers of
3DO players announced and possibly already tooling up production.  Chip
sets will be in full production.  The number of software companies
designing titles for the box will be over 300.
How do I know this?  I was at a bar down the road from 3DO headquarters
last week.  Some folks were bullshitting a little too loudly about
company business.
>>All this information is third hand or so and worth what you paid for it:-).
>This is second hand, but it still hard to look to the future ;-).
>
>Lex van Sonderen
>lex@aimla.com
>Philips Interactive Media
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What an impartial source!
From: hl7204@eehp22 (H L)
Subject: Re: Graphics Library Package
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 2
From: steveq@DIALix.oz.au (Steve Quartly)
Subject: WANTED: SIRD Alogorythmn
Summary: WANTED: A Sird Alogorythmn
Keywords: Sird
Article-I.D.: DIALix.1praaa$pqv
Organization: DIALix Services, Perth, Western Australia
Lines: 12
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.dialix.oz.au
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.4.19 #1
Hi,
I'm interested in writing a program to generate a SIRD picture, you know
the stereogram where you cross your eyes and the picture becomes 3D.
Does anyone have one or know where I can get one?
Please e-mail to steveq@sndcrft.DIALix.oz.au with any replies.
Many thanks for your help.
Steve Q.
From: ari@tahko.lpr.carel.fi (Ari Suutari)
Subject: Any graphics packages available for AIX ?
Organization: Carelcomp Oy
Lines: 24
NNTP-Posting-Host: tahko.lpr.carel.fi
Keywords: gks graphics
Does anybody know if there are any good 2d-graphics packages
available for IBM RS/6000 & AIX ? I'm looking for something
like DEC's GKS or Hewlett-Packards Starbase, both of which
have reasonably good support for different output devices
like plotters, terminals, X etc.
I have tried also xgks from X11 distribution and IBM's implementation
of Phigs. Both of them work but we require more output devices
than just X-windows.
Our salesman at IBM was not very familiar with graphics and
I am not expecting for any good solutions from there.
Ari
---
Ari Suutari			ari@carel.fi
Carelcomp Oy
Lappeenranta
FINLAND
From: wijkstra@fwi.uva.nl (Marcel Wijkstra (AIO))
Subject: Re: BW hardcopy of colored window?
Keywords: color hardcopy print
Nntp-Posting-Host: ic.fwi.uva.nl
Organization: FWI, University of Amsterdam
Lines: 38
mars@ixos.de (Martin Stein) writes:
#I use xwd/xpr (from the X11R5 dist.) and various programs of the
#ppm-tools to print hardcopies of colored X windows. My problem is,
I don't like xpr. It gives (at least, the X11R4 version does) louzy
output: the hardcopy looks very grainy to me.
Instead, I use pnmtops. This takes full advantage PostScript, and
lets the printer do the dirty job of dithering a (graylevel)
image to black and white dots.
So: if you have a PostScript printer, try:
xwdtopnm <xwdfile> |	# convert to PPM
[ppmtopgm |]		# .. to graylevel for smaller file to print
pnmtops -noturn |	# .. to PostScript
lpr			# print
pnmtops Has several neat options, but use them with care:
If you want your image to be 4" wide, use:
pnmtops -noturn -scale 100 -width 4
-noturn Prevents the image from being rotated (if it is wider than it
is high)
-width 4 Specifies the PAPER width (not the image width - see below)
-scale 100 Is used because if the image is small, it may fit within a
width less than 4", and will thus be printed smaller than 4" wide.
If you first scale it up a lot, it will certainly not fit in 4", and
will be scaled down by pnmtops automatically to fit the specified
paper width.
In short: pnmtops will scale an image down to fit the paper size,
but it will not blow it up automatically.
Hope this helps.
Marcel.
--
X	   Marcel Wijkstra   AIO   (wijkstra@fwi.uva.nl)
|X|	     Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
X	       University of Amsterdam   The Netherlands
======Life stinks. Fortunately, I've got a cold.========
From: jk87377@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Kouhia Juhana)
Subject: Re: More gray levels out of the screen
Organization: Tampere University of Technology
Lines: 21
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: cc.tut.fi
In article <1993Apr6.011605.909@cis.uab.edu> sloan@cis.uab.edu
(Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>
>Why didn't you create 8 grey-level images, and display them for
>1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128... time slices?
