Sound of Trumpet Christian Morality: VT Priest Sentenced for Moelsting 18 YO Kid
Yang, AthD (h.c)
http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -3350 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's bullshit:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
Omnipotent
> Yep, that vaunted Christian moral superiority
>
> http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
>
>
Carter fucked up your country many years ago by kissing Iran's ass. He
should have started destroying cities until they released the hostages.
Ever since the Carter administration Muslims think they can walk all
over us. If he would have taken care of the problem Bush wouldn't have
to make corrections for his short comings.
Captain Compassion
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>Yep, that vaunted Christian moral superiority
>
>http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
The theory being what? A natural outcome of Christianity is child
molestation or perhaps only Christians are child molesters?
Christianity is indeed flawed as with all the philosophies created by
man. However I suspect it has brought infinitely more comfort and
meaning to the lives of humankind then all the forms of atheism. --
Captain Compassion
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net
bala...@yahoo.com
> Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
> > Yep, that vaunted Christian moral superiority
>
> >http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
>
> Carter fucked up your country many years ago by kissing Iran's ass. He
What a wonderful idea. Not only do you kill thousands (millions) of
innocent people,
but you create even more terrorists who will take more hostages. But I
guess knuckledragger thinking
like this is easier then, i dunno, diplomacy or using special ops to
rescue the hostages and take out
the ones actualy physicaly hoding them captive? No wonder this world
is so fucked up, we have a bunch of
"conservative" apes running it.
Yang, AthD (h.c)
wrote:
Mission Accomplished then eh, little chickenhawk?
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -3351 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Yang, AthD (h.c)
<dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 May 2007 06:31:30 GMT, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
><eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>
>>Yep, that vaunted Christian moral superiority
>>
>>http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
>
>The theory being what? A natural outcome of Christianity is child
>molestation or perhaps only Christians are child molesters?
That you christians has no claim on moral superiorirty.
>Christianity is indeed flawed as with all the philosophies created by
>man. However I suspect it has brought infinitely more comfort and
>meaning to the lives of humankind then all the forms of atheism. --
and infinitely more suffering, your point?
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -3351 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Captain Compassion
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 May 2007 07:44:11 -0700, Captain Compassion
><dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 May 2007 06:31:30 GMT, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
>><eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Yep, that vaunted Christian moral superiority
>>>
>>>http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
>>
>>The theory being what? A natural outcome of Christianity is child
>>molestation or perhaps only Christians are child molesters?
>
>That you christians has no claim on moral superiorirty.
>
Ah. It's a personal thing. I suspect that Communists,
environmentalists and atheists have the same superiority complex. You
must adapt.
>>Christianity is indeed flawed as with all the philosophies created by
>>man. However I suspect it has brought infinitely more comfort and
>>meaning to the lives of humankind then all the forms of atheism. --
>
>and infinitely more suffering, your point?
There are no atheist Mother Teresas.
The Atheist will tell us of all the horror that religion has visited
on Mankind and there is truth to what they say. However they fail to
tell us that for each atrocity committed in the name of religion there
are a million lives given meaning for existence and comfort in times
of trouble. Atheism seeks to affirm the negative and offers little
towards enlightenment or comfort for the common masses of man. Atheism
is Nihilism. -- Captain Compassion.
Lucifer
wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:05:04 GMT, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
>
>
>
> <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 02 May 2007 07:44:11 -0700, Captain Compassion
> ><dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 02 May 2007 06:31:30 GMT, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
> >><eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Yep, that vaunted Christian moral superiority
>
> >>>http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
>
> >>The theory being what? A natural outcome of Christianity is child
> >>molestation or perhaps only Christians are child molesters?
>
> >That you christians has no claim on moral superiorirty.
>
> Ah. It's a personal thing. I suspect that Communists,
> environmentalists and atheists have the same superiority complex. You
> must adapt.
>
> >>Christianity is indeed flawed as with all the philosophies created by
> >>man. However I suspect it has brought infinitely more comfort and
> >>meaning to the lives of humankind then all the forms of atheism. --
>
> >and infinitely more suffering, your point?
>
> There are no atheist Mother Teresas.
Thank fuck for that. She was a heartless bitch.
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil
and General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist, BAAWA Lowly Evilmeister and tamer of the Demon Duck
of Doom
Convicted by Earthquack
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
Yang, AthD (h.c)
<dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>That you christians has no claim on moral superiorirty.
>>
>Ah. It's a personal thing. I suspect that Communists,
>environmentalists and atheists have the same superiority complex.
I also suspect that Christian pedophiles have the same superiority
complex. Your world.
>>>Christianity is indeed flawed as with all the philosophies created by
>>>man. However I suspect it has brought infinitely more comfort and
>>>meaning to the lives of humankind then all the forms of atheism. --
>>
>>and infinitely more suffering, your point?
>
>There are no atheist Mother Teresas.
No, there are atheists/agnostic philanthropers such as Bill Gates and
Warren Buffet, who instead of redistributing wealth like Mother
Theresa, create them so that they can give away at their own leisure.
How many billions of dollars did Mother Theresa dole out?
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -3354 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Captain Compassion
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 May 2007 08:33:15 -0700, Captain Compassion
><dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>That you christians has no claim on moral superiorirty.
>>>
>>Ah. It's a personal thing. I suspect that Communists,
>>environmentalists and atheists have the same superiority complex.
>
>I also suspect that Christian pedophiles have the same superiority
>complex. Your world.
>
I suspect you are right as with the Wiccan pedophiles.
>
>>>>Christianity is indeed flawed as with all the philosophies created by
>>>>man. However I suspect it has brought infinitely more comfort and
>>>>meaning to the lives of humankind then all the forms of atheism. --
>>>
>>>and infinitely more suffering, your point?
>>
>>There are no atheist Mother Teresas.
>
>
>No, there are atheists/agnostic philanthropers such as Bill Gates and
>Warren Buffet, who instead of redistributing wealth like Mother
>Theresa, create them so that they can give away at their own leisure.
>
>How many billions of dollars did Mother Theresa dole out?
Not a lot. She didn't get a lot of tax write offs either.
Yang, AthD (h.c)
<dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 May 2007 02:45:57 GMT, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
><eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 May 2007 08:33:15 -0700, Captain Compassion
>><dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>That you christians has no claim on moral superiorirty.
>>>>
>>>Ah. It's a personal thing. I suspect that Communists,
>>>environmentalists and atheists have the same superiority complex.
>>
>>I also suspect that Christian pedophiles have the same superiority
>>complex. Your world.
>>
>I suspect you are right as with the Wiccan pedophiles.
Just as I am right about your Christian pedophiles.
>>>>>Christianity is indeed flawed as with all the philosophies created by
>>>>>man. However I suspect it has brought infinitely more comfort and
>>>>>meaning to the lives of humankind then all the forms of atheism. --
>>>>
>>>>and infinitely more suffering, your point?
>>>
>>>There are no atheist Mother Teresas.
>>
>>
>>No, there are atheists/agnostic philanthropers such as Bill Gates and
>>Warren Buffet, who instead of redistributing wealth like Mother
>>Theresa, create them so that they can give away at their own leisure.
>>
>>How many billions of dollars did Mother Theresa dole out?
>
>Not a lot. She didn't get a lot of tax write offs either.
Of course not, you don't get tax write-off with someone else's money.
Captain Compassion
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:17:00 -0700, Captain Compassion
><dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 May 2007 02:45:57 GMT, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
>><eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 02 May 2007 08:33:15 -0700, Captain Compassion
>>><dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>That you christians has no claim on moral superiorirty.
>>>>>
>>>>Ah. It's a personal thing. I suspect that Communists,
>>>>environmentalists and atheists have the same superiority complex.
>>>
>>>I also suspect that Christian pedophiles have the same superiority
>>>complex. Your world.
>>>
>>I suspect you are right as with the Wiccan pedophiles.
>
>
>Just as I am right about your Christian pedophiles.
>
Just as with all (insert your despised target group here) pedophiles.
>>>>>>Christianity is indeed flawed as with all the philosophies created by
>>>>>>man. However I suspect it has brought infinitely more comfort and
>>>>>>meaning to the lives of humankind then all the forms of atheism. --
>>>>>
>>>>>and infinitely more suffering, your point?
>>>>
>>>>There are no atheist Mother Teresas.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, there are atheists/agnostic philanthropers such as Bill Gates and
>>>Warren Buffet, who instead of redistributing wealth like Mother
>>>Theresa, create them so that they can give away at their own leisure.
>>>
>>>How many billions of dollars did Mother Theresa dole out?
>>
>>Not a lot. She didn't get a lot of tax write offs either.
>
>Of course not, you don't get tax write-off with someone else's money.
--
Yang, AthD (h.c)
<dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 May 2007 15:07:31 GMT, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
><eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:17:00 -0700, Captain Compassion
>><dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 03 May 2007 02:45:57 GMT, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
>>><eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 02 May 2007 08:33:15 -0700, Captain Compassion
>>>><dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>That you christians has no claim on moral superiorirty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Ah. It's a personal thing. I suspect that Communists,
>>>>>environmentalists and atheists have the same superiority complex.
>>>>
>>>>I also suspect that Christian pedophiles have the same superiority
>>>>complex. Your world.
>>>>
>>>I suspect you are right as with the Wiccan pedophiles.
>>
>>
>>Just as I am right about your Christian pedophiles.
>>
>Just as with all (insert your despised target group here) pedophiles.
I can agree with that.
>>>>>>>Christianity is indeed flawed as with all the philosophies created by
>>>>>>>man. However I suspect it has brought infinitely more comfort and
>>>>>>>meaning to the lives of humankind then all the forms of atheism. --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>and infinitely more suffering, your point?
>>>>>
>>>>>There are no atheist Mother Teresas.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, there are atheists/agnostic philanthropers such as Bill Gates and
>>>>Warren Buffet, who instead of redistributing wealth like Mother
>>>>Theresa, create them so that they can give away at their own leisure.
>>>>
>>>>How many billions of dollars did Mother Theresa dole out?
>>>
>>>Not a lot. She didn't get a lot of tax write offs either.
>>
>>Of course not, you don't get tax write-off with someone else's money.
--
Neolibertarian
bala...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 2, 6:09 am, Omnipotent <Omnipot...@heaven.org> wrote:
> > Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
> > > Yep, that vaunted Christian moral superiority
> >
> > >http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
> >
> > Carter fucked up your country many years ago by kissing Iran's ass. He
> > should have started destroying cities until theyblahblahblahfuckingblah
>
> What a wonderful idea. Not only do you kill thousands (millions) of
> innocent people,
> but you create even more terrorists who will take more hostages.
Funny, the same strategy didn't produce more German Nazis, Italian
Fascists and imperialist Japanese.
In fact, the same strategy seems to have mostly eliminated them.
Along with (millions) of innocent people.
--
NeoLibertarian
"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."
---Will Rogers
Neolibertarian
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
> http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
You don't understand Christian morality, obviously.
Yeshua didn't claim to have eliminated sin.
Al Klein
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <knbg33dgaapoj4tf9...@4ax.com>,
> "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
>
>You don't understand Christian morality, obviously.
Any more than we understand invisible purple things. But we might -
if Christianity ever got any.
Neolibertarian
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
Christianity offers morality, it doesn't force it or guarantee it.
Al Klein
wrote:
>In article <dg4t33dtp39o9ak02...@4ax.com>,
> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 06 May 2007 01:26:59 -0500, Neolibertarian
>> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <knbg33dgaapoj4tf9...@4ax.com>,
>> > "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
>> >
>> >You don't understand Christian morality, obviously.
>>
>> Any more than we understand invisible purple things. But we might -
>> if Christianity ever got any.
>
>Christianity offers morality
Christianity offers moral depravity and calls it morality. Read the
Bible - it's filled with moral depravity.
Captain Compassion
wrote:
>On Mon, 07 May 2007 06:29:22 GMT, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <dg4t33dtp39o9ak02...@4ax.com>,
>> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 06 May 2007 01:26:59 -0500, Neolibertarian
>>> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <knbg33dgaapoj4tf9...@4ax.com>,
>>> > "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
>>> >
>>> >You don't understand Christian morality, obviously.
>>>
>>> Any more than we understand invisible purple things. But we might -
>>> if Christianity ever got any.
>>
>>Christianity offers morality
>
>Christianity offers moral depravity and calls it morality. Read the
>Bible - it's filled with moral depravity.
Life is filled with moral depravity. Any book, philosophical,
religious or otherwise should recognize that.
Neolibertarian
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 06:29:22 GMT, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <dg4t33dtp39o9ak02...@4ax.com>,
> > Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 06 May 2007 01:26:59 -0500, Neolibertarian
> >> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <knbg33dgaapoj4tf9...@4ax.com>,
> >> > "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
> >> >
> >> >You don't understand Christian morality, obviously.
> >>
> >> Any more than we understand invisible purple things. But we might -
> >> if Christianity ever got any.
> >
> >Christianity offers morality
>
> Christianity offers moral depravity and calls it morality. Read the
> Bible - it's filled with moral depravity.
You haven't read the Bible.
What the Bible says, nearly on every page, is that you have a choice.
Always. And it promises, in no uncertain terms, that nothing that ever
happens to you in this life will succeed in taking away that choice.
And there is moral depravity in the Bible, that it clearly calls "sin."
Sin is an ancient archer's term. It means not aiming high enough to hit
the target.
Don Martin
wrote:
>In article <dg4t33dtp39o9ak02...@4ax.com>,
> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 06 May 2007 01:26:59 -0500, Neolibertarian
>> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <knbg33dgaapoj4tf9...@4ax.com>,
>> > "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
>> >
>> >You don't understand Christian morality, obviously.
>>
>> Any more than we understand invisible purple things. But we might -
>> if Christianity ever got any.
>
>Christianity offers morality, it doesn't force it or guarantee it.
Or practice it.
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Al Klein
<dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 May 2007 08:36:43 -0400, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 May 2007 06:29:22 GMT, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <dg4t33dtp39o9ak02...@4ax.com>,
>>> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 06 May 2007 01:26:59 -0500, Neolibertarian
>>>> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >In article <knbg33dgaapoj4tf9...@4ax.com>,
>>>> > "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
>>>> >
>>>> >You don't understand Christian morality, obviously.
>>>>
>>>> Any more than we understand invisible purple things. But we might -
>>>> if Christianity ever got any.
>>>
>>>Christianity offers morality
>>
>>Christianity offers moral depravity and calls it morality. Read the
>>Bible - it's filled with moral depravity.
>
>Life is filled with moral depravity. Any book, philosophical,
>religious or otherwise should recognize that.
There's a difference between recognizing depravity and ordering it.
Kurt Nicklas
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 06:29:22 GMT, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <dg4t33dtp39o9ak02ertddt67h81hmc...@4ax.com>,
> > Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 06 May 2007 01:26:59 -0500, Neolibertarian
>
> >> >In article <knbg33dgaapoj4tf98mnvfefrbn8ev9...@4ax.com>,
> >> > "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
>
> >> >You don't understand Christian morality, obviously.
>
> >> Any more than we understand invisible purple things. But we might -
> >> if Christianity ever got any.
>
> >Christianity offers morality
>
> Christianity offers moral depravity and calls it morality. Read the
> Bible - it's filled with moral depravity
During the 20th century, atheists killed more human beings than all
the
religious pogroms, inquisitions and crusades of all preceding history.
Atheism *must be inherently filled with moral depravity, right?
Al Klein
wrote:
>In article <j97u33d6v38nmvvpe...@4ax.com>,
> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 May 2007 06:29:22 GMT, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <dg4t33dtp39o9ak02...@4ax.com>,
>> > Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 06 May 2007 01:26:59 -0500, Neolibertarian
>> >> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <knbg33dgaapoj4tf9...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
>> >> >
>> >> >You don't understand Christian morality, obviously.
>> >>
>> >> Any more than we understand invisible purple things. But we might -
>> >> if Christianity ever got any.
>> >
>> >Christianity offers morality
>>
>> Christianity offers moral depravity and calls it morality. Read the
>> Bible - it's filled with moral depravity.
>
>You haven't read the Bible.
I've read more Bibles more times than you have. And not just the
parts that make Christianity look good.
>
>What the Bible says, nearly on every page, is that you have a choice.
>Always.
Except slaves - they have no choice but to obey their masters.
And the children of enemies - they become concubines if they're female
virgins.
And rape victims - they have no choice but to spend the rest of their
lives with their rapists.
And women in general - they have no choice but to be the property of a
man.
Then there were the Crusades, the Hundred Year's War, the
Inquisitions, the Holocaust, etc., etc.
And Christianity calls it all "moral", since "God" calls for it and
anything "he" does is "good" - even if it would be horrible if anyone
else did it.
Al Klein
<drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 May 2007 06:29:22 GMT, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <dg4t33dtp39o9ak02...@4ax.com>,
>> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 06 May 2007 01:26:59 -0500, Neolibertarian
>>> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <knbg33dgaapoj4tf9...@4ax.com>,
>>> > "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
>>> >
>>> >You don't understand Christian morality, obviously.
