Workings of a Natural World (Summary - 1628 BC to 1966 AD)
Dan Fake
- - - - - - - - -
It's a natural world out there, wonderful to behold
on most days, for those of us fortunate to be in
that part of the world (and that part of our lives)
whereby the bounty of the world is perceptible
as a benefit to life.
Let's not forget the natural state of affairs which
confronts us with a serious set of circumstances
by which only human action can foil the at times
threatening consequences of life in a natural world.
Excerpts from "The Pessimists Guide to History",
by Stuart Flexner with Doris Flexner.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0380762366
- - -
Prior to 1628 B.C. - Countless tragedies over the
millennia, not the least of which is the asteroid impact
65 million years ago on the Yucatan peninsula; said
disaster (combined with massive volcanic eruptions
of the Deccan Traps in India) leading to the demise
of the dinosaurs, the rise of the mammals, and the
eventual rise of humankind.
ca. 1628 B.C. - Minoan civilization devastated by
volcanic eruption on Thera. Untold thousands killed
by the eruption and accompanying 200-300 foot
tidal waves.
454 B.C. - Roman plague wipes out much of the
city's inhabitants.
430-427 B.C. - Athens plague kills about one-third
of the city's 100,000 inhabitants.
426 B.C. - Greek earthquake kills thousands;
thousands more left injured or homeless.
373 B.C. - Earthquake causes Helice, Greece, to
sink into the Gulf of Corinth.
217 B.C. - Killer earthquake strikes Northern
Africa, killing more than 50 thousand.
164-154 B.C. - Killer smallpox epidemic breaks out
in Rome killing unknown thousands for over ten
years after the initial outbreak.
19 B.C. - Over 100,000 killed by a severe earth-
quake in what is now modern-day Syria.
79 - Pompeii and Herculaneum destroyed by
eruption of Mount Vesuvius; thousands die;
cities plunged beneath fifteen to twenty feet of
ash.
79-88 - Plague in Rome kills upwards of ten
thousand people per day at its height.
115 - Antioch, in what is now modern-day
Syria, destroyed by an earthquake; unknown
thousands killed.
125 - One million killed by plague in North
Africa.
164-180 - Roman legions returning from Syria
bring back a plague which spreads throughout
the empire, depopulating entire cities in some
cases.
186 - One of the most devastating eruptions
in history strikes New Zealand; unknown death
toll.
250-265 - A plague strikes the Roman empire,
leaving much of it depopulated by its end.
365 - Alexandria, Egypt, wiped out by a tidal
wave from an earthquake.
472 - Mount Vesuvius erupts; kills scores and
causes ash to spread out over much of Europe.
526 - Antioch, Syria, earthquake kills 250,000.
542 - Constantinople plague kills 300,000 out of
a total population of 500,000.
746-749 - Plague ravages Constantinople and
spreads to Italy and Greece; 200,000 die.
1040 - Tabriz (in modern-day Iran) earthquake
kills over 50,000.
1169 - Mount Etna volcanic eruption in Sicily
results in 15,000 deaths from earthquakes and
tidal waves.
1200-1202 - Nile dries up; Egyptian famine results;
people resort to cannibalism; in Cairo, people
died by the hundreds each day.
1277 - Holland floods; unknown thousands die.
1347-1351 - Black death strikes; over 25 million
die in Europe; one-third of the world's population
dies.
1347-17th century - Chorea strikes; victims
undergo a twitching leading to uncontrollable
leaping, furious screaming, and foaming at the
mouth. This goes on for hours or for a day or
more before the victim dies. This disease abates
in the 17th century after raging throughout
central Europe; death toll unknown.
1421 - Dikes near Dort, Holland, burst; 72 cities
swept away. Over 100,000 die.
1456 - Naples, Italy, destroyed by earthquake;
50,000 die.
1485, 1506, 1517, 1528, 1551 - Sweating
sickness in England kills thousands.
1490s - Syphilis epidemic begins in Italy and
spreads throughout Europe and Russia.
1521 - Smallpox, brought by Spanish conquerors,
kills millions of Aztecs.
1530 - Holland dikes burst; over 400,000 die.
1531 - Lisbon, Portugal, earthquake kills 30,000.
1556 - January 23, 1556, earthquake in northern
China kills an estimated 830,000.
1570 - Holland dikes burst; over 50,000 die.
1574 - Spaniards invade Holland but the siege
is broken when over 20,000 Spaniards killed by
a flood.
1591 - Volcano Taal in the Philippines erupts;
thousands killed by poisonous gas.
1622 - Vicious hurricane strikes a large convoy
of ships sailing from Havana, Cuba, to Spain.
Thousands die.
1626 - Naples, Italy, earthquake kills 70,000.
1631 - Mount Vesuvius erupts; over 4,000 die.
1638 - Cataclysmic eruption of Indonesian
volcano kills hundreds.
1665 - Great plague of London kills 100,000.
1666 - West Indies hurricane kills thousands.
1669 - Mount Etna erupts; 20,000 die.
1672 - Naples, Italy, Black Plague kills 400,000.
1692 - Jamaica hit by tidal wave; 3,000 die.
1693 - Naples, Italy, earthquake kills 93,000.
Catania, Italy, earthquake kills 60,000. Mount
Etna erupts, killing 18,000 on the island of
Sicily.
1694 - Barbados hurricane sinks 26 British ships;
3,000 die.
1703-1704 - Tokyo earthquake kills 37,000. Resulting
tidal waves wipe out entire villages.
1711 - Black Plague kills 500,000 in the Holy Roman
Empire.
1715 - Spanish ships struck by hurricane off the
Florida coast; 1,000 die.
1719 - Caravan of travelers in Sweden, headed towards
Norway, struck by snowstorm; 7,000 die.
1722 - Bread in Russia infected by a fungus; results
in a disease called ergotism, causing a severe nervous
disorder resulting in delusions, convulsions, burning
pain, and finally, death; 20,000 die.
1727 - Persian earthquake, in Tabriz (in modern-day
Iran) kills over 75,000.
1731 - Beijing, China, struck by massive earthquake;
100,000 die.
1735-1740 - Diphtheria outbreak in New England
kills 80 percent of the children under 10 years
of age.
1737 - Calcutta, India, struck by a cyclone on
October 7, sending a 40 foot tidal wave crashing
ashore; 300,000 die. Four days later, a devastating
earthquake hits the city, killing another 300,000.
1754 - Cairo, Egypt, rocked by an earthquake;
40,000 die.
1755 - Lisbon, Portugal, struck by a massive earth-
quake, felt across North Africa and Europe; up to
100,000 die.
1755 - Boston, Massachusetts, hit by the worst
earthquake in its history; no one dies.
1769-1770 - 18 month drought in Hindustan, India,
causes a terrible famine; millions starve to death.
1769 - Gun powder, stored in a church in Brezia,
Italy, struck by lightning; the church and surrounding
buildings devastated by an explosion; over 3,000 die.
1770 - Storm sinks French merchant ship carrying over
700 off the coast of Chile; only a handful survive.
1772 - Papandayan, Java, volcano erupts, blowing about
4,000 feet off the top of its volcano cone; 3,000 die.
1776 - Caribbean hurricane sinks French and Dutch
merchant ships; 6,000 die.
1780 - West Indies hurricane kills 20,000 to 30,000.
1781-1782 - Worldwide influenza epidemic starts in
China and spreads to strike 30,000 daily in Russia;
in Rome, two-thirds are stricken by the disease; the
death toll is unknown.
1782 - Hurricane kills thousands in Barbados.
1783 - Eight years of earthquakes strike Italy, with
the worst leveling Calabria and more than 180 towns in
the area, on February 4-5; 30,000 die outright, with
up to 30,000 dying as a result of the aftershocks and
famine which follow.
1783 - Iceland volcano erupts; 9,000 die.
1787 - British slave ship hit by a storm; almost 500
slaves die.
1789 - Cyclone hits India; 20,000 die.
1790-1792 - Droughts devastate India; cannibalism
becomes widespread; death toll unknown.
1792 - Plague sweeps across Egypt; 800,000 die.
1793 - Japanese volcano Unsen erupts on a small
island off the coast of Japan; the island sinks into
the sea; 53,000 on the island perish.
1793 - Yellow fever strikes Philadelphia; thousands
die.
1794 - Combination volcano-earthquake kills 40,000
in Ecuador.
1797 - Earthquakes and volcanoes in Ecuador kill
40,000 or more.
1798 - New England blizzard kills hundreds.
1799-1800 - Yellow fever strikes Spain and North
Africa; 80,000 die in Spain and thousands die
in North Africa.
1805 - Naples and Calabria, Italy, earthquake kills
over 26,000.
1810 - British frigate Minotaur runs aground in
high seas; 480 die.
1811 - Tornado strikes Charleston, South Carolina.
Over 500 die.
1811 - Storms strike British ships returning from duty
in the Baltic; 2,000 die.
1811-1812 - Earthquakes strike New Madrid, Missouri;
death toll unknown; Mississippi River runs backwards
for hundreds of miles; tremors felt over an area of over
1.5 million square miles, nearly half the area of the
continental United States; death toll unknown.
