A proposal for Christians was: Re: The solution is allowing an alternative to evolution to be taught in public school.
Frank A.S.
>In article <6pbmh7$i2c$3...@demon.uunet.ca>,
> "Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>
>"Atheists have no common moral code and therefore cannot teach any to their
>children." Now this one is bait, right? You don't really believe it, you're
>just saying it to incite another thread of flames.
OK smartass, tell us what the atheist's COMMON moral code is.
>Finally, please notice that I didn't post this to sci.philosophy.meta, since
>that NG is not interested in discussing Christianity.
Since when is philosophy and metaphysics NOT part of any and all
religions? You mean YOU are not interested etc.
>posting Christian tripe
What tripe do YOU like to post? Atheism perhaps?
>discussion will turn to metaphysics and the nature of reality.
Then do discuss it. The religious perspective is very detailed and
interesting.
>If sci.philosophy.meta was a moderated NG, your posts would be removed
>because they are Christian spam, off-topic and a nuisance.
And your post would be removed because it is off topic flame.
Keeping this in mind,
>could you please exercise a little of your own "moral code" and go away?
If you don't like to discuss moral codes, then stay out of the philosophy
NGs altogether.
>You are posting only because you can't get caught. That sounds like
>situational ethics to me, pal.
>
You are only posting because like to flame people. Sounds like somebody
who needs a moral code for sure.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
Don't overestimate the decency of the human race.
- H. L. Mencken
Mindflayer
one fell sweep: <6pds5g$gas$1...@freeside.cls.net>
>
> Frank A.S. schrieb in Nachricht <6pdppq$13o$1...@demon.uunet.ca>...
> >good...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
^^^^^^^^
Cross-dressing, frankie?..
> > OK smartass, tell us what the atheist's COMMON moral code is.
>
> Kant's categoric imperative, anyone?
Or utilitarianism, or various social contracts, or nicomachean
ethics, or...
Andreas Koslowski
Frank A.S. schrieb in Nachricht <6pdppq$13o$1...@demon.uunet.ca>...
>good...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>>In article <6pbmh7$i2c$3...@demon.uunet.ca>,
>> "Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Atheists have no common moral code and therefore cannot teach any to
their
>>children." Now this one is bait, right? You don't really believe it,
you're
>>just saying it to incite another thread of flames.
>
Kant's categoric imperative, anyone?
And what is the theist's COMMON moral code, btw?
What exactly is a common moral code?
And why does a moral code have to be common to be taught?
good...@my-dejanews.com
"Andreas Koslowski" <stu3...@mail.uni-kiel.de> wrote:
>
> Frank A.S. schrieb in Nachricht <6pdppq$13o$1...@demon.uunet.ca>...
> >good...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <6pdd34$shb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >>In article <6pbmh7$i2c$3...@demon.uunet.ca>,
> >> "Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>"Atheists have no common moral code and therefore cannot teach any to
> their
> >>children." Now this one is bait, right? You don't really believe it,
> you're
> >>just saying it to incite another thread of flames.
> >
> > OK smartass, tell us what the atheist's COMMON moral code is.
We know what Frank's moral code is. Take a post that was directed to a
completely different NG and twist it around and post it to this NG so he can
defend himself and call people names in front of the widest possible audience.
To wit: > >good...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
I wrote this message to Frank, imploring that he please confine his
Christianity-related posts to Christian newsgroups. I posted this
specifically to the Christian newsgroups. He decided that he needed to share
his witticisms with everyone, so he posted it back here, and made sure to
call me a smartass. This is "a friend to all who love?" I think such
patently unethical and cowardly behavior speaks for itself.
Score another point for the Christians.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Frank A.S.
>> Frank A.S. schrieb in Nachricht <6pdppq$13o$1...@demon.uunet.ca>...
>> >good...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> Cross-dressing, frankie?..
> Or utilitarianism, or various social contracts, or nicomachean
>ethics, or...
Why? Are you an MS into head games?
That above is NOT a common moral code. Not even a simple code of ethics.
Atheists on the whole only accept moral codes imposed on them by government,
in the form of laws. Unfortunately the law has no redeeming features, only
reduced sanctions at best. It will not forgive and forget.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
Don't look back. Something may be gaining on you.
-- Satchel Paige
Mindflayer
sweep: <6pgav1$f97$1...@demon.uunet.ca>
> Mindflayer wrote in message ...
> >> Frank A.S. schrieb in Nachricht <6pdppq$13o$1...@demon.uunet.ca>...
> >> >good...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> >
> > Cross-dressing, frankie?..
> > Or utilitarianism, or various social contracts, or nicomachean
> >ethics, or...
>
> Why? Are you an MS into head games?
> That above is NOT a common moral code.
Actually, both Kant's categorical imperative (which is an
overglorified "golden rule") and utilitarian ethics are VERY common.
> Not even a simple code of ethics.
> Atheists on the whole only accept moral codes imposed on them by government,
> in the form of laws.
But each individual atheist has their own moral code -- and likely a
stronger one that an average theist's.
> Unfortunately the law has no redeeming features, only
> reduced sanctions at best. It will not forgive and forget.
Stop pretending to be a philosopher, frankie. You end up looking
laughable.
--
************************************************************************
* Mindflayer alt.atheist #696 * There are no believable gods... *
* BAAWA knight atheist Rev. #69 * -- Ozzy Osbourne, *
* http://www.cs.umass.edu/~danilche/ * "I just want you" *
************************************************************************
Frank A.S.
>
>
>And what is the theist's COMMON moral code, btw?
>
supremacy of love over law.
>What exactly is a common moral code?
>
A code of ethics. Check with professional associations for samples, if
imagination fails you.
>And why does a moral code have to be common to be taught?
>
Because a moral code HAS to be common to be effective. Our forefathers
believed in feuds. Family feuds would last for many generations. Now we
believe in the rule of law, even if my moral code specifies I should challenge
you to a duel you if you insult me. But the law CANNOT legislate to love your
enemy, only a religion can.
Frank A.S.
> Cross-dressing, frankie?..
> Or utilitarianism, or various social contracts, or nicomachean
>ethics, or...
Why? Are you an MS into head games?
That above is NOT a common moral code. Not even a simple code of ethics.
Atheists on the whole only accept moral codes imposed on them by government,
in the form of laws. Unfortunately the law has no redeeming features, only
reduced sanctions at best. It will not forgive and forget.
Frank
Frank A.S.
alt.christnet.philosophy and you have no business to tell ANYONE what is
unethical or cowardly, as you are the prime example of such behaviour.
If you had any smarts at all you should have noticed by now, that I am
discussing definitions in Biblical philosophy in the form of an academic
discourse, not as defense for any particular belief system. I leave that to
the true-believers in theism and/or atheism like yourself.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work.
I want to achieve immortality by not dying.
- Woody Allen
It's not that I'm afraid to die.
I just don't want to be there when it happens.
- Woody Allen
Jim Sarbeck
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>Atheists on the whole only accept moral codes imposed on them by government,
>in the form of laws.
No Frank, that's Primary Sociopaths you are talking about. Check out _THE
SOCIOBIOLOGY OF SOCIOPATHY: AN INTEGRATED EVOLUTIONARY MODEL_ by Linda
Mealey, Department of Psychology, College of St. Benedict St. Joseph, MN
56374. Sorry I don't have the HTTP, but a search on that title sould find
it. The article is heavily referenced.
Unless you are prepared to defend it, I assume you will not try to assert
that atheists are primary sociopaths. It might be tempting to some people
to make this facile remark, but as a friend to all those religions of love
over law that you are friend to, I assume you are not so easily tempted.
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Annalisa Conserti
> good...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6pdd34$shb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <6pbmh7$i2c$3...@demon.uunet.ca>,
> > "Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Atheists have no common moral code and therefore cannot teach any to their
> >children." Now this one is bait, right? You don't really believe it, you're
> >just saying it to incite another thread of flames.
>
> OK smartass, tell us what the atheist's COMMON moral code is.
>
> >Finally, please notice that I didn't post this to sci.philosophy.meta, since
> >that NG is not interested in discussing Christianity.
>
> Since when is philosophy and metaphysics NOT part of any and all
> religions? You mean YOU are not interested etc.
>
Metaphysics as a topic have nothing to do w/ religion. Metaphysics is
sometimes used to determine whether there is a 'first cause', or a God,
but all the philosophical proofs for/against the existence of God/first
cause are never supported by biblical quotes. Unlike you sloppy theories.
BTW: the newsgroup is _sci.philosophy.meta_ as such, the metaphysics
discussed should tie in w/ science, like philosophy of mind, and
philosophy of science (and -why evolution is a crock- is a
basically a miserable try, when attempting relevance). You can see how
she's right about that one.
> >posting Christian tripe
>
> What tripe do YOU like to post? Atheism perhaps?
>
> >discussion will turn to metaphysics and the nature of reality.
>
> Then do discuss it. The religious perspective is very detailed and
> interesting.
If one has a couple of metal plates in your head, then your 'discussion'
of religion might seem mildly interesting. Then again, one would have
better things to do, like tuning in to an FM bandwidth w/ the plates ;)
I believe that alt.philosophy.christnet was created w/ people such as you
in mind. Perhaps you should restrict your posts to that NG.
>
> >If sci.philosophy.meta was a moderated NG, your posts would be removed
> >because they are Christian spam, off-topic and a nuisance.
>
> And your post would be removed because it is off topic flame.
>
I think you're unclear on the concept of flaming. Flaming consists of
posting a barrage of insults that have nothing whatsoever to do w/ the
poster's original post. Given that, I find that the post you're
replying to is not inFLAMmatory, except to someone who is bent on spamming
the bandwidth and resents it when that fact is brought up to him. I guess
that must be you, then?
> Keeping this in mind,
> >could you please exercise a little of your own "moral code" and go away?
>
> If you don't like to discuss moral codes, then stay out of the philosophy
> NGs altogether.
>
See explanations of the topics intended for sci.philosophy.meta. Just
because it has _philosophy_ in it, it does not mean they have to tolerate
your spam.
> >You are posting only because you can't get caught. That sounds like
> >situational ethics to me, pal.
> >
> You are only posting because like to flame people. Sounds like somebody
> who needs a moral code for sure.
>
See above.
===================
When I carefully consider the curious habits of dogs
I am compelled to conclude
That man is the superior animal.
When I consider the curious habits of men
I confess, my friend, I am puzzled.
MEDITATIO, Ezra Pound
-----------------------
La pluie de vos insultes n'atteint pas le parapluie de mon indifference.
-----------------------
Annalisa Conserti
aco...@uic.edu
Annalisa Conserti
> good...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6pg2gq$od0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <6pds5g$gas$1...@freeside.cls.net>,
> > "Andreas Koslowski" <stu3...@mail.uni-kiel.de> wrote:
> >
> >I wrote this message to Frank, imploring that he please confine his
> >Christianity-related posts to Christian newsgroups. I posted this
> >specifically to the Christian newsgroups. He decided that he needed to share
> >his witticisms with everyone, so he posted it back here, and made sure to
> >call me a smartass. This is "a friend to all who love?" I think such
> >patently unethical and cowardly behavior speaks for itself.
> >Score another point for the Christians.
> >
> You are not only a smart ass but also a liar. I post to
> alt.christnet.philosophy and you have no business to tell ANYONE what is
> unethical or cowardly,
The header of this thread: alt.atheism,
alt.christnet.philosophy,
alt.philosophy.debate,
sci.philosophy.meta,
talk.philosophy.misc
Note that, of the five newsgroups:
1 deals w/ matters related to atheism, and hence religion might not be a
welcome topic.
1 deals w/ philosophy of science and metaphysics. Again, that means that
the fodder that Frank is posting might not be very welcome.
2 are extra newsgruops that Frank decided to throw in. Gee, wonder why?
> as you are the prime example of such behaviour.
So, who's exemplifying that behavior again?
> If you had any smarts at all you should have noticed by now, that I am
> discussing definitions in Biblical philosophy
There is no such thing as biblical philosopjy. Philosophy originated in
Greece, a few centuries after most of the OT was written. Philsophy means:
philo-friend
sophis-knowledge
As such, nost philosophy questions knowledge, and the sources of therein,
rather than codify behavior, such as books like the Bible do. Frank,
you're in the wrong forum. I've told you again and again.
> in the form of an academic
> discourse,
You've shown lack of it. Over and over. 'Practice what you preach' It's
one of the tenets of what you call 'biblical philosophy'.
> not as defense for any particular belief system. I leave that to
> the true-believers in theism and/or atheism like yourself.
>
Gee, as opposed to 'atheist fundies'?
Elf Sternberg
"Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
> That above is NOT a common moral code. Not even a simple code of ethics.
>Atheists on the whole only accept moral codes imposed on them by government,
>in the form of laws. Unfortunately the law has no redeeming features, only
>reduced sanctions at best. It will not forgive and forget.
Is there a common moral code, period, Frank. Come on, _answer
the flamin' question_. Do religions have a common moral code, and
does that "common moral code" have any reasonable basis? Does it hold
up well under the pressures and realities of our current civilization?
While the "law" may not be able to forgive and forget (a tenant I
disagree with vehemently, as laws are made by men and men can do
both), good men, atheists and theists alike, can. We can even forgive
our opponents for being what they are.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg - www.halcyon.com/elf
I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss has looked into me.
Neither liked what we saw.
--- Brother Theodore
Elf Sternberg
"Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
> Because a moral code HAS to be common to be effective. Our forefathers
>believed in feuds. Family feuds would last for many generations. Now we
>believe in the rule of law, even if my moral code specifies I should challenge
>you to a duel you if you insult me. But the law CANNOT legislate to love your
>enemy, only a religion can.
Nevertheless, many religions _do not_ "legislate" that (actually,
"legislation" implies debate by men, something gods do not allow
for).
Come on, Frank, stop squirming and admit it. THERE IS NO
UNIVERSAL MORAL CODE. Nothing you can say or do with demonstrate
otherwise; there are too many religions, too many belief systems, each
with their differing opinions on what it means to be "moral", for you
to boil out a "common" moral code.
good...@my-dejanews.com
Aye, and therein lies the rub, huh? A noble aspiration...and something to
keep in mind as I peruse this NG.
goodgrrl
--
NewWorldTimes
http://www.newworldtimes.com/
!Long live Francisco Pollo Amarillo!
Frank A.S.
>On Sat, 25 Jul 1998, Frank A.S. wrote:
>
>> Since when is philosophy and metaphysics NOT part of any and all
>> religions? You mean YOU are not interested etc.
>
>Metaphysics as a topic have nothing to do w/ religion.
