from
stringlengths 3
223
⌀ | subject
stringlengths 2
120
⌀ | organization
stringlengths 1
116
⌀ | text
stringlengths 1
160k
| label
class label 20
classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
[email protected] (A.Wainwright) | Re: Albert Sabin | Nottingham University | Sheesh! I must say Bill, that I am answering a lot of your BS today. I reckon
you should have an award for it. Isn't it about time that you started supporting
your arguements or shut up?
And now on with the show:
---------------------------------------------------------->
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Bill Rawlins) writes:
|> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota) writes:
|>
|> The problem is that most scientists exclude the possibility of the
|> supernatural in the question of origins. Is this is a fair premise?
|> I utterly reject the hypothesis that science is the highest form of
|> truth.
Then forward your reasons and your evidence.
|
|> Good deeds do not justify a person in God's sight.
|> An atonement (Jesus) is needed to atone for sin.
This is a non-sequiteur. For a start, if God (tm) exists, how do you know what
he is thinking?!
|
|>
|> My point: God is the creator. Look's like we agree.
Proof please.
|>
|> I'll send you some info via e-mail.
Please post it to the net. We could all do with a laugh.
|> Regards, Bill.
|>
|> --
|> ==========================================================
|> // Bill Rawlins <[email protected]> //
|> // "I speak for myself only" //
|> ==========================================================
Hwyl fawr,
Adda
--
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Adda Wainwright | Does dim atal y llanw! 8o) |
| [email protected] | 8o) Mae .sig 'ma ar werth! |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: Biblical Rape | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (Rob Strom) writes:
>
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (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
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Paul Durbin) | Re: DAVID CORESH IS! GOD! | Verdix Corp | On one of the morning shows (I think is was the Today Show), David Koresh's
lawyer was interviewed. During that interview he flipped through some letters
that David Koresh wrote. On one of letters was written in Hebrew (near the
bottom of the page):
koresh adonai
Did anyone else see that? What could this mean by him (David) writing this?
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (The One and Only) | Re: New Member | Salvation Army Draft Board | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (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
>[email protected]
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
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Mark McCullough) | Re: Gulf War (was Re: Death Penalty was Re: Political Atheists?) | University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept. | In article <[email protected]> mathew <[email protected]> writes:
>Don't sell the bastard arms and information in the first place. Ruthlessly
>hunt down those who do. Especially if they're in positions of power.
I looked back at this, and asked some questions of various people and
got the following information which I had claimed and you pooh-poohed.
The US has not sold Iraq any arms. Their navy is entirely made of
F-USSR vessels. Their airforce (not including stuff captured from Kuwait
which I am not as sure about), doesn't include any US equipment. Their
missiles are all non-US. Their tanks are almost all soviet, with about
100 French tanks (older ones). The only US stuff in the Iraqi arsenal
is a few M113s. Those were not sold to Iraq. Iraq captured them from
other countries (like Kuwait). Information is hard to prove. You are
claiming that the US sold information? Prove it.
Now, how did the US build up Iraq again? I just gave some fairly
conclusive evidence that the US didn't sell arms to Iraq. Information
is hard to prove, almost certainly if the US did sell information, then that
fact is classified, and you can't prove it. If you can provide some
useful evidence that the US sold arms or valuable intelligence to Iraq,
I am very interested, but not if you just make claims based on what
"everyone knows".
--
***************************************************************************
* [email protected] * Never program and drink beer at the same *
* M^2 * time. It doesn't work. *
***************************************************************************
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Mike McAngus) | Re: Christian Morality is | The cat is on the mat | On 20 Apr 93 13:38:34 GMT [email protected] (Dan Schaertel,,,) wrote:
>In article [email protected], [email protected] (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>|>
>|> Yet I am still not a believer. Is god not concerned with my
>|> disposition? Why is it beneath him to provide me with the
>|> evidence I would require to believe? The evidence that my
>|> personality, given to me by this god, would find compelling?
>The fact is God could cause you to believe anything He wants you to.
>But think about it for a minute. Would you rather have someone love
>you because you made them love you, or because they wanted to
>love you. The responsibility is on you to love God and take a step toward
>Him. He promises to be there for you, but you have to look for yourself.
>Those who doubt this or dispute it have not givin it a sincere effort.
I and many others on a.a have described how we have tried to find god.
Are you saying our efforts have not been sincere? For all the effort
I have put in, there has been no outward nor inward change that I can
perceive. What's a sincerely searching Agnostic or Atheist supposed to
do when even the search turns up nothing?
>Simple logic arguments are folly. If you read the Bible you will see
>that Jesus made fools of those who tried to trick him with "logic".
>Our ability to reason is just a spec of creation. Yet some think it is
>the ultimate. If you rely simply on your reason then you will never
>know more than you do now. To learn you must accept that which
>you don't know.
How do you "accept that which you don't know"? Do you mean that I must
believe in your god in order to believe in your god?
--
Mike McAngus | The Truth is still the Truth
[email protected] | Even if you choose to ignore it.
|
(Some of the old .sig viruses are still the best)
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Jon Livesey) | Re: <<Pompous ass | sgi | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> [email protected] (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.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Mats Andtbacka) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc. | In <[email protected]> [email protected] 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!"
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Turin Turambar, ME Department of Utter Misery) | From soc.religion.christian | Macalester College |
I found this little gem, I don't know if anyone has any interest/comments...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone,
I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem. I know
that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet
hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools,
do you still think that just believing is enough?'
Now if someone is fully believing but there life is totally lead by themselves
and not by God, according to Romans that person is still saved by there faith.
But then there is the bit which says that God preferes someone who is cold to
him (i.e. doesn't know him - condemned) so a lukewarm Christian someone who
knows and believes in God but doesn't make any attempt to live by the bible.
Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do)
as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James
in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out'
Can anyone help me, this really bothers me.--
in Christ,
Will
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Adam
================================================================================
| Adam John Cooper | "Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings |
| (612) 696-7521 | who thought themselves good simply because |
| [email protected] | they had no claws." |
================================================================================
| "Understand one another? I fear I am beyond your comprehension." --Gandalf |
================================================================================
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Kent Sandvik) | Re: islamic genocide | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | > 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
---
[email protected]. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Gregory C. Kozlowski) | Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!! | The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA |
This is hell. Hasn't anyone noticed?
<< Consensual reality is a special case >>
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (James Felder) | Re: "So help you God" in court? | NASA Lewis Resaerch Center | In article [email protected], Andrew Newell <[email protected]> writes:
->In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
->(Mark McCullough) says:
->>
->>In article <monack.733980580@helium> [email protected] (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: [email protected]
"Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge, other people gargle"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Joseph Duffy) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | NEC America, Inc Irving TX | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Seth J. Bradley) writes:
>
>How does one falsify God's existance? This, again, is a belief, not a scien-
>tific premise. The original thread referred specifically to "scientific
>creationism". This means whatever theory or theories you propose must be
>able to be judged by the scientific method. This is in contrast to
>purely philosophical arguments.
>--
How does one falsify any origin theory? For example, are a forever existing
universe or abiogenesis strictly falsifiable?
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Charley Wingate) | Benediktine Metaphysics | null | 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.
[email protected] + Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe + the marv'lous peace of God."
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: Is Morality Constant (was Re: Biblical Rape) | Case Western Reserve University | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (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 ([email protected])
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Eric Marsh) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Sun | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (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.
Well, that got us a long way. Now define "objective value," and
make sure that you are referring to _moral_ (not scientific) values.
While your at it, take a look at the definition of "objective" and
"values." If you don't have a dictionary, I've written those definitons
in a couple of recent postings.
>--
>Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
>[email protected] from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
eric
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts" | Case Western Reserve University | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (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 ( [email protected] )
April 4, 1993
The one TRUE Muslim left in the world.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (David Nye) | Re: What's a shit shoveler to do? (was Re: Amusing atheists and) | University of Wisconsin Eau Claire | [reply to [email protected] (James Hogan)]
>So, what's someone with a prediliction to shit-shoveling to do when the
>latest "I know what you atheists are about" arrival on a.a. shows up?
>Ignore the Bills, Bobbys, Bakes? Try to engage in reasonable discourse?
>While flame-fests have been among some of the most entertaining threads
>here, other tugs-of-war with folks like Bobby have grown old before
>their time.
I take the view that they are here for our entertainment. When they are
no longer entertaining, into the kill file they go.
David Nye ([email protected]). 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
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Russell Turpin) | Re: History & texts (was: Ancient references to Christianity) | CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin | -*----
I wrote:
>> The diaries of the followers of the Maharishi, formerly of
>> Oregon, are historical evidence.
In article <[email protected]> "Robert Knowles" <[email protected]> writes:
> Are you confusing Bhagwan Rajneesh (sp?) with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
> here by any chance?
I believe that Maharishi is titular. (Someone please correct me if
I am wrong.) Thus, Maharishi Rajneesh is a different person from
Maharishi Mahesh, but they are both Maharishis.
Russell
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Petri Pihko) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | University of Oulu, Finland | Bill Conner ([email protected]) wrote:
: If there is a God as described by the Christians (for instance), then
: He has existence apart from and independent of humankind; His
: existence is outside of our frame of reference (reality).
Thus, god does not _really_ exist. How true. This claim would
lend substantial support to the notion that religions are actually
seamless virtual realities.
Does god exist or not? To us, this question is a true dichotomy.
Can god know a reason for her existence? If she is omniscient, then
she must know this. There is a philosophical problem whether anything
can exist without a time frame - for instance, if it were possible to
observe our universe from 'outside', in the neverness surrounding
this universe, it would never have existed.
Thus, we are faced with a trilemma:
1) God 'meta-exists', and from this meta-existing perspective she
created existence, the Universe and everything.
This implies that the universe was not actually formed of nothing, which
is precisely what many theories of cosmogenesis (Lizhi & Shuxian:
Creation of the Universe) say. This 'nothingness' is not empty enough,
it is not the transcendental nothingness where there is no existence,
until (there is no 'when' yet, but never mind) god, the source of
all existence, started to play. I fail to see the difference between
these two forms of nothingness, though. If there isn't one, it might
be god is not necessary for creation.
It is obvious that the levels of 'meta-existence' are not necessarily
limited to god, there might be a 'meta-god' on some other level.