1812 - Caracas, Venezuela, earthquake kills 20,000.
1814 - Philippine volcano erupts; 12,000 die.
1815 - April 15, 1815, Indonesian volcano Tambora
erupts, blowing off its 36 cubic miles of ejecta, the
largest eruption in modern history; 12,000 die. In
1816, the year without a summer results, bringing
cold weather and famine to North America and
Europe.
1816-1817 - As a result of the year without a summer,
in Switzerland people were reduced to catching cats
for food. Sickness and fever accompanied the
starvation, and in Ireland an estimated 50,000
eventually died as a result of a typhus epidemic
precipitated by the harsh famine.
1819 - Genoa and Palermo, Italy, demolished by
an earthquake; 20,000 die.
1822 - Earthquakes strike Aleppo and Antioch,
Syria; 20,000 die.
1822 - Cyclone strikes the mouth of the Ganges
River in India; 50,000 die.
1822 - Galung Gung, Java, volcano erupts twice;
4,000 die.
1824 - Saint Petersburg, Russia, flood drowns
10,000.
1826-1837 - Cholera epidemics ravage Europe; over
900,000 die in 1831 alone. Worldwide Cholera
epidemics occur in 1840-1842, 1863-1875, and
1893-1894 - the total death toll from these epidemics
is in the millions.
1829 - Dike breaks in Gdansk Poland; flood kills
1,200.
1831 - Hurricane in Barbados kills 1,500.
1833 - Cyclone in Calcutta, India; 50,000 die.
1835 - Charles Darwin witnesses earthquake in Chile;
5,000 die.
1840 - Tornado in Natchez, Mississippi; 317 die.
1841 - Hurricane wipes out Saint Jo, Florida; 4,000 die.
1842 - Tornado in Natchez, Mississippi; 500 die.
1845-1848 - Irish potato famine; 1.5 million die.
1847 - Massive earthquake in Nagano, Japan; 34,000 die.
1851-1855 - Tuberculosis epidemic in Britain; 250,000 die.
1856 - Lightning strikes Church of St. John on the island
of Rhodes; being that the church was used by the occupying
Ottoman army to store huge quantities of gun powder, the
church blows up and kills 4,000.
1857 - Earthquake strikes Tokyo, Japan; resulting fire kills
most of the 107,000 victims of this disaster.
1857 - Russian warship Leffert sinks in a storm off the
Gulf of Finland; 826 die.
1859 - Merchant ship Royal Charter runs aground and
breaks apart in heavy seas off Liverpool; 459 die.
1862 - Typhoon devastates Canton and Whangpoo, China;
40,000 die.
1864 - Cyclone strikes Calcutta, India; 50,000 die. Another
30,000 die from disease after the storm.
1866-1870 - Northern India drought causes famine, killing
1.5 million; 250,000 die in a fever epidemic which breaks
out in northwest India after the famine.
1868 - Much of South America rocked by an earthquake;
20,000 die.
1870 - Storm causes British ironclad turret ship, the
Captain, to founder and sink, in the Bay of Biscay;
483 die.
1873 - British steamship Atlantic sinks in heavy seas off
Halifax, Nova Scotia; 550 die.
1875 - Flood of Garonne River, in France, kills 1,000.
1876-1878 - India famine; 5 million die.
1876-1879 - China famine; 13 million die from hunger,
disease, and predation; thievery, mob violence, suicide,
and cannibalism were commonplace, as hundreds of
thousands of people tried desperately to stay alive.
1876 - Subsea earthquake causes 100 foot tsunamis to
crash ashore along a 300 mile section of coastline in
northeast Japan; 28,000 die.
1876 - Cyclone strikes coastal area around the mouth of
the Megna River in Bengal, India; 100,000 perish. 100,000
more die of disease that spreads after the disaster.
1878 - Yellow fever epidemic in Memphis, New Orleans,
and other parts of the south; 14,000 die.
1881 - Hurricane strikes Florida and Carolinas; 700 die.
1882 - Tidal wave strikes Bombay, India; 100,000 die.
1883 - Krakatoa, a volcanic island between Java and
Sumatra, unleashes a violent eruption. Two-thirds of
the island sinks into the sea. Huge tidal waves sweep
over coastal towns; 36,000 die.
1884 - Hurricane sweeps through southeastern U.S.;
800 die.
1886 - Earthquake shakes eastern U.S.; 110 die.
1887 - Earthquake strikes French and Italian Riviera;
over 2,000 die.
1887 - Yellow River (Huang Ho) floods in China;
1.5 million die.
1888 - East coast blizzard; 800 die.
1888 - Hailstorms in India near Delhi; 250 die.
1889 - Johnstown, Pennsylvania flood; over 2,200 die.
1889-1890 - Worldwide influenza epidemic; death toll
unknown.
1891 - Caribbean hurricane; 700 die.
1891 - Earthquake in central Japan; 7,300 die.
1893 - Hurricane hits Charleston, South Carolina; 1,000 die.
1893 - Killer hurricane strikes Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Alabama; 2,000 die.
1893-1894 - Worldwide cholera epidemic kills millions,
including composer Tchaikovsky.
1894 - Forest fire devastates Hinkley, Minnesota, and
surrounding towns; 600 die.
1895 - Spanish warship Reina Regente founders and sinks
in a storm near the Strait of Gibraltar; 402 die.
1896-1897 - 5 million die of famine and disease in India.
1898-1899 - 1.25 million die of drought and famine in India.
1896 - Saint Louis tornado kills 306.
1896 - Subsea earthquake creates a huge tidal wave, 80 feet
high and 300 miles wide, which strikes Japan, sweeping
entire coastal towns into the ocean; 28,000 die.
1898 - Coastal northeastern U.S. struck by blizzard; 455 die.
1900-1907 - Sleeping sickness strikes the area around Lake
Victoria in Uganda; 200,000 die.
1900 - Hurricane strikes Galveston, Texas; 6,000 die. After-
wards, hoards of looters descended on the city by boat;
250 looters were shot and killed.
1902 - British steamer Camorta founders in heavy seas off
Rangoon, Burma; 739 die.
1902 - Mount Pelee volcano erupts near Saint Pierre,
Martinique; 30,000 incinerated in less than 3 minutes.
1902 - Volcano erupts in Guatemala; 6,000 die.
1903-1908 - Plague sweeps over India; 4 million die.
1906 - San Francisco earthquake and fire; 700 die.
1907 - Storms cause a collision of a schooner with the
Joy Line ship Larchmont, off the coast of Providence,
Rhode Island; the Larchmont sinks in 15 minutes; all
332 passengers and crew die.
1908 - Meteor strikes forest in Tunguska, a remote area
of central Siberia; two months of "bright nights" result
in the northern hemisphere, with enough light to read and
take photographs outside all night long; the sky was a
delicate "silent pink" in color; 25 square miles of forest
were flattened; as this occurred in a remote region, the
death toll was minimal.
1908 - Messina, on the island of Sicily, collapses in ruin
from severe earthquakes; up to 250,000 die.
1910-1913 - Black Plague in China and India; millions die.
1912 - Japanese steamer Kichemaru founders and sinks in
heavy seas off the coast of Japan; over 1,000 die.
1915 - Flooding rivers wash away entire villages in
Kwangtung, Kwangsi, and Kiangsi, China; over 100,000
die.
1916 - Dikes break in Holland; 10,000 die.
1917 - Tornadoes strike Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, and Arkansas; 249 die.
1918-1919 - Virulent influenza outbreak starts at Fort Riley
and Camp Funston in Kansas; within a year, this new strain
of Spanish flu claims 22 million lives worldwide, including
over 550,000 Americans (10 times greater than the American
losses in World War I).
1918 - American steamer Otranto collides in heavy seas with
a transport vessel in the North Channel between the Scottish
and Irish coasts; the Otranto sinks and 425 die.
1918 - Gale force winds whip savage fires in Minnesota and
Wisconsin; 800 die.
1918 - Steamship Princess Sophia strikes a reef off of Juneau,
Alaska; it recovers but is struck by another storm the following
evening; 398 die.
1919 - Lake-filled volcano Keluit in Java erupts; a torrent of
mud and water results, killing 5,500.
1920 - Earthquake in north central China (Gansu) kills
180,000.
1921-1923 - Famine strikes Soviet Union; millions starve to
death.
1922 - Two typhoons strike Shantou, China; 60,000 die.
1923 - Earthquake strikes 60 miles offshore from Tokyo,
Japan; 30 foot tsunami and fires follow; 140,000 die.
1925 - Deadliest tornado in U.S. history tears a 300 mile
path of destruction through Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana;
689 die.
1926 - Hurricane strikes Florida; 450 die.
1927 - Mississippi valley floods; 313 die.
1927 - Earthquake in north central China (Gansu) kills
100,000.
1928-1929 - Famine strikes northwest China; 3 million die.
1928 - Saint Francis dam breaks (San Francisquito Canyon,
California) due to heavy rain; 350 die.
