QUESTIONS To Atheists From A Christian
Mark Barry
Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this newsgroup
for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
hasn't a clue to life. Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
though most of you think Christians can't think. Most of you who make
these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
think their gods on computers. But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
in college. So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no matter
what. Then when there are just atheists talking about atheism, the subject
matter is about the level of a first grader. Anyway, here are some questions
for you atheists. I'm just curious about your way of thinking and I bet
I will find contradictions upon many of your answers about your "atheistic
faith." It seems that none of you atheists ever agrees with each other. You
all have some far-fetched ideal of what you believe or don't believe and have
nothing to back it up. Okay, I'll shut up. Just read on...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What is your definition of faith?
* Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
can not see?
* Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
a form of history?
* Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
that history also?
* Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
* Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
* Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
two are impossible?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
"may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
* What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
* What do you believe in the bible?
* If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
* If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
* Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
conception?
* If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
let them do what they want?
* If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
EDITORIAL:
So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
people to die and bla bla bla. The fact is, that God gave us a free will to
basically do what we want. We can choose between good and evil. And many
times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world. Not
because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen. Do you
think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and repent
from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
pride. To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
can't do that. That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
you are. I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
since I'm a Christian. The fact is, you will face judgement day without
knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
and it will be displayed before you and God. Everything you do will come
back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
stupid replies...
- Mark Barry
NASA/Edwards AFB
Bob Beauchaine
>
>Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this newsgroup
>for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
>
Yes, you'll get flamed. You deserve it.
>I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
>hasn't a clue to life. Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
>though most of you think Christians can't think. Most of you who make
>these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
>think their gods on computers. But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
>in college. So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
>not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
Wonderful. Well, I'm not a college student (not full time, at
least). I read your post open mindedly. I'm still p.o.'ed.
You obviously haven't read the FAQ, which I know for a fact has
been posted within the last two months. You obviously haven't
read much of the content of this group either, unless you have a
hidden intellect far surpassing mine. I often have to work hard to
glean a full understanding of what has been posted by others here,
including theists. It is most definitely not "about the level of
a first grader". Unless, of course, you equate "doesn't agree
with me" to "level of a first grader".
As for college students thinking "their gods on computers"
(whatever that means), if you've actually read this group for two
months you would know that the *only* thing all atheists have in
common is a non-belief in any god.
>First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no matter
>what.
Untrue, unless the content of the Christian post is of this level.
Why, this post begs flaming. It would be impolite to refuse!
The remainder of your post belies your total ignorance of the
atheistic position. Go do a little research, get a little
education, read a little Russel or Nietchze (sp?). Then come back
and ask, politely, for the answers to any questions you may have
remaining.
BTW, what's your degree in, anyway? I would be most amazed if it
was in any field with even the remotest ties to science. Not a
flame. Just an observation.
Thanks for coming out of the wordwork. I've been avoiding all
flame wars like the plague as of late. Glad you came along to
liven up my keyboard.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bo...@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
Well, I vote for us to believe in an honest lawyer. There's a
better chance that one exists than there is a chance that there is a god.
No jesus, know peace. Know jesus, no peace.
JON M. TAYLOR
>Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this newsgroup
>for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
The reasons the "postings get stupid" are twofold:
1. People like you post here and think that somehow all of your ranting and
raving will be magically transformed into a logical, rational argument that
will instantly convert us all into fundies, and
2. We get tired of reading the same freaking arguments over and over again,
and our collective tempers get a little short over the whole matter.
Granted, I'm not a regular poster here, but I can see where some people are
coming from.
>I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
>hasn't a clue to life. Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
>though most of you think Christians can't think. Most of you who make
I'd venture to say that most of us here DO NOT think that
"Christians can't think". However, we also don't think that just because
someone is, say, (just for the sake of example) A sysadmin at NASA, that
they have thought about religion vs. atheism any more than Joe Blow down the
street.
>these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
>think their gods on computers. But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
>in college. So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
>not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
Yeah, If I was REALLY smart, I'd be a K-Rad sysadmin at NASA, the
only government agency that makes the monetary (sp?) policies of the
military look like a model of efficiency. I started this follow-up with the
intent of making a logical, rational rebuttal to your arguments, but it's
becoming more and more of an effort not to flame you into nonexistence for
your moronic comments. And as for your statement about not getting P.O.'ed
because a christian wrote this post... can you say 'self-fulfilling
prophecy'? Good.
>First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no matter
>what. Then when there are just atheists talking about atheism, the subject
>matter is about the level of a first grader. Anyway, here are some questions
>for you atheists. I'm just curious about your way of thinking and I bet
>I will find contradictions upon many of your answers about your "atheistic
>faith." It seems that none of you atheists ever agrees with each other. You
>all have some far-fetched ideal of what you believe or don't believe and have
>nothing to back it up. Okay, I'll shut up. Just read on...
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1. What is your definition of faith?
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
Your faith, yes. Also cannot see, hear, touch, know anything about,
define, agree upon....
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
The bible IS a 'form' of history, yes. however, that's ALL it is.
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
I can't believe you're actually serious about this one. First, we
have many different historical accounts, all corroborating Columbus. The
accounts hang together logically and fit in with what we know from other
historical sources. The accounts of the flood are not corroborated by
ANYTHING alse, and they are shot so full of holes that even most christians
acknowledge that it is a legend. Go read TALK.ORIGINS for a while to see
the arguments for the flood get destroyed - I'm not gonna waste bandwidth
recapping them here.
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Ever heard of something called 'geology'? How about 'Plate
Tectonics'?
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
No.
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
Care to enlighten us on these 'fulfilled prophecies' so we can
destroy them for you?
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
I didn't know that there were three theories of evolution. Again,
can you enlighten us on this? If you say that one of them is Lamarckian,
I'm gonna DIE laughing...
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
We ARE guessing, in a sense. All of science is nothing more than
probabilities. Only fools, fundies, or NASA sysadmins think that anything
is 'true' in the absolute sense.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
No, I've only read snatches, not the whole thing. I have, however,
talked to people who have. My father was raised baptist, and he said that
the reason he 'lost his faith' was that, after reading the whole damned
thing TWICE, he decided that it was so self-contradictory and meaningless
that he coulnd't put any stock in it.
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
The flood, among a gbillion others.
> * What do you believe in the bible?
I don't 'believe' anything. I think that, of the things that I know
about in the bible, the execution of Jesus by the romans is the MOST LIKELY
to be true. I'm not a biblical scholar, though - maybe someone else in this
group can give an example of something that's more likely to be true.
* If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
N/A.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
I, personally, go by 'situational ethics', and I imagine that most
christians do too, regardless of what they might profess.
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
There is no god in my mind.
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
Not by a god/after I die. I might be on this earth, by a cout of
law, by my peers, or by my own conscience (yes, I DO have one).
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
I won't get into anything like cloning here, which in not (yet!)
possible on humans. But, if you consider the sperm and egg cells alive,
than life never stops, so there is no point at which life starts.
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
This is a tricky point, indeed. However, I fail to see what it has
to do with Atheism. There are some (I think) pro-life atheists.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
Of course I would.
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
Because he does not exist, his 'punishment' often consists of
christians punishing other people FOR him! What's wrong with this picture???