2) God exists, and has always existed (she has a timescale, which
is different from our own). This sounds sensible, but it is difficult
to conceive how she could know why she exists - a being which
has always existed, and is infinitely conscious of itself, can
remember that she has always been the same, and perhaps know herself
completely, but she cannot know why she exists, and how she knows
everything she knows. Would a knowledge of how a being with a
personality (a subjective viewpoint) knows everything be this
being's knowledge? A conscious being conscious of everything is
actually a contradiction in terms - it means that god is only
conscious of herself, since we, and the whole universe, are
already incorporated in her mental models, thoroughly modelled.
Actually, a conscious being conscious of only itself is not
conscious at all.
3) God is herself the Existence. This is nothing more than an Orwellian
redefinition of the word existence. A logical consequence of this
statement is that god is actually _all_ existence. I think this is
also called a form of pantheism.
: If this
: being declares a thing to be so, it is -necessarily- so since He has
: defined Himself as omnipotent and, if His claims are to be believed,
: He is at least omnipotent relative to us. God is intrinsically
: self-defined and all reality is whatever He says it is - in an
: objective sense.
In a reality god is supposed to have created, I cannot believe in
her, is that my fault or the creator's fault? God gave me freedom
of choice, but nevertheless knows what I will opt for, is it fair
play on her side?
If god has a conscious mind, in any sense, she has a point of view.
I'd say she is entitled to her opinions about me, but I still insist
that any harm she might attempt to do to me will be met with
resistance and disapproval.
: If God determines a standard of conduct, that standard is objective.
No, an objective standard means something independent on _any_
subjective viewpoint, _including_ god's point of view.
: If human beings are held accountable for their conformance to that
: standard while permitted to ignore it, they substitute a relative
: morality or mode of conduct, giving the term morality a nebulous,
: meaningless sense that can be argued about by those pretending to
: misunderstand. The standard is objective and the conduct required to
: meet that standard is therefore objectively determined.
What standard? My morality (and my conscience) disagrees with the
'standards' of the Bible. Which one to ignore? How to interpret
any divine standard? There is a great discrepancy even among
Christians on this. For instance, the Bible does not condemn
female homosexuality - why many Christians do, thinking god doesn't
accept it anyway?
Bill, to reject a concept of any objective morality does not make the
term nebulous. Morality is the subjective aspect of societal behaviour,
something we can change, and something that _must_ change when
societies change. It might be some basic concepts are hard-wired
in our brains by evolution, but in the end, we must decide ourselves.
I don't think people need religion to keep them moral;
thinking goes beyond threat of punishment.
: Just because it is convenient to pretend that the term morality is
: infinitely malleable, doesn't mean that the objective standard itself
: doesn't exist. Morality has come to mean little more than a cultural
: norm, or the preferred conduct of "decent" people, making it seem
: subjective, but it is derived from an absolute, objective, standard.
I've yet to see an objective standard that is
a) universally applicable (today and tomorrow)
b) universally acceptable (not against our own concepts of what is
moral and what isn't)
: Ironically, this objective standard is in perfect accord with our true
: nature (according to Christianity at least), yet is condemned as being
: contrary to human nre, oppressive and severe. This may be due as
: much to our amoral inclinations as to the standard itself, but like it
: or not, it's there.
I don't think Christian morality is of a particularly high standard,
although it is probably a reflection of high morals of the time,
and much of it is still applicable. The problem is that I can't
agree with it all. This is not a question of comforting my
conscience with a thought that "I won't be responsible with what
I do", as Christians would put it. My conscience is in an irreconcilable
conflict with the Bible on homosexuality, Paul's idea of women's
role in marriage etc... and the whole idea that I should believe
in someone I got no help from in this task.
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.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: Gospel Dating | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (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
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Turin Turambar, ME Department of Utter Misery) | Re: Christian Morality is | Macalester College | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Kevin Anthoney) writes:
> In article <[email protected]> [email protected] writes:
>>
>>The fact is God could cause you to believe anything He wants you to.
>>But think about it for a minute. Would you rather have someone love
>>you because you made them love you, or because they wanted to
>>love you. ...
>
> There's a difference between believing in the existence of an entity,
> and loving that entity. God _could_ show me directly that he exists,
> and I'd still have a free choice about whether to love him or not. So
> why doesn't he?
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kevin Anthoney [email protected]
> Don't believe anything you read in .sig files.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Kevin makes a good point here, and when that theists miss all-too-often. That
is, the belief in a diety is not necessarily coupled with agreement/love of
that diety, so really they have yet another bit of convincing to do just beyond
belief.
I guess the standard argumet goes something like: well, once you believe in
God, you know God is love, and you will choose to love him-- if it wasnt so
widely accepted and asserted it'd be laughable...
best regards,
--Adam
================================================================================
| Adam John Cooper | "Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings |
| (612) 696-7521 | who thought themselves good simply because |
| [email protected] | they had no claws." |
================================================================================
| "Understand one another? I fear I am beyond your comprehension." --Gandalf |
================================================================================
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: Biblical Rape | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (Rob Strom) writes:
(Deletion)
>
>The thread "Biblical Rape" was initiated by David O Hunt.
>Here is his posting:
>In article <[email protected]>, David O Hunt <[email protected]> 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
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism) | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (Fred Rice) writes:
>>(Deletion)
>>>"(God is) the One Who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon.
>>>Each is travelling in an orbit with its own motion." (Qur'an :33)
>>>
(Deletion)
>>Well, that is certainly different, but it looks as if there is a translation
>>found for everything. By the way, I am most surprised to hear that night and
>>day move in an orbit.
>
>I thought about this, too -- some translations refer to only the latter
>two objects being in orbit, but Bucaille's translation seems to indicate
>the night and the day travelling in "orbit" too. Perhaps this can be
>understood when one looks at it from the earth's reference frame -- from
>this reference frame, the day and the night would appear to "orbit" the
>earth (travelling from east to west). (This is from the reference frame
>when the earth is still.)
>
Well, yes, but that belongs in the other group, there is a interpretation
found for everything. However, allowing any form of interpretation reduces
the information of the text so interprteted to zero.
By the way, I have checked the quote and I think the lines preceding those
quoted above are more interesting:
21:32 where mountains are set on earth in order to immobilize the earth.
21:33 where the skies (heavens?) are referred to as well supported.
the lines given above are 21:34 after my edition.
>Maybe this is what is meant by the above....? It's just a possibility.
>
>>And that the sun travels in an orbit without saying that earth does, too,
>>sounds geocentric to me.
>
>I will see if I can find out more about this.
>
>But it is still not geocentric.
>
That sun and moon move and the earth is immobile sounds geocentric to me.
Benedikt
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Maddi Hausmann) | Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics | Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things | [email protected] ("Half" Bake Timmons) writes: >
Maddi: >>
>>Whirr click whirr...Frank O'Dwyer might also be contained
>>in that shell...pop stack to determine...whirr...click..whirr
>
>>"Killfile" Keith Allen Schneider = Frank "Closet Theist" O'Dwyer = ...
>= Maddi "The Mad Sound-O-Geek" Hausmann
No, no, no! I've already been named by "Killfile" Keith.
My nickname is Maddi "Never a Useful Post" Hausmann, and
don't you DARE forget it, "Half".
>-- "...there's nothing higher, stronger, more wholesome and more useful in life
>than some good memory..." -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)
You really should quote Ivan Karamazov instead(on a.a), as he was
the atheist.
--
Maddi Hausmann [email protected]
Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553
Kids, please don't try this at home. Remember, I post professionally.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Mike Cobb) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | University of Illinois at Urbana | In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Eric
Marsh) writes:
>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (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 [email protected]
With new taxes and spending cuts we'll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.
| 0alt.atheism
|
Patrick C Leger <[email protected]> | It's all Mary's fault! | Sophomore, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA | 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!
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Joseph Duffy) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | NEC America, Inc Irving TX | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Max Webb) writes:
>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Joseph Duffy) writes:
>>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Seth J. Bradley) writes:
>>>
>>>How does one falsify God's existance? This, again, is a belief, not a scien-
>>>tific premise. The original thread referred specifically to "scientific
>>>creationism". This means whatever theory or theories you propose must be
>>>able to be judged by the scientific method. This is in contrast to
>>>purely philosophical arguments.
>>>--
>>
>>How does one falsify any origin theory? For example, are a forever existing
>>universe or abiogenesis strictly falsifiable?
>
>Guess you must have slept through all the recent excitement when the
>COBE experiments confirmed a prediction of the Big Bang theory. Superstition
>resolves contradictions by postulating new miracles and "it just kinda sorta
>looks that way" (apparent age) - hence it never makes predictions. Science
>resolves contradictions by changing the theories involved.
>
>Too bad your programming does not allow you that luxury.
You sound absolutely convinced! Tell me how long did it last, what color
was it? It must be so exciting to know for sure. By the way, it seems as
though there is a fine line between "postulating new miracles" and postulating
new theories.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Joe Duffy [email protected] |
| NEC America, Inc. |
| Advanced Switching Laboratory |
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Stephen Watson) | Re: Burden of Proof | Carleton University | [email protected] (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Tammy R Healy) writes:
>>> "FBI officials said cult leader David Koresh may have
>>> forced followers to remain as flames closed in. Koresh's
>>> armed guard may have injected as many as 24 children with
>>> poison to quiet them."
>>>
>>Do the FBI have proof of this yet?!
> Why ask me? I am only quoting the FBI official. Why not ask the FBI?
Myabe they're lying to cover up, or maybe they're telling the truth.
At this early date, who can say? But, in an effort to keep
talk.origins from turning into the utterly pointless shouting match
over this that I see t.r.m has become, I have editted the Followup
line of this post, and would appreciate it if others would check the
Followup field when posting on this thread.
t.o has its *own* things to shout pointlessly about.
--
| Steve Watson a.k.a. [email protected] === Carleton University, Ontario |
| this->opinion = My.opinion; assert (this->opinion != CarletonU.opinion); |
"Somebody touched me / Making everything new / Burned through my life / Like a
bolt from the blue / Somebody touched me / I know it was you" - Bruce Cockburn
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Masud Khan) | Re: The Inimitable Rushdie | Cadence Design Systems, Inc. | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (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 [email protected] All My Opinions|
_____/ \_____ +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Mats Andtbacka) | Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!! | Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc. | In <[email protected]> <[email protected]> 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!"
