Language in Comics [was Re: BLACK PANTHER #16: SPOOON-FED REVIEW]
Priest
Ed Whitmore <edmu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TgKk4.312$yw....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Actually, Chris[topher], I wanted to talk to you about your "noogie".
Stop smirking,
> you know what I mean. You said in Q&W (great to see it back, btw) that
Fabe
> threw a fit and that you would be using "noogie" instead of the actual
word.
> Was that really an Acclaim order, or did you just decide to use it not
to
> step on any editor toes? And did you let the Marvel editors in on the
joke
> when you brought "noogie" to Ka-Zar? Be honest, now.
Yes, the Marvel Eds were aware of the origins of the word. as for
Acclaim, I was approved to use the "N" word in the series after Fabian
held a couple of high-level meeting with the corporate parent. He then
called me and said, "Good news! You're a go for the "N" word," or
something to that effect. I was puzzled: I'd never intended to use the
"N" word in the first place, and asked Fabian what he was talking about.
It seems, in my original proposal, I'd written a few sketches, some of
which ended up in the actual book. The one with Willie Mae called Q a
"Noogie in a cape," was written in the proposal using the actual "N"
word. But I'd never intended to actually use the word in the book.
I found it hilarious that Fabian had actually held meetings on the
subject. I mean, everybody tip-toeing around my sensibilities and
trying not to offend me. I assured Fabian I wasn't going to use the
word. I don't like the word, I don't want to perpetuate the word. And,
to be honest, "Noogie" is much funnier and drives the point home much
more effectively.
I got off the phone with Fabian, and wrote this sequence with Quantum
and Woody explaining what "Noogie" meant, and sent it to Fabian as a
joke. Fabian liked it so much, we included it in the actual script to
issue #4.
OTOH, I've written other gag scripts, notably a notorious one for STEEL,
where the Ed took it the wrong way, became offended and nearly fired me.
Sheesh, gang...
>
> The reason I ask is that comics seem to have a lot of hypocrisy when
it
> comes to that word. At least when the situation's humorous, anyway. I
> remember two different accounts of Kitty calling people "nigger",
since they
> had no problem throwing around the word "mutie". Even in the first Q&W
story
> arc, doesn't some kid call Eric a nigger?
Yes. And I left it in there, orphaned and alone, as the singular moment
in time where that word actually was uttered in this book. The reason
for it is this is the defining moment in Eric (Quantum)'s life, where
some idiot kid convinces him his lifelong chum, Woody, abandoned him
because he was black. I needed a hammer, and "Noogie" would have made
too light of the moment.
In general, I flinch at the use of foul language of any kind in comics.
I read MASTER DARQUE for reference the other day, and there was all this
cussing that lent NOTHING to the story, other than the writer getting
her jollies off, "Oh, look how important I am! I can cuss in comics!"
It's not even inventive cussing, like Tupac or Ice Cube when he used to
be good: inventive (albeit syncopated) use of snappy patter fleshed
out by the all-purpose MF, B-word, etc. Don Cheadle's INSPIRED speech
in _Bulworth_. Sure, I still wince, but I see the artistry in it. Most
cussing I've seen in comics and film is just gloss for some half-assed
story about people sitting in dark rooms drinking.
I'm not a prude about it, and if it served some artistic purpose, yeah,
sure, I guess. But the real challenge, to me, is to communicate
effectively. And all that cussing just gave me a headache, and it
seemed in lieu of actual craft.
DARQUE appears in QW #23-24, and Woody mocks him for his filthy mouth.
> I just don't get how the editors
> will allow it when the book's got a serious. depressing tone, but not
when
> it could be funny. (like the shopping cart homeless guy and Eric)
Oh, they allowed it. After having a meeting. :-) It was the having of
the meeting that amused Doc and me, and became grist for our story. :-)
I will say this about Acclaim: they have been tremendously supportive
of me. The only thing they disallowed was Woody, age 11, claiming to be
an atheist. They didn't think a kid of that age would have much concept
of the existence of God. I fought and lost. My main argument was, I
invented this kid. He knows what I _say_ he knows, and the whole point
was Woody is a lot smarter than he comes across. He is easily on Eric's
intellectual level, he just chooses to live in the *real* world.
>
> Oh, and sorry for the green-skinned crack.
I thought you'd seen my medical charts...
cjp
--
please note: my name is NOT "chris"
christopher j. priest // http://cpriest.homepage.com
"Very well, proceed as you would with non-clowns." --the captain on the
cancelled-way-too-soon _Brooklyn South_
Rich Johnston
>>
>>>It's not even inventive cussing, like Tupac or Ice Cube when he used to
>be good: inventive (albeit syncopated) use of snappy patter fleshed
>out by the all-purpose MF, B-word, etc. Don Cheadle's INSPIRED speech
>in _Bulworth_. Sure, I still wince, but I see the artistry in it.
Can I recommend, for anyonw who can get copies, The Day Today from BBC, a
strange parody news programme, with Chris Morris playing US gangster rapper
Fur-Q, with 'Uzi Lover' taking samples from Phil Collins 'Easy Lover'... with
wonderful musical stabs spattering Fur-Q's singing, so that all the nasty words
are removed (it's meant to be for an MTV-style show) but with real musical
artistry...
Now there's a man who should be writing comics...
(Chris Morris obviously, not Phil Collins)
Rich Johnston twis...@hotmail.com
http://come.to/ramblings http://www.twistandshoutcomics.com
Ramblings 2000: It's probably on its way
The Three Laws of Brandon
<spee...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In article <8702bp$745$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Priest"
> <cpr...@priest.com> wrote:
>
> > I will say this about Acclaim: they have been tremendously supportive
> > of me. The only thing they disallowed was Woody, age 11, claiming to be
> > an atheist. They didn't think a kid of that age would have much concept
> > of the existence of God. I fought and lost.
>
> That's a shame. Speaking as someone who became an atheist around age 9
> or 10, (having been baptized Catholic) I can say that while there are
> some kids out there who don't think about that God, and just take the
> beliefs handed down to them for granted, there were a few kids along
> with myself who discussed and debated religion from quite an early age.
> And none of us had even close to the disheartening life that Woody left.
> I can completely see him at 11 or even younger dismissing the existence
> of God.
By 2nd grade I was cheerfully calling myself an atheist. The whole of
idead religion and faith struck as silly and ridiculous.
This did not please my Catholic school teachers.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
I just don't sit here all day casting
shadows for your amusement. I'm also a
sidewalk hot dog vendor.
Kurt Onstad
> I will say this about Acclaim: they have been tremendously supportive
> of me. The only thing they disallowed was Woody, age 11, claiming to be
> an atheist. They didn't think a kid of that age would have much concept
> of the existence of God. I fought and lost.
That's a shame. Speaking as someone who became an atheist around age 9
or 10, (having been baptized Catholic) I can say that while there are
some kids out there who don't think about that God, and just take the
beliefs handed down to them for granted, there were a few kids along
with myself who discussed and debated religion from quite an early age.
And none of us had even close to the disheartening life that Woody left.
I can completely see him at 11 or even younger dismissing the existence
of God.
Kurt Onstad
Why does money have "In God We Trust" on it?
Carl Fink
>. . . The only thing they disallowed was Woody, age 11, claiming to
>be an atheist. They didn't think a kid of that age would have much
>concept of the existence of God.
They all were slow developers? I was a very solid and well-grounded
atheist at 11, and I'm not even in the same intellectual class as
Eric and Woody.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
I-Con's Science and Technology Guest of Honor in 2000 will be Geoffrey
A. Landis. See <http://www.iconsf.org> for I-Con information.
Paul O'Brien
<twis...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Can I recommend, for anyonw who can get copies, The Day Today from BBC, a
>strange parody news programme, with Chris Morris playing US gangster rapper
>Fur-Q, with 'Uzi Lover' taking samples from Phil Collins 'Easy Lover'... with
>wonderful musical stabs spattering Fur-Q's singing, so that all the nasty words
>are removed (it's meant to be for an MTV-style show) but with real musical
>artistry...
Now that was a brillilant routine. "Uzi like a metal dick in my hand /
Magazine like a big testicle gland"... The angle was that Fur-Q was
killing people on stage as part of his show, and all these white
liberals were being interviewed explaining that "I don't see what
the problem is, these killings are clearly ironic." Sheer genius.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
The law will get there.
Rob Hansen
wrote:
> The only thing they disallowed was Woody, age 11, claiming to be
>an atheist. They didn't think a kid of that age would have much concept
>of the existence of God.
Interesting. I was an atheist by that age. Still am.
--
Rob Hansen
================================================
My Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
Feminists Against Censorship:
http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/
Rob Hansen
wrote:
>In article <8702bp$745$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Priest" says...
>>>
>>>>It's not even inventive cussing, like Tupac or Ice Cube when he used to
>>be good: inventive (albeit syncopated) use of snappy patter fleshed
>>out by the all-purpose MF, B-word, etc. Don Cheadle's INSPIRED speech
>>in _Bulworth_. Sure, I still wince, but I see the artistry in it.
>
>Can I recommend, for anyonw who can get copies, The Day Today from BBC, a
>strange parody news programme, with Chris Morris playing US gangster rapper
>Fur-Q, with 'Uzi Lover' taking samples from Phil Collins 'Easy Lover'... with
>wonderful musical stabs spattering Fur-Q's singing, so that all the nasty words
>are removed (it's meant to be for an MTV-style show) but with real musical
>artistry...
>
>Now there's a man who should be writing comics...
>
>(Chris Morris obviously, not Phil Collins)
Sounds like you'd appreciate Ali G. This is - you'll have to follow
carefully here - a Jewish guy whose character parodies those whites
and South Asians over here who are heavily into rap and hip hop, adopt
the clothing and the slang and the attitude, and so come across as
black-wannabees. Inevitably, he's been accused of being racist by
those who don't get the joke.
Crisper Than Thou
>OTOH, I've written other gag scripts, notably a notorious one for STEEL,
>where the Ed took it the wrong way, became offended and nearly fired me.
>Sheesh, gang...
When we were plotting CHASE #7 and #8, there was talk about doing a larger
crossover story involving the Bat office, focusing on a possible romantic
involvement between Chase and (believe it or not) Nightwing. It was one
of those committee-created ideas, and it was sort of presented to us as
"Okay, this is what you guys are going to come up with next." JH just about
popped a major brain vein; I tried really hard to sound casual about saying
"Dear God, No". And to demonstrate our displeasure, we worked up a replot
of CHASE #8 in which Chase goes to the Bruce Wayne party being held at
Gotham Broadcasting, flirts with Dick, and they sneak off into a conference
room and fuck like bunnies with the lights off for four pages, a la the
CEREBUS "rape in the dark" issue-- silhouettes and over the top sound FX.
"There, we put in the romantic subplot, are you HAPPY NOW?"
We never actually submitted it to anyone, though. The xover idea got scuttled
before it went that far and we went back to our original #8 plot and
eventual cancellation.
--The Elder Dan
--
This is the only false statement ever made.
Dan Curtis Johnson || http://www.armory.com/~crisper/
Doody Family
Rob Hansen wrote in message ...
>On 29 Jan 2000 17:54:41 -0800, Rich Johnston <twis...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <8702bp$745$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Priest" says...