1928 - Hurricane strikes Lake Okeechobee area near West
Palm Beach, Florida; 2,500 die in Florida with another 2,500
dead in the Caribbean.
1931 - Severe diphtheria outbreak sweeps U.S.; 17,000
children die.
1931 - Chinese Yangtze River floods; 3.7 million die from
flood, disease, starving.
1932 - Earthquake in north central China (Gansu) kills 70,000.
1935 - Earthquake in northwestern India (now part of
Pakistan); 50,000 die.
1935 - Hurricane strikes Florida keys; 400 die.
1936 - As the result of a civil war and subsequent unrest,
a famine strikes Szechwan (now Sichuan), China; 5 million
die.
1938 - 500-ton meteor strikes just outside Pittsburgh; had it
struck Pittsburgh, a city of over half a million people would
have been destroyed.
1938 - Hurricane strikes New England; 500 die.
1939 - Earthquake strikes Chillan, Chile; 50,000 die.
1939 - Flood and famine strikes much of northern China;
200,000 die.
1939 - High winds, heavy seas, and blizzard cause wreck
of Soviet steamship Indirka, near Japan; 750 die.
1939 - Earthquake strikes wide area of eastern and northern
Turkey; 50,000 die.
1941 - Torrential rains unleash a mud slide in 185 miles
northwest of Lima, Peru; 3,000 die.
1942 - Hurricane strikes Bengal province in India; 40,000 die.
1942 - Fire strikes Cocoanut Grove nightclub in Boston,
Massachusetts; 491 die.
1944 - Hurricane strikes New England; 389 die.
1949 - Earthquake destroys over a half dozen cities and towns
in Ecuador; 6,000 die.
1950 - Flood in Anhui province in eastern China; 489 die.
1953 - Flood tides devastate east coast of England, the
Netherlands, and Belgium; 1,835 die.
1954 - Yangtze River floods in China; 40,000 die.
1954 - Pilgrims praying at a Muslim shrine, in Farahzad, Iran,
struck by a 90 foot high wall of water pouring through a
gorge; 2,000 die.
1954 - Typhoon strikes Japan; 1,600 die.
1954 - Hurricane Hazel strikes South Carolina and travels
upward through New England to Canada; 411 die.
1957 - Hurricane Audrey slams into Texas, Louisiana,
and Mississippi; 550 die.
1959 - Typhoon Vera strikes Nagoya, Japan; 5,000 die.
1960 - Earthquake strikes Agadir, Morocco; 12,000 die.
1960 - Cyclones strike Bay of Bengal, India; 10,000 die.
1962 - Avalanche hits Ranrahirca, Peru; 450 die.
1962 - Earthquake strikes western Iran; 10,000 die.
1963 - Cyclone strikes East Pakistan; 22,000 die.
1963 - Hurricane Flora hits Haiti and Cuba; 6,000 die.
1963 - Avalanche falls into a lake behind a dam in the
Piave River Basin in Italy; 2,000 killed by a resulting
torrent of water.
1964 - Alaska earthquake; 118 die.
1965 - 35 Midwest tornadoes; 271 die.
1966 - Avalanche hits schoolhouse at Aberfan, Wales;
one of the children recalls "We were laughing and playing . . .
waiting for the teacher to call the register"; 116 children
and 29 adults die . . . the children were finally buried in a
mass grave marked by a one-hundred foot cross.
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1, who cares deeply about truth,
freedom, and maxing out this one and only experience we
all know and share on this earth, at this time, in this life.
FREELOVER? Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive
Liberty, Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality
(also, pro-love, free from state and church authorities)
______________________________________________
Charles Wyndham
club Dan, so what is the point of these five postings.
Are you perhaps pointing to what you see as imperfections
in our natural world, and saying that human action should
be mobilised to foil its threatening aspects?
Perhaps we can control the weather to stop flood and
drought, tornado and storm, or perhaps we can use genetics
to foil the evolution of new and deadlier diseases, or learn to
relieve tensions in the earth's crust before they relieve
themselves in earthquakes.
Not much of a vote of confidence in the natural world that
you seem to worship. Apart from the question of whether
man's meddling with nature can in the long run do more good
than harm.
But isn't trying to change nature a bit like playing at being
God?
Perhaps the reality is that we have already corrupted the
natural world probably beyond repair - we have fouled our
atmosphere, polluted land and sea, spread the deserts and
destroyed forests. Through careless misuse of anti-biotics we
are making once controllable infections deadlier. We have
already made weather patterns more violent. We have killed
off half of the earth's creatures, but the cockroaches are
doing fine and just waiting to take over.
Why? You might try to blame religion, I prefer to blame
man's greed and hedonism, his lack of moral values, and his
concentration on maxing out this life and this time, instead
of maxing out this time and future times.
Chas.
Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:tLKD5.422$C71....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Dan Fake
Actually, the natural world is recognized as such by yours truly.
I worship not. When given details on how human interaction
with the natural world has been free of supernatural involvement
of any kind, perhaps religious folks will be a bit more open to
those of us who are certain that there are no such things as
supernatural beings interacting with or caring about human
beings except, of course, in the imaginations of human beings.
Of note, Charles, your Jesus supposedly showed up 13 or
so years after over 100,000 were killed by a severe earthquake
in what is now modern-day Syria. Yet, we're supposed to get
all excited about him turning water into wine and giving folks
free food and healing some sick folks and ... perhaps, like
there's even a remote chance that such a god man existed, he
should have used some of his hocus-pocus to save the poor
folks killed-maimed-devastated by that earthquake a short
distance from where he supposedly was born and lived, eh?
Oh well, per the old testamyth, the Syrians were probably
just not good god material, which is a sad commentary on
the mythical nature of your faith, isn't it? Who knows, per
the old testamyth, maybe your god should get credit for
that earthquake as he really seemed to be into killing folks
he didn't like before this Jesus supposedly showed up, per
the new testamyth, that is, and caused God to stop slaying
folks in the real world as God then switched his hate to
burning disbelievers in his son in the afterlife ... aren't you
getting warm all over from the glowing love of your super
beings ...
Mass Killings Ordered, Committed, or Approved By God ...
... per the christian bible:
http://www.ffrf.org/bas/bas5.html
-Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1
Charles Wyndham
the past and consider what is needed to preserve the future
before the cockroaches take over.
Are you totally obsessed by hatred of Christianity?
Chas.
Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:IQ_D5.861$C71....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
unicat
Dan ,
You're making two mutually contradictory arguments.
You start with the premise that Dan thinks humans are the center
of the Universe, and what happens to them is the most important
thing in the universe.
You then argue that the God of the Bible holds most human life in contempt,
and allows lots of bad things to happen to them. Therefore he cannot exist,
because he violates our first premise.
But then you show that nature, apart from the existence of God,
holds humans in even worse contempt, and routinely kills millions of
them. Thereby showing that humans are not particularly important,
and invalidating the premise that you use to argue against the existence of God.
Here's an alternative to ponder. (If you have to, smoke a doobie first to
relax yourself so you have an open mind)
Just for a moment, suppose that the physical universe was created by God.
As created, it was in a state of harmony.
The second law of thermodynamics did not apply. Energy could flow from
a cold object to a hot one as readily as from a hot one to a cold one.
Entropy did not exist. Nothing died, nothing rotted, and nothing wore out.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle did not apply, all particle interactions
were strictly deterministic, with an exactly predictable outcome.
Since all matter emanated from God, as long as all creatures obeyed Him,
everything remained in balance.
But then suppose that humans, who had free will, chose to disobey God. This "broke"
the harmony of nature by introducing random chance into the equation.
Now the future was inherently unpredicatable. Particle collisions had
only probable outcomes. Entropy became active. Things began to decay.
Genes made mistakes when replicating, and people started to age and die.
(there are at least two experiments that show that humans can affect the
behavior of subatomic particles - in one, you retroactively change
the polarity of a particle by measuring the polarity of its twin, in the other
you can reset the clock on the half-life of radioactive decay by measuring
whether nuclei haved decayed yet)
Astronomers, when looking back into the past, get confused because they assume that
our current physical laws have always applied. (Remember that researchers working
with lasers just recently got a pulse of light to travel through a cell full of excited gas
at 300 times what we used to think the speed of light was).
Although science is only just beginnning to suspect this, what if natural laws are maleable
and the universe itself is decaying. Entropy is getting worse, and uncertainty in subatomic
reactions is increasing exponentially. Sometime, within the span of human civilization on
earth, the universe will unravel. Subatomic particles like protons will decay and matter
will cease to exist, returning to the raw energy that it was created from.
So what if, even though man has soiled his universe in a way that will ultimately cause its demise,
God has decided to make another one. And He also has compassion. After all,
He has an attachment to His creation.
Anyone can come, provided that they are willing to behave
themselves there. It will of course be a universe that is once again free
from decay and death, and it will stay that way.
Those that choose not to come will, unfortunately, be left to burn with the trash.