Annalisa, are you so brainwashed by secular humanist academe that you
can't see that belief systems, including the Biblical ones, are the basis of
most people's world view? From the secular humanist standpoint there is NO
place for religion anywhere, except in churches. You would even argue with
Aldous Huxley, that his Perennial Philosophy is misnamed, for you regard
religion as not being philosophy.
>Metaphysics is
>sometimes used to determine whether there is a 'first cause', or a God,
Most religions wax eloquent when it comes to first causes. But since you
refuse to read up on any, you will never know.
>
>If one has a couple of metal plates in your head, then your 'discussion'
>of religion might seem mildly interesting.
>I think you're unclear on the concept of flaming. Flaming consists of
>posting a barrage of insults that have nothing whatsoever to do w/ the
>poster's original post.
Your introduction of physical/mental handicaps IS flaming, for it has
NOTHING to do with the subject under discussion. But then you love trucking
with those into abusive language, and even try to outdo them, don't you?
Furthermore, your "last word to Frank" seems to continue into other
threads now and thus take on epic proportions.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
(Frank A.S.)
> If you want to know the truth about this subject, you need to
> totally divorce yourself from anything sectarian, and read the Bible like
you
> read any other book on philosophy / psychology with total academic
neutrality.
(Analisa Concerti)
Sorry, I'd rather learn something useful. <sarcasm> I'll leave the
medieval garnments to other philosophers, if they are so inclined to wear
them <sarcasm>
Frank A.S.
>In article <6pgav1$f97$1...@demon.uunet.ca>
> "Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
>
>> That above is NOT a common moral code. Not even a simple code of ethics.
>>Atheists on the whole only accept moral codes imposed on them by government,
>>in the form of laws. Unfortunately the law has no redeeming features, only
>>reduced sanctions at best. It will not forgive and forget.
>
> Is there a common moral code, period, Frank. Come on, _answer
>the flamin' question_.
Why the impatience? If you asked that question before, then show it with
the >>> marks preceeding it, so we know how long ago the question was posed
and left unanswered.
On the whole, religions are the originators of moral codes. The whole
Quran and all of Confucius's writings are nothing but moral code. Some
religions include some metaphysics, others don't. A large part of the Bible is
devoted to right and wrong. Aldous Huxley wrote a book: Perennial Philosophy
to show, that moral codes of virtually all religions have most salient
features in common.
Do religions have a common moral code, and
>does that "common moral code" have any reasonable basis?
Who's "reason"? And on what "basis" or absolutes?
Does it hold
>up well under the pressures and realities of our current civilization?
>
That is up to you to decide. You have the choice of being cynical or
optimistic.
> While the "law" may not be able to forgive and forget (a tenant I
>disagree with vehemently, as laws are made by men and men can do
>both), good men, atheists and theists alike, can. We can even forgive
>our opponents for being what they are.
>
Why should we forgive and forget, unless there was some incentive to do
so. Religion offers such incentives, even though YOU may not believe in
heavenly rewards, if enough others will, it still works.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
>My darling Oracle, what lovely honeycakes you have. I can't sleep at
>night thinking of your muffins with marmalade. Give me your truly fine
>sticky buns...I want to bite your bundt cake. I adore you. ...Same time
>tomorrow?
>
>Love and kisses,
>Your little Fräulein, Gisela?"
>
Now why can't I get my wife to talk to me like that?
(from alt.humor.parodies)
Frank A.S.
> Come on, Frank, stop squirming and admit it. THERE IS NO
>UNIVERSAL MORAL CODE. Nothing you can say or do with demonstrate
>otherwise; there are too many religions, too many belief systems, each
>with their differing opinions on what it means to be "moral", for you
>to boil out a "common" moral code.
>
I bet you are into urban myths too, aren't you? The whole Quran and all of
the writings of Confucius are nothing but moral code, or how to behave
correctly. Why would you think murder, theft, robbery, rape and incest,
perjury etc. right down to honoring parents / elders, debts, marriage vows and
other promises etc. are permitted by one religion and forbidden by another? If
you want to argue that point you HAVE to quote references.
Read Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy and find that the moral codes of
most religions are very similar indeed.
good...@my-dejanews.com
"Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>
> >My darling Oracle, what lovely honeycakes you have. I can't sleep at
> >night thinking of your muffins with marmalade. Give me your truly fine
> >sticky buns...I want to bite your bundt cake. I adore you. ...Same time
> >tomorrow?
> Now why can't I get my wife to talk to me like that?
> (from alt.humor.parodies)
Come on, pollito, I will talk to you like that. I will fly up to Etobicoke
and give you sweet sticky buns all night! Please, Francisco, you leave me
wondering if you perhaps you don't love me anymore...te amo, Francisco!
Elf Sternberg
"Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
> On the whole, religions are the originators of moral codes. The whole
>Quran and all of Confucius's writings are nothing but moral code. Some
>religions include some metaphysics, others don't. A large part of the Bible is
>devoted to right and wrong. Aldous Huxley wrote a book: Perennial Philosophy
>to show, that moral codes of virtually all religions have most salient
>features in common.
They have some salient features in common. And I'm sure
they have some wildly differening features as well. Certainly they
can't all agree all of the time. In fact, they often disagree so
vehemently that wars break out.
>> While the "law" may not be able to forgive and forget (a tenant I
>>disagree with vehemently, as laws are made by men and men can do
>>both), good men, atheists and theists alike, can. We can even forgive
>>our opponents for being what they are.
> Why should we forgive and forget, unless there was some incentive to do
>so. Religion offers such incentives, even though YOU may not believe in
>heavenly rewards, if enough others will, it still works.
So you are of the conclusion that atheists, since they have no
fear of retribution in an afterlife, are all sneaky, evil people
incapable of caring for their fellow man? That's a very sad statement
on the human condition. Humans are capable of love without having a
god looking over their shoulder to make sure they're doing it right.
I find you almost incredulous when you claim that men can't be good to
one another without god.
Frank, what makes you think that, without religion, I can't be a
good father to my daughter, a good husband to my wife, and a good
citizen to my country?
Jim Sarbeck
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
> On the whole, religions are the originators of moral codes.
That, so far, is only your opinion. My opinion is that on the whole,
religions are the appropriators and/or repositories of moral codes -- codes
that represent the prosocial rules that are important enough to the
survival of a society to be associated with secondary emotions (love,
remorse, shame, etc.); to pass into la;, and to enshrine in the society's
approved religion(s).
The source of the moral code is the society, pure and simple. Moral codes
reflect the society's 'view' of behaviors that are conducive to its
survival.
I believe that this opinion, converted into testable hypotheses, has
greater explanatory power regarding the development of moral codes,
societies *and* religion than your opinion, over the long haul. But of
course explanatory power is not a current moral value in society at large!
It is only of value to sub-societies, like scientists. If my view ever is a
moral good (i.e., offers evolutionary advantage to society), your opinion
will be immoral! Isn't that interesting, and does it not say something to
you?
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
rem40@csc.^^%canterbury.ac.nz
> Frank,
> you're in the wrong forum. I've told you again and again.
Use smaller words. Include pictures. Talk more slowly and wave your
hands around. Failing that, kill him.
HTH
tengai no kyo kyaku
Frank A.S.
>In article <6pkudd$rid$4...@nntp3.uunet.ca>, "Frank A.S."
><NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>
>> On the whole, religions are the originators of moral codes.
>
>That, so far, is only your opinion.
Only? Have you any evidence that it is ONLY my opinion, or are making
things up as you go along? I base my opinion on 3 main sources. 1. Confucius,
who codified the moral code of China. 2. Moses, who codified the moral code of
Judaism and to some extent of Christianity. 3. Mohammed, who codified the
moral code of Islam. You will find that in the case of Confucius and Mohammed,
their total written output was nothing but moral code.
Societies rallied behind these codifiers and their code of ethics. If you
wish to challenge, please cite reasons with examples and names.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
A classic is something that everybody wants
to have read and nobody has read.
- Mark Twain
Jim Sarbeck
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>Jim Sarbeck wrote in message ...
>>In article <6pkudd$rid$4...@nntp3.uunet.ca>, "Frank A.S."
>><NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On the whole, religions are the originators of moral codes.
>>
>>That, so far, is only your opinion.
>
> Only? Have you any evidence that it is ONLY my opinion, or are making
>things up as you go along? I base my opinion on 3 main sources. 1. Confucius,
>who codified the moral code of China.
Codify: To reduce to a code. (American Heritage Dictionary)
2. Moses, who codified the moral code of
>Judaism and to some extent of Christianity.
Codify: To reduce to a code. (American Heritage Dictionary)
3. Mohammed, who codified the
>moral code of Islam.
Codify: To reduce to a code. (American Heritage Dictionary)
...
> Societies rallied behind these codifiers and their code of ethics. If you
>wish to challenge, please cite reasons with examples and names.
We agree, except that these societies 'rallied behind' the what was reduced
to a code, not the codifiers. Clearly, what was reduced to a code
pre-existed the reduction process!
You have done the QED for me!
Superiorly yours,
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Frank A.S.
> Frank, what makes you think that, without religion, I can't be a
>good father to my daughter, a good husband to my wife, and a good
>citizen to my country?
>
Well, in your case I guess, you have faith in the Biblical dictum, that
you were born with the knowledge of "good" and evil and know instinctively
how to distinguish between the two. Most people unfortunately are not quite so
sure, as you can see with so many of today's youth, who growing up without ANY
moral education, feel they must win at any price, even if it means cheating,
lying, intimidating and using every straight or crooked means necessary to do
so. A moral /social philosopher has to play to the lowest common denominator
in his efforts to keep a civilization civil.
I'm trying to do my part in showing, that the Biblical ancient were NOT
all dimwitted, superstitious idiots. Are you doing your part? Then tell us
how.
Jim Sarbeck
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
> Sociopaths are people who have decided NOT to abide by laws. I just
>finished above saying that atheists generally DO abide by laws, but have NO
>COMMON code of ethics as most religion do. Therefore the differences between
>atheists' concept of what is moral can vary more than between different
>religions, especially since the moral codes of most religions are pretty well
>identical. For a civilization to remain civil a general consensus is necessary
>as to what constitutes civility, furthermore that has to be taught to our
>youth, something not done presently with disastrous results, -witness our
>schools.
Why do you say that atheists have no common code of ethics? Is this a
theoretical conclusion -- i.e., atheists clearly do not have religion, and
in your opinion the only source of a common code of ethics is religion,
therefore (in your view) atheist cannot have a common code of ethics? Or is
there some other reason, such as empirical data? It seems to me that a
source of a common code of ethics is the society, and atheists who wish to
live in, and are educated to live within a society, can have the common
code of ethics of that society, without religion. Religion is the
repository, for some, of that code, but it is not the source, and not need
be the repository for all.
Basically my question comes down to why you label yourself as a friend to
all religions but do not label yourself as a friend to those who are being
decent folk without religion. Believe it or not, some of us do just that!
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Annalisa Conserti
> Elf Sternberg wrote in message <6pief2$lpk$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
> >In article <6pgav1$f97$1...@demon.uunet.ca>
> > "Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
> >
> >> That above is NOT a common moral code. Not even a simple code of ethics.
> >>Atheists on the whole only accept moral codes imposed on them by government,
> >>in the form of laws. Unfortunately the law has no redeeming features, only
> >>reduced sanctions at best. It will not forgive and forget.
> >
> > Is there a common moral code, period, Frank. Come on, _answer
> >the flamin' question_.
>
> Why the impatience? If you asked that question before, then show it with
> the >>> marks preceeding it, so we know how long ago the question was posed
> and left unanswered.
> On the whole, religions are the originators of moral codes. The whole
> Quran and all of Confucius's writings are nothing but moral code. Some
> religions include some metaphysics, others don't. A large part of the Bible is
> devoted to right and wrong. Aldous Huxley wrote a book: Perennial Philosophy
> to show, that moral codes of virtually all religions have most salient
> features in common.
>
> Do religions have a common moral code, and
> >does that "common moral code" have any reasonable basis?
>
> Who's "reason"? And on what "basis" or absolutes?
>
> Does it hold
> >up well under the pressures and realities of our current civilization?
> >
>
> That is up to you to decide. You have the choice of being cynical or
> optimistic.
>
> > While the "law" may not be able to forgive and forget (a tenant I
> >disagree with vehemently, as laws are made by men and men can do
> >both), good men, atheists and theists alike, can. We can even forgive
> >our opponents for being what they are.
> >
> Why should we forgive and forget, unless there was some incentive to do
> so. Religion offers such incentives, even though YOU may not believe in
> heavenly rewards, if enough others will, it still works.
>
Frank, just to show you what a tenuous hold you have on ethics, as well as
science, (though meta is not the right place): just what is your evidence
that (as is implied by the above) if one does not have a religious
construct to rely on, one is not capable to forgive and forget?
I have _always_ held that we fogive and forget not because we feel we have
to, but because we instinctually look kindly on the faults of others,
as long as such faults do not endanger our own existence. All the
philosophy texts that deal w/ ethics I've read (mainly Mills and
Aristotle, and the latter is an 'ancient') have reinforced this belief.
One does not need a religious construct to believe that other, like beings
have faults/quirks similar to our own (i.e., they're not really 'flawed',
when it comes down to it) and if we didn't accept that and let it go, we
would spend a solitary existence.
That said, I'll bring out your behavior on usenet (as for all I know, you
might act differently in 'real' life, though I doubt that) and show you
something puzzling:
On one hand, you advocate forgiveness and forgetfulness, because the
religious construct you believe in (and don't bother to say it isn't true:
one does not defend the things which one does not believe) points out as
much; on the other hand, I've caught you saying that people that act
according to your definition of less than perfect (i.e. somoene who is not
married, and/or does not mate w/ the opposite sex. and/or does not live
within white picket fences) merit no mercy, nor an attempt to understand
them (do not bother w/ saying that I should show evidence for it: you know
I can gather it, and I know I'd rather not embarass you by providing it
here, but will if pressed). Did your study on religions 'teach' you that
as well, or are you not getting the message in any given way, religious or
secular?
<snip sig>
Frank A.S.
><NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>
>>Atheists on the whole only accept moral codes imposed on them by government,
>>in the form of laws.
>
>SOCIOBIOLOGY OF SOCIOPATHY: AN INTEGRATED EVOLUTIONARY MODEL_ by Linda
>Mealey, Department of Psychology, College of St. Benedict St. Joseph, MN
>56374. Sorry I don't have the HTTP, but a search on that title sould find
>it. The article is heavily referenced.
>
>Unless you are prepared to defend it, I assume you will not try to assert
>that atheists are primary sociopaths.
