Medical Advances
2Sen Jen's kin
knocking on the door of many problems, like –
Nerve regeneration
Impotence
Hair loss
Obesity
Aging
I want to focus on the last of these.
Suppose an advance comes along that can put 20 years on a
person's life. Not through better health or disease resistance
but by directly changing the aging process.
Are there religious groups that would object to its use...
¤ By their own members ?
¤ By anybody ?
• On the grounds that it changes the "alloted" span ?
• That it is modern science ? (I'm thinking Mormons here)
• That it promoted the idea that the question of what happens
to us in the afterlife can be postponed, perhaps, with
further advances, indefinitely ?
• That it may unfairly favour rich people/nations who can afford
it ?
And, if so, should something be done about it ?
2Sen
(feels the years passing)
DeWain Molter
"Engines of Creation" by K. Eric Drexler, or,
"Nano" by Ed Regis
In short:
The history of manufacturing is the history of the manipulation of
increasingly complex materials to increasingly exact specifications. The
ultimate end of this progression is molecular nanotechnology - the
manipulation of individual atoms.
While not yet a reality, the theory breaks no known physical laws, and many
research labs in many countries are spending millions of dollars in
development.
The prize is the ability to manipulate matter at the atomic scale. To build
literally ANYTHING from its component atoms - including new and improved
cells in your body.
Imagine a world where cellular damage (disease, injury, old age) can be
repaired in real time without surgery, and where the value of any object is
exactly the value of its intrinsic material. Assuming there is no such
thing as a soul, this is the power to create living beings from inanimate
dirt.
Don't want to run too long - look it up if you're interested.
Anyway, what will be the reaction of the church to immortality and the
creative power of God?
2Sen Jen's kin wrote in message <01bdc898$2f6b7e80$LocalHost@xx6942>...
Michael R. Anderson
I'm a Christian and I wouldn't object to medical technology that
increased life span. Medical technology has already increased life span
from around 30-40 years up to around 75.
However, I would hope the increase was not to perpetuate me from 75 to
95 years old, but to streach out my 20's and 30's an extra decade each -
now that would be cool!
However, I'm not entirely certain that I would want my earthly life span
RADICALLY increased, say, to a thousand years or so.
I'm reminded of a movie called "The Seventh Sign" with Debbi Moore. It
may be a made for cable only movie but it might be out on video. It was
about the Apocalyse/end of the world and so on. As usual, Hollywood
screwed up what the Bible actually says, and added a few dangerous
misconceptions, but the movie was still a good one - just as long as you
wear your anti-Hollywood-poison-filter helmet.
In this movie the bad guy is an ancient Roman who lived during the time
of Christ and was present when Christ was being interrogated just before
His crucifiction. This man had slapped Jesus, and according to the
movie, was therefore CURSED to remain alive until the end of the world.
Consequently, he was a couple thousand years old by the time he was
dukin' it out with Debbie Moore in this movie. He didn't seem real happy
about having been alive for two thousand years. Just a thought...
God bless you,
MRA.
Dave Haas
proxy.airnews.net>, mr...@airmail.net says...
-2Sen Jen's kin wrote:
->
-> Medical advances are coming thick and fast and research is
-> knocking on the door of many problems, like –
->
-> Nerve regeneration
-> Impotence
-> Hair loss
-> Obesity
-> Aging
->
-> I want to focus on the last of these.
->
-> Suppose an advance comes along that can put 20 years on a
-> person's life. Not through better health or disease resistance
-> but by directly changing the aging process.
->
-> Are there religious groups that would object to its use...
-> ¤ By their own members ?
-> ¤ By anybody ?
->
-> • On the grounds that it changes the "alloted" span ?
-> • That it is modern science ? (I'm thinking Mormons here)
-> • That it promoted the idea that the question of what happens
-> to us in the afterlife can be postponed, perhaps, with
-> further advances, indefinitely ?
-> • That it may unfairly favour rich people/nations who can afford
-> it ?
->
-> And, if so, should something be done about it ?
->
-> 2Sen
-> (feels the years passing)
-
-I'm a Christian and I wouldn't object to medical technology that
-increased life span. Medical technology has already increased life span
-from around 30-40 years up to around 75.
-
-However, I would hope the increase was not to perpetuate me from 75 to
-95 years old, but to streach out my 20's and 30's an extra decade each -
-now that would be cool!
-
-However, I'm not entirely certain that I would want my earthly life span
-RADICALLY increased, say, to a thousand years or so.
-
-I'm reminded of a movie called "The Seventh Sign" with Debbi Moore. It
-may be a made for cable only movie but it might be out on video. It was
-about the Apocalyse/end of the world and so on. As usual, Hollywood
-screwed up what the Bible actually says, and added a few dangerous
-misconceptions, but the movie was still a good one - just as long as you
-wear your anti-Hollywood-poison-filter helmet.
-
-In this movie the bad guy is an ancient Roman who lived during the time
-of Christ and was present when Christ was being interrogated just before
-His crucifiction. This man had slapped Jesus, and according to the
-movie, was therefore CURSED to remain alive until the end of the world.
-Consequently, he was a couple thousand years old by the time he was
-dukin' it out with Debbie Moore in this movie. He didn't seem real happy
-about having been alive for two thousand years. Just a thought...
-
If we go to heaven when we die and live forever why live 75 years on
earth? What is a million years compared to infinity? What is any time
compared to infinity? And where were you before infinity? (The first 15
billion years)?
D. Haas
Norman Doering
news:A9E6DA9F64D0E16F.742FF1B3E7B5844A.33DB436D62AAFD31@library-proxy./snip/
>
>> Suppose an advance comes along that can put 20 years on a
>>
>> $ By anybody ?
>> On the grounds that it changes the "alloted" span ?
>>
You should be thinking Amish instead.
>> That it promoted the idea that the question of what happens
>> advances, indefinitely ? That it may unfairly favour rich
>> people/nations who can afford it ?
>> And, if so, should something be done about it.../snip/
> I'm a Christian and I wouldn't object to medical technology that
/snip/
> However, I'm not entirely certain that I would want my earthly
And the reason he gives: someone in a movie didn't like it.
> I'm reminded of a movie called "The Seventh Sign" with Debbi
> Moore.
/snip/
> It was about the Apocalyse/end of the world and so on. As
> usual, Hollywood screwed up what the Bible actually says, and
> added a few dangerous misconceptions,...
He knows what the Bible *really* says.... hmmmm.
> ... but the movie was still a good one - just as long as you
> wear your anti-Hollywood-poison-filter helmet.
> interrogated just before His crucifiction. This man had slapped
> Jesus, and according to the movie, was therefore CURSED to
> remain alive until the end of the world. Consequently, he was a
> couple thousand years old by the time he was dukin' it out with
> Debbie Moore in this movie. He didn't seem real happy about
fantasy character in a movie doesn't enjoy a thousand year life
span doesn't mean you or I won't. The world will be changing, one
hopes, opening up new frontiers, people might be heading out
towards the stars in few hundred years. I suspect people who can
live for thousands of years would make better scientists and
engineers. We don't live long enough to investigate reality as
much as it needs to be investigated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Doering
Here are URLs to 2 of my essays:
http://www.widomaker.com/~piso/html/hope.html
http://www.widomaker.com/~piso/html/feartrap.html
All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions,
and executed by supplanting existing institutions.
-- George Bernard Shaw
"Lack of money is the root of all evil."
-- George Bernard Shaw, _Man and Superman_ (1903)
"You see things and say 'Why?'; but I dream things that never were and
I say 'Why not?'"
-- George Bernard Shaw
Chris Brown
Michael R. Anderson <mr...@airmail.net> wrote in article
> I'm a Christian and I wouldn't object to medical technology that
> increased life span. Medical technology has already increased life span
> from around 30-40 years up to around 75.
No, it's increased life "expectency" from 30-40 years to around 75. Life
"span" has remained pretty much the same for the whole of history.
Andrew Lias
Michael R. Anderson <mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
[With response to the prospect of life extending technologies]
>I'm a Christian and I wouldn't object to medical technology that
>increased life span. Medical technology has already increased life span
>from around 30-40 years up to around 75.
[...]
>However, I'm not entirely certain that I would want my earthly life span
>RADICALLY increased, say, to a thousand years or so.
>
>I'm reminded of a movie called "The Seventh Sign" with Debbi Moore. It
>may be a made for cable only movie but it might be out on video. It was
>about the Apocalyse/end of the world and so on. As usual, Hollywood
>screwed up what the Bible actually says, and added a few dangerous
>misconceptions, but the movie was still a good one - just as long as you
>wear your anti-Hollywood-poison-filter helmet.
Actually, the move took a lot of its inspiration from Jewish mythology as
well as Christian mythology. [1] Personally, I thought that it was a
rather innovative mix. Certainly stories that have attempted to deal with
the Apocalypse in a strict and literalistic have always struck me as a bit
dry. Be that as it may....
>In this movie the bad guy is an ancient Roman who lived during the time
>of Christ and was present when Christ was being interrogated just before
>His crucifiction. This man had slapped Jesus, and according to the
>movie, was therefore CURSED to remain alive until the end of the world.
For the record, this is part of post-Biblical Christian mythology. The
Wandering Jew myth [2] was a very popular theme during the middle ages.
Often the character is either one of the Romans who helped to beat Jesus,
or the gent who pierced his side to see if he was dead yet.
>Consequently, he was a couple thousand years old by the time he was
>dukin' it out with Debbie Moore in this movie. He didn't seem real happy
>about having been alive for two thousand years. Just a thought...
Personally I wouldn't give too much credence to that. Many stories about
immortality portray it as a bad thing, but I suspect that much of the
motivation behind such things is simply to make us feel better for our
lack of it, much like ancient stories about flight (e.g. the Icarus myth)
often had tragic endings.
Objectively, I can see that absolute immortality (quite literally living
forever with no choice in the matter) would pose problems. Beyond
boredom, there is the simple problem of memory. If one retains all of
ones memories (which would require infinite storeage space), it would seem
that ones memories would eventually overwhelm ones sense of the present.
If, on the other hand, memories could fade, eventually one would lose all
of one's past beyond a certain point. Depending on the duration of your
memories, you would become a creature that had neither beginning nor end.
Be that as it may, I would hardly think that a mere millenium or two would
impose such a tax on my existence (particularly not with an advanced
nanotechnology to bolster such things), nor do I believe that such a short
(in the grand scheme of things) duration would exhaust my potential for
experience and enjoyment.
--
Please direct all replies to anrwlias AT hotmail.com | Siste viator
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
http://www.wco.com/~anrwlias
[1] Please note that "mythology" is not being used purjoritively. To say
that something is mythological is not to say that it is necessarily false.
One could say, for instance, that the famous story of Babe Ruth hitting
one out of the park for a sick kid is part of America's cultural
mythology, despite the fact that it actually did happen.
[2] Despite the fact that it wasn't always a Jew in every tale. Go fig.
Bob230
wrote:
>Medical advances are coming thick and fast and research is
>knocking on the door of many problems, like –
>
>Nerve regeneration
>Impotence
>Hair loss
>Obesity
>Aging
>
>I want to focus on the last of these.
>
>Suppose an advance comes along that can put 20 years on a
>person's life. Not through better health or disease resistance
>but by directly changing the aging process.
>
>Are there religious groups that would object to its use...
>¤ By their own members ?
>¤ By anybody ?
>
>• On the grounds that it changes the "alloted" span ?
>• That it is modern science ? (I'm thinking Mormons here)
>• That it promoted the idea that the question of what happens
> to us in the afterlife can be postponed, perhaps, with
> further advances, indefinitely ?
>• That it may unfairly favour rich people/nations who can afford
> it ?
>
>And, if so, should something be done about it ?
>
>2Sen
>(feels the years passing)
Very interesting questions. If one takes the Old Testament
literally, it would not be unusual for someone to live several hundred
years. So Christians should have no objections to it right? ;)
Significantly lengthening a human's quality years (not feeble years)
is of course very desirable. Few of us feel like we have enough time
to accomplish the all the things that we want to. Of course many
problems are incumbent in lengthening human life spans. As you
mentioned above, there is the obvious problem of who gets access to
the extra life expectancy. This treatment cannot be expected to be
cheap, so yes, the first problem is rich vs. poor. And of course
there is the racial aspect; whites, who retain most of the wealth,
would have an advantage over blacks. Can you imagine the racial and
class wars that could occur?
Okay, lets say the USA is rich enough provide this treatment to all of
its citizens. Now an ethical dilemma arises when a country like Sudan
can't afford to give all of its people the same treatment. Again,
this would cause international and racial discord.
Okay, we make this available to everyone on the planet. How are we
going to house and feed all these additional generations? Talk about
extreme family planning....it would make the current Chinese policies
seem liberal. What of the new generations who feel cheated of their
chance to have a family and kids?
Personally, I don’t have a problem with it from a religious
standpoint. If God allows us the ability then we will achieve it. At
this time I don't think its wise to increase the human life span
because we aren’t ready to deal with it yet. Perhaps if we are
capable of colonizing other planets it could be workable. The power
of giving or withholding this treatment would be awesome...who will be
allowed to make the decisions?
I have a feeling that the technology to increase the life span will
soon be available. Many will decry the development for ethical
reasons and agree not to make it available to humans. Then some rich
fellow like Donald Trump will cheat and the cat will be out of the
bag. I don't know where this will lead but its sure to be an
explosive issue.
Michael R. Anderson
>
> in
> news:A9E6DA9F64D0E16F.742FF1B3E7B5844A.33DB436D62AAFD31@library-proxy.
> /snip/
> >
> >> person's life. Not through better health or disease resistance
> >> but by directly changing the aging process.
> >>
> >> Are there religious groups that would object to its use...
> >> $ By anybody ?
> >> On the grounds that it changes the "alloted" span ?
> >>
>
> You should be thinking Amish instead.
>
> >> to us in the afterlife can be postponed, perhaps, with further
> >> advances, indefinitely ? That it may unfairly favour rich
> >> people/nations who can afford it ?
> >
> > I'm a Christian and I wouldn't object to medical technology that
> > increased life span.
>
> > However, I'm not entirely certain that I would want my earthly
> > life span RADICALLY increased, say, to a thousand years or so.
>
>
> > Moore.
>
>
> /snip/
>
> > usual, Hollywood screwed up what the Bible actually says, and
>
> He knows what the Bible *really* says.... hmmmm.
>
> > wear your anti-Hollywood-poison-filter helmet.
> > In this movie the bad guy is an ancient Roman who lived during
> > the time of Christ and was present when Christ was being
> > interrogated just before His crucifiction. This man had slapped
> > Jesus, and according to the movie, was therefore CURSED to
> > couple thousand years old by the time he was dukin' it out with
> > Debbie Moore in this movie. He didn't seem real happy about
> > having been alive for two thousand years. Just a thought...
>
> fantasy character in a movie doesn't enjoy a thousand year life
> span doesn't mean you or I won't. The world will be changing, one
> hopes, opening up new frontiers, people might be heading out
> towards the stars in few hundred years. I suspect people who can
> live for thousands of years would make better scientists and
> engineers. We don't live long enough to investigate reality as
> much as it needs to be investigated.
Ya know Norman, I think you may need that extra 1,000 years to figure
out God really does exist!
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Norman Doering
> Here are URLs to 2 of my essays:
> http://www.widomaker.com/~piso/html/hope.html
> http://www.widomaker.com/~piso/html/feartrap.html
>
> All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions,
> and executed by supplanting existing institutions.
> -- George Bernard Shaw
>
> "Lack of money is the root of all evil."
> -- George Bernard Shaw, _Man and Superman_ (1903)
>
> "You see things and say 'Why?'; but I dream things that never were and
> I say 'Why not?'"
> -- George Bernard Shaw
>
God bless you,
MRA.
James De Carlo
given the chance to extend my life beyond what is currently expected,
particularly my prime years, I'd be one of the first to accept. However,
the concept in general introduces several problems that society as a
whole is not ready to deal with. We've already stressed the planet
beyond sustainability of the current population in terms of both food
and energy supply aswell as environment. Renewable, high-yield
non-destructive energies will have to be the de-facto standard before we
even consider dealing with modest increases in life span. I also agree
with others that feel planetary colonization would have to be beyond its
infancy for it to be workable. As far as religious groups go, there will
always be people who choose not to accept it, and that's fine. It is not
their place however to dictate (or otherwise preach, chastise or
condemn) to others if they should or should not.
While I feel bad for many of the poorer countries, one should examine
the source of their poverty. In the vast majority of cases it's civil
war, and not surprisingly, in many cases a religious confict. This is in
many cases what keeps a country poor - Ethiopia was once the
bread-basket of Africa. They'll have to learn to get along, stop killing
each other and accept diversity if they are to reap the benefits modern
medicine can bring them.
On a positive note, I feel that extended life spans would give us the
ability to see things in the long term perspective. Many people don't
care about the consequences of their actions, simply because they feel
they won't be around when it occurs. I also agree that the potential for
some individuals would be phenomenal. If I consider what I can learn in
a mere 5 years, imagine if I were able to live to be 300 or 400 years
old..
Cheers.
2Sen Jen's kin wrote:
> Medical advances are coming thick and fast and research is
> knocking on the door of many problems, like –
>
>
> Nerve regeneration
> Impotence
> Hair loss
> Obesity
> Aging
>
> I want to focus on the last of these.
>
> Suppose an advance comes along that can put 20 years on a
> person's life. Not through better health or disease resistance
> but by directly changing the aging process.
>
> Are there religious groups that would object to its use...
> ¤ By their own members ?
> ¤ By anybody ?
>
> • On the grounds that it changes the "alloted" span ?
> • That it is modern science ? (I'm thinking Mormons here)
> • That it promoted the idea that the question of what happens
> to us in the afterlife can be postponed, perhaps, with
> further advances, indefinitely ?
> • That it may unfairly favour rich people/nations who can afford
> it ?
>
2Sen Jen's kin
> This treatment cannot be expected to be cheap
Many modern drugs are expensive only because of a limited market.
> What of the new generations who feel cheated of their
> chance to have a family and kids?
Are there those who think it a religious duty ?
Whos' faiths encourage large families.
> Personally, I don’t have a problem with it from a religious
> standpoint. If God allows us the ability then we will achieve it.
That is carte blanch for many things.
> At this time I don't think its wise to increase the human life span
> because we aren’t ready to deal with it yet.
Could we ever say "we are ready" ? So long as we face problems as
a race our approach may be called clumsy and unready.
> Perhaps if we are capable of colonizing other planets it could be workable.
Does this not postpone the problem only ?
Exponential population growth will outstrip the best technology in time.
2Sen
(sees stormy seas ahead)
2Sen Jen's kin
> As an atheist, I have no objections from a religious perspective and if
> given the chance to extend my life beyond what is currently expected,
> particularly my prime years, I'd be one of the first to accept. However,
> the concept in general introduces several problems that society as a
> whole is not ready to deal with. We've already stressed the planet
> beyond sustainability of the current population in terms of both food
> and energy supply aswell as environment.
With or without life extension the problems of over population will remain
as will misuse of resources and planet.
> Renewable, high-yield
> non-destructive energies will have to be the de-facto standard before we
> even consider dealing with modest increases in life span.
I think people will be unwilling to hold research back due to the lack of a
utopia. Give us more life then we'll make one they may say.
> I also agree
> with others that feel planetary colonization would have to be beyond its
> infancy for it to be workable.
Even in popular sci-fi the billions of Earth remain ground bound and while
millions may travel off planet this will do little to dampen population
pressures.
> As far as religious groups go, there will
> always be people who choose not to accept it, and that's fine. It is not
> their place however to dictate (or otherwise preach, chastise or
> condemn) to others if they should or should not.
If they have the numbers, democracy will allow them to "dictate", though
they may not have a united front of their own.
<snip>
> On a positive note, I feel that extended life spans would give us the
> ability to see things in the long term perspective. Many people don't
> care about the consequences of their actions, simply because they feel
> they won't be around when it occurs. I also agree that the potential for
> some individuals would be phenomenal. If I consider what I can learn in
> a mere 5 years, imagine if I were able to live to be 300 or 400 years
> old..
You could become paranoid, minor risks to life we may ignore today become
more statistically significant over hundreds of years. As the capacity to extend
life increases the ability to make life safer needs to match it.
2Sen
(doesn't want to become a statistic)
2Sen Jen's kin
> I'm a Christian and I wouldn't object to medical technology that
> increased life span. Medical technology has already increased life span
> from around 30-40 years up to around 75.
>
> However, I would hope the increase was not to perpetuate me from 75 to
> 95 years old, but to streach out my 20's and 30's an extra decade each -
> now that would be cool!
>
> However, I'm not entirely certain that I would want my earthly life span
> RADICALLY increased, say, to a thousand years or so.
Could you say "no" at some point to the prospect of further, useful,
extension ? Not "just another ten years" ?
Could you say "I think it's about time I headed on *up* to meet Him."
not with age dulling the senses and slowing the limbs but, through science,
unbent, with world and mind clear, unfogged ?
That would be a powerful act of faith. A sacrifice seldom seen outside war
and disaster.
Factors such as boredom or feelings of uselessness may sway choice heavily
but the ability of people to find ways of passing the time seems great, too.
Would the need to make room for the next gen. be enough to convince ?
If, in the future, the ever young do not make room for the new would you
advocate a change of social policy, such as:
• Illegality of suicide ?
• Stopping support for the family unit ?
• Abandonment of the "pro life" position in the face of abortion necessitated by
simple lack of room and resource ?
2Sen
(wishes to reserve a seat in the future)
The Milkman of Human Kindness
> Norman Doering wrote:
> >
> > in
> > news:A9E6DA9F64D0E16F.742FF1B3E7B5844A.33DB436D62AAFD31@library-proxy.