Of course, this is highly conjectural, to say the least. But ask yourself this-
If we live in a universe that created itself, and all life is a random accident. Then all thoughts
of meaning, purpose, and direction are simple self-delusion. But then again, there is no inherent
value to avoiding such ideas, so why not choose to live in a universe that has meaning?
What is wrong with adopting a value system that encourages people to pursue their higher instincts,
the desire to create beauty, the urge to help those less fortunate, the disciplines of honesty and
loyalty.
What does someone really get from a life of selfish indulgence?
Overeating leads to obesity and disease.
Alchohol abuse leads to liver and brain damage.
Overuse of drugs leads to confusion, lethargy, and lack of achievement.
Sexual excess leads to satiation, boredom, and sometimes to perversion or impotence.
If believing in God helps you to focus on developing your good side, then even if he isn't real,
you will have lived a better life.
And if He does turn out to be real, just think how conveniently that works out.
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
unicat <uni...@olg.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dan ,
>
> You're making two mutually contradictory arguments.
>
> You start with the premise that Dan thinks humans are the
>center of the Universe, and what happens to them is the most
>important thing in the universe.
No. The post is regarding a natural world and the way the
natural world, not super beings, have interacted with
humankind.
> You then argue that the God of the Bible holds most human
> life in contempt, and allows lots of bad things to happen to
> them.
No, there is no god. See above. If you're referring to the
mythical version of the christian god that many believers
refer to as "the god of love", the christian bible and the
anti-human acts of followers of said document throughout
history speaks volumes regarding the downsides of faith
in that imaginary being.
> [skipped for brevity]
>
> If believing in God helps you to focus on developing your
>good side, then even if he isn't real, you will have lived
>a better life.
>
> And if He does turn out to be real, just think how
>conveniently that works out.
What about the anti-Pascal wager, not to mention the 18,000 or
so gods of other faiths + the 300,000 or so gods of the Hindu
faith?
http://x76.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=639370118
Seems to me the most logical, rational, reasonable, sane,
life-promoting, life-sustaining, and life-enhancing position
is to accept responsibility for maxing out our one sure shot
at life, on this earth, at this time - see FREELOVER principles
for details:
http://x58.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=677641243
______________________________________________
Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1, who cares deeply about truth,
freedom, and maxing out this one and only experience we
all know and share on this earth, at this time, in this life.
FREELOVER? Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive
Liberty, Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality
(also, pro-love, free from state and church authorities)
______________________________________________
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e.
"Charles Wyndham" <wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Avoiding the point as always Dan. Try living in the present not
> in the past and consider what is needed to preserve the future
> before the cockroaches take over.
>
> Are you totally obsessed by hatred of Christianity?
I'm a lover, not a hater. I love humankind and I seek
to promote the mutually respectful freeing of humankind
from the delusions, futility, and anti-human downsides
of blindly following faith in imaginary beings.
-Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1
Elf Sternberg
> You start with the premise that Dan thinks humans are the center
>of the Universe, and what happens to them is the most important thing
>in the universe.
From the human point of view, this is completely true.
Without us, even from an existential point of view, anything else
would be meaningless. After all, this conversation would not be
happening.
>You then argue that the God of the Bible holds most human life in
>contempt, and allows lots of bad things to happen to them. Therefore
>he cannot exist, because he violates our first premise.
No, he violates *His own* premise that he is merciful and
loves us. It's a contradiction of terms to describe a God that is
merciful and loving and yet allows gratuitous pain and suffering to
occur.
>But then you show that nature, apart from the existence of God,
>holds humans in even worse contempt...
Fallacy of reification. "Nature" does not hold humans in
contempt. Nature simply is; we exist in it. Either we attribute the
workings of nature to the malice of God, or we attribute the workings
of nature to, well, nature, and deal with events as they occur.
>Just for a moment, suppose that the physical universe was created by
>God. The second law of thermodynamics did not apply. Energy could
>flow from a cold object to a hot one as readily as from a hot one to
>a cold one. Entropy did not exist. Nothing died, nothing rotted, and
>nothing wore out.
And nothing changed. Nobody learned. Nobody could move.
Movement and information are changes in entropy. The universe was a
static, dull, unchanging, boring, useless, meaningless place.
If that's your idea of God, you're welcome to it.
>Since all matter emanated from God, as long as all creatures obeyed
>Him, everything remained in balance.
In the universe you describe, "disobedience" would have been
impossible. In the universe you describe, God's omniscience is
guaranteed.
The only way your scenario could have worked out is if God
willed it to.
>Now the future was inherently unpredicatable.
Even to God? Really.
>Astronomers, when looking back into the past, get confused because
>they assume that our current physical laws have always
>applied. (Remember that researchers working with lasers just recently
>got a pulse of light to travel through a cell full of excited gas at
>300 times what we used to think the speed of light was).
Go re-read the experiment. It turned out that they were
mistaken. The speed of light remains where it was, 3x10^8mps, and has
not been revised.
>If we live in a universe that created itself, and all life is a
>random accident. Then all thoughts of meaning, purpose, and direction
>are simple self-delusion. But then again, there is no inherent value
>to avoiding such ideas, so why not choose to live in a universe that
>has meaning?
The idea of 'choosing' that which cannot be rationally chosen
is a classic example of the intellectual self-mutilation you theistic
types put yourself through to "enjoy" the delusions you treasure so
much.
>What is wrong with adopting a value system that encourages people to
>pursue their higher instincts, the desire to create beauty, the urge
>to help those less fortunate, the disciplines of honesty and loyalty.
Nothing, so long as you don't mistake that value system as an
affirmation of the existence of this God-thingy you keep blathering
about.
>What does someone really get from a life of selfish indulgence?
>Overeating leads to obesity and disease. Alchohol abuse leads to
>liver and brain damage. Overuse of drugs leads to confusion,
>lethargy, and lack of achievement. Sexual excess leads to satiation,
>boredom, and sometimes to perversion or impotence.
Um, how did we get from considering the origin of the universe
to something as petty as hedonistic self-indulgence? There's nothing
in the ethics inherent in evolutionary thought that leads one to
assume that these are "good" things. Indeed, the list above all
detract from our own reproductive ability and from our overall general
happiness.
>If believing in God helps you to focus on developing your good side,
>then even if he isn't real, you will have lived a better life.
>And if He does turn out to be real, just think how conveniently that
>works out.
Pascal's fallacy. Dead and buried, sorry.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
"Chaos rules the universe! Scientists call it entropy! Everything is
breaking down, tending towards greater and greater disorder!
It's great to be on the winning side!"
--- Grimmy
Steve Mading
: Astronomers, when looking back into the past, get confused because they assume that
: our current physical laws have always applied. (Remember that researchers working
: with lasers just recently got a pulse of light to travel through a cell full of excited gas
: at 300 times what we used to think the speed of light was).
That's a strawman. We never used to think the speed of light was a
constant. It's always been known that the speed of light varies
depending on the material it is passing through. In fact, fiberoptic
communication cables are designed on this concept - the difference between
the speed of light in the glass cable and the speed of light in the air
outside the cable causes light that hits the interface at a shallow
angle to reflect and stay inside the cable. This is how the cable
"contains" the light. It's the same as the effect you get looking
at a calm body of water - at a shallow angle it is a reflecting
mirror, but at a sharp enough angle you can see through the water.
This happens because the speed of light in water and the speed of light
in air is different.
The only thing that makes the experiment you cite unique is the sheer
magnitude of the difference in speed. It's not surprising that the
speed is different. It's just surprising that it's such a huge
difference.
unicat
".d.a.n.f.a.k.e." wrote:........
>
> Seems to me the most logical, rational, reasonable, sane,
> life-promoting, life-sustaining, and life-enhancing position
> is to accept responsibility for maxing out our one sure shot
> at life, on this earth, at this time - see FREELOVER principles
> for details:
> http://x58.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=677641243
> ______________________________________________
I'm sorry, I was used to the old Dan, who was a materialist humanistic
atheist.
The new Dan is just a hedonist. Without a guiding light, your behavior
will steadily
degenerate as you try to find enlightenment through indulgence.
I'll wait until you crash and burn, and are in a repentant frame of mind
before I try to reach
you again. But remember my e-mail address. You're going to need it
sooner or later.
>
>
unicat
Elf Sternberg wrote:.....
> From the human point of view, this is completely true.
> Without us, even from an existential point of view, anything else
> would be meaningless. After all, this conversation would not be
> happening.
So the universe only exists so that we can experience it? Do we create
it dynamically with our thought energy? I thought we evolved accidentally
from a pre-existing universe. But now you say it wasn't here until we
arrived
at consciousness. Did we retroactively create the past after we brought
creation into existence?
>
> No, he violates *His own* premise that he is merciful and
> loves us. It's a contradiction of terms to describe a God that is
> merciful and loving and yet allows gratuitous pain and suffering to
> occur.
My parents were merciful and loved me, but when I fell down, I still
skinned
my knee. You're still making the same circular argument.You're setting upa
straw god
with properties that are mutually contradictory, then arguing that God
can't exist because
that would violate your definition of God.
>
>
> >But then you show that nature, apart from the existence of God,
> >holds humans in even worse contempt...