By '8 grey level images' you mean 8 items of 1bit images?
It does work(!), but it doesn't work if you have more than 1bit
in your screen and if the screen intensity is non-linear.
With 2 bit per pixel; there could be 1*c_1 + 4*c_2 timing,
this gives 16 levels, but they are linear if screen intensity is
linear.
With 1*c_1 + 2*c_2 it works, but we have to find the best
compinations -- there's 10 levels, but 16 choises; best 10 must be
chosen. Different compinations for the same level, varies a bit, but
the levels keeps their order.
Readers should verify what I wrote... :-)
Juhana Kouhia
From: renouar@amertume.ufr-info-p7.ibp.fr (Renouard Olivier)
Subject: LOOKING for CTDS !
Keywords: CTDS
Nntp-Posting-Host: amertume.ufr-info-p7.ibp.fr
Organization: Universite PARIS 7 - UFR d'Informatique
Lines: 5
I can't find CTDS (Connect The Dots Smoother) in France. If it is a commercial
program I'll happily pay whatever it may cost (do not take it litterally).
Please help!
I have *LOTS* of PoV sources, texture images and animations though, if you
are looking for something, just tell.
From: renouar@amertume.ufr-info-p7.ibp.fr (Renouard Olivier)
Subject: Re: POV previewer
Nntp-Posting-Host: amertume.ufr-info-p7.ibp.fr
Organization: Universite PARIS 7 - UFR d'Informatique
Lines: 10
Actually I am trying to write something like this but I encounter some
problems, amongst them:
- drawing a 3d wireframe view of a quadric/quartic requires that you have
the explicit equation of the quadric/quartic (x, y, z functions of some
parameters). How to convert the implicit equation used by PoV to an
explicit one? Is it mathematically always possible?
I don't have enough math to find out by myself, has anybody heard about
useful books on the subject?
From: dsnyder@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil
Subject: Re: Real Time Graphics??
Distribution: na
Organization: USAF AL/CFH, WPAFB, Dayton, OH
Lines: 30
In article <C4vA9r.KK7@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>, stockel@oahu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Jim Stockel) writes:
> Hi,
>
> I will be writing a data acquisition program to collect data from a
> variety of sources including RS232, and external A/D's, and I would
> like to be able to display the data in near realtime.  I've done this
> type of thing on PC's and other machines, but I am unaware of any graphics
> package that could help me with this on a UNIX machine.
>
> .......
>
> Does anyone have any ideas on commercial or "free" packages that might
> suit my needs?  I would really appreciate any input.  I'm sure this has
> been done many times before.
>
For a commerical package try WAVE from  Precision Visuals
505-530-6563
For a free package try KHOROS from University of New Mexico
508-277-6563
ftp from
ptrg.eece.unm.edu
Login in anonyomus or ftp  with a valid email address as the password
cd /pub/khoros/release
That will get you to the right place.
David
From: scrowe@hemel.bull.co.uk (Simon Crowe)
Subject: BGI Drivers for SVGA
Summary: Ftp site for SVGA Driver
Keywords: BGI, SVGA
Nntp-Posting-Host: bogart
Organization: Bull HN UK
Lines: 11
I require BGI drivers for Super VGA Displays and Super XVGA Displays. Does
anyone know where I could obtain the relevant drivers ? (FTP sites ??)
Regards
Simon Crowe
From: d91-fad@tekn.hj.se (DANIEL FALK)
Subject: RE: VESA on the Speedstar 24
Organization: H|gskolan i J|nk|ping
Lines: 39
Nntp-Posting-Host: pc5_b109.et.hj.se
>>>kjb/MGL/uvesa32.zip
>>>
>>>This is a universal VESA driver.  It supports most video
>>>boards/chipsets (include the Speedstar-24 and -24X) up to
>>>24 bit color.
>>>
>>>Terry
>>>
>>>P.S.  I've tried it on a Speedstar-24 and -24X and it works. :)
>>Not with all software. :( For instance it doesn't work at all with
>>Animator Pro from Autodesk. It can't detect ANY SVGA modes when
>>running UniVESA. This is really a problem as we need a VESA driver
>>for both AA Pro and some hi-color stuff. :(
>Just out of curiosity... Are you using the latest version (3.2)?  Versions
>previous to this did not fill in all of the capabilities bits and other
>information correctly.  I had problems with a lot of software until I got
>this version.  (I don't think the author got around to posting an
>announcementof it (or at least I missed it), but 3.2 was available in the
>directory indicated as of 3/29.)