>>>
>>> Any more than we understand invisible purple things. But we might -
>>> if Christianity ever got any.
>>
>>Christianity offers morality, it doesn't force it or guarantee it.
>
>Or practice it.
Or know what the word means.
Ole redneck
wrote:
No... A nice example of anti-christian media bias though.
Just browsing the headline you would think it was another preist
pedophile story
Here you have an unwanted homosexual advance made against an eighteen
year old male, even in VT that is an adult.
It would be the equivilent of me copping a feel from an eighteen year
old woman.
Now either could get you slapped or in the case of the guy, even your
ass kicked.
As far as the law is concerned both are a low level sexual battery
cases, that have nothing to do with children.
Shrikeback
> On May 2, 4:33 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:05:04 GMT, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
>
> > <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
> > >On Wed, 02 May 2007 07:44:11 -0700, Captain Compassion
> > ><dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>
> > >>On Wed, 02 May 2007 06:31:30 GMT, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
> > >><eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>Yep, that vaunted Christian moral superiority
>
> > >>>http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
>
> > >>The theory being what? A natural outcome of Christianity is child
> > >>molestation or perhaps only Christians are child molesters?
>
> > >That you christians has no claim on moral superiorirty.
>
> > Ah. It's a personal thing. I suspect that Communists,
> > environmentalists and atheists have the same superiority complex. You
> > must adapt.
>
> > >>Christianity is indeed flawed as with all the philosophies created by
> > >>man. However I suspect it has brought infinitely more comfort and
> > >>meaning to the lives of humankind then all the forms of atheism. --
>
> > >and infinitely more suffering, your point?
>
> > There are no atheist Mother Teresas.
>
> Thank fuck for that. She was a heartless bitch.
I've heard that.
Have you read the Missionary Position by Christopher
Hitchens or something? I haven't yet, but it sounds
like an interesting book. Evidently she was a friend
of dictators and wealthy criminals, such as Charles
Keating:
Mother Teresa wrote to the court and said, look,
Charles Keating is a great friend of the poor and a
lovely man and you should go easy on him. I reprinted
her letter, in which she says if he's done anything
wrong she can't believe it and she doesn't know
what it is. The deputy D.A. of L.A. County a very
clever guy by the name of Paul Turley, who I would
say from his letter must at least have been a Catholic
in his life, if he isn't still. He wrote her back a letter,
explaining the process by which Keating had separated
really large numbers of poor people from their life savings
without any scruple at all or remorse, and then pointed
out that in their audits they discovered that quite a lot
of the money he had stolen he'd given to Mother Teresa.
He said, now that you know this when are you going to
give it back? At this point she broke off the
correspondence and made no move to return the money."
Ha ha. From an interview with Hitchens. Read
the whole thing here:
http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featpostel_56.htm
Neolibertarian
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
Especially slaves have choice.
Kurt Nicklas
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 19:13:14 -0500, Don Martin
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 07 May 2007 06:29:22 GMT, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 06 May 2007 01:26:59 -0500, Neolibertarian
>
> >>> >In article <knbg33dgaapoj4tf98mnvfefrbn8ev9...@4ax.com>,
> >>> > "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >>http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
>
> >>> >You don't understand Christian morality, obviously.
>
> >>> Any more than we understand invisible purple things. But we might -
> >>> if Christianity ever got any.
>
> >>Christianity offers morality, it doesn't force it or guarantee it.
>
> >Or practice it.
>
> Or know what the word means.
Apparently, to be an atheist means to simultaneously believe in the
existance of a universal morality
and the utter relativism of all morality.
A tough job...
Al Klein
wrote:
>During the 20th century, atheists killed more human beings than all
>the religious pogroms, inquisitions and crusades of all preceding history.
Atheists may have, atheism didn't. Atheism, qua atheism, has never
killed anyone. Religion, qua religion, has.
>Atheism *must be inherently filled with moral depravity, right?
Atheism doesn't offer any more morality, good or bad, than not
collecting stamps does.
Al Klein
>Especially slaves have choice.
Colossians 3:22, "Servants, obey in all things your masters according
to the flesh;"
Doesn't seem to be any wiggle-room there. "All things" is pretty
inclusive. No choice.
Al Klein
wrote:
>Apparently, to be an atheist means to simultaneously believe in the
>existance of a universal morality
Nope. Lack of belief in one more god than Christians have has nothing
to do with morality. You have it backwards. Most people who ARE
moral don't fall for immoral religions.
>and the utter relativism of all morality.
Christian morality is as relative as any other.
Neolibertarian
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:24:30 -0500, Neolibertarian
> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <7rlv33hr4a7vsq3h0...@4ax.com>,
> > Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 07 May 2007 23:08:06 GMT, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >What the Bible says, nearly on every page, is that you have a choice.
> >> >Always.
>
> >> Except slaves - they have no choice but to obey their masters.
>
> >Especially slaves have choice.
>
> Colossians 3:22, "Servants, obey in all things your masters according
> to the flesh;"
Paul is always a problem.
But not in this case: Why would he be calling servants to serve their
masters if they had no choice?
The distinction goes deeper here--"according to the flesh."
Young's literal translation reads this way:
"22
The servants! obey in all things those who are masters according to the
flesh, not in eye-service as men-pleasers, but in simplicity of heart,
fearing God;
"23
and all, whatever ye may do -- out of soul work -- as to the Lord, and
not to men,"
Serve the masters of flesh only in flesh, but with a genuine heart. But,
Paul is implying here: your masters of flesh do not own your soul.
>
> Doesn't seem to be any wiggle-room there. "All things" is pretty
> inclusive. No choice.
It's not wiggling, silly, Cicero, also, told us that a slave can be
free, even when surrounded by his masters. And, in truth, even freer
than they.
Kurt Nicklas
> On 7 May 2007 18:59:52 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >During the 20th century, atheists killed more human beings than all
> >the religious pogroms, inquisitions and crusades of all preceding history.
>
> Atheists may have, atheism didn't. Atheism, qua atheism, has never
> killed anyone.
Nonsense. The communists states of the 20th century were OFFICIALLY
atheist
and atheism was an inherent part of their doctrine and formed one of
the prime
bases of the society. Atheism was taught inthe schools, for heaven
sake. Millions of those killed were killed because they were believers
or because they were clergy or because they were in a church when they
shouldn't have been.
So you are completely wrong...atheism, as atheism, killed MILLIONS.
>Religion, qua religion, has.
>
> >Atheism *must be inherently filled with moral depravity, right?
>
> Atheism doesn't offer any more morality, good or bad, than not
> collecting stamps does.
Atheism, as it is used by atheists, makes morality impossible because
it accepts that all morality
is of human invention and of equal validity.
Al Klein
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <ghs043h62gkdbepfh...@4ax.com>,
> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:24:30 -0500, Neolibertarian
>> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <7rlv33hr4a7vsq3h0...@4ax.com>,
>> > Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 07 May 2007 23:08:06 GMT, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >What the Bible says, nearly on every page, is that you have a choice.
>> >> >Always.
>>
>> >> Except slaves - they have no choice but to obey their masters.
>>
>> >Especially slaves have choice.
>>
>> Colossians 3:22, "Servants, obey in all things your masters according
>> to the flesh;"
>
>Paul is always a problem.
>
>But not in this case: Why would he be calling servants to serve their
>masters if they had no choice?
According to Christianity they shouldn't have a choice. According to
reality they have a few choices.
>The distinction goes deeper here--"according to the flesh."
>Young's literal translation reads this way:
>
>"22
>The servants! obey in all things those who are masters according to the
>flesh, not in eye-service as men-pleasers, but in simplicity of heart,
>fearing God;
>
>"23
>and all, whatever ye may do -- out of soul work -- as to the Lord, and
>not to men,"
>
>Serve the masters of flesh only in flesh, but with a genuine heart. But,
>Paul is implying here: your masters of flesh do not own your soul.
Implying, maybe, but he's plainly stating that his version of the
Christian god has no problem with slavery.
>> Doesn't seem to be any wiggle-room there. "All things" is pretty
>> inclusive. No choice.
>It's not wiggling, silly, Cicero, also, told us that a slave can be
>free, even when surrounded by his masters. And, in truth, even freer
>than they.
That's not what Paul tells us, though. Obedience is only freedom for
those who wish to be slaves - and they don't have to be told to obey,
they crave the ability to obey.
Stop trying to defend Christian morality - it's indefensible.
Kurt Nicklas
> On 8 May 2007 03:33:37 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Apparently, to be an atheist means to simultaneously believe in the
> >existance of a universal morality
>
> Nope. Lack of belief in one more god than Christians have has nothing
> to do with morality.
>You have it backwards.
>Most people who ARE moral don't fall for immoral religions.
Who are you to judge who is moral or not? What qualifies you to say
what
is right and wrong in this world?
Pastor Dave
<nick...@bellsouth.net> claimed:
>> >During the 20th century, atheists killed more
>> >human beings than all the religious progams,
>> >inquisitions and crusades of all preceding history.
>>
>> Atheists may have, atheism didn't. Atheism,
>> qua atheism, has never killed anyone.
>
>Nonsense. The communists states of the 20th century
>were OFFICIALLY atheist and atheism was an inherent
>part of their doctrine and formed one of the prime
>bases of the society. Atheism was taught in the schools,
>for heaven sake. Millions of those killed were killed
>because they were believers or because they were clergy
>or because they were in a church when they shouldn't
>have been.
>
>So you are completely wrong...atheism, as atheism,
>killed MILLIONS.
Atheist nations have killed more people than all religions
combined. That is historical fact! For someone to deny
that, is to show that they are hypocrites, when they claim
that it is those of faith who are biased. And so, we see
once again, another biased atheist. (:
--
Pastor Dave
Tragedy is a tool for the living to gain wisdom.
not a guide, by which to live. - Robert Kennedy
Neolibertarian
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:27:45 -0500, Neolibertarian
> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <ghs043h62gkdbepfh...@4ax.com>,
> > Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:24:30 -0500, Neolibertarian
> >> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <7rlv33hr4a7vsq3h0...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 07 May 2007 23:08:06 GMT, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >What the Bible says, nearly on every page, is that you have a choice.
> >> >> >Always.
> >>
> >> >> Except slaves - they have no choice but to obey their masters.
> >>
> >> >Especially slaves have choice.
> >>
> >> Colossians 3:22, "Servants, obey in all things your masters according
> >> to the flesh;"
> >
> >Paul is always a problem.
> >
> >But not in this case: Why would he be calling servants to serve their
> >masters if they had no choice?
>
> According to Christianity they shouldn't have a choice. According to
> reality they have a few choices.
According to Paul, you have a choice.
According to me, too. Even a slave has a choice.
>
> >The distinction goes deeper here--"according to the flesh."
>
> >Young's literal translation reads this way:
> >
> >"22
> >The servants! obey in all things those who are masters according to the
> >flesh, not in eye-service as men-pleasers, but in simplicity of heart,
> >fearing God;
> >
> >"23
> >and all, whatever ye may do -- out of soul work -- as to the Lord, and
> >not to men,"
> >
> >Serve the masters of flesh only in flesh, but with a genuine heart. But,
> >Paul is implying here: your masters of flesh do not own your soul.
>
> Implying, maybe, but he's plainly stating that his version of the
> Christian god has no problem with slavery.
A God that doesn't love slaves, and indigents, and the crippled--what
kind of God would he be?
Slavery is man's creation, after all.
>
> >> Doesn't seem to be any wiggle-room there. "All things" is pretty
> >> inclusive. No choice.
>
> >It's not wiggling, silly, Cicero, also, told us that a slave can be
> >free, even when surrounded by his masters. And, in truth, even freer
> >than they.
>
> That's not what Paul tells us, though. Obedience is only freedom for
> those who wish to be slaves - and they don't have to be told to obey,
> they crave the ability to obey.
He seems to merely be saying that acceptance of one's circumstances and
one's place is essential to your life here. And not just tentative
acceptance, but whole hearted acceptance.
Of the whole package.
It can be the most difficult thing you'll ever do. It may defy your
reason. But...you have the choice.
Consider the captain of a ship in the middle of a typhoon. He didn't
ask for the storm, it just came upon him.
If he doesn't come to an understanding that the waves and the wind and
the sea are in control of this crisis, and /not him/--well, he won't
navigate through it, and he won't survive.
It seems to me, you're standing in your wheel room cursing the waves.
>
> Stop trying to defend Christian morality - it's indefensible.
It very much is defensible. Much more so than a world view which clings
to the ludicrous assumption that all this just happened.
I'm sure others could do far better than me at defending it.
Al Klein
wrote:
>On May 8, 8:50 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On 7 May 2007 18:59:52 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >During the 20th century, atheists killed more human beings than all
>> >the religious pogroms, inquisitions and crusades of all preceding history.
>>
>> Atheists may have, atheism didn't. Atheism, qua atheism, has never
>> killed anyone.
>
>Nonsense. The communists states of the 20th century were OFFICIALLY
>atheist
But no one was killed due to the lack of belief in gods.
>Atheism was taught inthe schools, for heaven sake.
How do you teach not teaching religion?
> Millions of those killed were killed because they were believers
Bullshit. Stalin killed people who didn't believe in Stalin - he
didn't kill people because they were Christian.
>or because they were clergy
Which is why the Orthodox Church survived the entire Soviet period.
> or because they were in a church when they
>shouldn't have been.
Breaking the law is always illegal, atheist society, non-theistic
society or theocracy.
>Atheism, as it is used by atheists, makes morality impossible because
>it accepts that all morality is of human invention
It's not invented, it's evolved.
> and of equal validity.
Morality isn't subject to "validity" any more than height is.
Al Klein
wrote:
>On May 8, 8:54 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On 8 May 2007 03:33:37 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Apparently, to be an atheist means to simultaneously believe in the
>> >existance of a universal morality
>>
>> Nope. Lack of belief in one more god than Christians have has nothing
>> to do with morality.
>
>>You have it backwards.
>
>>Most people who ARE moral don't fall for immoral religions.
>
>Who are you to judge who is moral or not?
I'm morally an adult.
> What qualifies you to say what
>is right and wrong in this world?
Not a thing - we were talking about morality. That you think it means
"what is right and wrong in this world" is a sign that you have no
morals. No one can tell another what's right or wrong to do if it
doesn't affect anyone else - which is part of what "Christian
morality" tries to do.
Al Klein
wrote:
>A God that doesn't love slaves, and indigents, and the crippled--what
>kind of God would he be?
A god that loves slavery when he could prevent it - what kind of God
would he be?
A god that loves having cripples when he could prevent it - what kind
of God would he be?
A god that loves having people starve when he could prevent it - what
kind of God would he be?
>Slavery is man's creation, after all.
All things are the will of God. When did that change?
>> That's not what Paul tells us, though. Obedience is only freedom for
>> those who wish to be slaves - and they don't have to be told to obey,
>> they crave the ability to obey.
>He seems to merely be saying that acceptance of one's circumstances and
>one's place is essential to your life here.
Maybe that's what he SEEMS to be telling us. What he IS telling us is
that slavery is approved of by his god. As is rape. As is women
being chattel. As is stoning people for minor offenses. As is
eternal torture for limited transgression.
That's not morality, that's depravity.
>Consider the captain of a ship in the middle of a typhoon. He didn't
>ask for the storm, it just came upon him.
No, God created it. Salad Bar faith is dishonesty.
>> Stop trying to defend Christian morality - it's indefensible.
>It very much is defensible.
How do you defend a MANDATE to rape your defeated enemy's female
children?
> Much more so than a world view which clings
>to the ludicrous assumption that all this just happened.
No, the Amalekite children weren't just raped - your god ordered his
people to do it. In your myth.
>I'm sure others could do far better than me at defending it.
No can do any good at defending the rape of children. All they can do
is prove how depraved they are.
AZ Nomad
>>You have it backwards.
Societies have developed standards. Ours doesn't condone slavery,
or institionalized child abuse. Women pretty much have equal rights
and racicm is far less tolerated. Religions have always held back
human progress and that is where they become immoral.
What was fine and dandy five thousand years ago is no longer considered
moral.
Neolibertarian
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 02:39:00 GMT, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >A God that doesn't love slaves, and indigents, and the crippled--what
> >kind of God would he be?
>
> A god that loves slavery when he could prevent it - what kind of God
> would he be?
>
> A god that loves having cripples when he could prevent it - what kind
> of God would he be?
>
> A god that loves having people starve when he could prevent it - what
> kind of God would he be?
Listen to yourself. And then think it through for a moment.
I didn't like it when my parents put away my playpen, either.
I kinda liked the world from in there. I had everything I needed, and
anything I discovered was missing, well, all I had to do was scream, and
the Big Face Over the Playpen would bring it to me.
Do you want a world where nothing can go bad? A world lined with cotton
batting--where nobody ever gets sick, or scratched or suffers broken
bones? Or dies?
Sure, we all yearn for such, but we yearn for such as /children/.