>
> Fallacy of reification. "Nature" does not hold humans in
> contempt. Nature simply is; we exist in it. Either we attribute the
> workings of nature to the malice of God, or we attribute the workings
> of nature to, well, nature, and deal with events as they occur.
Or, God created a world in harmony, man spoiled that harmony, and
is now harmed by the evil that he himself unleashed. It's the paradox of
free will.
i.e. How could a God who loves me allow me to hurt myself.
>
>
> >Just for a moment, suppose that the physical universe was created by
> >God. The second law of thermodynamics did not apply. Energy could
> >flow from a cold object to a hot one as readily as from a hot one to
> >a cold one. Entropy did not exist. Nothing died, nothing rotted, and
> >nothing wore out.
>
> And nothing changed. Nobody learned. Nobody could move.
> Movement and information are changes in entropy. The universe was a
> static, dull, unchanging, boring, useless, meaningless place.
>
> If that's your idea of God, you're welcome to it.
Aside from the epithets and prejudicial adjectives, yes, and when you grow
up
maybe you'll share it too.
>
>
> >Since all matter emanated from God, as long as all creatures obeyed
> >Him, everything remained in balance.
>
> In the universe you describe, "disobedience" would have been
> impossible. In the universe you describe, God's omniscience is
> guaranteed.
>
> The only way your scenario could have worked out is if God
> willed it to.
Or if he created us in his image, and gave us free will, and we willed it.
>
>
> >Now the future was inherently unpredicatable.
>
> Even to God? Really.
A clever boy like you should be able to work this out. We live in a
3-dimensional
instant that travels through a 4-dimensional continuum. If you add a fifth
dimension
that gives multiple possible paths into the future, and thus, allows
probablistic
outcomes for events that are experienced in the 3-d instant. However, a
being which
existed in a dimension higher than 5 could see the whole 5-D continuum
collapsed
from end-to-end, just as we can see all the frames in a cartoon strip at
once because it is
2-D. So the higher-dimensional being is omniscient as far as our universe
is concerned,
and yet we experience true free will, and the ability to make real choices
about the future
due to our limited frame of reference...
Just because man is like God in some aspects, does not make him His equal.
>
> Go re-read the experiment. It turned out that they were
> mistaken. The speed of light remains where it was, 3x10^8mps, and has
> not been revised.
I will, but the point is that laws that we consider fixed may very well
not be.
If this experiment bombed, there will be others. And rest assured that all
of our estimates
of the age, size and creation of the universe will look as silly as
phlogiston and phrenology
a hundred years from now.
>
>
> >If we live in a universe that created itself, and all life is a
> >random accident. Then all thoughts of meaning, purpose, and direction
> >are simple self-delusion. But then again, there is no inherent value
> >to avoiding such ideas, so why not choose to live in a universe that
> >has meaning?
>
> The idea of 'choosing' that which cannot be rationally chosen
> is a classic example of the intellectual self-mutilation you theistic
> types put yourself through to "enjoy" the delusions you treasure so
> much.
>
No, my friend. You are the one who is deluded. The very idea of a
universe that created itself from nothingness is every bit as
laughable as any religious explanation.
Both beliefs are based in faith. You have faith that we limited
3-dimensional creatures can
explain our universe based upon extremely limited information (when we
can't even unify
the four forces we believe in in any coherent theory). I have faith in
God.
And you can mock Pascal's wager all you want, but it won't save your
buns from toasting...
Dan Fake
>
>
> ".d.a.n.f.a.k.e." wrote:........
>
> >
> > Seems to me the most logical, rational, reasonable, sane,
> > life-promoting, life-sustaining, and life-enhancing position
> > is to accept responsibility for maxing out our one sure shot
> > at life, on this earth, at this time - see FREELOVER principles
> > for details:
> > http://x58.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=677641243
> > ______________________________________________
>
> I'm sorry, I was used to the old Dan, who was a materialist
> humanistic atheist. The new Dan is just a hedonist.
You folks keep misspelling FREELOVER, for some strange
reason. I suspect the "reason" is trained dishonesty, as inspired
by religious faith and the teachings of those steeped therein.
> Without a guiding light, your behavior will steadily
> degenerate as you try to find enlightenment through indulgence.
Actually, reading and writing are principle courses of actions
I'm taking towards enlightenment. Observations of human
behavior as exhibited in newsgroup forums is helpful and
my interaction with others in daily life also provides tidbits
of details which are of value in my journey.
>
> I'll wait until you crash and burn, and are in a repentant frame of
> mind before I try to reach you again. But remember my e-mail
> address. You're going to need it sooner or later.
Typical - the hope of faithers that some disbeliever will "crash
and burn" - heck, if we don't do it in this life, you've promised
us we're due in the next one - rather sad commentary on your
faith, don't yuh think, maybe?
Elf Sternberg
>So the universe only exists so that we can experience it?
No, what I'm saying is that for us to exist in the form we do
now, it is necessary that the universe exist in the form it does now.
Some people find that "miraculous," but that's a Supernaturalist
argument that needs more than "I exist" to support it.
>My parents were merciful and loved me, but when I fell down, I still
>skinned my knee. You're still making the same circular
>argument.You're setting upa straw god with properties that are
>mutually contradictory, then arguing that God can't exist because
>that would violate your definition of God.
I'm sorry, but this is fallacious reasoning to someone
crossposting to "Christnet." The implications of at least the Western
traditions of Christianity and Islam are that a finite being capable
only of commmitting finite transgressions is nonetheless capable of
deserving infinite punishment.
If it's a straw God, it's the one stuffed and pinned up in
every Church in the country.
>> And nothing changed. Nobody learned. Nobody could move.
>> Movement and information are changes in entropy. The universe was a
>> static, dull, unchanging, boring, useless, meaningless place.
>> If that's your idea of God, you're welcome to it.
>Aside from the epithets and prejudicial adjectives, yes, and when you
>grow up maybe you'll share it too.
I rather doubt it. I *like* being a human being. I like the
challenges, the sport, the ever-increasing thrills of a world full of
good, decent human beings striving to better both themselves and
others.
The universe you describe is removed from all that. There is
no striving. There is no learning. There is no changing. There is
no challenge.
In a universe like that, what does it mean to be "a human
being?" It doesn't seem to me that "you" or "I" would exist at all.
>> The only way your scenario could have worked out is if God
>> willed it to.
>Or if he created us in his image, and gave us free will, and we
>willed it.
And he *knew* that would happen, Unicat. You're still arguing
for two inherently contradictatory points-- that there exists free
will, and that there exists the negation of free will.
>> Even to God? Really.
>A clever boy like you should be able to work this out.
Your snide attacks will be cheerfully pointed out for the
benefit of the audience and then ignored.
>We live in a 3-dimensional instant that travels through a
>4-dimensional continuum. If you add a fifth dimension that gives
>multiple possible paths into the future, and thus, allows
>probablistic outcomes for events that are experienced in the 3-d
>instant. However, a being which existed in a dimension higher than 5
>could see the whole 5-D continuum collapsed from end-to-end, just as
>we can see all the frames in a cartoon strip at once because it is
>2-D. So the higher-dimensional being is omniscient as far as our
>universe is concerned, and yet we experience true free will, and the
>ability to make real choices about the future due to our limited
>frame of reference...
No, even in your example, we're experiencing the *illusion* of
free will even as this higher-order being is aware of everything,
past, present, and future, and knows all the outcomes of every
probabalistic event.
> And you can mock Pascal's wager all you want, but it won't save your
>buns from toasting...
And there it is, ladies and gentlemen. When intellecutal
argumentation starts to fray around the edges, there is always the
threat of violence to keep the flock in line. Mafia theology at its
finest.
unicat
Elf Sternberg wrote:
> In article <39E40056...@olg.com> unicat <uni...@olg.com> writes:
>
> >So the universe only exists so that we can experience it?
>
> No, what I'm saying is that for us to exist in the form we do
> now, it is necessary that the universe exist in the form it does now.
> Some people find that "miraculous," but that's a Supernaturalist
> argument that needs more than "I exist" to support it.
You say that we didn't create the universe, and it must exist in order for
us to exist,
then you must make an illogical U-turn and refuse to take the next logical
step and
realize that the since we didn't create it, and it couldn't have created
itself, there
must be some other creator.
Descartes once said "I think, therefore I am." But you aren't thinking.
OK, I changed my mind, you don't exist...
>
>
> >My parents were merciful and loved me, but when I fell down, I still
> >skinned my knee. You're still making the same circular
> >argument.You're setting upa straw god with properties that are
> >mutually contradictory, then arguing that God can't exist because
> >that would violate your definition of God.
>
> If it's a straw God, it's the one stuffed and pinned up in
> every Church in the country.
Maybe if you weren't so scared of feeling guilty about your life, you
might actually GO to church , and find out that God isn't made of straw.
>
>
>
> >> If that's your idea of God, you're welcome to it.
>
> >Aside from the epithets and prejudicial adjectives, yes, and when you
> >grow up maybe you'll share it too.
