people trying to convert atheists
T.G. Nattress
I don't know if it only in England where religious people come knocking on
doors, trying to convert people. Normally I swear at them and usally if they
ere Jehovahs they cart their young children round with them. I acuse them of
brainwashing their children and they usually leave rapidly.
Once however, two Born Again Christians arrive on my doorstep wanting to
convert me. They waffled for a bit and I waffled back at them, usually with
similar arguments I have read here. There leaving words were something like
" if you look for jesus you will find him"
Which in my eyes is very a very silly thing to say.
1) If I look for something I implicity assume it's existance
Therefore, if I look for Jesus I am assuming he exists and I am no
longer an atheist. Since I am and always will be an atheist I would be looking
for something I know that does not exist, therefore I must be pretty mad.
2) If I look for something hard enough I will in all probability find it.
For example the canals on Mars. This guy wanted to find life on mars so he
looked for it and found the "canals" which we know do not exist.
Therefore If I had looked for jesus as they asked, I would be mad and
really should be somewhere for mad people, not here typing this letter.
My pet religious hate is the teaching of religion in schools and especially
to very young children. Young children are very perceptable to what adults
say. Also on TV shows when there is a religious controversy over some book or
film or pop video etc. they always ask a christian or a muslim etc. what there
views are and never ever state the views of Atheists. Surely this is gross
under-representation on the part of the TV etc. companies.
Hope I havent gone over old ground here!!
BBFN
_ _
--/=\ T. Graeme Nattress. By the great horns of the Sky Demon /=\--
|--||| Mr. Fibuli. |||--|
/...\ T.G.Na...@uk.ac.newcastle or Sol 3 in Mutters Spiral /...\
/.....\ Galactic Coordinates 10 0 11 00 by 02 Galactic Centre /.....\
Jesse Chisholm
>
> I don't know if it only in England where religious people come knocking on
>doors, trying to convert people.
> --/=\ T. Graeme Nattress. By the great horns of the Sky Demon /=\--
> |--||| Mr. Fibuli. |||--|
> /...\ T.G.Na...@uk.ac.newcastle or Sol 3 in Mutters Spiral /...\
> /.....\ Galactic Coordinates 10 0 11 00 by 02 Galactic Centre /.....\
I am a theist and an amatuer theologian. I do have atheistic
tendencies, but I find no conflict between my theism and my
atheism. (I haven't even posted this yet and already I can see
the flames on their way. ;-) This combination does make it
impossible for me to accept any organized theism (such as the
one I was raised into, Christianity).
I also will occaisionally have someone come to my door to try
and convert me. I also find this practice pretty disgusting.
Instead of trying to drive them away, I invite them in to talk.
I figure as long as they are talking with me, they aren't talking
with someone more gullible than they are. And, who knows, in
talking with me they may begin to think, for I will certainly be
asking them questions they aren't expecting.
I have found that very few door-to-door evangelists know what
they believe. Most of them were given a program to follow in
converting people. Often the program has been ironed out until
it is difficult to avoid being led by the nose.
--
Jesse Chisholm | I've UNDERSTOOD IT! Well, that is, ...,
je...@Altos86.Altos.COM | I'm not exactly sure WHAT I've understood,
Tel 1-408-432-6200x4810 | but I have the impression I've understood
Fax 1-408-434-0273 | SOMETHING." -- Anselm Lanturlu
Mike Cluff
>I am a theist and an amatuer theologian. I do have atheistic
>tendencies, but I find no conflict between my theism and my
>atheism. (I haven't even posted this yet and already I can see
>the flames on their way. ;-)
Naaaaawww, you just sound like a Unitarian!!! :-)
******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff * One who knows does not post;
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms * One who posts does not know.
UB Language Perception Laboratory * (apologies to Lao Tzu)
******************************************************************************
Siddarth Subramanian
>to very young children. Young children are very perceptable to what adults
>say.
I agree with you except that I wouldn't call it a pet hate - it is
what saddens me most about religion. I feel that brainwashing kids
into religion is something that ought to be recognized as a form of
child abuse. (I know that will never happen - it's just the way I see
it).
At the same time (before the theists flame me), let me say that
indoctrinating kids with statements like "There is no god" is just as
despicable. The only non-abusive way of bringing up kids (IMO) is to
present them with the various belief systems that people hold and give
them the intellectual tools necessary to discriminate between them.
--
Siddarth Subramanian INTERNET: sidd...@cs.utexas.edu
UUCP: uunet!cs.utexas.edu!siddarth
Colin Forbes
> My pet religious hate is the teaching of religion in schools and especially >to very young children. Young children are very perceptable to what adults
>say.
Surely no worse than presenting Darwin's 'theory' of evolution as scientific
fact when the children are so likely to take it as something that has been
proven beyond all doubt. I believe that children should at least be shown the
Christian viewpoint, and allowed to chose for themselves whether they want to
accept it or not. Similarly for other disputed beliefs like evolutionism (if
that's a real word.)
Thanx for listening,
Colin.
Bryan Hannahs
>
> I don't know if it only in England where religious people come knocking o
> doors, trying to convert people. Normally I swear at them and usally if they
> ere Jehovahs they cart their young children round with them. I acuse them of
> brainwashing their children and they usually leave rapidly.
No, it's not. Want to know a good way to piss Jehova's Witnesses off? Ask
'em what he's on trial for that he need a witness. (At least that works
well here in the States...)
Of course, you can always explain politely to them how much you love Satan
and how Satan is the true saviour. (That'll really get 'em moving!)
> _ _
> --/=\ T. Graeme Nattress. By the great horns of the Sky Demon /=\--
> |--||| Mr. Fibuli. |||--|
> /...\ T.G.Na...@uk.ac.newcastle or Sol 3 in Mutters Spiral /...\
> /.....\ Galactic Coordinates 10 0 11 00 by 02 Galactic Centre /.....\
Hey! Don't you know there are regulations against transporting Daleks via
the Internet?! Now where's my sonic screwdriver?
Bryan Hannahs
(aka Arthur Dent)
Eric Pepke
>to very young children.
Is religion taught to children in state schools in the UK?
Over here they manage to slip it in sideways, but the more egregious forms
of religious instruction are illegal, and the laws are occasionally enforced.
-EMP
Andrew Pearlman
>Of course, you can always explain politely to them how much you love Satan
>and how Satan is the true saviour. (That'll really get 'em moving!)
Actually, you can make a decent case that Jesus is actually Satan using the
Bible without even twisting too hard. Say it really politely when you do,
sound utterly reasonable. This lures them in.
In some passage, the Pharisees accused Jesus of being Baalzebub when he cast
out demons from people. He replied, "Why would Satan divide his own kingdom?"
It is a really good question, but isn't an answer. It makes the assumption
that possessing people with demons is somehow good for Satan and better than
corrupting millions. Ask politely which is better for Satan, corrupting
millions of innocents or possessing a few people? Most will go with innocents
(if they don't, well you can nail'em on ethical grounds.) Then say, let's
assume Jesus were Satan for a second. Quote the passage. Say, you just
answered why Satan would do such a thing. Now, take the 1st commandment.
Thou shalt have no gods equal to me. But by treating Satan as Jesus, you
are setting Satan = God. According to the OT, you just violated the biggest
rule in the book. Now, let's say you are Satan, wouldn't you want people
violating the biggest rule in the book?
Supporting evidence:
If Jesus were actually God, he would have caught such a huge loophole and said
something about it.
Prophecies- Satan made all of them or found it easy to replicate them. All
Satan has to do is show up at the right time. It is easy to say I will be
there on such and such a date. Hey, my cosmic alarm clock says such and such
a date, grab the innocent looking robe...
I thought of this. Satan is nearly infinitely smarter than I am. Obviously,
he had to think of it also.
Why would God change things? Is God not perfect, would he have not done it
right the first time? Obviously, someone else must have done it...
Pride: It takes a lot of pride in one's beliefs to go up to someone else and
try to change them. Now, where do you think you are getting that pride from?
(there is of course the assumption in this argument that Satan and God exist,
but that is irrelevant when using this argument on a Christian, just claim
the Judaic point of view afterwards)
Miracles performed by Jesus: Easy for Satan. Ressurection, oh no, an nearly
omnipotent being being stabbed with a small spike.
Oh, and the kicker. If they don't listen to you, say something to the effect
of:"Wow, you must really be controlled by Satan to not even listen to what
I'm saying."
If they say:"You can't know God and Satan at the same time.", smile evilly
and say:"Exactly..."
Andy Pearlman
Loren Petrich
Look who's talking!!!
A theological dogmatist who accuses others of dogmatism!!!!!
And what about other religious views, like that Genesis 1 and
2 are allegorical, or of the creation myths of other religions?
Why not teach the theory in the Mayan book, the Popol Vuh, to
the effect that the Gods created animals as practice-creations before
they created humanity. The next-to-last creations? Monkeys.
I guess this argument is best taken to talk.origins.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster: lo...@sunlight.llnl.gov
Since this nodename is not widely known, you may have to try:
T.G. Nattress
>In article <1991Mar11.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> T.G.Na...@newcastle.ac.uk (T.G. Nattress) writes:
>> My pet religious hate is the teaching of religion in schools and especially
>>to very young children. Young children are very perceptable to what adults
>>say.
>I agree with you except that I wouldn't call it a pet hate - it is
>what saddens me most about religion. I feel that brainwashing kids
>into religion is something that ought to be recognized as a form of
>child abuse. (I know that will never happen - it's just the way I see
>it).
And I've had bad experience of it. When I was in Infant School (5-7) I
can remember teachers teaching us the lords prayer (christian) and
singing Christian Hymms in morning assemblies. Later on in Junior
school(8-11) they didn't just sing hymms but invited the local vicar
in to preach! The only people who were exempt from this were a few
Jews. At the Moment this is Law in Britain that they should have
Christian assemblies on morings(at least once a week I think). I find
this disgusting! It just shows how when the people in power in a
country belong to an orgainised religion they force it by LAW on
others(IMHO).
I think ALL people are born atheists (IMHO) and become whatever they
become later.
It is also nice to see :-) that Religious peoplepractice what I call
the 1st law of Brainwashing, "When Brainwashing, always brainwash that
they never have and cannot be brainwashed" Just ask the religious if
they have been brainwashed when they obviously (INHO) have. THey will
answer that they havent... ( I know this isn't a proof, it's just what
I think)
>At the same time (before the theists flame me), let me say that
>indoctrinating kids with statements like "There is no god" is just as
>despicable. The only non-abusive way of bringing up kids (IMO) is to
>present them with the various belief systems that people hold and give
>them the intellectual tools necessary to discriminate between them.
Well I certainly aggree with that! Maybees when a little kid asks his
teacher ,"Where do I come from?" they should answer "Idon't Know"
until they're older when ALL (and I do mean ALL) the different
viewpoints can be represented equally. I remeber reading in a scouting
handbook;" Not even the cleverest people can prove the non-existance
of God" and this was their proof of the existence of God. Surely
invallid proofs like this should be banned.
Eric Pepke
>Christian viewpoint, and allowed to chose for themselves whether they want to
>accept it or not. Similarly for other disputed beliefs like evolutionism (if
>that's a real word.)
You've got a point there. All too often, science is presented to children
as mere facts, and they have little to choose between them other than the
authority with which they are presented. For a long time I have been saying
that what schools need to do is teach children how to think critically, how
to develop hypotheses and test them, how to combat the effect of their
preconceptions on studying evidence, etc. If this were to happen, then
NOBODY would buy the cheap line about creationism's being a "science"--
every kid would easily be able to see that it is neither based on the evidence
nor is it falisfiable, but that it is a cheap sugarcoating of religious
dogma with pseudoscientific prattle.
Yes, giving children the wherewithal to laugh "scientific creationism" out
of the classroom would be a good thing indeed.
Eric Pepke INTERNET: pe...@gw.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute MFENET: pepke@fsu
Florida State University SPAN: scri::pepke
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052 BITNET: pepke@fsu
Disclaimer: My employers seldom even LISTEN to my opinions.
Meta-disclaimer: Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
Mathemagician
Colin, evolution *IS* a fact. We have *SEEN* it happen.