Sociopaths are people who have decided NOT to abide by laws. I just
finished above saying that atheists generally DO abide by laws, but have NO
COMMON code of ethics as most religion do. Therefore the differences between
atheists' concept of what is moral can vary more than between different
religions, especially since the moral codes of most religions are pretty well
identical. For a civilization to remain civil a general consensus is necessary
as to what constitutes civility, furthermore that has to be taught to our
youth, something not done presently with disastrous results, -witness our
schools.
Frank
maff91
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>Jim Sarbeck wrote in message ...
>>In article <6pkudd$rid$4...@nntp3.uunet.ca>, "Frank A.S."
>><NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On the whole, religions are the originators of moral codes.
>>
>>That, so far, is only your opinion.
>
> Only? Have you any evidence that it is ONLY my opinion, or are making
>things up as you go along? I base my opinion on 3 main sources. 1. Confucius,
>who codified the moral code of China. 2. Moses, who codified the moral code of
>Judaism and to some extent of Christianity. 3. Mohammed, who codified the
>moral code of Islam. You will find that in the case of Confucius and Mohammed,
>their total written output was nothing but moral code.
> Societies rallied behind these codifiers and their code of ethics. If you
>wish to challenge, please cite reasons with examples and names.
>
> Frank
>A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
>
>A classic is something that everybody wants
>to have read and nobody has read.
>- Mark Twain
Frans de Waal, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans
and Other Animals, 1996, Harvard University Press, Cambridge; ISBN
0-674-35660-8.
Frans de Waal, Peacemaking among primates (Harvard
University Press, 1989).
Frans de Waal, Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among
Apes. Harper and Row, New York (1983).
Frans B. M. de Waal, ``Bonobo sex and society'' Scientific
American 272(4):82- 88 (March 1995)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/generic-quicksearch-query/002-4026220-3660639
Jim Sarbeck
maf...@dial.pipex.com (maff91) wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:01:02 -0400, "Frank A.S."
><NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>
>>Jim Sarbeck wrote in message ...
>>>In article <6pkudd$rid$4...@nntp3.uunet.ca>, "Frank A.S."
>>><NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On the whole, religions are the originators of moral codes.
>>>
>>>That, so far, is only your opinion.
>>
>> Only? Have you any evidence that it is ONLY my opinion, or are making
>>things up as you go along? I base my opinion on 3 main sources. 1. Confucius,
>>who codified the moral code of China. 2. Moses, who codified the moral
code of Judaism and to some extent of Christianity. 3. Mohammed, who
codified the moral code of Islam.
Confucius was a philosopher and Confucianism is a philosophy, not a
religion. So even if the code of social behavior that that Confucius wrote
up was originated by him, it was not originated by a religion. But my point
is broader than that. My opinion is that codes of social behavior originate
in societies, not in religions. Some social codes get written up by
religious people, I agree. Some get written up by kings, such as Hammurabi.
When they are written up by Kings they tend to be called laws.
Granted that legal codes in those days were often given added weight by
associating them with religion. But the religions did not IMO 'originate'
moral codes. You'll see some references below, also try Wilson's book
_consilience_ under this subject for a more general approach, or Berk's
(Childhood Development_ for a discussion of how moral pronciples are
actually taught and what motivational factors humans advance through and we
develop.
>>You will find that in the case of Confucius and Mohammed,
>>their total written output was nothing but moral code.
And do you think these codes were created out of nothing? The evidence of
sociology is that the rules of prosocial behavior vary according to the
needs of the culture and the most important rules will be reinforced by
every means possible. One of those means is the triggering of emotions.
Another is by association with religion.
...
>Frans de Waal, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans
>and Other Animals, 1996, Harvard University Press, Cambridge; ISBN
>0-674-35660-8.
> Frans de Waal, Peacemaking among primates (Harvard
>University Press, 1989).
> Frans de Waal, Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among
>Apes. Harper and Row, New York (1983).
> Frans B. M. de Waal, ``Bonobo sex and society'' Scientific
>American 272(4):82- 88 (March 1995)
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/generic-quicksearch-query/002-4026220-3660639
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Elf Sternberg
"Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
> Only? Have you any evidence that it is ONLY my opinion, or are making
>things up as you go along? I base my opinion on 3 main sources. 1. Confucius,
>who codified the moral code of China. 2. Moses, who codified the moral code of
>Judaism and to some extent of Christianity. 3. Mohammed, who codified the
>moral code of Islam. You will find that in the case of Confucius and Mohammed,
>their total written output was nothing but moral code.
All three of these are Appeals to Authority and Appeals to
Antiquity, both logical fallacies. The premise also comes with false
assumptions. The first assumption here is that we accept that men who
existed in the past *are* authorities whose words we should take as
sensible without examining the word itself. The second assumption is
that we should accept that these men in fact wrote down the word of
"God" (when in fact, all three men believed in drastically different
gods) when they just as easily have been codifying a working social
structure that evolved naturally out of the environments in which they
lived.
> Societies rallied behind these codifiers and their code of ethics. If you
>wish to challenge, please cite reasons with examples and names.
Attempt to Introduce a Red Herring. The question is not about
whether or not these leaders produced working codes that sustained the
societies in which they lived. The question is whether or not these
codes come from a supernatural source (Confucious is a terrible
example for your cause, Frank, because he attributes a great many of
his dictums to reason rather than divine inspiration) and whether or
not it is somehow possible to establish a congruence such that all
three "divinely inspiring" sources were, in fact, the same source.
Elf Sternberg
"Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
> Well, in your case I guess, you have faith in the Biblical dictum, that
>you were born with the knowledge of "good" and evil and know instinctively
>how to distinguish between the two.
Not at all. I do not assume that I was born with a knowledge of
good and evil; as a father, I'm relatively convinced that my daughter
was born with a knowledge of what is painful and what is satifying.
From there, everything else is cultural. It has a natural origin only
in that her needs must fit in with her parents', and a compromise is
reached eventually. The same is true of all human beings. We have
amassed a culture, and a cultural sense, that is utterly unlike the
God/Priests/King imagery of the bible. It is one where people of
different originating cultures come together and by compromise and
consensus, as a collective imposing a general will on the individual,
a message to "behave yourself."
It does not always work, I'll grant you. That's why we have
police and laws, elements given force by the collective to enforce our
will, our sense of morality.
It didn't take a Biblical dictum to create that sense or that
collective. Indeed, the very notion of a bibilical dictum is anathema
to some people who live in and agree with that moral universe.
> I'm trying to do my part in showing, that the Biblical ancient were NOT
>all dimwitted, superstitious idiots. Are you doing your part? Then tell us
>how.
You're trying to mis-direct the audience again, Frank. Sorry, but
you've been trying to show how the Biblical ancients were, in their
totality, correct in their creation of a universal moral code. You
have failed to demonstrate that it is, in fact, universal or even
comprehensive. No, they weren't idiots-- but they were crafting a
moral code that worked for the environment in which they lived.
We live in a different environment. And a great many of the
social dictums under which *we* live would never have worked for the
Biblical ancients. The insistence that the Bible always and ever
works for us is just an attempt to prop up the Bible as supernaturally
inspired. I'm convinced that such an attempt is both destructive to
the nature of spiritual belief and doomed to failure anyway.
Elf Sternberg
"Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
>I just finished above saying that atheists generally DO abide by
>laws, but have NO COMMON code of ethics as most religion
>do. Therefore the differences between atheists' concept of what is
>moral can vary more than between different religions, especially
>since the moral codes of most religions are pretty well
>identical. For a civilization to remain civil a general consensus is
>necessary as to what constitutes civility, furthermore that has to be
>taught to our youth, something not done presently with disastrous
>results, -witness our schools.
Frank, your assertion that "most religions have pretty well
identical moral codes" is just that, an assertion. If most religions
have similar moral codes then why have we been literally wading in the
blood of religious warfare for most of our recorded history? Very
clearly, they can agree on one thing: kill they neighbor. "Kill every
man; the Lord will know his own," wrote one Bishop during the crusades
upon learning that the city being sacked. Tarsis, had Christians
within, but none of the crusaders could determine who was who because
neither group spoke the other's languages.
And, Frank, every generation has felt that the next one was
amoral. It's called maturity looking at youth. The human race will
survive, as it always has.
Frank A.S.
><NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>
>> Societies rallied behind these codifiers and their code of ethics. If
you
>>wish to challenge, please cite reasons with examples and names.
>
>to a code, not the codifiers. Clearly, what was reduced to a code
>pre-existed the reduction process!
>
And yes, Moses DID have a dickens of a time rallying his unruly mob behind him
and his laws. If you want to stay healthy though, I wouldn't call Mohammed's
efforts to rally people behind him and his Quran irrelevant in a Muslim
country. It's the function of any 'prophet' to rally people around him and
what he has to say, don't you agree?
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something
that makes life worth living.
- Oliver Wendell Holmes (1809-1894)
maff91
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>Jim Sarbeck wrote in message ...
>>In article <6pokm4$2nf$3...@nntp1.uunet.ca>, "Frank A.S."
>><NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Societies rallied behind these codifiers and their code of ethics. If
>you
>>>wish to challenge, please cite reasons with examples and names.
>>
>>We agree, except that these societies 'rallied behind' the what was reduced
>>to a code, not the codifiers. Clearly, what was reduced to a code
>>pre-existed the reduction process!
>>
> Sure music existed before Bach and Beethoven, even math before Einstein.
>And yes, Moses DID have a dickens of a time rallying his unruly mob behind him
>and his laws. If you want to stay healthy though, I wouldn't call Mohammed's
>efforts to rally people behind him and his Quran irrelevant in a Muslim
>country. It's the function of any 'prophet' to rally people around him and
>what he has to say, don't you agree?
Nope. You try it and you'll be surprised by the reception. So how do
you want it? Do you want to be crucified or the Electric Chair?
Frank A.S.
>><NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>>
>
>Confucius was a philosopher and Confucianism is a philosophy, not a
>religion.
Don't call it that, or you will have Annalisa C. maul you endlessly.
Anyway we are splitting hairs here, because there are lots of "religions"
which do not feature a God. Some are heavy an Metaphysics others stress
morality and/or social civility.
So even if the code of social behavior that that Confucius wrote
>up was originated by him, it was not originated by a religion.
Again, religion gives the code an exposure and longevity it would not
otherwise have. Both need belief and trust in them to make them effective, and
thus one re-inforces the other.
But my point
>is broader than that. My opinion is that codes of social behavior originate
>in societies, not in religions.
What makes a society? Only race and language? I think that religion is
also a factor, witness Muslim societies.
Some social codes get written up by
>religious people, I agree. Some get written up by kings, such as Hammurabi.
>When they are written up by Kings they tend to be called laws.
>
Sorry. Though a large part of morality IS legislated, much of it cannot be
legislated, as you well know.
>Granted that legal codes in those days were often given added weight by
>associating them with religion. But the religions did not IMO 'originate'
>moral codes. You'll see some references below, also try Wilson's book
>_consilience_ under this subject for a more general approach, or Berk's
>(Childhood Development_ for a discussion of how moral pronciples are
>actually taught and what motivational factors humans advance through and we
>develop.
>
I think all that has been tried before, but basing moral behaviour on
reason is not very effective, for most of us know how to rationalize
immorality. To be effective a belief factor seems to be needed, either in a
great ruler, king, prophet or God. Perhaps they serve as a standard, a symbol
or object of veneration which helps people to focus and model themselves
after. I'm afraid that the present trends may lead to extreme individuality,
making us all armed camps against our neighbors "who believe differently".
I feel so sorry for the terror our kids have to feel everytime they are
forced to go to schools, where knurds and bullies fight it out with guns and
teachers fear for their lives, and where ACLU litigation threats makes it
impossible to expell trouble makers from publicly funded schools. No attempt
is made to teach civil behaviour, again because "we all believe differently"
and can't agree on what civility is. How can a civilisation survive in such a
climate?
Frank A.S.
>In article <6pp0b3$4cq$2...@nntp3.uunet.ca>
>
> Frank, your assertion that "most religions have pretty well
>identical moral codes" is just that, an assertion
I take much of what I write from Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy.
>
> And, Frank, every generation has felt that the next one was
>amoral. It's called maturity looking at youth. The human race will
>survive, as it always has.
>
I'm glad you have that kind of faith, but all indications are we will end
up in extreme individualism, each armed to the teeth, a fortress against our
neighbors who "believe differently from us". Extreme individualism is already
apparent in our school systems, which begin to look very much like armed
camps, full of very scared kids.
Civilizations come when there is a cohesive population willing to work
together, usually in the semi voluntary service of a great ruler, king,
prophet or god. (Note, that ideology does not seem to do as well).
Civilizations also disappear when civility disappears in a rush to
individualism and self assertion.
Yes, the human race will survive, but will you be feel happy and secure
living among these surviving hominids?
Jim Sarbeck
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>Jim Sarbeck wrote in message ...
...
>So even if the code of social behavior that that Confucius wrote
>>up was originated by him, it was not originated by a religion.
>
> Again, religion gives the code an exposure and longevity it would not
>otherwise have. Both need belief and trust in them to make them effective, and
>thus one re-inforces the other.
I think our points of view are converging, in this one little area.
...
>
> What makes a society? Only race and language? I think that religion is
>also a factor, witness Muslim societies.
>
>Some social codes get written up by
>>religious people, I agree. Some get written up by kings, such as Hammurabi.
>>When they are written up by Kings they tend to be called laws.
>>
>
> Sorry. Though a large part of morality IS legislated, much of it cannot be
>legislated, as you well know.
Agreed. That was not my point. Actually, my point supports your point about
Muslim societies where religion and government coincide.
>
> I think all that has been tried before, but basing moral behaviour on
>reason is not very effective, for most of us know how to rationalize
>immorality.
If that means rationalizing behavior, to advance individual self-interest,
that deviates from the prosocial behavior codes of the group we agree.
>To be effective a belief factor seems to be needed, either in a
>great ruler, king, prophet or God. ...
> I feel so sorry for the terror our kids have to feel everytime they are
>forced to go to schools, .... How can a civilisation survive in such a
>climate?
Some of the folks you are debating on these related threads think you are
arguing the 'Truth' of the Bible, wheras here you seem to be arguing its
*utility*. (In that regard, the discussion smacks a bit of _The Prince_.)
Maybe you have given them reason to think you are defending Truth; I have
not been tracking all the threads. But if what you mean is that religion
might be 'needed' in the present world as a institution to assist in the
elicitation of prosocial behavior, I agree. The catch is to avoid letting
religion get so entrenched that its doctrines outlive their social value
and become counter-productive. IMO the Catholic Church's prohibition of
simple methods of chemical and prophylactic birth control is an example, as
the world's population explodes. That restriction was prosocial once, now
it is antisocial.
On a slightly different tack, I'll add that if you want to think about
threats to religion, consider including fundamentalism as a threat. I just
started Spong's book _Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism_. It makes
good points concerning this threat.