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Maddi Hausmann) | Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics | Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things | [email protected] (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 [email protected]
Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553
Kids, please don't try this at home. Remember, I post professionally.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Bill Conner) | Re: Not the Omni! | Okcforum Unix Users Group | Charley Wingate ([email protected]) 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
| 0alt.atheism
|
mathew <[email protected]> | Re: university violating separation of church/state? | Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. | [email protected] (...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
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Shamim Zvonko Mohamed) | Re: Who has read Rushdie's _The Satanic Verses_? | U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>Yes. The Qur'an discusses this point in several ways, some of
>them quite directly. For example, it says that if God _were_
>to appear them there would be no need for faith and belief as
>the evidence would be definitive.
Ah! Excellent. So why doesn't she appear to me? I'm a little weak in the
blind faith department. (Besides, she doesn't even really need to appear:
how about, oh say, a little tip - something like "put your all on #3 in the
7:30 at the Dog Races" ... perhaps in a dream or vision.)
>>How do we know that
>>Muhammed didn't just go out into the desert and smoke something?
>
>Would a person who was high write so well and with such consistency?
I'm afraid I don't know arabic; I have only read translations. I wouldn't
know it if it were well-written. (Consistent, though, is one thing the Quran
is not.) And have *you* read it in arabic? Besides, some of my best
writing has been done under the influence of, shall we say, consciousness
altering substances.
>>And how
>>do we know that the scribes he dictated the Quran to didn't screw up, or
>>put in their own little verses?
>
>They'd have to be very good to do so without destroying the beauty
>and literary quality of text Arabic text.
Yes, so? How do we know they *weren't* very good? (Again, assuming that the
Quran is beautfully written.)
>>And why can Muhammed marry more than four women,
>>when no other muslim is allowed to?
>
>Muhammad did not exceed the number _after_ the revelation regulating
>the number of wives a man could marry, but before it.
Ok, I retract this point. (Although I might still say that once he knew, he
should have done something about it.)
>>(Although I think the biggest
>>insult to Islam is that the majority of its followers would want to
>>suppress a book, sight unseen, on the say-so of some "holy" guy. Not to
>>mention murder the author.)
>
>I agree. But is it really true that this is the case?
I haven't interviewed all muslims about this; I would really like it if this
were false. But I can't take it on your say-so - what are your sources?
>Another case of judging principles on the basis of those who claim
>to follow them.
What other basis do we have to judge a system? Especially when we can't get
a consistent picture of what Islam "really" is. Do I believe Khomeini? Do I
go by the Imam of the mosque in Mecca? Or perhaps the guy in New Jersey? Or
perhaps you say I should go only by the Quran. Ok, whose translation? And
what about things like "And wherever you find idolators, kill them"?
-s
--
Shamim Mohamed / {uunet,noao,cmcl2..}!arizona!shamim / [email protected]
"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 [email protected]
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Shamim Zvonko Mohamed) | Re: Death Penalty / Gulf War (long) | U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson | This is the most unmitigated bilge I've seen in a while. Jim Brown obviously
has possession of the right-wing token.
> Diplomatic alternatives, including sanctions, were ineffective.
"In December, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told a
Senate committee that sanctions were costing Iraq $100 million per day, and
that the multinational coalition could take all the time in the world.
Iraq, he suggested, was losing badly every day it defied the UN demands,
while the community of nations won every day -- with no taking of life or
loss of life." -- FCNL Washington Newsletter.
> The world is full of evil, and circumstances are not perfect. Many
> innocents suffer due to the wrongful actions of others. It it regretable,
> but that's The-Way-It-Is.
Wrongful actions of murderers like leaders of the US government, perhaps?
Regrettable, of course; The-Way-It-Is - certainly not.
> The media is not totally monolithic. ... There are even conservative
> sources out there if you know where to look. (Hurrah for Rush!)
Good heavens! An escapee from Rush Limbot Land! "Conservative", my ass.
> And BTW, the reason I brought up the blanket-bombing in Germany was
> because you were bemoaning the Iraqi civilian casualties as being
> "so deplorable". Yet blanket bombing was instituted because bombing
> wasn't accurate enough to hit industrial/military targets in a
> decisive way by any other method at that time. But in the Gulf War,
> precision bombing was the norm.
BULLSHIT!!! In the Gulf Massacre, 7% of all ordnance used was "smart." The
rest - that's 93% - was just regular, dumb ol' iron bombs and stuff. Have
you forgotten that the Pentagon definition of a successful Patriot launch
was when the missile cleared the launching tube with no damage? Or that a
successful interception of a Scud was defined as "the Patriot and Scud
passed each other in the same area of the sky"?
And of the 7% that was the "smart" stuff, 35% hit. Again - try to follow me
here - that means 65% of this "smart" arsenal missed.
> The stories
> of "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi civilian dead is just plain bunk.
Prove it. I have a source that says that to date, the civilian death count
(er, excuse me, I mean "collateral damage") is about 200,000.
-s
--
"No one has attempted to calculate the costs of an execution in
Washington state, but studies elsewhere suggest it costs far more than
incarceration.
"California is spending more than $90 million annually on capital cases,
and until this year hadn't executed anyone since 1972. Texas, the national
leader in the number of executions, spends an estimated $2.3 million per
execution. That compares to an average cost of incarceration in Washington
state of $25,000 per maximum-security prisoner per year."
--
Shamim Mohamed / {uunet,noao,cmcl2..}!arizona!shamim / [email protected]
"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 [email protected]
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Keith Allan Schneider) | Re: >>>>>>Pompous ass | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena | [email protected] (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
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Ken Arromdee) | Re: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Constructing a Logical Argument | Johns Hopkins University CS Dept. | Here's a suggestion for the logical argument FAQ. I don't think it's covered,
though the fallacy probably has a better name than the one I used: How about
it, mathew?
INCONSISTENCY AND COUNTEREXAMPLE
This occurs when one party points out that some source of information takes
stand A, which is inconsistent with B. There are two variations in which B is
either a mutually-agreed-on premise or else a stand elsewhere from the same
source. The second party fallaciously responds by saying "see, the source
really does say B, it's right here!"; this reply does not refute the allegation
of inconsistency because it does not show that the source _only_ says B.
Example of the first type: "The Koran says unbelievers should be treated in
these ways. We can both agree these are immoral." "The Koran clearly says in
this other passage that unbelievers are not to be treated that way."
Example of the second type: "There are two Biblical creation stories." "You're
wrong, since the Bible clearly describes the creation as [description]."
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole
that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
-- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
Ken Arromdee ([email protected])
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Bill Conner) | Re: Death Penalty (was Re: Political Atheists?) | Okcforum Unix Users Group | 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
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Bill Conner) | Re: Dear Mr. Theist | Okcforum Unix Users Group | Pixie ([email protected]) 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
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Warren Vonroeschlaub) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Ministry of Silly Walks | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Mike Cobb)
writes:
>In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Bruce Salem)
>writes:
>>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (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 | [email protected]
|/ `---' Iowa State University
/| ___ Math Department
| |___| 400 Carver Hall
| |___| Ames, IA 50011
J _____
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Masud Khan) | Re: Slavery (was Re: Why is sex only allowed in marriage: ...) | Cadence Design Systems, Inc. | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (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: [email protected]
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 [email protected] All My Opinions|
_____/ \_____ +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Eric Rescorla) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | EIT | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>No, you're just overloading the word "value" again. It is an
>>estimation of probability of correctness, not an estimation of "worth."
>>Shit, I don't even know what "worth" means. Consider the possibility
>>that I am not interested in knowing truth. I could still believe
>>that science was the most likely way to get truth, and not value
>>science at all.
>
>But you STILL value likely ways over unlikely ways, correct?
For the times when I'm interested in the truth, I do.
>If I wanted to
>know the "truth" about, say, the specific gravity of chicken soup, I could
>employ science -- meters, gauges, scales, etc. -- or I could just talk a walk
>on a beach somewhere. Both have a possibility of generating the truthful
>answer -- in the case of the walk on the beach, it would have to be some sort
>of sudden inspiration about the specific gravity of chicken soup which just
>happened to be truthful -- so what makes me choose the scientific method of
>truth-determination over the "walk on the beach" method? Because I *VALUE*
>science's higher probability of obtaining truth, that's why. Everywhere one
>turns, there is intentionality and value judgments lurking just beneath the
>veneer of detached objectivity. It is an inescapable aspect of the human
>condition.
This strikes me as rather obvious. What is your point about this,
Kevin?
>>Truth by blatant assertion again, Frank. It's observationally the
>>case that when you measure it, it works. It can be reasonably well
>>assumed that it will work even when you are not measuring it, barring
>>quantum silliness about how it might have disappeared and reappeared.
>>It doesn't take a notion of objective reality to discuss my observations.
>Well, I would add that the attribute "works even when not being measured" is
>*ALSO* something which is valued and intended, Eric. All you've succeeded in
>doing is kicking this up another level in the hierarchy of values.
Huh? Of course I intend that it works. But the fact that I want it
to work, and want to use a procedure that will show that it works,
has no bearing on the logical standing of the procedure that
I choose (empiricism.)
I don't see how this is any kind of problem, Kevin.
-Ekr
--
Eric Rescorla [email protected]
"What we've got here is failure to communicate."
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (A.Wainwright) | Re: Rawlins debunks creationism | Nottingham University | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (John E. King) writes:
|>
|>
|> [email protected] (Andy Peters) writes:
|>
|> >> Macroevolution is
|> >> a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed
|> >> within three percent error :) ]
|>
|> >Bullshit. This is true only under your ad hoc assertion that only
|> >religion can explain origins. The history of life through
|> >macroevolution is a falsifiable theory. If you think it's not, then
|> >make some substantial argument against it.
|>
|> "The modern theory of evolution is so inadequate that it deserves to be
|> treated as a matter of faith." -- Francis Hitching
|>
|> Jack
|>
Barp! Logic alert! Just because the modern theory of evolution is, in the
view of Francis Hitching (please provide a date for that reference) highly
inadequate it doesn't mean that we have to turn to god(tm) and believe an
old book. Please read the FAQ.
--
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Adda Wainwright | Does dim atal y llanw! 8o) |
| [email protected] | 8o) Mae .sig 'ma ar werth! |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Jon Livesey) | Re: free moral agency | sgi | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Bill Conner) writes:
|>
|> Okay all humans are direct descendents of of a bunch of hopeful
|> monsters. The human race didn't evolve from one set parents, but from
|> thousands. Do you really base your atheist on -this-?