For example, take an E. coli cell that cannot tolerate
lactose (lac -). Grow a lawn of E. coli from this single
cell in a Petri dish.
Now, deluge the lawn with lactose.
Most of the cells will die, but there will be a few cells
who can tolerate it. That is, they are lac +.
Now, did a miracle occur, or did the cells evolve?
Speciation has been seen to occur in plants and animals.
(No, I am not talking about the speckled moths in England.
I am talking about actual speciation where the offspring
are not fertile with their ancestral species but are
fertile among themselves.)
I suggest you pop over to sci.skeptic and read the thread
about evolution in that newsgroup.
The debate is not over whether or not evolution happens.
The debate is over *how* it happens.
--
Brian Evans |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first
bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."
Mathemagician
When asked if he wondered why there was so much suffering in the world,
he replied:
I'm god. That's the way I want it.
Tech News Account
thousand years ago.
Now, I admit that evolution is NOT 100% proven, but it`s a LOT more likely than
that, and is NOT based on theology.
it CAN be shown that creatures evolve... any recent creation occurences ?
--
Technology News- IIT`s weekly student newspaper. Subscriptions available.
kad...@iitvax.bitnet tech...@iitmax.edu
My employer disagrees.
Ron Wigmore
(Colin Forbes) says:
>
>Surely no worse than presenting Darwin's 'theory' of evolution as scientific
>fact when the children are so likely to take it as something that has been
>proven beyond all doubt. I believe that children should at least be shown the
>Christian viewpoint, and allowed to chose for themselves whether they want to
>accept it or not. Similarly for other disputed beliefs like evolutionism (if
>that's a real word.)
This does mean that you agree that EVERY pagan (dictionary definition of the
word) religion should ALSO be given equal time, including real devil (tm)
worshippers, in an open and unbiased fashion? Such openmindedness is very
refreshing! :-)
You have a point (in general) about Darwin's theory, but the more modern
(updated) version of it is a fact.
Ron,,,
_______________________________________________________________________________
|*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*|
Definition Of Demons:
Atheists who have come back from the dead to haunt and torment FUNDIES! :-)
Ron Wigmore
Subramanian) says:
>
>I agree with you except that I wouldn't call it a pet hate - it is
>what saddens me most about religion. I feel that brainwashing kids
>into religion is something that ought to be recognized as a form of
>child abuse. (I know that will never happen - it's just the way I see
>it).
>
>At the same time (before the theists flame me), let me say that
>indoctrinating kids with statements like "There is no god" is just as
>despicable. The only non-abusive way of bringing up kids (IMO) is to
>present them with the various belief systems that people hold and give
>them the intellectual tools necessary to discriminate between them.
Hmmm, I agree (very much) with your point about atheists, when it involves
(ie. in a perfect world) your average theist. However, how are you going
to react (what will you say to your child) after your six year old (after
responding "god? what's that?" to some god fearing-type fundie) runs home,
scared, that some all powerful creature is going to torture your child for
'not believing'?
Now, obviously, you would talk with your child about such stuff (metaphysic's
conversations with a six year old are fun!) before hand. However, there's a
problem with this. You, as a parent, are looked up to as a 'god-like' person,
yourself, by your child (eg. 'my daddy can beat up your daddy'). Even when
you say "I don't think there's a god, but you can think what you want", your
child will assume your attitudes (maybe not on the first night your child
tries to fall asleep after watching his/her first horror show :-)).
Now, by taking this 'open minded' approach, certain types of theist WILL say
that you ARE indoctrinating your child into atheism. If you do not take
this approach, you risk having your child terrified by one of your child's
friend's parents. Some would say this latter stance would imply that you're
not concerned with your child's emotional well being (after all, you *are*
an atheist (says the fundy)! :-)), taking the former means some will accuse
you of indoctrinating your child with your beliefs.
So, how does one approach this paradox without being accused of indoctrinating
one's child to be an atheist? (If only we lived in a perfect world :-))
Colin Forbes
>The debate is not over whether or not evolution happens.
>The debate is over *how* it happens.
I grant you that some form of natural selection (survival of the strongest)
and changes do occur, within a particular species. But there is NO evidence
for evolution from one species to another (apes to men, etc.) which is what
Darwinian evolution postulates. Yet, we've all seen the text books with the
nice pictures showing all the in-between stages - all based on the
illustrator's imagination. No evidence has ever been found on which to base
the 'missing link' yet the process is taught as fact. That sounds like gross
irresponsibility to me.
Sorry to cop-out of this discussion here, but I'm going home for 4 weeks
which means No News (Is Good News!).
Colin.
s...@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
(Ron Wigmore) writes:
...
> ...how are you going
> to react (what will you say to your child) after your six year old (after
> responding "god? what's that?" to some god fearing-type fundie) runs home,
> scared, that some all powerful creature is going to torture your child for
> 'not believing'?
...
And how do parents react when the kid finds out about Santa Claus and
the Easter Bunny? Do they say, "oh, that doesn't really count, kid, God
really does exist, even though we fooled you with the other two"?
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| ~~~ Sid Sachs | "Time to wake up! |
| / \ ~~~ at the Mountains of Madness | Time to rise!" |
| / / \ | |
| / / \ Bitnet: sjs@ifasgnv | - Silver Lady, |
| / \ Internet: s...@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu | Intergalactic Touring Band |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------------+
MEM...@psuvm.psu.edu
(Andrew Pearlman) says:
>
>In article <uLeqy...@bluemoon.uucp> a.d...@bluemoon.uucp (Bryan Hannahs)
>writes:
>>Of course, you can always explain politely to them how much you love Satan
>>and how Satan is the true saviour. (That'll really get 'em moving!)
>
>Actually, you can make a decent case that Jesus is actually Satan using the
>Bible without even twisting too hard. Say it really politely when you do,
>sound utterly reasonable. This lures them in.
>Andy Pearlman
This type of arguement reminded me of a tactic I used once while I was an
undergraduate at Georgia Tech. One day a group of about 20 people were
gathered together on the steps of the Student Center. This is a heavily
trafficed area, where almost everyone passed by daily. They were holding
hands in a circle praying. I think they were praying for a National Day
of Prayer, or some other nonsense. Anyway, I interupted this one guy,
who had a Bible with him, and quickly turned to Matthew 6:5-6. This reads
"(5) And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites.
For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the
corners of the streets, so that they may be seen by men. Verily
I say unto you, They have their reward. (6) But you, when you
pray, enter into your closet. And when you have shut the door,
pray unto your Father who is in secret; and you Father who sees
in secret shall reward you openly."
Needless to say, they didn't like me reading aloud to the passers-by that they
were violating the spirit of the very book they were pretending to follow.
Does anyone else have similar stories or ideas about how to embarass
Christians and prove them to be the hypocrites that the Bible so correctly
lables them? I'd love to hear them!
Martin (Marty) Mauldin \ / Hell doesn't scare me...
MEM...@PSUVM.PSU.EDU \ / ...Pat Robertson does!
/ \
/ \ - Author Unknown
Kent Sandvik
>The CHRISTIAN viewpoint is that "god" created everything in 6 days, a few
>thousand years ago.
>
>Now, I admit that evolution is NOT 100% proven, but it`s a LOT more likely than
>that, and is NOT based on theology.
>
>it CAN be shown that creatures evolve... any recent creation occurences ?
What about that mutation race of cats that have really short legs - happened
in Russia lately, and they are just now trying to find out if this
race is suitable for breeding, or if the short legs are more of a hinder.
Sorry, could not resist to talk about this - those cats looked really
strange when they run around in the room (on TV).
Kent Sandvik
--
Disclaimer: Personal activity on the Net, in no way connected to any company.
Zippy++ says: END, END; and END. is sure clearer than "}".
William Mayne
>In article <12...@ai.cs.utexas.edu>, sidd...@cs.utexas.edu (Siddarth
>Subramanian) says:
>>
>>into religion is something that ought to be recognized as a form of
>>child abuse. (I know that will never happen - it's just the way I see
>>it).
I agree whole heartedly with this. I had the misfortune to be raised
in a Christian home, though my parents were good people and good
parents in other respects. The most painful memories of my childhood
and adolescence center around religion, the desire to be like others,
be accepted, and have my parents' and friends' approval.
When I reached the age of reason and could no longer believe the
factual propositions of Christianity I went through a period of
painful cognitive dissonance, wanting to make myself believe in
spite of complete lack of evidence, counter evidence in many areas
(I was learning astronomy, physics, and biology in school), and
logical inconsistency.
It wasn't just my mother, either, I had been in Sunday school and
she arranged parties and other social life around church, so it was
peer pressure from my lifelong friends.
I was and am by nature rational, yet everything conspired to force
me to deny that part of myself. I can empathize with what gays
must go through in their families. I also know that I am not
alone in this. When Bertrand Russell was fifteen or sixteen he
kept a diary encoded using Greek letters for fear of what his
relatives would think. He tells the story of the process he
went through, even in original writings from his early years,
with eloquence few at any age could match. Among other things
he writes of a vow "which it costs me much to keep" to believe
only what is acceptable to reason, finally casting aside with
great relief the religious beliefs he had at first struggled
to maintain. It is a very moving account and one with which I
can strongly identify. I too have accepted that I can't believe
what others want me to, nor should I, and I am much happier.
I'm sorry for my mother's self inflicted pain worrying about
my soul, but I am not responsible for it. My karma ran over her
dogma. (Too bad I didn't turn out as talented and courageous as
Russell.)
>Now, obviously, you would talk with your child about such stuff (metaphysic's
>conversations with a six year old are fun!) before hand. However, there's a
>problem with this. You, as a parent, are looked up to as a 'god-like' person,
>yourself, by your child (eg. 'my daddy can beat up your daddy'). Even when
>you say "I don't think there's a god, but you can think what you want", your
>child will assume your attitudes (maybe not on the first night your child
>tries to fall asleep after watching his/her first horror show :-)).
>
>Now, by taking this 'open minded' approach, certain types of theist WILL say
>that you ARE indoctrinating your child into atheism. If you do not take
>this approach, you risk having your child terrified by one of your child's
>friend's parents. Some would say this latter stance would imply that you're
>not concerned with your child's emotional well being (after all, you *are*
>an atheist (says the fundy)! :-)), taking the former means some will accuse
>you of indoctrinating your child with your beliefs.
It is unfortunate that our children may be exposed to all kinds of
negative enfluences - peers in school who may be deliquents, drug
users/pushers, fundamentalists... We can't protect them from all
of these. Certainly we also expose them to our own beliefs, like it
or not. It is true that early on they may be inclined to look up
to us and uncritically accept our beliefs. But that is not abusive
indoctrination. We can say "This is what I believe, this is why,
but you can make up your own mind" and *mean* it, no pressure from
us "It will break my heart / you will go to hell if you don't
believe X." Most importantly, we can avoid the use of peer pressure
and authoritarianism of the kind found in churches when they are too
young to reason for themselves. It is ludicrous to equate merely
exposing a child to ideas with the brain washing practiced by
religions.
Bill Mayne (ma...@nu.cs.fsu.edu)
Thomas Price
>thousand years ago.
"A" CHRISTIAN viewpoint is that "god" created everything in 6 days, a few
thousand years ago. Christianity is not a licensed trademark, unfortunately.
(Doesn't matter actually -- even if it were, Christ forbade litigation.)
>Now, I admit that evolution is NOT 100% proven, but it`s a LOT more likely than
>that, and is NOT based on theology.
>
>it CAN be shown that creatures evolve... any recent creation occurences ?
Yes, speciation has been observed. Ask the talk.origins group to point you
to the Journal references.
>--
>Technology News- IIT`s weekly student newspaper. Subscriptions available.
>kad...@iitvax.bitnet tech...@iitmax.edu
> My employer disagrees.
Tom Price
tp...@cs.cmu.edu
Disclaimer: We are trapped within our notion of what is right.