I sure did use version 3.2. It works fine with most software but NOT
with Animator Pro and that one is quite important to me. Pretty
useless program without that thing working IMHO.
So I hope the author can fix that.
/Daniel...
=============================================================================
!!      Daniel Falk          \\  " Don't quote me! No comments! "          !!
!!      ^^^^^^ ^^^^           \\               Ebenezum the Great Wizard   !!
!!      d91-fad@tekn.hj.se     \\                                          !!
!!      d91fad@hjds90.hj.se    //  Also known as the mega-famous musician  !!
!!      Jkpg, Sweeeeeden...    \\         Leinad of The Yellow Ones        !!
=============================================================================
From: SITUNAYA@IBM3090.BHAM.AC.UK
Subject: (None set)
Organization: The University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
Lines: 5
NNTP-Posting-Host: ibm3090.bham.ac.uk
==============================================================================
Bear with me i'm new at this game, but could anyone explain exactly what DMORF
does, does it simply fade one bitmap into another or does it re shape one bitma
p into another. Please excuse my ignorance, i' not even sure if i've posted thi
s message correctly.
From: SITUNAYA@IBM3090.BHAM.AC.UK
Subject: HELP WANTED FOR DMORF.......!
Organization: The University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
Lines: 6
NNTP-Posting-Host: ibm3090.bham.ac.uk
==============================================================================
Please bear with me as i am new at this game, i apologize unreservedly if i hav
e posted another message earlier by mistake. but i digress, could anyone out th
ere please explain exactly what DMORF does (dtax.exe). Does it simply fade one
bitmap into another or does it reshape one bitmap into another. Excuse my ignor
ance.....
From: SITUNAYA@IBM3090.BHAM.AC.UK
Subject: test....(sorry)
Organization: The University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
Lines: 1
NNTP-Posting-Host: ibm3090.bham.ac.uk
==============================================================================
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Rumours about 3DO ???
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Lines: 5
They need a hit software product to encourage software sales of the product,
i.e. the Pong, Pacman, VisiCalc, dBase, or Pagemaker of multi-media.
There are some multi-media and digital television products out there already,
albeit, not as capable as 3DO's.  But are there compelling reasons to buy
such yet?  Perhaps someone in this news group will write that hit software :-)
Subject: Technical Help Sought
From: jiu1@husc11.harvard.edu (Haibin Jiu)
Organization: Harvard University Science Center
Nntp-Posting-Host: husc11.harvard.edu
Lines: 9
Hi!  I am in immediate need for details of various graphics compression
techniques.  So if you know where I could obtain descriptions of algo-
rithms or public-domain source codes for such formats as JPEG, GIF, and
fractals, I would be immensely grateful if you could share the info with
me.  This is for a project I am contemplating of doing.
Thanks in advance.  Please reply via e-mail if possible.
--hBJ
From: srp@travis.csd.harris.com (Stephen Pietrowicz)
Subject: Surface normal orientations
Article-I.D.: travis.1pscti$aqe
Organization: Harris CSD, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 20
NNTP-Posting-Host: travis.csd.harris.com
Some rendering programs require that all surface normals point in the same
direction.  (ie: On a closed cube, all normals point outwards).  You can use
the points on the faces to determine the direction of the normal, by making
sure that all points are either in clockwise or counter-clockwise order.
How do you go about orienting all normals in the same direction, given a
set of points, edges and faces?   Say that you had a cube with all faces that
have their normals facing outwards, except for one face.  What's the
best way to realize that face is "flipped", and should have it's points
re-ordered?   I thought I had a good way of telling this, but then realized
that the algorithm I had would only tell you if you had points in clockwise
order for a 2d polygon.  I'd like something for 3d data.
Any hints, tips, references would be appreciated.
Steve
--
Where humor is concerned there are no standards -- no one can say what is good
or bad, although you can be sure that everyone will.  -- John Kenneth Galbraith
------- These opinions are my own.