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Bill Conner) writes:
|>
|> Truly a brilliant rebuttal. Apparently you are of the opinion that
|> ridicule is a suitable substitute for reason; you'll find plenty of
|> company a.a
Bill Conner, meet Bill Conner.
jon.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Jon Livesey) | Re: Objective morality (was Re: <Political Atheists?) | sgi | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> [email protected] (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.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Michael Agney) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena | [email protected] (Mike Cobb) writes:
>In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Bruce Salem)
>writes:
>>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (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?
>MAC
#define rant_mode
Did anyone say the world existed forever, never was created, and has an
endless supply of energy?
Also, there are lots of people like myself who don't think that the spon-
taneous generation of life from non-life is such an incredible event, given
a billion years or so for it to take place.
#undef rant_mode
"Imaginative thinking" probably isn't the right thing to ask. The thing is,
as you no doubt have already been told, that Genesis 1 does not constitute
a scientific theory. Given a scientific theory of the origin of the universe
or earth or anything else, we can decide what sort of things we expect to be
true about today's universe. What predictions does Genesis 1 make about
today's universe that disagree with the standard "scientific" version,
and how can we test them?
If this is what you want to do, keep in mind that, despite the considerable
length of time t.o has existed, no one has yet succeeded.
>--
>****************************************************************
> 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 [email protected]
>
>With new taxes and spending cuts we'll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.
--
| Michael Agney | Just because you're paranoid |
| | doesn't mean they're not out |
| | to get you. |
| [email protected] | |
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Kent Sandvik) | Re: thoughts on christians | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(Bill Conner) wrote:
> Kent Sandvik ([email protected]) wrote:
> : The social pressure is indeed a very important factor for the majority
> : of passive Christians in our world today. In the case of early Christianity
> : the promise of a heavenly afterlife, independent of your social status,
> : was also a very promising gift (reason slaves and non-Romans accepted
> : the religion very rapidly).
>
> If this is a hypothetical proposition, you should say so, if it's
> fact, you should cite your sources. If all this is the amateur
> sociologist sub-branch of a.a however, it would suffice to alert the
> unwary that you are just screwing around ...
Well, as I remember Jacoby's "Mythmaker" talks about this to cite
one source -- but I'm not sure if all Christians have read this book.
In addition my social experiences is from being raised and educated
as a Lutheran, having a lot of Christian friends, and I even
have played in two Christian rock bands!
So, over to you, do you have any counter claims, sources et
rest that shows that Christianity does not have the concept
of a social promise that is independent on the social status?
Cheers,
Kent
---
[email protected]. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Keith Allan Schneider) | Re: Albert Sabin | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena | [email protected] (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>>[...] it is patently untrue (as has been demonstrated ad
>>nauseum) that the complexity of life is a contradiction of the second
>>law.
>My point is that order does not come from disorder.
It does not... or it can not? When you freze water, you've created an
ordered crystal from a disordered liquid. Overall, the entropy is
increased, but locally order is increased.
>... the creation od DNA by random processes is incalculably remote.
And, you find the idea of a god more likely?
Besides, we can apply the anthropic principle to circumvent any
probablilty problems.
keith
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Kent Sandvik) | Re: Christian Morality is | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(Peter > > Simple logic arguments are folly. If you read the Bible you
will see
> > that Jesus made fools of those who tried to trick him with "logic".
> > Our ability to reason is just a spec of creation. Yet some think it is
> > the ultimate. If you rely simply on your reason then you will never
> > know more than you do now. To learn you must accept that which
> > you don't know.
>
> Can anyone eaplain what he's just said here?
I can't. It seems Jesus used logic to make people using logic
look like fools? No, that does not sound right, he maybe just
told they were fools, and that's it, and people believed that...
Hmm, does not sound reasonable either...
I find it always very intriguing to see people stating that
transcendental values can't be explained, and then in the
next sentence they try to explain these unexplained values.
Highly strange.
Cheers,
Kent
---
[email protected]. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Wayne NMI Aiken) | Re: Mottos to replace "In doG we trust" | NCSU | Andrew Hilmer ([email protected]) wrote:
: At the risk of beginning a cascade, I'll start with a possibly cheesy
: good 'ol Uhmericun:
: "Our shield is freedom"
Or, considering what our government has been doing for the past 50 years,
perhaps this would be more appropriate:
"100% Debt"
--
Holy Temple of Mass $ >>> [email protected] <<< $ "My used underwear
Consumption! $ $ is legal tender in
PO Box 30904 $ BBS: (919) 782-3095 $ 28 countries!"
Raleigh, NC 27622 $ Warning: I hoard pennies. $ --"Bob"
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Robert Beauchaine) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (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 [email protected]
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Richard Brooksby) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Harlequin Ltd. Cambridge, England | [email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> In article <[email protected]> mathew
> <[email protected]> writes:
> #This is complete nonsense. Relativism means saying that there is no absolut
> #standard of morality; it does NOT mean saying that all standards of morality
> #are equally good.
>
> Presumably this means that some moral systems are better than
> others?
False. (Not (stating (X))) is not equivalent to (stating (not (x))).
> How so? How do you manage this without an objective frame of
> reference?
There is no objective way of measuring the `goodness' of a moral
system. It's a value judgement. Therefore there is so objective
comparison for moral systems. Therefore there is no `best' moral
system.
> And what weasel word do you use to describe that frame of reference, if
> it isn't an objective reality for values?
Similarly, there is no frame of reference that can be used to
objectively compare frames of reference. Any such choice is
arbitrary.
Which is NOT to say that one should not take up reference frames for
various purposes.
There is nothing to believe -- not even this statement.
---
[email protected] (Internet)
[email protected] (Internet)
[email protected] (JANET)
Zen Buddhist
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
(Deletion)
>#>And if a "real large lot" (nice phrase) of people agree that there is a
>#>football on a desk, I'm supposed to see a logical difference between the two?
>#>Perhaps you can explain the difference to me, since you seem to see it
>#>so clearly.
>#>
>#(rest deleted)
>#
>#That's a fallacy, and it is not the first time it is pointed out.
>
>It's not a fallacy - note the IF. IF a supermajority of disinterested people
>agree on a fundamantal value (we're not doing ethics YET Benedikt), then what
>is the difference between that and those people agreeing on a trivial
>observation?
>
The reference to it's not yet being ethics is dubious. You have used the terms
absolute, objective and others interchangeably. Same with moral values, values,
at all, worth, measuers, and usefulness. You infer from them as if they were
the same.
To the IF. When the If is not fulfilled, your intermission is a waste of time.
Assuming that you don't intend this, it is reasonable to conclude that you
want to argue a point.
You have made a interesting statement here, namely that of the disinterested
observer. There is no such thing in morals. Probably the shortest proof for
objective and morality being a contradiction.
>#For one, you have never given a set of morals people agree upon. Unlike
>#a football. Further, you conveniently ignore here that there are
>#many who would not agree on tghe morality of something. The analogy
>#does not hold.
>
>I have, however, given an example of a VALUE people agree on, and explained
>why. People will agree that their freedom is valuable. I have also
>stated that such a value is a necessary condition for doing objective
>ethics - the IF assertion above. And that is what I'm talking about, there
>isn't a point in talking about ethics if this can't be agreed.
>
Fine. And that freedom is valuable is not generally agreed upon. I could
name quite a lot of people who state the opposite. (Not that that wasn't
mentioned before). In other words, you have nothing to fulfill your strong
claims with.
>#One can expect sufficiently many people to agree on its being a football,
>#while YOU have to give the evidence that only vanishing number disagrees
>#with a set of morals YOU have to give.
>
>I'm not doing morals (ethics) if we can't get past values. As I say,
>the only cogent objection to my 'freedom' example is that maybe people
>aren't talking about the same thing when they answer that it is valuable.
>Maybe not, and I want to think about this some, especially the implications
>of its being true.
>
Clutching a straw. I don't believe in mappings into metaphysical sets were
loaded terms are fixpoints. Those who deny the morality of freedom make quite
clear what they say, their practice is telling. Yes, there are even those who
are willingly unfree. It is quite common in religions, by the way. For one,
there is a religion which is named Submission.
Don't even try to argue that submission is freedom.
>#Further, the above is evidence, not proof. Proof would evolve out of testing
>#your theory of absolute morals against competing theories.
>
>Garbage. That's not proof either.
>
If it were so, it would argue my case. But I am afraid that that is considered
proof.
>#The above is one of the arguments you reiterate while you never answer
>#the objections. Evidence that you are a preacher.
>
>Name that fallacy.
There is something universally valued in a moral context.
Benedikt
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Keith Allan Schneider) | Re: <Political Atheists? | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena | [email protected] (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
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Siemens-Nixdorf AG | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Eric Rescorla) writes:
#In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Eric Rescorla) writes:
#>#In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#>#>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Eric Rescorla) writes:
#>#>#No, I don't see what the popularity of a value has to do with whether
#>#>#it is objective or not. Pls. explain.
#>#>If almost all people agree that the sun exists (in the usual, uncritical sense),
#>#>and almost all people agree that a deal is bad, it's a reasonable
#>#>conclusion that the sun really does exist, and that the deal really is bad.
#>#I disagree completely. Until rather recently, most people did not
#>#believe in evolution or the possibility of the atom bomb. Popular
#>#opinion is notoriously wrong about matters of fact.
#>True, but nevertheless the basis of all "matters of fact" is overwhelming
#>popular opinion, and some overwhelming popular opinion *is* fact ("the
#>sun shines"). If it were not so, physics would be a personal matter,
#>assumed to be different for each of us. There would be YourGravity and
#>MyGravity and no theoretical framework to encompass them and predict
#>both.
#This is simply complete nonsense. The basis for 'matters of fact' is,
#if any class of opinion, the majority of INFORMED popular opinion
#for some value of informed. I would really hate to base my knowledge
#of, for instance, QM on what the overwhelming popular opinion is.
The *basis*, Eric, is people peering at the world and saying what
they see. I'm talking about uninterpreted facts - observations. _People_
do those. Agreement on some observations is a prerequisite for a theory
that is more than personal.
#>about *raw* observations ("the dial reads 1.2") matter, in other words, though
#>they can surely be mistaken (or even lying) there too ("I saw the statue
#>move!"). Getting to theories from raw facts is certainly error-prone, but
#>one assumes that the raw facts are usually as reported, otherwise science
#>is impossible.
#Opinions about 'raw facts' as you call them are somewhat different
#than interpretations of those raw facts.