>
> I rather doubt it. I *like* being a human being. I like the
> challenges, the sport, the ever-increasing thrills of a world full of
> good, decent human beings striving to better both themselves and
> others.
Are we talking about the same earth here? The one inhabited by
OJ Simpson, Lorena Bobbit, and William Gacy.
Oh, wait, you mean you like to live in a fantasy world of your own
creation.
I understand now, you just can't handle reality.
>
>
> >> The only way your scenario could have worked out is if God
> >> willed it to.
>
> >Or if he created us in his image, and gave us free will, and we
> >willed it.
>
> And he *knew* that would happen, Unicat. You're still arguing
> for two inherently contradictatory points-- that there exists free
> will, and that there exists the negation of free will.
You're not very bright are you? I know that you will argue with this
posting,
does that take away your choice in the matter? Foreknowledge does not
negate
free will.
> >> Even to God? Really.
>
> >A clever boy like you should be able to work this out.
>
> Your snide attacks will be cheerfully pointed out for the
> benefit of the audience and then ignored.
You're awfully thin skinned for someone who rains insults on other people.
It must be the pain of having to actually think about your ridiculous
knee-jerk athiest beliefs.
>
>
> >We live in a 3-dimensional instant that travels through a
> >4-dimensional continuum. If you add a fifth dimension that gives
> >multiple possible paths into the future, and thus, allows
> >probablistic outcomes for events that are experienced in the 3-d
> >instant. However, a being which existed in a dimension higher than 5
> >could see the whole 5-D continuum collapsed from end-to-end, just as
> >we can see all the frames in a cartoon strip at once because it is
> >2-D. So the higher-dimensional being is omniscient as far as our
> >universe is concerned, and yet we experience true free will, and the
> >ability to make real choices about the future due to our limited
> >frame of reference...
>
> No, even in your example, we're experiencing the *illusion* of
> free will even as this higher-order being is aware of everything,
> past, present, and future, and knows all the outcomes of every
> probabalistic event.
It's not an illusion, we're just not omniscient. We are limited to a
3-dimensional point of
view, so having a choice of four dimensional futures IS free will. Do you
know what a tesseract is?
Try folding and unfolding them in your head. Then add one more dimesnion.
When you can do that
maybe you'll be smart enough to understand this concept.
>
>
> > And you can mock Pascal's wager all you want, but it won't save your
> >buns from toasting...
>
> And there it is, ladies and gentlemen. When intellecutal
> argumentation starts to fray around the edges, there is always the
> threat of violence to keep the flock in line. Mafia theology at its
> finest.
OK, OK, the next time I see you walking in front of a bus, I promise I
won't
threaten you by warning you about it.
Elf Sternberg
>You say that we didn't create the universe, and it must exist in
>order for us to exist, then you must make an illogical U-turn and
>refuse to take the next logical step and realize that the since we
>didn't create it, and it couldn't have created itself, there must be
>some other creator.
Which itself must have had a creator. Or are you going to
engage in the fallacy of special pleading and insist that this creator
of yours did not itself need a creator ad infinitum?
And you're quite wrong about one thing. Modern physics
demonstrates that it's quite possible for the universe to have emerged
"from nothing." It's an unstated assumption on your part that the
universe had a "beginning." What modern physics shows us is that
there's a time before which we have no understanding, but that doesn't
mean that in that time one must insert a "conscious, active creator"
to make what happened afterwards possible.
>Maybe if you weren't so scared of feeling guilty about your life, you
>might actually GO to church , and find out that God isn't made of
>straw.
I went to church. It was the rational conclusion that John
3:18 was quite possibly one of the most immoral things I'd ever read
that drove me out of church.
>> I rather doubt it. I *like* being a human being. I like the
>> challenges, the sport, the ever-increasing thrills of a world full of
>> good, decent human beings striving to better both themselves and
>> others.
>Are we talking about the same earth here? The one inhabited by OJ
>Simpson, Lorena Bobbit, and William Gacy. Oh, wait, you mean you
>like to live in a fantasy world of your own creation. I understand
>now, you just can't handle reality.
Yes, we're talking about the same Earth here. *I* am talking
about my neighbors, the ones who live on either side of me, who are
decent and just human beings who are just trying to make it through
life and leave something for their kids. *They* are representatives
of the vast majority of human beings, who are good, moral, decent
people in a utilitarian and compassionate manner.
If you want to lead your life obsessed by the media portrayals
of the few monsters living among us, go for it. I understand that one
of the things the church teaches is that all human beings, yourself
included, are dark and evil, and inspire in you a kind of free-
floating anxiety about your own thoughts and those of your neighbors.
It wasn't until I left religion behind me that I stopped
feeling scared and guilty. It was *religion* that taught me that fear
was the appropriate response to one's neighbors; it was *religion*
that taught me that guilt was the only reliable emotion for one's own
feelings.
I am the opposite of everything you accuse me of: I am not
scared, nor do I feel guilty for what I do. I am a moral human being
living in a reasonably moral and successful society; I treat my family
with love and my neighbors with respect, and they in turn treat me the
same way.
I was a volunteer for the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, running one of their publicly available
databases. *I* was the person who got up once a morning dreading an
email reading "Take down this child's records; they found the body,"
and in truth I did get that message three times in the three years I
ran www.missingkids.org.
But, I also learned something. The "stranger danger" thing is
overblown beyond all rational proportion. Compared to it, the number
of people who kill their own kids deliberately is orders of magnitude
greater, and those who kill their own kids accidentally by failing to
provide carseats and electrical outlet covers is orders of magnitude
greater than that.
But even all those dangers are on the decline. Forensics and
criminal investigation is so effective these days that the number of
unsolved crimes has plummetted in recent years. Despite the hype
about Columbine, kids in high school are safer today than at any time
in the past thirty years.
I take great heart in the fact that Yugoslavia is having a
wholly secular, wholly populist revolution without much death, and
great sadness that two great peoples, the Palestinians and the
Israelis, are willing to commit mutual suicide for their religion.
>> And he *knew* that would happen, Unicat. You're still arguing
>> for two inherently contradictatory points-- that there exists free
>> will, and that there exists the negation of free will.
>You're not very bright are you?
Ad hominem attacks will be cheerfully pointed out for the
benefit of the audience and then ignored.
>> No, even in your example, we're experiencing the *illusion* of
>> free will even as this higher-order being is aware of everything,
>> past, present, and future, and knows all the outcomes of every
>> probabalistic event.
>It's not an illusion, we're just not omniscient. We are limited to a
>3-dimensional point of view, so having a choice of four dimensional
>futures IS free will. Do you know what a tesseract is?
Yes, and you're attempting to derive a "real world" argument
from something that not only is a mathematical construct with no
bearing on the real world, but that does not exist in the real world,
nor can you demonstrate it.
>> And there it is, ladies and gentlemen. When intellecutal
>> argumentation starts to fray around the edges, there is always the
>> threat of violence to keep the flock in line. Mafia theology at its
>> finest.
>OK, OK, the next time I see you walking in front of a bus, I promise
>I won't threaten you by warning you about it.
The problem here is simple: You cannot prove that this "bus"
you're calling "God" exists. And you haven't shown one whit why I
should be afraid of this fantasy.
unicat
>
>
> The problem here is simple: You cannot prove that this "bus"
> you're calling "God" exists. And you haven't shown one whit why I
> should be afraid of this fantasy.
Well, I tried. Which is all I'm obligated to do. As the Bible says
"Many are called but few are chosen." You've had your call,
I guess you're just not one of the chosen.
As you get older, and the reality that your life will one day end sinks in,
your faith in atheism will be tested. Just remember that there is no prize
for
being arrogant and stubborn. Hopefully the sex and the drugs will have
lost their thrill by then and your mind will clear enough for you to
realize that there is no point in turning down free tickets to heaven.
Remember his name is spelled J-e-s-u-s, and all you have to do is call
on him to be saved.
unicat
>
> Typical - the hope of faithers that some disbeliever will "crash
> and burn" - heck, if we don't do it in this life, you've promised
> us we're due in the next one - rather sad commentary on your
> faith, don't yuh think, maybe?
The only sad thing is that we keep trying to reach out and help
folks like you. And don't give me this "I don't want your help"
nonsense. The only reason you post your lunatic tirades to this
newsgroup is because folks like me are the only people kind
enough to hold a conversation with you.
Just remember that even when everyone else in the world
thinks you're an @ssh*le, Jesus still loves you.
Laurie S.
>>
>>
>> Typical - the hope of faithers that some disbeliever will "crash
>> and burn" - heck, if we don't do it in this life, you've promised
>> us we're due in the next one - rather sad commentary on your
>> faith, don't yuh think, maybe?
>
>The only sad thing is that we keep trying to reach out and help
>folks like you. And don't give me this "I don't want your help"
>nonsense. The only reason you post your lunatic tirades to this
>newsgroup is because folks like me are the only people kind
>enough to hold a conversation with you.