>EDITORIAL:
>So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
>a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
>people to die and bla bla bla. The fact is, that God gave us a free will to
>basically do what we want. We can choose between good and evil. And many
>times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world. Not
>because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen. Do you
>think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
>get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
>that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
>He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and repent
>from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
>understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
>The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
>pride. To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
>can't do that. That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
Damn straight I have pride. I have pride in my ability to think and
make rational judgements based on evidence. I freely admit that I'm not
perfect and that, even based on my OWN concept of right/wrong, that I have
'sinned'. I can make 'moral' choices without having to have the threat of
hellfire hanging over my head. Can You?
>you are. I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
>since I'm a Christian. The fact is, you will face judgement day without
>knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
You'll pardon me if I don't lose sleep over this.
>and it will be displayed before you and God. Everything you do will come
>back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
>Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
>for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
>stupid replies...
If you wouldn't come into a discussion like this with all of the
prejudices you obviously have, you might not get flamed so much. There are
some christians in this group who ARE able to have a logical, rational
discussion. Read here for a while and take a clue from them.
>- Mark Barry
>NASA/Edwards AFB
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
#DEFINE QUOTE ("The only real sin lies in hurting other people unnecessarily.
Hurting YOURSELF is not sinful - just stupid." - Robert A. Heinlein)
#DEFINE NAME "Jon M. Taylor"
#DEFINE IMAIL_ADDRESS "JON.T...@M.CC.UTAH.EDU"
#INCLUDE <std_disclaimer.h>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Gavin Williams
>Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this newsgroup
>for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
I am coming back to this after replying to the rest of the article, and all
I can say is 'Ok, you get your wish." Concerning the flames, you are pretty
stupid too, or rather, ignorant.
>I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
>hasn't a clue to life. Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
>though most of you think Christians can't think. Most of you who make
>these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
>think their gods on computers. But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
>in college. So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
>not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
Sorry, but that is a *BAD* way to open a posting in ANY newsgroup.
Do not jump in as if attack is the best form of defence.
A degree does not necessarily imply a clue in life.
But, having said that... let us go on.
>First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no matter
>what. Then when there are just atheists talking about atheism, the subject
>matter is about the level of a first grader. Anyway, here are some questions
>for you atheists. I'm just curious about your way of thinking and I bet
>I will find contradictions upon many of your answers about your "atheistic
>faith." It seems that none of you atheists ever agrees with each other. You
>all have some far-fetched ideal of what you believe or don't believe and have
>nothing to back it up. Okay, I'll shut up. Just read on...
Is this a joke? (I must have missed the smileys)
You do not *need* to attack us and our arguments. I am sure that there are
holes in any argument, or else there would *be* no argument. (Then again, you
have had 2000years to work on your argument! [oops :->])
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1. What is your definition of faith?
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
Faith is belief without evidence, imho.
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
No, history I do not believe is based on faith. There is usually
evidence around to substantiate the claims of history. E.g. The
history books say the Romans conquered Spain; there we find today
evidence of Roman occupation (aquaducts c.2000 years old, etc.).
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
Columbus did not discover the Americas, saint Brendan did, then the
vikings, but I digress. As to the flood, once again we lack
substantiating evidence. (I am not sure if there is evidence of a flood,
but I presume when you are talking about it you refer to Noah etc.
Incidentally I *cannot* believe in an Ark. It is literally impossible!
Even today the action of creating a vessel large enough to hold two of
everything and *COLLECT THEM*, [or if they were summoned, orgainise them]
is just not feasible).
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Of course, the earth's crust is continually shifting, with areas rising
and falling all the time. This was even more apparent when the planet
was younger. As I said, I reserve judgement about a flood as it is
entirely possible, and in fact (correct me if I am wrong fellow A.Aers)
I believe that all of us are quite willing to accept the idea that the
earth's crust is shifting. People argue not against *that*.
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
No. I do not. I believe in no prophesies (note spelling [oops, there I go
again :->] ). Prophesies are like Delphic utterances, and horoscopes today.
If you think they are true, you will always find some way of rationalising
them.
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
No I did not, be more specific. I cannot accept a statement like that
without having examined the evidence first. 'The sensible and true
avouch of mine own eyes', as Horatio would doubtless have remarked.
>2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
Once again, be more specific. My knowledge of anthropology and paleology
is, alas, somewhat sketchy.
>3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
Oh boy, you really *do* have a chip on your shoulder.
Any scientist will usually not make a definitive claim, as they like to
keep their minds open to any new information which might cause them to
revise their theories. We leave (fallible) infallibility to the pope
and the christians. (Damn, I really have to stop that! :-> ). They
*might* just *be* guessing. Guess-test-revise-guess-test-revise-test-
revise-prove is the way it goes.
>4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
I was a devout christian for 12 years, (or at least as long as I have
been self-aware). Then I went to a Jesuit school. I must hand it to the
Jesuits. They really do teach you to think, and *to question*. I thought,
I questioned, I arrived at a conclusion. I am continually testing
this conclusion. To return to the question.... I believe that the bible is
a book, I do not believe *in* it. I have read it often, though a lot less
in recent years as I have little interest in a book I regard as irrelevant to
my life.
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
Wow!! That is a large question. I have not time to list it all, but...
I do not believe in angels, gods, devils, miracles, ........etc. ad infinitum.
The whole reason I am an atheist is that, given the evidence, I do not
believe, period. There are explanations for everything in the bible, and while
some may be outlandish, all are certainly more credible than supernatural deities.
E.g. Assuming Mary existed, (no evidence to the contrary, so let us run with it),
and assuming she was a virgin, then artificial insemination is more credible.
There is also the *********&****extremely****&******** likely option of her not
being a virgin, (I mean COME ON!!!!). Ok, back to virgins. Getting more
outlandish, but still far lower on the incrediblity scale than a supreme being,
is hermaphrodidity, and self-fertilisation. Consult your local medical text,
hermaphrodidity *does* occur. Even parthenogenesis is more credible.
> * What do you believe in the bible?
I believe in the existance of a man called Jesus, exceptionally charismatic,
(but then, so was Jim Jones, and Hitler, come to think of it. :-> ) I believe in
the superstition of people at that time. It is in the nature of man to wish to
find answers, call it a survival instinct. I certainly believe in mass hysteria,
and other psychological phenomena, (I refer you to my post in soc.religion.christian
concerning, for example, stigmata, [that is if the noble moderator has allowed it,
for some reason he keeps bouuncing my posts ;-) ;-( ].
I believe in ME, my mind and myself, and nothing else until proven.
The first is proven to my satisfaction,
Je pense, donc je suis - Decartes.
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
As I have said, there are things that I will believe, as they are quite
possible, eg. I see no reason why there should not have existed a Herod
governor. I believe in me...
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul, (I hope I got the quote right ;)
and...
The mind is its own place, and in itself,
Can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven.
J.Milton - Paradise Lost, Book 1.
(I will spoil the ending for you, god wins ;)
>5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
As I believe I have said before in a.a. The human mind starts off as a
blank slate, and is therafter written upon. I heartily recommend
John Wyndham's "Exiles on Asperus" for an interesting exploration of that
theme. I am my own frame of reference. I do what I want when it is
possible. In economic terms, I maximise my own utility. That is not to
say that I am myopic in a temporal sense. I realise that everyone else is
also acting in such a manner, and that my actions will have secondary effects.
I may also derive utility from other peoples' happiness, and therefore act in
an altruistic manner.