Because such a world would destroy us with boredom, and we'd not value a
life that was permanent and immutable.
You only value things you don't have enough of.
You have what you have, and you are free to make something of it. Or not.
You hate God for being an Indian Giver, don't you?
"For I have no pleasure in the death of the dying...turn ye back and
live!"
---Ezekiel 18:32
YLT
You've never created a multiverse, so how would you know how the gears
fit together?
Perhaps all of this uncertainty and suffering is the price for freedom.
In fact, I'm certain that it is.
And I'm here to tell you, you are free.
>
> >Slavery is man's creation, after all.
>
> All things are the will of God. When did that change?
When He refused to take away the freedom of man.
>
> >> That's not what Paul tells us, though. Obedience is only freedom for
> >> those who wish to be slaves - and they don't have to be told to obey,
> >> they crave the ability to obey.
>
> >He seems to merely be saying that acceptance of one's circumstances and
> >one's place is essential to your life here.
>
> Maybe that's what he SEEMS to be telling us. What he IS telling us is
> that slavery is approved of by his god. As is rape. As is women
> being chattel. As is stoning people for minor offenses. As is
> eternal torture for limited transgression.
>
> That's not morality, that's depravity.
Yeshua was one of those who was tortured to death for a limited
transgression...in fact for no transgression at all.
"I find no cause in this man."
---Pontius Pilate
If God felt as you do, perhaps He'd come here and suffer as a man
suffers--and for no good reason.
Not exactly to set things right. For that too, certainly.
But perhaps to show the way through the wilderness, maybe.
To show you the way out of the playpen.
>
> >Consider the captain of a ship in the middle of a typhoon. He didn't
> >ask for the storm, it just came upon him.
>
> No, God created it. Salad Bar faith is dishonesty.
>
> >> Stop trying to defend Christian morality - it's indefensible.
>
> >It very much is defensible.
>
> How do you defend a MANDATE to rape your defeated enemy's female
> children?
Men, even in the Bible, mistake their whims for the mandates of God.
The entire Bible is populated with those who don't heed what God tells
them. And imagine that God is telling them what He isn't.
Remember that the Israelites once, when they were extremely desperate,
took the Arc of the Covenant into battle with them. They faced the
vastly superior Philistine Army--and they imagined a kind of
Spielbergian miracle from the Ark would appear to drive the enemies away.
Instead, the Ark was captured by the Philistines and the Israelites fled
in a rout.
The Ark was just a couple of carved stones in a gold box.
Sometimes men mistake their whims for the mandates of God.
And sometimes the mandates of God are the mandates of God.
>
> > Much more so than a world view which clings
> >to the ludicrous assumption that all this just happened.
>
> No, the Amalekite children weren't just raped - your god ordered his
> people to do it. In your myth.
You seem to think God is a wussy.
He's not. And those times weren't times where wussies could live long
among men. Wussies abound today because we've sheltered mankind from
natural selection--sheltered him with medicine and cops and penicillin
and atom bombs.
What seems horrible now, seems horrible from your /easy chair/. Life was
harder before the DVD, and pragmatism was something you clung to in
order to survive.
Do you have any dirt under your fingernails?
You only willing to trust what God tells you when it makes sense to you?
When it agrees with your sensibilities?
Well, me too.
I ain't no Abraham.
And I'm just as prone to second guessing what God intends as anyone. And
here I've never even put a universe together, let alone a multiverse.
I, like you, refuse to be an automaton of any man, and of any God.
I would have failed the Milgram Experiment miserably. Well, I can tell
that to myself from my easy chair, anyway.
But I'm also here to tell you that I've come to trust God. Like the
coins say.
For instance, let's say you're the Universe's Master Chessman. And you
wanted a certain gene combination so that the race could survive a
calamity down the road.
What would you hesitate to do?
>
> >I'm sure others could do far better than me at defending it.
>
> No can do any good at defending the rape of children. All they can do
> is prove how depraved they are.
You're a wuss, if you don't mind my saying so. And God has never asked
you to rape anyone, let alone a child. Has he?
December 24th some years ago, it was 26 below zero on a northern
Wisconsin farm. The Farmer had been working all evening as the
temperature bottomed out, getting his livestock safely quartered for the
night.
As he was closing up the barn around 10 pm, he noticed the farm's
resident family of ducks, about 9 ducklings in all, sans momma--and they
were all wandering around aimlessly in the dark. He wondered why they
hadn't already sought shelter, and proceeded to look around for momma
duck.
He finally found her off to the side of the path, and to his dismay,
understood why the ducks were running loose. She'd frozen to death in
the bushes.
Now he was faced with a dilemma. If he left them, the poor little things
would die a particularly horrible death--and his conscience wouldn't
allow him to walk away without doing /something/.
The farmer opened the barn door and left the light on in the inside,
then stood back...hoping they'd sense the heat and get the idea. Being
nearly brainless and irritated by the extreme cold, they continued to
waddle aimlessly.
He walked around and flanked them and tried to herd them in towards
the door. He got a shovel and gently tried to nudge them inside. They
just scattered even more. He got angry and yelled and waved
his arms, hoping they would panic and run for the shelter of the barn.
No dice. Now they were hopelessly scattered, and wandering farther away
from the barn than before.
He sat down on a bench. He watched the ducks wander deeper into the
darkness and tried his best to figure out a way to herd them to safety.
If he left them out in this cold all night they would surely be dead
before the sun came up. He was smarter than them, and surely he could
figure out /some/ way before it got so cold he, too, had to go in for
the night.
Then he remembered something about how ducklings imprint on their
mothers. He thought about it and put himself in their place. Here was
this big creature (the farmer) yelling and pushing and acting
threateningly at them--much like a bear for crying out loud--and, well
of course they were too scared to do the sensible thing.
He got up and slowly walked over the where the loose frantic group was
milling about. He squated down and milled near them for a time--they
squawked and quaked some, but slowly they became used to him. Then he
squat-walked around slowly, first this way and then that way. A few of
the ducklings started to follow him. Encouraged, he kept it up. More and
more of the ducks got the idea and trailed along after him. Finally,
with all of them marching behind him, he turned towards the open barn
door,
The ducklings, seeing him as one of their own at this point, and their
leader--well everyone ELSE was following him! They trailed after him,
every last one of the nine. Once the whole group was inside, he stood up
and went outside to quickly close up the barn for the night.
Off in the distance, the town clock began to chime, and he was surprised
to find that it was midnight already. He'd been struggling with them for
two hours.
It was now the 25th. Christmas Day.
The Farmer was a religious man, and it suddenly struck him that his
dilemma with the ducklings was not so much different than the dilemma
God faced with mankind.
Hmmm.
Does it matter if the story's true? Well, it is as it so happens.
I told you I'm not very good at this thing.
Al Klein
wrote:
>Do you want a world where nothing can go bad? A world lined with cotton
>batting--where nobody ever gets sick, or scratched or suffers broken
>bones? Or dies?
That's what Christianity is, of course. No matter how bad it gets
here, no one really dies - you just go to heaven, where you'll be
sitting in cotton batting for all eternity.
>Sure, we all yearn for such, but we yearn for such as /children/.
And those who never grow up yearn for it until the day they die.
>Because such a world would destroy us with boredom, and we'd not value a
>life that was permanent and immutable.
Exactly. Listen to yourself - you're condemning heaven.
If you grow up, you'll realize that's all it is - a child's desire to
stay in the play pen, translated into adult terms. Adults accept
reality, including death.
Neolibertarian
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
You need to check your math.
Heaven isn't here. You were taking about here. If there is no time in
heaven, for instance, this changes all other conditions--and what was
said about this world doesn't apply.
You were second guessing God about this mutliverse, and you were
explaining how you couldn't forgive him for the poor conditions around
the neighborhood.
And the question was one about choice.
Which you always have.
I told you I wasn't any good.
Al Klein
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You need to check your math.
>
>Heaven isn't here. You were taking about here. If there is no time in
>heaven, for instance, this changes all other conditions--and what was
>said about this world doesn't apply.
>
>You were second guessing God about this mutliverse, and you were
>explaining how you couldn't forgive him for the poor conditions around
>the neighborhood.
You need to check your idea of what constitutes reality. There's no
objective evidence for the objective existence of either heaven or any
god. Never has been, either.
Neolibertarian
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
"Coincidence" is a euphemism for "I've observed something, but I have no
idea what I've observed."
It's quite a coincidence that life arose. And quite a coincidence that
it arose only once. And that in only four and a half billion years this
self-replicating, unbroken chain of amino acids and proteins would
become complex enough to be self aware.
The Laws of Probability (whatever /they/ are, and from where ever /they
come from/) certainly speak against the likelihood of such a series of
events.
Many trillions to one, I should think.
Ergo, logic is a useful, but limited tool.
--
NeoLibertarian
"The nine most terrifying words in the
English language are, 'I'm from the government
and I'm here to help.'"
---Ronald Reagan
Al Klein
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <l34a4312kfqh55co5...@4ax.com>,
> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 May 2007 18:46:03 -0500, Neolibertarian
>> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >You need to check your math.
>> >
>> >Heaven isn't here. You were taking about here. If there is no time in
>> >heaven, for instance, this changes all other conditions--and what was
>> >said about this world doesn't apply.
>> >
>> >You were second guessing God about this mutliverse, and you were
>> >explaining how you couldn't forgive him for the poor conditions around
>> >the neighborhood.
>>
>> You need to check your idea of what constitutes reality. There's no
>> objective evidence for the objective existence of either heaven or any
>> god. Never has been, either.
>
>"Coincidence" is a euphemism for "I've observed something, but I have no
>idea what I've observed."
Coincidence is "I've observed something that appears to have a
specific cause, even though that cause has nothing to do with the
event. It only *appears* to be connected to it."
>It's quite a coincidence that life arose.
But there was no predetermined rule that it would arise. And, once it
arose, there was no predetermined rule that it would produce us.
> And quite a coincidence that it arose only once.
We have no idea whether life arose once or a few thousand times. But
either way, it's no coincidence at all. Pre-biotic life quickly
becomes food for already existing life. If life arose in one pond,
then it arose in another pond, then ... ad almost infinitum, or it
arose once and spread so rapidly that any pre-biotic life was quickly
gobbled up, makes absolutely no difference to the probability of life
arising.
>And that in only four and a half billion years this
>self-replicating, unbroken chain of amino acids and proteins would
>become complex enough to be self aware.
But not "quite a coincidence" that in a mere 4,000 years, millions of
species (and that's only the ones we know of) evolved from the few
thousand species Noah had on the ark. That's much more amazing than
those millions of species taking 4 BILLION years (a million times
longer) to evolve, but Christianity claims that the less likely event
is the one that occurred, and the more likely one couldn't have. (The
Bible, of course, says nothing about evolution - it merely talks about
biogenesis. "Evolution can't happen" is a *Christian* fantasy.)
>The Laws of Probability
The probability of something that exists existing is 1. No matter how
likely or unlikely it was before it existed, once it exists, the
probability of it existing is 1. Since life exists, the probability
of life is 1. Five billion years ago, the probability of life on this
planet was so small as to be not worth thinking about. (Not that
there was anything here capable of thinking.)
> (whatever /they/ are, and from where ever /they
>come from/) certainly speak against the likelihood of such a series of
>events.
Since evolution has no direction, the probability that something will
evolve from what currently exists is 1, unless the world ends. Once
life exists, evolution isn't probably, it just occurs.
>Many trillions to one, I should think.
One to one, as I said.
The probability, 4 billion years ago, that homo sapiens sapiens, as he
is today, would exist today, was mathematically possible, but not much
above infinitesimal. But the probability that species would continue
to evolve as long as life existed was one. IOW, it wasn't only
probable, it wasn't even inevitable, it was certain to happen.
>Ergo, logic is a useful, but limited tool.
Especially when, as you've amply demonstrated, you don't understand
either what it is, or how to use it.
A screwdriver is also a useful but limited tool if you've never heard
of screws, and use the screwdriver to spear fish. But it works pretty
well if you use it to turn screws.
Neolibertarian
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 07:02:15 -0500, Neolibertarian
> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <l34a4312kfqh55co5...@4ax.com>,
> > Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 10 May 2007 18:46:03 -0500, Neolibertarian
> >> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You need to check your math.
> >> >
> >> >Heaven isn't here. You were taking about here. If there is no time in
> >> >heaven, for instance, this changes all other conditions--and what was
> >> >said about this world doesn't apply.
> >> >
> >> >You were second guessing God about this mutliverse, and you were
> >> >explaining how you couldn't forgive him for the poor conditions around
> >> >the neighborhood.
> >>
> >> You need to check your idea of what constitutes reality. There's no
> >> objective evidence for the objective existence of either heaven or any
> >> god. Never has been, either.
> >
> >"Coincidence" is a euphemism for "I've observed something, but I have no
> >idea what I've observed."
>
> Coincidence is "I've observed something that appears to have a
> specific cause, even though that cause has nothing to do with the
> event. It only *appears* to be connected to it."
Yes.
>
> >It's quite a coincidence that life arose.
>
> But there was no predetermined rule that it would arise.
No /known/ rule. The trick, FWIU, is getting a cell wall.
> And, once it
> arose, there was no predetermined rule that it would produce us.
No /known/ rule, of course.
From what I understand, there are aspects of Chaos Theory which allow
for just such a predetermined rule.
Describing something doesn't explain it.
> > And quite a coincidence that it arose only once.
>
> We have no idea whether life arose once or a few thousand times.
But there's no reason to suppose it arose more than once. There's also
some reason to suppose that it could only arise once.
For instance, as you point out, pre-organelles can be food.
> But
> either way, it's no coincidence at all.
"[We've] observed something that appears to have a specific cause, even
though that cause has nothing to do with the event. It only *appears*
to be connected to it."
---Al Klein (5/12/07)
> Pre-biotic life quickly
> becomes food for already existing life. If life arose in one pond,
> then it arose in another pond, then ... ad almost infinitum, or it
> arose once and spread so rapidly that any pre-biotic life was quickly
> gobbled up, makes absolutely no difference to the probability of life
> arising.
That isn't what I was saying, anyway.
> >And that in only four and a half billion years this
> >self-replicating, unbroken chain of amino acids and proteins would
> >become complex enough to be self aware.
>
> But not "quite a coincidence" that in a mere 4,000 years, millions of
> species (and that's only the ones we know of) evolved from the few
> thousand species Noah had on the ark. That's much more amazing than
> those millions of species taking 4 BILLION years (a million times
> longer) to evolve, but Christianity claims that the less likely event
> is the one that occurred, and the more likely one couldn't have.
Let's say Steven Hawkings invents a time machine and goes back to 1500
BCE and then travels to Egypt. He comes upon a little city on the edge
of the Egyptian empire called Hyksos.
He finds a guy there who'll listen to him, so he sits down and tries to
explain to him the origin of the universe,
No, you gotta understand that this shepherder can't even cipher a
hundred tens...
So you edit a little.
"But Luke, what I told you was true from a certain point of view."
"Certain point of VIEW???!!"
Besides, consider this:
Papyrus was expensive!
Let's say Hawkings gives all the straight dope to Moses...well, how much
can he practically have Aaron transcribe of what was told him?
> (The
> Bible, of course, says nothing about evolution - it merely talks about
> biogenesis. "Evolution can't happen" is a *Christian* fantasy.)
You shouldn't mistake what Christians say for Christianity.
>
> >The Laws of Probability
>
> The probability of something that exists existing is 1. No matter how
> likely or unlikely it was before it existed, once it exists, the
> probability of it existing is 1. Since life exists, the probability
> of life is 1. Five billion years ago, the probability of life on this
> planet was so small as to be not worth thinking about. (Not that
> there was anything here capable of thinking.)
My point was. IIRC, you can describe probability, but you're merely
observing a phenomena.
Which is fine.
But, if you can't define the mechanism at work...
>
> > (whatever /they/ are, and from where ever /they
> >come from/) certainly speak against the likelihood of such a series of
> >events.
>
> Since evolution has no direction, the probability that something will
> evolve from what currently exists is 1, unless the world ends.
That's not the only thing that could stand in the way.
Life could easily cease to exist by evolving, not evolving, not evolving
enough, or by evolving in a direction that changing conditions will
later destroy.
E.g., the 7 observed major extinction events that we know of, IIRC.
> Once
> life exists, evolution isn't probably, it just occurs.
Change occurs. Delta causes evolution, so to speak.
> >Many trillions to one, I should think.
>
> One to one, as I said.
You haven't determined that at all.
> The probability, 4 billion years ago, that homo sapiens sapiens, as he
> is today, would exist today, was mathematically possible, but not much
> above infinitesimal. But the probability that species would continue
> to evolve as long as life existed was one.
Higher complexity was inevitable because...?
> IOW, it wasn't only
> probable, it wasn't even inevitable, it was certain to happen.
Heh.
You roll the dice, and the way that they land and how they come to rest
was certain to happen.
We can even back up the events to prove it.
IOW there is no law of probability. "Things happen because they do."
Maybe that should be a bumper sticker.