> > "Michael R. Anderson" <mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> Ya know Norman, I think you may need that extra 1,000 years to figure
> out God really does exist!
Prove it.
(sorry to be flippant, but I hate the attitude that assumes we'd all
believe in God if we only thought about it. I HAVE thought about it and
personally I find myself unable to believe, thanks very much)
Ian
Michael R. Anderson
>
This reminds me of that old episode of Star Trek where the planet Gidion
was encased in a living mass of people so they kidnapped Capt. Kirk to
obtain a special disease he carried so they could start thinning out the
planet.
Personally, I would advocate space exploration and colonization of other
worlds. Starting with space stations and a moon colony. Followed by
inhabiting Mars and any asteroids or other moons in our solor system
that could sustain life. As long as we have enough raw materials to grow
food, supply water, and build more space stations/space ships we should
be alright.
> 2Sen
> (wishes to reserve a seat in the future)
God bless you,
MRA.
Therion Ware
multitude, saying in <01bdc94b$889c0b60$LocalHost@xx6942>
>Bob230 wrote a lot, but in particular...
[snip]
>> Perhaps if we are capable of colonizing other planets it could be workable.
>
>Does this not postpone the problem only ?
>Exponential population growth will outstrip the best technology in time.
Quite so. Spaceships, cryonics and so on are _not_ solutions to
overpopulation and associated problems. World population increases by
around 212,000 a day. That means that you'd need 3 to 4 spaceships
with the carrying capacity of the Titanic leaving every hour, just to
keep the population stable, let alone reduce it. (assuming that they
had a habitable destination to go to).
---
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
- attrib: Pauline Reage
Therion Ware
multitude, saying in <35e9d931...@news.supernews.com>
the above somehow got posted without the closing line:
"One imagines that you could buy and distribute a lot of condoms for
what the space ships would cost in terms of money and resources".
maff91
Huh? That's Science and is not in the Bible. I thought you were
waiting for the second coming and rapture.
So are you going to be the chief Scientist?
"Why Christianity Must Change or Die : A Bishop Speaks to Believers in
Exile" by John Shelby Spong
"Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism : A Bishop Rethinks the
Meaning of Scripture" by John Shelby Spong
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the
heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and
orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and
this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and
experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an
unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things,
claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should
do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest
the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to
scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
2Sen Jen's kin
> >> That it is modern science ? (I'm thinking Mormons here)...
>
> You should be thinking Amish instead.
I lounge corrected.
2Sen
(by half)
2Sen Jen's kin
> Look into Molecular Nanotechnology.
>
> "Engines of Creation" by K. Eric Drexler, or,
> "Nano" by Ed Regis
>
> In short:
> The history of manufacturing is the history of the manipulation of
> increasingly complex materials to increasingly exact specifications. The
> ultimate end of this progression is molecular nanotechnology - the
> manipulation of individual atoms.
>
> While not yet a reality, the theory breaks no known physical laws, and many
> research labs in many countries are spending millions of dollars in
> development.
>
> The prize is the ability to manipulate matter at the atomic scale. To build
> literally ANYTHING from its component atoms - including new and improved
> cells in your body.
>
> Imagine a world where cellular damage (disease, injury, old age) can be
> repaired in real time without surgery, and where the value of any object is
> exactly the value of its intrinsic material. Assuming there is no such
> thing as a soul, this is the power to create living beings from inanimate
> dirt.
>
> Don't want to run too long - look it up if you're interested.
It looks like much could be done at ~0K with Bucky tube based machines but
with living tissues you run into nanotech's nemesis – heat. Shifting the atoms
just so is going to produce a lot on top of our 37°C.
In the lab of planet Earth evolution has had ~3 billion years to come up with an
equivalent but sticks to the likes of DNA replication behind cell walls. Heat may
prove too much for the idealized notions of nanotech operating atom by atom.
But this shouldn't worry some of us – remember those people who get themselves
frozen at death ?
2Sen
(looks at "the cold route")
2Sen Jen's kin
<snip>
> Personally, I would advocate space exploration and colonization of other
> worlds. Starting with space stations and a moon colony. Followed by
> inhabiting Mars and any asteroids or other moons in our solor system
> that could sustain life. As long as we have enough raw materials to grow
> food, supply water, and build more space stations/space ships we should
> be alright.
Can you name a country that has significantly eased it's population pressure by
colonization ? (Britain didn't) The problems the policies some religions consider
morally fundamental will face in the future will remain.
The Moon and Mars are small compaired with the Earth but even a Dyson sphere
would fill quickly with exponential population growth.
2Sen
(would sooner fix the problems here than "begin again")
Michael R. Anderson
> >worlds. Starting with space stations and a moon colony. Followed by
> >inhabiting Mars and any asteroids or other moons in our solor system
> >that could sustain life. As long as we have enough raw materials to grow
> >food, supply water, and build more space stations/space ships we should
> >be alright.
>
> waiting for the second coming and rapture.
> So are you going to be the chief Scientist?
1. Hey, I like space stuff just like the next guy. I've seen every
episode of the old Star Trek at least a dozen times. I've seen every
episode of Star Trek the Next Generation. I've seen every Star Trek
movie. I enthusiastically believe in promoting technological progress. I
don't see any conflict between science, technological progress, and
Christianity.
I've read some interesting things concerning Christianity and the
development of science. Christians believe in an orderly world, designed
by God, with identifiable laws, that should be studied and used to
benefit mankind. There is a Christian impulse to study nature to behold
the glory of God's creation - "thinking God's thoughts after Him" as it
were. Christianity provided the attitudnal and perceptual basis for the
development of science - with a few pathetic and rare exceptions like
Copericous (spell?) getting abused.
2. Yes, I am waiting for the second coming. AND I believe it will be
here before the hypothetical discussion above becomes an issue. Until
then, I'll invest in fiber optics. Praise the Lord, and pass my stock
portfolio!
> "Why Christianity Must Change or Die : A Bishop Speaks to Believers in
> Exile" by John Shelby Spong
>
> "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism : A Bishop Rethinks the
> Meaning of Scripture" by John Shelby Spong
>
> "Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the
> heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and
> orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and
> this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and
> experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an
> unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things,
> claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should
> do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest
> the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to
> scorn."
>
> -- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
> (The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
God bless you,
MRA.
Gregory Gyetko
Michael R. Anderson wrote:
> 1. Hey, I like space stuff just like the next guy. I've seen every
> episode of the old Star Trek at least a dozen times. I've seen every
> episode of Star Trek the Next Generation. I've seen every Star Trek
> movie. I enthusiastically believe in promoting technological progress. I
> don't see any conflict between science, technological progress, and
> Christianity.
Depends. You'd have to get that stuff like witchcraft and anti-homosexuality out of the
bible. Science has indicated that a) there are no witches, nor is there any mechanism
for "witchcraft" and b) homosexuality is a condition often set up by the time the kid is
born.
> I've read some interesting things concerning Christianity and the
> development of science. Christians believe in an orderly world, designed
> by God, with identifiable laws, that should be studied and used to
> benefit mankind. There is a Christian impulse to study nature to behold
> the glory of God's creation - "thinking God's thoughts after Him" as it
> were. Christianity provided the attitudnal and perceptual basis for the
> development of science - with a few pathetic and rare exceptions like
> Copericous (spell?) getting abused.
And the destruction of the library of Alexandria, and the insistence by some that no one
learn about birth control, and the dark ages, and Sci-Cre.
> 2. Yes, I am waiting for the second coming. AND I believe it will be
> here before the hypothetical discussion above becomes an issue. Until
> then, I'll invest in fiber optics. Praise the Lord, and pass my stock
> portfolio!
But Jesus said he'd return before the people then alive had died (i.e. within one
generation)
Greg.
--
alt.atheism atheist #911, BAAWA Knight
"I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway
so why bother?"
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9916/
maff91
<mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>1. Hey, I like space stuff just like the next guy. I've seen every
>episode of the old Star Trek at least a dozen times. I've seen every
>episode of Star Trek the Next Generation. I've seen every Star Trek
>movie. I enthusiastically believe in promoting technological progress. I
>don't see any conflict between science, technological progress, and
>Christianity.
>
>I've read some interesting things concerning Christianity and the
>development of science. Christians believe in an orderly world, designed
>by God, with identifiable laws, that should be studied and used to
>benefit mankind. There is a Christian impulse to study nature to behold
>the glory of God's creation - "thinking God's thoughts after Him" as it
>were. Christianity provided the attitudnal and perceptual basis for the
>development of science - with a few pathetic and rare exceptions like
>Copericous (spell?) getting abused.
Nope.
The Foundations of modern Science and Technology started in Ancient
Greece and China.
http://www.stedwards.edu/cfpages/stoll/iw/greece.htm
Science and Civilization in China by Joseph Needham, et al (Several
volumes)
Religious atrocities against Scientists
http://hypatia.dcs.qmw.ac.uk/html/Alexandria.html
http://werple.net.au/~gaffcam/phil/descart1.htm
http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/
Other factors inhibiting progress of Science
The Dark Ages
http://www.btinternet.com/~mark.furnival/darkage.htm
Inquisition
http://www.blackstoneaudio.com/html/books/b1543.html
What led to our present state
Before European Hegemony : The World System A.D. 1250-1350 by
Abu-Lughod Janet L., Janet L. Abu-Lughod
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond
The Black Plague
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/dweb/plague/effects/soc_econ_effects.html
Renaissance
http://www.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/Renaissance/
The Age of Enlightenment
http://encarta.msn.com/index/concise/0VOL29/04f02000.asp
Industrial Revolution, etc.
>
>2. Yes, I am waiting for the second coming. AND I believe it will be
>here before the hypothetical discussion above becomes an issue. Until
>then, I'll invest in fiber optics. Praise the Lord, and pass my stock
>portfolio!
Well. You have to wait for several billion years for second coming.
You might as well enjoy life.
The Milkman of Human Kindness
> Christianity provided the attitudnal and perceptual basis for the
> development of science - with a few pathetic and rare exceptions like
> Copericous (spell?) getting abused.
Copernicus, Gallileio, Da Vinci, the countless women who advanced the
cause of medicine and ended up getting burnt as 'witches'... Religious
persecution of free thinkers isn't exactly rare.
By the way, if christianity provided such a base for the development of
science, how come the renaissance and the age of reason that followed it
were seen as a return to the work of the (pantheistic) Greeks?
Ian
Steven Wright
<wh...@oil.beef.hooked> writes
>(wishes to reserve a seat in the future)
In such a world would it be wrong to limit any human's life to say 100 years, or
maybe 150 or 200 years, or whatever, and even to kill people (quickly &
painlessly) when they reached this given age?
Would this be acceptable even if resources on earth were not scarce - should
this solution be a complete no-no, a last resort or a perfectly just and fair
solution?
Anyone got any thoughts on this?
--
Steven Wright
#492
Steve Mading
: Medical advances are coming thick and fast and research is
: knocking on the door of many problems, like –
: Nerve regeneration
: Impotence
: Hair loss
: Obesity
: Aging
: I want to focus on the last of these.
: Suppose an advance comes along that can put 20 years on a
: person's life. Not through better health or disease resistance
: but by directly changing the aging process.
: Are there religious groups that would object to its use...
[snip]
There are perfectly secular nonreligious reasons to object to
lengthening the lifespan. The world is approaching an overpopulation
problem (and in localized areas like China and India it already has
too much population.) Lengthining the lifespan of people will make it
much, much worse.
Of course, if the birth rate were slowed down then it would be okay,
but trying to get the world to plan their family sizes responsibly
has proven to be damn near impossible in the past.
--
Steve Mading: mad...@execpc.com http://www.execpc.com/~madings
DeWain Molter
>
>It looks like much could be done at ~0K with Bucky tube based machines but
>with living tissues you run into nanotech's nemesis – heat. Shifting the
atoms
>just so is going to produce a lot on top of our 37°C.
I must admit my ignorance up front, I barely passed first year physics - but
why is heat a problem?
Nanotechnology won't change the laws of physics, but neither is it limited
to any greater extent. Molecules form in heated environments now, why would
it be so difficult to control their formation directly, to create any stable
molecule which would normally be stable in that environment. For example,
why would it be substantially more difficult to create a diamond at 270°C
than it would be to create one at -270°C? Assuming, of course, that the
chemical bonds of the nano-assembler can endure that environment.
>In the lab of planet Earth evolution has had ~3 billion years to come up
with an
>equivalent but sticks to the likes of DNA replication behind cell walls.
Heat may
>prove too much for the idealized notions of nanotech operating atom by
atom.
I suspect life sticks to DNA more out of habit than efficiency. There is
only so much evolution can do, once the basic rules were set (DNA was first,
or the most efficient of the available competition), everyone down the line
was stuck with it.
>But this shouldn't worry some of us – remember those people who get
themselves
>frozen at death ?
>
>2Sen
>(looks at "the cold route")
I'm one of them, scheduled for a 'head only', the assemblers can build the
rest. :)
DeWain
Ruth Wright
the Bible....but not arrived at yet. However, I don't think it will
come through medicine or science....but as Pauls said "the body is
transformed by the renewal of the mind."
I believe that this renewal means the weeding or dissolving such
negative emotions (sins) as anger, impatience, envy, greed, mad
ambition...and especially resentment which simmers in one psyche and
affects the mind, soul and eventually reaps havoc on the body.
Ruth
"The flow of sponaneous expression is lost in reacting to stress." (Roy
Masters)
Calysta Atrahasis
baby girls (not as useful on a farm as a boy) and the handicapped (same
reason). Also, I was under the impression that the reasons for limiting the
number of children allowed to a couple had less to do with saving the world
than they did with trying to save China itself. And I'm sure that the
government never intended the bonus side effect of gaining greater control
over the populace (sarcasm).
May the universe provide...
Calysta Atrahasis
~deliciously saucy Sicilian~
http://www.esoterika.com
The Milkman of Human Kindness wrote in message ...
|& where it has been tried (namely china) the ppl doing so have been
|declared to be brutal and cruel, when in fact they are, in their own small
|way, trying to save the world.
|
|Ian
|
The Milkman of Human Kindness
<snip>
>
> Of course, if the birth rate were slowed down then it would be okay,
> but trying to get the world to plan their family sizes responsibly
> has proven to be damn near impossible in the past.
& where it has been tried (namely china) the ppl doing so have been
Alex
I don't think that the [future] needs of many could ever overrule the
needs of an individual. In war, generals (and other relevant officers)
can do that because they have been trained (read: brain-washed) since
boot camp to do it. So it takes training/conditioning to overcome the
human respect for the individual. So in response to Wright: It might
be acceptable as a last resort only. And then only at the last
second... maybe even applied when already too late. WE wouldn't want
to be the cause of someone's planned demise, we'd rather nature/luck
do the decisions for us.
I'd hope that if the advances were heading in that direction that more
and more people would have less and less children... or maybe postpone
having them for at least a century. But what we don't do the planet
will do for us... War has been seen as a fight for resources and the
most common places for war have been when resources are low. Do you
think it might be possible for whole countries to go down with a
whimper? When their people are starving (or beginning to) do you think
that they *won't* find a scape-goat to attack? That's another
interesting question... Even the US might change their foreign policy
concerning this... maybe passing into law something that would allow
them to attack a country that wasn't conserving resources, or having
too many kids.
Eventually as the population rose at the same time that the expected
life-span rose, international relations between all countries would
begin to erode. Diplomats would be more irritable and testy and more
demanding of other countries. Eventually one country would make an
excuse to attack another. This would continue until the expected
life-span (and total population) would fall to levels lower than
today. It will get scary.
Michael R. Anderson
>
> [why were we writing to alt.toilet-paper.2-ply???)
>
> Michael R. Anderson wrote:
>
> > episode of the old Star Trek at least a dozen times. I've seen every
> > episode of Star Trek the Next Generation. I've seen every Star Trek
> > movie. I enthusiastically believe in promoting technological progress. I
> > don't see any conflict between science, technological progress, and
> > Christianity.
>
> bible. Science has indicated that a) there are no witches, nor is there any mechanism
> for "witchcraft" and b) homosexuality is a condition often set up by the time the kid is
> born.
Strangely enough, there are people out there who believe that they ARE
witches.
In any case, I don't see technological progress being dependent on the
lowering of moral standards.
> > I've read some interesting things concerning Christianity and the
> > development of science. Christians believe in an orderly world, designed
> > by God, with identifiable laws, that should be studied and used to
> > benefit mankind. There is a Christian impulse to study nature to behold
> > the glory of God's creation - "thinking God's thoughts after Him" as it
> > were. Christianity provided the attitudnal and perceptual basis for the
> > development of science - with a few pathetic and rare exceptions like
> > Copericous (spell?) getting abused.
>
> And the destruction of the library of Alexandria, and the insistence by some that no one
> learn about birth control, and the dark ages, and Sci-Cre.
> > 2. Yes, I am waiting for the second coming. AND I believe it will be
> > here before the hypothetical discussion above becomes an issue. Until
> > then, I'll invest in fiber optics. Praise the Lord, and pass my stock
> > portfolio!
>
> But Jesus said he'd return before the people then alive had died (i.e. within one
> generation)
I think we've got some semantic/contextual confusion here. I think Jesus
did predict the pending destruction of Jerusalem, but also the end-time
events/second coming which is different. If you want a big list of
prophecy books email me and I will zap you the list.
> Greg.
>
> --
> alt.atheism atheist #911, BAAWA Knight
> "I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway
> so why bother?"
Because you DO NOT want to go there. You might want to check out the
negative side of near-death experiences:
To Hell and Back: Life after death - startling new evidence. (1993)
Maurice S. Rawlings, M.D. Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, TN. ISBN
0-8407-6758-7
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9916/
God bless you,
MRA.
Michael R. Anderson
>
> On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Michael R. Anderson wrote:
>
> > development of science - with a few pathetic and rare exceptions like
> > Copericous (spell?) getting abused.
>
> cause of medicine and ended up getting burnt as 'witches'... Religious
> persecution of free thinkers isn't exactly rare.
>
> By the way, if christianity provided such a base for the development of
> science, how come the renaissance and the age of reason that followed it
> were seen as a return to the work of the (pantheistic) Greeks?
>
> Ian
See my reply to maff91.
God bless you,
MRA.
Michael R. Anderson
>
> Michael R. Anderson wrote...
> > Personally, I would advocate space exploration and colonization of other
> > worlds. Starting with space stations and a moon colony. Followed by
> > inhabiting Mars and any asteroids or other moons in our solor system
> > that could sustain life. As long as we have enough raw materials to grow
> > food, supply water, and build more space stations/space ships we should
> > be alright.
>
> colonization ? (Britain didn't) The problems the policies some religions consider
> morally fundamental will face in the future will remain.
>
> The Moon and Mars are small compaired with the Earth but even a Dyson sphere
> would fill quickly with exponential population growth.
>
> 2Sen
> (would sooner fix the problems here than "begin again")
Well... your right. I guess we're hosed.
God bless you,
MRA.
2Sen Jen's kin
> <snip>
> >
> >It looks like much could be done at ~0K with Bucky tube based machines but
> >with living tissues you run into nanotech's nemesis – heat. Shifting the
> atoms
> >just so is going to produce a lot on top of our 37°C.
>
> I must admit my ignorance up front, I barely passed first year physics - but
> why is heat a problem?
Heat is atomic vibration, putting atoms where you want them at room temp. would
be like filling in a crossword that's on a washing machine in spin cycle while you
are operating a jack-hammer.
> Nanotechnology won't change the laws of physics, but neither is it limited
> to any greater extent. Molecules form in heated environments now, why would
> it be so difficult to control their formation directly, to create any stable
> molecule which would normally be stable in that environment. For example,
> why would it be substantially more difficult to create a diamond at 270°C
> than it would be to create one at -270°C? Assuming, of course, that the
> chemical bonds of the nano-assembler can endure that environment.
Most chemical reactions at room temp. are distinct and definite exchanges occuring
randomly – the molocules bounce into each other and if it's just right they react.
But there exists a random factor caused by temperature.
In the case of diamond every carbon atom is like every other carbon atom so the
random factor dosn't matter, this is also true of crystals made of more complex
molocules, ie sugar. But when you get to things like molecular circuits and cells
then heat becomes a problem.
> >In the lab of planet Earth evolution has had ~3 billion years to come up
> with an
> >equivalent but sticks to the likes of DNA replication behind cell walls.
> Heat may
> >prove too much for the idealized notions of nanotech operating atom by
> atom.
>
> I suspect life sticks to DNA more out of habit than efficiency. There is
> only so much evolution can do, once the basic rules were set (DNA was first,
> or the most efficient of the available competition), everyone down the line
> was stuck with it.
DNA has the information in it to build a creature from scratch but that's all.
It dosn't carry the information necessary to modify an adult creature cell by
cell, hence evolution by reproduction not by marcoscopic merging of entities.
This would require much more info., probably too much to carry around in every
cell or nanite and still get it to fit in the spaces where it's needed.
Macroscopic nanites (imagine a crystal surface from which almost anything can
be exuded) could hold all the info. required but present a whole host of problems
such as: room temperature super-conductivity, super chemical inertness combined
with the ability to hold unstable half-formed molocules stable through the forces
that make chemical bonds, ongoing nanite fragment detection and removal etc. etc.
Sure nothing says these problems are without solutions but *James T. Kirk* may be
born too soon to see them.
> >But this shouldn't worry some of us – remember those people who get
> themselves
> >frozen at death ?
> >
> >2Sen
> >(looks at "the cold route")
>
> I'm one of them, scheduled for a 'head only', the assemblers can build the
> rest. :)
>
> DeWain
>
They used to say "If you want to get ahead, get a hat.", should it be ",get a head." ?
2Sen
(remembers a ST:TNG episode on this)
2Sen Jen's kin
> [why were we writing to alt.toilet-paper.2-ply???)