I assume that "this newsgroup" is alt.christnet (I'm reading this
thread from talk.philosophy.humanism)
Personally, I don't care for crossposts that pit opposing groups
against each other. I think having talk.atheism and alt.christnet in
the same newsgroup line serves little purpose but to spark flames. I'm
not religious, but I have zero interest in posting anything
anti-religious to a religious group. It would be no less inflammatory
than for someone to post a message about the "evils of atheism" to an
atheism group.
I also post regularly on talk.rape, where we occasionally get
crossposts that do nothing but engender hostility among the groups
that appear to have been selected to "get things going."
Not exactly my cup of tea.
Laurie
---
www.geocities.com/tobyneige/life.html
---
"If you can't believe in yourself,
believe in someone who believes in you."
Dan Fake
> >
> >
> > Typical - the hope of faithers that some disbeliever will "crash
> > and burn" - heck, if we don't do it in this life, you've promised
> > us we're due in the next one - rather sad commentary on your
> > faith, don't yuh think, maybe?
>
> The only sad thing is that we keep trying to reach out and help
> folks like you. And don't give me this "I don't want your help"
> nonsense. The only reason you post your lunatic tirades to this
> newsgroup is because folks like me are the only people kind
> enough to hold a conversation with you.
>
> thinks you're an @ssh*le, Jesus still loves you.
With all due disrespect, you're insane.
-Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1
Dan Fake
> >> and burn" - heck, if we don't do it in this life, you've promised
> >> us we're due in the next one - rather sad commentary on your
> >> faith, don't yuh think, maybe?
> >
> >The only sad thing is that we keep trying to reach out and help
> >folks like you. And don't give me this "I don't want your help"
> >nonsense. The only reason you post your lunatic tirades to this
> >newsgroup is because folks like me are the only people kind
> >enough to hold a conversation with you.
>
> thread from talk.philosophy.humanism)
>
> Personally, I don't care for crossposts that pit opposing groups
> against each other. I think having talk.atheism and alt.christnet in
> the same newsgroup line serves little purpose but to spark flames.
> I'm not religious, but I have zero interest in posting anything
> anti-religious to a religious group. It would be no less inflammatory
> than for someone to post a message about the "evils of atheism"
> to an atheism group.
>
> I also post regularly on talk.rape, where we occasionally get
> crossposts that do nothing but engender hostility among the groups
> that appear to have been selected to "get things going."
>
> Not exactly my cup of tea.
Crossposts can be productive. It's called communicating with
one another. One needs not crossposts to be rude, and one needs
not be rude in crossposts nor need one be rude in posts to a
single newsgroup.
-Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1
Brenda G. Tataryn
> Re: Workings of a Natural World (Summary - 1628 BC to 1966 AD)
>> The problem here is simple: You cannot prove that this "bus"
>> you're calling "God" exists. And you haven't shown one whit why I
>> should be afraid of this fantasy.
>
>Well, I tried. Which is all I'm obligated to do. As the Bible says
>"Many are called but few are chosen." You've had your call,
>I guess you're just not one of the chosen.
>
**** actually we all are called and we all are chosen. "Many are called
but few listen". We all are going to heaven in what God
has told me.
>As you get older, and the reality that your life will one day end sinks in,
>your faith in atheism will be tested. Just remember that there is no prize
>for
>being arrogant and stubborn. Hopefully the sex and the drugs will have
>lost their thrill by then and your mind will clear enough for you to
>realize that there is no point in turning down free tickets to heaven.
**** the free tickets are in your soul....never can turn'em down ...never
can lose 'em.
>Remember his name is spelled J-e-s-u-s, and all you have to do is call
>on him to be saved.
**** Just talk to the dude...you are going to the next world like the
rest of all of us. If you go through a period of atheism..it just shows
you are intelligent enough and truthful enough to your spirit to want to
be certain. YOu value honesty and crave a validation. I went through a
period of it...and cherish that time as a real learning experience.
Rev.Brenda
Elf Sternberg
>Well, I tried. Which is all I'm obligated to do. As the Bible says
>"Many are called but few are chosen." You've had your call, I guess
>you're just not one of the chosen.
What a horrible, monstrous thing to say. But I'm not
surprised. This *is* the reason that I left the church. The idea that
some are "made by God destined for eternal damnation." Those who are
not among "the chosen."
>As you get older, and the reality that your life will one day end sinks
>in, your faith in atheism will be tested. Just remember that there is
>no prize for being arrogant and stubborn. Hopefully the sex and the
>drugs will have lost their thrill...
Sex? Drugs? Where did you get those ideas? I'm drug and
alcohol free, and I've been a happily married man for many years. I
have two beautiful young girls and I'm doing a good job of raising
them.
This is another reason why I don't buy your story. I don't have
the problems you describe; I don't need "relief" from the kinds of
things you seem to imagine trouble me. I'm actually having the best of
all possible lives right now.
>by then and your mind will clear enough for you to realize that there
>is no point in turning down free tickets to heaven.
You are still saddled with the responsibility of proving to me
that Heaven exists and that I have any reason to strive for it.
>Remember his name is spelled J-e-s-u-s, and all you have to do is call
>on him to be saved.
The burden of proof remains with you to prove that Jesus
existed, that he was what you clam he was, and that his story is any
more compelling than Mohammed's or Buddha's.
jimmy adams
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> The problem here is simple: You cannot prove that this "bus"
>> you're calling "God" exists. And you haven't shown one whit why I
>> should be afraid of this fantasy.
>
>"Many are called but few are chosen." You've had your call,
>I guess you're just not one of the chosen.
>
>your faith in atheism will be tested. Just remember that there is no prize
>for
>being arrogant and stubborn. Hopefully the sex and the drugs will have
>realize that there is no point in turning down free tickets to heaven.
>on him to be saved.
This is a curious exercise in ignoring the facts. Most humanists in
western societies were brought up in the Christian tradition (since that
is the major tradition).
Their "conversion" to humanism came from a long consideration of the way
life is, the misrepresentation of life in the bible (the "prophets"
having absolutely no idea of how it would change), and a realisation of
the flaws of the Christian tradition (whilst usually acknowledging the
good things).
The membership of the British Humanist Association includes twelve
people who are knights, professors and Fellows of the Royal Society: I
doubt whether any of these were attracted by the idea of sex, drugs and
rock'n'roll.
The idea that it might be possible to follow a worthless life on earth
by an eternity in heaven through a last minute conversion is
intellectually and morally repugnant. As Groucho Marx famously (almost)
said "I wouldn't want to be a member of a club which recruited like
that".
When a humanist is nearing death, s/he will want to know whether they
have made a contribution to life appropriate to their circumstances. If
they can answer in the affirmative, they will ask no more.
--
jra...@bigfoot.com
Ron Peterson
: The idea that it might be possible to follow a worthless life on earth
: by an eternity in heaven through a last minute conversion is
: intellectually and morally repugnant. As Groucho Marx famously (almost)
: said "I wouldn't want to be a member of a club which recruited like
: that".
I found the quotation:
"I sent the club a wire stating, PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T
WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT ME AS A MEMBER."
-- Groucho Marx
Ron
Laurie S.
though I've seen the thread many times: I just glanced at the subject
line and read it as Workings of a Natural World (Scumbag
On 15 Oct 2000 02:17:59 GMT, e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) wrote:
>In article <39E80FB9...@olg.com> unicat <uni...@olg.com> writes:
>
>>Well, I tried. Which is all I'm obligated to do. As the Bible says
>>"Many are called but few are chosen." You've had your call, I guess
>>you're just not one of the chosen.
>
> What a horrible, monstrous thing to say. But I'm not
>surprised. This *is* the reason that I left the church. The idea that
>some are "made by God destined for eternal damnation." Those who are
>not among "the chosen."
>
>>As you get older, and the reality that your life will one day end sinks
>>in, your faith in atheism will be tested. Just remember that there is
>>no prize for being arrogant and stubborn. Hopefully the sex and the
>>drugs will have lost their thrill...
>
> Sex? Drugs? Where did you get those ideas? I'm drug and
>alcohol free, and I've been a happily married man for many years. I
>have two beautiful young girls and I'm doing a good job of raising
>them.
I find it rather amusing to conceive of this society as divided
between Christians and sex-crazed druggies.
But I'd imagine, too, that as a happily married man, you would prefer
the sex to not lose its thrill.
Elf Sternberg
lea...@spacestar.net (Laurie S.) writes:
>> Sex? Drugs? Where did you get those ideas? I'm drug and
>>alcohol free, and I've been a happily married man for many years. I
>>have two beautiful young girls and I'm doing a good job of raising
>>them.
>I find it rather amusing to conceive of this society as divided
>between Christians and sex-crazed druggies.
"This society?" I find it rather frustrating that Christians
divide the entire world into the "saved and moral" and "unsaved and
immoral."
>But I'd imagine, too, that as a happily married man, you would prefer
>the sex to not lose its thrill.
What has that to do with the conversation? Is it less likely
to lose its thrill if I subscribe to a religion? Marital bliss (which
cannot be equated with sexual satisfaction) is a construct of many
things, but I have my doubts that any one thing (sex, religion,
politics) needs to be congruent to make it happen.
Laurie S.