I know this. You know this. Can we proceed?
#>Now I take an experience of good/evil to be every bit as raw a fact as an
#>experience of pain, or vision.
#That might seem like a good first pass guess, but it turns out to
#be a pretty cruddy way to look at things, because we all seem to
#have rather different opinions (experiences) about what is good
#and evil, while we seem to be able to agree on what the meter says.
You're not comparing apples with apples. If we all look at the same meter,
we'll agree. If we're all in the same situation, that's when we'll
agree on fundamental values, if at all. People who say that nobody agrees on
values to the same extent that they agree on trivial observations seem
to be unaware of the extent of agreement on either.
#> For me, an ethical standard can be nothing
#>more than a hypothesis about the modification of observed value through
#>human actions ("It will be better if..." == "You ought").
#See above. We can't seem to agree on what's better.
See above. We sometimes can. There is also the matter of inertia
against experimentation. Most, if not all, moral hypotheses are necessarily
tested by way of thought experiment. Few people will attempt genocide
or experience a lifetime in jail to find out if it's really as bad as
all that.
#> In that context,
#>then I see the choice as being between scepticism, relativism, and
#>objectivism. IMO, the existence of supermajority experiences of
#>good (life, freedom, truth, peace, love, intelligence) testifies that
#>objectivism is true for fundamental values - and this in turn is weak
#>evidence that objective ethics may be possible.
#I don't see that it's any evidence at all.
#As I point out above, I'm really not interested very much in
#what the popular opinion is. I'm prepared to trust--to some extent--
#the popular opinion about direct matters of physical observation
#because by and large they accord with my own. However, if everyone
#else said the dial read 1.5 and it looked like a 3 to me, I would
#hope that I would believe myself. I.e. believing other people about
#these matters seems to have a reasonable probability of predicting
#what I would believe if I observed myself, but the possibility exists
#that it is not. Since I know from observation that others disagree
#with me about what is good, I believe I can discount popular opinion
#about 'good' from the beginning as a predictor of my opinion.
#I would say that the fact that it seems almost impossible to get
#people to agree on what is good in a really large number of situations
#is probably the best evidence that objective morality is bogus, actually.
Firstly, if everyone else said the dial was 1.5 and I saw 3, I'd check
my lens prescription. Secondly, your observation that people
disagree shows nothing - people may be looking at different things,
by virtue of being in different situations. If I look at an elephant, I'll
see an elephant. That doesn't imply that you will see an elephant if you
look at an iguana. Thirdly, I question your assumption that when
people disagree about how to achieve fundamental or secondary goals, that
they therefore do not have the same fundamental goals (that seems to be the
disagreement you refer to).
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
[email protected] from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Jon Livesey) | Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism | sgi | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Fred Rice) writes:
|>
|> By the way, Jon, I found a reference to my claim that the percentage of
|> the population that suffers from depression has been increasing this
|> century (as you requested). I will start a new heading ("thread") to
|> post it under.
Cool, then we can discuss the increase in radio and TV use,
the increase in the use of fossil fuels, the increase in air
travel, and consumption of processed bread, and you can
instruct us on which of them causes increased depression.
jon.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Fred Rice) | Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism) | Monash University, Melb., Australia. | In <[email protected]> [email protected] (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
[email protected]
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Keith M. Ryan) | He has risen! | Case Western Reserve University |
Our Lord and Savior David Keresh has risen!
He has been seen alive!
Spread the word!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My sole intention was learning to fly."
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Alan Olsen) | Albert Sabin | null |
BR> From: [email protected] (Bill Rawlins)
BR> Newsgroups: alt.atheism
BR> Organization: DGSID, Atlanta, GA
BR> The problem is that most scientists exclude the
BR> possibility of the supernatural in the question of
BR> origins. Is this is a fair premise? I utterly
BR> reject the hypothesis that science is the highest form of
BR> truth.
It is better than the crap that the creationists put out. So far all they
have been able to manage is distortions and half-truths. (When they are not
taking quotes out of context...)
BR> Some of these so-called human-like creatures were
BR> apes. Some were humans. Some were fancifully
BR> reconstructed from fragments.
The genetic code has shown more about how man is realted to primates that the
fossil record. (A little detail the creationists try and ignore.)
BR> Good deeds do not justify a person in God's
BR> sight. An atonement (Jesus) is needed to atone
BR> for sin.
Who says? Your Bible(tm)? I would be surprised if *ANY* Christian followed
all of the rules in the Bible. (Most of them just pick and choose, according
to the local biases.)
BR> My point: God is the creator. Look's like we agree.
Where is your proof? How do you know it was *YOUR* God?
BR> I'll send you some info via e-mail.
BR> Regards, Bill.
Why not post them? I would be interested in seeing them myself.
Alan
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Bruce Salem) | Re: The Universe and Black Holes, was Re: 2000 years..... | Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> Let's say that we drop a marble into the black hole. It races, ever faster,
>towards the even horizon. But, thanks to the curving of space caused by the
>excessive gravity, as the object approaches the event horizon it has further to
>travel. Integrating the curve gives a time to reach the event horizon of . . .
>infinity. So the math says that nothing can enter a black hole.
Is this Zeno's Paradox? Nothing can get out of a black hole because
the escape velocity is the speed of light. I don't know how time dialation
can prevent matter spiraling in from getting to the event horizon. Can any-
one explain how matter gets in.
I hope that it was clear that a black hole can lose mass to its
surroundings via the so-called Hawking rediation. This is the idea that
virtual partical pairs can form so close to the event horizen that one
of the pair is trapped and the other goes free. The conservation of
energy requires that the black hole lose mass, albeit very slowly, that
that if primordial black holes were formed, the ones about the size of
small asteriods should be evaporating about now in the history of our
universe. The story goes that we should be able to see the flashes caused
by the explosions that result at the end of these black holes. Does this
idea still hold promise, or has it been debunked.
Bruce Salem
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Heikki T. Suopanki) | Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses | Unixverstas Olutensin, Finlandia | >>>>> On 5 Apr 93 11:24:30 MST, [email protected] 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
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Case Western Reserve University | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Keith M.
Ryan) writes:>#In article <[email protected]> frank@D012S658.
uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:>#
>#>Is good logic *better* than bad? Is good science better than bad?
>#
># By definition.
>
>True enough. O.K., in the universe we have today, which is better, a science
>that predicts the motion of the planets, and it happens so, or a science
>which predicts that sonic the hedgehog will record an album with Elvis on
>a certain date, and it doesn't happen? Can the answer to this question
>be called objective, or is it a matter of opinion?
Yes:
If one's particular goal is to land a man on the moon, or to
put a communication sattelite into a orbit within which it will operate;
then orbital astronomy will be more important.
However, if one is a particular fan Sonic's singing, or a competator
of Sonic, say Mario and the Toadstools; knowing when he will record an ablum
would be more important.
I fail to see how this is connected in any way, nor where you are
driving too.
---
Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Andres Grino Brandt) | Studies on Book of Mormon | Orden del Lobo Estepario | 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
[email protected] Chile
No hay mas realidad que la realidad, y la razon es su profeta
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Robert Beauchaine) | Re: Amusing atheists and agnostics | Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>
>"Clam" Bake Timmons = Bill "Shit Stirrer Connor"
>
Sorry, gotta disagree with you on this one Maddi (not the
resemblence to Bill. The nickname).
I prefer "Half" Bake'd Timmons
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine [email protected]
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Alan Olsen) | some thoughts. | null |
rh> From: [email protected] (ron house)
rh> Newsgroups: alt.atheism
rh> Organization: University of Southern Queensland
rh> [email protected] (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
> First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian. It
rh> I _know_ I shouldn't get involved, but... :-)
rh> [bit deleted]
> The book says that Jesus was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a
>modern day Koresh) or he was actually who he said he was.
[rest of rant deleted]
This is a standard argument for fundies. Can you spot the falicy? The
statement is arguing from the assumption that Jesus actually existed. So far,
they have not been able to offer real proof of that existance. Most of them
try it using the (very) flawed writings of Josh McDowell and others to prove
it, but those writers use VERY flawed sources. (If they are real sources at
all, some are not.) When will they ever learn to do real research, instead of
believing the drivel sold in the Christian bookstores.
rh> Righto, DAN, try this one with your Cornflakes...
rh> The book says that Muhammad was either a liar, or he was
rh> crazy ( a modern day Mad Mahdi) or he was actually who he
rh> said he was. Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as
rh> follows. Who would die for a lie? Wouldn't people be able
rh> to tell if he was a liar? People gathered around him and
rh> kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing how his
rh> son-in-law made the sun stand still. Call me a fool, but I
rh> believe he did make the sun stand still.
rh> Niether was he a lunatic. Would more than an entire nation
rh> be drawn to someone who was crazy. Very doubtful, in fact
rh> rediculous. For example anyone who is drawn to the Mad
rh> Mahdi is obviously a fool, logical people see this right
rh> away.
rh> Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have
rh> been the real thing.
Nice rebutal!
Alan
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Jon Livesey) | Re: A Little Too Satanic | sgi | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Charley Wingate) writes:
|> Jon Livesey writes:
|>
|> |> What I said was that people took time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly.
|> |> Translations present completely different issues.
|>
|>
|> >So why do I read in the papers that the Qumram texts had "different
|> >versions" of some OT texts. Did I misunderstand?
|>
|> Reading newspapers to learn about this kind of stuff is not the best idea in
|> the world. Newspaper reporters are notoriously ignorant on the subject of
|> religion, and are prone to exaggeration in the interests of having a "real"
|> story (that is, a bigger headline).
|>
|> Let's back up to 1935. At this point, we have the Masoretic text, the
|> various targums (translations/commentaries in aramaic, etc.), and the
|> Septuagint, the ancient greek translation. The Masoretic text is the
|> standard Jewish text and essentially does not vary. In some places it has
|> obvious corruptions, all of which are copied faithfully from copy to copy.
|> These passages in the past were interpreted by reference to the targums and
|> to the Septuagint.
So when they took the time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly, that includes
"obvious corruptions?"
|>
|> Now, the septuagint differs from the masoretic text in two particulars:
|> first, it includes additional texts, and second, in some passages there are
|> variant readings from the masoretic text (in addition to "fixing"/predating
|> the various corrupted passages). It must be emphasized that, to the best of
|> my knowledge, these variations are only signifcant to bible scholars, and
|> have little theological import.