Errm...my idea, as I posted on the subject of age – we learn the value
of good toilet paper when we're older. <g>
2Sen Jen's kin
<snip>
> There are perfectly secular nonreligious reasons to object to
> lengthening the lifespan. The world is approaching an overpopulation
> problem (and in localized areas like China and India it already has
> too much population.) Lengthining the lifespan of people will make it
> much, much worse.
I gave a hard stare to religious objections over secular because, usually,
secular objections respond to pragmatism with no "invisible purpose" axe
to grind.
2Sen
Gregory Gyetko
> Gregory Gyetko wrote:
> >
> > [why were we writing to alt.toilet-paper.2-ply???)
> >
> > Michael R. Anderson wrote:
> >
> > > 1. Hey, I like space stuff just like the next guy. I've seen every
> > > episode of the old Star Trek at least a dozen times. I've seen every
> > > episode of Star Trek the Next Generation. I've seen every Star Trek
> > > movie. I enthusiastically believe in promoting technological progress. I
> > > don't see any conflict between science, technological progress, and
> > > Christianity.
> >
> > Depends. You'd have to get that stuff like witchcraft and anti-homosexuality out of the
> > bible. Science has indicated that a) there are no witches, nor is there any mechanism
> > for "witchcraft" and b) homosexuality is a condition often set up by the time the kid is
> > born.
>
> Strangely enough, there are people out there who believe that they ARE
> witches.
Strangely enough, every witch trial that has ever taken place looks a hell of a lot like some
people being prejudiced and hateful of a woman.
> In any case, I don't see technological progress being dependent on the
> lowering of moral standards.
What moral standards, exactly, are we lowering? Letting witches live?
> > > I've read some interesting things concerning Christianity and the
> > > development of science. Christians believe in an orderly world, designed
> > > by God, with identifiable laws, that should be studied and used to
> > > benefit mankind. There is a Christian impulse to study nature to behold
> > > the glory of God's creation - "thinking God's thoughts after Him" as it
> > > were. Christianity provided the attitudnal and perceptual basis for the
> > > development of science - with a few pathetic and rare exceptions like
> > > Copericous (spell?) getting abused.
> >
> > And the destruction of the library of Alexandria, and the insistence by some that no one
> > learn about birth control, and the dark ages, and Sci-Cre.
No comment?
> > alt.atheism atheist #911, BAAWA Knight
> > "I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway
> > so why bother?"
>
> Because you DO NOT want to go there. You might want to check out the
> negative side of near-death experiences:
I don't believe in hell.
Greg.
--
alt.atheism atheist #911, BAAWA Knight
"I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway
so why bother?"
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9916/
Norman Doering
news:01bdcaa0$f95c5d40$LocalHost@xx6942
"2Sen Jen's kin" <wh...@oil.beef.hooked> wrote:
> DeWain Molter wrote...
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > It looks like much could be done at ~0K with Bucky tube based
>> > machines but with living tissues you run into nanotech's nemesis
>> > heat.
Heat is what is now powering some very precise chemical machines
within your cells. Cells that do some very complex tasks a higher
than room temperature. Heat is what moves them around until the
key end of one molecule fits into the lock end of another. Heat is
even now replicating your DNA, making RNA, dividing your cells,
cayying your oxygen... and so much more. Take away that heat, and
not even down to ~0K, just down to liquid nitrogen and you've got
cryonic suspension. No biological processes because the heat is
gone.
You're thinking in terms that are too mechanical, to macroscale in
concept. You've got to think chemical and biological to fully
grasp a medical nanotech.
>> > Shifting the atoms...
Not atoms -- not in a biological system full of heat. Shift
molecules... hell, they're shifted for you by heat, just as it's
already done within your cells where you will rarely find any
single atoms floating around by themselves.
>> > just so is going to produce a lot on top of our 370C.
You don't need to generate a lot of heat heat -- you can absorb it
and power your nanomachines with it. Let the heat move them. Let
molecular collisions press a plate that winds a spring...
You're not going to be using some kind of universal assembler
inside your body. You don't want to put self-replicators into your
body. What you want in your body are "super-drugs" - part drug and
part nanomachine. Drugs with the specificity of an anti-body
delivering mRNA sequences to specific cell types that turn over
your construction project to the cells own nanoassemblers: the
ribosomes. The mRNA is not self-replicated like DNA, so you can
get precise amounts of whatever you want constructed. Of course
you'll be limited to the construction materials of biology:
amino-acids and protiens... but that's all it will take for an
indefinite life span of perfect health... that and the knowledge
of what the hell you're going to need to construct... we don't
have that part yet. We just know the flexibility is there.
>> I must admit my ignorance up front, I barely passed first year
>> physics - but why is heat a problem?
>
> Heat is atomic vibration, putting atoms where you want them at
> room temp. would be like filling in a crossword that's on a
> washing machine in spin cycle while you are operating a
> jack-hammer.
Microscope) or the STM (Scanning Tunneling Microscope). The STM
was first operated only when cooled by liquid hydrogen... but
things are changing. The temperatures are getting higher.
>> Nanotechnology won't change the laws of physics, but neither is
>> it limited to any greater extent. Molecules form in heated
Certain kinds are -- the ones a medical nanodevice would be
interested in. However, some chemical reactions only occur at very
low or very high temperatures.
>> ...why would it be so difficult to control their
>> formation directly,
Forget direct control. We're necessary dealing with trillions upon
trillions of atoms to do anything worthwhile inside a body.
Massive uncontrolled repitition is needed to be effective. The
only thing direct control -- as if done by a man operating an STM
-- might be used for is to make the first self-replicating
assemblers and to gather information. (Or, an AFM type robotic
factory might produce computer chips less than the size of a
cell... but nothing medical will rely on that kind of control at
the cellular level... at least not for a long time)
>> to create any stable molecule which would
>> normally be stable in that environment. For example, why would
>> it be substantially more difficult to create a diamond at
>> endure that environment.
Probably need heat to break existing carbon bonds. Even the
nanotubes Richard Smalley makes require a carbon arc. Ralph
Merkle wrote something on making diamondiod materials via direct
control ... but the specifics elude me at the moment.
> Most chemical reactions at room temp. are distinct and definite
> exchanges occuring randomly the molocules bounce into each other
> and if it's just right they react. But there exists a random
> factor caused by temperature.
cells grow and devide and carry out their life sustaining
functions in spite of the randomness because they are limited
to which other molecules they will match up with in lock and key
fashion. All the needed lock and key systems we'll need could be
made by our own ribosomes.
> In the case of diamond every carbon atom is like every other
> carbon atom so the random factor dosn't matter, this is also
> true of crystals made of more complex molocules, ie sugar. But
> when you get to things like molecular circuits and cells then
> heat becomes a problem.
could be done outside the body.
Also, while synthetic chemistry alone will probably never create a
nanomachine, sythetic chemistry, that old random-motion-
exploiting-shake-and-bake chemistry, might produce the parts,
like nanotubes and bucky balls, which could be assembled at higher
temperatures.
>> > In the lab of planet Earth evolution has had ~3 billion years
>> > to come up with an equivalent but sticks to the likes of DNA
>> > replication behind cell walls. Heat may prove too much for the
>> > idealized notions of nanotech operating atom by atom.
It's called Molecular Nanotechnology, not Atomic Nanotechnology.
Only the designers will be thinking of adding atoms here and
there. The builders are going to have figure out ways to do it
with molecules.
>> I suspect life sticks to DNA more out of habit than efficiency.
>> There is only so much evolution can do, once the basic rules
Some think RNA was first.
>> or the most efficient of the available competition), everyone
>> down the line was stuck with it.
>
> DNA has the information in it to build a creature from scratch
> but that's all. It dosn't carry the information necessary to
It could though.
That is, in some ways, what genetic therapies are about. You give
a diabetic the genes he didn't inherit for the purpose of making
insulin. There's no reason we couldn't make new organs grow in
people by modifying their genes -- our problem is we're total
pikers when it comes to understanding the programming language
of genetics. Right now we're just correcting bad grammar and
copying natures books via cloning - someday will by righting our
own books.
> hence evolution by reproduction not by marcoscopic merging of
> entities.
than what is possible with genetics. Bacteria in fact do some
merging tricks. Remember, evolution, in part, works via natural
selection and natural selection works by killing off the random
generations that don't work. Evolution by macroscopic merging
doesn't incorporate for selection via death.
> This would require much more info., probably too much to carry
> around in every cell or nanite and still get it to fit in the
> spaces where it's needed.
information. This world wide web will be a better model for
nanites.
> Macroscopic nanites (imagine a crystal surface from which almost
> super-conductivity, super chemical inertness combined with the
> ability to hold unstable half-formed molocules stable through the
> forces that make chemical bonds, ongoing nanite fragment
> detection and removal etc. etc.
>
> Sure nothing says these problems are without solutions but
> *James T. Kirk* may be born too soon to see them.
2Sen Jen's kin
<snip>
> >> > It looks like much could be done at ~0K with Bucky tube based
> >> > machines but with living tissues you run into nanotech's nemesis
> >> > heat.
>
> Heat can be your friend rather than your enemy.
>
> Heat is what is now powering some very precise chemical machines
> within your cells.
Rather, heat allows the crossing of reaction energy barriers. We are not
true heat engines, these require temperature gradients, were it so we would
drop dead in saunas.
> Cells that do some very complex tasks a higher
> than room temperature.
[I have heard of single celled organisms that operate well at 500°C and exist
deep underground. They operate at cooler temps but best at 500 and can go
higher. I have no further info on them and would welcome some.]
> Heat is what moves them around until the
> key end of one molecule fits into the lock end of another. Heat is
> even now replicating your DNA, making RNA, dividing your cells,
> cayying your oxygen... and so much more. Take away that heat, and
> not even down to ~0K, just down to liquid nitrogen and you've got
> cryonic suspension. No biological processes because the heat is
> gone.
>
> You're thinking in terms that are too mechanical, to macroscale in
> concept. You've got to think chemical and biological to fully
> grasp a medical nanotech.
>
> >> > Shifting the atoms...
>
> Not atoms -- not in a biological system full of heat. Shift
> molecules... hell, they're shifted for you by heat, just as it's
> already done within your cells where you will rarely find any
> single atoms floating around by themselves.
Bear in mind our own blood creates its own "nanites" – cells that do not
have to carry big strings of DNA around in them, such as red corpusles
and platelets. Evolution has not opted to make these operate on a single
molocule scale although it should be able to. I take this as evidence that
single molocule bio-machines have got things stacked against them, but
of course it is not proof.
> >> > just so is going to produce a lot on top of our 370C.
>
> You don't need to generate a lot of heat heat -- you can absorb it
> and power your nanomachines with it.
Hold on! Heat has got to go somewhere.
I think there's going to be big problems creating heat engines in the relativly
uniform temperature of a nanite's environment.
> Let the heat move them. Let
> molecular collisions press a plate that winds a spring...
Nope. This is not how heat works.
Endothermic reactions store entropy at the expense of molecular order.
The nanites would be committing suicide or destroying what they are
attemping to bring order to.
Heard of Maxwell's demon ?
> You're not going to be using some kind of universal assembler
> inside your body. You don't want to put self-replicators into your
> body. What you want in your body are "super-drugs" - part drug and
> part nanomachine.
This is a short-cut to leukaemia.
The semi-nanite's advantage of being able to process things in new ways
is paid for by having to be substantially different on the inside from the stuff
of the host organism. Nanites and semi-nanites will occasionally fail and break
up, due to toxins or even rogue alpha particles smashing up their structure.
When this occurs the nanite part could disintegrate in a miriad of ways and then be
attacked by the white blood cells and antibodies. Any coating used to disguise
the nanite part will then be identified as foreign due to any of the nanite's interior
remaining connected to it. If the coating replicated part of the blood the blood
will attack itself.
> Drugs with the specificity of an anti-body
> delivering mRNA sequences to specific cell types that turn over
> your construction project to the cells own nanoassemblers: the
> ribosomes. The mRNA is not self-replicated like DNA, so you can
> get precise amounts of whatever you want constructed. Of course
> you'll be limited to the construction materials of biology:
> amino-acids and protiens...
These elements of the body are already doing the best they can. Evolution
cannot produce a superman, the body can only be improved in small increments.
To make a big change the whole immune system would need to be overhauled,
something evolution cannot do for it lacks appropriate tools – the given proteins
[that's _ei_ :) ] cannot be fitted together in super-duper ways, evolution has in all
likelyhood tried them only to find something else had it for lunch.
Becoming a superman would be nice and nanites may offer a way but we may
find there's not much of the original human left afterwards.
> but that's all it will take for an
> indefinite life span of perfect health... that and the knowledge
> of what the hell you're going to need to construct... we don't
> have that part yet. We just know the flexibility is there.
Maybe. Until we have working nanites we can't be sure thermodynamics won't
throw a spanner in the works.
> >> I must admit my ignorance up front, I barely passed first year
> >> physics - but why is heat a problem?
> >
> > Heat is atomic vibration, putting atoms where you want them at
> > room temp. would be like filling in a crossword that's on a
> > washing machine in spin cycle while you are operating a
> > jack-hammer.
>
> You're thinking of modern devices like the AFM (Atomic Force
> Microscope) or the STM (Scanning Tunneling Microscope). The STM
> was first operated only when cooled by liquid hydrogen... but
> things are changing. The temperatures are getting higher.
Yes that's what I was thinking of :^) Temperatures are getting higher but they
can't be raised indefinitely. Look at the gold used in the write-by-atom
experiments, an extremely ductile metal but it slill has to be super-cooled
to be used. Heat it up and the deposited atoms fly off or are absorbed like
drops of water on water, gold just isn't ductile enough to support atomic
writing at normal temps., hence puts a limit on how high the temperature
can be raised.
The big question is what potential nanite products can exist in partially
completed form as can crystals, without slumping ?
> >> Nanotechnology won't change the laws of physics, but neither is
> >> it limited to any greater extent. Molecules form in heated
> >> environments now,...
>
> Certain kinds are -- the ones a medical nanodevice would be
> interested in. However, some chemical reactions only occur at very
> low or very high temperatures.
>
> >> ...why would it be so difficult to control their
> >> formation directly,
>
> Forget direct control. We're necessary dealing with trillions upon
> trillions of atoms to do anything worthwhile inside a body.
> Massive uncontrolled repitition is needed to be effective. The
> only thing direct control -- as if done by a man operating an STM
> -- might be used for is to make the first self-replicating
> assemblers and to gather information. (Or, an AFM type robotic
> factory might produce computer chips less than the size of a
> cell... but nothing medical will rely on that kind of control at
> the cellular level... at least not for a long time)
The repair of severe damage will require it. Damaged cells, such as frozen
brain cells, will not present a uniform target for nanites. Individual identification
and handling will be required to retain the information within them.
> >> to create any stable molecule which would
> >> normally be stable in that environment. For example, why would
> >> it be substantially more difficult to create a diamond at
> >> 2700C than it would be to create one at -2700C? Assuming, of
> >> course, that the chemical bonds of the nano-assembler can
> >> endure that environment.
>
> I think diamond only forms at high temperatures and pressures.
> Probably need heat to break existing carbon bonds. Even the
> nanotubes Richard Smalley makes require a carbon arc. Ralph
> Merkle wrote something on making diamondiod materials via direct
> control ... but the specifics elude me at the moment.
Ever had to use carbon remover ?
> > Most chemical reactions at room temp. are distinct and definite
> > exchanges occuring randomly the molocules bounce into each other
> > and if it's just right they react. But there exists a random
> > factor caused by temperature.
>
> Yes. Very true. Yet still your DNA is copied well enough, your
> cells grow and devide and carry out their life sustaining
> functions in spite of the randomness because they are limited
> to which other molecules they will match up with in lock and key
> fashion. All the needed lock and key systems we'll need could be
> made by our own ribosomes.
>
> > In the case of diamond every carbon atom is like every other
> > carbon atom so the random factor dosn't matter, this is also
> > true of crystals made of more complex molocules, ie sugar. But
> > when you get to things like molecular circuits and cells then
> > heat becomes a problem.
>
> But that's the problem of the manufacture of complex devices which
> could be done outside the body.
I was thinking of the rebuilding of living cells for immortality.
You propose, reasonable, secondary growths (conceptions?/births?)
that result in organs but this is not cell by cell convertion.
I'm lacking in understanding of gene therapy but does it require new cells
containing the modification to grow ?
> > hence evolution by reproduction not by marcoscopic merging of
> > entities.
>
> That has more to do with how natural selection operates rather
> than what is possible with genetics. Bacteria in fact do some
> merging tricks. Remember, evolution, in part, works via natural
> selection and natural selection works by killing off the random
> generations that don't work. Evolution by macroscopic merging
> doesn't incorporate for selection via death.
The ones that don't manage to merge would die.
The mark I was aiming for is that the merging of more than one cell per
organism needs to be coordinated, matching like function with like, no
mixing bone cells with skin. Such information on the physical position
of the orgaisms' components is lacking in DNA which may not have the
capacity to store information of that magnitude or type. We might deduce
what goes where from DNA, but that's us and our tools.
> > This would require much more info., probably too much to carry
> > around in every cell or nanite and still get it to fit in the
> > spaces where it's needed.
>
> The model of biological life and DNA is inefficient in it's use of
> information. This world wide web will be a better model for
> nanites.
IMO you need to say more on this.
> > Macroscopic nanites (imagine a crystal surface from which almost
> > anything can be exuded) could hold all the info required but
> > present a whole host of problems such as: room temperature
> > super-conductivity, super chemical inertness combined with the
> > ability to hold unstable half-formed molocules stable through the
> > forces that make chemical bonds, ongoing nanite fragment
> > detection and removal etc. etc.
> >
> > Sure nothing says these problems are without solutions but
> > *James T. Kirk* may be born too soon to see them.
2Sen
(waits for the silvery nanite plague to eat us all)
Atheist Man
>[I have heard of single celled organisms that operate well at 500°C and
exist
>deep underground. They operate at cooler temps but best at 500 and can
go
>higher. I have no further info on them and would welcome some.]
The highest temperature thermophylic organisms I've heard of exist near
(but not at) the boiling temperature of water in hot springs and such.
Higher than that, and you're using steam. I don't believe "Life As We
Know It" can exist higher than the boiling point of water.
Have a great godless day!
________________________
Atheist Man
Atheist #1190 BAAWA!!!
High Priest of the Church of Hawking
Atheist Minister #5
(ath...@atheist.com)
==================================
"Thank God I'm an atheist!"
==================================
David J. Devejian
> 2Sen Jen's kin wrote in message <01bdcae5$d98908c0$LocalHost@xx6942>...
>
> exist
> >deep underground. They operate at cooler temps but best at 500 and can
> go
> >higher. I have no further info on them and would welcome some.]
>
>
> (but not at) the boiling temperature of water in hot springs and such.
> Higher than that, and you're using steam. I don't believe "Life As We
> Know It" can exist higher than the boiling point of water.
>
All your logic demonstrates (if it is valid) is that additional
pressure is necessary, a situation which occurs in 2SenJen's kin's
claim of 'deep underground'
But why is water in the liquid state necessary for 'Life As We Know
It'(tm)?
--
regards,
David J. Devejian
widsith <at> panix <dot> com
Michael R. Anderson
>
> Michael R. Anderson wrote:
>
> > Gregory Gyetko wrote:
> > >
> > > [why were we writing to alt.toilet-paper.2-ply???)
> > >
> > > Michael R. Anderson wrote:
> > >
> > > > 1. Hey, I like space stuff just like the next guy. I've seen every
> > > > episode of the old Star Trek at least a dozen times. I've seen every
> > > > episode of Star Trek the Next Generation. I've seen every Star Trek
> > > > movie. I enthusiastically believe in promoting technological progress. I
> > > > don't see any conflict between science, technological progress, and
> > > > Christianity.
> > >
> > > Depends. You'd have to get that stuff like witchcraft and anti-homosexuality out of the
> > > bible. Science has indicated that a) there are no witches, nor is there any mechanism
> > > for "witchcraft" and b) homosexuality is a condition often set up by the time the kid is
> > > born.
> >
> > Strangely enough, there are people out there who believe that they ARE
> > witches.
>
> Strangely enough, every witch trial that has ever taken place looks a hell of a lot like some
> people being prejudiced and hateful of a woman.
I think the whole witch burning phenomenon is focused on the "witch"
part, not the "gender" issue. Besides, last time I check there haven't
been any witch burnings for several hundred years. You make it sound
like, just last week, Jerry Falwell was leading and angry mob to burn
witches at the stake just because they are women.
> > In any case, I don't see technological progress being dependent on the
> > lowering of moral standards.
>
> What moral standards, exactly, are we lowering? Letting witches live?
If I recall correctly, the original post made reference to intolerance
towards homosexuality being somehow related to a slow down in
technolocial progress. That's the absurdity I was pointing out.
> > > > I've read some interesting things concerning Christianity and the
> > > > development of science. Christians believe in an orderly world, designed
> > > > by God, with identifiable laws, that should be studied and used to
> > > > benefit mankind. There is a Christian impulse to study nature to behold
> > > > the glory of God's creation - "thinking God's thoughts after Him" as it
> > > > were. Christianity provided the attitudnal and perceptual basis for the
> > > > development of science - with a few pathetic and rare exceptions like
> > > > Copericous (spell?) getting abused.
> > >
> > > And the destruction of the library of Alexandria, and the insistence by some that no one
> > > learn about birth control, and the dark ages, and Sci-Cre.
>
> No comment?
Whoever burned down the library ought to be slapped upside the head. As
for birth control, I think people ought to learn about it to prevent
unwanted pregnacies.
I don't think the church caused the dark ages. I think they preserved
important elements of western culture during a general experience of
social disintegration.