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Frank A.S.
>In article <6pokm4$2nf$3...@nntp1.uunet.ca>
> "Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
>
> The question is whether or not these
>codes come from a supernatural source (Confucious is a terrible
>example for your cause,
Gotscha Elfie! I never stated what "cause" I promoted, except trying for
more morality and civility in our civilization. But you are obviously
promoting atheism, which is a logical fallacy in itself, unless you can prove
that there is any real meaning to your words. I have no idea what YOU might
mean by such words as "supernatural" and "divinely" or for that matter
"god(s)". It's hard enough to figure what the ancient religious reformers
might have meant using similar symbols and metaphors. At least they had an
obvious purpose for using them, but you leave me stumped.
Frank, because he attributes a great many of
>his dictums to reason rather than divine inspiration) and whether or
>not it is somehow possible to establish a congruence such that all
>three "divinely inspiring" sources were, in fact, the same source.
>
I don't know what you are talking about, Elfie. I think your own atheistic
polemics has you convinced.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
History repeats itself;
that's one of the things that's wrong with history.
- Clarence Darrow
Frank A.S.
Frank A.S.
Frank A.S.
>In article <6pp0aj$4cq$1...@nntp3.uunet.ca>
> "Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
>
> We have
>amassed a culture, and a cultural sense, that is utterly unlike the
>God/Priests/King imagery of the bible.
You cannot talk of our "amassing a culture" without including religion.
You forget that people need something greater than themselves to look up to,
to emulate, to identify with. The God of the Bible, though heavily
anthropomorphized, represents all the positive attributes people seek in
others, and seek to emulate within themselves, especially agape, a holy love.
>It is one where people of
>different originating cultures come together and by compromise and
>consensus, as a collective imposing a general will on the individual,
>a message to "behave yourself."
>
I think you write out of your atheistic convictions not academic
neutrality. Kids acculterate each other these days and they do what they see
their friends do, which is not necessarily moral or law-abiding. With
individualism on the rise and consensus on the decline, I strongly believe we
will be slowly drifting into factionalism, armed camps similar to what some of
our schools already are foreshadowing, where students and teachers are in
constant fear for their health or worse. In those times in history a
strong-man, a charismatic leader or war-lord usually emerges and rallies his
troops and with it most of the population to enforce his will, much like
Hitler or Mao etc.
> It does not always work, I'll grant you. That's why we have
>police and laws, elements given force by the collective to enforce our
>will, our sense of morality.
>
If the collective has an ideology to look up to, an ideal to achieve, then
one might keep a civilization civil for a short time, before drakonian measure
are necessary, but usually it takes a leader, hopefully a humane one, even one
who only exists in the hearts of men, like Christ, or the Compassionate Buddha
to propel men to exeed themselves.
> It didn't take a Biblical dictum to create that sense or that
>collective. Indeed, the very notion of a bibilical dictum is anathema
>to some people who live in and agree with that moral universe.
>
>> I'm trying to do my part in showing, that the Biblical ancient were NOT
>>all dimwitted, superstitious idiots. Are you doing your part? Then tell us
>>how.
>
> You're trying to mis-direct the audience again, Frank.
Don't tell me I am mis-directing without showing proof. The whole point in
atheism is Social Darwinism, that we have evolved far beyond the intellectual
capacilies of ancient Biblical society, and that therefore what they had to
say is now obsolete. In other words, compared to today's man, they were
retarded, dimwitted, superstitious idiots.
Sorry, but
>you've been trying to show how the Biblical ancients were, in their
>totality, correct in their creation of a universal moral code. You
>have failed to demonstrate that it is,
You have not even attempted to demonstrate that the Biblical universal
moral code is NOT correct to this day. I usually get this kind of answer from
people heavily into licentiousness. Is this all just an effort to justify your
sexual profligacies?
in fact, universal or even
>comprehensive. No, they weren't idiots-- but they were crafting a
>moral code that worked for the environment in which they lived.
> We live in a different environment. And a great many of the
>social dictums under which *we* live would never have worked for the
>Biblical ancients.
That's a lot assertion without proof nor example. Please show which NT,
that is Christian moral dictum you would want to discard and why.
The insistence that the Bible always and ever
>works for us is just an attempt to prop up the Bible as supernaturally
>inspired. I'm convinced that such an attempt is both destructive to
>the nature of spiritual belief and doomed to failure anyway.
>
You fail to make any sense again. To me sacrificial love is
"supernatural", for in natural love without the "super" everybody looks after
number one first. So DO explain how sacrificial love is "destructive of
spiritual belief".
I think your argument is the one "doomed to failure", but then you ARE a
dyed in the wool atheist, just spouting a lot of polemics to advance your
cause, aren't you?
maff91
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>Elf Sternberg wrote in message <6pqhcq$356$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>>In article <6pp0b3$4cq$2...@nntp3.uunet.ca>
>>
>> Frank, your assertion that "most religions have pretty well
>>identical moral codes" is just that, an assertion
>
> I take much of what I write from Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy.
>>
>> And, Frank, every generation has felt that the next one was
>>amoral. It's called maturity looking at youth. The human race will
>>survive, as it always has.
>>
> I'm glad you have that kind of faith, but all indications are we will end
>up in extreme individualism, each armed to the teeth, a fortress against our
>neighbors who "believe differently from us". Extreme individualism is already
>apparent in our school systems, which begin to look very much like armed
>camps, full of very scared kids.
> Civilizations come when there is a cohesive population willing to work
>together, usually in the semi voluntary service of a great ruler, king,
>prophet or god. (Note, that ideology does not seem to do as well).
>Civilizations also disappear when civility disappears in a rush to
>individualism and self assertion.
> Yes, the human race will survive, but will you be feel happy and secure
>living among these surviving hominids?
Yes. Of course.
>
> Frank
>A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
>
maff91
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>Jim Sarbeck wrote in message ...
>>In article <35d04bd0...@newnews.dial.pipex.com>,
>>maf...@dial.pipex.com (maff91) wrote:
>>>On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:01:02 -0400, "Frank A.S."
>>><NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>Confucius was a philosopher and Confucianism is a philosophy, not a
>>religion.
>
> Don't call it that, or you will have Annalisa C. maul you endlessly.
>Anyway we are splitting hairs here, because there are lots of "religions"
>which do not feature a God. Some are heavy an Metaphysics others stress
>morality and/or social civility.
>
>So even if the code of social behavior that that Confucius wrote
>>up was originated by him, it was not originated by a religion.
>
> Again, religion gives the code an exposure and longevity it would not
>otherwise have. Both need belief and trust in them to make them effective, and
>thus one re-inforces the other.
How are you going to enforce it?
>
> But my point
>>is broader than that. My opinion is that codes of social behavior originate
>>in societies, not in religions.
>
> What makes a society? Only race and language? I think that religion is
>also a factor, witness Muslim societies.
OK. You go and live Iran.
>
>Some social codes get written up by
>>religious people, I agree. Some get written up by kings, such as Hammurabi.
>>When they are written up by Kings they tend to be called laws.
>>
>
> Sorry. Though a large part of morality IS legislated, much of it cannot be
>legislated, as you well know.
No. I don't know.
>
>>Granted that legal codes in those days were often given added weight by
>>associating them with religion. But the religions did not IMO 'originate'
>>moral codes. You'll see some references below, also try Wilson's book
>>_consilience_ under this subject for a more general approach, or Berk's
>>(Childhood Development_ for a discussion of how moral pronciples are
>>actually taught and what motivational factors humans advance through and we
>>develop.
>>
>
> I think all that has been tried before, but basing moral behaviour on
>reason is not very effective, for most of us know how to rationalize
You're a prime example of that.
>immorality. To be effective a belief factor seems to be needed, either in a
>great ruler, king, prophet or God. Perhaps they serve as a standard, a symbol
>or object of veneration which helps people to focus and model themselves
>after. I'm afraid that the present trends may lead to extreme individuality,
>making us all armed camps against our neighbors "who believe differently".
You're a psychopath.
> I feel so sorry for the terror our kids have to feel everytime they are
>forced to go to schools, where knurds and bullies fight it out with guns and
>teachers fear for their lives, and where ACLU litigation threats makes it
>impossible to expell trouble makers from publicly funded schools. No attempt
>is made to teach civil behaviour, again because "we all believe differently"
>and can't agree on what civility is. How can a civilisation survive in such a
>climate?
When you stop your lies, civilization can breathe easy.
maff91
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>Elf Sternberg wrote in message <6pqhc1$3dr$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>>In article <6pokm4$2nf$3...@nntp1.uunet.ca>
>> "Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
>>
>> The question is whether or not these
>>codes come from a supernatural source (Confucious is a terrible
>>example for your cause,
>
> Gotscha Elfie! I never stated what "cause" I promoted, except trying for
>more morality and civility in our civilization. But you are obviously
Yep. We know that. You want to be Dictator Francisco.
>promoting atheism, which is a logical fallacy in itself, unless you can prove
>that there is any real meaning to your words. I have no idea what YOU might
>mean by such words as "supernatural" and "divinely" or for that matter
>"god(s)". It's hard enough to figure what the ancient religious reformers
>might have meant using similar symbols and metaphors. At least they had an
>obvious purpose for using them, but you leave me stumped.
Not really! You're stupid.
>
>Frank, because he attributes a great many of
>>his dictums to reason rather than divine inspiration) and whether or
>>not it is somehow possible to establish a congruence such that all
>>three "divinely inspiring" sources were, in fact, the same source.
>>
> I don't know what you are talking about, Elfie. I think your own atheistic
>polemics has you convinced.
Yep. Say it again Francisco! Down with Freedom.
>
> Frank
>A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
>
>History repeats itself;
>that's one of the things that's wrong with history.
Don't worry, Francisco! You jack boots shall never come to pass.
>- Clarence Darrow
>
>
>
>
maff91
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>Elf Sternberg wrote in message <6pqhcj$458$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>>In article <6pp0aj$4cq$1...@nntp3.uunet.ca>
>> "Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
>>
>> We have
>>amassed a culture, and a cultural sense, that is utterly unlike the
>>God/Priests/King imagery of the bible.
>
> You cannot talk of our "amassing a culture" without including religion.
>You forget that people need something greater than themselves to look up to,
>to emulate, to identify with. The God of the Bible, though heavily
>anthropomorphized, represents all the positive attributes people seek in
>others, and seek to emulate within themselves, especially agape, a holy love.
Does it say so in the "Sayings of Dictator Francisco"?
>
>>It is one where people of
>>different originating cultures come together and by compromise and
>>consensus, as a collective imposing a general will on the individual,
>>a message to "behave yourself."
>>
>
> I think you write out of your atheistic convictions not academic
>neutrality. Kids acculterate each other these days and they do what they see
>their friends do, which is not necessarily moral or law-abiding. With
>individualism on the rise and consensus on the decline, I strongly believe we
>will be slowly drifting into factionalism, armed camps similar to what some of
>our schools already are foreshadowing, where students and teachers are in
>constant fear for their health or worse. In those times in history a
>strong-man, a charismatic leader or war-lord usually emerges and rallies his
>troops and with it most of the population to enforce his will, much like
>Hitler or Mao etc.
Yep. We know your angle. Dictator Francisco will emerge to take over.
>
>> It does not always work, I'll grant you. That's why we have
>>police and laws, elements given force by the collective to enforce our
>>will, our sense of morality.
>>
>
> If the collective has an ideology to look up to, an ideal to achieve, then
>one might keep a civilization civil for a short time, before drakonian measure
>are necessary, but usually it takes a leader, hopefully a humane one, even one
>who only exists in the hearts of men, like Christ, or the Compassionate Buddha
>to propel men to exeed themselves.
But you're not that Francisco! Don't you want to emulate your real
hero, Hitler?
>
>> It didn't take a Biblical dictum to create that sense or that
>>collective. Indeed, the very notion of a bibilical dictum is anathema
>>to some people who live in and agree with that moral universe.
>>
>>> I'm trying to do my part in showing, that the Biblical ancient were NOT
>>>all dimwitted, superstitious idiots. Are you doing your part? Then tell us
>>>how.
>>
>> You're trying to mis-direct the audience again, Frank.
>
> Don't tell me I am mis-directing without showing proof. The whole point in
>atheism is Social Darwinism, that we have evolved far beyond the intellectual
>capacilies of ancient Biblical society, and that therefore what they had to
>say is now obsolete. In other words, compared to today's man, they were
>retarded, dimwitted, superstitious idiots.
>
>Sorry, but
>>you've been trying to show how the Biblical ancients were, in their
>>totality, correct in their creation of a universal moral code. You
>>have failed to demonstrate that it is,
>
> You have not even attempted to demonstrate that the Biblical universal
>moral code is NOT correct to this day. I usually get this kind of answer from
>people heavily into licentiousness. Is this all just an effort to justify your
>sexual profligacies?
You're projecting again, Francisco!
>
> in fact, universal or even
>>comprehensive. No, they weren't idiots-- but they were crafting a
>>moral code that worked for the environment in which they lived.
>> We live in a different environment. And a great many of the
>>social dictums under which *we* live would never have worked for the
>>Biblical ancients.
>
> That's a lot assertion without proof nor example. Please show which NT,
>that is Christian moral dictum you would want to discard and why.
Where it says about the terror of Dictator Francisco. We've to get rid
of that little worm.
>
>The insistence that the Bible always and ever
>>works for us is just an attempt to prop up the Bible as supernaturally
>>inspired. I'm convinced that such an attempt is both destructive to
>>the nature of spiritual belief and doomed to failure anyway.
>>
> You fail to make any sense again. To me sacrificial love is
>"supernatural", for in natural love without the "super" everybody looks after
>number one first. So DO explain how sacrificial love is "destructive of
>spiritual belief".
Yep. Francisco. We know you want to destroy everything. But NO!
> I think your argument is the one "doomed to failure", but then you ARE a
>dyed in the wool atheist, just spouting a lot of polemics to advance your
>cause, aren't you?
We are just ordinary people who'll not let wannabe Dictator Francisco
subvert the Republic.
>
> Frank
>A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
>
>History repeats itself;
>that's one of the things that's wrong with history.
>- Clarence Darrow
>
>
Sam Morrissey
> To be effective a belief factor seems to be needed, either in a
> great ruler, king, prophet or God. Perhaps they serve as a standard, a > symbol or object of veneration which helps people to focus and model > themselves after. I'm afraid that the present trends may lead to > extreme individuality, making us all armed camps against our neighbors > "who believe differently".
> Frank
> A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
>
> that makes life worth living.