>>>>
>>>>>It's not even inventive cussing, like Tupac or Ice Cube when he used to
>>>be good: inventive (albeit syncopated) use of snappy patter fleshed
>>>out by the all-purpose MF, B-word, etc. Don Cheadle's INSPIRED speech
>>>in _Bulworth_. Sure, I still wince, but I see the artistry in it.
>>
>>Can I recommend, for anyonw who can get copies, The Day Today from BBC, a
>>strange parody news programme, with Chris Morris playing US gangster
rapper
>>Fur-Q, with 'Uzi Lover' taking samples from Phil Collins 'Easy Lover'...
with
>>wonderful musical stabs spattering Fur-Q's singing, so that all the nasty
words
>>are removed (it's meant to be for an MTV-style show) but with real musical
>>artistry...
>>
>>Now there's a man who should be writing comics...
>>
>>(Chris Morris obviously, not Phil Collins)
>
>Sounds like you'd appreciate Ali G. This is - you'll have to follow
>carefully here - a Jewish guy whose character parodies those whites
>and South Asians over here who are heavily into rap and hip hop, adopt
>the clothing and the slang and the attitude, and so come across as
>black-wannabees. Inevitably, he's been accused of being racist by
>those who don't get the joke.
O the genius of Ali G.
"My sister is well rank,and got an eye that go like dat"(point finger in
funny direction)
(To leader of orange order)"So are you British or Irish"
"I'm British"
"So you're ere on holidays
then"
I laughed and laughed,what do you say,off-topic,I think not my friend
because I think the Slayback is the greatest hero ever and nobody can tell
me otherwise.
Kommy
Paul O'Brien
>wrote:
>
>> The only thing they disallowed was Woody, age 11, claiming to be
>>an atheist. They didn't think a kid of that age would have much concept
>>of the existence of God.
Well, I was an atheist at age 11. Younger, come to think of it.
Eric Gimlin
Crisper Than Thou wrote:
> When we were plotting CHASE #7 and #8, there was talk about doing a larger
> crossover story involving the Bat office, focusing on a possible romantic
> involvement between Chase and (believe it or not) Nightwing. It was one
> of those committee-created ideas, and it was sort of presented to us as
> "Okay, this is what you guys are going to come up with next." JH just about
> popped a major brain vein; I tried really hard to sound casual about saying
> "Dear God, No". And to demonstrate our displeasure, we worked up a replot
> of CHASE #8 in which Chase goes to the Bruce Wayne party being held at
> Gotham Broadcasting, flirts with Dick, and they sneak off into a conference
> room and fuck like bunnies with the lights off for four pages, a la the
> CEREBUS "rape in the dark" issue-- silhouettes and over the top sound FX.
> "There, we put in the romantic subplot, are you HAPPY NOW?"
Ouch Ouch Ouch Ouch Ouch. I just laughed so hard I started to
hyperventilate. Ouch.
I know you have a few books on the way, but we need to get you back on
a regular title ASAP.
Sober Mute
>In article <8702bp$745$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Priest" says...
>>>
>>>>It's not even inventive cussing, like Tupac or Ice Cube when he used to
>>be good: inventive (albeit syncopated) use of snappy patter fleshed
>>out by the all-purpose MF, B-word, etc. Don Cheadle's INSPIRED speech
>>in _Bulworth_. Sure, I still wince, but I see the artistry in it.
>Can I recommend, for anyonw who can get copies, The Day Today from BBC, a
>strange parody news programme, with Chris Morris playing US gangster rapper
>Fur-Q, with 'Uzi Lover' taking samples from Phil Collins 'Easy Lover'... with
>wonderful musical stabs spattering Fur-Q's singing, so that all the nasty words
>are removed (it's meant to be for an MTV-style show) but with real musical
>artistry...
I got a MOD of this from somewhere. Yeah, it's funny... I wish we
had Morris in Australia. We only just got Knowing Me Knowing You last
month...
-Mute.
______________________
"The term Graphic Novel is one of those things, like the sales receipt for a shirt, which
you throw out and then realize you're going to need." -Eddie Campbell
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Yoink
> The only thing they disallowed was Woody, age 11, claiming to be
> an atheist. They didn't think a kid of that age would have much concept
> invented this kid. He knows what I _say_ he knows, and the whole point
> was Woody is a lot smarter than he comes across. He is easily on Eric's
> intellectual level, he just chooses to live in the *real* world.
Huh? They think churches are devoid of kids under the age off 11?
And why was this a big enough deal for them to change it anyway?
--
\ \/ / _ |~\ _ In God We Trust. All Others Pay Cash.
> < / \|\ /|+-< | | "The world is a comedy to those that think,
/ /\ \\_/| \/ ||__)|_| a tragedy to those who feel." - Horace Walpole
John Savard
<postm...@warez.magiclemurs.com> wrote, in part:
>In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe Priest <cpr...@priest.com> wrote:
>> The only thing they disallowed was Woody, age 11, claiming to be
>> an atheist. They didn't think a kid of that age would have much concept
>> of the existence of God.
I became an atheist at age 6. That was when I realized (I attended a
Catholic school; Canadians have the freedom to do so on equal terms,
but it is true our laws do violate the proper principle behind the
First Amendment in not giving the same right to other faiths) that
what was being taught in the religion class, unlike the subject matter
of other classes, was not information generally accepted as fact by
essentially everyone.
John Savard (teneerf <-)
http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Killans - First And Last And Always
Rob Hansen <r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 29 Jan 2000 17:54:41 -0800, Rich Johnston <twis...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>strange parody news programme, with Chris Morris
>>Now there's a man who should be writing comics...
>>
>>(Chris Morris obviously, not Phil Collins)
>
>Sounds like you'd appreciate Ali G.
Oh, please. Ali G is what Chris Morris might be if Morris had no
talent and no original ideas whatsoever. On a bad day. He is
Dennis Leary to Morris' Bill Hicks - only worse.
Mike
--
Mike Collins
mcol...@nyx.net
Paul O'Brien
Always <mcol...@nyx.net> writes
>
>Oh, please. Ali G is what Chris Morris might be if Morris had no
>talent and no original ideas whatsoever. On a bad day. He is
>Dennis Leary to Morris' Bill Hicks - only worse.
Yup, Ali G is the very definition of "overrated." Contrary to public
belief, while it certainly takes nerve to go out and do fake
interviews with bemused people, it doesn't take a great deal of
talent. It was always the weakest and most annoying aspect of Chris
Morris's act as well; I just ended up screaming at the TV for him to
stop wasting his talent on Carla bloody Lane and get on with some
proper satire.
Danny Sichel
> In general, I flinch at the use of foul language of any kind in comics.
> I read MASTER DARQUE for reference the other day, and there was all this
> cussing that lent NOTHING to the story, other than the writer getting
> her jollies off, "Oh, look how important I am! I can cuss in comics!"
Sometimes, a very very small bit of mild profanity in just the right
place can convey so much more than balloons full of obscenities. It's
all about effect.
... and, of course, now that I'm saying this, I can't think of any
examples. Wasn't there something in an issue of _Bone_, where...
oh, wait.
"... then - dammit - what good ARE you?!?"
"*tik* On New Hong Kong? No damn good at all."
- Buck Godot arguing with a Law Machine, from _Buck Godot: PSmIth_.
Danny Sichel
>> The only thing they disallowed was Woody, age 11, claiming to be
>>an atheist. They didn't think a kid of that age would have much concept
>>of the existence of God.
> Interesting. I was an atheist by that age. Still am.
Before I can tell you if I believe in God, you'll first have to define
"believe" and "God".
Priest
Yoink <postm...@warez.magiclemurs.com> wrote in message
news:s9d0nh...@news.supernews.com...
> In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe Priest <cpr...@priest.com> wrote:
> > The only thing they disallowed was Woody, age 11, claiming to be
> > an atheist. They didn't think a kid of that age would have much
concept
I
> > invented this kid. He knows what I _say_ he knows, and the whole
point
> > was Woody is a lot smarter than he comes across. He is easily on
Eric's
> > intellectual level, he just chooses to live in the *real* world.
>
> Huh? They think churches are devoid of kids under the age off 11?
>
> And why was this a big enough deal for them to change it anyway?
I honestly don't know, but the editor would not back off. The whole Q/W
deal almost collapsed over it, and I finally caved because I thought it
was too small an issue to sink the whole deal over.
cjp
cshardie
> The only thing they disallowed was Woody, age 11,
> claiming to be an atheist. They didn't think a kid
> of that age would have much concept of the existence
> of God.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard. Well, one of them. This is
part of what's wrong with kids today...adults don't give them enough
credit. I know I was an atheist at 11 because I knew enough about the
concept of the existence of God to change my mind at 12 or 13. Granted I
changed it back a couple of years later, but that's beside the point. 11
was the year I decided (on my own and in a fairly religious family and
community) *not* to join the church with the rest of the kids my age
because I felt it would be hypocritical of me to do so.
Maybe your editor was clueless at 11 but that doesn't mean all of us
are.
--
Suzanne http://www.flash.net/~cshardie
http://www.psycomic.com
viva la vida
Jamie Coville
<spee...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <8702bp$745$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Priest"
><cpr...@priest.com> wrote:
>
>> I will say this about Acclaim: they have been tremendously supportive
>> of me. The only thing they disallowed was Woody, age 11, claiming to be
>> an atheist. They didn't think a kid of that age would have much concept
>> of the existence of God. I fought and lost.
>
>That's a shame. Speaking as someone who became an atheist around age 9
>or 10, (having been baptized Catholic) I can say that while there are
>some kids out there who don't think about that God, and just take the
>beliefs handed down to them for granted, there were a few kids along
>with myself who discussed and debated religion from quite an early age.
>And none of us had even close to the disheartening life that Woody left.
>I can completely see him at 11 or even younger dismissing the existence
>of God.
>
>Kurt Onstad
>Why does money have "In God We Trust" on it?
Same situation here, baptized and the whole bit. Went to a Catholic
school, by the time I was 10 I decided I was an athiest. The whole
"Believe in what I'm saying without question or burn in hell" attitude
from the teachers did the trick.
Regards, | The History of Superhero Comic Books
Jamie Coville | http://www.sigma.net/comichistory/
-
You keep bugging me, I'm going to come to your house and criminally assualt
you. Then I'm going to steal your drugs and sell them back to your children.
Dwayne McDuffie,
Milestone Media, Inc.
Priest
Jamie Coville <ik0...@kingston.net.spamblock> wrote in message
news:389a4e33...@gollum.kingston.net...
> "Believe in what I'm saying without question or burn in hell" attitude
> from the teachers did the trick.
And, from the time I was a child, maybe of 8, I knew there was a God. I
hadn't found expression for those beliefs yet, but I knew God existed.
I'd hate to think that people choose to believe there isn't a supreme
being simply because they reject the way man has chosen to express that
belief.. I tend to think of God as, say, a computer, and religion as
the operating system. An operating system is like an intercessor that
interprets our crude key punches into something the infinitely more
complex computer [1] can understand.
Maybe you hate the O/S, or maybe the O/S was presented to you in a way
that turned you away from it. Do we wanna throw out the whole concept of
a supreme being just to spite religion?