From: egerter@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Barry Egerter)
Subject: Re: Graphics Library Package
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Nntp-Posting-Host: obelix.gaul.csd.uwo.ca
Lines: 43
WGT is the WordUp Graphics Toolkit, designed by yours truly and my
co-programmer (and brother) Chris Egerter. It is a Turbo/Borland C++ graphics
library for programming in 320*200*256 VGA. We are currently producing it as
shareware, but in a few years it may be a commercial product (excuse typos,
there's no backspace on this terminal). Features include:
- loading and saving bit-images (called blocks from herein)
- flipping, resizing and warping blocks
- loading and saving palette, fading, several in memory at once
- graphics primitives such as line, circle, bar, rectangle
- region fill (not the usually useless floodfill)
- sprites (animated bitmaps), up to 200 onscreen at once
- joystick/mouse support
- SB support (VOC and CMF)
- tile-based game creation using 16*16 pixel tiles to create
a 320*200 tile map (or game world) like in Duke Nuke 'Em
- number of sprites increased to 1000
- Professional Sprite Creator utility and Map Maker
-  routines to simplify scrolling games using maps, etc
- FLI playing routines, sprites can be animated over the FLI while playing
- PCX support, soon GIF
- EMS/XMS coming soon as well
Leave E-mail to Barry Egerter at    egerter@obelix.gaul.csd.uwo.ca
Files available on:      (use  mget wgt*.zip)
SIMTEL20 and mirrors                pd1:<msdos.turbo-c>
nic.funet.fi                        pub/msdos/games/programming
Some sites may not have recent files, contact me for info regarding the up-to-
date information.
From: IMAGING.CLUB@OFFICE.WANG.COM ("Imaging Club")
Subject: Re: Signature Image Database
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Lines: 21
Contact Signaware Corp
800-4583820
800 6376564
-------------------------------- Original Memo --------------------------------
BCC:     Vincent Wall                   From:      Imaging Club
Subject: Signature verification  ?      Date Sent: 05/04/93
sci.image.processing
From: yyqi@ece.arizona.edu (Yingyong Qi)
Subject: Signature Image Database
Organization: U of Arizona Electrical and Computer Engineering
Hi, All:
Could someone tell me if there is a database of handwriting signature
images available for evaluating signature verification systems.
Thanks.
YY
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: Surface normal orientations
Article-I.D.: cis.1993Apr6.181509.1973
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Lines: 16
In article <1993Apr6.175117.1848@cis.uab.edu> sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
A brilliant algorithm.  *NOT*
Seriously - it's correct, up to a sign change.  The flaw is obvious, and
will therefore not be shown.
sorry about that.
--
Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
From: pallis@server.uwindsor.ca (PALLIS  DIMITRIOS        )
Subject: Re: Genoa Blitz 24 hits 1600x1200x256 NI !
Lines: 3
i am sorry, but this genoa card does nothing that the ATI ultra plus 2mb
can't do, PLUS the ATI costs 330$US street price ....
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: Surface normal orientations
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Lines: 42
In article <1pscti$aqe@travis.csd.harris.com> srp@travis.csd.harris.com (Stephen Pietrowicz) writes:
>...
>How do you go about orienting all normals in the same direction, given a
>set of points, edges and faces?
Look for edge inconsistencies.  Consider two vertices, p and q, which
are connected by at least one edge.
If (p,q) is an edge, then (q,p) should *not* appear.
If *both* (p,q) and (q,p) appear as edges, then the surface "flips" when
you travel across that edge.  This is bad.
Assuming (warning...warning...warning) that you have an otherwise
acceptable surface - you can pick an edge, any edge, and traverse the
surface enforcing consistency with that edge.
0) pick an edge (p,q), and mark it as "OK"
1) for each face, F, containing this edge (if more than 2, oops)
make sure that all edges in F are consistent (i.e., the Face
should be [(p,q),(q,r),(r,s),(s,t),(t,p)]).  Flip those which
are wrong. Mark all of the edges in F as "OK",
and add them to a queue (check for duplicates, and especially
inconsistencies - don't let the queue have both (p,q) and (q,p)).
2) remove an edge from the queue, and go to 1).
If a *marked* edge is discovered to be inconsistent, then you lose.
If step 1) finds more than one face sharing a particular edge, then you
lose.
Otherwise, when done, all of the edges will be consistent.  Which means
that all of the surface normals will either point IN or OUT.  Deciding
which way is OUT is left as an exercise...