I HAVE ONLY ONE SHOT AT LIVING, I WANT TO BE HAPPY THAT I HAVE MADE THE BEST
OF IT WHEN COMES THE TIME TO SHUFFLE OFF THE OLD MORTAL COIL.
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
Whose life am I going to live??!!!! Mine or someone else's?
There is no god in my mind, if there was, I would only act according
to its standard if it was in my own interests. Why do christians obey
many of the rules they do, not out of selflessness, but out of the idea
that doing so will earn them eternal life. Eternity, I am
reliably informed, is a mighty long time. Assuming, for the purposes
of the argument, that a supernatural being exists, I would not want to
mess up a mortal life in order to spend eternity singing his praises.
Can you imagine it, ......eternity .... every day, saying, 'What a
nice fellow this Yahweh is, don't you think?' 'Oh yes, he is a really
nice person, in fact he is wonderful!' ..... That way madness lies.
To reacap, I am the only one who has to look back on the old deathbed
and assess whether or not I wasted my one chance of consciousness,
therefore I am the only one who is going to live my life.
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
I will, and have been held accountable for my actions by others.
Posterity will judge me. So, to repeat, I will take into my *own*
account the actions of others and maximise my happiness subject to
their interactions with me.
>6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception? ^^^^^^^^^^^^
As I have said before, parthenogenesis. Cloning is also an alternative.
At the moment technology does not allow us either option, but you
never know what is around the corner. Also, please desist from making
such inflammatory claims. Do not ask a question and present what you
think is the answer. Intolerant statements tire the readers. Life is
not produced, IMHO, (<-- note, it helps to use this in arguments as
you avoid antagonising the reader.), at conception. Both the sperm and
the egg are alive. This question leads to the abortion issue, an issue
which I do not believe is within the rubric of this piece. However,
as an idea, (not one I necessarily hold to be true, but one I find useful
in considering such an issue, {the devil's advocate, if you like :)}),
is to look at the foetus as a part of the mother. In the same way as
a meloma is a part of the body until excised, the foetus might be
considered as being part of the mother until birth, and as such, hers
*and not anyone else's except the father* to deal with.
As I have said, this is not necessarily a view I hold to be true,
but it does provoke thought. Can *that* be a bad thing?
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
In utero, the child's heart is irrelevant to a certain extent. The
child's life is *TOTALLY* dependant upon the mother. Therefore, your
argument is not applicable to the period spent within the womb. Try
another one.
>7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
In order to avoid long term difficulties, a child should be taught how
to interact with the rest of society. Therefore, they should be taught
how to interact with the current prevalent set of morals and ethics.
A child does not do something *wrong*, it only does something which is
not compatible with society as a whole. So, yes, I would punish as
necessary. Punishment is to teach, not to punish, if you will forgive the
circular statement.
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
god does not punish if he does not exist.
Do not always look outside yourself for some justification of
your misfortunes; deus ex machina is the easy way out.
>EDITORIAL:
>So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
>a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
>people to die and bla bla bla. The fact is, that God gave us a free will to
>basically do what we want. We can choose between good and evil.
"Do what I want and you will get the carrot. Do what you want and you will
BURN IN ETERNAL FIRE AND AGONY!!!" Some choice.
And many
>times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world.
Recall that I contend "evil" is a subjective phenomenon, defined by others.
(Not that I may not agree with them often).
Not
>because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen. Do you
>think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
>get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
>that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
>He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and repent
>from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
^^^
Which is that? Heaven or Hell?
>understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
>The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
>pride. To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
>can't do that.
So let us all be xian and indulge in an orgy of self-flagellation.
As I have said before,.... DO NOT MAKE SWEEPING STATEMENTS ABOUT PEOPLE OF
WHOM YOU ARE TOTALLY IGNORANT!! Personally, *I* have no faith because I
reasoned it out for myself and regard it as self-deception and a waste of time.
I am a christian, I am terrible, I am a sinner, Oh Lord, I am unworthy, etc.
etc. etc.etc. Please, for yourself, THINK!!!!!!!
Sorry about the flame, but you should read the FAQ beforehand, and,
have some common courtesy. Personally, I like myself. I am the only me I have
got. Christians must not be very happy with themselves that they must
continually put themselves down. Do not say, Oh Lord, I am unworthy, I am
a mess, please fix it for me. If you perceive yourself as unworthy, then
*DO something about it*!! Do not go looking for something else.
That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
>you are. I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
>since I'm a Christian.
No one here thinks they are perfect. I have imperfections (not physically :-)
;-)!). Trivial example... I do not have a perfect memory. The examples are
so trivial that please.....If you have nothing intelligent to say, then
have a Coke and a smile, and SHUT THE FUCK UP. Well, you said you would
attract flames, and you did. BTW, you are not perfect either, I recommend
a short course in English grammar. :->
The fact is, you will face judgement day without
>knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
>and it will be displayed before you and God. Everything you do will come
>back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
>Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
>for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
Read the FAQ, ..... no preaching... you bore us. I am sure we have heard
all you would have to say from better men than you before.
>Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
>stupid replies...
Stupid posts attract stupid replies...........
Nice idea, but try again when you can phrase your statements in a less
defensively antagonistic manner. Then, seen as intelligent, you will get
considered replies.
My advice is, being a human being, you have a brain, and some level of
intelligence. Keep an open mind. The closed mind is like a still pool
with no new water, it soom becomes stagnant.
--
As usual, JIMHO.
Gavin... Plus qu'il n'en faut.
will...@unix1.tcd.ie
John A. Johnson
Belief based on wishful thinking rather than evidence. I've got no
use for faith.
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
I assume that certain things I cannot see exist. That does not mean that
the existence of any alleged nonvisible thing is likely.
>
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
I'm not an historian, but my guess is that historians put more stock in
evidence than they do in faith. There is surely some historical truth
in the Bible. That doesn't mean it is fully accurate.
>
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
Columbus's voyage, whether it occured or not, is to me infinitely more
plausible than a worldwide flood wherein two of every living creature
snuggled together on an ark.
>
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Who is "they?"
>
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
No.
>
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
Not.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
>
Scientific theories aren't meant to prove anything--you are incorrectly
ascribing to science an attribute it does not possess. What was your
degree in?
>
>3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
>
A quotation from a friend of mine who is a priest:
"Wisdom consists of passing from cocksure certainty to thoughtful
uncertainty."
>
>4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
>
Which bible? I own several and they are substantially different.
As for beliefs, I don't have any. Just assumptions.
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
Adam and Eve. Noah's ark. All of the miracles. Virgin birth.
The resurrection. et al.
>
> * What do you believe in the bible?
I assume that some of the Jewish names of persons and places are
historically accurate.
>
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
Nothing. (see above)
>
>5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
Do what maximizes the welfare of myself and other persons.
>
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
As far as I can tell, there is no god in my mind.
>
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
My wife and my boss always hold me accountable for my actions.
>
>6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
No, before conception because sperm and ova are alive. That's why it is
murder for women to have periods and men to jack off.
>
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
>
I'm pro-choice, and, as I said, I view life beginning before, not
after, birth.
>
>7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
I have four sons and I try to be both loving and strict with them. That
does occasionally call for punishment.
>
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
I would never punish my sons with ETERNAL TORMENT for not kissing my ass.
>
>
>EDITORIAL:
>
>So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
>a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
>people to die and bla bla bla. The fact is, that God gave us a free will to
>basically do what we want. We can choose between good and evil.