I'm not a great fan of religion. But maybe some of us have given up on
God too soon, when what we really wanna get rid of is the religion.
--Minister Christopher J. Priest
[1] ok, technically speaking, human beings are infinitely more complex
than a PC. But you get my drift.
Dale Hicks
> [religion analogy]
> Maybe you hate the O/S, or maybe the O/S was presented to you in a way
> that turned you away from it.
I figure there's a way we can blame Microsoft for this as well.
> Do we wanna throw out the whole concept of
> a supreme being just to spite religion?
No, he just loses on the principle of Occam's razor.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Robert T. Reinke
healing the sick and raising the dead. Didn't work. Couldn't cure a
headache or a cold. At which point I recalled W.C.Fields: "If first you
don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit: no sense in being a damn fool
about it." IMO, God is probably just an idea. Though, I think, a sweet one.
PS Deadpool was very good this week. A bullseye.
Robert Reinke
"...and God is All" --Galactus to Silver Surfer (Epic Illustrated #1 (?!))
Hernan Espinoza
>I'm not a great fan of religion. But maybe some of us have given up on
>God too soon, when what we really wanna get rid of is the religion.
Agreed. I let my own disdain for the religion I was born into
color my perception of my entire spiritual life for a long time. I
enjoyed the intellectual satisfaction of being an atheist, but I
(me, not anyone else, no generalization implied) eventually realized that
"There is no God" is as much a statement of faith as any other and that
our spiritual lives are part and parcel of our humanity. That being the
case, and knowing that we tend to regret more the things we don't do than
the things we do, I began to think about my own faith. I don't believe in
any particular religion, I can't even say that I belive in God (whatever
that means), but personally, it's been worth exploring my own spritual
life. YMMV.
Actually, to bring this to comics, I can trace the one
bit of my spiritual reawakening (bleagh) to a line I read in a comic. No
really. It was one of those Batman, Green Arrow, Question crossovers
where one of the characters asks a holy man how many people follow his
religion. The answer was just one person. Green Arrow (?) asked what
kind of religion had only one follower. The holy man replied that he
wasn't aware there was any other kind. Since then, I've run across that
notion elsewhere, but that was the first time. It just made me realize
that I didn't have to buy into any group's dogma to as a basis for my
beliefs. Even if you give up on religion (like me), you don't have to
give up on God.
-Hernan, likes the name Minister Priest and thinks it should
be Tuckerized
Priest
Robert T. Reinke <r...@itis.com> wrote in message
news:389AF995...@itis.com...
> PS Deadpool was very good this week. A bullseye.
Bullseye was in that issue?!?
*picks up the phone*
RRUUUUBEN--!!! :-)
Thanks!
cjp
Priest
Hernan Espinoza <espi...@cmgm.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:87f84n$9...@cmgm.stanford.edu...
> -Hernan, likes the name Minister Priest and thinks it should
> be Tuckerized
I'm not big into titles, either. My pastor *insists* I use the title
and that people address me as "minister." But, under normal
circumstances, I eschew titles of all kinds. I don't even call myself
"Mr." I'm just "Priest."
"Minister Priest" sounds like a South Park character...
cjp
Julio Gea-Banacloche
(Hernan Espinoza) wrote:
> It was one of those Batman, Green Arrow, Question crossovers
> where one of the characters asks a holy man how many people follow his
> religion. The answer was just one person. Green Arrow (?) asked what
> kind of religion had only one follower. The holy man replied that he
> wasn't aware there was any other kind.
It was a very good line. I've never forgotten it either. :-)
Julio
Avram Grumer
YREMOGT...@spamless.org (W. Allen Montgomery) wrote:
> "Dinosaurs never really existed, because they're not in the Bible;
> and the earth is only some forty thousand-odd years old anyway – just
> add up all the 'begats!'" (actual quote of a bible teacher from my
> youth)
"Forty thousand"? He'll surely burn in hell for telling you that the
universe is more than six thousand years old.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
The Phantom Menace delenda est!
http://www.PigsAndFishes.org/goodstuff/pmde.html
Carl Fink
that mean that, in your effort to contrast them, Eric is deeply
religious?
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
I-Con's Science and Technology Guest of Honor in 2000 will be Geoffrey
A. Landis. See <http://www.iconsf.org> for I-Con information.
Jamie Coville
>> Same situation here, baptized and the whole bit. Went to a Catholic
>> school, by the time I was 10 I decided I was an atheist. The whole
>> "Believe in what I'm saying without question or burn in hell" attitude
>> from the teachers did the trick.
>
>And, from the time I was a child, maybe of 8, I knew there was a God. I
>hadn't found expression for those beliefs yet, but I knew God existed.
>
>I'd hate to think that people choose to believe there isn't a supreme
>being simply because they reject the way man has chosen to express that
>belief.. I tend to think of God as, say, a computer, and religion as
>the operating system. An operating system is like an intercessor that
>interprets our crude key punches into something the infinitely more
>complex computer [1] can understand.
>
>Maybe you hate the O/S, or maybe the O/S was presented to you in a way
>that turned you away from it. Do we wanna throw out the whole concept of
>a supreme being just to spite religion?
>
>I'm not a great fan of religion. But maybe some of us have given up on
>God too soon, when what we really wanna get rid of is the religion.
>
>--Minister Christopher J. Priest
I understand your point and all, but when I said 'did the trick' it
was more like 'the straw that broke the camels back' but not in that
exact way.
Teachers were explaining to the class what God is. Saying he is
everything. The air, the trees, everything. I started asking
questions, asking for proof of this. The teacher eventually said "well
you just have to believe" and I just didn't. It was pretty much then I
became an athiest in front of the whole class because I replied with
rolled eyes and a sarcastic "oh okay then." Then other students
started asking questions, kids who were christians but did have some
questions about stuff. Then another teacher chimed in with a dirty
look and a remark about how God expected us to believe without
question. It was extremely clear she was theatening the class with
your soul can go to hell for this, without saying it directly. It was
also clear the teachers had a difficult time answering the questions
and it was why the class was shut up in a quick & dirty method.
So it was God I didn't believe in first, then the religion I rejected
a few minutes later. I know that's not the whole religion by any
means. Much & probably most of the people involved aren't like that,
but it is a part of it.
But since then I've added on more reasons to not believe.
damonution
Priest wrote:
>
> Jamie Coville <ik0...@kingston.net.spamblock> wrote in message
> news:389a4e33...@gollum.kingston.net...
> >
> > Same situation here, baptized and the whole bit. Went to a Catholic
> > school, by the time I was 10 I decided I was an atheist. The whole
> > "Believe in what I'm saying without question or burn in hell" attitude
> > from the teachers did the trick.
>
> And, from the time I was a child, maybe of 8, I knew there was a God. I
> hadn't found expression for those beliefs yet, but I knew God existed.
just one?
> I'd hate to think that people choose to believe there isn't a supreme
> being simply because they reject the way man has chosen to express that
> belief.. I tend to think of God as, say, a computer, and religion as
> the operating system. An operating system is like an intercessor that
> interprets our crude key punches into something the infinitely more
> complex computer [1] can understand.
>
> Maybe you hate the O/S, or maybe the O/S was presented to you in a way
> that turned you away from it. Do we wanna throw out the whole concept of
> a supreme being just to spite religion?
>
> I'm not a great fan of religion. But maybe some of us have given up on
> God too soon, when what we really wanna get rid of is the religion.
well, the question is, what use is there in
believeing in god without believing in relgion?
what use is there in believing in both, or neither?
obviously you find comfort in thinking there is conscious
design.
i do too, but don't believe in conscious design
in any way that approaches what people think of as god.
somehow i think your idea here isn't as important as you think it is-
there are many people of faith who do not adhere to religion.
--
Definition of hypocrisy- Conservative leaders trying to prevent Elian
Gonzalez from being returned to his father.
damonution
The Three Laws of Brandon wrote:
>
> In article <speedball-CA074...@news.gte.net>, Kurt Onstad
> <spee...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <8702bp$745$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Priest"
> > <cpr...@priest.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I will say this about Acclaim: they have been tremendously supportive
> > > of me. The only thing they disallowed was Woody, age 11, claiming to be
> > > an atheist. They didn't think a kid of that age would have much concept
> > > of the existence of God. I fought and lost.
> >
> > That's a shame. Speaking as someone who became an atheist around age 9
> > or 10, (having been baptized Catholic) I can say that while there are
> > some kids out there who don't think about that God, and just take the
> > beliefs handed down to them for granted, there were a few kids along
> > with myself who discussed and debated religion from quite an early age.
> > And none of us had even close to the disheartening life that Woody left.
> > I can completely see him at 11 or even younger dismissing the existence
> > of God.
>
> By 2nd grade I was cheerfully calling myself an atheist. The whole of
> idead religion and faith struck as silly and ridiculous.
you were also torturing cats.
> This did not please my Catholic school teachers.
>
neither did your strip shows.
Priest
Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:87g55d$rjh$3...@cjf-hq.dialup.access.net...
> Priest, it just struck me: if Woody is an atheist (or was), does
> that mean that, in your effort to contrast them, Eric is deeply
> religious?
No. Actually, I think Woody is extremely spiritual and Eric is too
stubborn and immature to even consider the issue of spirituality.
Woody's declared atheism was a youthful bit of business. What he really
meant was he wasn't religious.
I doubt Eric is an atheist either. He's a bonehead. He is extremely
immature, way more immature than Woody is, and a man wholly
uncomfortable in nearly every aspect of his own life. That's why he
failed the Black Lion Jedi challenge.
cjp
Priest
Jamie Coville <ik0...@kingston.net.spamblock> wrote in message
> Teachers were explaining to the class what God is. Saying he is
> everything. The air, the trees, everything. I started asking
> questions, asking for proof of this. The teacher eventually said "well
> you just have to believe" and I just didn't. It was pretty much then I
> became an athiest in front of the whole class because I replied with
> rolled eyes and a sarcastic "oh okay then."
This is a classic tale: children who have honest questions about
spiritual issues. And teachers or ministers who set themselves up as
authorities on such matters who back themselves into corners and then
sink to issuing platitudes, "Well, you simply have to believe!" or
threats, "You'd BETTER believe!"
I'm sorry you experienced that. Someone should have told you, then,
that they didn't have all the answers because nobody does. We're just
sharing what we believe. You are free to find God in your own way, even
if that way is a denial of God's existence.
The thing most religious leaders miss is it isn't our JOB to get you
into heaven or send you to hell. It's our job to feed hungry people,
and to visit lonely people. To mow 86 year old Mr. Williamson's lawn or
help the teenagers through their angst-drivem, hormone imabalnced crisis
years. I can't swat you over the head and *force* you to see God as I
do, and I'd be damned for even trying. I *can,* and I *should*,
however, offer you a nice sandwich.
>Then other students
> started asking questions, kids who were christians but did have some
> questions about stuff. Then another teacher chimed in with a dirty
> look and a remark about how God expected us to believe without
> question.
The teacher is wrong. *Religious* leaders expect us to believe without
question.
> It was extremely clear she was theatening the class with
> your soul can go to hell for this, without saying it directly. It was
> also clear the teachers had a difficult time answering the questions
> and it was why the class was shut up in a quick & dirty method.