>In article <39eb54e...@news.spacestar.net>
> lea...@spacestar.net (Laurie S.) writes:
>
>>> Sex? Drugs? Where did you get those ideas? I'm drug and
>>>alcohol free, and I've been a happily married man for many years. I
>>>have two beautiful young girls and I'm doing a good job of raising
>>>them.
>
>>I find it rather amusing to conceive of this society as divided
>>between Christians and sex-crazed druggies.
>
> "This society?" I find it rather frustrating that Christians
>divide the entire world into the "saved and moral" and "unsaved and
>immoral."
>
Well, yeah.
>>But I'd imagine, too, that as a happily married man, you would prefer
>>the sex to not lose its thrill.
>
> What has that to do with the conversation? Is it less likely
>to lose its thrill if I subscribe to a religion? Marital bliss (which
>cannot be equated with sexual satisfaction)
The word was "thrill." The implication was that the "empty" sex of the
"unsaved" is akin to the transient thrill of drugs. But sex among the
maritally blissful can have various thrills as well. I don't equate
sexual bliss with marital bliss, because the former is an element of
the other, rather than synonymous. An important element, but not the
whole ball of yarn.
> is a construct of many
>things, but I have my doubts that any one thing (sex, religion,
>politics) needs to be congruent to make it happen.
Argh. I'm on your side, Elf.
It was just a small point, more toward the implications of what you
were responding to -- sex *is* a rather important thing, and it's
ideally important to the very married. It may well even be thrilling.
So if sex is supposed to "lose its thrill" for the "unsaved," the
implication is that sex is bad (particularly the "cheap-thrills" sex
of the "unsaved"). I don't like that implication, and I don't know
*what* the hell it says about the sex between committed partners. I
don't think it makes it sound very good.
I don't like the traditional mixed message that sex is bad/good. It
pisses me off.
And I'm far from an extremist -- I wouldn't suggest that sex makes a
marriage (or other relationship) anymore than I'd suggest that honesty
or openness or trust does on its own. A relationship is, as you note,
a construct of many things. If I was part of one, I would have
responded that I hope the sex never loses its thrill -- because I
happen to think sex is a *good* thing, and it pisses me off when it
becomes a reason to look down on people.
Elf Sternberg
lea...@spacestar.net (Laurie S.) writes:
>> What has that to do with the conversation? Is it less likely
>>to lose its thrill if I subscribe to a religion? Marital bliss (which
>>cannot be equated with sexual satisfaction)
>Argh. I'm on your side, Elf.
>It was just a small point, more toward the implications of what you
>were responding to -- sex *is* a rather important thing, and it's
>ideally important to the very married.
I would argue that emotional fidelity is important to the wery
married, and that many couples have survived quite well without
significant sex lives. I can't stand it that our culture teaches people
that if your sex life isn't swinging from the chandeliers than there's
something ~wrong~ with you.
Right now, my sex life is terrible. With an eight month old,
finding the time and energy to have sex is about as likely as finding a
cavorite mine in my backyard. (Well, maybe it's a little better than
that.)
Sex does lose its thrill when it's a chore. Right now, that's
what it would be like. We manage to get a nooner here and there, when
the little one is sleeping in her crib, and that's about the only time
when we have both the energy reserves and the opportunity, and the few
times, it's been really good. It's supposed to be.
But, heck, the point is that my married life *is* fabulous. I
don't know if it says anything about me that I've adjusted to this and I
expect it to get better as the kids become more self-maintaining and
self-amusing. But being, well, somewhat celibate, if not by choice,
does not mean something's wrong with me, which is a message I get from
both the secular and (yes) religious media (which promotes "a healthy
sex life in marriage"). Right now a healthy sex life is an unhurried
one.
And yes, Laurie, I know you're on my side with this one.
Robert A. Neinast
e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) says:
> Right now, my sex life is terrible. With an eight month old,
> finding the time and energy to have sex is about as likely as finding a
> cavorite mine in my backyard. (Well, maybe it's a little better than
> that.)
Hey, but look at the bright side. If you *do* find a cavorite
mine in your backyard, it can also assist you in "getting it *up*".
Regards,
Bob
--
". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch."
Robert Neinast (nei...@lucent.com)
Pickerington, OH
Laurie S.
>In article <39eca946...@news.spacestar.net>
> lea...@spacestar.net (Laurie S.) writes:
>
>>> What has that to do with the conversation? Is it less likely
>>>to lose its thrill if I subscribe to a religion? Marital bliss (which
>>>cannot be equated with sexual satisfaction)
>
>>Argh. I'm on your side, Elf.
>
>>It was just a small point, more toward the implications of what you
>>were responding to -- sex *is* a rather important thing, and it's
>>ideally important to the very married.
>
> I would argue that emotional fidelity is important to the wery
>married, and that many couples have survived quite well without
>significant sex lives. I can't stand it that our culture teaches people
>that if your sex life isn't swinging from the chandeliers than there's
>something ~wrong~ with you.
>
Granted, but that's not where I draw my feelings of the importance of
sex from. And I don't present it as *the* important thing. Just *an*
important thing.
> Right now, my sex life is terrible. With an eight month old,
>finding the time and energy to have sex is about as likely as finding a
>cavorite mine in my backyard. (Well, maybe it's a little better than
>that.)
>
Heh. I remember those days -- my first child started sleeping through
the night at six weeks, and stopped doing so the day I returned to
work when she was four months old. I should have known she'd be a
rebel teen.
> Sex does lose its thrill when it's a chore. Right now, that's
>what it would be like. We manage to get a nooner here and there, when
>the little one is sleeping in her crib, and that's about the only time
>when we have both the energy reserves and the opportunity, and the few
>times, it's been really good. It's supposed to be.
>
Well, doesn't this support my initial point? "Really good" sounds
pretty much like a thrill to me. It doesn't have to be 24/7 to be
thrilling.
My point would have worked a whole lot better if *I* could have said
that I was in a relationship and hoped the sex never lost its thrill
-- which would have been a jab toward the subtle anti-sex message of
the other poster, not an attempt to put sex on a pedestal.
But I'm not in a relationship, and I apologize for projecting you into
what I would have said.
> But, heck, the point is that my married life *is* fabulous. I
>don't know if it says anything about me that I've adjusted to this and I
>expect it to get better as the kids become more self-maintaining and
>self-amusing. But being, well, somewhat celibate, if not by choice,
>does not mean something's wrong with me, which is a message I get from
>both the secular and (yes) religious media (which promotes "a healthy
>sex life in marriage"). Right now a healthy sex life is an unhurried
>one.
>
Okay, but I wasn't touting any messages. In what was a rather dismal
and dysfunctional sex life, I used to hear certain "messages" that sex
was something special, from individuals as well as through the media,
but the messages were wasted on me. It's only been a few years that
I've been able to relate to the concept of special, and I do tend to
wax rhapsodic about sex, even without having it.
But I wasn't doing that in this post. I was merely making the point
that ... "what's so bad about sex being thrilling?"
As far as the "healthy sex life" bit you refer to above, I don't pay
much attention. To me a healthy sex life is a sort of "whatever" thing
that links the desires of two individuals and works out to something
mutually pleasing. I don't need a book or magazine article to figure
out what that is; a partner is much more valuable.
I mean, if some book tells me that it's healthy to have sex once a
week, and a partner and I prefer to have sex twice a month, there's
nothing wrong with us. It's when one partner wants to have sex every
other day and the other wants it once a month, that there's something
wrong -- and I don't mean with either person, I mean with the
situation. But that's a personal dilemma, one that may be able to be
resolved in a way that feels right to the people involved.
Personally, one of the things I find most alluring about the concept
of a "healthy sex life" is communication/openness. I think much of the
media focus on sex and sexual problems comes from lack of
communication and unexpressed stuff. I don't think people in general,
in our culture, find it very easy to talk with their partners in a
relaxed, comfortable way, but they want answers, and they ask
questions. Maybe they're asking the wrong people.
When the answers come, they're just not going to *be* for everyone,
yet those who fall through the cracks often read and listen and feel
like they're doing something wrong, perhaps feel like they're bad for
wanting things other than what society wants them to want. But that's
the opportunity to simply think for oneself -- as I keep pointing out
to an ultra-dysfunctional friend. I've told him he doesn't have room
for society in bed with him and his girlfriend.
> And yes, Laurie, I know you're on my side with this one.
Thanks. I was confused. I'm now ... less confused, anyway.
Elf Sternberg
>In article <8skdjt$1ed$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,
>e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) says:
>> Right now, my sex life is terrible. With an eight month old,
>> finding the time and energy to have sex is about as likely as finding a
>> cavorite mine in my backyard. (Well, maybe it's a little better than
>> that.)
>Hey, but look at the bright side. If you *do* find a cavorite
>mine in your backyard, it can also assist you in "getting it *up*".
*Grumble* THAT is NOT our problem. :-)
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
As he lay dozing beside me, a little voice said, "Relax. You're not the
first doctor to sleep with a patient." Then another little voice said,
"But Rebecca, you're a veterinarian."