I don't know what "Sci-Cre" is.
> > > alt.atheism atheist #911, BAAWA Knight
> > > "I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway
> > > so why bother?"
> >
> > Because you DO NOT want to go there. You might want to check out the
> > negative side of near-death experiences:
>
> I don't believe in hell.
What you believe doesn't matter. Whether hell really exists or not is
what matters.
> Greg.
>
> --
> alt.atheism atheist #911, BAAWA Knight
> "I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway
> so why bother?"
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9916/
God bless you,
MRA.
maff91
<mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>Gregory Gyetko wrote:
>>
>> [why were we writing to alt.toilet-paper.2-ply???)
>>
>> Michael R. Anderson wrote:
>>
>> > 1. Hey, I like space stuff just like the next guy. I've seen every
>> > episode of the old Star Trek at least a dozen times. I've seen every
>> > episode of Star Trek the Next Generation. I've seen every Star Trek
>> > movie. I enthusiastically believe in promoting technological progress. I
>> > don't see any conflict between science, technological progress, and
>> > Christianity.
>>
>> Depends. You'd have to get that stuff like witchcraft and anti-homosexuality out of the
>> bible. Science has indicated that a) there are no witches, nor is there any mechanism
>> for "witchcraft" and b) homosexuality is a condition often set up by the time the kid is
>> born.
>
>Strangely enough, there are people out there who believe that they ARE
>witches.
>
>In any case, I don't see technological progress being dependent on the
>lowering of moral standards.
What has moral standards got to do with technological progress? Are
you referring to the Christian doctrine that you can commit all sorts
of crimes but if you repent that you're forgiven?
>
>> > I've read some interesting things concerning Christianity and the
>> > development of science. Christians believe in an orderly world, designed
>> > by God, with identifiable laws, that should be studied and used to
>> > benefit mankind. There is a Christian impulse to study nature to behold
>> > the glory of God's creation - "thinking God's thoughts after Him" as it
>> > were. Christianity provided the attitudnal and perceptual basis for the
>> > development of science - with a few pathetic and rare exceptions like
>> > Copericous (spell?) getting abused.
>>
>> And the destruction of the library of Alexandria, and the insistence by some that no one
>> learn about birth control, and the dark ages, and Sci-Cre.
>
>> > 2. Yes, I am waiting for the second coming. AND I believe it will be
>> > here before the hypothetical discussion above becomes an issue. Until
>> > then, I'll invest in fiber optics. Praise the Lord, and pass my stock
>> > portfolio!
>>
>> But Jesus said he'd return before the people then alive had died (i.e. within one
>> generation)
>
>I think we've got some semantic/contextual confusion here. I think Jesus
>did predict the pending destruction of Jerusalem, but also the end-time
>events/second coming which is different. If you want a big list of
>prophecy books email me and I will zap you the list.
Call us in a couple of billion years when it happens! ;-)
[snip]
Gregory Gyetko
> Gregory Gyetko wrote:
> >
> > Michael R. Anderson wrote:
> >
> > > Gregory Gyetko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [why were we writing to alt.toilet-paper.2-ply???)
> > > >
> > > > Michael R. Anderson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 1. Hey, I like space stuff just like the next guy. I've seen every
> > > > > episode of the old Star Trek at least a dozen times. I've seen every
> > > > > episode of Star Trek the Next Generation. I've seen every Star Trek
> > > > > movie. I enthusiastically believe in promoting technological progress. I
> > > > > don't see any conflict between science, technological progress, and
> > > > > Christianity.
> > > >
> > > > Depends. You'd have to get that stuff like witchcraft and anti-homosexuality out of the
> > > > bible. Science has indicated that a) there are no witches, nor is there any mechanism
> > > > for "witchcraft" and b) homosexuality is a condition often set up by the time the kid is
> > > > born.
> > >
> > > Strangely enough, there are people out there who believe that they ARE
> > > witches.
> >
> > Strangely enough, every witch trial that has ever taken place looks a hell of a lot like some
> > people being prejudiced and hateful of a woman.
>
> I think the whole witch burning phenomenon is focused on the "witch"
> part, not the "gender" issue. Besides, last time I check there haven't
> been any witch burnings for several hundred years.
Not in the U.S., but if you'll check with CNN's archives, I recall quite recently a witch being
brought to trial in either Brazil or Cuba for "flying from rooftop to rooftop in the middle of the
night."
> You make it sound like, just last week, Jerry Falwell was leading and angry mob to burn witches
> at the stake just because they are women.
The point is that you said that there is no conflict between science, technological progress and
Christianity. I'm pointing out that the biblical edict to stamp out witchcraft is an example of
such a conflict
>
>
> > > In any case, I don't see technological progress being dependent on the
> > > lowering of moral standards.
> >
> > What moral standards, exactly, are we lowering? Letting witches live?
>
> If I recall correctly, the original post made reference to intolerance
> towards homosexuality being somehow related to a slow down in
> technolocial progress. That's the absurdity I was pointing out.
However, the biblical assertion that homosexuals must be ostracized *is* antithetical to the
nature of science and against any type of progress. You would be throwing out of society people
who can make contributions just like any others.
> > > > > I've read some interesting things concerning Christianity and the
> > > > > development of science. Christians believe in an orderly world, designed
> > > > > by God, with identifiable laws, that should be studied and used to
> > > > > benefit mankind. There is a Christian impulse to study nature to behold
> > > > > the glory of God's creation - "thinking God's thoughts after Him" as it
> > > > > were. Christianity provided the attitudnal and perceptual basis for the
> > > > > development of science - with a few pathetic and rare exceptions like
> > > > > Copericous (spell?) getting abused.
> > > >
> > > > And the destruction of the library of Alexandria, and the insistence by some that no one
> > > > learn about birth control, and the dark ages, and Sci-Cre.
> >
> > No comment?
>
> Whoever burned down the library ought to be slapped upside the head. As
> for birth control, I think people ought to learn about it to prevent
> unwanted pregnacies.
>
> I don't think the church caused the dark ages. I think they preserved
> important elements of western culture during a general experience of
> social disintegration.
You would be hard pressed to support this notion, as it was the church that declared all Roman
institutions (libraries, museums, schools, *plumbing* etc.) to be works of the devil and that all
such structures must be destroyed. How a society could survive this *without* entering a Dark Age
is beyond me.
> I don't know what "Sci-Cre" is.
Scientific Creationism, an offshoot somehow spurred on by Christianity.
> > > > alt.atheism atheist #911, BAAWA Knight
> > > > "I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway
> > > > so why bother?"
> > >
> > > Because you DO NOT want to go there. You might want to check out the
> > > negative side of near-death experiences:
> >
> > I don't believe in hell.
>
> What you believe doesn't matter. Whether hell really exists or not is
> what matters.
Which you will have prove rather than merely assert.
2Sen Jen's kin
> > The highest temperature thermophylic organisms I've heard of exist near
> > (but not at) the boiling temperature of water in hot springs and such.
> > Higher than that, and you're using steam. I don't believe "Life As We
> > Know It" can exist higher than the boiling point of water.
> >
>
> All your logic demonstrates (if it is valid) is that additional
> pressure is necessary, a situation which occurs in 2SenJen's kin's
> claim of 'deep underground'
>
> But why is water in the liquid state necessary for 'Life As We Know
> It'(tm)?
The remaining scraps I know are that it exists in the presence of geothermal
heat, in some kind of layer deep down in the ground/sediment (think of the dregs
in a coal or oil field), that it was very basic, resembled really old life and was
touted as a possible common ancestor of everything.
There's no problem with water existing at 500°C if you put an ocean on top of it.
I don't have an equasion for phase changes at this kind of pressure, super heat
figures for H2O (pure) say it's still very watery at that kind of T & p.
2Sen
(will buy a pressure cooker)
Therion Ware
the multitude, saying in
<1B8985C3455BB225.3EAE7577...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
[snip]
>I think the whole witch burning phenomenon is focused on the "witch"
>part, not the "gender" issue. Besides, last time I check there haven't
>been any witch burnings for several hundred years.
That should read: "there haven't been any witch burnings in the United
States, for several years".
Other than that, killing witches is still commonplace in Nigeria and
elsewhere in Africa.
>You make it sound
>like, just last week, Jerry Falwell was leading and angry mob to burn
>witches at the stake just because they are women.
There was a case in the USA a few years ago and the height o fthe
"Santanic Panic". I will see if I can find the details.
[snip]
--
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
- attrib: Pauline Reage
website:
<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6671/index.html>
remove ".eac" if you want to use e-mail
zerbi...@my-dejanews.com
"Therion Ware" <tw...@eac.geocities.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 01:36:18 -0500, "Michael R. Anderson" spake unto
> the multitude, saying in
> <1B8985C3455BB225.3EAE7577...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
>
> [snip]
>
> >I think the whole witch burning phenomenon is focused on the "witch"
> >part, not the "gender" issue. Besides, last time I check there haven't
> >been any witch burnings for several hundred years.
>
> That should read: "there haven't been any witch burnings in the United
> States, for several years".
>
I'd appreciate someone telling me so. I believe that in the US, convicted
witches were hanged, not burned.
At the moment I'm researching something my SO read somewhere (we're trying
to figure out where), that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is a
mis-translation. Anyone have any ideas where this information might be?
Peter Kirby, are you there?
Zerbinetta
a.a. #1248
--
"We know that we come from the winds, and that
we shall return to them; that all life is perhaps
a knot, a tangle, a blemish in the eternal
smoothness. But why should this make us unhappy?
Let us rather love one another, and work and rejoice.
I don't believe in this world sorrow."
--E.M. Forster
A Room With A View
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Karl E. Taylor
>
> In article <35dc88aa...@news.supernews.com>,
> "Therion Ware" <tw...@eac.geocities.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 01:36:18 -0500, "Michael R. Anderson" spake unto
> > the multitude, saying in
> > <1B8985C3455BB225.3EAE7577...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >I think the whole witch burning phenomenon is focused on the "witch"
> > >part, not the "gender" issue. Besides, last time I check there haven't
> > >been any witch burnings for several hundred years.
> >
> > That should read: "there haven't been any witch burnings in the United
> > States, for several years".
> >
> Just one teeny-tiny little nit-pick, and I could be wrong, and if I am
> I'd appreciate someone telling me so. I believe that in the US, convicted
> witches were hanged, not burned.
>
aware of.
According to "The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology" burning
were pretty much confined to Europe and the middle east. The very few
that we had here in the US were hung and pressed. Of course drowning is
not listed, as it was a test for witchcraft.
>
> At the moment I'm researching something my SO read somewhere (we're trying
> to figure out where), that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is a
> mis-translation. Anyone have any ideas where this information might be?
> Peter Kirby, are you there?
>
I always thought that was an old testament type law or something.
--
Science deals with fact.
Philosophy deals with truth.
Religion deals with neither, only faith.
________________________________________________________________________
Karl E. Taylor CEO & UNIX Systems Analyst
Desert Dragon SOHO Solutions kta...@dragon.illusions.com
http://www.illusions.com/ddsoho
________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Lao "You know what wisdom is?"
Little boy "No."
Dr. Lao "Wise answer."
2Sen Jen's kin
> At the moment I'm researching something my SO read somewhere (we're trying
> to figure out where), that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is a
> mis-translation. Anyone have any ideas where this information might be?
I think the original (Hebrew?) was "poisoner" which was mistranslated to "witch".
2Sen
(by half)
Claus Lisberg
<mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
<snip>
>God bless you,
>MRA.
Michael:
Could you please drop that sig when posting in alt.atheism? It is the
equivalent of having an atheist chanting "Satan is Greatest!" in
church.
Well, not really. But it's a bit irritating.
Claus Lisberg
<mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
<snip>
>I think the whole witch burning phenomenon is focused on the "witch"
>part, not the "gender" issue. Besides, last time I check there haven't
>been any witch burnings for several hundred years. You make it sound
>like, just last week, Jerry Falwell was leading and angry mob to burn
>witches at the stake just because they are women.
Incidentally, witches were mostly women, for some reason.
This reminds me of Monty Python.
<mob> "SHE'S A WITCH!"
:)
>If I recall correctly, the original post made reference to intolerance
>towards homosexuality being somehow related to a slow down in
>technolocial progress. That's the absurdity I was pointing out.
One could point to at least one scenario where this would be true. In
general, religions haven't been very supportive to science, seeing it
as its nemesis more or less.
<snip>
>Whoever burned down the library ought to be slapped upside the head. As
>for birth control, I think people ought to learn about it to prevent
>unwanted pregnacies.
Yes, but when a women is pregnant, surely you do accept the right of
self determination?
>
>I don't think the church caused the dark ages. I think they preserved
>important elements of western culture during a general experience of
>social disintegration.
Well, I've read several books suggesting otherwise. Care to back this
claim up?
>I don't know what "Sci-Cre" is.
"Scientific creationism" - mumbo jumbo trying to explain Genesis using
science. An utter failure, I might add. Also know as "Fundy Fun".
>What you believe doesn't matter. Whether hell really exists or not is
>what matters.
Indeed. He lacks a belief, you have one. He can be enlightened, you
can be, and probably are, wrong.
Again support your assertion. Otherwise you're preaching, and that'll
add your name to a great many kill files.
Claus Lisberg
<ath...@atheist.com> wrote:
>2Sen Jen's kin wrote in message <01bdcae5$d98908c0$LocalHost@xx6942>...
>
>>[I have heard of single celled organisms that operate well at 500°C and
>exist
>>deep underground. They operate at cooler temps but best at 500 and can
>go
>>higher. I have no further info on them and would welcome some.]
>
>
>The highest temperature thermophylic organisms I've heard of exist near
>(but not at) the boiling temperature of water in hot springs and such.
>Higher than that, and you're using steam. I don't believe "Life As We
>Know It" can exist higher than the boiling point of water.
Well, underwater "chimneys" at great depth release a water/gas mix
that is above boiling point at the surface, and creatures live and
thrive there. ;)
>
>Have a great godless day!
Yeh, absolutely :)
zerbi...@my-dejanews.com
"2Sen Jen's kin" <wh...@oil.beef.hooked> wrote:
where my SO read it...
Michael R. Anderson
>
> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 03:24:02 -0500, "Michael R. Anderson"
> <mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >MRA.
>
> Michael:
>
> Could you please drop that sig when posting in alt.atheism? It is the
> equivalent of having an atheist chanting "Satan is Greatest!" in
> church.
>
> Well, not really. But it's a bit irritating.
You use whatever sign off you want, and I'll use whatever sign off I
want. Besides, when the satanist (or atheists) post to Christian news
groups, not only do they seem to use whatever sign off they want, many
of them are obviously going out of there way to be provocative and
abusive.
God bless you,
MRA.
Alex
Claus Lisberg wrote in message <35e539fd...@news.inet.tele.dk>...
>On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 03:24:02 -0500, "Michael R. Anderson"
><mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>God bless you,
>>MRA.
>
>Michael:
>
>Could you please drop that sig when posting in alt.atheism? It is the
>equivalent of having an atheist chanting "Satan is Greatest!" in
>church.
>
>Well, not really. But it's a bit irritating.
What does MRA stand for then?
Michael R. Anderson
>
> On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 01:36:18 -0500, "Michael R. Anderson"
> <mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >part, not the "gender" issue. Besides, last time I check there haven't
> >been any witch burnings for several hundred years. You make it sound
> >like, just last week, Jerry Falwell was leading and angry mob to burn
> >witches at the stake just because they are women.
>
> Incidentally, witches were mostly women, for some reason.
>
> This reminds me of Monty Python.
>
> <mob> "SHE'S A WITCH!"
>
> :)
>
> >If I recall correctly, the original post made reference to intolerance
> >towards homosexuality being somehow related to a slow down in
> >technolocial progress. That's the absurdity I was pointing out.
>
> One could point to at least one scenario where this would be true. In
> general, religions haven't been very supportive to science, seeing it
> as its nemesis more or less.
I've read some perspectives that say the Christian belief in a rational
God who created and orderly universe that could be understood by
"thinking God's thoughts after Him" provided the perceptual basis and
attitudnal drivers for the development of science. See the following:
What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? (1994) D. James Kennedy and Jerry
Newcombe. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville. ISBN: 0-7852-8261-0
> <snip>
>
> >Whoever burned down the library ought to be slapped upside the head. As
> >for birth control, I think people ought to learn about it to prevent
> >unwanted pregnacies.
>
> Yes, but when a women is pregnant, surely you do accept the right of
> self determination?
> >
> >I don't think the church caused the dark ages. I think they preserved
> >important elements of western culture during a general experience of
> >social disintegration.
>
> Well, I've read several books suggesting otherwise. Care to back this
> claim up?
See the following:
What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? (1994) D. James Kennedy and Jerry
Newcombe. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville. ISBN: 0-7852-8261-0
>
> >I don't know what "Sci-Cre" is.
>
> "Scientific creationism" - mumbo jumbo trying to explain Genesis using
> science. An utter failure, I might add. Also know as "Fundy Fun".
Consider these:
Darwin’s Leap of Faith: Exposing the false religion of evolution. (1998)
John Ankerberg and John Weldon. Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, OR.
ISBN: 1-56507-657-5
The Collapse of Evolution. 3rd. Ed. (1997) Scott M. Huse. BakerBooks:
Grand Rapids, MI. ISBN: 0-8010-5774-4
The Philosophical Scientists. (1985) David Foster. Barnes and Noble, NY.
ISBN 0-88029-624-0
The Genesis Flood: the biblical record and its scientific implications.
(1961) By John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris. Baker Book House: Grand
Rapids, Michigan. ISBN: 0-8010-9501-8. [A much more persuasive argument
for the reality of the Genesis flood than skeptics would believe
possible.]
>
> >What you believe doesn't matter. Whether hell really exists or not is
> >what matters.
>
> Indeed. He lacks a belief, you have one. He can be enlightened, you
> can be, and probably are, wrong.
>
> Again support your assertion. Otherwise you're preaching, and that'll
> add your name to a great many kill files.
Check out this book:
To Hell and Back: Life after death - startling new evidence. (1993)
Maurice S. Rawlings, M.D. Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, TN. ISBN
0-8407-6758-7 [This book was written by a heart surgeon who was
frequently exposed to dying people and people with near-death
experiences. He wrote this book because many people had negative
experiences, not the 'see the pretty light kind of thing'. It includes
descriptions of hell by people who got brief views of it.]
I truely hope that I and every single atheist out there avoids the
cataclysm of going there.
God bless you,
MRA.
Pioneer
<A6C0936502C73F89.76833EDB...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
mr...@airmail.net wrote:
> You use whatever sign off you want, and I'll use whatever sign off I
> want.
Regardless of whether or not it bothers people? I didn't realize that
politeness was so low on the list of things to do for christians.
Besides, when the satanist (or atheists) post to Christian news
> groups, not only do they seem to use whatever sign off they want, many
> of them are obviously going out of there way to be provocative and
> abusive.
"To quoque."
It's a logicall fallacy.
At any rate, I find it interesting that you feel it appropriate to engage
in whatever action you wish, so long as atheists have done something
similar first.
I'd have thought that christians would at least want to *appear* to take a
"moral high ground" and *appeart* to act better than "godless, immoral
atheists." But I must have thought wrong.
Interesting.
--
Austin Cline: Regional Director, Council for Secular Humanism
Home: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/2850/
Secular Humanism in OH & PA: http://www.geocities.com/~shiwpa/
Council for Secular Humanism: http://www.secularhumanism.org/
Agnosticism/Atheism on the Web.: http://atheism.miningco.com
--- "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." David Hume
--- "Thinking men cannot be ruled." Ayn Rand
Walksalone
(Claus Lisberg) Having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of
life & uttered the following:
>On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 01:36:18 -0500, "Michael R. Anderson"
><mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>I think the whole witch burning phenomenon is focused on the "witch"
>>part, not the "gender" issue. Besides, last time I check there haven't
>>been any witch burnings for several hundred years. You make it sound
>>like, just last week, Jerry Falwell was leading and angry mob to burn
>>witches at the stake just because they are women.
Depends on how you define several, I thinned the list that Therion
Ware left behind a couple of months ago to the 1900's. Actual
reasonable suspicions of xian murders of witches is aprx. 250,000.
That has to be a SWAG as record keeping was shall we say, not very
good. Unless of course, it made the church look good. As to Falwell,
well the less said but not forgot the better. Hopefully the
bibliography attached [compiled by W.J. Bethancourt] will be of help
to those wishing to pursue the tragedy further.
Arista, Josephine: burned at the stake in Ojinaga Mexico, July 3, 1955
Challiot, (first name unknown): murdered at St. Georges, France, in
February, 1922
Sabina, Benita: killed as a witch in Alfajayucan, Mexico, September 8,
1956.
Trajo, Christina: killed as a witch in Alfajayucan, Mexico, September
8, 1956.
Last updated: 02/16/98
THE UNKNOWNS
* 1 shot by a policeman at Uttenheim, Germany, on suspicion of
being a were-wolf, in November, 1925
* 1 murdered in Pennsylvania in 1929
* An unknown number killed in Nazi concentration camps, Third
Reich, ca. World War II
* 2 burned at Gannore, India on 9 Feb. 1997
* 1 burned alive at Sevastopol, Ukraine in 1997
* 1 beheaded in Saudi Arabia in 1997
Last updated: 02/16/98
REFERENCES
* THE BOOK OF DAYS W. J. Bethancourt III (unpublished ms.)