They may have had a dificult time answering questions because they have
a romantic view of the Holy Scriptures and haven't much of a real
understanding of how that book came to be. Asking questions will only
strengthen your faith, not diminish it.
> So it was God I didn't believe in first, then the religion I rejected
> a few minutes later. I know that's not the whole religion by any
> means. Much & probably most of the people involved aren't like that,
> but it is a part of it.
>
> But since then I've added on more reasons to not believe.
And I'd still buy you that sandwich. :-) Thanks for sharing that.
cjp
cshardie
> The teacher is wrong. *Religious* leaders expect us
> to believe without question.
Yup. From everything I've learned, God (if He exists) wants you to
believe *despite* the questions. Faith doesn't mean you never wonder, it
means you believe even though you sometimes have to wonder.
--
Suzanne is now stuck on a whole other problem. Like "Preacher"...not
necessarily disbelieving in, just not exactly agreeing with.
Paul O'Brien
<ik0...@kingston.net.spamblock> writes
>
>Teachers were explaining to the class what God is. Saying he is
>everything. The air, the trees, everything. I started asking
>questions, asking for proof of this. The teacher eventually said "well
>you just have to believe" and I just didn't.
Absolutely. I thoroughly object to schools teaching Christianity as
fact. It's an abuse of influence.
Hernan Espinoza
>Maybe there *are* people who had their questions answered in the way they were
>supposed to be answered, and became atheists anyway. Maybe the answers to
>those questions are *not* as convincing as you think--maybe it's possible to
>hear the 'right' answers, genuinely think about them with an open mind, and
>*still* not believe in God.
Of course. The point of asking the questions should not be to
justify any particular belief, but to find answers that work for you.
Atheism is itself a matter of faith. Thus, I would argue that by asking
the questions and considering the answers carefully, this person's faith
has been strengthened (although not towards the beliefs the answerer may
have wanted or the questioner expected).
>Maybe asking questions *won't* only strengthen your faith. How can you
>really know?
8-) Well, how can you really know anything? The only person who
can answer that question is you. Faith doesn't depend on the specific
beliefs involved. My experience has been that asking questions about my
faith has strengthened my faith even when the answers made me change my
beliefs.
-Hernan
Dave Van Domelen
>Priest wrote:
>> The teacher is wrong. *Religious* leaders expect us
>> to believe without question.
>
>Yup. From everything I've learned, God (if He exists) wants you to
>believe *despite* the questions. Faith doesn't mean you never wonder, it
>means you believe even though you sometimes have to wonder.
Actually, it's not *despite* the questions, it is BECAUSE of the
questions. If you have no questions, then you need no answers, and therefore
need not look outside yourself for those answers. In many instances, faith
comes about because nothing short of God (or gods) can give you satisfactory
answers to your questions. If you don't have any questions, then you're
being complacent or even lazy about your beliefs. The entire book of Job is
about the issue of complacent faith (Job, FWIW turns out not to be so
complacent and unquestioning as the Adversary makes him out to be...he has
his questions and is satisfied that God is still the answer).
Anyway, to drag back onto a comics topic, Eric and Woody both have a lot
of questions about life, and neither really found good answers in the world
around them (in Woody's case, organized religion didn't float his boat, but
that's a creation of man, not of God). At some point that we haven't
directly seen (or over a gradual period), Woody came to believe that those
answers lay in a higher power. Maybe not the God of Christianity or Judaism
or Islam etc. But something greater than the mortal world had the answers.
Eric, on the other hand, seems to be trying to deny that the questions
exist. To an outsider, he might look like he's seeking the answers inside
himself, but he's more afraid of his own self than anything else...he turns
inward and is repulsed outward, but then doesn't look outside either. He's
trapped at the surface of his own skin, can't get in and can't get out.
Because he has so little substance to rely on, he has become obsessed with
forms and structures. Because Woody has found substance, probably both
inside and outside himself, he has little use for forms and structures.
Dave Van Domelen, currently satisfied with the answers he's getting fom
science and from introspection, FWIW....
Danny Sichel
> Priest, it just struck me: if Woody is an atheist (or was), does
> that mean that, in your effort to contrast them, Eric is deeply
> religious?
When they were in the Deathtrap di Tutti Deathtrap (#...15?), there was
this absolutely terrifying moment when Woody, who's been relying on Eric
to come up with some completely incredible last-second plan, realizes
what Eric's been muttering about for the past ten minutes:
"hail mary mother of god pray for us..."
damonution
"B. P. Uecker" wrote:
>
> damonution wrote in <389BBDD3...@mdo.net>:
>
> >well, the question is, what use is there in
> >believeing in god without believing in relgion?
>
> None, [rant snipped]
oh, grow up.
no one can answer that question about anyone but themselves.
>
> >what use is there in believing in both, or neither?
> >
> >obviously you find comfort in thinking there is conscious
> >design.
> >i do too, but don't believe in conscious design
> >in any way that approaches what people think of as god.
>
> Isn't it obviously a palliative and nothing more?
so are old superman comics for you.
there's NOTHING wrong with a palliative.
What are you trying
> to get him to say? What would satisfy you? He believes in god
> because that is the crutch he needs. Religion has been around long
> enough for us to know that there are certain terrible yearnings that
> it exists to satisfy. End of story.
my fucking point.
> >somehow i think your idea here isn't as important as you think it is-
> >there are many people of faith who do not adhere to religion.
>
> Whatever the fuck that means.
maybe one day you'll learn a thing or two.
Steven Horton
: that turned you away from it. Do we wanna throw out the whole concept of
: a supreme being just to spite religion?
I'm not a big fan of organized Christianity these days. I believe in
God, and believe he's got a very powerful influence on our lives,
but I believe Christianity in general has become so corrupt and
irrelevant that fewer and fewer people are believing. I think
organized religion is in bad shape. Even worse than during the
Protestant reformation or during Jesus' lifetime. I think it's gonna
take quite a lot to bring it back to where it needs to be, and I
personally don't think humanity is up to the task.
To use your analogy, I think of Christianity as a Microsoft OS that
crashes all the time but denies it ever crashed in the first place.
Did you know that Zondervan, the publisher who prints the most
popular version of the bible among Protestants -- the New International
Version -- is owned by corporate mogul Rupert Murdoch? Do you think
if there was an error somewhere in the NIV that they would ever
acknowledge it and/or print a new version, since the NIV has been
unchanged for nearly thirty years? I didn't think so. They'd
have to admit the Bible wasn't perfect, and they'd never do that.
But that's just my opinion.
-Steve
--
/ /\/\ steve horton
\ \ / fifth year professional writing student (cs minor) at purdue
\ / \ online web comic "the jerk store" coming friday, feb. 4th
\_\/\ \ star wars ccg player - rating 1694 - 137th in corellia
\_\/ "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work;
I want to achieve it through not dying." - Woody Allen
Jamie Coville
>And I'd still buy you that sandwich. :-) Thanks for sharing that.
>
>cjp
Peanut butter and Jam? ;D
Jamie Coville
<pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <389ba8c1...@gollum.kingston.net>, Jamie Coville
><ik0...@kingston.net.spamblock> writes
>>
>>Teachers were explaining to the class what God is. Saying he is
>>everything. The air, the trees, everything. I started asking
>>questions, asking for proof of this. The teacher eventually said "well
>>you just have to believe" and I just didn't.
>
>Absolutely. I thoroughly object to schools teaching Christianity as
>fact. It's an abuse of influence.
>
>Paul O'Brien
It was a catholic school, with catholic parents sending their catholic
kids there. With the exception of me and as I found out in the later
part of 8th grade, a few others (boy was I surprised!).
On one hand I think "hey, it's their tax dollars, they can do what
they want with them." But then I think of all the other religions not
getting their own seperate schools + school boards and wonder if we
should just have public schools and try and get the churches to run
religion classes, be it on Sundays or just after school a few nights a
week. A topic for another time and place.
RussDalton
>In article <389ba8c1...@gollum.kingston.net>, Jamie Coville
><ik0...@kingston.net.spamblock> writes
>>
>>Teachers were explaining to the class what God is. Saying he is
>>everything. The air, the trees, everything. I started asking
>>questions, asking for proof of this. The teacher eventually said "well
>>you just have to believe" and I just didn't.
>
would bristle at this teacher's panentheistic take on God. I just don't
understand why the religious right- who generally seem to want the government
to be smaller and take their hands out of everything- for some reason think
that government-run schools would be excellent religious educators. But it
seems that they have the opinion that government-run public schools are somehow
well-suited to teach kids a particular image of God (and they assume it will
be their own).
Tom Galloway
Priest <cpr...@priest.com> wrote:
>The thing most religious leaders miss is it isn't our JOB to get you
>into heaven or send you to hell. It's our job to feed hungry people,
>and to visit lonely people. To mow 86 year old Mr. Williamson's lawn or
>help the teenagers through their angst-drivem, hormone imabalnced crisis
>years. I can't swat you over the head and *force* you to see God as I
>do, and I'd be damned for even trying. I *can,* and I *should*,
>however, offer you a nice sandwich.
So, let me see if I've got this straight....
God is a sandwich.
A tuna sandwich is a sandwich.
Vandal Savage is a tuna sandwich.
Therefore, Vandal Savage is God.
With the corollary that since Vandal is immortal, Socrates is mortal,
Socrates is a man, All men are mortal, thus no man is a sandwich. Since
no man is an island, therefore no island is a sandwich, thus the Sandwich
Islands do not exist.
Mental note: Avoid zebra crossings.
tyg t...@netcom.com
Tom Galloway
Sorry, but I really hate that particular comment. To me, it's akin to
creationists claiming that evolution is a matter of faith since it's a
"theory". Saying that you don't believe in something when there's no
objective evidence other than faith is no more faith than not believing
in leprechauns or Superman being real.
I'm trying to remember the exact Woody Allen quote, but it's something
like if God wants me to believe in him, doing something concrete like
having a million bucks deposited in my bank account would do nicely. :-)
tyg t...@netcom.com
Jim Cowling
>In article <87i91k$6...@cmgm.stanford.edu>,
>Hernan Espinoza <espi...@cmgm.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>Atheism is itself a matter of faith.
>
>Sorry, but I really hate that particular comment. To me, it's akin to
>creationists claiming that evolution is a matter of faith since it's a
>"theory". Saying that you don't believe in something when there's no
>objective evidence other than faith is no more faith than not believing
>in leprechauns or Superman being real.
I agree; calling atheism a faith is like calling bald a hair colour.
-------
Jim Cowling -- Writer/Atheist/Geek -- a.a. # 647
http://members.home.com/scowling -- scow...@home.com
-------
Avram Grumer
YREMOGT...@spamless.org (W. Allen Montgomery) wrote:
> av...@bigfoot.com (Avram Grumer) wrote:
> >In article <JFGm4.16$p01....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> >YREMOGT...@spamless.org (W. Allen Montgomery) wrote:
> >
> >> "Dinosaurs never really existed, because they're not in the Bible;
> >> and the earth is only some forty thousand-odd years old anyway – just
> >> add up all the 'begats!'" (actual quote of a bible teacher from my
> >> youth)
> >
> >"Forty thousand"? He'll surely burn in hell for telling you that the
> >universe is more than six thousand years old.