> - Oliver Wendell Holmes (1809-1894)
I totally disagree with this statement. A belief system is inherently
flawed, for there will always be an unknown, and people will always be
afraid of that unknown. In order to be perfectly content, a person
would need nothing to fear, but simply believing does not close the
gap. You can believe in something with all your heart and soul, yet
someday, sometime, a person would be able to doubt the belief.
SO I think that a KNOWLEDGE factor seems to be needed, a KNOWLEDGE that
simply "I exist in a world and I percieve other beings/entities existing
with me. In order to live in this world, I have to coexist with these
other beings."
That seems to me to be the only thing that we can really know. So screw
a belief system.....
SAM,
A person, just like Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tse and everybody else
Just the facts ma'am.
- Sgt. Joe Friday (196?)
Al Klein
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>Elf Sternberg wrote in message <6pled7$j9o$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>> Frank, what makes you think that, without religion, I can't be a
>>good father to my daughter, a good husband to my wife, and a good
>>citizen to my country?
> Well, in your case I guess, you have faith in the Biblical dictum, that
>you were born with the knowledge of "good" and evil and know instinctively
>how to distinguish between the two. Most people unfortunately are not quite so
>sure, as you can see with so many of today's youth, who growing up without ANY
>moral education
What has a moral education to do with whether or not one needs
religion to have morals?
One's parents can instill moral values in one without having, or
teaching, religion.
The problem with "today's youth", as you put it (there is a problem
with some of them, not all of them), is that no one is teaching them
ANY morals, other than the law of the street. Instilling the golden
rule (which is NOT grounded in Christianity, or even in the
Judeo-Christian myth) would go a long way toward solving the problem.
--
Al - aklein at villagenet dot com
Al Klein
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>Elf Sternberg wrote in message <6pqhcj$458$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>>In article <6pp0aj$4cq$1...@nntp3.uunet.ca>
>> "Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
>> We have
>>amassed a culture, and a cultural sense, that is utterly unlike the
>>God/Priests/King imagery of the bible.
>You forget that people need something greater than themselves to look up to,
>to emulate, to identify with.
I keep forgetting that. Mainly because it's a crock.
>The God of the Bible, though heavily
>anthropomorphized, represents all the positive attributes people seek in
>others
"Positive" attributes such as murder of innocents and rape of virgins?
>Don't tell me I am mis-directing without showing proof. The whole point in
>atheism is Social Darwinism
Nonsense. The whole point in atheism is that there's no proof of your
deity.
>Sorry, but
>>you've been trying to show how the Biblical ancients were, in their
>>totality, correct in their creation of a universal moral code. You
>>have failed to demonstrate that it is,
>You have not even attempted to demonstrate that the Biblical universal
>moral code is NOT correct to this day.
The biblical moral code advocated the murder of innocents, the rape of
virgins, slavery. These are correct today?
>That's a lot assertion without proof nor example. Please show which NT,
>that is Christian moral dictum you would want to discard and why.
That slaves should obey their masters, possibly? If not, I'd like a
slave, please.
Elf Sternberg
"Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
> Gotscha Elfie! I never stated what "cause" I promoted, except
>trying for more morality and civility in our civilization. But you
>are obviously promoting atheism, which is a logical fallacy in
>itself, unless you can prove that there is any real meaning to your
>words.
Frank, I have no further reason to talk to you. It's become
clear that you advocate no religious beliefs except those that make
your fellow humans more docile; you are yourself an example of the
kind of man who discourages individual thought and individual morals.
Your position changes daily, your values are nonexistent. You don't
"love" anything or anybody, no matter what your .sig might lead others
to believe.
The only warm spot in my heart for you is the knowledge that your
kind is ultimately doomed. Individuals can and do fall in love, care
for one another, and support their communities without a religion
telling them to do so, simply because it's a good idea. Nothing more
is necessary, and your assertions that religion will help only shows
how you have no clue as to the histories you assert. Your new-age
mish-mash serves nobody and nothing. Unable to defend yourself, you
have descended into insults and inanities.
Elf Sternberg
"Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
>>We have amassed a culture, and a cultural sense, that is utterly
>>unlike the God/Priests/King imagery of the bible.
> You cannot talk of our "amassing a culture" without including religion.
>You forget that people need something greater than themselves to look up to,
>to emulate, to identify with.
Assertion without evidence. That most people have always gone to
this extreme does not speak well of the individual's ability to think
for him or herself, nor does it speak well of the ability of the
individual to separate him or herself from the herd. And contrary to
your assertion, our current culture came about not through an
agreement on religion, but through tension among the various
religions. The only difference here, Frank, is that most Americans
have always had the good fortune to live in a land where most people
have enough to eat; people who have their primary needs of food and
shelter met are generally far more peaceable than those who aren't.
>The God of the Bible, though heavily anthropomorphized, represents
>all the positive attributes people seek in others, and seek to
>emulate within themselves, especially agape, a holy love.
"I am come to seperate husband from family and brother from
sister?" Jesus' cursing of the fig tree because it would not bear
fruit? God giving Joshua authority to commit genocide over everyone
in the valley around Jerusalem just so that the Jewish people could
have a little liebensraum?
The Bible exhorts us to be like the lord and then contains page
after page of God committing mass murder. This may do more to explain
the current civilization than anything else!
> If the collective has an ideology to look up to, an ideal to achieve, then
>one might keep a civilization civil for a short time, before drakonian measure
>are necessary, but usually it takes a leader, hopefully a humane one, even one
>who only exists in the hearts of men, like Christ, or the Compassionate Buddha
>to propel men to exeed themselves.
Again, you are asserting without evidence. Both the Roman Empire
and the Egyptian Dynasties managed to hold themselves together for
centuries without any real "positive" religious messages or leaders.
And both of these went through long and extensive cosmopolitan
periods. The same is true of Chinese culture; "drakonian" is a
relative term.
> Don't tell me I am mis-directing without showing proof. The whole point in
>atheism is Social Darwinism, that we have evolved far beyond the intellectual
>capacilies of ancient Biblical society, and that therefore what they had to
>say is now obsolete. In other words, compared to today's man, they were
>retarded, dimwitted, superstitious idiots.
Superstitious? Of course; they didn't have the tools, the
vocabulary, or the history we do, of exploring and investigating.
They didn't have the scientific method as we do today, a mechanism for
determining what is commonly acceptable among men and what is
subjective. They lived in fear of the rain and the sun and the storms
and the insects without even the smallest inkling as to how these
natural phenomena occurred.
On the other hand, calling them retarded and dimwitted is clearly
something you're trying to impose on atheists. Confucious, Aristotle,
and the writer of Deuteronomy were clearly geniuses; their words
brought order and understanding to the cultures in which they found
themselves as nominal leaders.
Please try not to misdirect the audience about my intentions,
motives, or reasonings.
Greg Gyetko
> Don't tell me I am mis-directing without showing proof. The whole point in
> atheism is Social Darwinism,
You may be confused here, but are you actually saying the only reason people
become atheists is so they can involve themselves in eugenics programs?
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/
Ross J. Corbett
>theoretical conclusion -- i.e., atheists clearly do not have religion, and
>in your opinion the only source of a common code of ethics is religion,
>therefore (in your view) atheist cannot have a common code of ethics? Or is
>there some other reason, such as empirical data? It seems to me that a
>source of a common code of ethics is the society, and atheists who wish to
>live in, and are educated to live within a society, can have the common
>code of ethics of that society, without religion. Religion is the
>repository, for some, of that code, but it is not the source, and not need
>be the repository for all.
>
>Basically my question comes down to why you label yourself as a friend to
>all religions but do not label yourself as a friend to those who are being
>decent folk without religion. Believe it or not, some of us do just that!
>
>Regards,
>
>Jim Sarbeck
>*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I think that it's important to note that while the original post mentioned a
code of morals, you respond with a code of ethics. This is precisely the point.
A moral code is an absolute code of good and evil, which you do or avoid as an
end in itself.
Atheism denies this absolute division, and so it denies the absolute moral code.
Without a God, there is no need to be moral. One need only look out for one's
own wellfare. The intelligent may examine their life and decide that the best
way to live is in an 'ethical' manner, but the final item of importance is still
self-interest. The ethical man differs from the dispicable man in their view of
what their self-interest is.
Ethics state 'do this or bad things will happen.' While both Atheists and
god-fearers see punishment for wrongful acts, morality says merely 'do this.'
Ethics can be inferred through observation of the world, but morality, which
speaks with authority rather than logic, needs a Speaker. Atheism, in denying
that Speaker, also denies morality. What is is left with is a complex view of
self-interest.
Ross J. Corbett
Greg Gyetko
I think that it's important to note that while the
original post mentioned a
code of morals, you respond with a code of ethics. This
is precisely the point.
A moral code is an absolute code of good and evil, which
you do or avoid as an
end in itself.
Well, if you define morality that way, then I guess you're
right.
Atheism denies this absolute division, and so it denies
the absolute moral code.
"Does not believe in", but yes, I get your point.
Without a God, there is no need to be moral.
If a moral code is a code of "absolute good and evil", then
the modifier "moral" must
mean "absolutely good and evil" or "differentiation between
absolute good and evil".
So then, nothing can "be moral", as moral merely defines a
method of differentiation.
You really have to parse your own definitions when you make
them up like that.
One need only look out for one's own wellfare. The
intelligent may examine their
life and decide that the best way to live is in an
'ethical' manner, but the final item
of importance is still self-interest. The ethical man
differs from the dispicable man
in their view of what their self-interest is.
Hm. However, consider this. Why do Xtians behave morally
(or ethically,
whatever)?
Because if they don't, they end up going to hell, right? So
the Christian is making the
same calculation the atheist is - i.e. he is only looking
out for his own welfare.
Ethics state 'do this or bad things will happen.' While
both Atheists and
god-fearers see punishment for wrongful acts, morality
says merely 'do this.'
No, morality means the differentiation of good from evil.
You said so yourself. It
implies no direction, it merely separates one from the
other.
Ethics can be inferred through observation of the world,
but morality, which
speaks with authority rather than logic, needs a Speaker.
Why does this need to be a god? Why can't the collective
experience of living human
beings figure out what is good and evil?
Atheism, in denying that Speaker, also denies morality.
What is is left with is a
complex view of self-interest.
Which, you will have to agree from your premise, is the same
thing a Christian has -
a very complex view of self interest - i.e. "What do I do to
get *me* to heaven?"
Frank A.S.
>
>I totally disagree with this statement. A belief system is inherently
>flawed, for there will always be an unknown, and people will always be
>afraid of that unknown.
>
>simply "I exist in a world and I percieve other beings/entities existing
>with me. In order to live in this world, I have to coexist with these
>other beings."
>
readers / listeners with excellent comprehension. They follow their dick
around and own guns. You want to teach them to think and have a body of
knowledge that guarantees they make the right choices? How many even smart
people with lots of knowledge do you know who are destroying themselves by
making wrong choices? I know lots. All they lack is something, someone to
believe in, be it country, ruler, psychiatrist / minister or God to get a
focus in life. In the mean time they don't mind dragging you down with them or
shooting at you in their frustration.
Wake up and smell the coffee (reality), before you become a casualty
yourself.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
For me, there can be no perfect church. For
were I to find one and join, it would no longer be perfect.
-anon-
maff91
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>Sam Morrissey wrote in message <35C1FD...@rpi.edu>...
>>
>>I totally disagree with this statement. A belief system is inherently
>>flawed, for there will always be an unknown, and people will always be
>>afraid of that unknown.
>>
>>SO I think that a KNOWLEDGE factor seems to be needed, a KNOWLEDGE that
>>simply "I exist in a world and I percieve other beings/entities existing
>>with me. In order to live in this world, I have to coexist with these
>>other beings."
>>
> Unfortunately most people are neither smart nor intelligent and good
>readers / listeners with excellent comprehension. They follow their dick
>around and own guns. You want to teach them to think and have a body of
>knowledge that guarantees they make the right choices? How many even smart
>people with lots of knowledge do you know who are destroying themselves by
>making wrong choices? I know lots. All they lack is something, someone to
You know lots, Francisco! You don't seem to show any of it. You only
seem to show your hatred and the desire to control people according to
your say so.
Steven
Frank A.S. wrote:
<snip>
> Atheists on the whole only accept moral codes imposed on them by government,
> in the form of laws. Unfortunately the law has no redeeming features, only
> reduced sanctions at best. It will not forgive and forget.
>
> Frank
> A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
>
> Don't look back. Something may be gaining on you.
> -- Satchel Paige
Out of curiousity, how can you possibly speak for what moral codes atheists
accept and don't accept unless you yourself were one? Eh?
--
"Ninety eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hardworking,
honest Americans. It's the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity.
But then, we elected them." - Lily Tomlin
Remove the kill.the.spam.ers.net from my address to respond.
Steven
Andreas Koslowski wrote:
> Frank A.S. schrieb in Nachricht <6pdppq$13o$1...@demon.uunet.ca>...
> >good...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <6pdd34$shb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >>In article <6pbmh7$i2c$3...@demon.uunet.ca>,
> >> "Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>"Atheists have no common moral code and therefore cannot teach any to
> their
> >>children." Now this one is bait, right? You don't really believe it,
> you're
> >>just saying it to incite another thread of flames.
> >
> > OK smartass, tell us what the atheist's COMMON moral code is.
>
> Kant's categoric imperative, anyone?
>
> And what is the theist's COMMON moral code, btw?
>
> What exactly is a common moral code?
>
> And why does a moral code have to be common to be taught?
I think that Albert Einstein best summed this up when he said, "If people
are good only because they fear punishment and hope for reward, then we are
a sorry lot indeed."
I also like Clarence Darrow's "I don't believe in God for the same reason I
don't believe in Mother Goose." but it's irrelevant here.
Steven
Frank A.S. wrote:
<snip>
> I think your argument is the one "doomed to failure", but then you ARE a
> dyed in the wool atheist, just spouting a lot of polemics to advance your
> cause, aren't you?
>
> Frank
> A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
>
> History repeats itself;
> that's one of the things that's wrong with history.
> - Clarence Darrow
Replace the term atheist with Christian in your above statement. BTW Darrow also
said, "I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in Mother
Goose." Why didn't you put that quote in?
Steven
Frank A.S. wrote:
> Elf Sternberg wrote in message <6pqhcq$356$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
> >In article <6pp0b3$4cq$2...@nntp3.uunet.ca>
> >
> > Frank, your assertion that "most religions have pretty well
> >identical moral codes" is just that, an assertion
>
> I take much of what I write from Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy.
> >
> > And, Frank, every generation has felt that the next one was
> >amoral. It's called maturity looking at youth. The human race will
> >survive, as it always has.
> >
> I'm glad you have that kind of faith, but all indications are we will end
> up in extreme individualism, each armed to the teeth, a fortress against our
> neighbors who "believe differently from us". Extreme individualism is already
> apparent in our school systems, which begin to look very much like armed
> camps, full of very scared kids.