* CHRONICLE OF THE WORLD Jerome Burne; Ecam, 1990
* A NATURAL HISTORY OF UNNATURAL THINGS Daniel Cohen; McCall, 1971
* NEVER ON A BROOMSTICK Frank Donovan; Bell, 1971
* A HISTORY OF SECRET SOCIETIES Arkhon Daraul; Citadel, 1962
* THE WEAKER VESSEL Antonia Fraser, Borzoi, 1984
* MEANING OF WITCHCRAFT Gerald Garder
* EXTRAORDINARY POPULAR DELUSIONS AND THE MADNESS OF CROWDS Charles
MacKay; L.C.Page, 1932 (orig. pub. 1841)
* THE WITCH CULT IN EASTERN EUROPE Margaret Alice Murray; Appendix
III A.
* THE HISTORY OF MAGIC AND THE OCCULT Kurt Seligmann; Harmony
Books,
1975
* IN THE NAME OF THE DEVIL (Great Witchcraft Cases), Ronald Seth
* THE GEOGRAPHY OF WITCHCRAFT Montague Summers, University Books,
1965
* A PREFACE TO EIGHTEENTH CENTURY POETRY James Sutherland.
* AN ABC OF WITCHCRAFT Doreen Valiente
* TREASURY OF WITCHCRAFT Harry E. Wedeck; Philosophical Library,
1961
* SOUNDINGS IN SATANISM pp 46-54. ISBN 0 264 64627 4
* "Geschichte der Gemeinde Klafeld-Geisweid"
>Incidentally, witches were mostly women, for some reason.
They were the healers, midwifes, yarb doctors of the time. Can't have
mere women folk outdoing the clergy. Wouldn't be the correct thing
you know. Well, they always have done it, probably always will.
>
>This reminds me of Monty Python.
>
><mob> "SHE'S A WITCH!"
>
>:)
>
Remanent snipped.
Fundamentalism means never having to say I'm wrong.
Norman Doering
news:4DC66A7271515C05.A3366D49CABC8345.ED69C1C00FC51E80@library-proxy.
>
>> On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 01:36:18 -0500, "Michael R. Anderson"
>> <mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>> ...In general, religions haven't been very supportive to
>
> I've read some perspectives that say the Christian belief in a
> rational God who created and orderly universe that could be
> understood by "thinking God's thoughts after Him" provided the
> perceptual basis and attitudnal drivers for the development of
> science. See the following:
>
> What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? (1994) D. James Kennedy and
> Jerry Newcombe. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville.
> ISBN: 0-7852-8261-0
western Christianity created science -- completely ignoring the
fact that early Christianity first turned its back on the pagan
science of the Greeks, fell into the Dark Ages, only to rediscover
pagan math and science later. The western Christian nations stole
its system of numerals and many mathematics concepts from the
Islamic countries. The west got much of its chemistry (then
alchemy) from China. And China took somewhat equally from us.
The jigsaw puzzle of facts and theories that make up modern
science is not the product of one religion or ethnic group. Many
groups have contributed to it. It has spread around the world and
belongs to the world.
Also, *IF* the West did have an edge in science, it might turn out
to be because Christianity produces more atheists than any other
religion. The Bible being full of more impossible to believe
absurdities it forced people to look for truth elsewhere. It might
also be because the west has fought more wars and war pushed our
technology and science ahead -- especially during WWII.
But I'd suggest you look around you at little better. The western
countries are not the only technologically advanced countries.
China is a good example, Japan and the Soviet Union too. The
"third world" countries are often as much Christian as they are
any other religion.
The idea that science is western or Christian is incredibly
bigotted and ignorant and arrogant. It is most certainly the case
that that science is not now a western phenomena - China is a
nuclear power and it has space program:
http://www.poac.ac.cn/
Payload Operation and Application Centre
http://www.bao.ac.cn
Beijing Astronomical Observatory
http://www.ruc.edu.cn/
Renmin University of China
Nor has China ever been that far behind in its science or
technology.
I know of nothing but very distorted facts that might lead one to
think that science is a result of a Christian view. Further -- it
looks today like "Christanity" is attacking science again. The
evidence of how Christianity cripples science can be seen in the
books Michael R. Anderson lists:
/snip/
> Consider these:
>
> Darwins Leap of Faith: Exposing the false religion of evolution.
> Eugene, OR. ISBN: 1-56507-657-5
>
> The Collapse of Evolution. 3rd. Ed. (1997) Scott M. Huse.
> BakerBooks: Grand Rapids, MI. ISBN: 0-8010-5774-4
>
> The Philosophical Scientists. (1985) David Foster. Barnes and
> Noble, NY. ISBN 0-88029-624-0
http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/foster0.html
Bad Science, Worse Philosophy:
The Quackery and Logic-Chopping of David Foster's
The Philosophical Scientists
a critique by Richard C. Carrier
/snip some books/
Andrew Lias
Norman Doering <ttdo...@prairienet.org> wrote:
> The western Christian nations stole
>its system of numerals and many mathematics concepts from the
>Islamic countries.
Which, in turn, got most of them (including decimal notation and the
numeral zero) from India. [1]
ObSoapbox: I would say that this and all the other things you mention are
a perfectly good rebuttal to the view that "advanced" cultures should
avoid "contaminating" other cultures. Aside from being utterly
condescending, it ignores the fact that a great many of our so-called
Western advances were the product of cultural "contamination" by other
cultures that were, quite arguably, more sophisticated than our own.
--
Please direct all replies to anrwlias AT hotmail.com | Siste viator
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
http://www.wco.com/~anrwlias
[1] I think "stole" is a bit harsh. It's not like these were state
secrets.
Andrew Lias
>> as its nemesis more or less.
>
>I've read some perspectives that say the Christian belief in a rational
>God who created and orderly universe that could be understood by
>"thinking God's thoughts after Him" provided the perceptual basis and
>attitudnal drivers for the development of science. See the following:
I'm familiar with this view. it's a popular one among transcendental
theologians. Unfortunately, it utterly ignores the fact that pagan
nations preceded Christendom in developing the tools of science and that
it took the West quite a long time to rediscover them, largely by
interaction with non-Christian nations. It also ignores the fact that
science has advanced in inverse correlation to the degree of influence
that theological authorities have been able to exercise control over the
sciences to say nothing of the verifiable fact that scientists, as a
whole, are far more likely to be atheists than the general population.
NMS
Walksalone wrote in message <35dda55...@news.ala.net>...
>On or about Fri, 21 Aug 1998 11:53:19 GMT clis...@post4.tele.dk
>(Claus Lisberg) Having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of
>life & uttered the following:
>
>><mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>I think the whole witch burning phenomenon is focused on the "witch"
>>>part, not the "gender" issue. Besides, last time I check there haven't
>>>been any witch burnings for several hundred years. You make it sound
>>>like, just last week, Jerry Falwell was leading and angry mob to burn
>>>witches at the stake just because they are women.
>
>Depends on how you define several, I thinned the list that Therion
>Ware left behind a couple of months ago to the 1900's. Actual
>reasonable suspicions of xian murders of witches is aprx. 250,000.
This also fails to take into account the recent spate of "child-care"
persecutions, based on "recovered memories" and accusations of actual
satanic rituals.
The words "witch" are never used of course. But that doesn't mean that
people haven't been sent to jail, had their lives destroyed or, in at least
one case, murdered in cold blood (after being acquitted) for "crimes" that
almost certainly never took place, based upon evidence that was as
manufactured and self-deluded as any ever used to condemn a witch in the
middle ages.
There's a reason why such monstrosities of irrational human behavior are
called "witch hunts."
NMS
Al Klein
<tw...@eac.geocities.com> (Therion T. Ware) wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 01:36:18 -0500, "Michael R. Anderson" spake unto
>the multitude, saying in
><1B8985C3455BB225.3EAE7577...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
>>I think the whole witch burning phenomenon is focused on the "witch"
>>part, not the "gender" issue. Besides, last time I check there haven't
>>been any witch burnings for several hundred years.
>That should read: "there haven't been any witch burnings in the United
>States, for several years".
>Other than that, killing witches is still commonplace in Nigeria and
>elsewhere in Africa.
Less than a year ago, my late wife was accused, by her hospital room
mate, of being a witch. The woman made it very clear that she meant
the "do not suffer to live" kind. She accused my wife of placing lit
candles all around her - the room mate's - bed one night and chanting
evil incantations. See what Christianity can do?
--
Al - aklein at villagenet dot com
Al Klein
<mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>Claus Lisberg wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 01:36:18 -0500, "Michael R. Anderson"
>> <mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> >If I recall correctly, the original post made reference to intolerance
>> >towards homosexuality being somehow related to a slow down in
>> >technolocial progress. That's the absurdity I was pointing out.
>> One could point to at least one scenario where this would be true. In
>> general, religions haven't been very supportive to science, seeing it
>> as its nemesis more or less.
>I've read some perspectives that say the Christian belief in a rational
>God who created and orderly universe that could be understood by
>"thinking God's thoughts after Him" provided the perceptual basis and
>attitudnal drivers for the development of science. See the following:
>What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? (1994) D. James Kennedy and Jerry
>Newcombe. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville. ISBN: 0-7852-8261-0
Science was alive and well long before Jesus was born.
>Check out this book:
>To Hell and Back: Life after death - startling new evidence. (1993)
>Maurice S. Rawlings, M.D. Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, TN. ISBN
>0-8407-6758-7 [This book was written by a heart surgeon who was
>frequently exposed to dying people and people with near-death
>experiences. He wrote this book because many people had negative
>experiences, not the 'see the pretty light kind of thing'. It includes
>descriptions of hell by people who got brief views of it.]
He should stick to his specialty. Talk to a neurologist. We don't do
our thinking with our hearts.
NDEs are due to a sudden drop in cephalic perfusion - this is as
common knowledge as is the fact that microorganisms cause disease. an
NDE can be induced in a person who is not dying. Of course, doing so
is highly illegal, but it can and has been done.
Walksalone
<nmstev...@email.msn.com> Having stopped their contemplations on
the mystery of life & uttered the following:
>
>Walksalone wrote in message <35dda55...@news.ala.net>...
>>On or about Fri, 21 Aug 1998 11:53:19 GMT clis...@post4.tele.dk
>>(Claus Lisberg) Having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of
>>life & uttered the following:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 01:36:18 -0500, "Michael R. Anderson"
>>><mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>I think the whole witch burning phenomenon is focused on the "witch"
>>>>part, not the "gender" issue. Besides, last time I check there haven't
>>>>been any witch burnings for several hundred years. You make it sound
>>>>like, just last week, Jerry Falwell was leading and angry mob to burn
>>>>witches at the stake just because they are women.
>>
>>Depends on how you define several, I thinned the list that Therion
>>Ware left behind a couple of months ago to the 1900's. Actual
>>reasonable suspicions of xian murders of witches is aprx. 250,000.
>
>
>This also fails to take into account the recent spate of "child-care"
>persecutions, based on "recovered memories" and accusations of actual
>satanic rituals.
>
>The words "witch" are never used of course. But that doesn't mean that
>people haven't been sent to jail, had their lives destroyed or, in at least
>one case, murdered in cold blood (after being acquitted) for "crimes" that
>almost certainly never took place, based upon evidence that was as
>manufactured and self-deluded as any ever used to condemn a witch in the
>middle ages.
You are preaching to the choir in this group. I believe the regular
members of this group are well aware that the witch hunts won't stop
until the authors of same are stopped.
take care.
>There's a reason why such monstrosities of irrational human behavior are
>called "witch hunts."
>
>NMS
>
A society without religion is like a crazed psychopath
without a loaded .45
maff91
wrote:
[snip]
>David Greene was saying the same thing in another post; that
>western Christianity created science -- completely ignoring the
>fact that early Christianity first turned its back on the pagan
>science of the Greeks, fell into the Dark Ages, only to rediscover
>pagan math and science later. The western Christian nations stole
>its system of numerals and many mathematics concepts from the
>Islamic countries. The west got much of its chemistry (then
Try http://www.erols.com/zenithco/
>alchemy) from China. And China took somewhat equally from us.
"Science and Civilization in China" by Joseph Needham, et al (Several
volumes)
>
>The jigsaw puzzle of facts and theories that make up modern
>science is not the product of one religion or ethnic group. Many
>groups have contributed to it. It has spread around the world and
>belongs to the world.
>
>Also, *IF* the West did have an edge in science, it might turn out
"Before European Hegemony : The World System A.D. 1250-1350" by Janet
L. Abu-Lughod
"Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" by Jared
Diamond
>to be because Christianity produces more atheists than any other
>religion. The Bible being full of more impossible to believe
>absurdities it forced people to look for truth elsewhere. It might
>also be because the west has fought more wars and war pushed our
>technology and science ahead -- especially during WWII.
>
[snip]
Alex
>But I'd suggest you look around you at little better. The western
>countries are not the only technologically advanced countries.
>China is a good example, Japan and the Soviet Union too. The
>"third world" countries are often as much Christian as they are
>any other religion.
>
>The idea that science is western or Christian is incredibly
>bigotted and ignorant and arrogant. It is most certainly the case
>that that science is not now a western phenomena - China is a
>nuclear power and it has space program:
I read recently that the fact that we are more advanced (concerning
science and technology) compared to other countries who are not
Christian is because Christianity is monotheistic. The reason some
think that might be the reason is because monotheists usually have a
God that creates everything and then dabbles a little every now and
then (miracles and such) so there can be assumed to be a
supernaturally created natural laws. While polytheistic religions
often have a god for every conceivable natural force, which would not
encourage people to go out and find out natural laws because they
already "know" what causes them (god x for rain and god y for snow and
god....)
Norman Doering
news:01bdcae5$d98908c0$LocalHost@xx6942
2Sen Jen's kin wrote:
/snip/
> Rather, heat allows the crossing of reaction energy barriers. We
> are not true heat engines, these require temperature gradients,
> were it so we would drop dead in saunas.
Hmmm... you may have a better model of how heat is working at the
atomic level.... However I didn't have in mind "true heat
engines," of the kind we're most familiar with and the temperature
gradients thing... not quite. I was thinking more like sailing and
tacking through vibrating molecules, using the energy of their
vibrations and the body needing heat to carry out chemical
reactions.
One aspect, I think, of your "crossing of reaction energy
barriers" is that chemical bonds don't form at liquid hydrogen
temperatures (I haven't had enough time to check this out - but I
recall the guys at IBM tried putting a couple atoms that should
have bonded close to each other and nothing happened.) You may
be able to place your atoms with precision, but you can't make
nanomachines. The compromise seems to placing larger molecules at
somewhat higher temperatures where bonds will form.
Could you further define a "reaction energy barrier" ?? Is this
coming from quantum mechanics? I have vague recollections as to
the use of lasers to charge up atoms with photons to get them
across the energy barrier.
>> Cells that do some very complex tasks a higher
>> than room temperature.
>
> [I have heard of single celled organisms that operate well at
I've heard of multi-cellular organisms living near volcanic ocean
vents -- very hot, high pressure, no sunlight. Life gets up there
into some high temperatures but it doesn't operate well below
freezing. I suspect that many of the chemical reactions you want
won't happen there in extreme cold.
> They operate at cooler temps but best at 500 and can go higher.
> I have no further info on them and would welcome some.]
Let's take this up to news:sci.nanotech
I'll post this there as -- "Nanotechnology and Heat" and get some
better input. It doesn't belong on alt.atheism.
/snip/
> Bear in mind our own blood creates its own "nanites" cells that
> do not have to carry big strings of DNA around in them, such as
> red corpusles and platelets. Evolution has not opted to make
> these operate on a single molocule scale although it should be
> able to. I take this as evidence that single molocule bio-machines
> have got things stacked against them, but of course it is
> not proof.
I've got an old nanotech proof that you're wrong: The ribosome.
It's not a corpusle or platelet but its an example of an even more
nanite like entity; an assembler. Is a ribosome not a single
molecule? Doesn't that qualify as a single molecule bio-machine? A
ribosome works with a limited set of molecules and a code scheme
but it doesn't carry it's own program or do much travelling.
Also, I don't take evolution as the final say in what can be done
with mRNA/DNA codes and protiens. There is a lot about life that
is like a Rube Goldberg machine. If you go beyond what can be made
with protiens I've read of nanotech designs for diamondiod
nanodevice that should work over a hundred fold better than
hemoglobin molecules at carrying oxygen... I think it was either
Ralph Merkle's page or that new nanomedicine area over at the
Foresight site.
/snip/
> Heat has to go someplace... I think there's going to be big
> problems creating heat engines in the relativly uniform
> temperature of a nanite's environment.
Uniformity of heat is a problem, yes - the machine is going to
be vibrating at the same rate as the molecules that bump into it.
I've done NO calculations on these idea -- it's just the result of
an imaginative image in my mind where I see lots of semi-flexible,
semi-rigid molecules vibrating and flying around and violently
colliding with each other. It's a very Newtonian picture where
the heat energy just comes from nowhere and makes all this motion
happen. In that picture it looks like heat could be free energy...
and there's probably a lot wrong with how my little mental model
works.
>> Let the heat move them. Let molecular collisions press a plate
>> that winds a spring...
>
> Nope. This is not how heat works.
Maybe. I'll have to do more research.
> Endothermic reactions store entropy at the expense of molecular
> order.
Ah, but when you're talking about "molecular order" you're talking
about a large statistical kind of order, one requiring lots of
molecules -- aren't you? Try to imagine the case of a single
molecule.
Unless I'm mistaken, when you talk of "molecular order" you are
refering to "entropy" and "the second law of thermodynamics." I
believe that has to do with large statistical herds of molecules.
How applicable is it to one solidly built molecule? A good solidly
built molecule, like a diamondiod one, seems like it should have a
very low entropy as a single molecule. There wouldn't be too many
states it could be in.
Have you heard of reversible computing? (I need to do some
research here to fill out the connection - I'll pick this up
later.)
> The nanites would be committing suicide or destroying what
> they arettemping to bring order to.
>
> Heard of Maxwell's demon ?
Yes, I have -- and that does seem to be a flaw in how I picture
heat... in my model a nanotech type Maxwell's demon is possible. I
don't know how to adjust my model to make it impossible. I'm not
yet sure I have to.... Still, that Second Law of Thermodynamics is
so well established that it is wisely regarded as a waste of time
to toy with ideas that suggest its violation.
>> You're not going to be using some kind of universal assembler
>> inside your body. You don't want to put self-replicators into
>> your body. What you want in your body are "super-drugs" - part
>> drug and part nanomachine.
>
> This is a short-cut to leukaemia.
But leukaemia is a cancer, out of control replication of the
body's own cells brought on by damage done to the DNA. What's the
connection? You assume it must damage the DNA?
> The semi-nanite's advantage of being able to process things in
> new ways is paid for by having to be substantially different on
> the inside from the stuff of the host organism. Nanites and semi-
> nanites will occasionally fail and breakup, due to toxins or
> even rogue alpha particles smashing up their structure. When
> this occurs the nanite part could disintegrate in a miriad of
> ways and then be attacked by the white blood cells and
> antibodies.
And the white blood cells and antibodies will get rid of them.
Those broken nanites are not reproducing, and if they don't do
anything to cause damage to the DNA I don't see how they could
cause cancer.
> Any coating used to disguise the nanite part will then be
> identified as foreign due to any of the nanite's interior
> remaining connected to it. If the coating replicated part of
> the blood the blood will attack itself.
Hmmm... Is that leukemia? The body attacking itself even without
uncontrolled cancer growth? Has the body ever been tricked into
attacking itself? I think so.
Why would a super-drug need a protien coat? Normal drugs don't
need one. I don't think they get attacked by the immune system.
(Or do they?) When, and when doesn't, a foriegn substance get
attacked by the immune system? Why a protien coat that looks like
the bodies own if things like titanium and other materials are
safe for use in the body -- they get away without protien coats.
>> Drugs with the specificity of an anti-body delivering mRNA
>> sequences to specific cell types that turn over your
>> construction project to the cells own nanoassemblers:
>> the ribosomes. The mRNA is not self-replicated like DNA, so you
>> can get precise amounts of whatever you want constructed. Of
>> course you'll be limited to the construction materials of
>> biology: amino-acids and protiens...
>
> These elements of the body are already doing the best they can.
> Evolution cannot produce a superman, the body can only be improved
> in small increments.
Evolution may not be able to produce a superman -- but genetic
engineering might. Evolution, working via natural selection,
builds on small incremental successes with each increment needing
some kind of survival advantage -- or at least no killer
disadvantage because those mutations won't survive the selection
process. This kind of incremental building causes evolution
to produce overly complex Rube Goldberg like solutions.
I simply don't assume evolution has come up with the solutions
we humans would like.
> To make a big change the whole immune system would need to be
> overhauled, something evolution cannot do for it lacks appropriate
> tools the given proteins [that's _ei_ :) ] cannot be fitted
> together in super-duper ways, evolution has in all likelyhood
> tried them only to find something else had it for lunch.
You and I see evolution in different ways. You believe "evolution
is smarter than we are." I don't believe evolution has tried
everything and she has certainly produced some less than efficient
designs -- such as our eyes where we have a blind spot because
the optic nerve pokes through the back interior of the eye rather
than coming around the back like an engineer would do it. (Some
biologist made a list of inefficient designs in the human body
to counter a creationist argument... it was extensive but I can't
remeber them).
> Becoming a superman would be nice and nanites may offer a way
> but we may find there's not much of the original human left
> afterwards.
When full nanotech is available -- probably so. We'll probably
wind up with diamondiod exoskeletons, fiber optic neural nets,
solar cell skin and our illusory identities deconstructed to form
something like the Borg collective. In the mean time we have to
find ways to work with the technology available to us now. What's
available now is genetic engineering, gene sequencing machines and
very limited forms of nanomanipulation. I suspect it might be
enough for extended our lives and curing many of our major health
problems.
I'm thinking a little more short term. Not coming back from
cryogenic storage, but rather making a living body better
before it dies.
>> but that's all it will take for an indefinite life span of
>> perfect health... that and the knowledge of what the hell
>> you're going to need to construct... we don't have that part
>> yet. We just know the flexibility is there.