>
> Okay, maybe I got the number part wrong, so give him back his
> golden ticket. I imagine he's very old now, and will probably be needing
> it soon.
Eh, he can always just repent on his deathbed.
Pitch Brandon
av...@bigfoot.com (Avram Grumer) wrote:
> In article <BBIm4.222$p01....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> YREMOGT...@spamless.org (W. Allen Montgomery) wrote:
>
> > av...@bigfoot.com (Avram Grumer) wrote:
> > >In article <JFGm4.16$p01....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > >YREMOGT...@spamless.org (W. Allen Montgomery) wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Dinosaurs never really existed, because they're not in the Bible;
> > >> and the earth is only some forty thousand-odd years old anyway –
> > >> just
> > >> add up all the 'begats!'" (actual quote of a bible teacher from my
> > >> youth)
> > >
> > >"Forty thousand"? He'll surely burn in hell for telling you that the
> > >universe is more than six thousand years old.
> >
> > Okay, maybe I got the number part wrong, so give him back his
> > golden ticket. I imagine he's very old now, and will probably be
> > needing
> > it soon.
>
> Eh, he can always just repent on his deathbed.
No if he doesn't know its coming.
--
-Brandon Blatcher
"When someone's boobs are in your face,
how can you see their soul?"
-Victoria Jackson
Hernan Espinoza
>Hernan Espinoza <espi...@cmgm.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>Atheism is itself a matter of faith.
>Sorry, but I really hate that particular comment. To me, it's akin to
>creationists claiming that evolution is a matter of faith since it's a
>"theory".
Creationist?! You *really* know how to hurt a guy, tyg. I'm
sorry you hate that comment, but there is no call for insulting
comparisons. 8-)
> Saying that you don't believe in something when there's no
>objective evidence other than faith is no more faith than not believing
>in leprechauns or Superman being real.
There is no positive evidence *FOR* atheism, either. There is
lots of negative evidence against various flavors of God, but that doesn't
actually demonstrate anything one way or the other about atheism. The
question of God's existence is not amenable to rational proof. No
matter the answer, what you believe requires a leap of faith. It's a bad
question that way.
>I'm trying to remember the exact Woody Allen quote, but it's something
>like if God wants me to believe in him, doing something concrete like
>having a million bucks deposited in my bank account would do nicely. :-)
You know, it has been my experience that other people are the
ONLY ones who seem to care what people believe, but a million bucks would
be nice, too. 8-)
-Hernan, ask your self why you believe anything, when you
come up with an answer ask yourself why you believe
that, repeat until bored. Then get a sandwich.
Priest
Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:87ho4b$p8n$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> In article <N7Qm4.817$gH.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Priest <cpr...@priest.com> wrote:
> >They may have had a dificult time answering questions because they
have
> >a romantic view of the Holy Scriptures and haven't much of a real
> >understanding of how that book came to be. Asking questions will only
> >strengthen your faith, not diminish it.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't buy that. It's a common tactic by religious
believers to
> automatically say that anyone whose existence is a problem for their
belief
> system, just got it wrong. "They're not true Christians". "You
didn't really
> pray faithfully enough". And your version, "You didn't really get
answers to
> your questions".
>
> Maybe there *are* people who had their questions answered in the way
they were
> supposed to be answered, and became atheists anyway. Maybe the
answers to
> those questions are *not* as convincing as you think--maybe it's
possible to
> hear the 'right' answers, genuinely think about them with an open
mind, and
> *still* not believe in God.
>
> Maybe asking questions *won't* only strengthen your faith. How can
you
> really know? (What would be your reaction to 'if you ever listened to
> Moslems and decided not to believe in Islam, obviously they didn't
explain it
> to you properly'?)
This is not at all what I said.
I was talking about why some religious leaders shift into convenient
platitudes when faced with tough questions. I was not addressing the
reasons people choose not to believe. I was explaining why many
religious teachers have a difficult time saying, "I don't know."
cjp
Carl Fink
>
>Eh, he can always just repent on his deathbed.
I prefer religions that let me repent *after* I die, for instance the
LDS Church.
Todd Kogutt
<t...@netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <87i91k$6...@cmgm.stanford.edu>,
> Hernan Espinoza <espi...@cmgm.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >Atheism is itself a matter of faith.
>
> Sorry, but I really hate that particular comment. To me, it's akin to
> creationists claiming that evolution is a matter of faith since it's a
I agree...I've been rewatching B5 and in one episode presenting
examples of the different faiths of Earth, the first is an Athiest (B5
creator JMS is an avowed athiest, but I'm sorry..calling the lack of
belief a belief is like calling Blue a shade of red, due to it's lack
of Red.)
---SCAVENGER has been wanting to bitch about that for a week since
seeing the ep, but figured he'd get bitchslapped in the B5 newsgroups
for daring to be critical.
Todd Kogutt
<espi...@cmgm.stanford.edu> wrote:
> t...@netcom.com (Tom Galloway) writes:
>
> > Saying that you don't believe in something when there's no
> >objective evidence other than faith is no more faith than not believing
> >in leprechauns or Superman being real.
>
> There is no positive evidence *FOR* atheism, either. There is
> lots of negative evidence against various flavors of God, but that doesn't
BUT, the point here is that athiesm is not the belief that there is not
a god, but not believing there is a god. It's a subtle difference.
To believe that there is no god, gets into the evidence against G-d.
To not believe that there is a god, you just don't buy the evidence
already in use.
Active belief of a negative, vs passive disbelief a positive.
----SCAVENGER's head hurts now.
damonution
Michael Alan Chary wrote:
>
> In article <87lhgn$59s$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Tom Galloway <t...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >In article <87i91k$6...@cmgm.stanford.edu>,
> >Hernan Espinoza <espi...@cmgm.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >>Atheism is itself a matter of faith.
> >
> >Sorry, but I really hate that particular comment. To me, it's akin to
> >creationists claiming that evolution is a matter of faith since it's a
> >"theory". Saying that you don't believe in something when there's no
> >objective evidence other than faith is no more faith than not believing
> >in leprechauns or Superman being real.
>
> There is, however, positive evidence for evolutionary theory. The
> definition of evolution is the change in alele frequency from generation
> to generation within a breeding population. We've seen that. Since
> Creation theory demands that there has been no evolution, it is disproved
> by evidence of such.
>
> You cannot, however, demonstrate that there is no supreme being.
>
> Agnosticism is the only truly rational position.
idiot.
not believing in something just becaus eyu can't rule out that it might
be there, but you can find no evidence for it,
is NOT irrational.
Todd Kogutt
<russd...@aol.com> wrote:
> This example has enough to get everyone riled up. Most conservative
> Christians
> would bristle at this teacher's panentheistic take on God. I just don't
> understand why the religious right- who generally seem to want the government
> to be smaller and take their hands out of everything- for some reason think
> that government-run schools would be excellent religious educators.
But it
> seems that they have the opinion that government-run public schools are
> somehow
> well-suited to teach kids a particular image of God (and they assume it will
> be their own).
Cuz the right in "Religious right" stands for "We are Right" and a
little hypocrasy should never get in the way of a grand crusade.
These are the same people who say that abortion is wrong but the death
penalty is right. (making no judgement call on either issue, but could
we have a little consistancy?)
---SCAVENGER
damonution
"B. P. Uecker" wrote:
>
> damonution wrote in <389D0200...@mdo.net>:
>
> >> None, [rant snipped]
> >
> >oh, grow up.
> >no one can answer that question about anyone but themselves.
>
> If I thought for a second you believed that, I would burst out
> laughing. But it's pretty obvious you're just pouting.
so, in other words, you feel that it's perfectly reasonable for
you to make crass generalizations about others'
beliefs and then assert that your statements are true in all cases.
like i said, grow up.
> >> Isn't it obviously a palliative and nothing more?
> >
> >so are old superman comics for you.
> >there's NOTHING wrong with a palliative.
>
> Stupid generality that you can't defend. God as palliative is harmful
> the same way many other mild forms of delusional ideation are harmful.
stupid generality that you can't defend.
many people find that palliative quiite emotionally healing.
> Specifically when they domino into thinking that threatens progress.
> ("God created universe--Darwin's theories refute fairy tale about
> God--must keep Darwin from being taught in schools"--ergo, harmful and
> wrong.)
now, see, little man,t his is what youadmittedly call
a specific example which IS harmful.
so, you are not defending your stupid generality.
> >What are you trying
> >> to get him to say? What would satisfy you? He believes in god
> >> because that is the crutch he needs. Religion has been around long
> >> enough for us to know that there are certain terrible yearnings that
> >> it exists to satisfy. End of story.
> >
> >
> >my fucking point.
>
> So what is the point of pressing him on it? Do you just want to make
> him say, "God is my crutch"?
no, i wanted him to realize he was
making a stupid generality he couldn't defend.
What you're doing is self-indulgent and
> a waste of time (whereas what I'm doing--trying to reason with you--is
> just a waste of time).
and not at all self-indulgent!
Michael Alan Chary
Jim Cowling <scow...@home.com> wrote:
>In article <87lhgn$59s$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>, t...@netcom.com (Tom
>Galloway) wrote:
>>In article <87i91k$6...@cmgm.stanford.edu>,
>>Hernan Espinoza <espi...@cmgm.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>>Atheism is itself a matter of faith.
>>
>>Sorry, but I really hate that particular comment. To me, it's akin to
>>creationists claiming that evolution is a matter of faith since it's a
>>"theory". Saying that you don't believe in something when there's no
>>objective evidence other than faith is no more faith than not believing
>>in leprechauns or Superman being real.
>
Do you believe that it is provable the God not exist or are you denying
the law of causality a priori?
I ask because while there are many valid proofs of God's existence (note
that "valid" is a technical term in logic meaning only that the conclusion
follows from the premises, not that the argument is convincing.) I feel
that some of the arguments from cause approach compulsion (that means that
reasonable people have to grant them the same as, say, proof of Godel's
incompleteness theorem. Of course, none of them *are* compelling because
if they were dozens of intelligent atheists like Russell and Cowling
would have been convinced. Well, Russell could be stubborn sometimes, but
Jim would be.)
This dichotomy is one of the reason Russell did not, in his famous debates
with Fred Copleston, claim to be an atheist in the sense of thinking God
was provably nonexistent. He merely claimed something closer to
agnosticism.
So, Jim, what is your position?
--
In memoriam Walter Payton, 1954-1999, the greatest Bear of all time.
"Being the fastest? I wasn't. Being the strongest? I wasn't. Being the biggest?
I wasn't. I had something that nobody else had. I think I was the smartest."
-- Sweetness
Jim Cowling
> There is no positive evidence *FOR* atheism, either. There is
>lots of negative evidence against various flavors of God, but that doesn't
>question of God's existence is not amenable to rational proof. No
>matter the answer, what you believe requires a leap of faith. It's a bad
>question that way.
You're under the false impression that atheism is necessarily a positive
belief in the non-existence of gods; this is not true. Atheism includes that
subset, but mostly covers a *lack* of belief in gods.
Agnosticism is wholly different from atheism; agnosticism is the philosophical
position that both arguments are unprovable. One can be theistic and agnostic
or atheistic and agnostic.