So when they took the time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly, that does not
exclude "variant readings from the masoretic text" which are "of little
theological import"
|>
|> The dead sea scroll materials add to this an ancient *copy* of almost all of
|> Isaiah and fragments of various sizes of almost all other OT books. There
|> is also an abundance of other material, but as far as I know, there is no
|> sign there of any hebrew antecdent to the apocrypha (the extra texts in the
|> septuagint). As far as analysis has proceeded, there are also variations
|> between the DSS texts and the masoretic versions. These tend to reflect the
|> septuagint, where the latter isn't obviously in error. Again, though, the
|> differences (thus far) are not significant theologically. There is this big
|> expectation that there are great theological surprises lurking in the
|> material, but so far this hasn't happened.
|>
|> The DSS *are* important because there is almost no textual tradition in the
|> OT, unlike for the NT.
Hey, you're the expert.
jon.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Yevgeny (Gene) Kilman) | Re: USAToday ad ("family values") | Florida International University, Miami | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (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.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Siemens-Nixdorf AG | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Lefty) writes:
#In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Frank
#O'Dwyer) wrote:
#>
#> In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Jim Halat) writes:
#> #In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#> #
#> #
#> #>Really? You don't know what objective value is? If I offered the people
#> #>of the U.S., collectively, $1 for all of the land in America, would that
#> #>sound like a good deal?
#> #
#> #That happens to be a subjective example that the people of the
#> #US would happen to agree on. Continue to move the price up;
#> #at some point a few people would accept then more then more until
#> #probably all would accept at a high enough number.
#>
#> And this "high enough number" is...? :-)
#>
#> My point is that the deal is bad, and pretty much anyone can see it is so.
#
#Really? I suspect my neighbor would jump at your deal.
#
#Of course, she's only three, but if it were "objectively" bad, you wouldn't
#think it would make a difference...
And my two-year old says there is a white volvo across the street. But
there isn't. If matter were objective, you wouldn't think it would
make a difference... No, failed that one.
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
[email protected] from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (A.Wainwright) | Re: some thoughts. | Nottingham University | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (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) |
| [email protected] | 8o) Mae .sig 'ma ar werth! |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Brian Cash) | Re: free moral agency | BNR, Inc. | In article <house.734841689@helios>, [email protected] (ron house) writes:
|> [email protected] (Kevin Marshall) writes:
|>
|> >[email protected] (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 /-|-\
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Kevin Marshall) | Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism | Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA | [email protected] (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 [email protected] |
|____________________________________________________________________|
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Jon Livesey) | Re: <Political Atheists? | sgi | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> [email protected] (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> >Perhaps the chimps that failed to evolve cooperative behaviour
|> >died out, and we are left with the ones that did evolve such
|> >behaviour, entirely by chance.
|>
|> That's the entire point!
No, that's the point of evolution, not the point of "natural
morality". Unless, of course, as I have suggested several
times already, "natural morality" is just a renaming.
|>
|> >Are you going to proclaim a natural morality every time an
|> >organism evolves cooperative behaviour?
|>
|> Yes!
|>
|> Natural morality is a morality that developed naturally.
But your "yes?" is actually stronger than this. You are
agreeing that "every time an organism evolves cooperative
behaviour" you are going to call it a "natural morality."
> >What about the natural morality of bee dance?
>
> Huh?
Bee dance is a naturally developed piece of cooperative behaviour.
jon.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Brian Cash) | Re: free moral agency | BNR, Inc. | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] writes:
|> : Are you saying that their was a physical Adam and Eve, and that all
|> : humans are direct decendents of only these two human beings.? Then who
|> : were Cain and Able's wives? Couldn't be their sisters, because A&E
|> : didn't have daughters. Were they non-humans?
|>
|> Genesis 5:4
|>
|> and the days of Adam after he begat Seth were eight hundred years, and
|> he begat sons and daughters:
|>
|> Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Yeah, but these were not the wives. The wives came from Nod, apparently
a land being developed by another set of gods.
Brian /-|-\
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Robert Beauchaine) | Re: islamic authority over women | Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. | In article <[email protected]) [email protected] (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 [email protected]
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Jim Halat) | Re: A silly question on x-tianity | null | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (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
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Charley Wingate) | Re: A Little Too Satanic | null | Jon Livesey writes:
>So when they took the time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly, that includes
>"obvious corruptions?"
Well, yes. This is the real mystery of the matter, and why I am rather
dubious of a lot of the source theories.
There are a number of places where the Masoretic Text (MT) of the OT is
obscure and presumably corrupted. These are reproduced exactly from copy to
copy. The DSS tend to reflect the same "errors". This would appear to tell
us that, at least from some point, people began to copy the texts very
exactingly and mechanically. The problem is, we don't know what they did
before that. But it seems as though accurate transmission begins at the
point at which the texts are perceived as texts. They may be added to (and
in some situations, such as the end of Mark, material is lost), but for the
most part there are no substantial changes to the existing text.
You're basically trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Some people
like to use the game of "telephone" as a metaphor for the transmission of
the texts. This clearly wrong. The texts are transmitted accurately.
--
C. Wingate + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
+ but strife closed in the sod.
[email protected] + Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe + the marv'lous peace of God."
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: free moral agency and Jeff Clark | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (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
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Todd Kelley) | Re: Faith and Dogma | Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto | [email protected] (Kevin Marshall) <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I don't necessarily disagree with your assertion, but I disagree with
>your reasoning. (Faith = Bad. Dogma = Bad. Religion -> (Faith ^ Dogma).
>Religion -> (Bad ^ Bad). Religion -> Bad.) Unfortunately, you never
>state why faith and dogma are dangerous.
Faith and dogma are dangerous because they cause people to act on
faith alone, which by its nature is without justification. That
is what I mean by the word ``faith'': belief without justification, or
belief with arbitrary justification, or with emotional (irrational)
justification.
For example, when someone says that God exists, that they don't know
why they believe God exists, they can just feel it, that's faith.
Dogma is bad because it precludes positive change in belief based
on new information, or increased mental faculty.
>
>So Christians are totally irrational? Irrational with respect to their
>religion only? What are you saying? One's belief in a Christian God does
>not make one totally irrational. I think I know what you were getting at,
>but I'd rather hear you expand on the subject.
Faith and dogma are irrational. The faith and dogma part of any religion
are responsible for the irrationality of the individuals. I claim that
faith and dogma are the quintessential part of any religion. If that
makes (the much overused in this context) Buddism a philosophy rather
than a religion, I can live with that. Science is not a religion,
because there is no faith nor dogma.
>
>>A philosopher cannot be a Christian because a philosopher can change his mind,
>>whereas a Christian cannot, due to the nature of faith and dogma present
>>in any religion.
>
>Again, this statement is too general. A Christian is perfectly capable of
>being a philosopher, and absolutely capable of changing his/her mind. Faith in
>God is a belief, and all beliefs may change. Would you assert that atheists
>would make poor philosophers because they are predisposed to not believe in a
>God which, of course, may show unfair bias when studying, say, religion?
Have you noticed that philosophers tend to be atheists? If a philosopher
is not an atheist, s/he tends to be called a theologian.
A Christian tends to consider Christianity sacred. Christianity is
a special set of beliefs, sanctioned by God himself, and therefore,
to conceive of changing those beliefs is to question the existence
of That Being Who Makes No Mistakes. Faith comes into play. Dogma
comes into play. ``The lord works in mysterious ways'' is an example
of faith being used to reconcile evidence that the beliefs are flawed.
Sure, interpretations of what ``God said'' are changed to satisfy the
needs of society, but when God says something, that's it. It was said,
and that's that. Since God said it, it is unflawed, even if the
interpretations are flawed.
Science, (as would be practiced by atheists) in contrast, has a
BUILT IN defence against faith and dogma.
A scientist holds sacred the idea that beliefs should change to
suit whatever is the best information available at the time, AND,
*AND*, ****AND***, a scientist understands that any current beliefs
are deficient in some way. The goal is to keep improving
the beliefs. The goal is to keep changing the beliefs to reflect
the best information currently available. That's the only rational
thing to do. That's good philosophy.
Can you see the difference? Science views beliefs as being flawed,
and new information can be obtained to improve them. (How many
scientists would claim to have complete and perfect understanding
of everything? None---it would put them out of a job!) Religion
views its beliefs as being perfect, and the interpretations of
those beliefs must be changed as new information is acquired which
conflicts with them.
>
>Please explain how "just because" thinking kills people. (And please
>state more in your answer than "Waco.")
It's easier for someone to kill a person when s/he doesn't require
a good rational justification of the killing. I don't consider
``he's Jewish'', or ``he was born of Jewish parents'', or
``this document says he's Jewish'' to be good rational justification.
>By the way, I wasn't aware mass suicide
>was a problem. Waco and Jonestown were isolated incidents.
>Mass suicides are far from common.
Clinton and the FBI would love for you to convince them of this.
It would save the US taxpayer a lot of money if you could.
Todd
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Petri Pihko) | Re: Christian Morality is | University of Oulu, Finland | Dan Schaertel,,, ([email protected]) wrote:
> Let us go back , oh say 1000 years or so, whatever. Pretend someone says to you
> someday there will be men on the moon. (Now remember, you still think the
> world is flat). This is quite an extraordinary claim.
I think C.S. Lewis has argued that medieval people did not all think the
world is flat.
However, this argument goes both ways. Pretend someone telling Plato that
it is highly probable that people do not really have souls; their minds
and their consciousness are just something their brains make up, and
their brains (their body) is actually ahead of their mind even in
voluntarly actions. I don't think Plato would have been happy with this,
and neither would Paul, although Paul's ideas were quite different.
However, if you would _read_ what we discuss in this group, and not
just preach, you would see that there currently is much evidence in
favour of these statements.
The same applies to the theory of natural selection, or other sacred
cows of Christianity on our origins and human nature. I don't believe
in spirits, devils or immortal souls any more than in gods.
> The fact is we can argue the existence of God until the end of time, there really is no
> way to either prove or disprove it, but there will be a time when we all know the truth.
> I hope and believe I'm right and I hope and pray that you find your way too.
Ah, you said it. You believe what you want to. This is what I had assumed
all along.
> OK maybe I shouldn't have said "no way". I guess I really believe there is
> a way. But all I can do is plant seeds. Either they grow or they don't.
You might be as well planting Satan's seeds, ever thought of this?