If someone puts a gun to your head and says "Give me your wallet or I'll
blow your head off" do you have free will? If god says, do certain
things or I'll punish you for eternity, do you have free will?
>And many
>times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world. Not
>because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen. Do you
>think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
>get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
>that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
>He sent His son Jesus to die for us.
Yup, that's a great example the bloodthirsty Yahweh is setting--
having his son tortured, ridiculed, and slaughtered. And I still
don't see how that helps us.
>So, if we believe in Him and repent
>from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
>understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
>
>The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
>pride. To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
>can't do that. That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
>you are.
You're right, I don't admit I'm a sinner because I don't think there is
such a thing as "sin." But I'm willing to admit that I am not and will
never be perfect.
>I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
>since I'm a Christian. The fact is, you will face judgement day without
>knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
>and it will be displayed before you and God. Everything you do will come
>back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
>Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
>for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
>stupid replies...
>
Who needs to flame someone who sets fire to himself? I've sent
Barry a FAQ file to help him get his head on straight (if that is
possible).
>- Mark Barry
>NASA/Edwards AFB <---------|
> |
My tax dollars are supporting this!?--- I want my peace dividend.
-----------------------------------
John A. Johnson (J...@psuvm.psu.edu)
Department of Psychology Penn State DuBois Campus 15801
Penn State is not responsible for my behavior.
"Almost everyone, at some point in their lives, would love to be able
to express their true feelings to those who need to be butt-kicked
into reality." - from _Outrageous_ by Charles Barkley
Paul Knight
Sorry, just couldn't halp myself...
In article <1992May5.1...@news.dfrf.nasa.gov>, bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry) writes:
|>Path: nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!news.dfrf.nasa.gov!bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov
|>From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
|>Newsgroups: alt.atheism
|>Subject: QUESTIONS To Atheists From A Christian
|>Message-ID: <1992May5.1...@news.dfrf.nasa.gov>
|>Date: Tue, 5 May 92 11:09:19 GMT+7:00
|>Article-I.D.: news.1992May5.170919.25581
|>Sender: ne...@news.dfrf.nasa.gov (Usenet news)
|>Organization: NASA
|>Lines: 124
|>
|>
|>Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this newsgroup
|>for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
|>
|>I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
|>hasn't a clue to life.
(Typical FAQ stuff deleted)
Now, point 6:
|> Therefore, isn't life produced at conception?
|> ...
|> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
|>
Right, yeah. Both must be true, right.
|>Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
|>stupid replies...
|>
|>- Mark Barry
|>NASA/Edwards AFB
|>
Who needs to look for stupidity in REPLIES???
--
"Paul Knight - DEC, Network Integration Services - Service Development
1175 Chapel Hills Drive, CXN1/18, Colorado Springs, CO
(719)260-2079, DTN 523-2079, kni...@mortal.enet.dec.com
Disclaimer: The contents of this message reflect my personal opinions, and
should not be construed as representing Digital Equipment Corporation."
Robert Broberg
>I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
>hasn't a clue to life. Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
>though most of you think Christians can't think. Most of you who make
>these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
>think their gods on computers. But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
>in college. So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
>not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
>
unfair as those you dispute about christians though. As for working with
NASA, I do hope you don't expect that to aid in your argument. Many
evolutionists (which you get to later) are Ivy League grads. Big Deal.
>faith." It seems that none of you atheists ever agrees with each other. You
>all have some far-fetched ideal of what you believe or don't believe and have
>nothing to back it up. Okay, I'll shut up. Just read on...
Yes? It seems that baptists and Catholics disagree also. Is that a good
enough reason to discount christianity?
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>1. What is your definition of faith?
>
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
FAITH: unquestioning belief. No, I can't say that I've got faith. I can
believe in things I haven't seen, though. Are you trying to mix definitions
for any particular reason?
>
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
No. History is based on questioning belief, not unquestioning belief. We
have revised history whenever it was proven to conflict with the evidence.
The bible can be considered a form of history much in the same way American
Indian mythos is a form of history. That is, stories explaining the origin
of the groups beliefs. Do you believe literally in the Amer. Ind. stories?
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
Historically, the Vikings and possibly an oriental group "discovered" the
Americas. Of course, Columbus's voyage is well documented by groups
internal and external to the expedition. And we have physical evidence
that ships of Spanish origin did reach the Americas approx 1492. If you
are disputing the name of the Spanish leader, I have seen it written as
Colombo or somesuch also.
The flood of the old testament is a fable which was believed up until the
time when the scientists who DID believe in it not only failed to prove
it using physical evidence, but in fact proven it COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED!!
This wasn't done by a scientific conspiracy, this was concluded by good
christian scientists (and others).
The difference between the two is that the physical evidence exists for
only one of the events - Columbus's voyage.
>
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
>
No, personally I can't. But I am not a biologist, geologists, etc. So
rather than making up an answer, I direct you to talk.origins where such
scientists do hang out. I do guarantee that they will provide you with
an explanation which you can independently verify for yourself (If you
are truly willing to use the logic of this post to follow the trail of
evidence to the scientific conclusion.)
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
>
I believe the bible contains predictions, which come to pass later within
the bible. You will find this a common trait of mythology worldwide. Are
you arguing a special case for christianity above the others?
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
>
So you say. Outside of the bible, where is the proof that the prophesies
have been fulfilled? The internal self-consistency of a fable does not
mean the fable is true.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
>
I was unaware this is the case. Perhaps you would like to move this
discussion to talk.origins. You seem to be making a connection between
athiesm and evolution. I believe you will find most American evolutionists
are christian (Americans are approx 80% christian, right?). And I do think
you have your facts confused regarding the validity of your question. No
theory of evolution can prove another conclusively wrong. There is only
one theory: things evolve (simply put). The arguments revolve around HOW
they evolve, not whether or not they do evolve. See talk.origins.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
>
No, it sounds like they are not assigning themselves omniscience.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
>
I believe the bible is a collection of stories retelling the legends of
a certain ethnic group and embellished with more stories of how the legends
were extended to other groups. And yes, I have read it in some detail.
Have you read any detailed book of belief of another non-christian faith?
I mean one written to be used by that group, not one written by a cristian
or other outsider.
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
>
What event do you NOT believe in the Illiad? The rig veda (sp?) ? The
Wizard of Oz? The bible is a very large book to pick apart in the manner
you recommend. Suffice it to say I believe that some of the people and
places are true, but anything dealing with supernaturalism, the flood,
the creation story, and exact details of any of the rest are pure fiction.
How would you assess the books I listed?
> * What do you believe in the bible?
>
See above. Some of the place names and ruler names are "historical". The
events these names are connected with generally are unsupported by outside
sources however, and can usually be discounted. (Feel free to quote this
with regard to my three books above, if you wish).
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
>
I do believe in the historical personages sometimes mentioned in the
bible (mostly the foreign rulers). I assume that exempts me from the rest
of your question, which is vague to say the least.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
>
I trust myself to make the correct choices in life. And I'll match my life
for any christians, and come out looking pretty good by either standard.
This doesn't mean the christian standard is right because God said so. It
merely implies that many of the standards espoused by christianity and other
religions have proven to be good for society.
Slavery is generally considered a bad thing. I certainly view it as such.