>
> >Ergo, logic is a useful, but limited tool.
>
> Especially when, as you've amply demonstrated, you don't understand
> either what it is, or how to use it.
My inadequacies were outlined in a disclaimer upthread.
Logic is a limited tool. It is an artifice of Clever, Clever Man who,
himself, has limits.
Are you arguing this?
Self-awareness is.
I'm interested in cause.
>
> A screwdriver is also a useful but limited tool if you've never heard
> of screws, and use the screwdriver to spear fish. But it works pretty
> well if you use it to turn screws.
But a screwdriver ain't too good for hammering nails. Even a big one
with a heavy handle.
That's experience talking.
Al Klein
wrote:
Barring your posting of actual evidence of the rule, that's the
default - no rule.
> The trick, FWIU, is getting a cell wall.
No longer a trick. God doesn't live in that gap any more.
>> And, once it
>> arose, there was no predetermined rule that it would produce us.
>No /known/ rule, of course.
Your evidence that such a rule existed? (Anyone can make up anything
- the trick is to know the difference between reality and what you
wish were true.)
>From what I understand, there are aspects of Chaos Theory which allow
>for just such a predetermined rule.
Then you understand incorrectly.
>Describing something doesn't explain it.
Neither does making it up.
>> > And quite a coincidence that it arose only once.
>> We have no idea whether life arose once or a few thousand times.
>But there's no reason to suppose it arose more than once.
Or that it didn't - which is why we don't suppose either one.
>There's also
>some reason to suppose that it could only arise once.
And some reason to suppose it arose more than once. Again, that's why
science doesn't suppose.
>> But
>> either way, it's no coincidence at all.
>"[We've] observed something that appears to have a specific cause, even
>though that cause has nothing to do with the event. It only *appears*
>to be connected to it."
> ---Al Klein (5/12/07)
I see we have an understanding problem here - yours with language.
Life exists. That's a known fact.
Life arose ... where that leads is supposition with no known facts,
which is why science doesn't go there.
>That isn't what I was saying, anyway.
What you're saying is that, 4 billion years ago, the odds of our being
here - 4 billion years in the future - were too great for us to have
come about by accident. That's correct. If you assume that 2 + 2 =
135, then all sorts of things have odds too great for them to have
happened.
The problem isn't with the odds, it's with your initial assumption -
it's just plain wrong.
>Let's say Hawkings gives all the straight dope to Moses...well, how much
>can he practically have Aaron transcribe of what was told him?
Hawking, in his present condition, couldn't tell anyone anything. A
healthy Hawking would write it down himself, he wouldn't rely on
someone else's interpretation of what someone told that person he
heard from a friend who had heard that Hawking had said something.
An omnipotent god could have created a means Bible that would be
understood by bronze-age savages and would be scientifically correct.
Since it's something that could be put into words, a god that could do
everything (and the Christian god is defined that way by Christianity)
could bring it off.
>> (The
>> Bible, of course, says nothing about evolution - it merely talks about
>> biogenesis. "Evolution can't happen" is a *Christian* fantasy.)
>You shouldn't mistake what Christians say for Christianity.
Stop playing the bagpipes.
The Chreestos cult was a sect of Judaism that believed that its
members were the anointed ones - it had nothing to do with Saul's
Yeshua cult. Which had nothing to do with Constantine's
"Christianity", which is the beginning of the religion of the same
name that we have today.
So which is "Christianity"? Judaism? Paulism? Constantine's triune
"monotheism"? My definition is as valid as anyone else's.
>> The probability of something that exists existing is 1. No matter how
>> likely or unlikely it was before it existed, once it exists, the
>> probability of it existing is 1. Since life exists, the probability
>> of life is 1. Five billion years ago, the probability of life on this
>> planet was so small as to be not worth thinking about. (Not that
>> there was anything here capable of thinking.)
>My point was. IIRC, you can describe probability, but you're merely
>observing a phenomena.
Then your claim that it was improbable that we come about is void. You
destroyed your main argument.
>Which is fine.
>But, if you can't define the mechanism at work...
Evolution was the mechanism at work. Whether a particular event
happened at a particular time (the various theories of evolution) is
totally immaterial.
>> > (whatever /they/ are, and from where ever /they
>> >come from/) certainly speak against the likelihood of such a series of
>> >events.
>> Since evolution has no direction, the probability that something will
>> evolve from what currently exists is 1, unless the world ends.
>That's not the only thing that could stand in the way.
In the way of what? As long as life exists (and it does exist now),
the probability that evolution will occur is 1.
>Life could easily cease to exist
What part of *as long as life exists* don't you understand?
> by evolving, not evolving, not evolving
>enough, or by evolving in a direction that changing conditions will
>later destroy.
Evolving doesn't destroy life.
"Not evolving" isn't an option.
"Not evolving enough" doesn't even parse, since there is no goal.
If changing conditions destroy all life, *as long as life exists* is
no longer true.
>E.g., the 7 observed major extinction events that we know of, IIRC.
Did not stop evolution in the least. Certain species became extinct -
life has never, since it started 4 billion years ago, become extinct.
And evolution has occurred every second of every minute during that
entire 4 billion years.
>> Once
>> life exists, evolution isn't probably, it just occurs.
>Change occurs.
We call that change "evolution".
>> One to one, as I said.
>You haven't determined that at all.
That evolution occurs is a certainty, and it remains a certainty as
long as the kind of life we're familiar with (DNA-based life) exists.
A "probability" of 1.
>> The probability, 4 billion years ago, that homo sapiens sapiens, as he
>> is today, would exist today, was mathematically possible, but not much
>> above infinitesimal. But the probability that species would continue
>> to evolve as long as life existed was one.
>Higher complexity was inevitable because...?
The Drunkard's Walk. There's a certain minimum level of complexity
for something to be alive. There's no maximum level of complexity.
>> IOW, it wasn't only
>> probable, it wasn't even inevitable, it was certain to happen.
>Heh.
>You roll the dice, and the way that they land and how they come to rest
>was certain to happen.
And that's what happened. There's no 4 billion year old "Rosetta
Stone" that has inscribed on it, "in 4 billion years there will be a
species that walks upright and has language". The dice rolled. SOME
NUMBER had to come up. We're it.
>We can even back up the events to prove it.
>IOW there is no law of probability. "Things happen because they do."
No, IOW the laws of probability are the wrong tool to use to solve the
problem. Try turning a screw with a sledge hammer, then complain that
screws don't work. That's what you're doing, until you can present
EVIDENCE that man was the desired result.
>> >Ergo, logic is a useful, but limited tool.
>> Especially when, as you've amply demonstrated, you don't understand
>> either what it is, or how to use it.
>My inadequacies were outlined in a disclaimer upthread.
So? If you admit that yo don't know how to apply logic, then attempt
to prove something by applying logic, what have you proved? (Hint -
it has nothing to do with what you were attempting to prove.)
>Logic is a limited tool.
And those who, unlike you, understand logic, know those limits, and
don't attempt to use logic to prove things that logic doesn't apply
to.
> It is an artifice of Clever, Clever Man who, himself, has limits.
It's more a useful tool for the man who understands it, and a device
the "clever" use to make themselves look foolish, by trying to apply
it where it doesn't apply.
>Are you arguing this?
That you're trying to apply logic to things to which it doesn't apply?
Of course not.
>I'm interested in cause.
You're "interested" in proving that there's cause, whether there is or
not. You just assume that everything is caused by something other
than chance, so you find that cause.
It's called "making things up", and honest people stop doing that when
they leave childhood - which some people never do.
>> A screwdriver is also a useful but limited tool if you've never heard
>> of screws, and use the screwdriver to spear fish. But it works pretty
>> well if you use it to turn screws.
>But a screwdriver ain't too good for hammering nails.
So why are you hammering nails with yours? Oh, that's right - your
disclaimer. You don't know anything about screwdrivers. But you
insist that everyone accept your assertion that they're properly used
to hammer nails.
Here's a better disclaimer for you to use:
"I don't know what I'm talking about, so use my post for whatever
comic value it has. Don't I look the proper fool?"
Neolibertarian
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> But there was no predetermined rule that it would arise.
> >
> >No /known/ rule.
>
> Barring your posting of actual evidence of the rule, that's the
> default - no rule.
>
> > The trick, FWIU, is getting a cell wall.
>
> No longer a trick. God doesn't live in that gap any more.
>
Proteinoids. Interesting! It's very difficult to keep up--thanks for the
pointer.
> >> And, once it
> >> arose, there was no predetermined rule that it would produce us.
>
> >No /known/ rule, of course.
>
> Your evidence that such a rule existed? (Anyone can make up anything
> - the trick is to know the difference between reality and what you
> wish were true.)
I'm not making up a rule here, if that's what you're implying.
There's a dead body on the floor. Blood is everywhere. We've come upon
the body, you and I. We're interested in determining the cause. If this
apparently violent death was an accident, then we've nothing much else
to do but bury the body and try to comfort the next of kin. But if there
was a designed cause...well, further action may well be required.
All I'm saying is that you seem to have eliminated some
possibilities--like pointing out that there's nothing in the room that
could have been a weapon.
In this analogy, you've pointed out that the presence of the blood does
not prove violence. Which is correct. You've pointed out that there's
nothing that indicates it was a murder, nor even a suicide. Which is
correct.
But you seem to be walking away from the investigation shaking your head
and mumbling "people die--so what?"
>
> >From what I understand, there are aspects of Chaos Theory which allow
> >for just such a predetermined rule.
>
> Then you understand incorrectly.
No doubt. I was merely repeating something I /thought/ I heard.
I'm reading you from alt.politics--people do that all the time here, as
you might well imagine.
And I fall prey as easily as anyone on occasion.
>
> >Describing something doesn't explain it.
>
> Neither does making it up.
In both cases, nothing has been accomplished. That seems rather
unsatisfactory.
>
> >> > And quite a coincidence that it arose only once.
>
> >> We have no idea whether life arose once or a few thousand times.
>
> >But there's no reason to suppose it arose more than once.
>
> Or that it didn't - which is why we don't suppose either one.
>
> >There's also
> >some reason to suppose that it could only arise once.
>
> And some reason to suppose it arose more than once. Again, that's why
> science doesn't suppose.
Induction?
>
> >> But
> >> either way, it's no coincidence at all.
>
> >"[We've] observed something that appears to have a specific cause, even
> >though that cause has nothing to do with the event. It only *appears*
> >to be connected to it."
> > ---Al Klein (5/12/07)
>
> I see we have an understanding problem here - yours with language.
>
> Life exists. That's a known fact.
>
> Life arose ... where that leads is supposition with no known facts,
> which is why science doesn't go there.
Well, we see that it seems to lead from less complex to more complex.
That's a fact which seems to establish a curve.
>
> >That isn't what I was saying, anyway.
>
> What you're saying is that, 4 billion years ago, the odds of our being
> here - 4 billion years in the future - were too great for us to have
> come about by accident. That's correct. If you assume that 2 + 2 =
> 135, then all sorts of things have odds too great for them to have
> happened.
>
> The problem isn't with the odds, it's with your initial assumption -
> it's just plain wrong.
>
> >Let's say Hawkings gives all the straight dope to Moses...well, how much
> >can he practically have Aaron transcribe of what was told him?
>
> Hawking, in his present condition, couldn't tell anyone anything. A
> healthy Hawking would write it down himself, he wouldn't rely on
> someone else's interpretation of what someone told that person he
> heard from a friend who had heard that Hawking had said something.
>
> An omnipotent god could have created a means Bible that would be
> understood by bronze-age savages and would be scientifically correct.
You don't have kids, do you?
> Since it's something that could be put into words, a god that could do
> everything (and the Christian god is defined that way by Christianity)
> could bring it off.
It could be put into words. Many hundreds of thousands of words, which
would have to establish building block definitions that describe
concepts completely outside a "bronze age savage's" experience and
understanding.
Truth would have to be severely edited. Period.
Or else, all the available papyrus in the known world would have had to
be used to create a single copy of the Torah. None of which is practical
even prima facie.
The trick would be to not bring things like Storks and Cabbage Patches
into the explanation.
Mullock, The White Pained Woman. Ra. The Great Turtle. Kronos. An. All
seem way off the mark--created by savage parents to explain things they
couldn't understand to their savage children. You know, like public
school teachers do today in American History classes.
What you do with a child is explain as much as he/she can possibly
handle at the time, and try to lie as little as humanly possible.
"In the beginning of God`s preparing the heavens and the earth --
the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of
the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
and God saith, `Let light be;` and light is."
---YLT
Dylan Thomas explains Edwin Hubble?
>
> >> (The
> >> Bible, of course, says nothing about evolution - it merely talks about
> >> biogenesis. "Evolution can't happen" is a *Christian* fantasy.)
>
> >You shouldn't mistake what Christians say for Christianity.
>
> Stop playing the bagpipes.
>
> The Chreestos cult was a sect of Judaism that believed that its
> members were the anointed ones - it had nothing to do with Saul's
> Yeshua cult. Which had nothing to do with Constantine's
> "Christianity", which is the beginning of the religion of the same
> name that we have today.
>
> So which is "Christianity"? Judaism? Paulism? Constantine's triune
> "monotheism"? My definition is as valid as anyone else's.
In some of the Gnostic Gospels, Yeshua warns that men will attribute
words to Him he never uttered.
This seems to be born out in canonical texts.
Look, radio was a great invention. It brought Mozart and Beethoven to
people who would never have had the opportunity to hear them. And it
made it possible to listen from your living room, your car, even down in
your basement when you're at your workbench making a coffee table.
What a fantastic development that!
The trade off was that radio sucked. The reproduction quality was waaaay
below the human ear's frequency response. The signal drifted in and out,
if it came in at all.
Some refused to listen, because they couldn't stand to have Mozart so
butchered. Travesty is what many called it.
Yet, even the most discerning affectionato couldn't deny that, even
through all that static and those scratches, the beauty of Mozart still
came through.
The essence still made it through the static.
You definition is as valid as anyone else's--Yes!
But what has kept this unlikely Christian doctrine alive all these
centuries is not ignorance, at least not /especially/ ignorance
(ignorance is unavoidable).
Not like, for instance, the Slosson "Smell Illusions" experiment (1899).
While objective knowledge is fruitful, it does not exclude either
subjective or the direct knowledge.
> >> The probability of something that exists existing is 1. No matter how
> >> likely or unlikely it was before it existed, once it exists, the
> >> probability of it existing is 1. Since life exists, the probability
> >> of life is 1. Five billion years ago, the probability of life on this
> >> planet was so small as to be not worth thinking about. (Not that
> >> there was anything here capable of thinking.)
>
> >My point was. IIRC, you can describe probability, but you're merely
> >observing a phenomena.
>
> Then your claim that it was improbable that we come about is void. You
> destroyed your main argument.
Really and truly, my only claim was that you can't define probability.
>
> >Which is fine.
>
> >But, if you can't define the mechanism at work...
>
> Evolution was the mechanism at work. Whether a particular event
> happened at a particular time (the various theories of evolution) is
> totally immaterial.
Immaterial to what?
>
> >> > (whatever /they/ are, and from where ever /they
> >> >come from/) certainly speak against the likelihood of such a series of
> >> >events.
>
> >> Since evolution has no direction, the probability that something will
> >> evolve from what currently exists is 1, unless the world ends.
>
> >That's not the only thing that could stand in the way.
>
> In the way of what? As long as life exists (and it does exist now),
> the probability that evolution will occur is 1.
>
> >Life could easily cease to exist
>
> What part of *as long as life exists* don't you understand?
You said "world ends." I merely was attempting to show that evolution
isn't necessarily perpetually self sustaining--world ending not
withstanding.
>
> > by evolving, not evolving, not evolving
> >enough, or by evolving in a direction that changing conditions will
> >later destroy.
>
> Evolving doesn't destroy life.
It could. I don't see how you have a basis for denying that.
Especially if there is no direction.
> "Not evolving" isn't an option.
Actually, it seems that self-awareness might end evolution. We can
contemplate lead jock straps, for instance. And penicillin certainly
attempts to interfere with natural selection. A baby step towards
eliminating it, anyway.
> "Not evolving enough" doesn't even parse, since there is no goal.
Actually, is seems that life has a goal. You seem to agree above.
>
> If changing conditions destroy all life, *as long as life exists* is
> no longer true.
>
> >E.g., the 7 observed major extinction events that we know of, IIRC.
>
> Did not stop evolution in the least.
Any of these might have stopped /life/. But did not.
> Certain species became extinct -
> life has never, since it started 4 billion years ago, become extinct.
> And evolution has occurred every second of every minute during that
> entire 4 billion years.
Are you denying the possibility that life could end?
>
> >> Once
> >> life exists, evolution isn't probably, it just occurs.
>
> >Change occurs.
>
> We call that change "evolution".
>
> >> One to one, as I said.
>
> >You haven't determined that at all.
>
> That evolution occurs is a certainty, and it remains a certainty as
> long as the kind of life we're familiar with (DNA-based life) exists.
> A "probability" of 1.