Besides, you haven't yet explained why we must believe so blindly,
without any guiding light at all (at least I haven't noticed it).
I don't think this is at all fair play on god's part.
Your argument sounds like a version of Pascal's Wager. Please read the
FAQ, this fallacy is discussed there.
> But
> they won't if they're not planted. The Holy Spirit is the nurishment that
> helps them grow and that comes from God.
And I failed to get help from the HS because I had a wrong attitude?
Sorry, Dan, but I do not think this spirit exists. People who claim to have
access to it just look badly deluded, not gifted.
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.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Chris Blask) | Re: A silly question on x-tianity | Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada | [email protected] (Andrew Tong) writes:
>[email protected] (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!!]
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Siemens-Nixdorf AG | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Eric Rescorla) writes:
#In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Eric Rescorla) writes:
#>|Perhaps you should explain what you think "science has it's basis
#>|in values" means. The reason why people DO science is that
#>|they value it's results. That does not mean that science has
#>|it's basis in values. Any more than DES stops working if I stop
#>|valuing my privacy.
#>It's partly as you say: the reason why people do science is that they value it's
#>results.
#Right.
#
#> If one follows relativism to the letter, then, the theories
#>and predictions which are the results of science can only be subjectively
#>valued as 'objective', 'correct', or anything else.
#Twaddle. You're overloading the meaning of the word "value",
#that's all. Whether I care if the results are true is a "value".
#I fail to see how whether they are true (correct, whatever) is
#a value.
The result's actual truth is independent of what you think of it, if you
care to look at it that way - however your perception of a result's
truth cannot match its actual truth, unless you care to follow the (a?)
procedure to obtain truth ("science") correctly. You have to pick
the right procedure, and note its importance. You've got to value it.
Otherwise you don't care about actual truth, and shouldn't object
to the statement "objectivism is true".
Now if we're valuing procedures subjectively, and science is a procedure,
science cannot be valued non-subjectively. If we're picking facts
and hypotheses subjectively, then we are using a maybe-not-quite-sure
method on maybe-not-quite-sure observations. That should lead
to maybe-not-quite-sure results, no? The fact that it does not seem
to might make one question the premise, which is that our subjective
valuations are necessarily unreliable.
No, wait - I've a better idea: "And the result's actual truth is..."?
Yeah, that's the ticket.
#Like I said before, DES works whether I value my privacy or
#not.
O.K., which DES? The abstract function DES? that stops working in any
important sense if no-one cares for the importance of truth, mathematics,
meaning, information, etc. A DES chip or DES s/w? That stops working in any
important sense if no-one values science, objective reality, etc. DES
does not work in a value vacuum. Nothing else does, either.
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
[email protected] from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Siemens-Nixdorf AG | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (David Nye) writes:
#[reply to [email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer)]
#
#>>The problem for the objectivist is to determine the status of moral
#>>truths and the method by which they can be established. If we accept
#>>that such judgements are not reports of what is but only relate to
#>>what ought to be (see naturalistic fallacy) then they cannot be proved
#>>by any facts about the nature of the world.
#
#>This can be avoided in at least two ways: (1) By leaving the Good
#>undefined, since anyone who claims that they do not know what it is is
#>either lying or so out of touch with humanity as to be undeserving of a
#>reply.
#
#If the Good is undefined (undefinable?) but you require of everyone that
#they know innately what is right, you are back to subjectivism.
No, and begging the question. see below.
#>(2) By defining the Good solely in terms of evaluative terms.
#
#Ditto here. An evaluative statement implies a value judgement on the
#part of the person making it.
Again, incorrect, and question-begging. See below.
#
#>>At this point the objectivist may talk of 'self-evident truths'
#
#Pretty perceptive, that Prof. Flew.
#
#>>but can he deny the subjectivist's claim that self-evidence is in the
#>>mind of the beholder?
#
#>Of course; by denying that subject/object is true dichotomy.
#
#Please explain how this helps. I don't see your argument.
I don't see yours. It seems to rest on the assertion that everything
is either a subject or an object. There's nothing compelling about that
dichotomy. I might just as well divide the world into subject,object,
event. It even seems more sensible. Causation, for example, is
an event, not a subject or an object.
Furthermore, if subject/object were true dichotomy, i.e.
Everything is either a subject or an object
Then, is that statement a self-evident truth or not? If so, then it's
all in the mind of the beholder, according to the relativist, and hardly
compelling. Add to that the fact that the world can quickly be shoved
in its entirety into the "subjective" category by an idealist or
solipsist argument, and that we have this perfectly good alternate
set of categories (subject, object, event) [which can be reduced
to (subject, object, quality) without any logical difficulty] and why
yes, I guess I *am* denying that self-evident truths are all in the mind of
the beholder.
#>>If not, what is left of the claim that some moral judgements are true?
All of it.
#>If nothing, then NO moral judgements are true. This is a thing that
#>is commonly referred to as nihilism. It entails that science is of
#>no value, irrepective of the fact that some people find it useful. How
#>anyone arrives at relativism/subjectivism from this argument beats me.
#
#This makes no sense either. Flew is arguing that this is where the
#objectivist winds up, not the subjectivist. Furthermore, the nihilists
#believed in nothing *except* science, materialism, revolution, and the
#People.
I'm referring to ethical nihilism
#>>The subjectivist may well feel that all that remains is that there are
#>>some moral judgements with which he would wish to associate himself.
#>>To hold a moral opinion is, he suggests, not to know something to be
#>>true but to have preferences regarding human activity."
#
#>And if those preferences should include terrorism, that moral opinion
#>is not true. Likewise, if the preferences should include noTerrorism,
#>that moral opinion is not true. Why should one choose a set of
#>preferences which include terrorisim over one which includes
#>noTerrorism? Oh, no reason. This is patently absurd....
#
#And also not the position of the subjectivist, as has been pointed out
#to you already by others. Ditch the strawman, already, and see my reply
#to Mike Cobb's root message in the thread Societal Basis for Morality.
I've responded over there. BTW - I don't intend this as a strawman, but
as something logically entailed by relativism (really any ethical system
where values are assumed to be unreal). It's different to say "Relativists
say..." than "relativism implies...".
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
[email protected] from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Robert Beauchaine) | Re: islamic authority over women | Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (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 [email protected]
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Peter Walker) | Re: The Universe and Black Holes, was Re: 2000 years..... | I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can't prove a thing. | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) wrote:
>
> Let's say that we drop a marble into the black hole. It races, ever faster,
> towards the even horizon. But, thanks to the curving of space caused by the
> excessive gravity, as the object approaches the event horizon it has further to
> travel. Integrating the curve gives a time to reach the event horizon of . .
> infinity. So the math says that nothing can enter a black hole.
Not true. Only an observer at rest at infinite distance from the black hole
will see the particle take infinite time to reach the horizon. In the
particle's own reference frame, it takes a very finite time to reach the
horizon and the singularity. The math does indeed predict this. Take a look
at Mitchner, Thorne, and Wheeler's _Gravitation_.
>
Peter Walker
Don't forget to sing:
They say there's a heaven for those who will wait
Some say it's better, but I say it ain't
I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
The sinners are much more fun
Only the good die young!
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Jon Livesey) | Re: >>>>>>Pompous ass | sgi | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> [email protected] (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.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Robert Beauchaine) | Re: Genocide is Caused by Theism : Evidence? | Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (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 [email protected]
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Robert Beauchaine) | Re: thoughts on christians | Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>As I know you can't get any physical problems by passive Christianity,
>unlike smoking. It's not that hard to avoid Christianity today, anyway.
>Just ignore 'em.
>
Right on Keith, err, Kent.
Whadda you mean, you didn't see the smiley?
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine [email protected]
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Keith Allan Schneider) | Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster? | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena | [email protected] (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
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: Islam And Scientific Predictions (was Re: Genocide is Caused by Atheism) | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (Fred Rice) writes:
(Deletion)
>"(God is) the One Who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon.
>Each is travelling in an orbit with its own motion." (Qur'an :33)
>
>The positive aspect of this verse noted by Dr. Maurice Bucaille is that
>while geocentrism was the commonly accepted notion at the time (and for
>a long time afterwards), there is no notion of geocentrism in this verse
>(or anywhere in the Qur'an).
>
Well, that is certainly different, but it looks as if there is a translation
found for everything. By the way, I am most surprised to hear that night and
day move in an orbit.
And that the sun travels in an orbit without saying that earth does, too,
sounds geocentric to me.
Benedikt
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Yamanari) | Re: Asimov stamp | University of Maryland, College Park | In article <schnitzi.735603785@eustis> [email protected] (Mark Schnitzius) writes:
>[email protected] (Laurence Gene Battin) writes:
>
>>Apart from the suggestion that appeared in the letters column of
>>Skeptical Inquirer recently, has there been any further mention
>>about a possible Asimov commemorative stamp? If this idea hasn't
>>been followed up, does anyone know what needs to be done to get
>>this to happen? I think that its a great idea. Should we start a
>>petition or something?
>
>I'm sure all the religious types would get in a snit due
>to Asimov's atheism.
>
>Do we have any atheists on stamps now?
More to the point, how long are atheists going to be insulted
by the disgraceful addition of religious blah-blah to our
money and out pledge?
--
"What's big, noisy and has an IQ of 8?"
"Operation Rescue."
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Kent Sandvik) | Re: some thoughts. | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(Bill Conner) wrote:
> Kent Sandvik ([email protected]) wrote:
> : In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Robert
> : Beauchaine) wrote:
> : > Someone spank me if I'm wrong, but didn't Lord, Liar, or Lunatic
> : > originate with C.S. Lewis? Who's this Campollo fellow anyway?
>
> : I do think so, and isn't there a clear connection with the "I do
> : believe, because it is absurd" notion by one of the original
> : Christians (Origen?).
>
> There is a similar statement attributed to Anselm, "I believe so that
> I may understand". In both cases reason is somewhat less exalted than
> anyone posting here could accept, which means that neither statement
> can be properly analysed in this venue.
Bill, I think you have a misunderstanding about atheism. Lack of
belief in God does not directly imply lack of understanding
transcendental values. I hope you would accept the fact that
for instance Buddhists appreciate issues related to non-empirical
reasoning without the need to automatically believe in theism.
I think reading a couple of books related to Buddhism might
revise and fine tune your understanding of non-Christian systems.