Kent Sandvik
>It is unfortunate that our children may be exposed to all kinds of
>negative enfluences - peers in school who may be deliquents, drug
>users/pushers, fundamentalists... We can't protect them from all
>of these. Certainly we also expose them to our own beliefs, like it
>or not. It is true that early on they may be inclined to look up
>to us and uncritically accept our beliefs. But that is not abusive
>indoctrination. We can say "This is what I believe, this is why,
>but you can make up your own mind" and *mean* it, no pressure from
>us "It will break my heart / you will go to hell if you don't
>believe X." Most importantly, we can avoid the use of peer pressure
>and authoritarianism of the kind found in churches when they are too
>young to reason for themselves. It is ludicrous to equate merely
>exposing a child to ideas with the brain washing practiced by
>religions.
Well said! I sometimes wonder how big an organized religion (such
as Christianity or Islam) would be with no social and cultural
pressure, all the way from the early childhood.
Time will tell what happens, compared with the dark ages when people
were burned if they had a slight opinion that differed from the official
view, we have done great progress for the sake of private individualism.
If the dogma of the religion is so obvious, why do we need all the
pressure from schools, society, family?
Kent Sandvik
--
Disclaimer: Personal activity on the Net, in no way connected to any company.
Zippy++ says: END, END; or END. is sure clearer than "}".
mathew
>> My pet religious hate is the teaching of religion in schools and especially >to very young children. Young children are very perceptable to what adults
>>say.
>
>fact when the children are so likely to take it as something that has been
>proven beyond all doubt.
I'm afraid you're a little behind the times. Darwin's evolutionary theories
are not presented as fact because they have been superceded in many respects
by more recent theories.
> I believe that children should at least be shown the
>Christian viewpoint, and allowed to chose for themselves whether they want to
>accept it or not.
I happen to believe that children would get a lot more out of religion if
they were allowed to discover it for themselves, rather than having it
rammed down their throats by a process of brainwashing and intimidation.
> Similarly for other disputed beliefs like evolutionism (if
>that's a real word.)
The only people who dispute the validity of evolution as a teaching are
creationists, and they do so only because it calls their religious assumptions
into question.
Evolution is as close to 'fact' as you can get; you can watch it happen in a
lab. The basic principles of natural selection are so simple and obvious
you can explain them to ten-year-olds; and you can show them evidence which
they can understand.
Evolutionary theories do not yet explain everything which we observe. There's
nothing unusual or suspect about that, though; most if not all scientific
theories are approximations to observed fact. The point is that the theories
we have at present work, and can be shown to work; and that we'll improve
on them as we learn more.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence in favour of evolution, and no
evidence which disproves it. If you believe otherwise, I suggest that you
say hello to those awfully nice chaps in talk.origins. They'll be able to
give you a lot more detail than I can manage.
mathew
Tom Ng
News Account) says:
>
>The CHRISTIAN viewpoint is that "god" created everything in 6 days, a few
>thousand years ago.
I heard that he didn't do anything for the first 5 days and cramed
everything on the 6th day. Now that sounds more reasonable!
There is one question that I haven't seen addressed seriously by theists
(likely because it's often presented as a joke) and that is:
If God is omnipotent then can he create a rock so heavy that he himself
cannot lift?
I ask theists this in all seriousness now.
Graham Matthews
> If God is omnipotent then can he create a rock so heavy that he himself
>cannot lift?
This is all in how you define omnipotence.
If I define omnipotence as being able to do anything bar logical
contradictions then there is no problem.
graham
--
Graham Matthews Bert: "Why is that banana in your ear?"
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz Ernie: "To keep the alligators away!"
gra...@maths.su.oz.au Bert: "There aren't any alligators on Sesame Street!"
Ernie: "Doing a good job, isn't it?"
house ron
>Jews. At the Moment this is Law in Britain that they should have
>Christian assemblies on morings(at least once a week I think). I find
>this disgusting! It just shows how when the people in power in a
>country belong to an orgainised religion they force it by LAW on
>others(IMHO).
This is of course quite disgraceful.
>Well I certainly aggree with that! Maybees when a little kid asks his
>teacher ,"Where do I come from?" they should answer "Idon't Know"
>until they're older when ALL (and I do mean ALL) the different
>viewpoints can be represented equally. I remeber reading in a scouting
>handbook;" Not even the cleverest people can prove the non-existance
>of God" and this was their proof of the existence of God. Surely
>invallid proofs like this should be banned.
>>-- >Siddarth Subramanian
I agree completely that standards for teaching children are deplorable.
However, withholding opinions in the way you suggest is not likely to
work either. It is a sad fact that without a structure of beliefs and
certainty, humans do not grow up healthy, rather nihilistic. My idea
of an ideal society is one where parents (a) teach their children
to think, question, and be fearless, and (b) say "This is what _I_
believe...". Of course parents have to make choices for their children,
but the trick is to slowly pass the responsibility to the child as they
reach an appropriate stage of development. As for those scouts...!!
--
Regards,
Ron House. (s64...@zeus.usq.edu.au)
(By post: Info Tech, U.C.S.Q. Toowoomba. Australia. 4350)
David Keith Maslen
In article <1991Mar15...@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, sjs writes:
> In article <91073.1832...@Ryerson.CA>, SYST...@Ryerson.CA
> (Ron Wigmore) writes:
> ...
>> ...how are you going
>> to react (what will you say to your child) after your six year old (after
>> responding "god? what's that?" to some god fearing-type fundie) runs home,
>> scared, that some all powerful creature is going to torture your child for
>> 'not believing'?
> ...
> And how do parents react when the kid finds out about Santa Claus and
> the Easter Bunny? Do they say, "oh, that doesn't really count, kid, God
> really does exist, even though we fooled you with the other two"?
Excuse me, I can't help relating the story of how my sister became an
atheist, at this point.
We come from a pseudo-religious family. We were baptised, but always made
aware of the inconsistencies of religion : the fact that much of it is
incompatible with science and common sense, that it is often
anthropocentric, etc. (my father is an atheist who likes church music + a
society around him).
By age 10, my sister had formed the conclusion that god was just like
Santa. i.e. a story told to children, that no adult really believed in. At
school (a few years later) she got into a long argument with a
fundamentalist friend of hers, who insisted that she couldn't be considered
christian unless she believed in god. Eventually my sister decided she
wasn't christian after all (I think we were both told at home, that most
self-respecting vicars were pretty sceptical -- only the old fashioned ones
actually believed!).
--
David Keith Maslen
mas...@zariski.harvard.edu
representing himself only.
Barbara Vaughan
> There is one question that I haven't seen addressed seriously by theists
>(likely because it's often presented as a joke) and that is:
>
> If God is omnipotent then can he create a rock so heavy that he himself
>cannot lift?
>
> I ask theists this in all seriousness now.
This really is an old chestnut and it's only troubling to people who
confuse God with Santa Claus. God exists outside of time and space;
the act of lifting a rock implies a physical being existing within the
constraints of time and space. It's like asking 'What do you get if
you add one to infinity?'.
Barbara Vaughan
Thomas Price
>(likely because it's often presented as a joke) and that is:
>
> If God is omnipotent then can he create a rock so heavy that he himself
>cannot lift?
>
> I ask theists this in all seriousness now.
This isn't a question of theology but of philosophy or logic. Let me pose
a similar question first:
What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?
It's not going to happen: the question is inconsistent with itself. If there
is an irresistable force then there is by definition no immovable object;
if there is an immovable object then there is by definition no irresistable
force. The question is meaningless.
Similarly, the existence of an omnipotent God PRECLUDES the existence of
a task beyond his ability to perform. You may as well ask him to make
something both blue and not blue, or some other such logical inconsistency.
Mutant for Hire
>In article <91076.2106...@Ryerson.CA>, EETD...@Ryerson.CA (Tom Ng) writes:
>> If God is omnipotent then can he create a rock so heavy that he himself
>>cannot lift?
>This really is an old chestnut and it's only troubling to people who
>confuse God with Santa Claus. God exists outside of time and space;
>the act of lifting a rock implies a physical being existing within the
>constraints of time and space. It's like asking 'What do you get if
>you add one to infinity?'.
Also, when you add 1 to infinity, you get infinity. Well proven mathematical
theorem.
Your argument depends on God remaining outside of space and time. However in
the bible God manifests itself on several occasions, carving words out of stone
and setting bushes on fire and all that. Also, he could create a rock within
space and time, and then raise it to a position higher than it was. Now the
question is could he create one so massive he couldn't move it. Note that the
acts of creation of a rock and moving said rock are not inherently connected.
Its only when one throws in omnipotence that one starts running into problems.
On the other hand, we can get down to more serious questions about omnipotence
like whether God could create a triangle in flat space which has interior
angles that add up to something other than 180 degrees. Or create a sixth
Euclidean solid. In other words, can God violate the theorems of mathematics?
I would tend to think not. This places restrictions on the omnipotence of God.
Martin Terman, Mutant for Hire, Physicist from Hell, Bug in the Cosmic Program
Disclaimer: This posting was produced by an infinite numbers of monkeys.
"Its an extremely inferior person who doesn't have several major inherent
contradictions in their view of the universe and themselves." --MFT
Jesse Chisholm
|In article <1991Mar14.0...@ariel.unm.edu>, bev...@gauss.unm.edu
|(Mathemagician) says:
|>
|>A friend of mine's father had a very nice way of scaring the JW's:
|>
|>When asked if he wondered why there was so much suffering in the world,
|>he replied:
|>
|>I'm god. That's the way I want it.
|
|that is the punishment I set for those who refuse to think for themselves and
|for those who will not take control of their own lives!
Too bad the suffering doesn't restrict itself to the group you
describe, oh great and woundrous one.
|Ron,,,
--
===== je...@Altos86.Altos.COM tel:1-408-432-6200x4810 fax:-434-0278
"Why are you the way you are? And how long have you been that way?"
-- Tom Cafesjian
Jesse Chisholm
| There is one question that I haven't seen addressed seriously by theists
|(likely because it's often presented as a joke) and that is:
| If God is omnipotent then can he create a rock so heavy that he himself
|cannot lift?
| I ask theists this in all seriousness now.
Since God has never discussed this with me, I can't give a
definitive answer. ;-)
There are various ways this has been dealt with by Christian
theologians in the past.
One is to say "Sure! God is perfectly capable of making a
rock he can't lift. Then if He changes His mind, He'll go ahead
and lift it." (not one of the thoughtful answers ;-)
Another is to say that "such a thing would be a paradox and
therefore impossible. It would be like saying that God can lie,
when we know from Genesis 1 that whatever God says becomes true
by His utterance."
A little more seriously, "such a rock would be against the rules
of this universe, so if God chose to create such a rock, He
would also have to create a universe in which it could exist."
Which doesn't really answer the question in my mind, just moves
it to a different universe.
In general, though, this is the kind of question that doesn't
interest theologians very much. Kind of like "How many angels
can dance on the head of a pin?" Obviously you just need to ask
the choreographer (sp?) how many the dance was written for. ;-)
Mikel Evins
>On the other hand, we can get down to more serious questions about omnipotence
>like whether God could create a triangle in flat space which has interior
>angles that add up to something other than 180 degrees. Or create a sixth
>Euclidean solid. In other words, can God violate the theorems of mathematics?
>I would tend to think not. This places restrictions on the omnipotence of God.
In his novel "Contact", Carl Sagan has some mathematicians
discovering proof of the existence of god. They are
computing pi to a newly-record-breaking number of decimal
places, and someone notices that the digits make up a
picture of a circle, encoded as bits. The picture is
embedded in the value of pi computed in any radix. This
is regarded as a signature of the author of the laws
of mathematics.
The connection here, in case it is obvious, is that the
author of the laws of mathematics might be presumed capable
of arranging them any way it chooses. Perhaps this morning
there were only three Euclidean solids, but god changed
its mind retroactively at lunchtime, remaking the whole
history of the universe. That's the way it is with
ompnipotent beings.
Kent Sandvik
>A little more seriously, "such a rock would be against the rules
>of this universe, so if God chose to create such a rock, He
>would also have to create a universe in which it could exist."
>Which doesn't really answer the question in my mind, just moves
>it to a different universe.