>
> >> The probability, 4 billion years ago, that homo sapiens sapiens, as he
> >> is today, would exist today, was mathematically possible, but not much
> >> above infinitesimal. But the probability that species would continue
> >> to evolve as long as life existed was one.
>
> >Higher complexity was inevitable because...?
>
> The Drunkard's Walk. There's a certain minimum level of complexity
> for something to be alive. There's no maximum level of complexity.
Does that make the playing field slanted towards more complexity?
>
> >> IOW, it wasn't only
> >> probable, it wasn't even inevitable, it was certain to happen.
>
> >Heh.
>
> >You roll the dice, and the way that they land and how they come to rest
> >was certain to happen.
>
> And that's what happened. There's no 4 billion year old "Rosetta
> Stone" that has inscribed on it, "in 4 billion years there will be a
> species that walks upright and has language". The dice rolled. SOME
> NUMBER had to come up. We're it.
>
> >We can even back up the events to prove it.
>
> >IOW there is no law of probability. "Things happen because they do."
>
> No, IOW the laws of probability are the wrong tool to use to solve the
> problem. Try turning a screw with a sledge hammer, then complain that
> screws don't work. That's what you're doing, until you can present
> EVIDENCE that man was the desired result.
>
> >> >Ergo, logic is a useful, but limited tool.
>
> >> Especially when, as you've amply demonstrated, you don't understand
> >> either what it is, or how to use it.
>
> >My inadequacies were outlined in a disclaimer upthread.
>
> So? If you admit that yo don't know how to apply logic, then attempt
> to prove something by applying logic, what have you proved? (Hint -
> it has nothing to do with what you were attempting to prove.)
I never said I didn't know how to apply logic.
>
> >Logic is a limited tool.
>
> And those who, unlike you, understand logic, know those limits, and
> don't attempt to use logic to prove things that logic doesn't apply
> to.
That's not the point.
>
> > It is an artifice of Clever, Clever Man who, himself, has limits.
>
> It's more a useful tool for the man who understands it, and a device
> the "clever" use to make themselves look foolish, by trying to apply
> it where it doesn't apply.
By definition, we're all Clever, Clever. It says so right here on the
label,
In other words, we're all /capable/ of logic.
If I'm in trouble, I'm certainly not shunning help.
> >Are you arguing this?
>
> That you're trying to apply logic to things to which it doesn't apply?
> Of course not.
>
> >I'm interested in cause.
>
> You're "interested" in proving that there's cause, whether there is or
> not.
> You just assume that everything is caused by something other
> than chance, so you find that cause.
What is "chance?"
>
> It's called "making things up", and honest people stop doing that when
> they leave childhood - which some people never do.
"Chance" as an alternative explanation is called "just making things up."
>
> >> A screwdriver is also a useful but limited tool if you've never heard
> >> of screws, and use the screwdriver to spear fish. But it works pretty
> >> well if you use it to turn screws.
>
> >But a screwdriver ain't too good for hammering nails.
>
> So why are you hammering nails with yours? Oh, that's right - your
> disclaimer. You don't know anything about screwdrivers. But you
> insist that everyone accept your assertion that they're properly used
> to hammer nails.
You haven't made that case. You've jumped to lots of conclusions about
what you think I'm saying, though.
That's one way of getting exercise.
>
> Here's a better disclaimer for you to use:
>
> "I don't know what I'm talking about, so use my post for whatever
> comic value it has. Don't I look the proper fool?"
I already said that first, silly.
Pastor Dave
<cogn...@gmail.com> claimed:
>> I see we have an understanding problem here - yours with language.
>>
>> Life exists. That's a known fact.
>>
>> Life arose ... where that leads is supposition with no known facts,
>> which is why science doesn't go there.
>
>Well, we see that it seems to lead from less complex to more complex.
>That's a fact which seems to establish a curve.
That's a fact? Well, you said so, so it must be true,
even though it's impossible!
Have a nice life.
Kurt Nicklas
> On 8 May 2007 18:36:49 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On May 8, 8:50 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 7 May 2007 18:59:52 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >During the 20th century, atheists killed more human beings than all
> >> >the religious pogroms, inquisitions and crusades of all preceding history.
>
> >> Atheists may have, atheism didn't. Atheism, qua atheism, has never
> >> killed anyone.
>
> >Nonsense. The communists states of the 20th century were OFFICIALLY
> >atheist
>
> But no one was killed due to the lack of belief in gods.
Of course not. Atheists DISbelieve in God. They do not "lack belief".
That's only
the cowardly pretention of western atheists of recent years.
But they they hated religion in general and Christianity in particular
just like many in
alt.atheism.
Those were officially atheist and atheism was an inherent part of
their doctrine.
> >Atheism was taught inthe schools, for heaven sake.
>
> How do you teach not teaching religion?
They did it.
> > Millions of those killed were killed because they were believers
>
> Bullshit. Stalin killed people who didn't believe in Stalin - he
> didn't kill people because they were Christian.
Nonsense.
> >or because they were clergy
>
> Which is why the Orthodox Church survived the entire Soviet period.
The church survived because millions were killed?
The church survived because the atheists couldn't kill it, that's why.
> > or because they were in a church when they
> >shouldn't have been.
>
> Breaking the law is always illegal, atheist society, non-theistic
> society or theocracy.
You'd like to make religion against the law, wouldn't you? You think
the world would be better off without it, don't you?
The communists throught so too. But they had the power to do something
about it.
Atheism and absolute power....a dangerous combination.
> >Atheism, as it is used by atheists, makes morality impossible because
> >it accepts that all morality is of human invention
>
> It's not invented, it's evolved.
What's the difference?
> > and of equal validity.
>
> Morality isn't subject to "validity" any more than height is.
Of course you believe that.
So what right do you have to impose your morality on anyone else??
Kurt Nicklas
> On 8 May 2007 18:58:11 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On May 8, 8:54 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 8 May 2007 03:33:37 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Apparently, to be an atheist means to simultaneously believe in the
> >> >existance of a universal morality
>
> >> Nope. Lack of belief in one more god than Christians have has nothing
> >> to do with morality.
>
> >>You have it backwards.
>
> >>Most people who ARE moral don't fall for immoral religions.
>
> >Who are you to judge who is moral or not?
>
> I'm morally an adult.
Who says? You?
What qualifies you to say that?
Are you the only moral adult in the world? What if
another moral adult disagrees with you?
> > What qualifies you to say what
> >is right and wrong in this world?
>
> Not a thing - we were talking about morality. That you think it means
> "what is right and wrong in this world" is a sign that you have no
> morals.
I didn't say that. I asked you what qualifies you to say what right or
wrong with
the world.
Kurt Nicklas
> On 8 May 2007 18:58:11 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On May 8, 8:54 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 8 May 2007 03:33:37 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Apparently, to be an atheist means to simultaneously believe in the
> >> >existance of a universal morality
>
> >> Nope. Lack of belief in one more god than Christians have has nothing
> >> to do with morality.
> >>You have it backwards.
> >>Most people who ARE moral don't fall for immoral religions.
> >Who are you to judge who is moral or not? What qualifies you to say
> >what
> >is right and wrong in this world?
>
> Societies have developed standards. Ours doesn't condone slavery,
> or institionalized child abuse. Women pretty much have equal rights
> and racicm is far less tolerated. Religions have always held back
> human progress and that is where they become immoral.
You didn't answer the question.
Al Klein
>> >> And, once it
>> >> arose, there was no predetermined rule that it would produce us.
>>
>> >No /known/ rule, of course.
>>
>> Your evidence that such a rule existed? (Anyone can make up anything
>> - the trick is to know the difference between reality and what you
>> wish were true.)
>
>I'm not making up a rule here, if that's what you're implying.
>
>There's a dead body on the floor.
You're looking at a situation AFTER the fact to prove something about
looking at a situation BEFORE the fact.
> Blood is everywhere. We've come upon
>the body, you and I. We're interested in determining the cause.
The body is definitely dead. Was there any rule, three weeks ago,
that this particular body would be dead in this particular place at
this particular time?
I see no evidence of any in your post.
We're here. Was there any rule, 4 billion years ago, that we would
be, today?
I see no evidence of any in your post.
At least try to keep your analogies in the same ball park, even if not
analogous to each other.
>All I'm saying is that you seem to have eliminated some
>possibilities
There are many possibilities. Post evidence of any of them and we'll
discuss them. I don't discuss made-up conjectures as if they were
evidenced fact.
>In this analogy
It's not even faintly analogous. Your scene is looking at something
and trying to figure out what happened. Mine is looking at something
and claiming that we could figure out what's going to happen. When
you add 4 billion years of variables, that's impossible. (How could
the K-T meteorite have been added to the calculation 4 billion years
ago? Which is the point we're looking at this situation from.)
>But you seem to be walking away from the investigation shaking your head
>and mumbling "people die--so what?"
No, I'm saying that, three weeks ago, you couldn't have calculate that
this person would die then, there, under those circumstances.
You're claiming that it's possible that 4 billion years ago, there was
something driving evolution to produce mankind 4 billion years in the
future. Without the K-T meteorite we wouldn't be here.
>> >From what I understand, there are aspects of Chaos Theory which allow
>> >for just such a predetermined rule.
>> Then you understand incorrectly.
>No doubt. I was merely repeating something I /thought/ I heard.
Chaos theory might predict a meteorite 3.9 billion years in the future
- *IF* you had every single fact in the universe to work with.
Probably not even then, though.
>I'm reading you from alt.politics--people do that all the time here, as
>you might well imagine.
>And I fall prey as easily as anyone on occasion.
I'm looking at it from a scientific viewpoint. Claims without
evidence are ignored.
>> >Describing something doesn't explain it.
>> Neither does making it up.
>In both cases, nothing has been accomplished. That seems rather
>unsatisfactory.
Reality often is. But the default position is to not accept
unevidenced assertions. If there's no evidence, the default position
is just that - there's no evidence.
Whether satisfactory or not, taking a position just because it's
comfortable is always the wrong action.
>> >There's also
>> >some reason to suppose that it could only arise once.
>> And some reason to suppose it arose more than once. Again, that's why
>> science doesn't suppose.
>Induction?
No, science looks at evidence first, then arguments about the
evidence. It doesn't draw conclusions based solely on argument, no
matter how correct the argument seems.
>> Life arose ... where that leads is supposition with no known facts,
>> which is why science doesn't go there.
>Well, we see that it seems to lead from less complex to more complex.
>That's a fact which seems to establish a curve.
It leads from less complex to more complex because of mathematics, not
because of design. There's a certain level below which life is no
longer life, so measuring from that level upward, evolution appears to
lead to the more complex. It's called Drunkard's Walk. A drunk will
never walk through a building, so his walk appears biased away from
the building line. But it isn't, really. He's just incapable of
walking through walls.
Evolution is just incapable of acting on dead things, so those things
that lack enough complexity to be life are knocked out of the game,
producing a seeming bias toward complexity.
>> An omnipotent god could have created a means Bible that would be
>> understood by bronze-age savages and would be scientifically correct.
>You don't have kids, do you?
I do - although she's not what anyone would call a kid. But I'm not
omnipotent either. (Omnipotent requires "could have", regardless of
the subject. Anything less is less than omnipotent.)
>> Since it's something that could be put into words, a god that could do
>> everything (and the Christian god is defined that way by Christianity)
>> could bring it off.
>It could be put into words. Many hundreds of thousands of words, which
>would have to establish building block definitions that describe
>concepts completely outside a "bronze age savage's" experience and
>understanding.
An omnipotent god can make a stone-age savage understand nuclear
physics - that's what "omnipotent" means. Not "capable of doing
anything we can do", but "capable of doing anything".
>Truth would have to be severely edited.
Or not - that's why an omnipotent god is impossible. But we're
discussing the Biblical claim, not reality.
>Or else, all the available papyrus in the known world would have had to
>be used to create a single copy of the Torah.
Or God could have just created a few million tons of indestructible
paper.
> None of which is practical even prima facie.
Omnipotence isn't "practical", it's fantasy, but it's what we're
discussing.
>What you do with a child is explain as much as he/she can possibly
>handle at the time, and try to lie as little as humanly possible.
Only if you're human. An omnipotent god could cause a 4 month old
infant to be capable of understanding special relativity.
>In some of the Gnostic Gospels, Yeshua warns that men will attribute
>words to Him he never uttered.
Quoting the Bible to prove that the Bible is true ends with the claim
- and it follows quite logically - that Superman, as described in the
comic books, actually exists. A books isn't evidence that what exists
in the book is true, only that it exists.
>The essence still made it through the static.
Radio exists. There's never been any objective evidence that any god
objectively existed. But there's plenty of evidence that gods are a
man-made concept.
>But what has kept this unlikely Christian doctrine alive all these
>centuries is not ignorance, at least not /especially/ ignorance
No more so than the ignorance that kept any other religious belief
alive for long periods of time. If time is the telling factor you
should be Jewish or Hindu.
>Not like, for instance, the Slosson "Smell Illusions" experiment (1899).
>While objective knowledge is fruitful, it does not exclude either
>subjective or the direct knowledge.
Opinion (subjective "knowledge") is nice, but it's still just opinion.
"Direct knowledge" is just another way of saying the same thing. If
something objectively exists there's objective evidence. There's no
such evidence for any god, nor has there ever been, so the default
position is that there are no gods.
>Really and truly, my only claim was that you can't define probability.
And it's wrong. The word is defined, and probability is defined in
mathematics every day. If you mean that someone who doesn't
understand probability can't define the probability of something
occurring, that's true of any subject. Someone who doesn't understand
something can't make use of it. That doesn't mean that it's not
useful - to someone who DOES understand it. The world *ISN'T* fair -
some people don't get it and some never will. That's just the way
things are.
>> >But, if you can't define the mechanism at work...
>> Evolution was the mechanism at work. Whether a particular event
>> happened at a particular time (the various theories of evolution) is
>> totally immaterial.
>Immaterial to what?
To whether evolution is at work or not. Evolution occurs. It's no
more theoretical than mass attraction. There are theories about
gravity too, but no one is jumping off tall buildings because "gravity
is just a theory".
>> >> Since evolution has no direction, the probability that something will
>> >> evolve from what currently exists is 1, unless the world ends.
>> >That's not the only thing that could stand in the way.
>> In the way of what? As long as life exists (and it does exist now),
>> the probability that evolution will occur is 1.
>> >Life could easily cease to exist
>> What part of *as long as life exists* don't you understand?
>You said "world ends."
I said "from what currently exists". Since I wrote that, evolution
occurred a few billion (at least) times. If the world had ended,
evolution would have stopped. But life doesn't just "cease to exist"
unless the matrix - in this case the world - also ceases to exist.
>I merely was attempting to show that evolution
>isn't necessarily perpetually self sustaining--world ending not
>withstanding.
Even if we were to fire off every single nuclear device currently
existing - including power plants - at one time, life wouldn't cease
to exist. We would, but we're only a small part of "life" on this
planet. To totally eliminate all life on the planet - that includes
the deepest ocean trenches, rock 5 miles down (there are microbes
living in solid rock), etc. - we'd have to utterly destroy the planet
- say by dumping it into the sun. Just turning it into an asteroid
belt wouldn't be enough - plenty of life would encapsulate or encyst
and survive, at least for a very long time. Eons, at least.
>> > by evolving, not evolving, not evolving
>> >enough, or by evolving in a direction that changing conditions will
>> >later destroy.
>> Evolving doesn't destroy life.
>It could. I don't see how you have a basis for denying that.
I don't see that you have any evidence on which to base the claim. How
does the birth of the next generation destroy life.
>Especially if there is no direction.
That has nothing to do with life evolving itself out of existence.
Individuals, even species, might, but life won't.
>> "Not evolving" isn't an option.
>Actually, it seems that self-awareness might end evolution. We can
>contemplate lead jock straps, for instance. And penicillin certainly
>attempts to interfere with natural selection. A baby step towards
>eliminating it, anyway.
But that wouldn't have any effect on, say, microbes 5 miles under the
surface in solid rock.
>> "Not evolving enough" doesn't even parse, since there is no goal.
>Actually, is seems that life has a goal. You seem to agree above.
Individuals do. Species do. Evolution doesn't.
>> If changing conditions destroy all life, *as long as life exists* is
>> no longer true.
>> >E.g., the 7 observed major extinction events that we know of, IIRC.
>> Did not stop evolution in the least.
>Any of these might have stopped /life/. But did not.
None of them might have. There hasn't been a single cataclysm, since
the one that created the planet, that was great enough to eliminate
life on the planet. Set it back a few billion years? Maybe. But not
eliminate it.
>> Certain species became extinct -
>> life has never, since it started 4 billion years ago, become extinct.
>> And evolution has occurred every second of every minute during that
>> entire 4 billion years.
>Are you denying the possibility that life could end?
As long as the planet stayed within the zone that allows life? Yes.
Unless it was deliberately sterilized by some species as far
scientifically advanced beyond us as we are beyond blue-green algae.