Cheers,
Kent
---
[email protected]. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Petri Pihko) | Re: Christian Morality is | University of Oulu, Finland | Dan Schaertel,,, ([email protected]) wrote:
> In article [email protected], [email protected] (Petri Pihko) writes:
> |>I love god just as much as she loves me. If she wants to seduce me,
> |>she'll know what to do.
> But if He/She did you would probably consider it rape.
Of course not. I would think that would be great _fun_, not having ever
felt the joy and peace the Christians speak of with a longing gaze.
This is not what I got when I believed - I just tried to hide my fear
of getting punished for something I never was sure of. The Bible is
hopelessly confusing for someone who wants to know for sure. God did
not answer. In the end, I found I had been following a mass delusion,
a lie. I can't believe in a being who refuses to give a slightest hint
of her existence.
> Obviously there are many Christians who have tried and do believe. So .. ?
I suggest they should honestly reconsider the reasons why they believe
and analyse their position. In fact, it is amusing to note in this
context that many fundamentalist publications tell us exactly the
opposite - one should not examine one's belief critically.
I'll tell you something I left out of my 'testimony' I posted to this
group two months ago. A day after I finally found out my faith is over,
I decided to try just one more time. The same cycle of emotional
responses fired once again, but this time the delusion lasted only
a couple of hours. I told my friend in a phone that it really works,
thank god, just to think about it again when I hung up. I had to admit
that I had lied, and fallen prey to the same illusion.
> No one asks you to swallow everything, in fact Jesus warns against it. But let
> me ask you a question. Do you beleive what you learn in history class, or for
> that matter anything in school. I mean it's just what other people have told
> you and you don't want to swallow what others say. right ... ?
I used to believe what I read in books when I was younger, or what
other people told me, but I grew more and more skeptical the more I
read. I learned what it means to use _reason_.
As a student of chemistry, I had to perform a qualitative analysis
of a mixture of two organic compounds in the lab. I _hated_ experiments
like this - they are old-fashioned and increase the student's workload
considerably. Besides, I had to do it twice, since I failed in my first
attempt. However, I think I'll never forget the lesson:
No matter how strongly you believe the structure of the unknown is X,
it may still be Y. It is _very_ tempting to jump into conclusions, take
a leap of faith, assure oneself, ignore the data which is inconsistent.
But it can still be wrong.
I found out that I was, after all, using exactly the same mechanism
to believe in god - mental self-assurance, suspension of fear,
filtering of information. In other words, it was only me, no god
playing any part.
> The life , death, and resurection of Christ is documented historical fact.
Oh? And I had better believe this? Dan, many UFO stories are much better
documented than the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection is documented
quite haphazardly in the Bible - it seems the authors did not pay too
much attention to which wild rumour to leave out. Besides, the ends of
the gospels probably contain later additions and insertions; for instance,
the end of Mark (16:9-20) is missing from many early texts, says my Bible.
Jesus may have lived and died, but he was probably misunderstood.
> As much
> as anything else you learn. How do you choose what to believe and
> what not to?
This is easy. I believe that the world exists independent of my mind,
and that logic and reason can be used to interpret and analyse what I
observe. Nothing else need to be taken on faith, I will go by the
evidence.
It makes no difference whether I believe George Washington existed or not.
I assume that he did, considering the vast amount of evidence presented.
> There is no way to get into a sceptical heart. You can not say you have
> given a
> sincere effort with the attitude you seem to have. You must TRUST,
> not just go
> to church and participate in it's activities. Were you ever willing to
> die for what you believed?
A liar, how do you know what my attitude was? Try reading your Bible
again.
I was willing to die for my faith. Those who do are usually remembered
as heroes, at least among those who believe. Dan, do you think I'm
lying when I say I believed firmly for 15 years? It seems it is
very difficult to admit that someone who has really believed does not
do so anymore. But I can't go on lying to myself.
Blind trust is dangerous, and I was just another blind led by the blind.
But if god really wants me, she'll know what to do. I'm willing. I just
don't know whether she exists - looking at the available evidence,
it looks like she doesn't.
Petri
--
___. .'*''.* Petri Pihko kem-pmp@ Mathematics is the Truth.
!___.'* '.'*' ' . Pihatie 15 C finou.oulu.fi Physics is the Rule of
' *' .* '* SF-90650 OULU kempmp@ the Game.
*' * .* FINLAND phoenix.oulu.fi -> Chemistry is The Game.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Jon Livesey) | Re: Morality? (was Re: <Political Atheists?) | sgi | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
|> [email protected] (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.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Fred Rice) | Re: Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW] | Monash University, Melb., Australia. | I just received some new information regarding the issue of
BCCI and whether it is an Islamic bank etc.
I am now about to post it under the heading
"BCCI".
Look for it there!
Fred Rice
[email protected]
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Jon Livesey) | Re: Slavery (was Re: Why is sex only allowed in marriage: ...) | sgi | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (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.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Carl M Kadie) | [UPI] "Mother files complaint over Boy Scouts" | University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL | [By default, followups to 3 newsgroups.]
A short excerpt:
> BROOKFIELD, Wis. (UPI) -- A mother has filed a complaint with the
>Elmbrook School Board alleging her son's elementary school and its
>Parent-Teacher Organization show discrimination by supporting the Boy
>Scouts.
> Gisele Klemp said Wednesday the PTO's sponsorship of a Boy Scout
>troop and Cub Scout pack that meet at Hillside Elementary School in
>surbarban Milwaukee is discrimination because the Boy Scouts ban
>homosexuals.
[...]
> PTO President Gail Pludeman disputed the charges of discrimination
>and said she believes the Boy Scouts are beneficial.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= [email protected] =
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Kent Sandvik) | Re: islamic authority over women | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(Bill Conner) wrote:
> 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.
However, to underestimate the power of religion creating historical
events is also a big misunderstanding. For instance, would the
30-year-old war have ever started if there were no fractions
between the Protestants and the Vatican?
Cheers,
Kent
---
[email protected]. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Siemens-Nixdorf AG | In article <[email protected]> mathew <[email protected]> writes:
#[email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#> In article <[email protected]> mathew
#> <[email protected]> writes:
#> #This is complete nonsense. Relativism means saying that there is no absolut
#> #standard of morality; it does NOT mean saying that all standards of morality
#> #are equally good.
#>
#> Presumably this means that some moral systems are better than others?
#> How so? How do you manage this without an objective frame of reference?
#
#Which goes faster, a bullet or a snail? How come you can answer that when
#Einstein proved that there isn't an objective frame of reference?
Not that Einstein "proved" anything, but you can't answer it, and your
answer be in general true. And even that statement assumes an
objective reality independent of our beliefs about it.
#> And what weasel word do you use to describe that frame of reference, if
#> it isn't an objective reality for values?
#
#I'm sorry, I can't parse "an objective reality for values". Could you try
#again?
s/an objective reality for values/some values are real even in the face
of disagreement/
If you are saying that some moral systems are better than others, in
your opinion, then all you get is infinite regress. What you do not get
is any justification for saying that the moral system of the terrorist
is inferior to that of the man of peace. Your saying it does not
make it so, and that's according to your premise, not mine.
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
[email protected] from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 0alt.atheism
|
[email protected] (Bruce Salem) | Re: Societal basis for morality References: <[email protected]> | Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences | In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Mike Cobb) writes:
>I'll yield the discussion on absolute morality until I can think of another way
>to discuss it. If you're interested in a change, here's an idea.
Do you believe in absolute morality? And do you have absolute
knowledge? Mere mortal you? And if you claim that your God has absolute
knowledge, then you have have absolute knowledge of that?
If you read the Bible and claim that it is the Word of God, and
in it is contained the absolute moral code you ascribe to, but the prophets,
no matter how divinely inspired are not gods but mere fallable mortals,
then how can you be absolutely sure that they having heard the Word of
God, have got it right? Also, you read their words in translation which
invariably introduces errors of nuance and usage, and then how do you
know that you got the right message? I assert that you do not, and that
you do not have absolute knowledge of anything, including absolute morals.
The only way you can assert such things is through appeal to
prejudice via appeal by force of authority through yourself or a group
you have aligned yourself to.
>If morals come from what is societally accepted, why follow that?
Because social pressure is the most powerful force known to
man. How can you disprove a contention that the richeousness of
established religion is anything other than social convention? One
way is to assert that there are moral universals. But that is not
the same thing as asserting that these universials owe their origen
to trancendance or the supernatural or to dieties.
>What right do
>we have to expect others to follow our notion of societally mandated morality?
We expect empathy from our fellow man. We expect to raise each
generation with values that we live by, those which assure that mistakes
we have made are not repeated. Do you think that mere authority checks
all tendancies which are disruptive of civilized life? I think not! In fact
authority is power, and power corrupts. The most powerful tend to think
that they are above the law that applies to everybody else. Religious
authority, theocarcy, has not mitigated this any better than other
power structures on this score and it seems that because there are no
checks on power concentrated in clergy or nobility that the abuses
recorded by history are greater.
We live and teach morals by setting an example, starting in
the home. This does not come from books or authority figures in
soceity. If people are weak or confused at the present time it is
not because the breakup of the family has been precipitated by some
mysterious moral decidance that redidication to traditional formulas
will repair. That is but magical and simplistic thinking. We need to
look at forces in the way we live, even the good things that happen
in our present culture, that are weakening the family as the primary
means we have to teach children values. Of course people are trying
to have the community do things that once were done in the family
alone. This may not be as effective. We need to look at this.
>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" ?
Laying down the law, and with teeth, doesn't stop the crazy
man from murdering your brother despite the morality or the law. It
may help you with dealing promptly with him after the fact, but it
may not be very effective for preventing mental illness or cracy people
from murduring.
It is quite interesting how ineffective moral authoritarianism
is in fact. It may work best in societies that are already sonmewhat
isolated, that do not experience change, and have long standing
traditions. In a basic way moral codes decrease the number of decisions
people have to make everyday. In a real sense thay allow people to not
have to think. That is OK when things are stable, but it becomes a
problem when conditions change. This leads me to think that morals are
not sumething fundemental, at least most of them, recalling that there
are values all people seem to agree on, but mutate in response to outside
political, economic, technical, and cultural influiences.
Lately, I have come to regard people who speak like you
with great suspicion, especially when they include the pharse "for
the children.". I think that such people are more of an imparative to
want to control what others do and think than other more nobil pursuits,
such as of the truth.
Bruce Salem
| 0alt.atheism
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.