<snip>
Huh? School systems, armed camps, scared kids? What country are you referring
to?
Sam Morrissey
> Unfortunately most people are neither smart nor intelligent and > good readers / listeners with excellent comprehension. They follow > their dick around and own guns. You want to teach them to think and > have a body of knowledge that guarantees they make the right choices? > How many even smart people with lots of knowledge do you know who are > destroying themselves by making wrong choices? I know lots. All they > lack is something, someone to believe in, be it country, ruler, > psychiatrist / minister or God to get a focus in life. In the mean > time they don't mind dragging you down with them or shooting at you in > their frustration.
> Wake up and smell the coffee (reality), before you become a > casualty yourself.
>
> Frank
> A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
>
> For me, there can be no perfect church. For
> were I to find one and join, it would no longer be perfect.
> -anon-
OK man, my first problem is this: If we ever want to get along and live
together (I mean all people), then we personally have to stop making
judgements about how everyone else thinks and acts. Face it, you will
truly never know how anyone else thinks or feels. All you can possibly
know is yourself. So believe in that. To many people get caught up in
beliving in somebody or something else, and they forget to believe in
themselves, and that is why the shit gets so screwed up!
So no, I don't want to teach people anything, because face it, all I
could teach is what I knoe, and I sure as hell don't know everything and
how it affects everybody. All I am saying is let people believe in
themselves, and make choices that will seem fitting to them. Without
the greed and envy that comes from people not believing in their own
mentality, we really could coexist. Eventually, people will have to
realize that in order for them to live happy and comfortably, they will
have to allow the happy and comfortable existence of every other being
they interact with.
P.S. If you were really a friend to Lao Tze, I think you might realize
this. After all, the Tao Te Ching and other Taoist texts talk about
living your life in harmony with everything else, taking the good with
the bad, and living with your own perceptions.
SAM MORRISSEY
Frank A.S.
<35C3573A...@earthlink.net.kill.the.spam.ers.net>...
>Frank A.S. wrote:
>
>> Atheists on the whole only accept moral codes imposed on them by
government,
>> in the form of laws. Unfortunately the law has no redeeming features, only
>> reduced sanctions at best. It will not forgive and forget.
>>
>accept and don't accept unless you yourself were one? Eh?
>
word 'God' might really mean. It is not a logical concept, you will agree, and
I do not feel qualified to make judgments about the existence or non-existence
of illogical concepts. To me God is just a WORD, an idea, like John 1:1, In
the beginning was the Word and the Word was God. Why should I look any further
for a hairy thunderer on some mountain whose existence I can reject? Eh?
Frank A.S.
<35C36447...@earthlink.net.kill.the.spam.ers.net>...
>Frank A.S. wrote:
>
>> I'm glad you have that kind of faith, but all indications are we will
end
>> up in extreme individualism, each armed to the teeth, a fortress against
our
>> neighbors who "believe differently from us". Extreme individualism is
already
>> apparent in our school systems, which begin to look very much like armed
>> camps, full of very scared kids.
>
> <snip>
>Huh? School systems, armed camps, scared kids? What country are you
referring
>to?
>
and police checking every student's identity before letting him/her pass. Also
halls are patrolled by armed guards. Many kids who got shot were on the way to
school or going back home and parents are beginning to outfit their kids with
bullet-proof vests. England is not much better. Virtually all teachers have to
fear their students these days. Most students are scared shitless of each
other, and for good reasons.
I wonder where you hail from, that you don't know any of this.
Frank
Frank A.S.
<35C358EC...@earthlink.net.kill.the.spam.ers.net>...
>
> I think that Albert Einstein best summed this up when he said, "If people
>are good only because they fear punishment and hope for reward, then we are
>a sorry lot indeed."
>I also like Clarence Darrow's "I don't believe in God for the same reason I
>don't believe in Mother Goose." but it's irrelevant here.
>
entities, the God of the NT is an abstract concept, a word, an idea, a
spiritual ideal. Therefore God's existence is not in question.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity
opinions which differ from that of their social environment.
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
The vast majority of human beings dislike and
even dread all notions with which they are not familiar.
Hence it comes about that at their first appearance
innovators have always been derided as fools and madmen.
- Aldous Huxley (1894-1963)
Steven
Frank A.S. wrote:
<snip>
> >Huh? School systems, armed camps, scared kids? What country are you
> referring
> >to?
> >
> Many schools in the USA have now all entrances rigged with metal detectors
> and police checking every student's identity before letting him/her pass. Also
> halls are patrolled by armed guards. Many kids who got shot were on the way to
> school or going back home and parents are beginning to outfit their kids with
> bullet-proof vests. England is not much better. Virtually all teachers have to
> fear their students these days. Most students are scared shitless of each
> other, and for good reasons.
> I wonder where you hail from, that you don't know any of this.
>
> Frank
>
> Don't look back. Something may be gaining on you.
> -- Satchel Paige
Well, for starters, the amount of schools which DO NOT have metal detectors is
much higher than the number that do. I remember a poll on CNN about this but I'm
too lazy to look it up. And as a student at one of the High Schools in this
country I'd just like to say that at least for my school, it sounds like you're
talking about another country. But then again you always hear about the plane
that crashed not the hundreds that didn't.
Steven
Frank A.S. wrote:
Yet you ignored the important part of the post which was Einstein's quote. He
has a point.
Steven
Frank A.S. wrote:
<snip>
> >Out of curiousity, how can you possibly speak for what moral codes atheists
> >accept and don't accept unless you yourself were one? Eh?
> >
> I was an atheist, and I dare say I still am, for I have no idea what the
> word 'God' might really mean. It is not a logical concept, you will agree, and
> I do not feel qualified to make judgments about the existence or non-existence
> of illogical concepts. To me God is just a WORD, an idea, like John 1:1, In
> the beginning was the Word and the Word was God. Why should I look any further
> for a hairy thunderer on some mountain whose existence I can reject? Eh?
<snip sig>
Sound more like an agnostic, but since you claim you are an atheist then you must
not accept any moral codes imposed on you by the government? Why is it not
possible for someone to accept the common moral code of the society in which they
live without accepting the common beliefs? And why does the common moral code
HAVE to be tacked onto religion? In response to your question...
Atheism - Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God.
[From Greek atheos, without a god.]
No mountain climbing required to be an atheist.
As for your argument the same can be said about Santa Claus... just replace the
word God with the name Santa Claus and whammo, a slightly odd formed, yet still
interesting argument for Santa Claus. I personally don't believe in Santa, but
that doesn't mean I'm going to go looking for him... it also doesn't mean I'm
going to act as if he might or might not exist.
Frank A.S.
<35C35AD8...@earthlink.net.kill.the.spam.ers.net>...
>Frank A.S. wrote:
><snip>
>
> Replace the term atheist with Christian in your above statement. BTW Darrow
also
>said, "I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in Mother
>Goose." Why didn't you put that quote in?
>
I don't because to atheists as well as to many theists, the word "God"
always means a concrete hairy thunderer entity similar to Zeus. Thus stating
one does not believe in god or mother goose is just a truism applied to straw
men. If you read the originating documentation of that word in the Bible for
instance, you will quickly note that the word "God" is NOT "of the flesh", but
a spiritual, abstract concept meaning I AM in the OT and love in the NT. Also
John tells us that "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was GOD". A
word is just an idea, an abstract ideal to be realized. Therefore as an ideal
God has an eternal existence, and that ideals exist is not in question.
Therefore the theist / atheist existence / non-existence argument of a
concrete sentient god-entity is just a straw man truism, as true and
meaningless as stating: "I don't believe in the existence of any XYZ
entity(s)".
>--
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
For me, there can be no perfect church. For
Ross J. Corbett
Greg Gyetko wrote in message <35C21ED4...@newbridge.com>...
>Ross J. Corbett wrote:
...
>If a moral code is a code of "absolute good and evil", then
>the modifier "moral" must
>mean "absolutely good and evil" or "differentiation between
>absolute good and evil".
>So then, nothing can "be moral", as moral merely defines a
>method of differentiation.
>
>You really have to parse your own definitions when you make
>them up like that.
yes, quite. If you will be so generous as to allow me to reword my definition
with the assumption that I had assumed was implicit: A moral code
differentiates between absolute good and absolute evil, with moral being the
good and immoral being the evil.
>
>
> One need only look out for one's own wellfare. The
>intelligent may examine their
> life and decide that the best way to live is in an
>'ethical' manner, but the final item
> of importance is still self-interest. The ethical man
>differs from the dispicable man
> in their view of what their self-interest is.
>
>Hm. However, consider this. Why do Xtians behave morally
>(or ethically,
>whatever)?
>
>Because if they don't, they end up going to hell, right? So
>the Christian is making the
>same calculation the atheist is - i.e. he is only looking
>out for his own welfare.
...
Although I am hardly in a position to defend Christianity, I must say in their
defense that they are told to do the good and shun the evil because God said to
do so. One ought not think about heaven or hell when doing good deeds, but
should rather concentrate on the deed itself. What individual Christians do may
perhaps be another matter, but not one germane to the morality of atheists.
>
>Why does this need to be a god? Why can't the collective
>experience of living human
>beings figure out what is good and evil?
>
I appear to have born with a debilitating disorder, in which I lack Jung's
collective unconsciousness or any semblance of this linked mind to which I am so
often referred. I'm afraid the millenia of learning have been lost to me, and I
have only what I have learned and what others say they have learned, although I
suspect to truth of the latter. In any case, I have spoken with many wise and
learned men, but none has ever held the totality of the human experience in a
form that they could pass onto me. Thus, I have been forced to learn my own
lessons, which apparently differ quite substantially from those of many others.
I'm afraid that we can't reach a concensus on this matter, and given the state
of politics I don't think a majority vote will work either.
Assuming that I am unique in my deficiency and that the rest of you are privy to
this knowledge, I have to ask how it was formed. If I might speculate ...
Person after person, having examined their own lives and discovered what they
liked and didn't like, decided to institute laws preserving that which they
liked and prohibiting that which they didn't. Again, this is an ethical code.
Without the Deity, there is no morality. There is only ethics.
ross
maff91
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>Steven wrote in message
><35C36447...@earthlink.net.kill.the.spam.ers.net>...
>>Frank A.S. wrote:
>>
>>> I'm glad you have that kind of faith, but all indications are we will
>end
>>> up in extreme individualism, each armed to the teeth, a fortress against
>our
>>> neighbors who "believe differently from us". Extreme individualism is
>already
>>> apparent in our school systems, which begin to look very much like armed
>>> camps, full of very scared kids.
>>
>> <snip>
>>Huh? School systems, armed camps, scared kids? What country are you
>referring
>>to?
>>
> Many schools in the USA have now all entrances rigged with metal detectors
>and police checking every student's identity before letting him/her pass. Also
>halls are patrolled by armed guards. Many kids who got shot were on the way to
>school or going back home and parents are beginning to outfit their kids with
>bullet-proof vests. England is not much better. Virtually all teachers have to
>fear their students these days. Most students are scared shitless of each
>other, and for good reasons.
> I wonder where you hail from, that you don't know any of this.
Where did you learn about propaganda? From Gobbels?
maff91
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>Steven wrote in message
><35C358EC...@earthlink.net.kill.the.spam.ers.net>...
>>
>> I think that Albert Einstein best summed this up when he said, "If people
>>are good only because they fear punishment and hope for reward, then we are
>>a sorry lot indeed."
>>I also like Clarence Darrow's "I don't believe in God for the same reason I
>>don't believe in Mother Goose." but it's irrelevant here.
>>
> Mother goose and the atheist god(s) as well as Sky Daddy are concrete
>entities, the God of the NT is an abstract concept, a word, an idea, a
>spiritual ideal. Therefore God's existence is not in question.
We all know what your ideals are, Francisco. Hatred of Humanity and
the insane desire to make everyone else toe your line.
The way you're going on is only going result in you locked up in an
insane asylum or a shoot out with the Feds or the Mounties.
There' re better ways to get to Heaven, Francisco. Commit suicide.
>
> Frank
>A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
>
Elf Sternberg
"Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
>A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
And an adversary, it seems, of the Enlightment. Frank, I
think everyone has become clear that you believe you're good enough
without a real religion-- in a later post you as much admit to being
unsure about your own beliefs-- but that "most people are neither
smart nor intelligent" and therefore need to be wrapped up in the
"mind forg'd manacles" of religious belief in order to keep them in
line.
The athiest position is that belief in the various gods
presented by yesterday's and today's prevalent religions does not
make sense in light of the world we observe. Religious belief has
been misused to create war and subjugate the human spirit. Atheists
want none of it. The weak athiest position is that, even if there is
an entire pantheon of gods out there, they're clearly not that
interested in what's going on down here; the strong atheist position
is that there is sufficient evidence now to conclude no god exists.
Certainly, both arguments have their place. The strong
atheist argument is attractive because it's very much in line with
scientific reasoning. No scientist waits for proof, but when a
theory is robust and reliable enough one starts finding it in High
School textbooks. The standards of evidence for science are very
high, and strong atheists are satisfied that the standard is
covered. On the other hand, the weak atheist argument appeals to the
principles of scientific reasoning since a negative can never truly
be proven.
The claim that the vast majority of religious belief through
history has been misused is specious and vapid. These were the
people of the times interpreting the book as best they could, and
given the brutish nature of their lives and their leaders, they used
what they could to justify their brutality. Let's not honor that by
continuing to beleive as they did.
The humanist position is that most people are smart enough
and intelligent enough to understand that their position in the great
scheme of things is influenced by their actions, and that good men
can create a good world together. I don't see any inherent
contradicition in a man calling himself an adherent of Confucianism,
a humanist, and an atheist.
I stand for all those in the world that are just and decent
in the world; I believe those to be the vast majority of people, once
they are freed of the pains of poverty and human subjugation. I'm
not so cynical and fearful of my fellow man that I do not trust him
to live well without fear of retribution.
Elf Sternberg
"Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
> Mother goose and the atheist god(s) as well as Sky Daddy are
>concrete entities, the God of the NT is an abstract concept, a word,
>an idea, a spiritual ideal. Therefore God's existence is not in
>question.
The "atheist god(s)" [sic]? What does that mean? Last I
heard, we didn't have any to speak of.
The New Testament god is hardly abstract; he's a refinement
of the OT god. If you're claiming that the Old Testament god is
bunk, remember that the Old Testament is the book which the New calls
its "foundation." If the foundation crumbles, what happens to the
temple which stands on it? I think this is a very serious question.
It's clear that you have a very different view of the
Christian religion from my brother, who's one of those "spirit-filled
servants of the Lord," and so on. At best, you're a cheap new-ager
convinced that all that is out there is good and it is man who is
mired in the muck of his existence.