>
>In general, though, this is the kind of question that doesn't
>interest theologians very much. Kind of like "How many angels
>can dance on the head of a pin?" Obviously you just need to ask
>the choreographer (sp?) how many the dance was written for. ;-)
One thing this kind of a thinking experiment shows, is the
futility of the notion of omnipotence. It's very easy to put
together similar paradoxes. Then again a lot of people believe
in omnipotence. My theory is that God can't create the rock he
can't lift, because someone else behind his back created it :-).
Regards,
Kent Sandvik
--
Disclaimer: Private activity on the Net, in no way connected to any company.
Kent Sandvik
This is not a studid and vane question, one plus infinity equals infinity.
God's existance outside time and space is a totally different thesis,
the notion of someone outside this existence sphere acting with
events happening on Earth , means that there's some kind of channel,
between these states. Thus the notion of God outside time and
space is broken.
T.G. Nattress
You get an infinity that is lrger than the old one. Don't sya all infinitys
are the same, they are not. You can do the sum (try it with limits of
sequences, I'll find an example if you want)
infinity - infinty = a non zero number, eg 10
So some infinitys are bigger than others!
So if god has no physical being, and as you say cannot effect the inside of
the universe, what importance is it. As it cannot do anything, (maybees watch)
What is the point of it's existance? Answer me that one.
>Barbara Vaughan
Syaing god exists outside time and space is a little silly.
The Universe as we know it is defined to be all that exists, therefore if god
exists it (no gender) must exist inside the universe. However you say god
exist outside time and space which is like saying that it exists outside the
universe. Therefore;
a) if it is outside the universe it can have no effect on the universe
or
b) it doesnt exist at all
Now if you assume god exists within the universe therefore can exist and
can effect the universe. Now this is a contradiction against the omnipotece of
god. If it exists in the universe and the universe is all that there is, how
can if effect the place out of space and time where he was before! You think
he exists there and watches. This doesnt prove the non-existence of god, but
I'm sure it shows that apart from being the cause of the largest philosophical
debates ever, is in a rather pointless predicament.
Also I god knows everything, onmiessent, why the expletive does it want to
sit outside the universe and watch it when he know what is going to happen
anyway? This gives it no point to it's existence so why on earth does it exist
then.
Ah but, you say, it might want to change his mind on something and alter
the universe.
But it knows if it will or not anyway, so what is the point, it is it's own
fate, it's pre-destined future, it, if it exists at all is the most boring
thing in or out of the universe. And if it exists at all then it can't know
everything or there would be no point to it's existence. Also omnipotence is
only possible if it exists within the universe (so it can act), but if it acts
within the universe it must obey the laws of the universe. Therefore it can't
do everything. Or if you just want it to do everything within the constraints
of the universe it can only do this if it is infact the universe itself.
So I come to the conclusion that if god exists, it exists in a form:-
a) it doesn't know everything, but wants to.
b) it can't do everything,
or
c) it can do everything within the constraints of the universe.
So god isn't in fact a god, but just any old thing who isn't what you think
it is.
or I am part of god as you are, as god is infact another word for universe.
or god does not in fact exist.....
BBFN
Graeme ,
T.G.Na...@uk.ac.ncl
Jeff Deboo
>Surely no worse than presenting Darwin's 'theory' of evolution as scientific
>fact when the children are so likely to take it as something that has been
>proven beyond all doubt. I believe that children should at least be shown the
>Christian viewpoint, and allowed to chose for themselves whether they want to
>accept it or not.
This is an excellent point. By the same argument, it's high time the
schools stopped teaching Copernicus's heliocentric "theory" of the
solar system as if it were scientific fact. Rather than brainwashing
our children to accept the heliocentric dogma as something proven
beyond all doubt, we should at least give them a chance to see all
the Biblical evidence that the Sun actually revolves around the Earth,
and let them make up their own minds.
And once we've done that, we should tone down all that dirty stuff
about sexual reproduction in the biology textbooks, to give equal
time to the stork theory.
>Thanx for listening,
Any time,
Jeff
******************************************************************
Whatever alleged "truth" is proven by results to be but an empty
fiction, let it be unceremoniously flung into the outer darkness,
among the dead gods, dead empires, dead philosophies, and other
useless lumber and wreckage!
Infernal Diatribe II:12
(Satanic Bible)
******************************************************************
Kent Sandvik
>On the other hand, we can get down to more serious questions about omnipotence
>like whether God could create a triangle in flat space which has interior
>angles that add up to something other than 180 degrees. Or create a sixth
>Euclidean solid. In other words, can God violate the theorems of mathematics?
>I would tend to think not. This places restrictions on the omnipotence of God.
Also, if we want to use the ammunition of theology in order to break
omnipotence, why can't God just simply zap Satan, and destroy Hell?
If the question is of free will, then suffering is not free will, more
of a negative punishment, and in this sense God is in the same class
as the other dark side.
Kent Sandvik
>> There is one question that I haven't seen addressed seriously by theists
>>(likely because it's often presented as a joke) and that is:
>>
>> If God is omnipotent then can he create a rock so heavy that he himself
>>cannot lift?
>>
>> I ask theists this in all seriousness now.
>
>This isn't a question of theology but of philosophy or logic. Let me pose
>a similar question first:
>
>What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?
>
>It's not going to happen: the question is inconsistent with itself. If there
>is an irresistable force then there is by definition no immovable object;
>if there is an immovable object then there is by definition no irresistable
>force. The question is meaningless.
Hmm, I'm not qualified in logic (only HW logic :-), but we could
state that:
A) There exist an object that is immovable
This is a statement, and as such it's logic.
Now the next step is to say that
C) An immovable object is immovable
This is also logical.
The final conclusion would be that:
C) An immovable object that exists is immmovable
So far good, so now we have created a beast that nobody can move,
and nobody is logically nobody.
>Similarly, the existence of an omnipotent God PRECLUDES the existence of
>a task beyond his ability to perform. You may as well ask him to make
>something both blue and not blue, or some other such logical inconsistency.
The religious notation of omnipotense means that the being that is
omnipotent is capable of anything.
Thus he is able to create an immovable object.
Something's wrong.... Either there's nothing such as omnipotence, or
then there's no immovable things. People tend to pick either or.
My choice is to eliminate both.
Bryan Hannahs
> In article <1991Mar12.1...@cs.glasgow.ac.uk> for...@cs.glasgow.ac.uk
> >T.G.Na...@newcastle.ac.uk (T.G. Nattress) writes:
> >> My pet religious hate is the teaching of religion in schools and
> >>especially to very young children. Young children are very perceptable to
> >>what adults say.
>
> >Surely no worse than presenting Darwin's 'theory' of evolution as scientific
> >fact when the children are so likely to take it as something that has been
> >proven beyond all doubt. I believe that children should at least be shown th
> >Christian viewpoint, and allowed to chose for themselves whether they want t
> >accept it or not. Similarly for other disputed beliefs like evolutionism (if
> >that's a real word.)
>
> Colin, evolution *IS* a fact. We have *SEEN* it happen.
Sorry, Brian, but evolution is a THEORY, not a fact. Yes, we may have seen
all those events you described occur, but that does not prove evolution
completely, it just makes it more feasible. But it is still a theory.
Bryan Hannahs
(aka Arthur Dent)
Tony Lezard
>In article <91076.2106...@Ryerson.CA>, EETD...@Ryerson.CA (Tom Ng) wr
>[...]
>> If God is omnipotent then can he create a rock so heavy that he himself
>>cannot lift?
>
>This really is an old chestnut and it's only troubling to people who
>confuse God with Santa Claus.
I've always found them quite similar, myself.
>God exists outside of time and space;
>the act of lifting a rock implies a physical being existing within the
>constraints of time and space.
Ah, I see. So what you're saying is that god is unable to manifest
himself as a physical presence within a universe that he himself
created. Well if you ask me, for a god that's pretty useless. You
obviously don't have a very high opinion of him.
>It's like asking 'What do you get if
>you add one to infinity?'.
This has got to be one of the most braindamaged and clueless
conclusions I have seen in a long time. First you present us with a
few lines of handwaving about god and Santa Claus and then say that
this has something to do with mathematical analysis. Wow.
To answer the question, infinity is not a number. It is possible,
however, that you were working with the set of real numbers with a
"highest element" called infinity tacked on at the end. In this case
the answer is: infinity. Proof trivial from the definition. So what?
All you've proved to me is that you know little about theology (not
that I'm in any way an expert) and even less about mathematics.
Getting back to the business about the rock, my own personal view is
that this sort of thing can't prove the nonexistance of god, but it
does place constraints on the definition of the omnipotence assigned
to him. It shows that a god that is as omnipotent as some believers
would have him cannot exist since this causes logical contradictions.
However, a god with a diminished (though still very large) set of
capabilities can exist. I expect some theists might be uncomfortable
about this, but it's the only way to avoid the sort of contradiction
caused by this type of question.
Can god make 1 + 1 = 3 according to the usual definitions of those
symbols? No? Pah! This god's crap! I want a refund!
>Barbara Vaughan
--
Tony Lezard <Lazy Rodent>. E-mail: to...@mantis.co.uk, Snail: Mantis
Consultants, Unit 56, St. John's Innovation Centre, Cambridge, CB4 4WS, UK.
"I thoroughly enjoyed the food. And learnt quite a lot about fetal
deformities." -- sj...@eng.cam.ac.uk (Stephen Mounsey)
Mutant for Hire
>The connection here, in case it is obvious, is that the
>author of the laws of mathematics might be presumed capable
>of arranging them any way it chooses. Perhaps this morning
>there were only three Euclidean solids, but god changed
>its mind retroactively at lunchtime, remaking the whole
>history of the universe. That's the way it is with
>ompnipotent beings.
Bull. The five Euclidean solids fall out naturally from the axioms of
Euclidean space in a manner that is not subject to changing unless you
rewrite the axioms, which anyone can do. Mathematical objects are
not physical objects which one can alter and add and subtract elements
from.
Jim Perry
>This gets into a question I've had about atheism itself: That absence
>of evidence is not evidence of absence is a fundamental principle of
>logic. Theists have reasons for believing as they do, ranging from
>Descartes' wager to believed personal experiences with the
>supernatural. Agnostics freely admit their lack of information. But
>on what basis do atheists come to the conclusion that because they
>have not found any evidence of the supernatural, no conceivable
>supernatural being or beings could possibly exist? I'm speaking not
>of choosing to live as if no such beings exist-- lacking data, that
>may be reasonable. But expressing the nonexistence of God or gods as
>a fact, as a truth which they know beyond doubt, seems to me to pass
>the bounds of reason. It seems a dogma less tenable than that of the
>most hardline fundamentalist Biblical literalist, who at least
>believes, rightly or wrongly, that he's talked to God and been
>answered.
This is a common misconception about atheism, as held by non-atheists.
This appears often enough that I present the following canned rebuttal:
---
What alt.atheists believe. (The term "alt.atheist" [or net.atheist, for
historical reasons] is proposed as an alternative to existing terms to
describe the beliefs of the non-believing population of alt.atheism).
There are two words generally used to describe those who do not believe in
the truth of supernatural religious claims: "atheism" and "agnosticism".
There is no general agreement on exactly what these terms mean, as they
have varied historical development, and their use has been colored by the
fact that they apply to religion.
Atheism is generally described in a dictionary as "disbelief in or denial
of the existence of God [or gods]". Agnosticism is not as well defined,
but generally is considered "denial of the knowability of God". As applied
to oneself, the two terms are effectively interchangeable, but both are
used with pejorative intent of others. I propose this posting as a
statement of what we alt.atheists believe, to be available as a regular
posting or as a stock reply to newcomers citing a competing definition. I
have posted this with minor variations a few times with some positive and
no negative response, so for the moment I believe it to be representative.
Equivocation (the fallacy arising from ambiguous use of a word or phrase
in an argument) is a major problem in discussing these issues, since there
is such a diversity of possible things that can be described by the word
"God". (For instance: "You say you don't believe in God. Einstein
considered God to be the laws of the universe. Thus you don't believe in
the universe, therefore you are a loser, QED.")