Destroying the planet is simple compared to totally sterilizing it
without destroying it.
>> The Drunkard's Walk. There's a certain minimum level of complexity
>> for something to be alive. There's no maximum level of complexity.
>Does that make the playing field slanted towards more complexity?
It makes it appear to be biased toward complexity, because the
"not-complex-enough" are taken out of the game. the drunkard doesn't
walk toward the gutter - he appears to do so more often than not,
because he can only get so close to the building before he turns away
from it. There's no mathematical bias, though.
"To explain what he means by 'random,' Gould uses the metaphor of 'the
drunkard's walk.' A drunk is heading down a sidewalk that runs
east-west. Skirting the sidewalk's south side is a brick wall, and on
the north side is a curb and a street. Will the drunk eventually veer
off the curb, into the street? Probably. Does this mean he has a
'northerly directional tendency'? No. He's just as likely to veer
south as north. But when he veers south the wall bounces him back to
the north. He is taking 'a random walk' that just seems to have a
directional tendency."
"If you get enough drunks and give them enough time, one of them may
eventually get all the way to the other side of the street. That's us:
the lucky species that, through millions of years of random motion,
happened to get to the far north, the land of great complexity. But we
didn't get there because north is an inherently valuable place to be.
If it weren't for the brick wall葉hat is, the fact that no species can
have less than zero complexity葉here would be just as many drunks
south of the sidewalk as north of it, and the randomness of all their
paths would be obvious. Gould writes, 'The vaunted progress of life is
really random motion away from simple beginnings, not directed impetus
toward inherently advantageous complexity.'"
- Robert Wright
>I never said I didn't know how to apply logic.
You said, "IOW there is no law of probability. 'Things happen because
they do.'"
That's a misapplication of logic. Probability is the wrong tool to
use in this case, since the probability of mankind existing right now
is 1, and the possibility, 4 billion years ago, of man occurring 4
billion years in the future, wasn't a matter of probability unless one
had all facts available, and one could calculate everything. Which
may or may not be possible. Some things might "just happen".
>> And those who, unlike you, understand logic, know those limits, and
>> don't attempt to use logic to prove things that logic doesn't apply
>> to.
>That's not the point.
That's exactly the point. You're applying probability where it
doesn't apply.
>> > It is an artifice of Clever, Clever Man who, himself, has limits.
>> It's more a useful tool for the man who understands it, and a device
>> the "clever" use to make themselves look foolish, by trying to apply
>> it where it doesn't apply.
>By definition, we're all Clever, Clever. It says so right here on the
>label,
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate
because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he
can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
IOW, the Clever can't understand why what the label says isn't that
we're all Clever, and why it just appears, to them, to say that.
>In other words, we're all /capable/ of logic.
No, some people aren't. It takes a certain minimal amount of
intellectual ability to use logic. Some chimpanzees are capable of
using it, some humans aren't.
>If I'm in trouble, I'm certainly not shunning help.
Misusing logic might be more dangerous than not trying to use it.
>> >I'm interested in cause.
>> You're "interested" in proving that there's cause, whether there is or
>> not.
>> You just assume that everything is caused by something other
>> than chance, so you find that cause.
>What is "chance?"
In this case? Something that's not due to any agency.
>> It's called "making things up", and honest people stop doing that when
>> they leave childhood - which some people never do.
>"Chance" as an alternative explanation is called "just making things up."
Chance is the default position, barring evidence of agency. Nothing
can be said to happen due to a particular agency if the existence of
the agency is unevidenced.
>You haven't made that case. You've jumped to lots of conclusions about
>what you think I'm saying, though.
I've just assumed that you're saying what the words you're posting
mean. That's a valid assumption when discussing things with rational
people.
>> Here's a better disclaimer for you to use:
>> "I don't know what I'm talking about, so use my post for whatever
>> comic value it has. Don't I look the proper fool?"
>I already said that first, silly.
Funny, you don't look like you live under a bridge.
Al Klein
wrote:
>On May 9, 8:37 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On 8 May 2007 18:36:49 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 8, 8:50 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> >> On 7 May 2007 18:59:52 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >During the 20th century, atheists killed more human beings than all
>> >> >the religious pogroms, inquisitions and crusades of all preceding history.
>>
>> >> Atheists may have, atheism didn't. Atheism, qua atheism, has never
>> >> killed anyone.
>>
>> >Nonsense. The communists states of the 20th century were OFFICIALLY
>> >atheist
>>
>> But no one was killed due to the lack of belief in gods.
>
>Of course not. Atheists DISbelieve in God. They do not "lack belief".
Thank you for explaining that. All this time I didn't understand what
I thought. It's good that we have telepaths like you to clear these
things up.
<plonk>
Al Klein
wrote:
>On May 9, 8:39 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On 8 May 2007 18:58:11 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 8, 8:54 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> >> On 8 May 2007 03:33:37 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Apparently, to be an atheist means to simultaneously believe in the
>> >> >existance of a universal morality
>>
>> >> Nope. Lack of belief in one more god than Christians have has nothing
>> >> to do with morality.
>>
>> >>You have it backwards.
>>
>> >>Most people who ARE moral don't fall for immoral religions.
>>
>> >Who are you to judge who is moral or not?
>>
>> I'm morally an adult.
>
>Who says? You?
>
>What qualifies you to say that?
The fact that I'm morally an adult.
>Are you the only moral adult in the world? What if
>another moral adult disagrees with you?
I haven't met one who has yet. If I ever do I'll let you know.
>
>> > What qualifies you to say what
>> >is right and wrong in this world?
>>
>> Not a thing - we were talking about morality. That you think it means
>> "what is right and wrong in this world" is a sign that you have no
>> morals.
>
>I didn't say that. I asked you what qualifies you to say what right or
>wrong with the world.
And I told you - nothing. I never claimed to be qualified to make
that decision, I just claimed to be an adult morally. That you can't
tell the difference means that you aren't, so why are you attempting
to discuss something you're not equipped to understand? Do you enjoy
making a fool of yourself?
Al Klein
wrote:
>On May 9, 9:10 am, AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
You didn't ask a competent one.
Kurt Nicklas
> On 14 May 2007 03:00:04 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 9, 8:39 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 8 May 2007 18:58:11 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 8, 8:54 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> On 8 May 2007 03:33:37 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Apparently, to be an atheist means to simultaneously believe in the
> >> >> >existance of a universal morality
>
> >> >> Nope. Lack of belief in one more god than Christians have has nothing
> >> >> to do with morality.
>
> >> >>You have it backwards.
>
> >> >>Most people who ARE moral don't fall for immoral religions.
>
> >> >Who are you to judge who is moral or not?
>
> >> I'm morally an adult.
>
> >Who says? You?
>
> >What qualifies you to say that?
>
> The fact that I'm morally an adult.
Who says? You?
What gives YOU the right to claim that?
> >Are you the only moral adult in the world? What if
> >another moral adult disagrees with you?
>
> I haven't met one who has yet. If I ever do I'll let you know.
So your definition of a moral adult seems to be one who agrees with
your morality.
Thanks.
Kurt Nicklas
> On 14 May 2007 03:01:27 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
Translation: I didn't ask you a question you are prepared or able to
answer.
Kurt Nicklas
> On 14 May 2007 02:58:03 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 9, 8:37 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 8 May 2007 18:36:49 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 8, 8:50 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> On 7 May 2007 18:59:52 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >During the 20th century, atheists killed more human beings than all
> >> >> >the religious pogroms, inquisitions and crusades of all preceding history.
>
> >> >> Atheists may have, atheism didn't. Atheism, qua atheism, has never
> >> >> killed anyone.
>
> >> >Nonsense. The communists states of the 20th century were OFFICIALLY
> >> >atheist
>
> >> But no one was killed due to the lack of belief in gods.
>
> >Of course not. Atheists DISbelieve in God. They do not "lack belief".
>
> Thank you for explaining that. All this time I didn't understand what
> I thought.
You're not willing to face it.
> It's good that we have telepaths like you to clear these
> things up.
It's good to see I've gotten under your skin. It's the prelude to
either
closing your mind or growing up.
> <plonk>-
I see you've taken the former.
Close the door on the way out, "Al".
>
> - Show quoted text -
Free Lunch
Kurt Nicklas <nick...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<1179191908....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
>On May 14, 8:29 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On 14 May 2007 03:01:27 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>> >On May 9, 9:10 am, AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
>> >> On 8 May 2007 18:58:11 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On May 8, 8:54 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> On 8 May 2007 03:33:37 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >Apparently, to be an atheist means to simultaneously believe in the
>> >> >> >existance of a universal morality
>>
>> >> >> Nope. Lack of belief in one more god than Christians have has nothing
>> >> >> to do with morality.
>> >> >>You have it backwards.
>> >> >>Most people who ARE moral don't fall for immoral religions.
>> >> >
>> >> >Who are you to judge who is moral or not?
A member of the society that decides what morality it. Despite your
claim, the Bible does not and has not told us what morality is. Morality
is constantly changing, even for those who profess to be Christian.
>> >> >What qualifies you to say what is right and wrong in this world?
A thoughtful informed citizen who cares about the fate of the culture
that he is a part of rather than someone who worships the ignorance of
the past.
>> >> Societies have developed standards. Ours doesn't condone slavery,
>> >> or institionalized child abuse. Women pretty much have equal rights
>> >> and racicm is far less tolerated. Religions have always held back
>> >> human progress and that is where they become immoral.
>>
>> >You didn't answer the question.
Yes, he did in a way you refused to acknowledge because it shows that
your claims about the Bible and morality are false.
>> You didn't ask a competent one.
>
>Translation: I didn't ask you a question you are prepared or able to
>answer.
The question was asked and answered. You didn't like the answer because
it showed that your religious doctrines are false.
Neolibertarian
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
The analogy as I presented it, was to help illustrate how I was defining
your position. It worked well, because you were also able to use it to
illustrate how you are defining mine.
Whether it helped you or not, it certainly helped me.
Probability is well defined, but perhaps meaningless other than as an
observation of phenomena--noting those observations, establishing
testable rules about those observations, and then using these rules to
predict future phenomena with confidence--or at least within confidence
intervals--this is probability as we're using it here in this discussion.
The K-T meteorite is a good case in point.
What you don't seem to understand yet about my position, is that I'm not
saying that there is some physical consistency in the universe which was
violated when, millions or billions of years before, when the K-T
meteorite was (for whatever reason) set onto a vector through space
which would inevitably (inevitable because of many known rules and laws
man has discovered, especially from Newton onward) collide
catastrophically with the earth at a critical time, allowing the
protomammals to take advantage of the results of that event.
I don't think any such inconsistency occurred because A) no
inconsistency would be necessary, B) no inconsistencies were/are
observed in any of the evidence.
Bare with one more analogy, if you will.
There's about 200,000,000 or so people in the United States eligible to
play the lottery. Now let's say that they all do play, and they all play
all the time.
Now, a guy, let's call him Fred, hits the jackpot.
He gets the check for $100,000,000, buys a house, cars, puts money in
the bank in a trust, from which he draws a generous monthly stipend for
living expenses. All without coming close to touching the principal, of
course. His children are all taken care of into perpetuity. Some sits in
the bank and some gets put into various investments, and the money just
grows and grows and grows.
He's set.
Fred naturally looks around at all the other people in the US, and
wonders how it could be that he won the lottery while none of them did.
After all, they all payed their dollar, some lots more than just one
dollar, and yet, out of all of them, he and he alone, won.
Being part-savage with a Puritan background, he might attribute it to
the fact that he's more moral than they are--he /deserved/ to win.
Or he might wonder if it wasn't fate that he should win--that fate or
God had chosen him for some as yet unknown reason, which might become
apparent later on. Or he might assume that he has a quality about him
that the others don't or can't have--a quality that the universe
rewards--the kind of guy that Casino security endeavors to spot and then
ban from ever being allowed back in--"Lucky" (Casinos also spot guys who
memorize decks, or utilize successful gambling systems, but there are
some they eject just because they are "too Lucky.")
Or, he could decide that the Brownian motion of the ping pong balls, by
"chance" resulted in the ones he was betting on to come to the top
before the others. Because of their starting positions when the fan was
turned on, and because of the actions of the flowing currents. These
motions are effected by the speed of the currents and the size and shape
of the container. These things caused the balls to do a "drunken walk"
until some escaped up to the top of the connecting tubes where the
pretty girl turns them towards the camera.
A good result (at least for Fred) from known causes. But the causes,
themselves, while well known, are incalculable--which is what made the
selection "fair." IOW's, no one had enough data to predict which numbers
would win, so in this sense, everyone was equally blind--and in their
blindness had an equally bad chance of predicting the result.
That seems to be a fairly complete range of the possible causes for
Fred's win.
No objective evidence for the first possibility: Besides, Fred isn't as
moral as he thinks, especially compared to many others who lost. There
was that time he told a bum to get lost, and the time he lied to his
wife, and the time...
Being "Lucky" is an observable phenomena with no known causes, nor any
predictable rules or laws. Insurance companies and casinos are content
to reject these "Lucky" cases just because it's a good rule of thumb.
No objective evidence for fate or God having intervened on his behalf,
since by definition, we'd need eternity to collect the infinite
objective evidence necessary.
The last possibility, however, can be shown as the cause from the
available objective evidence and logical conjecture.
The probability that someone would win the lottery was something less
than one. The probability that Fred would win the lottery was, say for
clarity's sake, some hundreds of millions to one. The probability that
the lottery balls he happened to pick would arrive first at the top was
one.
For those following along at home, Fred, of course, is Homo Sapiens
Sapiens.
I'll let you pick this apart as I go on to the next point...which is far
more important, IMO.
[snip many good points]
> >> Here's a better disclaimer for you to use:
>
> >> "I don't know what I'm talking about, so use my post for whatever
> >> comic value it has. Don't I look the proper fool?"
>
> >I already said that first, silly.
>
> Funny, you don't look like you live under a bridge.
All of us have a little trollishness in us, or we wouldn't hang out at
Usenet. N'est pas?
Now, all of this being said, I would try to take us back to the point
before we wandered off on fruitless tangents.
Assuming that you refuse to look at possible explanations of things
which don't include objective evidence and testable theory, I find on
reflection that I have a real problem with what you said earlier.
====
"`Thus said Jehovah of Hosts, I have looked after that which Amalek did
to Israel, that which he laid for him in the way in his going up out of
Egypt.
"Now, go, and thou hast smitten Amalek, and devoted all that it hath,
and thou hast no pity on it, and hast put to death from man unto woman,
from infant unto suckling, from ox unto sheep, from camel unto ass.`"
---I SAM 15:2-3
YLT
====
You said:
"No, the Amalekite children weren't just raped - your god ordered his
people to do it. In your myth.
"No can do any good at defending the rape of children. All they can do
is prove how depraved they are."
[...]
"What [Paul of Tarsus] IS telling us is that slavery is approved of by
his god. As is rape. As is women being chattel. As is stoning people for
minor offenses. As is eternal torture for limited transgression.
"That's not morality, that's depravity. "
Now remember, you mustn't resort to the subjective or intrinsic, my
question is this:
What is "depraved" about raping and killing children?
Al Klein
wrote:
>> >Are you the only moral adult in the world? What if
>> >another moral adult disagrees with you?
>> I haven't met one who has yet. If I ever do I'll let you know.
>So your definition of a moral adult seems to be one who agrees with
>your morality.
More evidence of lack of maturity.
Al Klein
wrote:
>On May 14, 8:29 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On 14 May 2007 03:01:27 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>> >> >Who are you to judge who is moral or not? What qualifies you to say
>> >> >what is right and wrong in this world?
>> >You didn't answer the question.
>> You didn't ask a competent one.
>Translation: I didn't ask you a question you are prepared or able to
>answer.
Show that the assumptions in your question are correct and it becomes
a competent question. Since the assumptions are incorrect, the
question is incompetent. English isn't your first language?
Al Klein
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bare with one more analogy, if you will.
>
>There's about 200,000,000 or so people in the United States eligible to
>play the lottery. Now let's say that they all do play, and they all play
>all the time.
>
>Now, a guy, let's call him Fred, hits the jackpot.
[analogy snipped]
A closer analogy is that you seem to be saying that before the
drawing, the probability of Fred's winning was very small.
Actually, the only thing mandated is that some balls be drawn. They
will be, as long as the lottery (life) continues. Whether Fred wins -
even if no one wins - is beside the point. The balls were drawn.
Life existed. It continued. Whether it ended, at this point, with us
- or whether the "highest" form of life was still something just
barely above a virus - is immaterial.
>Assuming that you refuse to look at possible explanations of things
>which don't include objective evidence and testable theory, I find on
>reflection that I have a real problem with what you said earlier.
I have a real problem with making up explanations for observations,
which is what not looking at objective evidence is.
>You said:
>
>"No, the Amalekite children weren't just raped - your god ordered his
>people to do it. In your myth.
>
>"No can do any good at defending the rape of children. All they can do
>is prove how depraved they are."
>
>[...]