--
Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
From: gavin@krypton.asd.sgi.com (Gavin Bell)
Subject: Re: Surface normal orientations
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Lines: 38
NNTP-Posting-Host: krypton.asd.sgi.com
In <1pscti$aqe@travis.csd.harris.com> srp@travis.csd.harris.com (Stephen Pietrowicz) writes:
>How do you go about orienting all normals in the same direction, given a
>set of points, edges and faces?
This algorithm works well for me:
Algorithm to attempt to find outward-facing normals:
---------------------------------------------------
First, mark all faces as UNKNOWN.
Then create an edge dictionary that allows you to find all of the
faces sharing a given edge (where an edge is two integers representing
the two shared vertices).
Pick an arbitrary face and mark it COUNTER_CLOCKWISE.  Using the edge
dictionary, orient all surrounding faces based on the orientation of
this face.  And recurse for all surrounding faces, consistently
orienting the entire surface.
Find the average of the vertices in this surface.  Using that point,
calculate a volume measurement, taking into account the face's
orientation.  If the volume turns out to be positive, assume the faces
are oriented correctly.  If it is negative, reverse their orientations
(mark them CLOCKWISE).
If any faces are still UNKNOWN after this, choose another face
and go through the algorithm again.
At the end, faces marked CLOCKWISE must have their indices reversed
before facet normals are found.
(Note: if you are running on Silicon Graphics machines and buy the
IRIS Inventor 3D toolkit developers package you have the source to
this algorithm-- see /usr/src/Inventor/tools/ivnorm/.  If you're
not... sorry, I can't give out the source, and even if I could it
relies heavily on Inventor).
--
--gavin     (gavin@sgi.com,  (415)390-1024)
From: d9hh@dtek.chalmers.se (Henrik Harmsen)
Subject: Re: 16 million vs 65 thousand colors
Nntp-Posting-Host: hacke11.dtek.chalmers.se
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg Sweden
Lines: 37
andrey@cco.caltech.edu (Andre T. Yew) writes:
>d9hh@dtek.chalmers.se (Henrik Harmsen) writes:
>>1-4 bits per R/G/B gives horrible machbanding visible in almost any picture.
>>5 bits per R/G/B (32768, 65000 colors) gives visible machbanding
>>color-gradient picture has _almost_ no machbanding. This color-resolution is
>>see some small machbanding on the smooth color-gradient picture, but all in all,
>>There _ARE_ situiations where you get visible mach-banding even in
>>a 24 bit card. If
>>you create a very smooth color gradient of dark-green-white-yellow
>>or something and turn
>>up the contrast on the monitor, you will probably see some mach-banding.
>    While I don't mean to damn Henrik's attempt to be helpful here,
>he's using a common misconception that should be corrected.
>    Mach banding will occur for any image.  It is not the color
>quantization you see when you don't have enough bits.  It is the
>human eye's response to transitions or edges between intensities.
>The result is that colors near the transistion look brighter on
>the brighter side and darker on the darker side.
>--Andre
Yeah, of course... The term 'mach banding' was not the correct one, it should've
been 'color quantization effect'. Although a bad color quantization effect could
result in some visible mach-bands on a picture that was smooth before it was
quantizised.
--
Henrik Harmsen     Internet:  d9hh@dtek.chalmers.se
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden.
"I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere."
From: dsnyder@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil
Subject: Re: Real Time Graphics??
Distribution: na
Organization: USAF AL/CFH, WPAFB, Dayton, OH
Lines: 27
In article <1993Apr5.114428.2061@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil>, dsnyder@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil writes:
> In article <C4vA9r.KK7@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>, stockel@oahu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Jim Stockel) writes:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
Opps!  typed in the phone numbers wrong.  Here are the correct numbers.
>
>   For a commerical package try WAVE from  Precision Visuals
303-530-9000
>
>   For a free package try KHOROS from University of New Mexico
505-277-6563
>                                    ftp from
>                               ptrg.eece.unm.edu
>
>     Login in anonyomus or ftp  with a valid email address as the password
>                cd /pub/khoros/release
From: bsaffo01@cad.gmeds.com (Brian H. Safford)
Subject: IGES Viewer for DOS/Windows
Organization: EDS/Cadillac
Lines: 10
NNTP-Posting-Host: ccadmn1.cad.gmeds.com
Anybody know of an IGES Viewer for DOS/Windows? I need to be able to display
ComputerVision IGES files on a PC running Windows 3.1. Thanks in advance.