Regardless, the question of the existence of gods is certainly amenable to
rationality; like we argue on alt.atheism, if there's no evidence that
Invisible Pink Unicorns exist, then it's rational to say that they don't
exist.
Jim Cowling
>In article <v2sn4.7727$_d.59...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,
>Jim Cowling <scow...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>I agree; calling atheism a faith is like calling bald a hair colour.
>
>Do you believe that it is provable the God not exist or are you denying
>the law of causality a priori?
That's wholly irrelevent to what I've said. I lack belief in gods; I am an
atheist. My dad lacks hair; he is bald.
It is not provable that anything does not exist, because of the Godel
Incompleteness Theorem (for one) and the simple truth that we cannot fully
examine a finite but unbounded universe.
And, yes, I deny the law of causality, absolutely. Quantum mechanics tossed
that out the window fifty years ago.
>I ask because while there are many valid proofs of God's existence (note
>that "valid" is a technical term in logic meaning only that the conclusion
>follows from the premises, not that the argument is convincing.)
No, there aren't, because the premises in all cases are baloney.
> I feel
>that some of the arguments from cause approach compulsion (that means that
>reasonable people have to grant them the same as, say, proof of Godel's
>incompleteness theorem.
Oh, hey, that's cool; I mentioned this above before I read your reference.
Great minds think alike, small ones seldom differ.
>So, Jim, what is your position?
My position is "militant agnostic strong-atheist". I have an active belief in
the non-existence of any gods, but agree that it's unprovable, and irrelevant
to my life -- and that you can't know either, and it's irrelevant to your
life.
Jim Cowling
>>BUT, the point here is that athiesm is not the belief that there is not
>>a god, but not believing there is a god. It's a subtle difference.
>
>believing) and being atheist (believing not).
Sorry, Lawrence, you need to do some more research. Neither of those
definitions is correct, neither in common (dictionary) usage nor by
specialized (philosophical) usage.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>In article <87o1iv$k...@cmgm.stanford.edu>, Hernan Espinoza
><espi...@cmgm.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> There is no positive evidence *FOR* atheism, either. There is
>> lots of negative evidence against various flavors of God, but that doesn't
>
>BUT, the point here is that athiesm is not the belief that there is not
>a god, but not believing there is a god. It's a subtle difference.
Yeah, it is. It's the difference between being agnostic (not
believing) and being atheist (believing not).
>To believe that there is no god, gets into the evidence against G-d.
And makes you an atheist.
>To not believe that there is a god, you just don't buy the evidence
>already in use.
Which makes you agnostic.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Minor update 2/8/00
My latest novel is DRAGON WEATHER, ISBN 0-312-86978-9
Kevin J. Maroney
>It is not provable that anything does not exist, because of the Godel
>Incompleteness Theorem (for one)
Huh?
It's easy to prove that, for instance, no method exists to square the
circle with only a compass and straightedge. I don't see that Goedel
has anything to do with that.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
"Love doesn't have a point. Love *is* the point."--Alan Moore
Copyright 2000, Kevin J. Maroney. Republication of this message
without proper attribution or with alteration of text is forbidden.
David W. Stepp
> There is no positive evidence *FOR* atheism, either. There is
> lots of negative evidence against various flavors of God, but that doesn't
> actually demonstrate anything one way or the other about atheism. The
> question of God's existence is not amenable to rational proof. No
> matter the answer, what you believe requires a leap of faith. It's a bad
> question that way.
You abuse the definition of faith. Faith means believing in something
for which there is no evidence. If there is evidence, positive or
negative, you need no faith. Anything relying on evidence is simple
stimulus-response behavior. An animal runs across the ground not because
he has faith the ground is actually there but because he has no evidence
to the contrary. He will not step onto the open air off a cliff because no
matter how much assurance there is, he has no evidence the ground is
there. Animals lack faith.
The creationists miss this point as well. God wants his "special
creations" to be set above the rest. He needs a task that can be performed
by anyone even if they are poor, crippled, or stupid. Favor, therefore
cannot be bought, earned or figured out. Anyone, however, can believe. The
creationists undermine this simple task by insisting the evidence must
exist for God's handiwork, thereby eliminating the need for faith. They
fail the one simple task that God sits before them and in doing so, are no
better than animals.
D.
Jim Cowling
>scow...@home.com (Jim Cowling) wrote:
>
>>It is not provable that anything does not exist, because of the Godel
>>Incompleteness Theorem (for one)
>
>Huh?
>
>It's easy to prove that, for instance, no method exists to square the
>circle with only a compass and straightedge. I don't see that Goedel
>has anything to do with that.
You only think no method exists, but you can't prove that your thought is
rational. You think that mathematics is rigidly logical, but can't prove
that this is true in all cases. The Incompleteness Theorem creeps into
everything.
Marc Fleury
<lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>Todd Kogutt <kog...@colorado.edu> wrote:
>>BUT, the point here is that athiesm is not the belief that there is not
>>a god, but not believing there is a god. It's a subtle difference.
>
>Yeah, it is. It's the difference between being agnostic (not
>believing) and being atheist (believing not).
That's not correct.
An agnostic would not say "I don't believe in God." Rather, s/he
neither believes nor disbelieves, because both positions require an
assertion on a subject which is unknowable.
An atheist *would* say "I don't believe in God." We agree that this
statement is ambiguous, and could either mean "I don't hold the belief
that God exists" or "I do hold the belief that God does not exist."
Todd Kogutt is incorrect in saying that only the first of the two
statements represents the view of atheism. It is specifically called
weak atheism, while the latter statement represents strong atheism.
-- Marc.
Hernan Espinoza
>BUT, the point here is that athiesm is not the belief that there is not
>a god, but not believing there is a god. It's a subtle difference.
Hugs and kisses to all who made this point, but Todd made it most
succinctly (Go Todd!). First, you have all made an excellent point about
my flip answer. You are all right, and I was wrong. However, I still
view atheism as a matter of faith because I think all beliefs about the
state of reality are. A perfect state of faithlessness is impossible
because just believing that one's mental model of reality is accurate
requires a significant leap of faith.
-Hernan
Rich Johnston
>It's easy to prove that, for instance, no method exists to square the
>circle with only a compass and straightedge. I don't see that Goedel
>has anything to do with that.
In this universe, or this part of the universe, or in this part of the universe
as it is this instant under the physical laws we operate. If they change, so
could this.
Rich Johnston twis...@hotmail.com
http://come.to/ramblings http://www.twistandshoutcomics.com
Ramblings 2000: It's probably on its way
Avram Grumer
scow...@home.com (Jim Cowling) wrote:
> In article <3bj0asshdtr6rrn88...@4ax.com>,
kmar...@crossover.com wrote:
> >scow...@home.com (Jim Cowling) wrote:
> >
> >>It is not provable that anything does not exist, because of the Godel
> >>Incompleteness Theorem (for one)
> >
> >Huh?
> >
> >It's easy to prove that, for instance, no method exists to square the
> >circle with only a compass and straightedge. I don't see that Goedel
> >has anything to do with that.
>
> You only think no method exists, but you can't prove that your thought is
> rational. You think that mathematics is rigidly logical, but can't prove
> that this is true in all cases. The Incompleteness Theorem creeps into
> everything.
As I understand the matter (and I am not a mathematcician) it is the fact
that mathematics _is_ rigidly logical that causes Godel's Incompleteness
Theorem to apply. Godel's Theorem, as I understand it, does not
necessarily apply to vague systems that lack formal definitions and
rules. It proves that within a formal logical system there must
necessarily be at least one statement that cannot be proven true or
false. It doesn't prove that no statement cannot be proven. Godel's
Theorem is itself a logical statement, and if no logical statement could
ever be proven, then Godel's Theorem couldn't be proven either.
Paul O'Brien
writes
>
>An agnostic would not say "I don't believe in God." Rather, s/he
>neither believes nor disbelieves, because both positions require an
>assertion on a subject which is unknowable.
Um, no. An agnostic would indeed say "I don't believe in God." That
doesn't imply a belief in anything. What the agnostic wouldn't say
is "I believe God doesn't exist", but that isn't implicit in the
first statement.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
The law will get there.
Avram Grumer
scow...@home.com (Jim Cowling) wrote:
> It is not provable that anything does not exist, because of the
> Godel Incompleteness Theorem (for one)...
If you can't prove that anything doesn't exist, how do you know there
doesn't exist a provably true statement about something's non-existence?
Avram Grumer
<kog...@colorado.edu> wrote:
> These are the same people who say that abortion is wrong but the death
> penalty is right. (making no judgement call on either issue, but could
> we have a little consistancy?)
Just not in this newsgroup. One off-topic flame-bait thread is enough, I think.
Phoenix Klaus
av...@bigfoot.com (Avram Grumer) wrote:
> In article <n1Xn4.8727$_d.64...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,
> scow...@home.com (Jim Cowling) wrote:
>
> > It is not provable that anything does not exist, because of the
> > Godel Incompleteness Theorem (for one)...
>
> If you can't prove that anything doesn't exist, how do you know there
> doesn't exist a provably true statement about something's
> non-existence?
Here's some help...
a暗he搏sm n. 1.a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God.
ma暗e斟i戢l搏sm n. 1. Philosophy. The theory that physical
matter is the only reality and that everything,
including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be
explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
objectivism n. "any theory or system of analysis that stresses
objectivity through the rigid exclusion of data that do not
admit of quantitative treatment; an ethical theory
considering the moral good to be objective and independent
of personal or merely human feelings: a: such a theory
considering the moral good to be something natural and
observable without a special faculty or insight."
--
PK
"All your answers are found in the colors of the rainbow!"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dave Van Domelen
Jim Cowling <scow...@home.com> wrote:
>In article <87p3eg$kta$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:
>>Do you believe that it is provable the God not exist or are you denying
>>the law of causality a priori?
[snippage]
>And, yes, I deny the law of causality, absolutely. Quantum mechanics tossed
>that out the window fifty years ago.
Actually, one of the things I found while taking quantum field theory is
that causality is alive and well. In fact, without causality being
rigorously enforced, the Newtonian approximation we live in would not be
possible. Granted, our commonsense notions of causality seem to be violated
at the quantum level, but effects both require and follow causes.
However, while causality can certainly be looked at as evidence of the
existence of some higher entity, it can also be seen as just a consequence of
how the dominoes fell, or of a completely non-anthropic, non-supernatural
power or force. On the flip side, causality can be used to insist on a Deist
position, where God is bound by physical laws...you can't have miracles,
because they have no cause within nature.
>>So, Jim, what is your position?
>
>My position is "militant agnostic strong-atheist". I have an active belief
>in the non-existence of any gods, but agree that it's unprovable, and
>irrelevant to my life -- and that you can't know either, and it's irrelevant
>to your life.
I tend towards antireligious and apathetic (don't care one way or
another if there is a God or gods at the moment). I also have my own variant
on Pascal's Wager: if God is such that faith in him is warranted, He wouldn't
be so petty as to damn me simply for not having faith.
For those still following this haze of philosophy but who don't know
about Pascal's Wager, it's as follows. If I believe in God and there is no
God, I lose nothing. If I believe in God and there is a God, I go to heaven.