>
>"What [Paul of Tarsus] IS telling us
The rape of the Amalekite girls is in the OT, not the NT. What Paul,
whoever "he" was (and we have no idea who the actual author(s)
was/were), is telling us is his opinion of the events, which I don't
consider to be worth any more than my opinion. Less, in fact, due to
his demonstrated lack of morals.
> is that slavery is approved of by his god. As is rape. As is women being chattel.
>As is stoning people for minor offenses. As is eternal torture for limited transgression.
>"That's not morality, that's depravity. "
>Now remember, you mustn't resort to the subjective or intrinsic
Why not? Subjective things have only subjective backing. Morality
and depravity are subjective, so there's no objective evidence for,
against or any other direction.
>What is "depraved" about raping and killing children?
It violates what we, as a society, have considered normal since before
we became human. Or are Bonobos more civilized than humans?
Kurt Nicklas
> On 14 May 2007 18:17:02 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> >Are you the only moral adult in the world? What if
> >> >another moral adult disagrees with you?
> >> I haven't met one who has yet. If I ever do I'll let you know.
> >So your definition of a moral adult seems to be one who agrees with
> >your morality.
>
> More evidence of lack of maturity.
And I thought you <plonked> me days ago.
You care, AL, you really do!
Kurt Nicklas
> On 14 May 2007 18:18:28 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net>
So you DON'T judge what is right and wrong in the world?
If discriminating about right and wrong isn't the core of morality
then what is?
Set me straight, Al.
Neolibertarian
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 19:49:50 -0500, Neolibertarian
> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Bare with one more analogy, if you will.
> >
> >There's about 200,000,000 or so people in the United States eligible to
> >play the lottery. Now let's say that they all do play, and they all play
> >all the time.
> >
> >Now, a guy, let's call him Fred, hits the jackpot.
>
> [analogy snipped]
>
> A closer analogy is that you seem to be saying that before the
> drawing, the probability of Fred's winning was very small.
>
> Actually, the only thing mandated is that some balls be drawn. They
> will be, as long as the lottery (life) continues. Whether Fred wins -
> even if no one wins - is beside the point. The balls were drawn.
Which is exactly what I stated.
>
> Life existed. It continued. Whether it ended, at this point, with us
> - or whether the "highest" form of life was still something just
> barely above a virus - is immaterial.
>
> >Assuming that you refuse to look at possible explanations of things
> >which don't include objective evidence and testable theory, I find on
> >reflection that I have a real problem with what you said earlier.
>
> I have a real problem with making up explanations for observations,
> which is what not looking at objective evidence is.
> >You said:
> >
> >"No, the Amalekite children weren't just raped - your god ordered his
> >people to do it. In your myth.
> >
> >"No can do any good at defending the rape of children. All they can do
> >is prove how depraved they are."
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >"What [Paul of Tarsus] IS telling us
>
> The rape of the Amalekite girls is in the OT, not the NT.
Clearly, I'm aware of that--which is evident in what I wrote.
> What Paul,
> whoever "he" was (and we have no idea who the actual author(s)
> was/were),
That's completely false and misleading. We have an "idea" of who he was,
and there are many reasons to believe he was the author of most of the
books attributed to him.
> is telling us is his opinion of the events, which I don't
> consider to be worth any more than my opinion. Less, in fact, due to
> his demonstrated lack of morals.
Unsubstantiated. His morals are different from yours.
"Forgive him, Caesar, he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of
his tribe and island are the laws of nature."
-- George Bernard Shaw
> > is that slavery is approved of by his god. As is rape. As is women being
> > chattel.
> >As is stoning people for minor offenses. As is eternal torture for limited
> >transgression.
>
> >"That's not morality, that's depravity. "
>
> >Now remember, you mustn't resort to the subjective or intrinsic
>
> Why not? Subjective things have only subjective backing. Morality
> and depravity are subjective, so there's no objective evidence for,
> against or any other direction.
>
> >What is "depraved" about raping and killing children?
>
> It violates what we, as a society, have considered normal since before
> we became human.
That has to be the worst answer I've ever read here at Usenet, and I've
read some doozies.
Normal does not equal moral.
> Or are Bonobos more civilized than humans?
Bonobos aren't civilized--by definition.
And you showed a little promise there for a while...
Al Klein
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >You said:
>> >
>> >"No, the Amalekite children weren't just raped - your god ordered his
>> >people to do it. In your myth.
>> >
>> >"No can do any good at defending the rape of children. All they can do
>> >is prove how depraved they are."
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >"What [Paul of Tarsus] IS telling us
>>
>> The rape of the Amalekite girls is in the OT, not the NT.
>
>Clearly, I'm aware of that--which is evident in what I wrote.
What you wrote is that anything Paul said has any bearing on what
happened 1,500 years (or more) before he was born.
>> What Paul,
>> whoever "he" was (and we have no idea who the actual author(s)
>> was/were),
>That's completely false and misleading. We have an "idea" of who he was,
>and there are many reasons to believe he was the author of most of the
>books attributed to him.
But we have no idea of who that author was, just that most of the
books attributed to Saul of Tarsus were probably written by the same
man (unlike the Gospels, which are probably compilations, edited so
many times that the original authors couldn't pick out their own
words). We have no extra-biblical evidence of who this Saul character
was.
>> is telling us is his opinion of the events, which I don't
>> consider to be worth any more than my opinion. Less, in fact, due to
>> his demonstrated lack of morals.
>Unsubstantiated. His morals are different from yours.
Condoning slavery isn't moral, it's not even amoral - it's IMMORAL.
>"Forgive him, Caesar, he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of
>his tribe and island are the laws of nature."
>-- George Bernard Shaw
There's a difference between custom and morality. Shaw was talking
about custom.
>> Or are Bonobos more civilized than humans?
>Bonobos aren't civilized--by definition.
Among Bonobos, child sexual molestation would be, if it ever happened,
punishable by death. But it doesn't. Now tell me who's the civilized
species.
Neolibertarian
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 01:26:11 -0500, Neolibertarian
> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >You said:
> >> >
> >> >"No, the Amalekite children weren't just raped - your god ordered his
> >> >people to do it. In your myth.
> >> >
> >> >"No can do any good at defending the rape of children. All they can do
> >> >is prove how depraved they are."
> >> >
> >> >[...]
> >> >
> >> >"What [Paul of Tarsus] IS telling us
> >>
> >> The rape of the Amalekite girls is in the OT, not the NT.
> >
> >Clearly, I'm aware of that--which is evident in what I wrote.
>
> What you wrote is that anything Paul said has any bearing on what
> happened 1,500 years (or more) before he was born.
>
Oh goodness gracious me. I pulled your own two quotes together.
I have a problem with both, together and separately. I don't have a
problem distinguishing which part of the Bible/Historical Epoch was
referred to, nor do I have a problem distinguishing the various
"depravities" you discussed.
> >> What Paul,
> >> whoever "he" was (and we have no idea who the actual author(s)
> >> was/were),
>
> >That's completely false and misleading. We have an "idea" of who he was,
> >and there are many reasons to believe he was the author of most of the
> >books attributed to him.
>
> But we have no idea of who that author was, just that most of the
> books attributed to Saul of Tarsus were probably written by the same
> man (unlike the Gospels, which are probably compilations, edited so
> many times that the original authors couldn't pick out their own
> words). We have no extra-biblical evidence of who this Saul character
> was.
This is an unnecessary tangent. You were the one who brought up Paul.
Whether he was two or more people is irrelevant. Whether or not he
existed--well, the most likely explanation is that someone
existed--Schliemann showed us that legends are usually based on some
root fact.
Whether the other books were heavily edited or not is also irrelevant
for our purposes here.
Remember the guy who tried to prove that the Iliad and the Odyssey were
not written by Homer? He claimed they were written by ANOTHER blind poet
who happened to also be named Homer.
> >> is telling us is his opinion of the events, which I don't
> >> consider to be worth any more than my opinion. Less, in fact, due to
> >> his demonstrated lack of morals.
>
> >Unsubstantiated. His morals are different from yours.
>
> Condoning slavery isn't moral, it's not even amoral - it's IMMORAL.
I don't believe in magic words.
If you say it's immoral, that's fine. Now the burden of proof is on you.
Saying something is moral or immoral doesn't make it so.
>
> >"Forgive him, Caesar, he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of
> >his tribe and island are the laws of nature."
>
> >-- George Bernard Shaw
>
> There's a difference between custom and morality. Shaw was talking
> about custom.
You said, and I quote: "it [raping children] violates what we, as a
society, have considered normal since before we became human."
You need to define "we as a society," because I would counter that there
is no such thing as "we as a society." And you, yourself, point out that
this particular behavior WAS accepted in an ancient Jewish society
living under Mosaic Law.
In fact, you've pointed out many things about Mosaic Law (as practiced
by the Ancient Jews) which are not what "we as a society have considered
normal."
You also need to define "normal" as you use it here. Furthermore, you
need to explain how "normal" is related to "moral."
Help me out here.
> >> Or are Bonobos more civilized than humans?
>
> >Bonobos aren't civilized--by definition.
>
> Among Bonobos, child sexual molestation would be, if it ever happened,
> punishable by death. But it doesn't. Now tell me who's the civilized
> species.
Bonobos don't have a choice. Ergo no civilization. Baboons and dogs have
been observed sacrificing themselves for their herds/packs. There is no
inherent virtue in such acts--they don't have a choice. Any dog or any
baboon in the same situation will behave in exactly the same way.
Not so with humans. Humans have a choice. Place two humans in exactly
the same situation, and there's no guarantee what will happen. Because
humans have a choice.
Al Klein
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <tpou43523jlg9s2o6...@4ax.com>,
> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> Condoning slavery isn't moral, it's not even amoral - it's IMMORAL.
>I don't believe in magic words.
>If you say it's immoral, that's fine. Now the burden of proof is on you.
>Saying something is moral or immoral doesn't make it so.
A doc could tell you, in detail, how to wag your tail. The
information wouldn't mean much to you, though.
>>
>> >"Forgive him, Caesar, he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of
>> >his tribe and island are the laws of nature."
>>
>> >-- George Bernard Shaw
>>
>> There's a difference between custom and morality. Shaw was talking
>> about custom.
>
>You said, and I quote: "it [raping children] violates what we, as a
>society, have considered normal since before we became human."
Due to morality, not due to custom. If I have to explain morality to
you, you can't understand it.
>You need to define "we as a society," because I would counter that there
>is no such thing as "we as a society."
We as a species that lives in groups, then. When the group was one
family we did what Daddy told us to do. When we started forming
larger groups, groups without morals fell apart or fell upon members
of the group. Those groups that survived were the ones with enough
morals to survive. "Survival of the fittest" isn't that difficult a
concept. What's difficult to understand is why it's not blatantly
obvious to every 5-year-old.
>And you, yourself, point out that
>this particular behavior WAS accepted in an ancient Jewish society
>living under Mosaic Law.
A moral god wouldn't have allowed it. A god created by its
patriarchal worshippers thought slavery and holding women as chattel
was perfectly all right. We had done better than that millennia
earlier - the Hebrew god wasn't as moral as some human societies that
cane before him had been.
>In fact, you've pointed out many things about Mosaic Law (as practiced
>by the Ancient Jews) which are not what "we as a society have considered
>normal."
We (moral people) don't consider them to have been a moral society.
>You also need to define "normal" as you use it here. Furthermore, you
>need to explain how "normal" is related to "moral."
The norm is what survives. Morality is a survival trait.
>> >> Or are Bonobos more civilized than humans?
>> >Bonobos aren't civilized--by definition.
>> Among Bonobos, child sexual molestation would be, if it ever happened,
>> punishable by death. But it doesn't. Now tell me who's the civilized
>> species.
>Bonobos don't have a choice.
Sure they do. Any clan could decide, out of the blue, that raping
children was fine.
>Ergo no civilization. Baboons and dogs have
>been observed sacrificing themselves for their herds/packs. There is no
>inherent virtue in such acts--they don't have a choice.
You've never observed a dog making a decision?
>Any dog or any
>baboon in the same situation will behave in exactly the same way.
Not according to actual observation. (But baboons are pretty far
removed from humans.)
>Not so with humans. Humans have a choice. Place two humans in exactly
>the same situation, and there's no guarantee what will happen. Because
>humans have a choice.
Same with two dogs, and dogs are even further removed from humans than
baboons are. Remember the case - about a year ago - about a young
child who fell into a gorilla cage at a zoo? The gorilla had a
choice. Or sit down with Koko and discuss with her your claim that
she acts with no choice. It took her a few weeks, after her kitten
was killed by a car, to decide whether to get another kitten. She
wanted one to love, but didn't want one she knew she'd have to lose,
even if only to age. No choice, huh? She put more thought into that
one kitten than a lot of humans do. More thought than a lot of humans
put into deciding whether to have a child.
Neolibertarian
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 21:40:02 -0500, Neolibertarian
> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <tpou43523jlg9s2o6...@4ax.com>,
> > Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Condoning slavery isn't moral, it's not even amoral - it's IMMORAL.
>
> >I don't believe in magic words.
>
> >If you say it's immoral, that's fine. Now the burden of proof is on you.
>
> >Saying something is moral or immoral doesn't make it so.
>
> A doc could tell you, in detail, how to wag your tail. The
> information wouldn't mean much to you, though.
> >>
> >> >"Forgive him, Caesar, he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of
> >> >his tribe and island are the laws of nature."
> >>
> >> >-- George Bernard Shaw
> >>
> >> There's a difference between custom and morality. Shaw was talking
> >> about custom.
> >
> >You said, and I quote: "it [raping children] violates what we, as a
> >society, have considered normal since before we became human."
>
> Due to morality, not due to custom. If I have to explain morality to
> you, you can't understand it.
There's a red flag.
>
> >You need to define "we as a society," because I would counter that there
> >is no such thing as "we as a society."
>
> We as a species that lives in groups, then.
Does this imply that there is no morality for a man who lives alone?
> When the group was one
> family we did what Daddy told us to do. When we started forming
> larger groups, groups without morals fell apart or fell upon members
> of the group. Those groups that survived were the ones with enough
> morals to survive. "Survival of the fittest" isn't that difficult a
> concept. What's difficult to understand is why it's not blatantly
> obvious to every 5-year-old.
>
> >And you, yourself, point out that
> >this particular behavior WAS accepted in an ancient Jewish society
> >living under Mosaic Law.
>
> A moral god wouldn't have allowed it. A god created by its
> patriarchal worshippers thought slavery and holding women as chattel
> was perfectly all right. We had done better than that millennia
> earlier
A millennia before, you're treading on pretty thin historical evidence
about /any/ society.
> the Hebrew god wasn't as moral as some human societies that
> cane before him had been.
You've still not even come close to defining morality, and the question
was posed to you three posts ago. And you've been slinging "morality"
around since the beginning of these posts.
If you can't define it, how do you know whether the God of the Jews was
not moral?
>
> >In fact, you've pointed out many things about Mosaic Law (as practiced
> >by the Ancient Jews) which are not what "we as a society have considered
> >normal."
>
> We (moral people) don't consider them to have been a moral society.
???
>
> >You also need to define "normal" as you use it here. Furthermore, you
> >need to explain how "normal" is related to "moral."
>
> The norm is what survives. Morality is a survival trait.
So it's pragmatism.
The problem with pragmatism is, it may become expedient to kill children.
So you haven't really helped your case at all.
Oh sure, you can claim that there's never a case where the slaughter of
children would help a society survive.
You can claim it from your easy chair.
>
> >> >> Or are Bonobos more civilized than humans?
>
> >> >Bonobos aren't civilized--by definition.
>
> >> Among Bonobos, child sexual molestation would be, if it ever happened,
> >> punishable by death. But it doesn't. Now tell me who's the civilized
> >> species.
>
> >Bonobos don't have a choice.
>
> Sure they do. Any clan could decide, out of the blue, that raping
> children was fine.
Clans don't decide anything. A clan isn't a conscious being, it is an
association of conscious beings.
By definition, you're speaking to mores, not morality.
>
> >Ergo no civilization. Baboons and dogs have
> >been observed sacrificing themselves for their herds/packs. There is no
> >inherent virtue in such acts--they don't have a choice.
>
> You've never observed a dog making a decision?
Better than that, I've observed dogs /learning/.
>
> >Any dog or any
> >baboon in the same situation will behave in exactly the same way.
>
> Not according to actual observation. (But baboons are pretty far
> removed from humans.)
Actually, there's no evidence that they behave differently in identical
circumstances.
>
> >Not so with humans. Humans have a choice. Place two humans in exactly
> >the same situation, and there's no guarantee what will happen. Because
> >humans have a choice.
>
> Same with two dogs, and dogs are even further removed from humans than
> baboons are. Remember the case - about a year ago - about a young
> child who fell into a gorilla cage at a zoo? The gorilla had a
> choice. Or sit down with Koko and discuss with her your claim that
> she acts with no choice. It took her a few weeks, after her kitten
> was killed by a car, to decide whether to get another kitten. She
> wanted one to love, but didn't want one she knew she'd have to lose,
> even if only to age. No choice, huh? She put more thought into that
> one kitten than a lot of humans do. More thought than a lot of humans
> put into deciding whether to have a child.