It is claimed that "atheists" believe as an article of faith that there is
no God. As it is epistemologically problematic to talk about knowing or
proving the nonexistence of something, this is attacked as being a similar
leap of faith to believing axiomatically in God. And so it would be,
especially when "God" is used as a moving target, but alt.atheists
don't have that belief. (We don't believe there is one, we do *not*
believe there knowably isn't). Straw-man arguments against that definition
of "atheist" are not applicable to the posters here who use that label
for themselves.
Of "agnostics" it is said that they are fence-sitters: as we can't know
whether there is a God, it is as likely as not that there is. Again,
equivocation rears its ugly head. Bertrand Russell, who did not believe
in the God of Christianity (or other supernatural religious claims), and
who had a negative opinion of religion in general, called himself an
Agnostic, and in fact had the above cited negative opinion of the term
atheist. Agnostics generally disbelieve in specific claims of specific
gods, e.g. Yahweh, the God of the Bible, but hold that humans don't or
can't know about abstract gods such as a prime mover, or designer/creator,
who don't interact with humans directly. alt.atheists generally don't
disagree with that concept, though most of us don't consider it
particularly likely.
To state it positively, alt.atheists, through reasoned study of the
available evidence, have concluded that none of the gods proposed by major
religions actually exist, to the best of our ability to determine. Beyond
this disbelief in God[s], and thus in the supernatural authority of
religious institutions, alt.atheists are as diverse as any other usenet
population.
-
Jim Perry pe...@apollo.hp.com HP/Apollo, Chelmsford MA
It was believed afterwards that the man was a lunatic,
because there was no sense in what he said. - Mark Twain, _War Prayer_
house ron
>In article <12...@pucc.Princeton.EDU> BVAU...@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
> Barbara Vaughan, is the God you believe in the God described
>in the Bible? SERIOUSLY.
> The God of the Bible is pictured as making numerous actions in
>space and time.
I cannot agree with Barbara's original answer, as it lets the questioner
off the hook, giving rise to Loren's obvious answer. Let us assume
God is omnipotent. Now what do you mean by a rock so heavy He cannot
lift it? You explain how big a rock you want, in tonnes, and God can make
it. The failure is on the part of the original questioner to use words
that have any meaning. He might as well ask "Can God create a xzkdnfijrbf?"
This really is an old chestnut, first answered by St Augustine, I think.
Much like Pascal's Wager, which the atheists rightfully get upset over
when foolish theists trot it out like a cracked record.
Ken Fernald
>This gets into a question I've had about atheism itself: That absence
>of evidence is not evidence of absence is a fundamental principle of
>logic. Theists have reasons for believing as they do, ranging from
>Descartes' wager to believed personal experiences with the
>supernatural. Agnostics freely admit their lack of information. But
>on what basis do atheists come to the conclusion that because they
>have not found any evidence of the supernatural, no conceivable
>supernatural being or beings could possibly exist?
I am an atheist and I have NEVER stated that a supernatural being could
not POSSIBLY exist. My BELIEF that they do not exist is based on two
simple observations:
1) There is no evidence to suggest their reality.
2) There is evidence to suggest that religions are
human fabrications.
Given these, I believe it is much more likely that supernatural beings
are myths rather than actual entities. Atheism means examining all
available evidence and making a rational conclusion. However, that
conclusion is only as good as the evidence, so to state it as a FACT
is incorrect and unsupportable.
> But expressing the nonexistence of God or gods as
>a fact, as a truth which they know beyond doubt, seems to me to pass
>the bounds of reason.
I agree, but I also know few atheist who claim otherwise.
By the way, I'm glad to see that YOU avoid conclusions concerning
other possible myths, i.e., Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Fairies,
Gnomes, Grelims, etc.
>--
>Michael S. Schiffer, LHN "Well, _I_ believe in solipsism--
>msch...@aal.itd.umich.edu but that's just one man's
>Mike_S...@ub.cc.umich.edu opinion." -- Craig Neumeier, LHN
>ms...@midway.uchicago.edu
--
+----------------------------+
| Kenneth W. Fernald |
| k...@ecersg.ece.ncsu.edu |
| North Carolina State Univ. |
Mikel Evins
>In article <50...@apple.Apple.COM> mi...@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>>The connection here, in case it is obvious, is that the
>>author of the laws of mathematics might be presumed capable
>>of arranging them any way it chooses. Perhaps this morning
>>there were only three Euclidean solids, but god changed
>>its mind retroactively at lunchtime, remaking the whole
>>history of the universe. That's the way it is with
>>ompnipotent beings.
>
>Bull. The five Euclidean solids fall out naturally from the axioms of
>Euclidean space in a manner that is not subject to changing unless you
>rewrite the axioms, which anyone can do. Mathematical objects are
>not physical objects which one can alter and add and subtract elements
>from.
I am not claiming that there is an omnipotent being
who can do this. I am claiming that, by the definition
of omnipotence that I understand, given such a being,
anything is possible, including logical absurdities
(being as how the definition of omnipotence that
I understand is, itself logically absurd).
For example, why could not the omnipotnet being arrange it
so that the axioms of Euclidean space changed a few
minutes ago, retroactively, for everyone, and in such
a way that any argument or test renders the new rules
as useful as we presently find them to be. The
postulated being is, after, omnipotent.
house ron
>Sorry, Brian, but evolution is a THEORY, not a fact. Yes, we may have seen
>all those events you described occur, but that does not prove evolution
>completely, it just makes it more feasible. But it is still a theory.
Sort of like finding a dead body, hole in the skull, bullet in the hole,
smoking gun lying beside the body, one shot missing, spent cartridge on
the floor, etc etc. Whether this person was SHOT is a HYPOTHESIS (but
a DARN good one!) - not a THEORY in the scientific sense. Whether it is
a fact is not known short of being told so in heaven (but this is alt.atheism!).
We regard this as a FACT because otherwise we would not be able to
live our lives, as strictly we cannot regard ANYTHING as a real, genuine
fact.
But was the fellow murdered, or was it suicide, or an accident? What
general principles lead to this kind of death? Here is where the theory
comes in. As to whether evolution happened, that is a FACT as near as
anything possibly can be. Why does it occur? That's where theories
about evolution are needed.
Kenneth Arromdee
>>>> If God is omnipotent then can he create a rock so heavy that he himself
>>>>cannot lift?
>>>> I ask theists this in all seriousness now.
>that have any meaning. He might as well ask "Can God create a xzkdnfijrbf?"
>This really is an old chestnut, first answered by St Augustine, I think.
>Much like Pascal's Wager, which the atheists rightfully get upset over
>when foolish theists trot it out like a cracked record.
Maybe so. But just a few articles later, I saw a reply to a person who was
suggesting that God could have, for instance, created a world where there
were other than 5 Euclidean solids. The contradiction in there not being 5
Euclidean solids is something that follows from logic just as surely as the
contradiction in "create a rock so heavy he cannot lift".
Atheists use this old chestnut because many theists have beliefs to which it
applies.
--
"If God can do anything, can he float a loan even he can't repay?"
--Blair Houghton, cross-posting
Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arro...@cs.jhu.edu)
Eric Pepke
>What is the purpose of coming to a conclusion in the absence of
>evidence? I've always felt that whether one should come to a conclusion
>at all should depend on a) the weight of the evidence and b) the
>urgency of the decision. Thus, I'd say that evolution is a good
>approximation of reality based on my own knowledge of the evidence and
>the opinions of biologists whose knowledge I respect. But how would
>we "not be able to live our lives" if we chose not to regard it as a
>fact?
Well, I for one would not be able to live my life the way I want if I didn't
accept evolution as a fact. To anybody who brews beer and reuses the yeast
evolution by natural selection is an observable fact which can be seen and,
more importantly, tasted. Speciation by evolution is important to anybody
who brews lager beer.
It doesn't really matter, though, because the pragmatic value of accepting
that evolution occurs is pretty much a red herring. People don't always
find out things only because they are essential for survival. They often
do it as a result of two drives: the drive to know and the drive to find
out. People in whom both drives are strong are usually attracted to scientific
and scholarly pursuits. People in whom the drive to know outweighs the drive
to find out are often attracted to religion--become a Christian and you can
carry around The Truth in your back pocket.
>This gets into a question I've had about atheism itself: That absence
>of evidence is not evidence of absence is a fundamental principle of
>logic. Theists have reasons for believing as they do, ranging from
>Descartes' wager to believed personal experiences with the
>supernatural. Agnostics freely admit their lack of information. But
>on what basis do atheists come to the conclusion that because they
>have not found any evidence of the supernatural, no conceivable
>supernatural being or beings could possibly exist? I'm speaking not
>of choosing to live as if no such beings exist-- lacking data, that
>may be reasonable.
Others have answered your question: the thing you are speaking not of is
closer to what most atheists do than the thing you are speaking of.
However, I cannot resist the temptation to put in my 1p worth, because I
have an entertaining analogy.
It's a detective story: The Case of the Missing God. Everybody has a file
with the results of the investigation so far. It contains profiles of the
chief suspects: Yah, Loki, Allah, Gilgamesh, etc. as well as stories from
witnesses, relevant facts, speculations, what have you. The information is
confusing and sometimes contradictory. Look, there's an old artist's
rendition of Yah with wild hair, a flowing beard, a grimace on his face and
fire in his eyes. Then there's a much later picture of him. He's lost a lot
of weight and seems to be smiling. He almost looks as if he were Yah's son!
All of the theists have a pretty good idea of whodunnit. Some have even gone
to the trouble of burning the parts of their file that don't go along with
their theory. But the atheist and the agostic just don't know--they see a lot
of conflicting data, all of it circumstantial or suspect, and they cannot
come to a conclusion. They're sitting together at a table late one night,
poring over the contents of their folders. Finally, the atheist says, "Look,
we've been looking at this God case for a long time. None of the leads have
panned out. It's looking a lot like a wild goose chase. I'm closing the file.
Maybe some day there will be enough evidence to reopen it again, but in the
mean time, there are other cases to attend to."
"Suit yourself," replies the agnostic. "Myself, I'm going to keep the file
open, just in case."
Eric Pepke INTERNET: pe...@gw.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute MFENET: pepke@fsu
Florida State University SPAN: scri::pepke
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052 BITNET: pepke@fsu
Disclaimer: My employers seldom even LISTEN to my opinions.
Meta-disclaimer: Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
Jesse Chisholm
|Earlier in the thread, Barbara Vaughan rhetorically commented:
|>'What do you get if you add one to infinity?'.
|You get an infinity that is lrger than the old one. Don't sya all infinitys
|are the same, they are not. You can do the sum (try it with limits of
|sequences, I'll find an example if you want)
| infinity - infinty = a non zero number, eg 10
| So some infinitys are bigger than others!
|>Barbara Vaughan
| Graeme ,
Sorry Graeme, you need to brush up on your math.
Yes there are different sizes of infinities, but adding 1 to the
smallest infinity does NOT give you the next largest infinity!
In the mathematics of transcendentals (infinities), the size of
the set of integers is called aleph-0. This is the smallest
infinity. It is also the size of the set of rational numbers,
even though there are an infinite number of rational numbers
between the integers 0 and 1.
The next largest infinity is called aleph-1, it is the size of
the set of all real numbers. There are aleph-1 real numbers
between any two rational numbers (and aleph-0 rationals, too).
There are aleph-0 infinities.
Adding any _number_ to an infinity does not change it.
Multiplying any infinity by any _number_ does not change it.
Multiplying aleph-0 by aleph-0 does not give you anything but
aleph-0 again. Transcendentals are wierd that way (;-).
Yes, the limit of one function that approaches infinity minus
the limit of another function that approaches infinity may well
equal 10 (or any other small number). This is the math of
limits, not the math of infinities.
Example:
f1(x) = x + 10
f2(x) = x
f3(x) = f1(x) - f2(x)
limit of f1(x) as x approaches infinity = infinity
limit of f2(x) as x approaches infinity = infinity
limit of f3(x) = 10 no matter what x is
This doesn't really deal with infinities because of the limit
operation means "approach as close as you care to, but never
arrive", so you are never really subracting infinity from
infinity to get ten, just numbers as big as you care to make
them.
--
============== "For a good prime, call 214-748-3647 ==============
je...@Altos86.Altos.COM Tel:1-408-432-6200x4810 Fax:1-408-434-0273
Tom Ng
says:
>Tom Ng writes:
>> If God is omnipotent then can he create a rock so heavy that he himself
>>cannot lift?