>
> Maybe. Until we have working nanites we can't be sure
> thermodynamics won't throw a spanner in the works.
Are we talking entropy here? Do you think life is already fighting
the best possible battle against entropy?
/snip/
>> > Heat is atomic vibration, putting atoms where you want them at
>> > room temp. would be like filling in a crossword that's on a
>> > washing machine in spin cycle while you are operating a
>> > jack-hammer.
>>
>> You're thinking of modern devices like the AFM (Atomic Force
>> Microscope) or the STM (Scanning Tunneling Microscope). The STM
>> was first operated only when cooled by liquid hydrogen... but
>> things are changing. The temperatures are getting higher.
>
> Yes that's what I was thinking of :^) Temperatures are getting
> higher but they can't be raised indefinitely. Look at the gold
> used in the write-by-atom experiments, an extremely ductile
> metal but it slill has to be super-cooled to be used. Heat it up
> and the deposited atoms fly off or are absorbed like drops of
> water on water, gold just isn't ductile enough to support atomic
> writing at normal temps., hence puts a limit on how high the
> temperature can be raised.
They wouldn't be flying apart if they were chemically bonded to
the surface -- no more than our molecules and cells fly apart
(which does happen once in awhile I suppose and is something I
failed to consider). Problem being they're not forming bonds
at those liquid hydrogen temperatures. There seems, from my
limited knowledge, a trade off between placement precision and
forming chemical bonds.
/snip/
>> Forget direct control. We're necessarily dealing with trillions
>> upon trillions of atoms to do anything worthwhile inside a body.
>> Massive uncontrolled repitition is needed to be effective. The
>> only thing direct control -- as if done by a man operating an STM
>> -- might be used for is to make the first self-replicating
>> assemblers and to gather information. (Or, an AFM type robotic
>> factory might produce computer chips less than the size of a
>> cell... but nothing medical will rely on that kind of control at
>> the cellular level... at least not for a long time)
>
> The repair of severe damage will require it. Damaged cells, such as
> frozen brain cells, will not present a uniform target for nanites.
Yes. I agree -- and that's one of the reasons I haven't made the
cryonics gamble yet -- that seems so horribly far off I have a
hard time imagining a cryonics org staying business that long.
Brain repair is necessarily an extremely sophisticated form of
nanotech -- even more difficult than designing and building
a Drexler style universal assembler. These things will have to do
more than follow a program over and over -- they'll have to figure
out a jigsaw puzzle and be able to move about precisely in a
relatively large area.
> Individual identification and handling will be required to
> retain the information within them.
Yes. And for trillions of brain cells.
/snip/
> Ever had to use carbon remover ?
Ah, no, I haven't -- why do you ask? Did you want to suggest a
mere chemical could break carbon bonds... ?
/snip/
> I was thinking of the rebuilding of living cells for immortality.
Why do the cells need to be rebuilt? I don't understand? I can see
a use for correcting DNA damage in the case of cancer, but shit,
just scrap the bad cells with the cancer codes and let the healthy
cells replicate on their own, or with a little encouragement...
though you may have to clone some healthy cells and surgically
insert them.
Or, are you thinking of some sort of cyborg cell, the cell itself
rebuilt for imortality? Or, do you want to rebuild existing
freezer damaged cells as they were? I'm not sure of your context
here -- I hadn't read the previous posts.
"Immortality" and cancer cures seem a job better suited to bio-
tech and genetic engineering than to nanotech. Rebuilding the
cells as they were... unless your talking cryodamage... that seems
like killing a mouse with an elephant gun. The body's solution now
is to discard old cells and let cellular division birth new
copies. The reason that stops happening is because our genetic
clocks run out. Keep changing that clock back and you're life span
will be indefinite -- but at the cost of a higher risk of cancer?
/snip/
>>> DNA has the information in it to build a creature from scratch
>>> but that's all.
Not quite. It also has the information to keep you running and to
do limited self repair in the cases of minor damage.
>>> It dosn't carry the information necessary to
>>> modify an adult creature cell by cell,...
>>
>> It could though. That is, in some ways, what genetic therapies
>> are about. You give a diabetic the genes he didn't inherit for
>> the purpose of making insulin. There's no reason we couldn't
>> make new organs grow in people by modifying their genes -- our
>> problem is we're total pikers when it comes to understanding the
>> programming language of genetics. Right now we're just correcting
>> bad grammar and copying natures books via cloning - someday will
>> be writing our own books.
>
> You propose, reasonable, secondary growths
> (conceptions?/births?) that result in organs but this is not cell
> by cell convertion.
Yes. Salamaders can regenerate limbs. New births/conceptions, not
of an independent living being but of an organ. The cells are not
converted cell by cell, the implanted cells -- or just mRNA or DNA
instructions into cells -- divide and replicate the new cell
types. A really elaborate growth might require implanting
genetically programmed egg cells where you want the new organ.
> I'm lacking in understanding of gene therapy
> but does it require new cells ...
I'm sorry, I find the question of obscure meaning. What do you
mean by "new cells." I think the answer is "sort of, but not
always." I think gene therapy might work by just injecting new
code sequences into a bunch of existing cells so they'll make
insulin or such. What are you thinking of by "new cells" ?? I'm
not sure injecting genetically engineered DNA sequences can be
called a new cell -- but when the cell divides it will use it's
new program and become a different cell. I'm not sure it is a good
idea yet or that you'd get them to grow into new organs. However,
the cells could be removed from you body and worked on first, then
put back in. That would be like "new cells."
> ... containing the modification to grow ?
Yes. That could do it I think.
>> That has more to do with how natural selection operates
>> rather than what is possible with genetics. Bacteria in fact do
>> somemerging tricks. Remember, evolution, in part, works via
>> natural selection and natural selection works by killing off
>> the random generations that don't work. Evolution by macroscopic
>> mergingdoesn't incorporate for selection via death.
>> The ones that don't manage to merge would die.
>
> The mark I was aiming for is that the merging of more than one
> cell per organism needs to be coordinated, matching like function
> with like, no mixing bone cells with skin. Such information on the
> physical position of the orgaisms' components is lacking in DNA ...
Not quite. We start from a single egg cell, merged with a single
sperm cell both containing DNA code that could make another human
being (though the female can't make a male). It splits and
diversifies, the cells getting more specialized with each
division. As the fetus grows in the womb the separate locations of
the heart, lungs, liver, fractal network of viens, etc. all get
put into their proper places. All the code to do that in a single
cell. It suggests astonishing potential for genetic engineering.
> which may not have the capacity to store information of that
> magnitude or type.
It obviously does have that capacity though. It might be given
more capacity in the future.
> We might deduce what goes where from DNA, but
> that's us and our tools.
Obviously biological life and DNA at the egg cell stage has enough
information to create interlaced fractal patterns of blood vessels
and organs in generally proper locations. This involves stuff I
know little about -- morphogenetic fields and stuff like that --
but still all coded by DNA and run by the normal functioning of
those cells in a rather warm and chaotic environment.
Of course -- it's a bit more than just DNA here too. A womb is
needed... I don't think they've grown a mammal in a vat yet.
/snip/
>> ... DNA is an inefficient use of information. This world wide
>> web will be a better model for nanites.
>
> IMO you need to say more on this.
Okay...
During the conception stage the DNA gets replicated as exact
copies in each new cell, even as those cells are differentiating,
becoming specialized bone cells, skin cells, liver cells -- cells
that are no longer going to use all their instructions, but yet
they keep making redundant copies of information they no longer
need.
If DNA were slightly more efficient then after the first bone cell
had established itself its next division wouldn't repeat the whole
DNA sequence and pass it on -- it would only pass on what a bone
cell needed to be a bonce cell; take a bone cell at that stage it
would only code for making another skeleton, not a whole human.
Getting more efficient, the near final product of conception the
bone cell wouldn't even pass on genetic info for making an entire
skeleton, but only for carrying out bone cell functions.
If DNA worked that way we'd probably be a little more than pound
lighter and dividing cells would divide a little faster and
smaller not having to replicate a full DNA sequence.
On this world wide web we have a network of computers, not all the
computers have the same information as happens with cells. There
are some redundant information stores, similar operating systems,
often used general purpose programs, but I don't have the
instructions for creating this network on my machine, just
information on how to access and use it. If cells could use
information this way, perhaps passing it through microtubles or
such, they could store far more information (astronomical amounts
of information) and use more of it. Cells during differentiation
learn to turn off chromosomes.
/snip/
Mind you this is all speculation, not always as well informed as
it should be if we really wanted to go out and try it. Mostly I'm
just trying to find the most practical realm in which ideas might
be hatched.
> 2Sen
> (waits for the silvery nanite plague to eat us all)
Silver goo? Or Terminator 2?
Michael R. Anderson
should be able to walk down the street without getting attacked for his
beliefs.
At the same time, I find it curious that such a degree of compassion
should be expressed in the atheist community for "witches" while such
intense contempt is simultaneously expressed for the "fundies". Do not
both witches and fundies believe in the supernatural that atheists
reject?
Also, I suggest that before you get too simpathetic with protecting the
occult, you might want to read the following book:
"The Ultimate Evil." by Maurry Terry (spell?).
This book is about the "Son of Sam" killings in NY back in the 70's.
According to the author, the Son of Sam murderer did not act alone and
was really part of a nation wide devil worshipping cult that had the
goal of killing 100 normal people that year to appease Satan. The thesis
of this book was reaffirmed on an episode of A&E's Investigative Reports
with Bill Kurtis about 6 months ago.
God bless you,
MRA.
Walksalone wrote:
>
> On or about Fri, 21 Aug 1998 11:53:19 GMT clis...@post4.tele.dk
> (Claus Lisberg) Having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of
> life & uttered the following:
>
> >On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 01:36:18 -0500, "Michael R. Anderson"
> ><mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>I think the whole witch burning phenomenon is focused on the "witch"
> >>part, not the "gender" issue. Besides, last time I check there haven't
> >>been any witch burnings for several hundred years. You make it sound
> >>like, just last week, Jerry Falwell was leading and angry mob to burn
> >>witches at the stake just because they are women.
>
> Depends on how you define several, I thinned the list that Therion
> Ware left behind a couple of months ago to the 1900's. Actual
> reasonable suspicions of xian murders of witches is aprx. 250,000.
Michael R. Anderson
> ><mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>God bless you,
> >>MRA.
> >
> >Michael:
> >
> >Could you please drop that sig when posting in alt.atheism? It is the
> >equivalent of having an atheist chanting "Satan is Greatest!" in
> >church.
> >
> >Well, not really. But it's a bit irritating.
>
> What does MRA stand for then?
Those are my initials.
God bless you,
MRA.
ath...@home.com
<mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>I agree that people should not be burned at the stake. I believe a man
>should be able to walk down the street without getting attacked for his
>beliefs.
>
>At the same time, I find it curious that such a degree of compassion
>should be expressed in the atheist community for "witches" while such
>intense contempt is simultaneously expressed for the "fundies". Do not
>both witches and fundies believe in the supernatural that atheists
>reject?
I personally do not believe in harming people for their beliefs or for
a lack of belief. Unfortunatly there are a large number of Christians
who would burn us at the stake in a moment if they could. I am also
unaware of attempts by people claiming to be witches trying to take
over government (At least in America) and forcing us to bend to their
will. That in my opinion makes Christians a bigger threat to freedom
than witches. I do not see any difference in radical Christians and
radical Muslims and most of us are very familiar with Islamic
theocracy..
>Also, I suggest that before you get too simpathetic with protecting the
>occult, you might want to read the following book:
I don't think many of us (Atheists) are very sympathetic toward any
superstition.
> "The Ultimate Evil." by Maurry Terry (spell?).
You might try The Faith Healers by James Randi. (Prometheus Books) A
very well researched book that explains some of the dangers of
belief in the supernatural. You might find it interesting.
>
>God bless you,
>MRA.
Thank you :)
>Walksalone wrote:
>>
>> On or about Fri, 21 Aug 1998 11:53:19 GMT clis...@post4.tele.dk
>> (Claus Lisberg) Having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of
>> life & uttered the following:
>>
>> >On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 01:36:18 -0500, "Michael R. Anderson"
>> ><mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
Puck Greenman
>In article <35dc88aa...@news.supernews.com>,
> "Therion Ware" <tw...@eac.geocities.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 01:36:18 -0500, "Michael R. Anderson" spake unto
>> the multitude, saying in
>> <1B8985C3455BB225.3EAE7577...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
>>
>
>At the moment I'm researching something my SO read somewhere (we're trying
>to figure out where), that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is a
>mis-translation. Anyone have any ideas where this information might be?
I do not recall where I got it from, but I was told, or
something, that the word was "poisoner" not witch.
#################################################
# #
# The spelling, like any opinion stated here #
# #
# is purely my own. #
# #
# Puck #162 #
# #
# ICQ 15096558 #
# #
#################################################
.
ath...@home.com
>On Sat, 22 Aug 1998 00:58:14 -0500, "Michael R. Anderson"
><mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>>I agree that people should not be burned at the stake. I believe a man
>>should be able to walk down the street without getting attacked for his
>>beliefs.
>>
>>At the same time, I find it curious that such a degree of compassion
>>should be expressed in the atheist community for "witches" while such
>>intense contempt is simultaneously expressed for the "fundies". Do not
>>both witches and fundies believe in the supernatural that atheists
>>reject?
>
>I personally do not believe in harming people for their beliefs or for
>a lack of belief. Unfortunatly there are a large number of Christians
>who would burn us at the stake in a moment if they could. I am also
>unaware of attempts by people claiming to be witches trying to take
>over government (At least in America) and forcing us to bend to their
>will. That in my opinion makes Christians a bigger threat to freedom
>than witches. I do not see any difference in radical Christians and
>radical Muslims and most of us are very familiar with Islamic
>theocracy..
>
Just thought I would add this.
More at:
http://www.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/chrsquot.htm
Caution Christians: There are some things on the above site that you
may find offensive.
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the
aid of spiritual things, but -- more frequently than not -- struggles
against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates
from God." (Martin Luther)
"There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than
a richly endowed and adroit reason...Reason must be deluded, blinded,
and destroyed." (Martin Luther)
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his
reason." (Martin Luther)
"There should be absolutely no 'Separation of Church and State' in
America." (David
Barton, president of Wallbuilders and a close ally of the
Christian Coalition, 1994
Anti-Defamation League Report)
"America should function as a Christian nation." (Randall Terry)
"[We seek to] replace the heresy of democracy with Biblical law."
(R. J. Rushdoony)
"I am bound by the laws of the United States and all 50 states...I am
not bound by any case or any court to which I myself am not a
party...I don't think the Congress of the United States is subserviant
to the courts...They can ignore a Supreme Court ruling if they so
choose." (Pat Robertson, interview with The Washington Post editorial
board,
June 27,1986)
In his address to the Christian Coalition's annual convention in
Washington in September 1994, Pat Robertson said that the organization
was now "where God intended...one of the most powerful forces in
American history." (The Washington
Post, Sept. 17, 1994)
"The world will not know how to live or which direction to go without
the Church's Biblical influence on its theories, laws, actions, and
institutions." (Randall Terry)
"What Christians have got to do is take back this country, one
precinct at a time, one neighborhood at a time and one state at a
time...." (RalphReed, May 1, 1990,
Religious News Service)
"We don't have to worry about convincing a majority of Americans to
agree with us...Most of them are staying home and watching 'Falcon
Crest.'"(Guy Rodgers, then-national field coordinator for the
Christian Coalition, The Religious Right: The
Assault of Tolerance & Pluralism in America, produced by the
Anti-Defamation
League (ADL))
Alex
Michael R. Anderson wrote in message ...
>I agree that people should not be burned at the stake. I believe a
man
>should be able to walk down the street without getting attacked for
his
>beliefs.
>
>At the same time, I find it curious that such a degree of compassion
>should be expressed in the atheist community for "witches" while such
>intense contempt is simultaneously expressed for the "fundies". Do
not
>both witches and fundies believe in the supernatural that atheists
>reject?
>
Yeah but last I heard, witches weren't witnessing and trying to get
laws passed that would force the rest of us to conform to their
morality system.
>Also, I suggest that before you get too simpathetic with protecting
the
>occult, you might want to read the following book:
>
> "The Ultimate Evil." by Maurry Terry (spell?).
>
I can't believe people still believe in "The Big Satanic Conspiracy".
Maybe you should read
"Satanic Panic" by Jeffrey S. Victor
In this book Victor actually happened to be within (or almost within)
a satanic panic while it was occuring and was able to document and
study as it happened! Silly things like a group of kids arrested for
being in the woods and wearing strange clothing and possessing
"satanic" paraphenalia (never mind that being a satanist, if you
happen to be one, is not illegal) turned out to be a group of students
practicing for their Shakespearian play.
Alex
Michael R. Anderson wrote in message
ews.net>...
>> ><mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >>God bless you,
>> >>MRA.
>> >
>> >Michael:
>> >
>> >Could you please drop that sig when posting in alt.atheism? It is
the
>> >equivalent of having an atheist chanting "Satan is Greatest!" in
>> >church.
>> >
>> >Well, not really. But it's a bit irritating.
>>
>> What does MRA stand for then?
>
>Those are my initials.
>
>God bless you,
>MRA.
So what does he *think* they stand for? He sounded like you were one
of the people that nailed Jesus to the cross.
Ichimusai
Anderson" <mr...@airmail.net> wrote this:
> I truely hope that I and every single atheist out there avoids the
> cataclysm of going there.
I have read a couple of the books you recommend, and I have to say
that I am sorry, but all those arguments were refuted a long time ago
- and even more of the creationists arguments i build on gross
misunderstandings of the sciences or even strawmen.
One of the most common misunnderstandings is that somehow the second
law of thermodynamics would not allow order to form by natural
systems. Anyone making that statement (and it is made by more then one
of the authors you quote if I am not mistaken) has not got any
understanding of thermodynamics.
--
Ichimusai ICQ UIN# 1645566
http://www.algonet.se/~krikkit/
2Sen Jen's kin
> > Rather, heat allows the crossing of reaction energy barriers. We
> > are not true heat engines, these require temperature gradients,
> > were it so we would drop dead in saunas.
>
> Hmmm... you may have a better model of how heat is working at the
> atomic level.... However I didn't have in mind "true heat
> engines," of the kind we're most familiar with and the temperature
> gradients thing... not quite. I was thinking more like sailing and
> tacking through vibrating molecules, using the energy of their
> vibrations and the body needing heat to carry out chemical
> reactions.
This is Maxwell's demon, in this case guiding the "ship" into the favourable
collisions. This can't happen, the demon needs energy that will be expended
as yet more heat – read up on the demon.
> One aspect, I think, of your "crossing of reaction energy
> barriers" is that chemical bonds don't form at liquid hydrogen
> temperatures (I haven't had enough time to check this out - but I
> recall the guys at IBM tried putting a couple atoms that should
> have bonded close to each other and nothing happened.) You may
> be able to place your atoms with precision, but you can't make
> nanomachines. The compromise seems to placing larger molecules at
> somewhat higher temperatures where bonds will form.
>
> Could you further define a "reaction energy barrier" ?? Is this
> coming from quantum mechanics? I have vague recollections as to
> the use of lasers to charge up atoms with photons to get them
> across the energy barrier.
Not QM, chemistry. Throw one molecule at another and they'll bounce off
unless there is enough force, molecular kinetic energy, to overcome
electostatic repulsion of the electron clouds. To light a fire you must achieve
a certain temperature first, though sometimes that temp. is already present.
> >> Cells that do some very complex tasks a higher
> >> than room temperature.
> >
> > [I have heard of single celled organisms that operate well at
> > 5000C and exist deep underground.
>
> I've heard of multi-cellular organisms living near volcanic ocean
> vents -- very hot, high pressure, no sunlight. Life gets up there
> into some high temperatures but it doesn't operate well below
> freezing. I suspect that many of the chemical reactions you want
> won't happen there in extreme cold.
>
> > They operate at cooler temps but best at 500 and can go higher.
> > I have no further info on them and would welcome some.]
>
> Wish I could help -- but we'll get input from others here.
> Let's take this up to news:sci.nanotech
I'll keep an eye out.
> I'll post this there as -- "Nanotechnology and Heat" and get some
> better input. It doesn't belong on alt.atheism.
>
> /snip/
>
> > Bear in mind our own blood creates its own "nanites" cells that
> > do not have to carry big strings of DNA around in them, such as
> > red corpusles and platelets. Evolution has not opted to make
> > these operate on a single molocule scale although it should be
> > able to. I take this as evidence that single molocule bio-machines
> > have got things stacked against them, but of course it is
> > not proof.
>
> I've got an old nanotech proof that you're wrong: The ribosome.
>
> It's not a corpusle or platelet but its an example of an even more
> nanite like entity; an assembler. Is a ribosome not a single
> molecule? Doesn't that qualify as a single molecule bio-machine? A
> ribosome works with a limited set of molecules and a code scheme
> but it doesn't carry it's own program or do much travelling.
The point I was making is that they require a special environment – a cell
and all that goes with it. DNA is a single molecule too, yes ?
> Also, I don't take evolution as the final say in what can be done
> with mRNA/DNA codes and protiens. There is a lot about life that
> is like a Rube Goldberg machine. If you go beyond what can be made
> with protiens I've read of nanotech designs for diamondiod
> nanodevice that should work over a hundred fold better than
> hemoglobin molecules at carrying oxygen... I think it was either
> Ralph Merkle's page or that new nanomedicine area over at the
> Foresight site.
Evolution tends to lead to dead ends in large complex forms, only going so
far then stopping. It has had a long time to try basic forms probably
encountering many that would look good on paper but don't do so well in a
varied environment.