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Brian H. Safford           EMAIL: bsaffo01@cad.gmeds.com  |
| Electronic Data Systems    PHONE: (313) 696-6302          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| NOTE: The views and opinions expressed herein are mine,   |
| and DO NOT reflect those of Electronic Data Systems Corp. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
From: brr1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BRANT RICHARD RITTER)
Subject: computer graphics to vcr?
Organization: Lehigh University
Lines: 15
HELP   MY FRIEND AND I HAVE A CLASS PROJECT IN WHICH WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE
A COMPUTER ANIMATED MOVIE OF SORTS WITH THE DISNEY ANIMATION AND WOULD
LIKE TO PUT WHAT WE HAVE ON A VCR IS THIS POSSIBLE?  IS IT EASY AND
RELATIVELY CHEAP? IF SO HOW? WE BOTH HAVE 386 IBM COMPATIBLES BUT ARE
RELATIVELY CLUELESS WITH COMPUTERS IF YOU COULD HELP PLEASE DO.
THANX.
--
BRANT RITTER
-----------------------------------------------------
moshing--   "a cosmic cesspool of physical delight."
-A. Kiedas
RHCP
-----------------------------------------------------
From: mbh2@engr.engr.uark.edu (M. Barton Hodges)
Subject: Stereoscopic imaging
Summary: Stereoscopic imaging
Keywords: stereoscopic
Nntp-Posting-Host: engr.engr.uark.edu
Organization: University of Arkansas
Lines: 8
I am interested in any information on stereoscopic imaging on a sun
workstation.  For the most part, I need to know if there is any hardware
available to interface the system and whether the refresh rates are
sufficient to produce quality image representations.  Any information
about the subject would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
From: ab@nova.cc.purdue.edu (Allen B)
Subject: Re: Fractals? what good are they?
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 51
In article <7155@pdxgate.UUCP> idr@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Ian D Romanick) writes:
> One thing:  a small change in initial conditions can cause a huge
> change in final conditions.  There are certain things about the way
> the plate tektoniks and volcanic activity effect a land scape that
> is, while not entirely random, unpredictable.  This is also true with
> fractals, so one could also conclude that you could model this
> fractally.
Yeah, and it's also true most long complicated sequences of events,
calculations, or big computer programs in general.  I don't argue
that you can get similar and maybe useful results from fractals, I
just question whether you >should<.
The fractal fiends seem to be saying that any part of a system that we
can't model should be replaced with a random number generator.  That
has been useful, for instance, in making data more palatable to human
perception or for torture testing the rest of the system, but I don't
think it has much to do with fractals, and I certainly would rather
that the model be improved in a more explicable manner.
I guess I just haven't seen all these earth-shaking fractal models
that explain and correlate to the universe as it actually exists.  I
really hope I do, but I'm not holding my self-similar breath.
> There is one other thing that fractals are good for:  fractal
> image compression.
Uh huh.  I'll believe it when I see it.  I've been chasing fractal
compression for a few years, and I still don't believe in it.  If it's so
great, how come we don't see it competing with JPEG?  'Cause it can't,
I'll wager.
Actually, I have wagered, I quit trying to make fractal compression
work- and I was trying- because I don't think it's a reasonable
alternative to other techniques.  It is neat, though. :-)
I'll reiterate my disbelief that everything is fractal.  That's why I
don't think fractal compression as it is widely explained is
practical.  I know Barnsley and Sloan have some tricks up their
sleeves that make their demos work, but I don't see anyone using it in a
real product.  It's been six years since Iterated Systems was formed,
right?
"There are always going to be questions until there's a product
out there," Sloan replies.  The company plans to ship its first
encoding devices in the summer, he says.  In March, Iterated
Systems will have the other half of the system: the decoders.
- Scientific American, March 1990, page 77
Allen B (Don't even get me started :-) )
From: ranjan@cs.ubc.ca (Vishwa Ranjan)
Subject: Complex (i.e. with real and imaginary parts) bio-medical images..
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 7
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ironduke.cs.ubc.ca
Are  complex  bio-medical  images  available  anywhere on the net for
experimentation?  By complex I mean that every sampled data point has
a magnitude and phase information both.