>
>If I define omnipotence as being able to do anything bar logical
>contradictions then there is no problem.
Why do we have to settle for this at all? Some posters have stated that
God is outside of time, then why can't God be outside of logic? Perhapes
omnipotence means a being is so powerful he can exist even when contradicting
himself. (Hey, I can add some qualities to God just like other posters have
been doing! :)
Is there any religions that have multiple omnipotent gods? This would be
a situation like in "Star Trek: TNG" where there are multiple omnipotent
"Q" beings in the "Q continuum". This generates alot of plot difficulties
for STTNG. For instance, what would happen if two omnipotent gods went to
war against each other? It would probably look like the "transmorgafier" (sp)
battles that "Calvin & Hobbs" have.
Calvin: "Poof...you're a frog!"
Hobbs: "Oh yeah! ...poof...you're slug!"
Calvin: "Yeah well...poof...you're a bug!"
...etc. 8-)
-------------
G'd day, ay! EETD6301|ADVI...@RYERSON.CA or ...!tmsoft!ryescs!tng
-Tom Ng "Insanity is merely a higher state of awareness"
Roy Stead
>In article <1991Mar11.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> T.G.Na...@newcastle.ac.uk (T.G. Nattress) writes:
>> My pet religious hate is the teaching of religion in schools and especially
>>to very young children.
>
Yep - all schools (certainly all state schools - I assume this applies to
public schools as well, but am not certain as the public school I attended was
run by a Catholic religious order ;-( ) in England have compulsory prayers and
religious assemblies.
There has been some sort of outcry over the last twelve months or so due to
these ceremonies being perdominantly Christian, however few - if any -
politicians have suggested abolishing them altogether...
All the best,
Roy
Mathemagician
>In article <1991Mar14.0...@ariel.unm.edu>, bev...@gauss.unm.edu
>(Mathemagician) says:
>>A friend of mine's father had a very nice way of scaring the JW's:
>>I'm god. That's the way I want it.
>His father was lying - I'm god! :-)
*Her* father was lying.
Are you sure you're god?
;-)
--
Brian Evans |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first
bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."
Roy Stead
>> If God is omnipotent then can he create a rock so heavy that he himself
>>cannot lift?
>
>confuse God with Santa Claus. God exists outside of time and space;
>the act of lifting a rock implies a physical being existing within the
>you add one to infinity?'.
Is this a 'yes' or a 'no,' Barbara?
If it's a 'yes,' then the problem remains: if god can make such a rock, then
can she *then* pick up the rock?
But, if it's a 'no,' then does this imply that God cannot manifest herself in
the physical universe, or simply that the task is beyond her?
All the best,
Roy
"I Lurve Omnipotence and Omniscience paradoxes."
Mathemagician
>bev...@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>> Colin, evolution *IS* a fact. We have *SEEN* it happen.
>Sorry, Brian, but evolution is a THEORY, not a fact. Yes, we may have seen
>all those events you described occur, but that does not prove evolution
>completely, it just makes it more feasible. But it is still a theory.
Bryan, do you know the difference between a theory and a fact?
Do you know the difference between the theory(ies) of evolution
and the fact of evolution?
Evolution: Change. In a biological sense, it is the changing
of the genome from generation to generation.
Therefore, when we see a mutation of a genome in an organism,
we have seen evolution. When many of these changes occur,
we have speciation.
That is the "fact" of evolution.
How this relates to life on earth, how humans came into being,
what specific mechanisms were involved, etc....those are the
"theories" of evolution.
I suggest you go read the thread in sci.skeptic
Kurt Ludwick
says:
>I always ask theists if they had never been told of the existance of a
>"God", whether they honestly think they would have thought of it on their
>own. Most of them tend to reply, "Yeah, it's obvious there's a God." When
I wouldn't call it OBVIOUS, myself, since there's obviously a lot of
diagreement. However, from my own experiences I am a strong believer
in God. ...don't claim to KNOW he exists, but I believe it, and strongly.
>asked why they say this, they invariably say that there MUST be a God to
>have created the Universe and all in it...these people really are fooling
>themselves into thinking that there is only one possible explanation for
>the existance of the Universe...(and of course, if you ask where God came
>from if there was nothing, they always either reply that God always was,
>or that you're not supposed to think of that).
You're saying that Christians only believe in God because the Bible (or
organized religion, or whatever, tells us to. I disagree.
I believe in a God, but definitely not the one the Bible, especially the
Old Testament, talks about.
As far as where he came from, well,...hmmm......
I don't know why they'd say "you're not supposed to think of that."
I figure that we just simply are not capable of understanding many
things about something as great and powerful as the God who created
the Universe. (No, it's NOT a cop-out, either! >:-P )
Mnay things I don't understand, either. That's why I border on being
agnostic.
My point is that I, for one, don't feel that I've been brainwashed. I'm
pretty sure I haven't, since what I don't believe what the religious
brainwashers would have me believe. (You know, infallibility and historical
factuality of the Bible, Hell, and other such nonsense... :)
...of course, we could always say that YOU'VE been brainwashed by the older
athiests who tell you that believing in an all-powerful God is foolishness,
that all Christians (/Theists) are pompous self-righteous a***oles,etc.
or something like that... Not that I'd know, they never got to me! >;-)
Just my 2 cents' worth. Felt I should reply to being called brainwashed.
Kurt Ludwick
------------
"I believe in a God who makes sense... not the one who sends souls to Hell."
- me
house ron
>BVAU...@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Barbara Vaughan) writes:
>>This really is an old chestnut and it's only troubling to people who
>>confuse God with Santa Claus. God exists outside of time and space;
>>the act of lifting a rock implies a physical being existing within the
>>constraints of time and space. It's like asking 'What do you get if
>>you add one to infinity?'.
>You get an infinity that is lrger than the old one. Don't sya all infinitys
>are the same, they are not. You can do the sum (try it with limits of
>sequences, I'll find an example if you want)
> infinity - infinty = a non zero number, eg 10
Sorry, but you are plain wrong. Adding 1 to <any-infinity-you-care-to-
mention> gives <the-same-infinity-you-just-mentioned>. This is a proven
mathematical result, and there are no ifs and buts about it. To get a
bigger infinity, you have to raise 2 to the infinitieth power.
> Syaing god exists outside time and space is a little silly.
>The Universe as we know it is defined to be all that exists, therefore if god
>exists it (no gender) must exist inside the universe. However you say god
>exist outside time and space which is like saying that it exists outside the
>universe. Therefore;
> a) if it is outside the universe it can have no effect on the universe
> or
> b) it doesnt exist at all
(Major groan!) You can't prove anything about reality by examining
definitions of words. I have had to point this out in this newsgroup
before. If you _define_ the universe to be time-and-space, then maybe
there is some existence outside it. Who Knows? If you define it to
be everything that exists, then the question is "Is time-and-space everything
that exists?" Again, maybe, maybe not. BTW, defining the universe to
be our time-space continuum is closest to the scientific (as in cosmology)
use of the word. But very few people in this newsgroup seem to know
any science. (Red rag to a bull here, folks! :-) )
Bryan Hannahs
> Well said! I sometimes wonder how big an organized religion (such
> as Christianity or Islam) would be with no social and cultural
> pressure, all the way from the early childhood.
>
> Time will tell what happens, compared with the dark ages when people
> were burned if they had a slight opinion that differed from the official
> view, we have done great progress for the sake of private individualism.
>
> If the dogma of the religion is so obvious, why do we need all the
> pressure from schools, society, family?
>
> Kent Sandvik
I always ask theists if they had never been told of the existance of a
"God", whether they honestly think they would have thought of it on their
own. Most of them tend to reply, "Yeah, it's obvious there's a God." When
asked why they say this, they invariably say that there MUST be a God to
have created the Universe and all in it...these people really are fooling
themselves into thinking that there is only one possible explanation for
the existance of the Universe...(and of course, if you ask where God came
from if there was nothing, they always either reply that God always was,
or that you're not supposed to think of that).
The difference between belief in Santa/The Easter Bunny/The Tooth Fairy
and belief in God is that you're not threatened with eternal damnation,
and possible punishment by your parents if you don't believe in
Santa/TEB/TTF...and yes, I've known many parents that will spank, ground,
or otherwise punish their children if they dare to doubt the existance of
God, or even dare to not want to go to church.
Bryan Hannahs
(aka Arthur Dent)
This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Ron Wigmore
>
>In article <91073.1832...@Ryerson.CA>, SYST...@Ryerson.CA
>(Ron Wigmore) writes:
>> ...how are you going
>> to react (what will you say to your child) after your six year old (after
>> responding "god? what's that?" to some god fearing-type fundie) runs home,
>> scared, that some all powerful creature is going to torture your child for
>> 'not believing'?
>...
>
>And how do parents react when the kid finds out about Santa Claus and
>the Easter Bunny? Do they say, "oh, that doesn't really count, kid, God
>really does exist, even though we fooled you with the other two"?
You just described my environment when I was 7 or 8 years old. I do not
remember exactly how they tried to explain it away, but I knew they were
trying to 'pull the wool over my eyes', again.
Ron,,,
_______________________________________________________________________________
|*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*|
Definition Of Demons:
Atheists who have come back from the dead to haunt and torment FUNDIES! :-)
Barbara Vaughan
>In article <1991Mar19.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> T.G.Na...@newcastle.ac.uk (T.G. Nattress) writes:
>|Earlier in the thread, Barbara Vaughan rhetorically commented:
>|>'What do you get if you add one to infinity?'.
>
>|You get an infinity that is lrger than the old one. Don't sya all infinitys
>|are the same, they are not...
Several posters have totally missed the point of my rhetorical question.
I was using it, not as an example of a question that couldn't be
answered, but as an example of a question that a mathematically naive
person might suppose would prove mathematics invalid, just as the
question 'Can God make a rock that God can't lift?' is a question that
only a naive person might suppose would invalidate the concept of an
omnipotent God. My point was that physically lifting a rock could
only be possible (or impossible) to a physical being existing within the
constraints of time and space. If you posit an omnipotent God that is
unconstrained by any physical dimensions including those of time and
space, the question is irrelevant. God could create a rock so large
that no physical being could lift it and then immediately create a
physical being capable of lifting it. Outside of the dimensions of time
and space, is the rock immovable, movable or both? Can you see why the
question is simplistic? My analogy about adding one to infinity was an
example of a similarly naive question.
Barbara Vaughan
Mutant for Hire
>Several posters have totally missed the point of my rhetorical question.
>I was using it, not as an example of a question that couldn't be
>answered, but as an example of a question that a mathematically naive
>person might suppose would prove mathematics invalid, just as the
>question 'Can God make a rock that God can't lift?' is a question that
>only a naive person might suppose would invalidate the concept of an
>omnipotent God.
Depends. It wasn't all that a naive question. In terms of cardinality
and sets it is an important question. Proving it is important, and it
is what separates the infinite cardinalities from the finite numbers.
Asking whether there are triangles with internal angles of more than
180 degrees may appear naive, but the whole discipline of non-Euclidean
spaces came about by trying to deal with that very problem.
>My point was that physically lifting a rock could
>only be possible (or impossible) to a physical being existing within the
>constraints of time and space. If you posit an omnipotent God that is
>unconstrained by any physical dimensions including those of time and
>space, the question is irrelevant.
No, because God has to have some sort of manifestation in our universe
in order to affect it. He causes physical changes in the universe, hence
asking what sort of effects he can cause in the universe is not a
naive question.
>God could create a rock so large
>that no physical being could lift it and then immediately create a
>physical being capable of lifting it.
Then he didn't create a rock so big that no physical being could lift
it because he was able to create one that was capable of doing it.
You seem to be dancing around the questions we are asking by claiming
that they are irrelevant, but that's not an answer.
>Outside of the dimensions of time
>and space, is the rock immovable, movable or both? Can you see why the
>question is simplistic? My analogy about adding one to infinity was an
>example of a similarly naive question.
You never said the rock was created outside the domain of time and space.