But according the bible, slavery is acceptable. Democracy (or represent-
ative republic) is considered good. I certainly view it as such. But the
bible declares that kings annointed by god is the best way to go.
The point is twofold. One, the presence of christian standards in my code
doesn't imply even remotely that I condone christianity, nor does it lend
credence to claims of christianity as the ONLY correct code. Two, many
things in the bible (and by default, christian), are against my code, and
I suspect they are against yours also.
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
>
By definition, there is no god in the mind of an athiest. Do YOU want me
to live "any way [I] want and use [my] own standard for [my] actions?"
It seems you do not. You would prefer I live by your standard (or your
god's standard, the difference is trivial from my point of view)? I think
you would answer yes. Your motives -- validate your beliefs? restrict me
from doing what you restrict yourself from doing? I can only speculate.
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
>
I am constantly judged by others for my actions. I hold myself accountable
all the time. Don't you?
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
>
That was rather rude! Don't ask rhetorical questions in surveys. At present
sperm+egg are required ingredients for human life. But in 1940 we couldn't
reach the moon. Given time, who knows what we can do.
It appears you now wish to correlate between atheism and abortion. Again,
I must point out there are many christians on both sides of the issue. As
far as life being produced at birth -- by your careless phrasing, I can
confidently state that at conception there must be death! Both the sperm
and the egg are alive before the connect. After they connect you will agree
there is only one life. 2-1=1 life unaccounted for. The question I believe
you wished to ask "isn't human life produced at conception" is addressed
below.
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
>
Clincally, death is based on brain activity. By that definition, there is
no human life in the womb until approx 8 weeks. Why is the heart of a
fetus beating? Why does cancer cause death? What do these questions
have to do with abortion?
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
>
If I had a child, I would punish them when necessary. This is because
I am merely human and have no other means of controlling my offspring.
I can assure you if I were omniscient and all-powerful, I would never
have had a child who did wrong. Would you?
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
>
I punish my child to make him change his ways and do what is right. If my
child was 3 minutes from death and did something wrong, there would be little
point in punishing him, as it would be too late to change his behavior.
The christian god punishes people by sending them to eternal torment. He
does this long after it is possible for the person to change his ways.
What is the purpose of punishing a dead person? When logical reasons
for punishment are excluded, the remaining reasons deal with unstablity
and willful intent to cause needless suffering. Isn't this wrong?
>
>EDITORIAL:
>
>because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen. Do you
>think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
>get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
>that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
>He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and repent
>from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
>understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
>
What is life to you, anyway? Is it really some kind of race? You imply
the race isn't worth running if there isn't prizes for the winners and
penalties for the losers. That sounds "evil" to me. If an all-powerful
being existed and wanted me to chat with, why can't he just make it so?
Why all the game playing? And NO: God as parent analogy holds no water.
>The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
>pride. To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
>can't do that. That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
No the real reason is the belief in God is unjustifiable. The proudest
people I have met have been christians. Discounting the one christian
orator I recently met who claimed he was without sin; Yes, the christian
admits to being a sinner. But that doesn't stop them from feeling "better"
(proud) than the sinner who hasn't "come to accept God". It becomes a case
of "I'm not perfect, but I'm better than you (I'll be saved and you won't)."
>you are. I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
>since I'm a Christian. The fact is, you will face judgement day without
>knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
>and it will be displayed before you and God. Everything you do will come
>back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
>Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
>for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
>
Why is there any more reason to believe in God than to believe in Set, Apollo,
and all the other gods of mythology. Assuming there was a God as you want
to believe, there might be something to the above. But you are acting as if
you have proven a point which you have failed miserable to prove.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
>stupid replies...
>
I don't think you can call this a stupid reply. Why are you so hostile?
>- Mark Barry
>NASA/Edwards AFB
Rob Broberg
"My employer doesn't necessarily agree with me, so I won't bother to name them"
U55...@uicvm.uic.edu
bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry) says:
>
>Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this newsgroup
>for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
Hey! You are back again! We were having an e-mail "discussion" and your
address started bouncing. Guess you coundn't take it, huh?
>
>I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
>hasn't a clue to life. Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
>though most of you think Christians can't think. Most of you who make
>these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
>think their gods on computers. But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
>in college. So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
>not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
>
If you think you are such a massive brain, then why did you consistently
screw up the mail you were sending me? And the remark about college students?
Are you ignorant of the definition of atheism? NO BELIEF IN GODS? How
could we believe in a computer god then? And do you think that smart people
are hired without a college degree in good firms? You are out of touch
with reality, hardly suprising.
>First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no matter
No, we flame him when he makes an assinine post. Like the one you
just made.
>
>1. What is your definition of faith?
Well, belief in spite of evidence, either lack thereof, or in
direct contradiction to. Mark twain:
"Faith is beleiving what you know ain't so."
>
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
I don't quite know what you mean by this.
>
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
No, because history generally has collaboration, facts that are
possible to check out, and they have a logical procession, i.e.
columbus discovered america, america was settled, etc, etc. I can
observe proof of many of these things, and indeed i have.
>
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
Because columbus discovering america dies not have internal
contradictions as the flood does. Where did the water go? How did
the earth get repopulated so quickly? How can there be millions
of species of animals on the earth now, were they all in the ark?
It requires that i disbelieve _many_ laws of science, physics,
etc For me to believe in the flood.
I addressed this in out private e-mail correspondance, and i was
unable to get you to respond to this, despite prodding. Why bring
it up now? have you thought of an answer?
>
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Yes, the techtonic plates shift, and push up the sea floor up to
form mountians. Note that the mountian peaks you mention show signs
of being part of the sea floor, having been submerged for _thousands_
or _millions_ of years, not forty days.
>
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
Why do you even ask such a question on alt.atheism?
What do you think we will answer?
>
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
I would be quite amused if you would give examples of all the
biblical prophecies being fufilled.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
You shall have to explain this too.
If i hazard a guess, there are three variations on the theory of
evoloution. Each has some evidence for it. Apologists, having no
regard for accuracy, claim that each theory disproves the other,
and therefore the theory they all support is false. Am i close?
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
No, because they are trying to be intellectualy honest, unlike you.
The scientists are considering what has evidence for it, but is
not conclusive. The bible has no real evidence to support it, yet
christians claim beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is true.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
Yes, i have.
>
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
If you've been following a.a you have seen all the biblical
contradictions posted here. Can you answer ALL of these? I don't
still have the file handy, or i'd post about fifty. Jim Lippard
could probably post this. Or you could buy his pamphlet. I'm sure
you would find it a far better investment than giving money to your
church.
>
> * What do you believe in the bible?
That some of the events hay have some historical accuracy. It is,
i think historical fiction, but with alot of errors, and with a
fictional "god" thrown in.
>
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
I think the bible is valuable. It is quite old, and gives us
a view into the minds of the poeple of that time, and can be a source
of refrence when "stuff" is uncovered. But it has been contradicted
by the "stuff" quite a few times.
>5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
>
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
A god in my mind? What do you mean? I suppose i'd either take alot
of aspirin, or submit myself to a mental institution.
>
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
I can be, to other human beings.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
>
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
This has no place on alt.atheism. Take it over to talk.abortion.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
They would have to be disciplined, if they did something that they
knew was wrong.
>
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
1) I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A GOD!!!!!
2) I don't know there is a god, so how can i follow his moral code?