Thanks for any pointers,
--Vishwa
From: sas58295@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Lord Soth       )
Subject: MPEG for MS-DOS
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 13
Does anyone know where I can FTP MPEG for DOS from?  Thanks for any
help in advance.  Email is preferred but posting is fine.
Scott
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Lord Soth, Knight |||| email to --> LordSoth@uiuc                ||||||||
| of the Black Rose |||| NeXT to ---> sas58295@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu ||||||||
|   @}--'-,--}--    |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|    I have no clue what I want to say in here so I won't say anything.   |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jack@shograf.com (Jack Ritter)
Subject: Help!!
Article-I.D.: shograf.C531E6.7uo
Distribution: usa
Organization: SHOgraphics, Sunnyvale
Lines: 9
I need a complete list of all the polygons
that there are, in order.
I'll summarize to the net.
--------------------------------------------------------
"If only I had been compiled with the '-g' option."
---------------------------------------------------------
From: geoffrey@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Geoff Thomas)
Subject: Re: Help! 256 colors display in C.
Keywords: graphics
Article-I.D.: cantua.C533EM.Cv7
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Lines: 21
Nntp-Posting-Host: huia.canterbury.ac.nz
You'll probably have to set the palette up before you try drawing
in the new colours.
Use the bios interrupt calls to set the r g & b values (in the range
from 0-63 for most cards) for a particular palette colour (in the
range from 0-255 for 256 colour modes).
Then you should be able to draw pixels in those palette values and
the result should be ok.
You might have to do a bit of colourmap compressing if you have
more than 256 unique rgb triplets, for a 256 colour mode.
Geoff Thomas			geoffrey@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz
Computer Science Dept.
University of Canterbury
Private Bag				+-------+
Christchurch				| Oook! |
New Zealand				+-------+
From: tessmann@cs.ubc.ca (Markus Tessmann)
Subject: Re: Rumours about 3DO ???
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 16
NNTP-Posting-Host: larry.cs.ubc.ca
stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>They need a hit software product to encourage software sales of the product,
>i.e. the Pong, Pacman, VisiCalc, dBase, or Pagemaker of multi-media.
>There are some multi-media and digital television products out there already,
>albeit, not as capable as 3DO's.  But are there compelling reasons to buy
>such yet?  Perhaps someone in this news group will write that hit software :-)
I've just had the good fortune to be hired by Electronic Arts as Senior
Computer Graphics Artist at the Vancouver, Canada office.  :^)
The timing has a lot to do with the 3DO which EA is putting a lot of resources
into.  I do not know of any titles to be developed as yet but will be happy to
post as things develop.  I start there May 3.
Markus Tessmann
From: johnsh@rpi.edu (Hugh Johnson)
Subject: Re: QuickTime movie available
Article-I.D.: mustang.johnsh-060493161931
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Lines: 31
Nntp-Posting-Host: mustang.stu.rpi.edu
In article <johnsh-040493161915@mustang.stu.rpi.edu>, I wrote:
>
> I've used the recently-released Macintosh application MPEG to QuickTime to
> convert the excellent MPEG "canyon.mpg" into a QuickTime movie.  While
> anyone who would want this movie is perfectly able to convert it
> themselves, I thought I'd let the net know that I'd be glad to mail copies
> of mine out.  The movie conversion took close to SIX HOURS on my poor
> little IIcx; in other words, unless you've got a Quadra, you might not want
> to tie up your machine in converting this file.
>
> The movie is a fast fly-through of a fractal-generated canyon landscape.
> The movie is 58 seconds long, and uses the compact video compressor (i.e.,
> QuickTime v1.5).  The movie looks okay on 8-bit displays, and looks
> absolutely awesome on 16- and 24-bit displays.
>
> I'd be happy to mail this movie to the first 20 or so people who ask for
> it.  The only caveat is you need to be able to receive a nine-megabyte mail
> message (the movie was stuff-it'ed down to seven megs, but binhex ruined
> that party).  If more then 20 people want this movie, then it's just more
> evidence that the net needs a dedicated QuickTime FTP archive site.  C'mon,
> someone's gotta have a spare 1.2GB drive out there...
Okay, I've received a whole lot of requests for the movie, so for