If I disbelieve and there is no God, I lose nothing. If I disbelieve and
there is a God, I go to hell. So the overall value of believing in God is
positive, while the overall value of disbelieving is negative. (As an aside,
I find this hypocritical and cynical...anyone who really thinks in these
terms is bearing false witness anyway.)
So the options in my modified version are as such, assuming that in all
cases I try to live ethically:
Believe + No God = No loss
Believe + Petty God = Probably toast anyway, as I'm not perfect
Believe + Non-Petty God = Heaven
Disbelieve + No God = No loss
Disbelieve + Petty God = Toast
Disbelieve + Non-Petty God = Heaven, or at least, not hell
Thus, if God is like a cruel writer who likes to see his characters
suffer, it doesn't really matter if you believe. If God is good and just, it
also doesn't matter if you believe. And if there's no God, it doesn't matter
after you die. At worst, disbelief can make your chances a little worse, but
what is more important is your conduct in life aside from profession of
faith.
Mind you, this is only casting the debate in terms of Final Fates.
There's much to be said on both sides for the value or belief or disbelief in
life. But I'm not gonna say it here, as I've already gone on too long.
Dave Van Domelen, thinks Pascal's contributions to science should cut
him some slack in any potential afterlife, in any case, even if his Wager
stinks on ice....
Hernan Espinoza
> You abuse the definition of faith.
I live to abuse definitions. Too many people place excessive
faith in their "reality" and turn a perfectly good communication tool into
mental shackles. IMAO, of course.
> Faith means believing in something
>for which there is no evidence. If there is evidence, positive or
>negative, you need no faith. Anything relying on evidence is simple
>stimulus-response behavior.
For the complicated stimulus-response behaviors of the kind we are
discussing, the sensory stimulus must be interpreted ("evidence" implies
interpretation) We base those interpretations on internal models that we
believe are accurate representations of reality. Why do we think those
models are accurate? My favorite, of course, is the scientific method
where models are validated by testing the model's predictive power based
on experience. If I have done manipulation X 100 times with result Y,
then the 101rst time I do X, I can predict that the result must be Y,
right? Wrong. It's a very good bet, but past experience carries no
provable guarantee of future outcome. It requires a leap of faith to
believe it (a leap I have gladly made).
-Hernan
The Icicle
Espinoza) wrote:
> I live to abuse definitions. Too many people place excessive
>faith in their "reality" and turn a perfectly good communication tool into
>mental shackles. IMAO, of course.
That almost exactly the same argument Pattycakes makes when he
starts losing an argument. Definitions go right out the window.
> For the complicated stimulus-response behaviors of the kind we are
>discussing, the sensory stimulus must be interpreted ("evidence" implies
>interpretation) We base those interpretations on internal models that we
>believe are accurate representations of reality. Why do we think those
>models are accurate?
Not true. You cannot distinguish, in pure terms,
"interpretating" vs. "processing". One can ask Jim Cowling if he
believes God exists. He can say no without believing anything. He has
seen no evidence that God exists. His answer is purely based on
evidence. You can ask me if Alan Keyes will be the next president.. I
can say no without interpreting anything based on non-evidence. I can
do the math. I know the probability that he will win. I don't have to
place faith in anything. I am simply reacting by the numbers.
>y favorite, of course, is the scientific method
>where models are validated by testing the model's predictive power based
>on experience. If I have done manipulation X 100 times with result Y,
>then the 101rst time I do X, I can predict that the result must be Y,
>right? Wrong. It's a very good bet, but past experience carries no
>provable guarantee of future outcome. It requires a leap of faith to
>believe it (a leap I have gladly made).
Life is probability. That is not faith. That is math. You also
abuse science is an offensive manner. It is offensive in that your
postulate is stupid. Models are "validated" based on probability.
Coronary artery disease accounts for 50-60% of non-accident deaths in
America. In a population where this is strongly not true, we expand
the model. It is only those ignorant of science who thing the models
are rigid structures. In the life sciences, the models must be
flexible, like life itself. That however, needs no faith.
I do thank you for demonstrating the importance of
definitions, however. You prove to us all that abusing them leads only
to your confusion and compounded ignorance. Here endeth the lesson.
D.
The Comics Archives - The Internet's #1 site on Golden Age Super-Heroes
http:/www.execpc.com/~icicle/main.html
Todd Kogutt
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2000 11:27:31 -0500, Lawrence Watt-Evans
> <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>
> >Todd Kogutt <kog...@colorado.edu> wrote:
>
> >>BUT, the point here is that athiesm is not the belief that there is not
> >>a god, but not believing there is a god. It's a subtle difference.
> >
> >Yeah, it is. It's the difference between being agnostic (not
> >believing) and being atheist (believing not).
>
> That's not correct.
>
> An agnostic would not say "I don't believe in God." Rather, s/he
> neither believes nor disbelieves, because both positions require an
> assertion on a subject which is unknowable.
>
> An atheist *would* say "I don't believe in God." We agree that this
> statement is ambiguous, and could either mean "I don't hold the belief
> that God exists" or "I do hold the belief that God does not exist."
>
> Todd Kogutt is incorrect in saying that only the first of the two
> statements represents the view of atheism. It is specifically called
> weak atheism, while the latter statement represents strong atheism.
>
> -- Marc.
Marc,
You must be new. See the little arrow like brackets? Do you notice that
there are 3 of them on some lines and two or one of them on others?
Now..if you pay REAL close attention, you'll notice comments at the top
attributing who says what? For instance...I said:
>>>"BUT, the point here...etc..."
While the esteemed writer Mr Watt-Evans says ">>Yeah, it is..."
While you, Marc, say everything with the the one bracket.
It's not polite to misquote people.
---SCAVENGER
Todd Kogutt
<espi...@cmgm.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Todd Kogutt <kog...@colorado.edu> writes:
> >BUT, the point here is that athiesm is not the belief that there is not
> >a god, but not believing there is a god. It's a subtle difference.
>
> Hugs and kisses to all who made this point, but Todd made it most
> succinctly (Go Todd!). First, you have all made an excellent point about
> my flip answer. You are all right, and I was wrong. However, I still
> view atheism as a matter of faith because I think all beliefs about the
> state of reality are. A perfect state of faithlessness is impossible
> because just believing that one's mental model of reality is accurate
> requires a significant leap of faith.
>
> -Hernan
Now for Marc Fleury's continuing Usenet education:
Hernan is right on several points..One, he comments on what I said, as
opposed to what someone else said in following my post up.
Two, he sends praises my way...always a good thing.
Now, he misses by calling me by my proper name rather than my Nom Du
Net, but that's more an effect of my more serious based header field
than anything else, so it's ok.
---SCAVENGER sez, it's always nice to get cheers:-)
Carl Fink
>
>In this universe, or this part of the universe, or in this part of the universe
>as it is this instant under the physical laws we operate. If they change, so
>could this.
As long as Mike brought up his name, let me suggest that Bertrand
Russell would call the above a "meaningless noise".
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
I-Con's Science and Technology Guest of Honor in 2000 will be Geoffrey
A. Landis. See <http://www.iconsf.org> for I-Con information.
Carl Fink
>A perfect state of faithlessness is impossible because just
>believing that one's mental model of reality is accurate requires a
>significant leap of faith.
But I dont' believe my mental model to be a perfect model of reality
-- in fact, I'm sure it' is not.
damonution
Avram Grumer wrote:
>
> In article <YxYn4.8744$_d.64...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,
> scow...@home.com (Jim Cowling) wrote:
>
> > In article <3bj0asshdtr6rrn88...@4ax.com>,
> kmar...@crossover.com wrote:
> > >scow...@home.com (Jim Cowling) wrote:
> > >
> > >>It is not provable that anything does not exist, because of the Godel
> > >>Incompleteness Theorem (for one)
> > >
> > >Huh?
> > >
> > >It's easy to prove that, for instance, no method exists to square the
> > >circle with only a compass and straightedge. I don't see that Goedel
> > >has anything to do with that.
> >
> > You only think no method exists, but you can't prove that your thought is
> > rational. You think that mathematics is rigidly logical, but can't prove
> > that this is true in all cases. The Incompleteness Theorem creeps into
> > everything.
>
> As I understand the matter (and I am not a mathematcician) it is the fact
> that mathematics _is_ rigidly logical that causes Godel's Incompleteness
> Theorem to apply. Godel's Theorem, as I understand it, does not
> necessarily apply to vague systems that lack formal definitions and
> rules.
"This statement is false"
read godel escher bach.
damonution
Hernan Espinoza wrote:
>
> dst...@NOSPAMpost.its.mcw.edu (David W. Stepp) writes:
> > You abuse the definition of faith.
>
> I live to abuse definitions.
so, hernan, have you stopped beating you dictionary?
>
> > Faith means believing in something
> >for which there is no evidence. If there is evidence, positive or
> >negative, you need no faith. Anything relying on evidence is simple
> >stimulus-response behavior.
>
> For the complicated stimulus-response behaviors of the kind we are
> discussing, the sensory stimulus must be interpreted ("evidence" implies
> interpretation) We base those interpretations on internal models that we
> believe are accurate representations of reality. Why do we think those
> models are accurate? My favorite, of course, is the scientific method
> where models are validated by testing the model's predictive power based
> on experience. If I have done manipulation X 100 times with result Y,
> then the 101rst time I do X, I can predict that the result must be Y,
> right? Wrong. It's a very good bet, but past experience carries no
> provable guarantee of future outcome. It requires a leap of faith to
> believe it (a leap I have gladly made).
>
???? you worded this in such a way that i fell inclined to disagree with
you.
anyone who uses scientific method would never say that x MUST happen.
so you're being disengenuous.
you predict somethign and are either reasoanbly confident or not.
of course faith enters into it, but i'd say there's a difference
between experiential based faith and
other faith.
Michael Alan Chary
Jim Cowling <scow...@home.com> wrote:
>In article <87p3eg$kta$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:
>>Jim Cowling <scow...@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I agree; calling atheism a faith is like calling bald a hair colour.
>>
>>the law of causality a priori?
>
>atheist. My dad lacks hair; he is bald.
It most certainly is relevant to what you said. You have faith that God
does not exist. If you merely lacked faith in God, you'd be agnostic.
You are taking a position on his existence.
>It is not provable that anything does not exist, because of the Godel
>Incompleteness Theorem (for one) and the simple truth that we cannot fully
>examine a finite but unbounded universe.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proves that you have a consistent proof of
an entire system of mathematics. It makes no claim about anything else,
and in a way, it proves that some things don't exist (mathematical systems
which do not comtain axioms.)
>And, yes, I deny the law of causality, absolutely. Quantum mechanics tossed
>that out the window fifty years ago.
No, it did not. It threw out the notion of time as connected with
causality. Since there was no time before the universe existed.
>>I ask because while there are many valid proofs of God's existence (note
>>that "valid" is a technical term in logic meaning only that the conclusion
>>follows from the premises, not that the argument is convincing.)
>
>No, there aren't, because the premises in all cases are baloney.
Hardly.
>>So, Jim, what is your position?
>
>My position is "militant agnostic strong-atheist". I have an active belief in
>the non-existence of any gods, but agree that it's unprovable, and irrelevant
>to my life -- and that you can't know either, and it's irrelevant to your
>life.