>
>
>EDITORIAL:
>
>So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
>a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
>people to die and bla bla bla. The fact is, that God gave us a free will to
>basically do what we want. We can choose between good and evil. And many
>times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world. Not
>because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen. Do you
>think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
>get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
>that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
>He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and repent
>from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
>understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
If I had a child, but he had never seen me, had no evidenci i existed,
and had only a book full of contradictions to guide him( several
different ways ) and could see different people interpreting it
in totally different ways, would i then punish him for not doing what
i meant for him to do, even though he never knew i existed, and
couldn't figure out what i wanted? Only if I were TOTALLY evil.
>
>The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
>pride. To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
>can't do that. That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
How can i be a sinner? What's sin?
>you are. I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
>since I'm a Christian. The fact is, you will face judgement day without
No, i think it's pretty ignorant of you.
>knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
>and it will be displayed before you and God. Everything you do will come
>back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
>Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
>for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
GREAT! If i accept jesus, i can go out and kill and rape and i
will still go to heaven! WOW!!! I'll go join up right now.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
>stupid replies...
We would like the same from you, but we don't expect it.
--DAVE!!!
han...@earth.eecs.uic.edu
Frank Doss
>for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
>
>I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
I am a sysadmin with a degree. Big deal! That means I know something
of AIX, a bunch of software, and keeping my users happy. My CS degree
has nothing to do with worldly knowledge. My military experience does
not prove I know diddly! I do realize, however, that this introduction
was some sort of heavy-handed attempt to stiffle responses. Chill out.
>hasn't a clue to life. Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
>though most of you think Christians can't think.
I am the only atheist in my family. I would not be surprised if this is
the rule, not the exception. Without describing my family history, they
are all very intelligent and very capable. (Must be the genes ;-) I
love them all and will take issue with anyone who has anything negative
to say about them. Yes, they all consider themselves christian.
>in college. So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
>not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
I can read the US Constitution open-mindedly, as it was written in a
non-offensive form. This drivel (favorite a.a word) is sewage. I
generally READ what is posted here by theists and atheists alike,
without comment. Your faith did not light my torch. Your words did.
>I will find contradictions upon many of your answers about your "atheistic
>faith." It seems that none of you atheists ever agrees with each other. You
Try reading the FAQ, and try again later. There is NO atheist doctrine.
Most atheists tend to consider themselves falable. Also, as a general
rule, there are no general rules about the beliefs of atheists.
The following answers are the beliefs of THIS atheist:
>1. What is your definition of faith?
>
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
Read the FAQ and try again later.
>
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
^^^^
So are the Communist Manifesto and Hitler's Mien Kampf.
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
Why is it easier to believe that man walked on the moon than to believe
that a small wooden craft carried two of everything for almost a year.
Again, read the FAQ, and try again later.
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Oh, come on!
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
Do you believe in the Easter Bunny?
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
Re-read the past two months of postings (with your eyes open this time),
and the FAQ and try again later.
>2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
What about all the different "theories" of creation proffered by the
different religions which all say that the other "theories" are not only
impossible, but foolish myths.
>3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
I assume you are going to be reading this at work. Walk down the hall
and passively listen in on as many technical conversations as possible.
Also, ask someone how far away the moon is.
>4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
I believe in my chair. But then, some of the readers here may not
believe in that, either. I believe the Bible exists, as my wife has a
copy. I believe the Qor'an, the Book of Morman, and Stephen King's _IT_
exist. But that has nothing to do with the truthfullness of the content
of these fascinating documents.
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
Alphabetically? Read the FAQ...
> * What do you believe in the bible?
I believe the pages are very thin.
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
Not this one again!
>5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
Did you read the FAQ? I saw it pass by on my system not too long ago.
Check /usr/spool/news/alt/atheism/23513 (if your system is set up as
mine is). It was posted on 29 April 1992. I don't think I'll waste
everyone's time by repeating "read the FAQ." You may freely assume any
question I deleted or did not answer can be answered by the FAQ.
>6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
>
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
This is not a theist-atheist issue. Try taking this question
elsewhere.
>EDITORIAL:
>He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and repent
>from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
^^^^^ Heaven?
>Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
>stupid replies...
Insults, insults, insults. Let's try to keep the discussion above the
first grade level! :-)
>- Mark Barry
>NASA/Edwards AFB
F. Doss
-My opinions, not my employers'! Std disclaimers.
Bryan O'Sullivan
[rest of article deleted]
>Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
>stupid replies...
I've deleted the rest of your comments. You're speaking from a position
of fairly complete ignorance, so I won't address anything you've said.
Try any of the following:
Read the FAQ
Read books by Russell, Nietszche, or any othe well-regarded atheists
Sit and think about it for a while
I ouldn't be bothered flaming you, since you do not know what you're
talking about. I might try some comments once you bother trying to find
out something rather than attack whatever immature and ignorant ideas
you might have about atheism.
-- Bryan
--
Bryan O'Sullivan +353-(0)1-973504
Advanced Development Group bosullvn@(vax1|unix1).tcd.ie
Department of Computer Science "Beautiful words are not truthful. Truthful
University of Dublin words are not beautiful." -- Lao Tzu
James J. Lippard
>
>Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this newsgroup
>for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
>
>I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
>hasn't a clue to life. Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
>though most of you think Christians can't think. Most of you who make
>these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
>think their gods on computers. But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
>in college. So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
>not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
>
>First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no matter
>what. Then when there are just atheists talking about atheism, the subject
>matter is about the level of a first grader. Anyway, here are some questions
>for you atheists. I'm just curious about your way of thinking and I bet
>I will find contradictions upon many of your answers about your "atheistic
>faith." It seems that none of you atheists ever agrees with each other. You
>all have some far-fetched ideal of what you believe or don't believe and have
>nothing to back it up. Okay, I'll shut up. Just read on...
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>1. What is your definition of faith?
An excuse for belief without supporting evidence.
>
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
The construction "faith requires ..." seems incorrect, but I do think
that things believed on the basis of "faith" are really things
believed without rational support.
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
No. History is based on the evidence of various kinds of records.
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
No, because the geological evidence shows clearly that there was no
worldwide flood. The OT flood story is a myth.
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Mountains are created by such things as rock being thrust upward
as a result of plate tectonics. The rock at the top of a mountain
in many places is rock that was once at the bottom of a sea.
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
No.
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
No, in fact, I know that statement to be a blatant falsehood.
(I'm sending this person a copy of my "Fabulous Prophecies of
the Messiah.")
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
Sounds like your knowledge of evolution comes entirely from the Jack
Chick tract "Big Daddy?". The statement implied in this question is
false. (What, by the way, are these alleged "three theories of
evolution?)
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
Another quote from the Chick tract. People use these terms when making
statements which are fully or partially speculative, as in when discussing
the mechanisms (not the fact) of evolution.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
I believe parts of the Bible to be true. It contains statements of
historical fact, poetry, myth, advice, statements of Jewish law, and
so forth. I have read the Bible in its entirety.
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
There are many. I don't believe that Joshua had God stop the movement
of the sun through the sky, I don't believe that Jesus resurrected, I
don't believe that Christians can drink poisons without harm, I don't
believe that the earth is supported by water, etc. (There's probably
more in the Bible that I disbelieve than there is that I believe.)
> * What do you believe in the bible?
I believe that the general history in such books as Chronicles and
Kings is accurate, though there are many mistakes and exaggerations
to be found in them as well.