> /snip/
> > Heat has to go someplace... I think there's going to be big
> > problems creating heat engines in the relativly uniform
> > temperature of a nanite's environment.
>
> Uniformity of heat is a problem, yes - the machine is going to
> be vibrating at the same rate as the molecules that bump into it.
Nope. Difference in mass of nanite and target will differentiate the rates
of vibration and the vibration is not uniform, if it were you'd have ultrasound.
Look at air: average speed of the molecules=speed of sound but that's
average only, they can momentarily drop to zero or go faster.
> I've done NO calculations on these idea -- it's just the result of
> an imaginative image in my mind where I see lots of semi-flexible,
> semi-rigid molecules vibrating and flying around and violently
> colliding with each other. It's a very Newtonian picture where
> the heat energy just comes from nowhere and makes all this motion
> happen. In that picture it looks like heat could be free energy...
> and there's probably a lot wrong with how my little mental model
> works.
HUP seems to come down heavy on it.
> >> Let the heat move them. Let molecular collisions press a plate
> >> that winds a spring...
> >
> > Nope. This is not how heat works.
>
> Maybe. I'll have to do more research.
>
> > Endothermic reactions store entropy at the expense of molecular
> > order.
>
> Ah, but when you're talking about "molecular order" you're talking
> about a large statistical kind of order, one requiring lots of
> molecules -- aren't you? Try to imagine the case of a single
> molecule.
You need the demon to guide it.
> Unless I'm mistaken, when you talk of "molecular order" you are
> refering to "entropy" and "the second law of thermodynamics." I
> believe that has to do with large statistical herds of molecules.
> How applicable is it to one solidly built molecule? A good solidly
> built molecule, like a diamondiod one, seems like it should have a
> very low entropy as a single molecule. There wouldn't be too many
> states it could be in.
Rigid structures producing rigid structures is fine – it happens when
water freezes as crystals.
> Have you heard of reversible computing? (I need to do some
> research here to fill out the connection - I'll pick this up
> later.)
Postulates an environment with no time arrow.
> > The nanites would be committing suicide or destroying what
> > they arettemping to bring order to.
> >
> > Heard of Maxwell's demon ?
>
> Yes, I have -- and that does seem to be a flaw in how I picture
> heat... in my model a nanotech type Maxwell's demon is possible. I
> don't know how to adjust my model to make it impossible. I'm not
> yet sure I have to.... Still, that Second Law of Thermodynamics is
> so well established that it is wisely regarded as a waste of time
> to toy with ideas that suggest its violation.
I think HUP precludes an unpowered demon on the macroscopic scale
and any type of demon on an individual molecule scale.
> >> You're not going to be using some kind of universal assembler
> >> inside your body. You don't want to put self-replicators into
> >> your body. What you want in your body are "super-drugs" - part
> >> drug and part nanomachine.
> >
> > This is a short-cut to leukaemia.
>
> But leukaemia is a cancer, out of control replication of the
> body's own cells brought on by damage done to the DNA. What's the
> connection? You assume it must damage the DNA?
Many types of leukaemia, the problem is recognition. If the DNA is damaged
it can reproduce wildly: sometimes the immune system can't recognize it
because it's still "of the body" so it runs riot, other times it does recognize it
*and* all normal cells and attacks the lot. This failure of recognition can be
induced without affecting the DNA as I outlined –
> > The semi-nanite's advantage of being able to process things in
> > new ways is paid for by having to be substantially different on
> > the inside from the stuff of the host organism. Nanites and semi-
> > nanites will occasionally fail and breakup, due to toxins or
> > even rogue alpha particles smashing up their structure. When
> > this occurs the nanite part could disintegrate in a miriad of
> > ways and then be attacked by the white blood cells and
> > antibodies.
>
> And the white blood cells and antibodies will get rid of them.
> Those broken nanites are not reproducing, and if they don't do
> anything to cause damage to the DNA I don't see how they could
> cause cancer.
>
> > Any coating used to disguise the nanite part will then be
> > identified as foreign due to any of the nanite's interior
> > remaining connected to it. If the coating replicated part of
> > the blood the blood will attack itself.
>
> Hmmm... Is that leukemia? The body attacking itself even without
> uncontrolled cancer growth? Has the body ever been tricked into
> attacking itself? I think so.
See above.
> Why would a super-drug need a protien coat? Normal drugs don't
> need one. I don't think they get attacked by the immune system.
> (Or do they?) When, and when doesn't, a foriegn substance get
> attacked by the immune system? Why a protien coat that looks like
> the bodies own if things like titanium and other materials are
> safe for use in the body -- they get away without protien coats.
Developing drugs is of course a complex process. There is a lot of selection
going on to find drugs that don't have any such side effects before they reach
us.
Macroscopic insertion of some metals is ok (ish) but on the molecular scale,
without the massed ranks of their fellows giving stability, they will have
different properties.
The effects of implant wear and errosion is hotly debated,
where does the dust go ?
> >> Drugs with the specificity of an anti-body delivering mRNA
> >> sequences to specific cell types that turn over your
> >> construction project to the cells own nanoassemblers:
> >> the ribosomes. The mRNA is not self-replicated like DNA, so you
> >> can get precise amounts of whatever you want constructed. Of
> >> course you'll be limited to the construction materials of
> >> biology: amino-acids and protiens...
> >
> > These elements of the body are already doing the best they can.
> > Evolution cannot produce a superman, the body can only be improved
> > in small increments.
>
> Evolution may not be able to produce a superman -- but genetic
> engineering might. Evolution, working via natural selection,
> builds on small incremental successes with each increment needing
> some kind of survival advantage -- or at least no killer
> disadvantage because those mutations won't survive the selection
> process. This kind of incremental building causes evolution
> to produce overly complex Rube Goldberg like solutions.
>
> I simply don't assume evolution has come up with the solutions
> we humans would like.
Sure hasn't: we're mortal.
> > To make a big change the whole immune system would need to be
> > overhauled, something evolution cannot do for it lacks appropriate
> > tools the given proteins [that's _ei_ :) ] cannot be fitted
> > together in super-duper ways, evolution has in all likelyhood
> > tried them only to find something else had it for lunch.
>
> You and I see evolution in different ways. You believe "evolution
> is smarter than we are."
I believe evolution out strips our current ability to test designs. But it's
a loser when it comes to "intelligent" design.
> I don't believe evolution has tried
> everything and she has certainly produced some less than efficient
> designs -- such as our eyes where we have a blind spot because
> the optic nerve pokes through the back interior of the eye rather
> than coming around the back like an engineer would do it. (Some
> biologist made a list of inefficient designs in the human body
> to counter a creationist argument... it was extensive but I can't
> remeber them).
No green monkeys, although they could do with the camouflage.
> > Becoming a superman would be nice and nanites may offer a way
> > but we may find there's not much of the original human left
> > afterwards.
>
> When full nanotech is available -- probably so. We'll probably
> wind up with diamondiod exoskeletons, fiber optic neural nets,
> solar cell skin and our illusory identities deconstructed to form
> something like the Borg collective. In the mean time we have to
> find ways to work with the technology available to us now. What's
> available now is genetic engineering, gene sequencing machines and
> very limited forms of nanomanipulation. I suspect it might be
> enough for extended our lives and curing many of our major health
> problems.
Why corporial at all ?
> I'm thinking a little more short term. Not coming back from
> cryogenic storage, but rather making a living body better
> before it dies.
>
> >> but that's all it will take for an indefinite life span of
> >> perfect health... that and the knowledge of what the hell
> >> you're going to need to construct... we don't have that part
> >> yet. We just know the flexibility is there.
> >
> > Maybe. Until we have working nanites we can't be sure
> > thermodynamics won't throw a spanner in the works.
>
> Are we talking entropy here? Do you think life is already fighting
> the best possible battle against entropy?
Nope, not when turtles and sulphur crested cockatoos can out live us.
> /snip/
> >> > Heat is atomic vibration, putting atoms where you want them at
> >> > room temp. would be like filling in a crossword that's on a
> >> > washing machine in spin cycle while you are operating a
> >> > jack-hammer.
> >>
> >> You're thinking of modern devices like the AFM (Atomic Force
> >> Microscope) or the STM (Scanning Tunneling Microscope). The STM
> >> was first operated only when cooled by liquid hydrogen... but
> >> things are changing. The temperatures are getting higher.
> >
> > Yes that's what I was thinking of :^) Temperatures are getting
> > higher but they can't be raised indefinitely. Look at the gold
> > used in the write-by-atom experiments, an extremely ductile
> > metal but it slill has to be super-cooled to be used. Heat it up
> > and the deposited atoms fly off or are absorbed like drops of
> > water on water, gold just isn't ductile enough to support atomic
> > writing at normal temps., hence puts a limit on how high the
> > temperature can be raised.
>
> They wouldn't be flying apart if they were chemically bonded to
> the surface -- no more than our molecules and cells fly apart
> (which does happen once in awhile I suppose and is something I
> failed to consider). Problem being they're not forming bonds
> at those liquid hydrogen temperatures. There seems, from my
> limited knowledge, a trade off between placement precision and
> forming chemical bonds.
Sure information can be stored at molecular level, step forward DNA again.
But this is a "given", already there. The proposed nanite way of making
large, complex molecules block by block requires the construct remain
stable throughout as a partially completed building does. If it can't then it's
back the the chemistry route.
<snip cell repair>
> > Ever had to use carbon remover ?
>
> Ah, no, I haven't -- why do you ask? Did you want to suggest a
> mere chemical could break carbon bonds... ?
Yes.
> /snip/
>
> > I was thinking of the rebuilding of living cells for immortality.
>
> Why do the cells need to be rebuilt? I don't understand? I can see
> a use for correcting DNA damage in the case of cancer, but shit,
> just scrap the bad cells with the cancer codes and let the healthy
> cells replicate on their own, or with a little encouragement...
> though you may have to clone some healthy cells and surgically
> insert them.
Big debate on whether cloned cells are as "old" as the doner, time on
the genetic clock. If they are, and this means Dolly the sheep has got
a shorter that average lifespan, they will need to be altered or rebuilt.
> Or, are you thinking of some sort of cyborg cell, the cell itself
> rebuilt for imortality? Or, do you want to rebuild existing
> freezer damaged cells as they were? I'm not sure of your context
> here -- I hadn't read the previous posts.
>
> "Immortality" and cancer cures seem a job better suited to bio-
> tech and genetic engineering than to nanotech. Rebuilding the
> cells as they were... unless your talking cryodamage... that seems
> like killing a mouse with an elephant gun. The body's solution now
> is to discard old cells and let cellular division birth new
> copies. The reason that stops happening is because our genetic
> clocks run out. Keep changing that clock back and you're life span
> will be indefinite -- but at the cost of a higher risk of cancer?
The bio/chem route to solutions may become so tortuous that it's
easier to use nanites.
What is the alternative to a chance at more life however slim ?
> /snip/
>
> >>> DNA has the information in it to build a creature from scratch
> >>> but that's all.
>
> Not quite. It also has the information to keep you running and to
> do limited self repair in the cases of minor damage.
Just so.
<snip>
> > I'm lacking in understanding of gene therapy
> > but does it require new cells ...
>
> I'm sorry, I find the question of obscure meaning. What do you
> mean by "new cells." I think the answer is "sort of, but not
> always." I think gene therapy might work by just injecting new
> code sequences into a bunch of existing cells so they'll make
> insulin or such. What are you thinking of by "new cells" ?? I'm
> not sure injecting genetically engineered DNA sequences can be
> called a new cell -- but when the cell divides it will use it's
> new program and become a different cell. I'm not sure it is a good
> idea yet or that you'd get them to grow into new organs. However,
> the cells could be removed from you body and worked on first, then
> put back in. That would be like "new cells."
My wording was loose.
I was looking to differentiate changes worked on a microscopic scale,
change some cells and have them replicate many times, and those on
a macroscopic scale, change every cell in an organ and not much in the
way of self-replication.
> > ... containing the modification to grow ?
>
> Yes. That could do it I think.
>
> >> That has more to do with how natural selection operates
> >> rather than what is possible with genetics. Bacteria in fact do
> >> somemerging tricks. Remember, evolution, in part, works via
> >> natural selection and natural selection works by killing off
> >> the random generations that don't work. Evolution by macroscopic
> >> mergingdoesn't incorporate for selection via death.
> >> The ones that don't manage to merge would die.
> >
> > The mark I was aiming for is that the merging of more than one
> > cell per organism needs to be coordinated, matching like function
> > with like, no mixing bone cells with skin. Such information on the
> > physical position of the orgaisms' components is lacking in DNA ...
>
> Not quite. We start from a single egg cell, merged with a single
> sperm cell both containing DNA code that could make another human
> being (though the female can't make a male). It splits and
> diversifies, the cells getting more specialized with each
> division. As the fetus grows in the womb the separate locations of
> the heart, lungs, liver, fractal network of viens, etc. all get
> put into their proper places. All the code to do that in a single
> cell. It suggests astonishing potential for genetic engineering.
Some creatures have the ability to disolve into a soup and emerge anew,
(butterflies) everything where it should be but that's one creature, one code.
> > which may not have the capacity to store information of that
> > magnitude or type.
>
> It obviously does have that capacity though. It might be given
> more capacity in the future.
Heh, heh, then we're no longer human.
And might, in the face of computer style storage, prove an inefficient method
for what *we* want.
> > We might deduce what goes where from DNA, but
> > that's us and our tools.
>
> Obviously biological life and DNA at the egg cell stage has enough
> information to create interlaced fractal patterns of blood vessels
> and organs in generally proper locations. This involves stuff I
> know little about -- morphogenetic fields and stuff like that --
> but still all coded by DNA and run by the normal functioning of
> those cells in a rather warm and chaotic environment.
This is brick on brick construction: all that needs to be known is that
the next one goes on top. But take one out from the middle – we can
"see" where it goes but could it go back itself amoungst it's identical
kin ?
> Of course -- it's a bit more than just DNA here too. A womb is
> needed... I don't think they've grown a mammal in a vat yet.
>
> /snip/
>
> >> ... DNA is an inefficient use of information. This world wide
> >> web will be a better model for nanites.
> >
> > IMO you need to say more on this.
> Okay...
<snip...you did and interesting it was too>
> > 2Sen
> > (waits for the silvery nanite plague to eat us all)
>
> Silver goo? Or Terminator 2?
2Sen
Xalan
Michael R. Anderson wrote in message ...
:I agree that people should not be burned at the stake. I believe a man
:beliefs.
I agree
:At the same time, I find it curious that such a degree of compassion
:should be expressed in the atheist community for "witches" while such
:intense contempt is simultaneously expressed for the "fundies". Do not
:both witches and fundies believe in the supernatural that atheists
:reject?
But fundies don't accept us, thats why I won't accept them. I walk down the
street and get plauged by fundies shouting at me to be saved.....yes save
me....from them!
:Also, I suggest that before you get too simpathetic with protecting the
:occult, you might want to read the following book:
I am willing to let people believe what they want as long as it harms nobody
else.
: "The Ultimate Evil." by Maurry Terry (spell?).
:
:This book is about the "Son of Sam" killings in NY back in the 70's.
:According to the author, the Son of Sam murderer did not act alone and
:was really part of a nation wide devil worshipping cult that had the
:goal of killing 100 normal people that year to appease Satan. The thesis
:of this book was reaffirmed on an episode of A&E's Investigative Reports
:with Bill Kurtis about 6 months ago.
So this means ALL occult followers are part of the son of sam killings....we
could say the same about when christian based groups kill, are all christians
linked to deaths done by the KKK.
:God bless you,
How can a non-entity bless anything.
:MRA.
:
||| |||
|||
||| |||ALAN #1211
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it in for me"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ICQ# 12811297 http://www3.mistral.co.uk/xalan/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Xalan
Claus Lisberg
<mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>Claus Lisberg wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 03:24:02 -0500, "Michael R. Anderson"
>> <mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >God bless you,
>> >MRA.
>>
>> Michael:
>>
>> Could you please drop that sig when posting in alt.atheism? It is the
>> equivalent of having an atheist chanting "Satan is Greatest!" in
>> church.
>>
>> Well, not really. But it's a bit irritating.
>
>You use whatever sign off you want, and I'll use whatever sign off I
>want. Besides, when the satanist (or atheists) post to Christian news
>groups, not only do they seem to use whatever sign off they want, many
>of them are obviously going out of there way to be provocative and
>abusive.
I asked nicely. You do what you do, but I'll encourage people to snip
it.
>MRA.
(Santa)Claus Lisberg
Founder of PSWEH (Poor Students With Expensive Hobbies)
Director of EAC UOT, a.a atheist #1116, Nirfur prophet #1
"A casual stroll through an asylum will show that faith proves nothing"
- F. Nietszche
Bob230
ath...@home.com wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Aug 1998 00:58:14 -0500, "Michael R. Anderson"
><mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>>I agree that people should not be burned at the stake. I believe a man
>>should be able to walk down the street without getting attacked for his
>>beliefs.
>>
>>At the same time, I find it curious that such a degree of compassion
>>should be expressed in the atheist community for "witches" while such
>>intense contempt is simultaneously expressed for the "fundies". Do not
>>both witches and fundies believe in the supernatural that atheists
>>reject?
>
>I personally do not believe in harming people for their beliefs or for
>a lack of belief. Unfortunatly there are a large number of Christians
>who would burn us at the stake in a moment if they could. I am also
>unaware of attempts by people claiming to be witches trying to take
>over government (At least in America) and forcing us to bend to their
>will. That in my opinion makes Christians a bigger threat to freedom
>than witches. I do not see any difference in radical Christians and
>radical Muslims and most of us are very familiar with Islamic
>theocracy..
What a bunch of crock! There are not any large number of Christians
who want to burn anyone at the stake for any reason. Your mind is
mired in 17th Century...don't stereotype us like that. Christians
are, and always have been in the government of the United States and
yet citizens have always been able to speak their mind without being
burned at any stake. If anything its the non-Christians who are
trying to force us to bend to their will. Everything is coming under
attack...even something as simple as a short prayer before a high
school football game...its really getting rediculous. And the last
part is utterly rediculous, I'm sure you would much rather live in a
Christian dominated country than one dominated by Islam.
Alex
Claus Lisberg wrote in message <35e59ee3...@news.inet.tele.dk>...
>On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 09:07:51 -0500, "Michael R. Anderson"
><mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>>Claus Lisberg wrote:
>>>
>>> <mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> >God bless you,
>>> >MRA.
>>>
>>> Michael:
>>>
>>> Could you please drop that sig when posting in alt.atheism? It is
the
>>> equivalent of having an atheist chanting "Satan is Greatest!" in
>>> church.
>>>
>>> Well, not really. But it's a bit irritating.
>>
>>You use whatever sign off you want, and I'll use whatever sign off I
>>want. Besides, when the satanist (or atheists) post to Christian
news
>>groups, not only do they seem to use whatever sign off they want,
many
>>of them are obviously going out of there way to be provocative and
>>abusive.
>
>I asked nicely. You do what you do, but I'll encourage people to snip
>it.
>
>>MRA.
>
Oh NOW I get it! I can't believe how dense I am! (I just figured out
that it was the "God Bless You" that was bothering him/her and not
"MRA")
NMS
Michael R. Anderson wrote in message ...
>should be able to walk down the street without getting attacked for his
>beliefs.
>
>At the same time, I find it curious that such a degree of compassion
>should be expressed in the atheist community for "witches" while such
>intense contempt is simultaneously expressed for the "fundies". Do not
>both witches and fundies believe in the supernatural that atheists
>reject?
>
>occult, you might want to read the following book:
>
>
>According to the author, the Son of Sam murderer did not act alone and
>was really part of a nation wide devil worshipping cult that had the
>goal of killing 100 normal people that year to appease Satan. The thesis
>of this book was reaffirmed on an episode of A&E's Investigative Reports
>with Bill Kurtis about 6 months ago.
>
>MRA.
Your belief in the utterly imaginary "nation-wide Satanic Conspiracy"
demonstrates, more clearly than I ever could, the danger that lies beneath
the rosy patina of all "faith-based" belief systems.
Current "Wicca" beliefs, are, of course, an utterly invented contemporary
religion, along the same lines as the "Druids" who claim affiliation with
the Druids of ancient times, but can, in fact, only draw their provenance
back to the early decades of this century.
Quite simply, there's no compelling evidence that "witchcraft" as such, was
every practiced, anywhere, by anybody during the Middle Ages. People of both
sexes used "folk magic" the same way rural peoples today do the same thing.
Such beliefs, like most false and irrational beliefs, have always been
widespread. But they were never part of any organized system of "witchcraft"
that involved organized Satan worship. Those that were killed as witched, i
ncluding both children and animals, were not guilty of "witchcraft" as it
was believed to be at the time. Nor were they victims of religious
persecution. They were just innocent victims who were caught up in a
fanatical purge prompted by Christian Authorities.
And we see, strangely enough, The Christian Authorities once again at the
head of the new "witch-hunt" which has nothing to do either with the made-up
Wicca Religion, or the equally made-up and rather dopey "Church of Satan"
but proposes, instead, a vast, secret network of Satan worshippers, killing
literally thousands of people in secret sacrifices (and disposing of their
bodies in portal crematoria) organizing the sexual abuse of children on a
vast scale (frequently in the form of that most dreaded and
"anti-family-values" institution - the Dread Day Care Center) and generally
just working their little fingers to the bone in the service of Satan. Of
course, the little kiddies don't remember -- they've all been traumatized.
That's why we need our own special "Christian" therapists to question them
in just the right way to make them remember just the right things -- the
real things -- the true things.
That such things have been granted any credence whatever would be funny if
it hadn't destroyed so many innocent lives.
That's because your "satanists" -- like your make-believe god, always seem
to lurk just off-stage, or in the easily influenced minds of children or the
mentally ill.