Frank A.S.
>Frank A.S. wrote:
>
Face it, you will
>truly never know how anyone else thinks or feels. All you can possibly
>know is yourself. So believe in that. To many people get caught up in
>beliving in somebody or something else, and they forget to believe in
>themselves, and that is why the shit gets so screwed up!
>
Sorry, but that is completely against human nature. A child definitely and
most men like to work FOR someone, be it parents, teacher, mentor, God, king,
sargent or boss. Very closeley followed by regiment, country, gang, ideology
and other non-human concepts. The very last most want to work for is oneself.
All I am saying is let people believe in
>themselves, and make choices that will seem fitting to them.
What would you believe in exactly, if you were to believe in yourself?
That you are always right perhaps? But that would mean everyone else is wrong.
It's very lonely, if yourself is the only one you have to believe in.
Eventually, people will have to
>realize that in order for them to live happy and comfortably, they will
>have to allow the happy and comfortable existence of every other being
>they interact with.
>
Applying Taoist dialectics, how can I know whether I live "happy and
comfortably" or not, unless I know what living uncomfortably means, either
having lived that way, or having seen it in those I interact with? Were
everyone to live the same way the notion of "happy and comfortable existence"
ceases to mean anything.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
For me, there can be no perfect church. For
Frank A.S.
>
>think everyone has become clear that you believe you're good enough
>without a real religion-- in a later post you as much admit to being
>unsure about your own beliefs--
You sure like to sport unsupported opinions. "An adversary of the
Enlightment" indeed. I doubt Buddha would agree with you misusing the word
"enlightenment". Are you sure, you did not get lost in the NG world and just
hit upon this NG to do a little amateur psycho-analysis or engage in head
games?
My sole purpose here is to show that ancient religious literature is not
necessarily out of date philosophically, but needs to be read and understood
impassionately and with academic neutrality, rather than sectarian or
atheistic bias. In that way, what they have to say about man's quest for
spiritual fulfillment still applies to this day. They represent very similar
philosophies of life, which hold high all the traits that make man human, a
"Mensch". They speak with idealistic enthusiasm that engages man's heart and
imagination, which is something secular philosophies fail to do.
Frank A.S.
>In article <6q0f3k$lk6$5...@goblin.uunet.ca>
> "Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
>
>> Mother goose and the atheist god(s) as well as Sky Daddy are
>>concrete entities, the God of the NT is an abstract concept, a word,
>>an idea, a spiritual ideal. Therefore God's existence is not in
>>question.
>
> The "atheist god(s)" [sic]? What does that mean? Last I
>heard, we didn't have any to speak of.
>
If you did not have any you wouldn't need to state your lack of belief in
any, wouldn't you?
> The New Testament god is hardly abstract; he's a refinement
>of the OT god.
Thew OT God is I AM, as in "Tell them I AM sent you". The NT "God is love"
(1 John 4:8). Then you also have John 1:1 stating "In the beginning was the
word, and the word was with God and the word WAS God". So God is a word, an
idea or ideal Christians want to realize in their lives.
> It's clear that you have a very different view of the
>Christian religion from my brother,
Are you always using second-hand info. for your sources? I would recommend
you check the documentation yourself, and find out first hand whether my
definition of the word "God" is indeed an abstract spiritual concept as
documented in the Bible, or a powerful concrete sentient entity, similar to
Zeus, not of the spirit, but of the flesh, busy dispensing arbitrary judgments
after all.
maff91
<NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>Elf Sternberg wrote in message <6q1f9h$s3e$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>>In article <6puugh$f0p$1...@goblin.uunet.ca>
>> "Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
>>
>>>A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
>>
>> And an adversary, it seems, of the Enlightment. Frank, I
>>think everyone has become clear that you believe you're good enough
>>without a real religion-- in a later post you as much admit to being
>>unsure about your own beliefs--
>
> You sure like to sport unsupported opinions. "An adversary of the
>Enlightment" indeed. I doubt Buddha would agree with you misusing the word
>"enlightenment". Are you sure, you did not get lost in the NG world and just
>hit upon this NG to do a little amateur psycho-analysis or engage in head
>games?
> My sole purpose here is to show that ancient religious literature is not
>necessarily out of date philosophically, but needs to be read and understood
>impassionately and with academic neutrality, rather than sectarian or
>atheistic bias. In that way, what they have to say about man's quest for
>spiritual fulfillment still applies to this day. They represent very similar
>philosophies of life, which hold high all the traits that make man human, a
>"Mensch". They speak with idealistic enthusiasm that engages man's heart and
>imagination, which is something secular philosophies fail to do.
What secular philosophies/ Philosophers are you taking about?
>
> Frank
>A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
>
> For me, there can be no perfect church. For
>were I to find one and join, it would no longer be perfect.
> -anon-
>
>
*****************************************************
Unforgettable Thomas Paine:
"Society in every state is a blessing, but
government, even in its best state, is but a
necessary evil, in its worst state
an intolerable one."
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind,
tyranny in religion is the Worst"
"All national institutions of churches, whether
Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no
other than human inventions, set up to terrify
and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and
profit."
"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself"
"A bad cause will ever be supported by
bad means and bad men."
"Moderation in temper is always a virtue;
but moderation in principle is always a
vice."
"War involves in its progress such a train
of unforeseen and unsupposed circumstances
that no human wisdom can calculate its end.
It has but one thing certain and that is to
increase taxes."
"My country is the world"
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/intro.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/3.05/features/paine.html
*****************************************************
Frank A.S.
<35C3C128...@earthlink.net.kill.the.spam.ers.net>...
>Frank A.S. wrote:
> But then again you always hear about the plane
>that crashed not the hundreds that didn't.
>
Plane crashes are on a down-trend, the trend in school violence is on the
increase and so is the number of very scared students on Ritalin.
Btw, besides slowing down the hyperactive, Ritalin makes disinterested
zombies out of bright inquisitive kids.
Frank
Don't overestimate the decency of the human race.
- H. L. Mencken
Annalisa Conserti
> <snip>
> Huh? School systems, armed camps, scared kids? What country are you referring
> to?
>
Frank is the victim of a biased media that will report five shootings in
different urban neighborhoods, but never any 'good' newsstory, like a
success story. <sarcasm> Such events could only happen in the suburbs
<sarcasm>. We (americans) are being duped by the media into thinking that
EVERY city neighborhood is a battlefield. Talk about thinking for one's
self!
> --
> "Ninety eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hardworking,
> honest Americans. It's the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity.
> But then, we elected them." - Lily Tomlin
LOL! Very well put!
> Remove the kill.the.spam.ers.net from my address to respond.
>
>
>
>
===================
When I carefully consider the curious habits of dogs
I am compelled to conclude
That man is the superior animal.
When I consider the curious habits of men
I confess, my friend, I am puzzled.
MEDITATIO, Ezra Pound
-----------------------
La pluie de vos insultes n'atteint pas le parapluie de mon indifference.
-----------------------
Annalisa Conserti
aco...@uic.edu
Annalisa Conserti
> Steven wrote in message
> <35C3573A...@earthlink.net.kill.the.spam.ers.net>...
> >Frank A.S. wrote:
> >
> >> Atheists on the whole only accept moral codes imposed on them by
> government,
> >> in the form of laws. Unfortunately the law has no redeeming features, only
> >> reduced sanctions at best. It will not forgive and forget.
> >>
> >Out of curiousity, how can you possibly speak for what moral codes atheists
> >accept and don't accept unless you yourself were one? Eh?
> >
> I was an atheist, and I dare say I still am, for I have no idea what the
> word 'God' might really mean.
You cannot say, I still am an atheist. If you were truthful. you wouid
admit that if you believe that "god" means whatever the originating
scripture mean, you're saying you're inclined to theism. You accuse
atheists to be wrong because they believe that God should be like Zeus
(which not all of them believe, I understand) and replace it w/ your
conceptualization, but the fact that you believe said thing does not make
you a theist. Please! At least be honest (I realize I might be asking too
much of you).
> It is not a logical concept, you will agree, and
> I do not feel qualified to make judgments about the existence or non-existence
> of illogical concepts.
Belief has nothing to do w/ proof. Proof validates beliefs as truths. But
one does not need to have proof to believe. You're such a case, as you
defend your construct (which YOU BELIEVE, otherwise you wouldn't defend
it) regardless of how inconsistent it has been shown, Nothing wrong w/
that. But that you want others to believe your concept when they are
unwilling to do so w/out proof is a sad mistake.
> To me God is just a WORD, an idea, like John 1:1, In
> the beginning was the Word and the Word was God. Why should I look any further
> for a hairy thunderer on some mountain whose existence I can reject? Eh?
>
IF 'god' is just a word, we would not need the concept at all. One could
substitute 'god' w/ "my good friend Abbie" and still hold the same outlook
on the world. Why cling to a word which you admit (infrequently) to not
have that much intrinsic meaning? That's what makes you a theist.
<snip sig>
Annalisa Conserti
> Elf Sternberg wrote in message <6q1f9h$s3e$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
> >In article <6puugh$f0p$1...@goblin.uunet.ca>
> > "Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
> >
> >>A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
> >
> > And an adversary, it seems, of the Enlightment. Frank, I
> >think everyone has become clear that you believe you're good enough
> >without a real religion-- in a later post you as much admit to being
> >unsure about your own beliefs--
>
> You sure like to sport unsupported opinions. "An adversary of the
> Enlightment" indeed.
Again buddy (and do request evidence, please, God knows I had fun the last
time I searched usenet for your infamous ditties):
You have stated that
-secularism is bad for society
-people need a God fiction to be made to obey society
-atheism is a religion
-schools are war zones
-evolution is a religion of science, and taught as such in public schools
I could cite many more examples, Frank. They all show not only ignorance
of facts, but insistence that what you say is true. IF that's not
promoting ignorance (a definite anti enlightment move) what is?
> I doubt Buddha would agree with you misusing the word
> "enlightenment".
The word "Enlightment" traditionally designates a period (eighteenth
century, up to the French revolution) during which the rediscovery of
knowledge reached full bloom. What that meant is that learning became more
and more disassociated w/ churches, granting that more people had access
to it. Buddha's 'enlightment' entered the arena later on, and as is
traditional w/ words, the fisrt way in which they are used is the meaning
of it, and any different use fro mthe standard one should be pointed out
by the writer for the benefit of the reader. Since Elf did not mention
Buddha in his post, how woulkd you asseume that it is being used to mean
that 'enlightment'? Unless you're not read enough to know of the
'Enlightment', which would not surprise me. After all, you're the one who
says that "secularism is bad for humanity". Your fundy community must stop
its teaching of morality (and all else) at about the middle ages, I
suppose.
> Are you sure, you did not get lost in the NG world and just
> hit upon this NG to do a little amateur psycho-analysis or engage in head
> games?
Is this statement_
|
-
> My sole purpose here is to show that ancient religious literature is not
> necessarily out of date philosophically, but needs to be read and understood
> impassionately and with academic neutrality, rather than sectarian or
> atheistic bias. In that way, what they have to say about man's quest for
> spiritual fulfillment still applies to this day. They represent very similar
> philosophies of life, which hold high all the traits that make man human, a
> "Mensch". They speak with idealistic enthusiasm that engages man's heart and
> imagination, which is something secular philosophies fail to do.
>
computer generated? I'm starting to wonder.....
> Frank
> A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
>
> For me, there can be no perfect church. For
> were I to find one and join, it would no longer be perfect.
> -anon-
>
>
>
>
>
===================
Frank A.S.
<35C3C128...@earthlink.net.kill.the.spam.ers.net>...
> Well, for starters, the amount of schools which DO NOT have metal detectors
is
>much higher than the number that do
And only a few decades ago none of this existed. What trend do you think
we are talking about? And where to YOU think it will lead?
Frank
Annalisa Conserti
> Steven wrote in message
> <35C3C128...@earthlink.net.kill.the.spam.ers.net>...
> >Frank A.S. wrote:
>
>
> > But then again you always hear about the plane
> >that crashed not the hundreds that didn't.
> >
> Plane crashes are on a down-trend, the trend in school violence is on the
> increase and so is the number of very scared students on Ritalin.
You really are not good at this, are you? What he meant was that of many
planes, you only hear about the one that crashed (I share this view). Only
a moron would base the conclusion "planes are prone to crashes" while
having the premise "99% of plains never crash, but 1% do". <sarcasm>Don't
impress us w/ your superior debating skills, Frank....You know
there aren't any to speak of.
> Btw, besides slowing down the hyperactive, Ritalin makes disinterested
> zombies out of bright inquisitive kids.
>
Is that a non sequiturum or what? Realized you dipped your toes in a pool
that's too deep, Frank?
> Frank
>
> Don't overestimate the decency of the human race.
> - H. L. Mencken
>
>
>
>
>
===================
Elf Sternberg
"Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
> Plane crashes are on a down-trend, the trend in school violence is on the
>increase and so is the number of very scared students on Ritalin.
Although there have been a number of school shootings heavily
portrayed in the media in recent months, the fact remains that schools
are safer now than they were in 1992, when the United States had an
all-time high of 55 school shooting deaths. Some of the more recent
incidents are dramatic, there's no denying that, but they're very
much the man-bite-dog kind of media tale where the cameras are paying
attention precisely because the incident is so bizarre. Many of the
ones that followed the original incident were copycats, desperate bids
for attention that clearly worked.
There are sixty thousand schools scattered across the United
States, and some forty million children in school at any given time.
Yes, there were 40 incidents of murder on school campuses last year.
And yes, that's a terrible number. But it's orders of magnitude lower
than the statistics for the world outside of school; it's lower now
than it was five years ago. The situation is getting better, not
worse; it's just more dramatic now because the media can bring it to
you live, direct, and bloody. But just because we see it rather than
merely read about it in the papers doesn't mean we should go with
anything other than the facts at hand.
As for your rant about Ritalin, I don't disagree that Ritalin has
been abused and over-prescribed in many, many cases. But recent
trends against medicating kids has sucessfully returned Ritalin to the
medicine cabinet as a tool for helping kids who have biologically-
derived attention deficeit disorder. There are far fewer of those
than there were on Ritalin back in the 80s, when parents were over
medicating themselves with Prozac at the same time. Every few years a
new wonder drug comes along, everyone tries it and a few find it
useful. Valium, Ritalin, Prozac, even Viagra are merely symptoms of a
culture trying to solve its problems. A very small minority of kids
do need and function well on Ritalin.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg - www.halcyon.com/elf
A Decade of Usenet: On-line since August 18, 1988
Elf Sternberg
"Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
> You sure like to sport unsupported opinions. "An adversary of the
>Enlightment" indeed. I doubt Buddha would agree with you misusing the word
>"enlightenment".