But then you make that statement in a totally naive manner. What does it
mean to be outside time and space? Matter determines the form of space
and time around it, so objects always exist in space and time.
So far you seem to want to hang on to the idea of omnipotence allowing
God to do anything, and then trying to state that all the contradictions
that are inherent in such a concept aren't worth questioning.
house ron
>In article <s64421.669471471@zeus> s64...@zeus.usq.EDU.AU (house ron) writes:
>>>>> If God is omnipotent then can he create a rock so heavy that he himself
>>>>>cannot lift?
>>>>> I ask theists this in all seriousness now.
>>... The failure is on the part of the original questioner to use words
>>that have any meaning. He might as well ask "Can God create a xzkdnfijrbf?"
>>This really is an old chestnut, first answered by St Augustine, I think.
>>Much like Pascal's Wager, which the atheists rightfully get upset over
>>when foolish theists trot it out like a cracked record.
>Maybe so. But just a few articles later, I saw a reply to a person who was
>suggesting that God could have, for instance, created a world where there
>were other than 5 Euclidean solids. The contradiction in there not being 5
>Euclidean solids is something that follows from logic just as surely as the
>contradiction in "create a rock so heavy he cannot lift".
So true, Ken. I would maintain that a description such as "the sixth
Euclidean solid" is also a meaningless jumble in the ultimate analysis.
But you are quite right that it is lunacy to believe God can violate
fundamental logical principles.
>Atheists use this old chestnut because many theists have beliefs to which it
>applies.
So, I'm in bad company.... :-)
Barbara Vaughan
>I always ask theists if they had never been told of the existance of a
>"God", whether they honestly think they would have thought of it on their
>own.
Well, I don't think it's obvious they wouldn't have. Every human society
that ever developed had some kind of religion. Obviously more people
thought of it independently than thought of calculus.
Barbara Vaughan
Barbara Vaughan
>T.G.Na...@newcastle.ac.uk (T.G. Nattress) writes:
>
>> Syaing god exists outside time and space is a little silly.
>>The Universe as we know it is defined to be all that exists, therefore if god
>>exists it (no gender) must exist inside the universe. However you say god
>>exist outside time and space which is like saying that it exists outside the
>>universe. Therefore;
>
>> a) if it is outside the universe it can have no effect on the universe
>
>> or
>
>> b) it doesnt exist at all
>
>(Major groan!) You can't prove anything about reality by examining
>definitions of words. I have had to point this out in this newsgroup
>before. If you _define_ the universe to be time-and-space, then maybe
>there is some existence outside it. Who Knows? If you define it to
>be everything that exists, then the question is "Is time-and-space everything
I would say something HAD to exist outside of time and space. Time
and space are merely measurements of motion and three-dimensional
size. Neither motion nor three-dimensional space have any meaning
without the existence of matter. But matter has existed only for a
finite time. To say 'nothing that exists outside time and space could
affect the universe' is like saying nothing existed before matter. Energy
must have existed before matter, to provide the Big Bang, and that
energy has had the most profound effect on the physical universe: it
produced it. * Since that energy existed before matter, it existed
outside time and space. While none of this proves
the existence of God, which I believe cannot be proven, if you posit
a God that created matter, that same creative act created time and
space as well. Thus a God who created 'a rock too big to lift' is not
constrained by time and space. Such a God could create a rock that no
physical being could move and then create a physical being strong
enough to move it. Outside of time and space, the rock is both
immovable and moved. I would say simultaneously, but even the word
'simultaneously' implies time.
* (As Ron pointed out, if by 'universe' you mean 'everything
that is', that would have to include whatever energy existed before
matter. By universe, I mean the physical universe, finite in time and
space, and before the existence of which time and space are undefined.)
Barbara Vaughan
Ken Fernald
Actually, I've always used this last point as a means of defending
atheism. Many theists will argue the validity of religion based on
its proliferation (it must be true if everyone believes it). However,
I've always felt that wide-spread religion simply reflects the need of
historical man to know all the answers, which religion kindly provides.
In fact, the diversity of religious ideologies enforces this notion --
if mankind developed religion because "God is obvious", then why are
the various religions so dissimilar in nature. I argue that each religion
is nothing but a cultural expression of mankind's own insecurities.
William Mayne
>
>It is claimed that "atheists" believe as an article of faith that there is
>no God. As it is epistemologically problematic to talk about knowing or
>proving the nonexistence of something, this is attacked as being a similar
>leap of faith to believing axiomatically in God. And so it would be,
>especially when "God" is used as a moving target, but alt.atheists
>don't have that belief. (We don't believe there is one, we do *not*
>
>Of "agnostics" it is said that they are fence-sitters: as we can't know
>whether there is a God, it is as likely as not that there is. Again,
>equivocation rears its ugly head. Bertrand Russell, who did not believe
>in the God of Christianity (or other supernatural religious claims), and
>who had a negative opinion of religion in general, called himself an
>Agnostic, and in fact had the above cited negative opinion of the term
>atheist.
This true, but slightly misleading. Russell recognized the distinction
between "atheist" and "agnostic" in two different contexts. In strictly
philosophical terms he called himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.
The rationale for this was as Jim Perry describes above. But he also
recognized a vernacular usage in which it was more proper to say that
he was an atheist. That usage is a bit stronger than being an agnostic in
the sense of having no opinion one way or the other about the God of
Christianity, but rather having a strong opinion, just short of certainty,
that such a God does not exist. The amount of doubt he expressed was a matter
of philosophical skepticism. His opinions were such as most non-philosophers
would hardly distinguish from certainty. A posthumous collection of
Bertrand Russell's essays on religion contains one titled (approximately)
"Are You an Atheist or Agnostic", in which he discusses these distinctions
and concludes (paraphrazing from memory) "...so I would say, in common
terms, that I am an atheist."
Bill Mayne (ma...@nu.cs.fsu.edu)
Mikel Evins
Not an adequate response, because "religion" means several
very different things. Not all of them have anything to do
with ideas like gods, and not all gods bear any particular
resemblance to the Christian one.
Mikel Evins
>and space are merely measurements of motion and three-dimensional
>size. Neither motion nor three-dimensional space have any meaning
>without the existence of matter. But matter has existed only for a
>finite time. To say 'nothing that exists outside time and space could
>affect the universe' is like saying nothing existed before matter. Energy
>must have existed before matter, to provide the Big Bang, and that
>energy has had the most profound effect on the physical universe: it
>produced it.
This is not correct. For cosmological purposes, energy and
matter are equivalent. E=mc^2, remember? Energy and matter
are equivalent; they are two sides of the same coin. They
are defined in terms of one another. Without one you
don't have the other. Matter = mass. Energy has mass. (the
aforementioned equation tells you, among other things,
how to calculate how much). The above argument is analogous
to saying that velocity must have existed before the Big
Bang in order to give rise to acceleration. It doesn't make
physical sense.
Given that the premise is absurd, the remainder of
your argument fails.
William Mayne
>if mankind developed religion because "God is obvious", then why are
>the various religions so dissimilar in nature. I argue that each religion
>is nothing but a cultural expression of mankind's own insecurities.
I agree with your characterization of religion being an expression of
mankind's insecurities, and since organized religion can only exist
in a culture you might say that any particular religion is a
cultural expression. But your "expression of insecurities" theory
can just as well explain the remarkable similarities found between
religions as well as the differences. This is my favorite reply to
naive theories of cultural diffusion (claiming contact between
widely separated cultures on the basis of some similarities). The
similarities between religions is not surprising since they all
arise out of the human condition, much of which is constant in all
cultures. Death occurs everywhere, as do dreams, dependence upon the
forces of nature, observations of the regularity of seasons, etc.
It is not at all surprising that there are similarities between
religions, nor is it evidence of any supernatural basis for religions.
The remarkable thing is that cultures and religions are as different
as they are.
Bill Mayne (ma...@nu.cs.fsu.edu)
Jim Loucks
>>In article <91076.2106...@Ryerson.CA>, EETD...@Ryerson.CA (Tom Ng) writes:
>> If God is omnipotent then can he create a rock so heavy that he himself
>>cannot lift?
>>
>This really is an old chestnut and it's only troubling to people who
>confuse God with Santa Claus. God exists outside of time and space;
>the act of lifting a rock implies a physical being existing within the
>constraints of time and space. It's like asking 'What do you get if
>you add one to infinity?'.
No sarcasm meant, but:
Why was this question asked in the first place? Do you think
you, a mere man, can completely comprehend God?
As Barbara said, God exists outside of time and space, which are
measurements God gave to us, and by which He is not bound.
It is impossible for the finite to penetrate the infinite, but
can the infinite penetrate the finite?
It may be scientifically impossible to prove that God exists,
but even if it were, I get the feeling you don't want to believe
it.
--
Jim Loucks {sun, pyramid, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
We cannot pander to a man's intellectual arrogance, but we must cater to his
intellectual integrity. - John Stott
Ron Wigmore
>Me:
>|His father was lying - I'm god! :-) There's suffering in this world because
>|that is the punishment I set for those who refuse to think for themselves and
>|for those who will not take control of their own lives!
>
>Too bad the suffering doesn't restrict itself to the group you
>describe,
I do not deem it to be suffering. I think of it as being 'character
development'! One day, all people will understand this simple premise!
And then, there will be heaven on Earth! :-) :-) :-)
>oh great and woundrous one.
Oh-oh, someone else who worships me! What have I begun! (With apologies
to Graham)! :-)
Eric Pepke
>that ever developed had some kind of religion. Obviously more people
>thought of it independently than thought of calculus.
The vast majority of those societies didn't develop anything remotely similar
to the modern concept of God. Nearly all of them had lots of deities or
supernatural entities, constantly jockeying for power. Modern monotheism
evolved from earlier polytheistic ideas.
Mutant for Hire
>and space are merely measurements of motion and three-dimensional
>size. Neither motion nor three-dimensional space have any meaning
>without the existence of matter. But matter has existed only for a
>finite time. To say 'nothing that exists outside time and space could
>affect the universe' is like saying nothing existed before matter. Energy
>must have existed before matter, to provide the Big Bang, and that
>energy has had the most profound effect on the physical universe: it
>produced it. * Since that energy existed before matter, it existed
>outside time and space.
Eesh. Okay, let me put on my physicist hat and start discussing general
relativity. First off, you talk about matter coming out of energy. What
you're confusing is that matter is energy period. Merely a different form,
but in the stress-energy tensor, the mathematical construct that defines
the total quantity and flow of energy, matter is treated just the same
as electromagnetic radiation and gravitational potential energy.
Now when one talks about energy, one must immediately talk about the time
and space that it exists in. The Einstein equation is given by
G = 8*pi*T
where G is the mathematical construct which defines the curvature of space,
and T is the object that defines the position and flow of energy. If there
is energy, then there is space around it. No way to escape this fact. So
where there is energy, there is space and time.
Also, you seem to entertain the idea that space and time exist "within"
something else. The problem is this super-space that presumably God exists
in, what is it within? We can take this on forever. The fact of the matter
is, the universe doesn't need to be embedded in any higher space. While
people are fond of using the balloon inflating as a way of showing how the
universe can be expanding, it is deceptive in the sense that it gives the
idea that our space is necessarily embedded in some higher dimension.
>While none of this proves
>the existence of God, which I believe cannot be proven, if you posit
>a God that created matter, that same creative act created time and
>space as well. Thus a God who created 'a rock too big to lift' is not
>constrained by time and space. Such a God could create a rock that no
>physical being could move and then create a physical being strong
>enough to move it. Outside of time and space, the rock is both
>immovable and moved. I would say simultaneously, but even the word
>'simultaneously' implies time.
Actually, you talk about creation as if there was some sort of motivating
force behind the act of creation. In current physics, particles appear
spontaneously out of nothing, live for short periods of time, then vanish
without anything causing this to happen. Some theories about the origin
of the universe claim that the start of the universe was a fluctuation
of energy just of the type that produced virtual particles.
Also, if there is no time, then how can one distinguish the state of
everything before God created everything and the state of everything after
God created the universe. You need some sort of way of labelling events.
Might as well call it time. Without something like time, everything is in
statis, and nothing can happen.