Well, I have my own reasons for believing in God, but they don't do anyone
else any good.
Jim Cowling
>In article <n1Xn4.8727$_d.64...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,
>Jim Cowling <scow...@home.com> wrote:
>>That's wholly irrelevent to what I've said. I lack belief in gods; I am an
>>atheist. My dad lacks hair; he is bald.
>
>It most certainly is relevant to what you said. You have faith that God
>does not exist. If you merely lacked faith in God, you'd be agnostic.
>You are taking a position on his existence.
Lack of faith is not faith. Agnostic is not a lack of faith, either; it's the
specific position that it's unprovable.
There's no point in continuing if we can't agree with definitions -- that is,
if you can't agree with the definitions.
Marc Fleury
>Marc,
>You must be new. See the little arrow like brackets? Do you notice that
>there are 3 of them on some lines and two or one of them on others?
>Now..if you pay REAL close attention, you'll notice comments at the top
>attributing who says what? For instance...I said:
>>>>"BUT, the point here...etc..."
>While the esteemed writer Mr Watt-Evans says ">>Yeah, it is..."
>
>While you, Marc, say everything with the the one bracket.
>
>
>It's not polite to misquote people.
Todd,
You must be new. Reread my comments and you will see that I did not
misquote you. (I have now moved them below.)
To reiterate -- you said "...atheism is not the belief that there is
not a god, but not believing there is a god."
I translated these two positions explicitly as "I don't hold the
belief that God exists" and "I do hold the belief that God does not
exist."
It is incorrect for you to claim that the former is the position of
atheism and the latter is not.
The first part of my post is directed at Lawrence Watt-Evans, and I
did not name him specifically since it should be clear that I was
refering to him -- my comments immediately follow his. When I wanted
to address a point YOU had made, I stated it as such.
I am not new. I understand usenet quoting. Do you?
By the way, it's also not polite to be so condescending.
-- Marc.
===========
>In article <38a04f81.89132961@news>, Marc Fleury <ma...@panel1.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Feb 2000 11:27:31 -0500, Lawrence Watt-Evans
>> <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Todd Kogutt <kog...@colorado.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >>BUT, the point here is that athiesm is not the belief that there is not
>> >>a god, but not believing there is a god. It's a subtle difference.
>> >
Marc Fleury
> Hernan Espinoza <espi...@cmgm.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Hugs and kisses to all who made this point, but Todd made it most
>> succinctly (Go Todd!). First, you have all made an excellent point about
>> my flip answer. You are all right, and I was wrong. However, I still
>> view atheism as a matter of faith because I think all beliefs about the
>> state of reality are. A perfect state of faithlessness is impossible
>> because just believing that one's mental model of reality is accurate
>> requires a significant leap of faith.
>Now for Marc Fleury's continuing Usenet education:
>Hernan is right on several points..One, he comments on what I said, as
>opposed to what someone else said in following my post up.
>
>Two, he sends praises my way...always a good thing.
Wow! Now you have crossed the border between Condescending Putz and
True Usenet Schmuck!
I had not posted in this part of the thread, so who exactly are your
comments aimed at?
And, again, if you check back to my post which seemed to trigger your
madness, you will see that you are completely incorrect. I responded
to BOTH you AND Mr. Watt-Evans. First him, then you. I even mentioned
you by name when I started commenting on YOUR remarks, just to make it
easier for you. Apparently not easy enough, though.
-- Marc.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>And, again, if you check back to my post which seemed to trigger your
>madness, you will see that you are completely incorrect. I responded
>to BOTH you AND Mr. Watt-Evans.
So how come he's "Todd" and I'm "Mr. Watt-Evans"? "Lawrence" is fine.
Kevin J. Maroney
>You only think no method exists, but you can't prove that your thought is
>rational. You think that mathematics is rigidly logical, but can't prove
>that this is true in all cases. The Incompleteness Theorem creeps into
>everything.
No, it doesn't. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is a very precise
statement about a very precise system, and it doesn't say anything
like what you just presented it as saying.
Hint: The proof of GIT *depends* on there being provably true
statements in mathematics.
Also, GIT is a statement about formal logical systems, not about the
universe.
Hernan Espinoza
>On 8 Feb 2000 10:15:52 -0800 Hernan Espinoza <espi...@cmgm.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>A perfect state of faithlessness is impossible because just
>>believing that one's mental model of reality is accurate requires a
>>significant leap of faith.
>But I dont' believe my mental model to be a perfect model of reality
>-- in fact, I'm sure it' is not.
I'm sure mine is as flawed as anyone's. One doesn't need to
believe it is perfect, it takes faith to believe that it is even useful
because there really isn't any way to prove it.
-Hernan
Hernan Espinoza
>so, hernan, have you stopped beating your dictionary?
No, because it sucks and and had it coming.
>???? you worded this in such a way that i fell inclined to disagree with
>you.
That's OK, I'm not even sure I agree with me. That's why
it's worth writing it down and letting other people have at it.
>anyone who uses scientific method would never say that x MUST happen.
>so you're being disengenuous.
>you predict somethign and are either reasoanbly confident or not.
Good point, call it "might happen". Regardless of your confidence
level, just making the prediction involves a leap of faith. It may not
feel very large because the percentages are in your favor, but it is there
nonetheless. Humans make these leaps all of time. Personally, I think
our cognitive abilities depend on the ability to believe things for which
we have no solid evidence.
>of course faith enters into it, but i'd say there's a difference
>between experiential based faith and other faith.
Not that I disagree with you, but what kind of other faith did
you have in mind? I would say most humans have an experiential basis for
their faith even when the interpretation of those experiences leads them
to faith in a false conclusion. It doesn't even have to be the kind of
direct experience claimed by mystics. It can be as simple as a trusted
figure saying to you "There is a God, I know it". It's not a rational
basis for belief, but it seems to me it is still experiential.
-Hernan
Paul O'Brien
<espi...@cmgm.stanford.edu> writes
>
> I live to abuse definitions. Too many people place excessive
>faith in their "reality" and turn a perfectly good communication tool into
>mental shackles. IMAO, of course.
Don't be silly. Reasoned argument is only possible through the
use of language, which implies commonly accepted definitions.
Hernan Espinoza
I said:
>> I live to abuse definitions. Too many people place excessive
>>faith in their "reality" and turn a perfectly good communication tool into
>>mental shackles. IMAO, of course.
>Don't be silly. Reasoned argument is only possible through the
>use of language, which implies commonly accepted definitions.
Words are tools. Tools that cannot do their job are useless.
Obviously, some level of definitional agreement is required for words to
do their job. However, the required level of agreement is not nearly so
high as unimaginative people would have you believe. In their zeal for
semantic precision people too often rob words of the flexibilty required
to communicate new and unorthodox ideas (*). If an existing tool must be
be used in an unorthodox manner to get a job done, I say go for it. If
you need to communicate an idea that does not precisely fit any commonly
accepted set of words, try using an old tool in a new way. Communication
under these circumstance does require significantly more intellectual
work for all involved (and it is only polite to let people know when you
doing it), but to me it is worth the effort. YMMV.
-Hernan
-------------------------------------------------
(*) Worse (IMHO), people can rob themselves of the ability to understand
those new ideas. THAT is silly.
David R. Henry
>>> I live to abuse definitions. Too many people place excessive
>>>faith in their "reality" and turn a perfectly good communication tool into
>>>mental shackles. IMAO, of course.
>
>>Don't be silly. Reasoned argument is only possible through the
>>use of language, which implies commonly accepted definitions.
>
> Words are tools. Tools that cannot do their job are useless.
>Obviously, some level of definitional agreement is required for words to
>do their job. However, the required level of agreement is not nearly so
>high as unimaginative people would have you believe.
So? If you want to actually debate a topic with someone, you better
agree on your terms, or you're not accomplishing anything than seeing
who can bullshit better. And, quite frankly, I can get enough of that
by just visiting friends' houses.
>In their zeal for
>semantic precision people too often rob words of the flexibilty required
>to communicate new and unorthodox ideas (*).
Hardly.
--
dhe...@plains.nodak.edu * Lion Clan Nezumi * Rogue Fan Club * Fallen Writer
Creationist: (n) 1. Gullible. 2. Moron. 3. One deliberately lied to by cons
What was the question? --Kate Bush /// All you of Earth are IDIOTS! --P9fOS
Avram Grumer
> Avram Grumer wrote:
> >
> > As I understand the matter (and I am not a mathematcician) it is the
> > fact that mathematics _is_ rigidly logical that causes Godel's
> > Incompleteness Theorem to apply. Godel's Theorem, as I understand it,
> > does not necessarily apply to vague systems that lack formal definitions
> > and rules.
>
> "This statement is false"
>
> read godel escher bach.
Are you familiar with the word "necessarily," damon?
Avram Grumer
mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:
> In article <n1Xn4.8727$_d.64...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,
> Jim Cowling <scow...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >That's wholly irrelevent to what I've said. I lack belief in gods; I
> >am an atheist. My dad lacks hair; he is bald.
>
> It most certainly is relevant to what you said. You have faith that God
> does not exist. If you merely lacked faith in God, you'd be agnostic.
> You are taking a position on his existence.
And the agnostic has faith that the truth of the matter cannot be
determined, which is itself a position.
When a Christian says that his faith in Jesus is what gets him through
hard times, is that the same "faith" that you're saying the atheist has?
Or are we just using the same word for two very different concepts?
Marc Fleury
>On Wed, 09 Feb 2000 17:36:48 GMT, ma...@panel1.com (Marc Fleury) wrote:
>
>>And, again, if you check back to my post which seemed to trigger your
>>madness, you will see that you are completely incorrect. I responded
>>to BOTH you AND Mr. Watt-Evans.
>
>So how come he's "Todd" and I'm "Mr. Watt-Evans"?
[shrug] Actually, I didn't refer to him as "Todd" in the post you
cite. In his previous response to me, though (which I had just read
prior to posting) he referred to you in the more formal way, and I
guess I picked up on it subconciously.
> "Lawrence" is fine.
Alrighty.
-- Marc.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>And the agnostic has faith that the truth of the matter cannot be
>determined, which is itself a position.
Only faith that _he_ doesn't have enough data to determine the truth
of the matter. I'm not sure that use of "faith" means much.
Michael Alan Chary
Jim Cowling <scow...@home.com> wrote:
>In article <87ro16$44e$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:
>>In article <n1Xn4.8727$_d.64...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,
>>Jim Cowling <scow...@home.com> wrote:
>>>That's wholly irrelevent to what I've said. I lack belief in gods; I am an
>>>atheist. My dad lacks hair; he is bald.
>>
>>It most certainly is relevant to what you said. You have faith that God
>>does not exist. If you merely lacked faith in God, you'd be agnostic.
>>You are taking a position on his existence.
>
>specific position that it's unprovable.
Lack of faith in God is not faith in God. Faith that God does not exist,
otoh, is faith in the nonexistence of God.
>There's no point in continuing if we can't agree with definitions -- that is,
>if you can't agree with the definitions.
I know the definitions associated with the academic study of the
philosophy of religion including those associated witht he words "atheism"
and "faith." If you wish to make up your own, that's fine. But I see
nothing wrong with the ones in current use.