And, of course, in Heavy Metal Music, and the occasional group of
disenfranchised teenagers who burn black candles in order to invoke "unholy
powers" -- and end their days pumping gas at the local Texaco Station.
Oh, but of course, Bil Kurtis "reaffirmed" it. That was right after that
show about flying saucer abductions and right before that other show about
Bigfoot. Or was it "real angels" or ghosts, or ESP?
The funny thing about real organizations, even secret ones. They exist in
the real world. People know about them. Skinheads, fringe radical Christian
sects, Muslim fundamentalists. That's because the people who join these
groups, as a group, tend not to be the most stable and reliable people in
the world. Great if you need a suicide bombing. Not so great if you need
somebody who'll keep his mouth shut.
So, in order to account for the absence of such genuine information, it
becomes necessary to invoke a vast panoply of ad-hoc explanations. Claims of
murdered hundreds (and sometimes tens of thousands) yearly, must be
explained by the use of portable crematoria. Family members never speak
because they're already in the cult or else have "traumatic amnesia."
Reports of killings and sacrifices inevitably fail to turn up any material
supporting evidence of this world-spanning cult in operation. Well, of
course. They're very careful.
The news of the invasion of D-Day was stolen and brought to the Third Reich.
It wasn't believed.
American nuclear secrets have been stolen on at least several occasions.
Virtually every unbreakable code used by every government has been broken.
The "secret rituals" of virtually every secret society have been revealed.
But somehow, those wily Satanists manage never to show themselves, except in
the neurotic world view of "Satan seekers."
This isn't about "tolerance." If some chucklehead wants to be a Druid or
wants to be a "Wicca" practicioner -- it's fine by me. It's certainly no
more stupid than most religious beliefs.
But that has nothing to do with the "Satanic Cult" delusions, which are, in
the most perfect sense -- "Witchhunts."
The trouble is, when tribal fears and ignorance take the place of reason, it
is always possible to find crimes, and to find those who commit them, even
when the crimes are non-existent, and the accused are completely innocent.
NMS
2Sen Jen's kin
> >At the moment I'm researching something my SO read somewhere (we're trying
> >to figure out where), that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is a
> >mis-translation. Anyone have any ideas where this information might be?
>
> I do not recall where I got it from, but I was told, or
> something, that the word was "poisoner" not witch.
I told him what he already knew, first.
Nyaa Nyaa.
2Sen
randall g
Lisberg) wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 03:24:02 -0500, "Michael R. Anderson"
><mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>God bless you,
>>MRA.
>
>Michael:
>
>Could you please drop that sig when posting in alt.atheism? It is the
>equivalent of having an atheist chanting "Satan is Greatest!" in
>church.
>
>Well, not really. But it's a bit irritating.
Have you enver noticed how futile it is to complain about stuff like
this?
To me, seeing a sig like that all the time, is like driving behind
someone who's left his signal light flashing.
"I'm a fucking idiot."
"I'm a fucking idiot."
"I'm a fucking idiot."
"I'm a fucking idiot."
"I'm a fucking idiot."
"I'm a fucking idiot."
randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short
mailto:rand...@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg
When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky
When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea
When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me
- James (a band from England, not my name)
Paul Andrew King
<EF54C96865385527.38F5FA5F...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
"Michael R. Anderson" <mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>I agree that people should not be burned at the stake. I believe a man
>should be able to walk down the street without getting attacked for his
>beliefs.
>
>At the same time, I find it curious that such a degree of compassion
>should be expressed in the atheist community for "witches" while such
>intense contempt is simultaneously expressed for the "fundies". Do not
>both witches and fundies believe in the supernatural that atheists
>reject?
So we can't have compassion for murder victims if we show contempt for the
comtemptible ? Why not ?
>
>Also, I suggest that before you get too simpathetic with protecting the
>occult,
What occult ? Most people killed for witchcraft had no known connection
with the occult - unless you count "confessions" obtained under torture.
you might want to read the following book:
>
> "The Ultimate Evil." by Maurry Terry (spell?).
>
>This book is about the "Son of Sam" killings in NY back in the 70's.
>According to the author, the Son of Sam murderer did not act alone and
>was really part of a nation wide devil worshipping cult that had the
>goal of killing 100 normal people that year to appease Satan. The thesis
>of this book was reaffirmed on an episode of A&E's Investigative Reports
>with Bill Kurtis about 6 months ago.
Why would we want to read sensationalist paranoid drivel ?
And even if it were entirely true it says *nothing* about most of what you
label "occult". What do modern pagans have to do with secret satanic cults
?
--
"Hullo clouds, hullo sky, hullo pile of severed human heads," said Major
Basil Fotherington-Thomas.
(Eugene Byrne & Kim Newman "Teddy-Bear's Picnic")
Replace "nospam" with "morat" to reply
Paul K.
Alex
Bob230 wrote in message <35dec2d4...@news.mindspring.com>...
Thanks to our constitution.
>trying to force us to bend to their will. Everything is coming under
>attack...even something as simple as a short prayer before a high
>school football game...its really getting rediculous. And the last
Seperation of Church and State is nothing to be taken lightly. So when
a government sponsored league holds a prayer then that is State
spnsored religion... unless of course they wouldn't mind having a
special prayer for every other religion our there (equal time right?)
even Satanic prayers and Wican prayers and Discordian prayers and...
>part is utterly rediculous, I'm sure you would much rather live in a
>Christian dominated country than one dominated by Islam.
I'd pick the first of the 2 evils.
Michelle Malkin
>On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 11:53:18 GMT, clis...@post4.tele.dk (Claus
>Lisberg) wrote:
>
>><mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>God bless you,
>>>MRA.
>>
>>Michael:
>>
>>Could you please drop that sig when posting in alt.atheism? It is the
>>equivalent of having an atheist chanting "Satan is Greatest!" in
>>church.
>>
>>Well, not really. But it's a bit irritating.
>
>
>
>Have you enver noticed how futile it is to complain about stuff like
>this?
>
>To me, seeing a sig like that all the time, is like driving behind
>someone who's left his signal light flashing.
>
>"I'm a fucking idiot."
>
>"I'm a fucking idiot."
>
>"I'm a fucking idiot."
>
>"I'm a fucking idiot."
>
>"I'm a fucking idiot."
>
>"I'm a fucking idiot."
>
>randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short
Claus has been away for awhile and doesn't know that Michael is both rude
and brainless. Michael has been asked many times to stop ending his
messages with the old-fashioned sneeze response, but refuses to be polite
about it. I killfiled the jerk weeks ago.
Mickey (Michelle Malkin) BAAWA
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
...it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful
to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing or in disbelieving;
it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.
-- Thomas Paine - The Age of Reason
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
e-mail in reverse to:moc.gnirpsdnim@7bniklam
Gregory A Greenman
<nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> says...
> NDEs are due to a sudden drop in cephalic perfusion - this is as
> common knowledge as is the fact that microorganisms cause disease. an
> NDE can be induced in a person who is not dying. Of course, doing so
> is highly illegal, but it can and has been done.
This is what the movie Flatliners was about, wasn't it?
Greg the Reprobate
------------------
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Michael R. Anderson
>
> Michael R. Anderson wrote in message ...
> :should be able to walk down the street without getting attacked for his
> :beliefs.
>
>
> :At the same time, I find it curious that such a degree of compassion
> :should be expressed in the atheist community for "witches" while such
> :intense contempt is simultaneously expressed for the "fundies". Do not
> :both witches and fundies believe in the supernatural that atheists
> :reject?
>
> street and get plauged by fundies shouting at me to be saved.....yes save
> me....from them!
>
> :Also, I suggest that before you get too simpathetic with protecting the
> :occult, you might want to read the following book:
>
> I am willing to let people believe what they want as long as it harms nobody
> else.
>
> :
> :This book is about the "Son of Sam" killings in NY back in the 70's.
> :According to the author, the Son of Sam murderer did not act alone and
> :was really part of a nation wide devil worshipping cult that had the
> :goal of killing 100 normal people that year to appease Satan. The thesis
> :of this book was reaffirmed on an episode of A&E's Investigative Reports
> :with Bill Kurtis about 6 months ago.
>
> could say the same about when christian based groups kill, are all christians
> linked to deaths done by the KKK.
I didn't say all occult followers go around killing people. An argument
was made that sometimes Christians have killed "witches". I thought I'd
show an example of witch-like people killing others.
> :God bless you,
>
> How can a non-entity bless anything.
>
> :MRA.
> :
> ||| |||
> |||
> ||| |||ALAN #1211
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it in for me"
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> ICQ# 12811297 http://www3.mistral.co.uk/xalan/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
God bless you,
MRA.
Michael R. Anderson
>
> Michael R. Anderson wrote in message ...
> >I agree that people should not be burned at the stake. I believe a man
> >should be able to walk down the street without getting attacked for his
> >beliefs.
> >
> >At the same time, I find it curious that such a degree of compassion
> >should be expressed in the atheist community for "witches" while such
> >intense contempt is simultaneously expressed for the "fundies". Do not
> >both witches and fundies believe in the supernatural that atheists
> >reject?
> >
> >Also, I suggest that before you get too simpathetic with protecting the
> >occult, you might want to read the following book:
> >
> > "The Ultimate Evil." by Maurry Terry (spell?).
> >
> >This book is about the "Son of Sam" killings in NY back in the 70's.
> >According to the author, the Son of Sam murderer did not act alone and
> >was really part of a nation wide devil worshipping cult that had the
> >goal of killing 100 normal people that year to appease Satan. The thesis
> >of this book was reaffirmed on an episode of A&E's Investigative Reports
> >with Bill Kurtis about 6 months ago.
> >
> >God bless you,
> >MRA.
>
> Your belief in the utterly imaginary "nation-wide Satanic Conspiracy"
> demonstrates, more clearly than I ever could, the danger that lies beneath
> the rosy patina of all "faith-based" belief systems.
I didn't say I believed in a nation wide satanic conspiracy - although I
would not be suprised if there was one. I was making reference to a book
that investigated the activities of a single group of satanists who
commited various crimes all over the U.S. back in the late 70's and
early 80's.
In this case, some of them lurked their way into several photographs.
The book had pictures of a lot of the individuals involved.
> And, of course, in Heavy Metal Music, and the occasional group of
> disenfranchised teenagers who burn black candles in order to invoke "unholy
> powers" -- and end their days pumping gas at the local Texaco Station.
>
> Oh, but of course, Bil Kurtis "reaffirmed" it. That was right after that
> show about flying saucer abductions and right before that other show about
> Bigfoot. Or was it "real angels" or ghosts, or ESP?
Actually, I have a great deal of respect for Bill Kurtis. I find him to
be one of the more professional TV journalists out their. Investigative
Reports is an excellent program. I've stopped watching 60 minutes and
watch Investigative Reports instead.
God bless you,
MRA.
Michael R. Anderson
>
> In article
> <EF54C96865385527.38F5FA5F...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
> >should be able to walk down the street without getting attacked for his
> >beliefs.
> >
> >At the same time, I find it curious that such a degree of compassion
> >should be expressed in the atheist community for "witches" while such
> >intense contempt is simultaneously expressed for the "fundies". Do not
> >both witches and fundies believe in the supernatural that atheists
> >reject?
>
> comtemptible ? Why not ?
>
> >
> >occult,
>
> with the occult - unless you count "confessions" obtained under torture.
>
> >
> > "The Ultimate Evil." by Maurry Terry (spell?).
> >
> >This book is about the "Son of Sam" killings in NY back in the 70's.
> >According to the author, the Son of Sam murderer did not act alone and
> >was really part of a nation wide devil worshipping cult that had the
> >goal of killing 100 normal people that year to appease Satan. The thesis
> >of this book was reaffirmed on an episode of A&E's Investigative Reports
> >with Bill Kurtis about 6 months ago.
>
Imagine there was a group of Christians out their who believed God
wanted them to kill 100 non-Christians by the end of 1999 and who worked
together in a secret society for this and other criminal purposes. Would
you be interested in reading a book about them?
I'll bet you would. In fact, here's one that's pretty close:
Armed and Dangerous: the rise of the survivalist right. (1987) James
Coates. Hill and Wang, NY. ISBN: 0-8090-0174-8
Now make the following word replacements in my question:
Christians -> satanists
God -> satan
non-Christians -> normal people
That's why you should read it.
> And even if it were entirely true it says *nothing* about most of what you
> label "occult". What do modern pagans have to do with secret satanic cults
> ?
Fair enough. I do hereby offically acknowledge that "pagans" and
"satanists" are distinct and separate groups whose only similarity is
rejection of the Christian God.
> --
> "Hullo clouds, hullo sky, hullo pile of severed human heads," said Major
> Basil Fotherington-Thomas.
> (Eugene Byrne & Kim Newman "Teddy-Bear's Picnic")
>
> Replace "nospam" with "morat" to reply
>
> Paul K.
God bless you,
MRA.
DougG
>> >Could you please drop that sig when posting in alt.atheism? It is the
>> >equivalent of having an atheist chanting "Satan is Greatest!" in
>> >church.
>> >
>> >Well, not really. But it's a bit irritating.
>>
>
>Those are my initials.
>
>God bless you,
>MRA.
In other words you don't care how you spam alt.atheism. We can just
all shut up.
Good. You are officially fair game.
obse...@cpinternet.fnord.com "remove fnord" Atheist#344
**********************************************************
FGmp4amrA+C++D-H-M+PR+T+++W--ZSpSRLCTa+C++++nd+eh--i++p++sm+
There are some people out there who don't love their
fellow man, And I HATE people like that!
****Tom Leherer****
ath...@home.com
>>I personally do not believe in harming people for their beliefs or for
>>a lack of belief. Unfortunatly there are a large number of Christians
>>who would burn us at the stake in a moment if they could. I am also
>>unaware of attempts by people claiming to be witches trying to take
>>over government (At least in America) and forcing us to bend to their
>>will. That in my opinion makes Christians a bigger threat to freedom
>>than witches. I do not see any difference in radical Christians and
>>radical Muslims and most of us are very familiar with Islamic
>>theocracy..
>
>What a bunch of crock! There are not any large number of Christians
>who want to burn anyone at the stake for any reason.
I did not mean that in a literal sense. To my knowledge no one has
ever been burned at the stake in America.
>Your mind is mired in 17th Century...don't stereotype us like that.
>Christians are, and always have been in the government of the United States and
>yet citizens have always been able to speak their mind without being
>burned at any stake.
Again not to be taken literally. However if you will check your
history you might be surprised to learn that various Christian
denominations have in the past attempted to stifle the speech of
various other denominations as well as other faiths. Even today some
Christians state that non-believers in their particular faith should
have no right to hold public office. Christian groups also regularly
demand the banning of certain books they do not like. Further, in the
past blue laws prevented businesses from opening on Sundays and have
gone so far as to forbid any recreational activities untill after
church.
> If anything its the non-Christians who are trying to force us to bend to their will.
It appears we are both guilty of some stereotyping. I would also
strongly object to anyone trying to force you to believe anything you
chose not to believe or to do anything you find morally objectionable.
If they can do that to you, they can do it to me and the next thing
you know they will have done it to us all.
>Everything is coming under attack...even something as simple as a short prayer before a high
>school football game...its really getting rediculous.
I agree it does sometimes get ridiculous on both sides of the issue.
The separation of church and state however was intended to protect
people of different faiths as well as non-believers and was never
meant to interfere with ones right to worship as one choses. The
problem is who choses the prayer and what kind of prayer? What if
there are Jews present who do not want to pray a Christian prayer, or
Muslims who, while they respect Jesus do not believe him to be the
Messiah? Would you appreciate someone telling you that you have to
attend a prayer meeting directed at a deity other than your own, or
that if you object you must separate yourself from the group? The only
thing that protects your right to your beliefs, and my right to
disbelieve is that pesky little thing we call the American
Constitution. And the only thing that keeps the state from
establishing a religion and forcing you to be a part of it is the
"Wall of Separation" between them and us.
>And the last part is utterly rediculous, I'm sure you would much rather live in a
>Christian dominated country than one dominated by Islam.
No sir. Again, if you will do some research on the history of
theocratic governments including those run by Christians you will
understand why I would not want an America dominated by any religion.
Nor do I want a government dominated by the policies of the Republican
or Democratic parties, Independents or Ann Landers. You might start
here and read some of the historical documents.
http://www.infidels.org/
Great Quahootze! Let me live, not be sick, find the enemy, not be
afraid of him, find him asleep and kill many of him ....
Nootka Indian Prayer.
O millet, thou hast grown well for us; we thank thee, we eat thee....
Ainu Prayer
Spirit of this place, we give thee tobacco; so help us, save us from
the enemy, bring us wealth, bring us back safely......
Iroquois Indian Prayer
Paul Andrew King
<117D8EF0891C851B.7311A7E5...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
"Michael R. Anderson" <mr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> Why would we want to read sensationalist paranoid drivel ?
>
>Imagine there was a group of Christians out their who believed God
>wanted them to kill 100 non-Christians by the end of 1999 and who worked
>together in a secret society for this and other criminal purposes. Would
>you be interested in reading a book about them?
Probably not. Especially if it looked like the book was pure
sensationalism.
>
>I'll bet you would. In fact, here's one that's pretty close:
>
>Armed and Dangerous: the rise of the survivalist right. (1987) James
>Coates. Hill and Wang, NY. ISBN: 0-8090-0174-8
I haven't read it. However from what you;ve said it doesn;t look
especially sensationalist.
>
>Now make the following word replacements in my question:
>
>Christians -> satanists
>God -> satan
>non-Christians -> normal people
>
>That's why you should read it.
Surely I ought to read the other book first - after all it looks more
likely ot have accurate information.
>
>
>> And even if it were entirely true it says *nothing* about most of what you
>> label "occult". What do modern pagans have to do with secret satanic cults
>> ?
>
>Fair enough. I do hereby offically acknowledge that "pagans" and
>"satanists" are distinct and separate groups whose only similarity is
>rejection of the Christian God.
>
So you have no objection if we have sympathy for witches or La Vey type
satanists, then ?
John C. 'Buck' Field
constitutes agreement by the originator I will be
damaged in the amount of $1000.00 US Dollars
by each use.
Michael R. Anderson wrote in message ...
>You use whatever sign off you want, and I'll use whatever sign off I
>want. Besides, when the satanist (or atheists) post to Christian news
>groups, not only do they seem to use whatever sign off they want, many
>of them are obviously going out of there way to be provocative and
>abusive.
Translation: "He did it first!"
They really never get believers entirely out of primary school do they?
2Sen Jen's kin
Bob230
Thank you for a thoughtful response. I am quite aware of the history
of this country. I agree with you that certain Christian groups have
on occasion been overbearing, many of our States, such as Connecticut
and Rhode Island were created as havens for people uncomfortable with
the Puritan ways of Massachusetts. These issues were not forgotten
when our Founding Fathers crafted together a nation and that is why
the separation of church and state was so important to them.
Christians are of course not a monolithic group and embrace all sides
the political spectrum. I'm no more comfortable with the Churches
that ordain Gays and Women than I am with Puritan ones, so in that
regard I'm happy with the separation of church and state.
>> If anything its the non-Christians who are trying to force us to bend to their will.
>
>It appears we are both guilty of some stereotyping. I would also
>strongly object to anyone trying to force you to believe anything you
>chose not to believe or to do anything you find morally objectionable.
>If they can do that to you, they can do it to me and the next thing
>you know they will have done it to us all.
>
>>Everything is coming under attack...even something as simple as a short prayer before a high
>>school football game...its really getting rediculous.
>
>I agree it does sometimes get ridiculous on both sides of the issue.
>The separation of church and state however was intended to protect
>people of different faiths as well as non-believers and was never
>meant to interfere with ones right to worship as one choses. The
>problem is who choses the prayer and what kind of prayer? What if
>there are Jews present who do not want to pray a Christian prayer, or
>Muslims who, while they respect Jesus do not believe him to be the
>Messiah? Would you appreciate someone telling you that you have to
>attend a prayer meeting directed at a deity other than your own, or
>that if you object you must separate yourself from the group?
I think people are taking things to extremes. Lets take my example of
the pre-game prayer. During my attendance of these types of prayers I
found that they made reference to God but not to Jesus. The
participants could in their mind, imagine they were praying to
whatever god they liked or in the case of atheists...their mind would
be free to wander to whatever subject they would like. The culture of
the United States has a definite Christian flavor to it...has this
stopped immigrants from other religious backgrounds from wanting to
come and live in this country? Of course not. If I decided to live
in India I wouldn't expect them to change their society to accommodate
me. If I was to play sports with them, and they had a pre-game prayer
to one of their deities, I would bow my head in respect instead of
having a tantrum about how I was being forced to pray to their god.
Should we to give up all our customs....such as Christmas...just
because everyone can't relate to it? If you start tinkering with our
customs too much you will find that you will have radically altered
our society and not necessarily for the better. Don’t forget that
history has also shown that atheists and atheist states don’t have a
clean track record either...Stalin and Communist Russia comes to mind
as one example.
The only
>thing that protects your right to your beliefs, and my right to
>disbelieve is that pesky little thing we call the American
>Constitution. And the only thing that keeps the state from
>establishing a religion and forcing you to be a part of it is the
>"Wall of Separation" between them and us.
>
>>And the last part is utterly rediculous, I'm sure you would much rather live in a
>>Christian dominated country than one dominated by Islam.
>
>No sir. Again, if you will do some research on the history of
>theocratic governments including those run by Christians you will
>understand why I would not want an America dominated by any religion.
>Nor do I want a government dominated by the policies of the Republican
>or Democratic parties, Independents or Ann Landers. You might start
>here and read some of the historical documents.
>http://www.infidels.org/
>
I don’t want an atheistic Stalinist state either...I’m relatively
happy with what we have now.