Barbara Vaughan
>In article <12...@pucc.Princeton.EDU> BVAU...@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
>>In article <D1H6y...@bluemoon.uucp>, a.d...@bluemoon.uucp (Bryan Hannahs) writes:
>>>I always ask theists if they had never been told of the existance of a
>>>"God", whether they ... would have thought of it on their own.
>>...I don't think it's obvious they wouldn't have... more people
>>thought of it independently than thought of calculus.
>Not an adequate response, because "religion" means several
>very different things. Not all of them have anything to do
>with ideas like gods...
No, but most of them do.
>and not all gods bear any particular resemblance to the Christian one.
Which indicates to me that many societies thought of it independently.
My real point is that you can't say something is invalid because you
couldn't have thought of it on your own. Just how much do you think
you could have thought of on your own - with no input from your parents
or your culture? Spend a few months living in a different culture and
you'll realize what a creature of culture you are.
Barbara Vaughan
Mikel Evins
>Why was this question asked in the first place? Do you think
>you, a mere man, can completely comprehend God?
Leaving aside the original question, which was a meaningless
self-contradiction, I don't have an opinion one way or the
other. I don't know all of my own capabilities. Neither do I
know exaclty what is is I would be trying to comprehend, in
comprehending God. If you have views on the matter, perhaps
you would share them, and persuade me to your point of
view.
>As Barbara said, God exists outside of time and space, which are
>measurements God gave to us, and by which He is not bound.
Why do you think so? Do you know precisely what time
and space are? This is not an easy question. How do
you know God gave them to us? What does "outside"
space and time mean? After all, "outside" is a spacial
concept.
>It is impossible for the finite to penetrate the infinite, but
>can the infinite penetrate the finite?
What does "penetrate" mean here? In referring to "the
finite" and the "infinite", to what are you referring?
Do you mean that the number 5 (which is finite) cannot
"penetrate" the set of all natural numbers which is
infinite)? Or are you categorizing human beings as
"finite" and God as "infinite", and, if so, what do
"finite" and "infinite" mean in this context?
>It may be scientifically impossible to prove that God exists,
>but even if it were, I get the feeling you don't want to believe
>it.
I don't believe there is a good correspondence between
what people seem to mean when they talk about "God"
and any aspect of the world that I experience. "Proving"
that "God" "exists" in that sense means to me that
you can show me that there is some aspect of the world
that is described well by the concept you call "God",
and that is not better described by another concept.
Point out such an aspect, I will do my best to give
the benefit of the doubt, and, if the result is that
you persuade me that the description is indeed valid,
then you can count me a believer.
Kent Sandvik
Alas, the differences between various cultures are rapidly disintegrating,
I've seen pictures of people in Tibet watching Dallas on video tape...
Cultural influenses have always played an important part. There are
exceptions, like the attempt with introduction of a monotheistic
God by Echnaton in Egypt - which had the plentitude of various Gods.
So this was the first recorded event when the notion of one God
appeared - and it was independent of the cultural notion of that time.
It is interesting to note how nomadic tribes, living in Palestine,
and for a while trapped as slave labour in Egypt, possibly took this notion
of a singular God as their own. A lot of people assume that the
Jewish religion was the first one that had the notion of one God,
but this was not the case at all.
Regards,
Kent Sandvik
--
Disclaimer: *Private* activity on the Net, in no way connected to any company.
Recommended SF books: Cormier FADE, Flynn IN THE COUNTRY OF THE BLIND, Geary
STRANGE TOYS, Kessell GOOD NEWS FROM OUTER SPACE, Sawyer GOLDEN FLEECE.
Any sexually or racially sounding statements in the text are not intentional.
David Keith Maslen
>> Colin, evolution *IS* a fact. We have *SEEN* it happen.
> Sorry, Brian, but evolution is a THEORY, not a fact. Yes, we may have seen
> all those events you described occur, but that does not prove evolution
> completely, it just makes it more feasible. But it is still a theory.
> Bryan Hannahs
> (aka Arthur Dent)
OK, but you must also agree that all your other belief's are just theories.
Like the theory that your local chemist exists, and the theory that Mr Bush
is the president of the US. All theories are not equal. You can't prove
scientific theories (not if you think that they must be falsifiable --
there's always the possibility that the next experiment will prove them
wrong).
As far as I know, all creationist theories fall into one of two categories.
(a) Not falsifiable, hence not scientific.
(b) Falsifiable, and falsified.
If you are going to call anything a fact, you might as well call evolution
a fact.
I don't think it matters whether a particular form of the theory of
evolution is true or not. The theory will still have a lot of explanative
power. Even if it is superceded, it will, most likely, still describe "the
facts" as well as it ever did (unless the world starts behaving in a
radically different manner form now on).
--
David Keith Maslen
mas...@zariski.harvard.edu
representing himself only.
William Mayne
That is precisely why no rational, informed person would accept the
claims of the religion of one particular culture, Christianity, to
be the exclusive, universal truth that it claims to be. At most they
might say, like the Hindu, this is *my* dharma. Certainly not that
it is something everyone should accept.
Bill Mayne
David Canzi
>My real point is that you can't say something is invalid because you
>couldn't have thought of it on your own. Just how much do you think
>you could have thought of on your own - with no input from your parents
>or your culture?
The claim is often made that the existence of God is obvious. The
question may be asked: if it's obvious, why do people go to such
trouble to convince the children of it?
That's what this thread was about a few postings back.
If you're a child growing up in a religious environment, you learn that
if you express doubt or disbelief, the people around you react with
disapproval. If you don't believe along with the others, you risk
rejection. When I was in school one of my teachers, giving a religion
lesson, mentioned with great disgust in her voice that there are people
called atheists who don't believe in God. I could see what I would
face if I were to question God's existence.
Why the heavy-duty disgust and disapproval toward non-conforming
belief? Why "one nation *under* *God*"? Why the teacher-led prayers
in school that many people want to inflict not only on their own
children, but on other people's children? Why must the lesson be
repeated incessantly? Why do some people even threaten their own
children with punishment and rejection for doubting?
Why must the lesson be reinforced with horror stories about eternal
punishment in the hereafter for unbelievers? At an age when children
are frightened of imaginary monsters under the bed, their parents and
teachers are telling them of a monster beyond the sky, a *kind* and
*loving* monster who will send them to hell to burn forever if they
are bad. And not believing in the monster is one of the bad things for
which you go to hell. You'd *better* believe in the monster, and love
the monster. It knows your thoughts and feelings.
I think that children are more sensible than most adults give them
credit for. They can't see or hear God, and they are being taught of
God's existence by their parents and teachers who have never seen or
heard God, who were in turn taught by *their* parents and teachers who
have never seen or heard God... tales of God are indistinguishable
from rumours that can't be traced to their origin. In the absence of
intimidation, few children would believe in God.
--
David Canzi "Do not let superstition inhibit your actions."
-- Jeane Dixon, horoscope for Virgo, May 17, 1990.
Kent Sandvik
>I always ask theists if they had never been told of the existance of a
>"God", whether they honestly think they would have thought of it on their
>own. Most of them tend to reply, "Yeah, it's obvious there's a God." When
>asked why they say this, they invariably say that there MUST be a God to
>have created the Universe and all in it...these people really are fooling
>themselves into thinking that there is only one possible explanation for
>the existance of the Universe...(and of course, if you ask where God came
>from if there was nothing, they always either reply that God always was,
>or that you're not supposed to think of that).
>
>The difference between belief in Santa/The Easter Bunny/The Tooth Fairy
>and belief in God is that you're not threatened with eternal damnation,
>and possible punishment by your parents if you don't believe in
>Santa/TEB/TTF...and yes, I've known many parents that will spank, ground,
>or otherwise punish their children if they dare to doubt the existance of
>God, or even dare to not want to go to church.
The social pressure, or in the slightest form, tradition, is maybe
one of the central attractors concerning theism. Don't know much
about how to grow up in various parts of the world, but back in
my sleepy farm town the issue of attending the Church for
confirmation (Lutheran), Christmas morning sermon, Easter and
visiting the church were mostly a nice tradition, that I don't
mind, and most of us keep this tradition alive. I'm sure that many
don't even reflect the issue of philosophical issues concerning
creation of the universe as part of their religious activities.
Anyway, what I'm implying at is that if the Church had, let us say
9000 people, it did not mean that all those 9000 were 100% fundamentalist
Christians. Mostly 10% agreed on the dogmas, and we the rest keep
the tradition alive. That's why I was a member of the Lutheran
Church, even if I'm highly skeptical about the dogmas (due to
critical thinking and self awareness). And my future kid is free
to do whatever concerning the selection of a *private* perspective
of the world. But it does not hurt to have a nice family
celebration like going to the church - at least the elder family
members appreciate it.
Karl heady Henning
Barbara Vaughan writes:
>Every human society that ever developed had some kind of religion. Obviously
>more people thought of it independently than thought of calculus.
When you say this, you use "religion" to cover a great variety
of belief-systems, whereas calculus is much more specific. This
corrupts your comparison, I fear.
While it is a safe generalization that all human societies have
developed belief-systems to explain Things/Life/the World beyond
those life-skills of which they would have been able to achieve
a more or less scientific (to use "science" in a broad sense of
applied knowledge through repeated attempt) understanding (fishing,
hunting, agriculture, shelter, medicine, e.g.), it is misleading
to suggest that all such belief-systems consitute religions, or
imply that they share many "advanced functionalities" of religion
(salvation[TM], e.g.).
This would become apparent, if you were to attempt to offer even a
rudimentary definition of "religion" which could fit your statement
above. Not all "religions" (if we must use it as a blanket term)
function in a uniform manner, in terms either of people relating
to a perceived deity/pantheon, or the universal problem of regulating
social interaction.
There are certainly "families", or clumps of similar religions,
though. Thus, much closer parallels could be drawn between, say,
Xianity and Islam, than between Xianity and Buddhism, or Islam
and the Tao, or either Buddhism or the Tao and Shinto. Indeed
it is a fundamental conceptual abuse of the Tao, or Shinto, or
Confucianism, to force them upon the Procrustean bed of religion,
in the sense of Xianity or Islam. Yet they are certainly belief-
systems in some sense.
Xians tend to be too precious of their perceived "uniqueness"
among religions, to accept the fact that theirs bears any kinship
to any other religion, unless it be a qualified relation to Judaism
(the "old law" allegedly superseded by jesus) or Islam (the most
successful -- in terms at least of numbers of adherents -- of the
"heretical" spinoffs of xianity).
kph
--
Doris: But without God, the universe is meaningless. Life is meaningless.
We're meaningless. (/Deadly pause/) I have a sudden and overpowering
urge to get laid. -- Woody Allen, "God (A Play)"
Bis
But you don't see several different sects of calculus (whose adherents
kill each other and justify it). Calculus is something that makes
sense and can be proven. And if a person doesn't understand calculus
he is not beaten for it. You can't say the same for religion (at
least not honestly). Religion is something that has to be accepted on
faith. And it is not presented to children as something that they
should learn in order to understand; it is presented to them as
something they must *adopt* and accept as is, and not think about.
Children are beaten and browbeaten into accepting religion. They are
not asked to see its merits, nor even that there are merits. They are
simply told that they are evil and will burn in hell (or whatever) if
they do not accept what they are told at face value and stop
questioning it.
Granted I have not presented the case in too much detail, but the
point is that you can't draw that kind of parallel. Many scientific
principles do take a great mind to discover, but once they are passed
on they make sense to those to whom they are passed on. Religion does
neither.
+---------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| b...@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu | "It is better to know nothing |
| st90...@pip.cc.brandeis.edu | than to know what ain't so." |
| a...@ai.mit.edu | --Josh Billings |
+---------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| The opinions above are strictly my own, but if they become |
| controversial, I will blame them on Brandeis anyway. |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Torkel Franzen
edu (Bis) writes:
>But you don't see several different sects of calculus (whose adherents
>kill each other and justify it). Calculus is something that makes
>sense and can be proven.
Certainly there are such sects! You are right that the adherents of
different sects don't kill each other, but at least some of them hope to
see the other sects annihilated, mathematically speaking.
(Check out the more militant writings of Bishop or Brouwer.)