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
Not applicable, see above.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
I have no single guide or frame of reference, but I rely upon the
information I have acquired from numerous sources, some of which
are traditions passed on by my parents, others of which have been
formulated by myself or others.
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
There is no god in my mind, or anywhere else. (That's why I'm an
atheist.)
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
I am judged all the time, by other people.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
I imagine that cloning or perhaps even genetic engineering from scratch
will become possible in the future. Life is not produced at conception,
life is present *before* conception--sperm and egg cells are individually
alive.
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
You're confusing being alive with being a person. Human life is
dependent upon a beating heart, but a beating heart is not sufficient
for personhood--the brain-dead can have beating hearts (in fact, hearts
can be removed from a body and continue to beat for a short time).
(A beating heart is not necessary for personhood, either, since hearts
are routinely stopped in persons undergoing transplants.)
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
I would engage in some kind of punishment, though I think positive
reinforcement is better than negative.
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
Because God is an omniscient omnipotent being who intentionally
created us imperfectly when he could have done otherwise.
There you go, no flames. (Though you probably deserve them.)
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Chris Lee
>
>Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this newsgroup
>for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
A bit like this posting: a loaded questionnaire that makes it fairly
obvious that you can't understand other peoples' positions.
>
>I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
>hasn't a clue to life. Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
>though most of you think Christians can't think. Most of you who make
>these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
>think their gods on computers. But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
>in college. So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
>not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
What high horse is that?
>
>First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no matter
>what. Then when there are just atheists talking about atheism, the subject
Not true. Only when the christian tries to impose his views on this group.
I wouldn't do the same to any of the religious groups, so why should they
do it to this group.
>matter is about the level of a first grader. Anyway, here are some questions
>for you atheists. I'm just curious about your way of thinking and I bet
>I will find contradictions upon many of your answers about your "atheistic
>faith." It seems that none of you atheists ever agrees with each other. You
>all have some far-fetched ideal of what you believe or don't believe and have
>nothing to back it up. Okay, I'll shut up. Just read on...
Maybe it's because atheism is the absence of gods/religion/faith/whatever.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>1. What is your definition of faith?
I don't have one, but if I it sufficiently bothered me, I might look in
a dictionary.
>
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
Never really thought about it.
>
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
No, history isn't. The bible is just a set of stories and legends. Just
like sacred writings of other religions. Archaeologists might take some
interest in the stories, but not to the exclusion of everything else.
>
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
Actually Columbus wasn't the first. There was a Viking whose name I
forget. Also the Celts were reputed to have reached it. Where did all
the water (a) come from? (b) go afterwards? No, it's a legend.
>
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Plate upthrust? But then I'm not a geologist.
>
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
No.
>
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
Any religion can claim that. Especially the only evidence is after the
event, in the sacred writings.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
Do they? Which three are they? Please provide evidence for this. Oh, and
by-the-way, do it on talk.origins, not alt.atheism
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
What is an "evolutionist"? It is a word that I had never heard before
I discovered the US creation movement. They invented it. Your use of
it tells us plenty about you.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
Stupid question. This is alt.atheism. (Yes, parts of it)
>
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
>
> * What do you believe in the bible?
>
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
I see no reason to believe IN the bible. Some of the historic bits may
have some facts behind them, but these have gone through so many
translations. Which parts of the bible do you believe? If you say "all
of it", then all anybody has to do is point out one of the many
contradictions (eg the old testament - the order of creation, eg the
new testament - how did Judas Iscariot die), and then ask which bits you
believe, and how you know that they are the bits to believe.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
>
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
>
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
The bible has been used to justify both morals and atrocities. As have
other holy books. I was raised with the ethic: How would you like somebody
to do that to you? This results in a far better person than: Don't do that
because you will be punished (even though you might want to do it).
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
>
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with alt.atheism. But....
Stupid question. Think about what you have just said. Where did you get
this crap? How many weeks in the development of the fetus does it take
before the heart develops? Does the heart beat until then? I also don't
know anybody at all who believes that life only starts after
birth, whether or not they are in the pro-life movement. Do you?
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
>
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
I'm not a parent, but I suspect that I would try to explain to the child
what is right and wrong, before punishing him/her. As to your god, that
is another matter. I don't share your delusion.
>
>
>EDITORIAL:
>
>So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
>a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
>people to die and bla bla bla. The fact is, that God gave us a free will to
>basically do what we want. We can choose between good and evil. And many
>times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world. Not
>because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen. Do you
>think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
>get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
>that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
>He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and repent
>from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
>understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
>
>The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
>pride. To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
>can't do that. That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
>you are. I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
>since I'm a Christian. The fact is, you will face judgement day without
>knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
>and it will be displayed before you and God. Everything you do will come
>back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
>Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
>for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
Please justify these remarks without reference to the holy book of your
particular religion.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
>stupid replies...
Consider yourself flamed, but that is not because you are a Christian. It
is because you have made stupid, unsupported assertions. You have also
made them on the wrong board. Also you have tried to sermonise. How would
you like it if I posted something equivalent and opposite (and with just
as many holes) on a Christian board?
>
>- Mark Barry
>NASA/Edwards AFB
Why did I bother to respond to this garbage? If you had anything sensible
or different to offer than other people who have posted this kind of crap
then it might have got a different response.
This is alt.atheism, a forum for atheists. We get pissed off when idiots
who can't even argue their positions sensibly post garbage like this.
Chris Lee
David E. Hollingsworth
this. :-)
Enough preamble.
In article <1992May5.1...@news.dfrf.nasa.gov>
bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry) writes:
>
> Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this
> newsgroup for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty
> stupid.
Perhaps you reading the wrong articles. I find some subjects here
facinating, and, quite frankly, much better for "spiritual" growth than
s.r.c.
> I am a system admin with NASA with a degree.
> I am not some Joe Smoe who hasn't a clue to life.
Logical Problem (LP): Simply because you have a degree, a job with
computers, and work at NASA does not mean that you will choose to think
about everything intelligently.
Christian (C): But do you go to church and read the Bible?
Atheist (A): I've met many sys admins who have degrees, work for big name
companies, yet really can't think on their own at all. Imitation can get
you far in life.
> Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even though most of you
> think Christians can't think. Most of you who make these accusations
> against Christians are usually college students who think their gods
> on computers. But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be in college.
LP: 1 circumstantial, and 2 abusive ad hominem sentences. Throw in some
overgeneralization as well.
C: Would this not make Christians in college stupid, too? If I read
s.r.c., does this place me with those you claim "think their gods on
computers". (I can't parse it, to be honest with you.)
A: I choose to believe that no gods exist at all, not that some mystical
experience with computers occurs. Not all hard-core hackers are atheists
(though most are), and not all Christians abstain from intensive computer
usage.
> So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and not be
> p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
LP: More ad hominem attacks.
C: If I get p.o.'ed, what does that mean?
A: Just exactly _who_ is on a high horse here? You are the guy making
statements about college students not being "smart". Moreover, if you are
open minded, you might have gotten more out of the articles you've read
here.
> First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no
> matter what. Then when there are just atheists talking about atheism,
> the subject matter is about the level of a first grader.
LP: Overgeneralization, abusive ad hominem.
C: If you want a copy of a posting by a Christian that didn't get flamed,
I can mail one to you.
A: This is alt.atheism. If you post a christian-oriented document, you
are going to start a discussion. If the subject matter is uninteresting
or gibberish, the metasubject is going to be attacked.