Perhaps not, but I wasn't talking about Buddha's use of
"Enlightenment," a translated term that entered the vocabulary long
after the Italian concept of Enlightenment, the revival of knowledge
and inquiry that followed the Dark Ages.
>Are you sure, you did not get lost in the NG world and just hit upon
>this NG to do a little amateur psycho-analysis or engage in head
>games?
Frank, are you here to have a polite and workable debate, or are
you here to engage in insults?
> My sole purpose here is to show that ancient religious literature
>is not necessarily out of date philosophically, but needs to be read
>and understood impassionately and with academic neutrality, rather
>than sectarian or atheistic bias.
And I disagree. Ancient religious literature was written by
ancient, religious people who did not live with the kind of society we
have today. The world has grown geographically smaller and
intellectually larger; mor people are at peace now than at any time in
the ancient past. To try and understand them with "academic
neutrality" means to take into account the cultures in which those
texts arose and to analyze them contextually.
>In that way, what they have to say about man's quest for spiritual
>fulfillment still applies to this day. They represent very similar
>philosophies of life, which hold high all the traits that make man
>human, a "Mensch". They speak with idealistic enthusiasm that engages
>man's heart and imagination, which is something secular philosophies
>fail to do.
While you profess this out of one side of your mouth, Frank,
you've also said that this particular quest is not one you join in
yourself. I don't see how you reconcile these two views. You also
didn't explain how you reconcile your admiration of Confucianism with
Confucious's own mistrust of religious beliefs, I notice, which was
part of the original post.
The Old Testament religion which is the foundation on which the
New Testament rests, the violent religions of the Incas or the
Babylonians, the miring beliefs of the Hindus or the abstract
"religion" of Zen, are all wildly different in their goals. Most
attempt to keep social order in this life and then wrap that in a fear
of the unknown and unknowable; some pervade all sense of exploration
and development, whereas others encourage it as a consequence of
appeasing their angry gods. Zen, perhaps the one belief system to
which I still ascribe any personal feeling, is perhaps the most
functional in that it says nothing about the outside world at all
and, like Confucianism, describes nothing "supernatural."
Elf Sternberg
"Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
> If you did not have any you wouldn't need to state your lack of belief in
>any, wouldn't you?
Huh? Frank, what are you talking about? Do I need a "personal
gift bringer" in which to not believe so that I can not believe in
Santa Claus? By your logic, Odin is a valid god, out there sitting on
his throne with Hugin and Munin and listening to our conversation,
because people state they have a lack of belief in him.
Ross J. Corbett
Annalisa Conserti wrote in message ...
>On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Frank A.S. wrote:
>
>> Steven wrote in message
>> <35C3C128...@earthlink.net.kill.the.spam.ers.net>...
>> >Frank A.S. wrote:
>>
>>
>> > But then again you always hear about the plane
>> >that crashed not the hundreds that didn't.
>> >
>> increase and so is the number of very scared students on Ritalin.
>
>planes, you only hear about the one that crashed (I share this view). Only
>a moron would base the conclusion "planes are prone to crashes" while
>having the premise "99% of plains never crash, but 1% do". <sarcasm>Don't
>impress us w/ your superior debating skills, Frank....You know
>there aren't any to speak of.
>
No, I don't think he meant that at all. He was merely proposing that planes are
made of earth, and so are naturally attracted to the crash when left unsuspended
amidst the sea of air. The only flaw in this is that we have yet to prove which
is the greater element of metal, the earth from which it is taken or the fire in
which it is forged. I personally think the latter, for it quite clearly becomes
hot with little effort.
ross
Frank A.S.
>On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Frank A.S. wrote:
>> Plane crashes are on a down-trend, the trend in school violence is on
the
>> increase and so is the number of very scared students on Ritalin.
>
>You really are not good at this, are you?
I bet you think YOU are good at this, don't you? You sure know how to
follow a pattern, I talk about issues, such as school violence and the need
for moral education, and you talk disparagingly about me. It never varies. How
about getting off the pot once in a while, Annalisa and say something
intelligent?
Frank
There are three kinds of love, - unselfish, mutual, and selfish. The unselfish
love is of the
highest kind. The lover only minds the welfare of the beloved and does not
care for his own
sufferings. In mutual love the lover not only wants the happiness of his
beloved but has an eye
towards his own happiness also. It is middling. The selfish love is the
lowest. It only looks
towards its own happiness, no matter whether the beloved suffers weal or woe.
- Ramakrishna (1836-1886)
Frank A.S.
>
>> Huh? School systems, armed camps, scared kids? What country are you
referring
>> to?
>
>Frank is the victim of a biased media
I didn't know that Annalisa. I guess then everything is just OK, and not
to worry. Thanks (;
Frank A.S.
>
>Again buddy (and do request evidence, please, God knows I had fun the last
>time I searched usenet for your infamous ditties):
>You have stated that
> -secularism is bad for society
> -people need a God fiction to be made to obey society
> -atheism is a religion
> -schools are war zones
> -evolution is a religion of science, and taught as such in public schools
>I could cite many more examples, Frank. They all show not only ignorance
>of facts, but insistence that what you say is true.
Again, sorry about raising unnecessary alarm in your mind about these
issues of concern. I assume you think everything is just peachy and OK in the
world . It's just media bias probably and we all can sleep easy, right. We
need more like you, putting our minds at ease. Keep it up Annalisa, you are
the voice of the future, and keep telling us your favourite ditty: "Don't
worry, be happy". You might get us all dance into the next century full of
optimism.(;
Frank A.S.
>> I was an atheist, and I dare say I still am, for I have no idea what
the
>> word 'God' might really mean.
>
>You cannot say, I still am an atheist.
Annalisa. Try to get it into your head that we live in a free country, and
I can say whatever I want.
Frank
(Frank A.S.)
> If you want to know the truth about this subject, you need to
> totally divorce yourself from anything sectarian, and read the Bible like
you
> read any other book on philosophy / psychology with total academic
neutrality.
(Analisa Concerti)
Sorry, I'd rather learn something useful. <sarcasm> I'll leave the
medieval garnments to other philosophers, if they are so inclined to wear
them <sarcasm>
Frank A.S.
>What secular philosophies/ Philosophers are you taking about?
>
Try all the modern philosophers since Scholasticism.
Frank A.S.
>> My sole purpose here is to show that ancient religious literature
>>is not necessarily out of date philosophically, but needs to be read
>>and understood impassionately and with academic neutrality, rather
>>than sectarian or atheistic bias.
>
> And I disagree.
I would say, in that case we have nothing to discuss. Your view promotes
the atrophy of all philosophical inquiry which is not of the latest issue, the
disregard of all historical literature older than today and a firm belief in
social Darwinism, which presumes the current issue of humanity evolved beyond
their predecessors. I have no evidence to support that view, though you may
have without having it presented in this forum as yet.
My interest is addressing the fears and hopes of mankind, those
characteristics which make us human and humane, ein Mensch and menschlich. In
my opinion those standards and human qualitites have not changed since the
dawn of humanity and they are the focus of religions, hence my interest.
Sorry to have wasted your time.
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the learned as false, and by the rulers as useful.
--Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c.3 B.C.泡.D. c.65
Frank A.S.
Frank A.S.
>In article <6q3766$rsc$5...@nntp3.uunet.ca>
> "Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
>
>> If you did not have any you wouldn't need to state your lack of belief
in
>>any, wouldn't you?
>
> Huh? Frank, what are you talking about? Do I need a "personal
>gift bringer" in which to not believe so that I can not believe in
>Santa Claus? By your logic, Odin is a valid god, out there sitting on
>his throne with Hugin and Munin and listening to our conversation,
>because people state they have a lack of belief in him.
>
are invented and defined by Biblical ancients as abstract, spiritual concepts.
All you tell us is, that you have found NO reasonable definition yet, only
un-reasonable ones. What do you want? Plaudits? I don't believe either in the
existence of divine entity XYZ. Should I trumpet that to the world? Does that
make me an atheist?
Religion deals with the fears and hopes of mankind and all those
attributes which make a man human and humane, a Mensch. In Judeo-Christianity,
God is the focus of a man that dominates his life. Mine is agape, as in my
sig. What is yours?
Frank
A friend to Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
Elf Sternberg
"Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
> Annalisa. Try to get it into your head that we live in a free
>country, and I can say whatever I want.
True. You have a right to be wrong.
Elf Sternberg
"Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
>>> My sole purpose here is to show that ancient religious literature
>>>is not necessarily out of date philosophically, but needs to be read
>>>and understood impassionately and with academic neutrality, rather
>>>than sectarian or atheistic bias.
>> And I disagree.
> I would say, in that case we have nothing to discuss. Your view
>promotes the atrophy of all philosophical inquiry which is not of
>the latest issue, the disregard of all historical literature older
>than today and a firm belief in social Darwinism, which presumes
>the current issue of humanity evolved beyond their predecessors.
Oh, Frank, you have a brain. I've seen you use it. Use it
now, please. I do not promote the atrophy of anything at all; I
think that all philosophical inquiries should be conducted with the
context with which they were contemporary. Reading the Old Testament
should be done keeping in mind that Moses and the people he led were
steeped deep in the religions and myths of the world around them and
that from Exodus on what you've got is a shotgun wedding of myth,
history (and not very pretty history at that), and wish fulfillment.
The same is true of every history; the Greeks clearly adored Zeus.
To be honest, I've always admired the Greek religions. You
could disagree with God. Zeus could be wrong, and you could tell him
so to his face if you were willing to face the consequences. Even
more significant, to look at another ancient religion, if you told
Odin off and he smote you, you'd very likely end up in Valhalla for
standing up for your beliefs like a warrior.
And let's get one thing straight, Frank. I am not a "Social
Darwinist." Social Darwinism is a lie, it does not work, it has
never worked, it is simply an excuse by the rich and powerful to
continue screwing the rest of the people just because they're
rich and powerful. Natural selection doesn't work that way. You
know that, I've said it, others on this newsgroup have said it, and
yet you keep repeating it.
> My interest is addressing the fears and hopes of mankind, those
>characteristics which make us human and humane, ein Mensch and
>menschlich. In my opinion those standards and human qualitites have
>not changed since the dawn of humanity and they are the focus of
>religions, hence my interest.
It is morally wrong, everywhere and for everyone, to believe
something not based on the evidence. It is also as morally wrong to
believe something without evidence just because it makes you feel
good; that is the equivalent of not caring where your money comes
from so long as you've got it.
Frank, your investigation had been, at best, inconclusive.
You talk about adressing the standards and human qualities which have
not changed and which are the focus of religions. I'm asking you,
enumerate them. Show me those qualities. If you're giving up now, I
guess tenacity and honest investigation aren't among them. I believe
(note that word, I use it rarely) that Humanity as a whole can
continue to live with high moral standards without an outside force,
anthropomorphic or not, imposing them upon us, and the evidence is
all around us; those with exceptionally different religious
traditions, or no traditions whatsoever, continue to live moral lives.
> Sorry to have wasted your time.
Not at all; you've been at times engaging and infuriating,
but never boring. Unlike many of the theists around here (and not a
few atheists), you clearly have both intelligence and a command of
the English language that is to be admired. Your elocution has led me
to re-open my investigations of both Zen and Confucianism and
encouraged me to think openly about the implications of both.
Good luck with your endeavors.
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: Elf Sternberg wrote in message <6q1f9t$s2a$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
: > The "atheist god(s)" [sic]? What does that mean? Last I
: >heard, we didn't have any to speak of.
: If you did not have any you wouldn't need to state your lack of
: belief in any, wouldn't you?
Franklogic(TM): "If you did not have a belief in the tooth fairy,
you wouldn't need to state your lack of belief in any."
--
****************************************************************
Men think epilepsy divine merely because they do not
understand it. But if they called everything divine
which they do not understand, why, there would be no
end of divine things.
- Hippocrates of Cos
****************************************************************
Elf Sternberg
"Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
Frank wrote:
>>> If you did not have any you wouldn't need to state your lack
>>>of belief in any, wouldn't you?
I wrote:
>> Huh? Frank, what are you talking about? Do I need a "personal
>>gift bringer" in which to not believe so that I can not believe in
>>Santa Claus?
> I don't follow you, how you can keep on pontificating about
>words which are invented and defined by Biblical ancients as
>abstract, spiritual concepts.
Let's try this again. You asserted that there were "atheist
gods" [sic]. And then you stated that in order for me to not believe
in a god, I would have to believe in a god. I challenged that
statement, asserting that, in order for me to not believe in Odin, I
would have to have a belief in Odin.
You are making a classic theist mistake, confusing rejection
of God (the satanic position, and nonetheless a position that can
only be held by someone anchored in the Christian tradition) with a
simple disbelief in God. Those who have no belief, atheists, may
well reject the physical manifestation of the church and all its
myriad ways, but that's rejecting the men and the buildings and the
arbitrary moral code. Atheists do that only because they see the men
and the buildings and code standing on thin air and would rather not
be around when it all comes crashing down.
Please don't equivocate, Frank. I know you understand the
difference; atheists simply reject any claims for the existence
(strong) or efficacy (weak) of god because there is no evidence that
a supernatural force exists (strong) or is doing anything of
influence to our lives (weak).
> Religion deals with the fears and hopes of mankind and all those
>attributes which make a man human and humane, a Mensch. In
>Judeo-Christianity, God is the focus of a man that dominates his
>life. Mine is agape, as in my sig. What is yours?
Mine? I believe in mad, sad, bad, wonderful, beautiful,
magnificent, unstoppable humanity. The world has grown larger and
more interesting every day since Wadi en-Natuf was founded in
Palestine some 10,000 years ago. I have spent thirty years on this
rock and I am convinced that Humanity (one of the definitions of
which is "being humane; being kindhearted" in the Oxford American)
has with agonizing slowness reached the point where it can begin to
civilize itself, come to grips with its differences among nations,
and reach for the stars.
I am not afraid.
Therion Ware
saying in <6q63e3$ev7$1...@brokaw.wa.com>
>In article <6q5aql$2n4$8...@demon.uunet.ca>
> "Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
>
>> Annalisa. Try to get it into your head that we live in a free
>>country, and I can say whatever I want.
>
> True. You have a right to be wrong.
A lot of people say this. Is there such an animal? Offhand I can't see
that there's any intrinsic "right to be wrong". Do people have a right
to believe that 1+2=4? Do they have a right to believe that if they
build skyscrapers, bridges or cars for a living? Do people have a
right to believe that the holocaust never happened? Do they have a
right to believe that anyone who doesn't believe as they do will spend
eternity in indescribable agony?
---
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
- attrib: Pauline Reage