You're Walt Disney.
Al Klein
wrote:
>In article <pjfv43h1dh1ovp9ql...@4ax.com>,
> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 21:40:02 -0500, Neolibertarian
>> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <tpou43523jlg9s2o6...@4ax.com>,
>> > Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> Condoning slavery isn't moral, it's not even amoral - it's IMMORAL.
>>
>> >I don't believe in magic words.
>>
>> >If you say it's immoral, that's fine. Now the burden of proof is on you.
>>
>> >Saying something is moral or immoral doesn't make it so.
>>
>> A doc could tell you, in detail, how to wag your tail. The
>> information wouldn't mean much to you, though.
>> >>
>> >> >"Forgive him, Caesar, he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of
>> >> >his tribe and island are the laws of nature."
>> >>
>> >> >-- George Bernard Shaw
>> >>
>> >> There's a difference between custom and morality. Shaw was talking
>> >> about custom.
>> >
>> >You said, and I quote: "it [raping children] violates what we, as a
>> >society, have considered normal since before we became human."
>>
>> Due to morality, not due to custom. If I have to explain morality to
>> you, you can't understand it.
>
>There's a red flag.
Truth is truth. There ARE things that just can't be explained to
those who aren't equipped to understand them, and don't need to be
explained to those who are.
>> >You need to define "we as a society," because I would counter that there
>> >is no such thing as "we as a society."
>>
>> We as a species that lives in groups, then.
>
>Does this imply that there is no morality for a man who lives alone?
A man living alone hasn't agreed with the society of which he's a part
- anything at all, since he's not part of a society.
What it says, not implies, is that a moral person knows what's moral,
while one who has no morality (not 'amoral' in the normal sense, but
more like a human being has no gills) couldn't understand it if the
most articulate person in the world wrote the whole thing out in words
of one syllable. You can not understand how to work a part of you
that you don't have. If you don't have at least semi-prehensile toes,
I can't explain to you how I can pick things up with my feet. No
matter what I say, you'll see me do it, but the explanation of what it
feels like won't make sense to you.
>> A moral god wouldn't have allowed it. A god created by its
>> patriarchal worshippers thought slavery and holding women as chattel
>> was perfectly all right. We had done better than that millennia
>> earlier
>A millennia before, you're treading on pretty thin historical evidence
>about /any/ society.
Fossil evidence that women were treated as cherished members of the
community, not as property. In its extreme, old Inuit women were
expected to go out on ice floes to die when they were no longer
useful. Neanderthal women were fed by others, even after they were so
arthritic that they couldn't lift their own hands to their mouths. And
someone must have chewed their food after they lost all their teeth.
>
>> the Hebrew god wasn't as moral as some human societies that
>> cane before him had been.
>
>You've still not even come close to defining morality
It's defined in the same way as the instructions to a human for
breathing through your gills. The youngest, most stupid fish knows
how, but not a single "intelligent" human can even begin to understand
how it works. If you don't have the part, no amount of "definition"
will tell you how to use it.
>and the question
>was posed to you three posts ago. And you've been slinging "morality"
>around since the beginning of these posts.
>
>If you can't define it, how do you know whether the God of the Jews was
>not moral?
There are things one knows without a definition. Define "human"
without using gene sequences. (Make sure it includes every creature a
rational person would consider human, and not a single one a rational
person would consider not human.) You can't define "human", but you
can tell that a horse isn't human.
>> >In fact, you've pointed out many things about Mosaic Law (as practiced
>> >by the Ancient Jews) which are not what "we as a society have considered
>> >normal."
>> We (moral people) don't consider them to have been a moral society.
>???
The Jews of the Bible were a very immoral people. They were expedient
- they did what worked, no matter who suffered. They were "people" -
everyone else was "other". They, according to the Bible myth, killed
the Canaanites. Why? Because they wanted to live in Canaan.
What's the difference between that and killing the native population
of ANY land to take over their land? Yet we call that genocide, and
punish people for it.
>>
>> >You also need to define "normal" as you use it here. Furthermore, you
>> >need to explain how "normal" is related to "moral."
>>
>> The norm is what survives. Morality is a survival trait.
>
>So it's pragmatism.
True. Good survival is a balance between morality and expediency. A
purely moral society seldom survives. Neither does a purely expedient
one. (Eventually your enemy, and an expedient society breeds enemies
like garbage breeds flies, gets stronger than you - and, being human,
makes you pay.)
>The problem with pragmatism is, it may become expedient to kill children.
>
>So you haven't really helped your case at all.
I'm not trying to help any case, I'm trying to explain how things are.
A thing that is, is. Whether I explain it well or not, it still is.
>Oh sure, you can claim that there's never a case where the slaughter of
>children would help a society survive.
Of course not. Killing children helped save the life of more than one
Israeli (in the Partition wars), and that's only a modern example.
>> >> >> Or are Bonobos more civilized than humans?
>>
>> >> >Bonobos aren't civilized--by definition.
>>
>> >> Among Bonobos, child sexual molestation would be, if it ever happened,
>> >> punishable by death. But it doesn't. Now tell me who's the civilized
>> >> species.
>>
>> >Bonobos don't have a choice.
>>
>> Sure they do. Any clan could decide, out of the blue, that raping
>> children was fine.
>
>Clans don't decide anything. A clan isn't a conscious being, it is an
>association of conscious beings.
And the consensus of the clan could be that raping children is
allowed. It doesn't happen. A Bonobo who rapes a child is given the
death sentence - expulsion.
>By definition, you're speaking to mores, not morality.
Morality is conscious. Man is not the only conscious animal - many
other species make conscious decisions.
>> Not according to actual observation. (But baboons are pretty far
>> removed from humans.)
>
>Actually, there's no evidence that they behave differently in identical
>circumstances.
Only actual observation. They learn almost as well as we do.
>> Same with two dogs, and dogs are even further removed from humans than
>> baboons are. Remember the case - about a year ago - about a young
>> child who fell into a gorilla cage at a zoo? The gorilla had a
>> choice. Or sit down with Koko and discuss with her your claim that
>> she acts with no choice. It took her a few weeks, after her kitten
>> was killed by a car, to decide whether to get another kitten. She
>> wanted one to love, but didn't want one she knew she'd have to lose,
>> even if only to age. No choice, huh? She put more thought into that
>> one kitten than a lot of humans do. More thought than a lot of humans
>> put into deciding whether to have a child.
>
>You're Walt Disney.
And you're sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't
hear you" at the top of your lungs. Who's the monster under YOUR bed?
Man is NOT the only intelligent species on this planet, so it's time
you joined the 20th century.
Neolibertarian
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
"Quid est veritas?"
> There ARE things that just can't be explained to
> those who aren't equipped to understand them, and don't need to be
> explained to those who are.
That's the most horrible answer yet.
>
> >> >You need to define "we as a society," because I would counter that there
> >> >is no such thing as "we as a society."
> >>
> >> We as a species that lives in groups, then.
> >
> >Does this imply that there is no morality for a man who lives alone?
>
> A man living alone hasn't agreed with the society of which he's a part
> - anything at all, since he's not part of a society.
>
> What it says, not implies, is that a moral person knows what's moral,
> while one who has no morality (not 'amoral' in the normal sense, but
> more like a human being has no gills) couldn't understand it if the
> most articulate person in the world wrote the whole thing out in words
> of one syllable. You can not understand how to work a part of you
> that you don't have. If you don't have at least semi-prehensile toes,
> I can't explain to you how I can pick things up with my feet. No
> matter what I say, you'll see me do it, but the explanation of what it
> feels like won't make sense to you.
The "Morality Gene."
Riiight. Now pull the other one.
You're either attempting to start a new religion, or you're the most
ethically lost human being I've ever met out here on the Internet.
And the Internet already leans pretty heavily in that direction to begin
with...
>
> >> A moral god wouldn't have allowed it. A god created by its
> >> patriarchal worshippers thought slavery and holding women as chattel
> >> was perfectly all right. We had done better than that millennia
> >> earlier
>
> >A millennia before, you're treading on pretty thin historical evidence
> >about /any/ society.
>
> Fossil evidence that women were treated as cherished members of the
> community, not as property. In its extreme, old Inuit women were
> expected to go out on ice floes to die when they were no longer
> useful.
Pretty thin ice, literally.
Elderly women are more moral than those who stay behind.
> Neanderthal women were fed by others, even after they were so
> arthritic that they couldn't lift their own hands to their mouths. And
> someone must have chewed their food after they lost all their teeth.
You think soup and wild oat porridge was technology beyond the
Mousterian Neanderthals?
You really had me fooled with the way you parroted theory in the first
few posts. Now you don't seem to have even a passing acquaintance with
logic.
Which means you'll fit in just fine here at Usenet.
> >
> >> the Hebrew god wasn't as moral as some human societies that
> >> cane before him had been.
> >
> >You've still not even come close to defining morality
>
> It's defined in the same way as the instructions to a human for
> breathing through your gills. The youngest, most stupid fish knows
> how, but not a single "intelligent" human can even begin to understand
> how it works. If you don't have the part, no amount of "definition"
> will tell you how to use it.
The "Species Oriented Morality Gene."
HINT: the best assumption, when you're communicating with Human Beings,
is that they do, in fact, posses the "Morality Gene."
But you are still not addressing morality, anyway.
You're stuck describing mores when the discussion is about morals.
>
> >and the question
> >was posed to you three posts ago. And you've been slinging "morality"
> >around since the beginning of these posts.
> >
> >If you can't define it, how do you know whether the God of the Jews was
> >not moral?
>
> There are things one knows without a definition.
I'd ask for an example here, but I suppose I'd already have to know the
list of examples or I wouldn't understand, even if you provided it.
Albeit, you won't get very far without definitions. And you'll not get
to anyplace fruitful if you don't have valid definitions.
> Define "human"
> without using gene sequences.
Why should I be prohibited from describing what the name means?
> (Make sure it includes every creature a
> rational person would consider human, and not a single one a rational
> person would consider not human.) You can't define "human", but you
> can tell that a horse isn't human.
Oh no, you silly goose, I can define human. Don't project on me your own
short comings.
You're attempting to stack the deck so that we have to include bonobos
in any valid definition.
However, compassion and hedonism don't define humanity. Didn't Noam
Chomsky deny that bonobos have language, even when they learn to
construct five word sentences? It doesn't mean that they are incapable
of abstraction, but it means they don't have language the way that
humans have language.
What you keep evading it this:
Morality isn't about mores, intelligence, an ability to communicate or
an ability to learn. It isn't even about love, or compassion. Most
mammals here on earth exhibit one or more of these traits in a variety
of circumstances.
> >> >In fact, you've pointed out many things about Mosaic Law (as practiced
> >> >by the Ancient Jews) which are not what "we as a society have considered
> >> >normal."
>
> >> We (moral people) don't consider them to have been a moral society.
>
> >???
>
> The Jews of the Bible were a very immoral people.
No, you still haven't established this. You /saying/ something is
immoral doesn't make it so.
I reiterate here, that if all you can do is equate mores with morals,
then by your own admission, the Jews were a very /moral/ society.
> They were expedient
> - they did what worked, no matter who suffered. They were "people" -
> everyone else was "other". They, according to the Bible myth, killed
> the Canaanites. Why? Because they wanted to live in Canaan.
Where did the Canaanites come from?
>
> What's the difference between that and killing the native population
> of ANY land to take over their land? Yet we call that genocide, and
> punish people for it.
Not very often. Rarely, in fact. Unless the scale is too large to ignore.
Today on earth, Musical Chairs is over. You're pretty well stuck where
you are. Palestinians are stuck in the Occupied Territories, and
Mexicans are pretty much stuck where they are (even assuming nothing
much is done today, a way will be found over the next decade to freeze
the migrations).
At the time in history you're speaking to, population pressures and mass
migrations were the norm. Hence much of biblical history. Hence the
Aryan Invasions. And the Celts. And the Huns, And the Vandals. And,
eventually, Chengis Khan. And all the others in between and since.
"Us and them" is a human trait, yes. It is also a common trait, even
among the bonobos. Inter tribal marriages are also the norm among both.
In Iraqi culture the groom takes the family name of his wife. In Apache
culture too, the male moves in with the in-laws.
Chimpanzees occasionally go on monkey hunts. They work themselves into a
frenzy, and then hunt down small monkeys. It's not like a human hunt, at
all. They surround the monkey and torture it, prolonging the poor
unlucky little thing's agony far beyond sanity. All the Chimp hunters
get a taste of its blood. And then they all settle down again.
> >>
> >> >You also need to define "normal" as you use it here. Furthermore, you
> >> >need to explain how "normal" is related to "moral."
> >>
> >> The norm is what survives. Morality is a survival trait.
> >
> >So it's pragmatism.
>
> True. Good survival is a balance between morality and expediency.
You still haven't established that, at all.
> A
> purely moral society seldom survives. Neither does a purely expedient
> one. (Eventually your enemy, and an expedient society breeds enemies
> like garbage breeds flies, gets stronger than you - and, being human,
> makes you pay.)
Creativity can be defined as an unexpected solution.
Strategy can be creative.
>
> >The problem with pragmatism is, it may become expedient to kill children.
> >
> >So you haven't really helped your case at all.
>
> I'm not trying to help any case, I'm trying to explain how things are.
> A thing that is, is. Whether I explain it well or not, it still is.
But you haven't explained ANYTHING yet. We can't judge if it was done
well or not until YOU DO.
>
> >Oh sure, you can claim that there's never a case where the slaughter of
> >children would help a society survive.
>
> Of course not. Killing children helped save the life of more than one
> Israeli (in the Partition wars), and that's only a modern example.
Again, you are claiming that the Jews were a very moral people.
>
> >> >> >> Or are Bonobos more civilized than humans?
> >>
> >> >> >Bonobos aren't civilized--by definition.
> >>
> >> >> Among Bonobos, child sexual molestation would be, if it ever happened,
> >> >> punishable by death. But it doesn't. Now tell me who's the civilized
> >> >> species.
> >>
> >> >Bonobos don't have a choice.
> >>
> >> Sure they do. Any clan could decide, out of the blue, that raping
> >> children was fine.
> >
> >Clans don't decide anything. A clan isn't a conscious being, it is an
> >association of conscious beings.
>
> And the consensus of the clan could be that raping children is
> allowed. It doesn't happen. A Bonobo who rapes a child is given the
> death sentence - expulsion.
Mores.
>
> >By definition, you're speaking to mores, not morality.
>
> Morality is conscious. Man is not the only conscious animal - many
> other species make conscious decisions.
But they aren't moral.
>
> >> Not according to actual observation. (But baboons are pretty far
> >> removed from humans.)
> >
> >Actually, there's no evidence that they behave differently in identical
> >circumstances.
>
> Only actual observation. They learn almost as well as we do.
Learning has nothing to do with it.
Intelligence /= morality.
>
> >> Same with two dogs, and dogs are even further removed from humans than
> >> baboons are. Remember the case - about a year ago - about a young
> >> child who fell into a gorilla cage at a zoo? The gorilla had a
> >> choice. Or sit down with Koko and discuss with her your claim that
> >> she acts with no choice. It took her a few weeks, after her kitten
> >> was killed by a car, to decide whether to get another kitten. She
> >> wanted one to love, but didn't want one she knew she'd have to lose,
> >> even if only to age. No choice, huh? She put more thought into that
> >> one kitten than a lot of humans do. More thought than a lot of humans
> >> put into deciding whether to have a child.
> >
> >You're Walt Disney.
>
> And you're sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't
> hear you" at the top of your lungs. Who's the monster under YOUR bed?
You haven't said anything to hear.
You're claiming that bonobos are human. That's fine, but not until you
first define human.
But, first things first: why is it you can't define morality?
>
> Man is NOT the only intelligent species on this planet, so it's time
> you joined the 20th century.
Centuries are irrelevant. And so are your empty arguments.
Al Klein
wrote:
There doesn't seem to be much point in continuing this. I have better
things to do that talk to a wall.
Kurt Nicklas
wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2007 07:44:11 -0700, Captain Compassion
>
> <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
> >On Wed, 02 May 2007 06:31:30 GMT, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
> ><eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Yep, that vaunted Christian moral superiority
>
> >>http://www.wptz.com/news/13224307/detail.html
>
> >The theory being what? A natural outcome of Christianity is child
> >molestation or perhaps only Christians are child molesters?
>
> That you christians has no claim on moral superiorirty.
How dare you claim to be morally superior to anyone, Hoozer?
> >Christianity is indeed flawed as with all the philosophies created by
> >man. However I suspect it has brought infinitely more comfort and
> >meaning to the lives of humankind then all the forms of atheism. --
>
> and infinitely more suffering, your point?
Atheists killed more people in the 20th century than all the Christian
pogroms,
crusades and inquisitions of all the preceding centuries.
Isn't that right, Hoozie?