> Anyway, here are some questions for you atheists. I'm just curious
> about your way of thinking and I bet I will find contradictions upon
> many of your answers about your "atheistic faith." It seems that none
> of you atheists ever agrees with each other. You all have some
> far-fetched ideal of what you believe or don't believe and have nothing
> to back it up. Okay, I'll shut up. Just read on...
LP: Your assumption (that there IS such a thing as an "atheistic faith")
is false. Your assertion that atheists have nothing to back up what they
"believe" is not backed up.
C: Probably no more than contradictions than I have seen in different
Christians. Does this invalidate Christianity, Mark? If anything is a
"far-fetched" ideal, living without sin is! Yet that is what we strive
for, right?
A: Atheists, as a group _can_ be inconsistent, because there is no
omnipresent, unifying thing telling us what to think. If there was a god,
don't you think he'd want his followers to be of one faith? Now, as we
know that this hasn't happened, what does this say about the premise?
Moreover, it is silly of you to suggest if atheism is false, then this
means christianity is true.
> 1. What is your definition of faith?
C: Assuming the truth of something for which less evidence exists than
for facts.
A: There is a continuum between tautologies and their negations; faith is
among those things that are in the middle.
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
C: It can be.
A: Not defintionally; visual stimuli are not the only thing that err.
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
LP: H is F and B if F does not imply that B is H.
C: History is somewhat based on faith. The Bible is also something of a
historical document. But the Bible is more than that as well, which
suggests that the authors may have had more than preserving accurate
information in mind.
A: History requires little faith and doesn't try to get your money or
hand you leaflets.
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
C: I do not believe in the latter; it is mythical, not historical. There
are several independent documents that suggest that Columbus's voyage took
place; if there was a global deluge, somehow a lot of societies missed it.
A: No, it's not. There is no reason to question Columbus's voyage; if
Columbus was named Fritz, slept with cattle, and _really_ landed in India
after all, it would be interesting, and perhaps cause problems for
historians, but no one bases their moral system on Columbus, so in some
sense it "doesn't really matter".
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
C: Never heard about it, not even from die-hard Creationists. Try
posting to t.o., if you believe this evidence is strong.
A: If the question is stupid, the response cannot both not be stupid and
directly answer the question.
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
LP: Loaded question.
C: For the most part, no. There are statements in the Bible that appear
prophetic and are assertions that may have been true at the time the
document was written, so for these I imagine I should say "yes".
A: Of course not.
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
C: This statement has no theological foundation that I am aware of. I
opened my Bible to a random page near the middle, and found, on that page,
the following: "I will make the land a desolate waste, and her proud
strength will come to an end, and the mountains of Israel will become
desolate so that no one will cross them." If this has occurred, please
let me know about it. Oh, and I didn't include a reference because you
claim that "all but one" have been fulfilled, so that surely must include
this one.
A: If I wrote a book, and really wanted someone to believe one aspect of
it, you'd be sure that I'd write it such that it would include that thing
in a set of predictions, and then "show" that all the other predictions
were true.
> 2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
LP: Loaded question.
C: What "three theories"? I am unaware of any such things. Evolution is
not against Christianity.
A: The "theory" of evolution is not in dispute. As evidence arises to
invalidate a particular theory, and new, falsifiable theory arises to
account for the new data. Science is not about conclusive claims of
proof, it is about gaining better approximations.
> 3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like
> "perhaps"-"probably"- "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds
> like they are guessing.
C: That's funny; every time I talk to Creationists about particular
subjects, they tend to say things like: "Well, you say that this can't
happen, but you assume it happened like this. But maybe...", or "I just
trust that God would have made it work" or "No, you're thinking about it
wrong, he (Moses, I assume) didn't mean that, he meant this...". The fact
that you want things to be more certain shows your weak faith.
A: Again, science isn't about certainty; this isn't "guessing", but
forming theories that are falsifiable, fit with the evidence, and rely on
a minimum of assumptions. Most of the "visible work" in science is
conjecture, which is perhaps why you feel that it is so vague; once a
theory is generally accepted, there is no need to be as careful talking
about it, unless new information arrives.
> 4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
C: Yes to both.
A: No, and yes, respectively.
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
C: Well, for one, the creation story.
A: Nearly all of it.
> * What do you believe in the bible?
C: That's a lot to write about! How about just saying, "It is inspired."
A: I have no reason to believe any of the particulars; it seems likely
that something happened, but doubtless not what was written!
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
C: This doesn't really apply to me.
A: Senses and logic, both of which are fallible.
> 5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
C: I don't trust the Bible for everything; moral standards today should
not be what they were two thousand years ago. I believe, for example,
that slavery is immoral, and women are as much associated with God as men,
and that demons should not be cast into pigs. :-)
A: Logic; if you used the Bible in the Prisoner's Dilemma, you would get
crushed. If something cannot be logically shown to be either moral or
immoral, then there is no point in assuming either.
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
LP: Loaded question.
C: God wants us to live as He wants us to, defintionaly. However, it's
not immediatly obvious how God wants us to live. (See the top of this
post.) Are we to drink poison? Apparently to some, God thinks so. Don't
assume that your interpretation of the Bible is correct. All we have is
our minds and these words. We have to figure out what God wants, and a
little bit of us is going to rub off into that. That's being human.
A: This question does not apply to me.
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your
actions?
C:A: Yes, every day. If I hit my friend, he may well hit me back.
> 6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
LP: I don't even want to begin.
C: You appear to be sure that there isn't; when it occurs, what will
happen to you? I hope that your faith will not be damaged too much;
likely not--you will probably deny the incident really applies.
A: There _is_ a way for human life to begin without intercourse, so that
clearly isn't a requirement. However, having the sperm to inseminate the
egg in the first place is required, so I guess one could claim that life
begins there too. Really, I think this is silly; arguments of this sort
attempt to play on emotional responces to the word life by formalizing it.
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
LP: *sigh* I give up. You won't hear from me again.
C: I've never heard a pro-choice person claim this; just that
sufficiently human-like life begins some time after conception. Maybe
I've haven't been around the radicals you have.
A: Life isn't the issue here; we kill creatures for food every day in
this country that are much more like human beings that inseminated eggs
are. Besides, if suggest that life is somehow magically associated with a
pumping heart, you are undermining your own argument.
> 7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
LP: Argh! Okay, I promised.
C: Christian parents discipline, not punish. If God punished, then He is
violating the reasons he created free will.
A: I have no problem punishing a child, but this is because I am not
omnieverything. If I could do all, I would have it such that the child
would never err in the first place.
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
C: This question doesn't reply to me, but I feel so strong about it, I
needed to reply: God doesn't punish us, and it is theologically ill of you
to suggest that he does.
A: He doesn't.
> So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was
> really a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and
> for innocent people to die and bla bla bla.
C: These are obvious problems with your version of Christianity, and you
really should take them more seriously.
A: I would agree with the position you are ridiculing.
> The fact is, that God gave us a free will to basically do what we want.
> We can choose between good and evil. And many times man chooses evil
> and that is why there is evil in the world. Not because it it "God's
> fault" but because we allowed it to happen.
C: Ah, I see. Natural disasters happen because of sin. Children that
die at birth died because someone sinned; Job's friends were right, he was
wrong. All is made clear now.
A: This can be used to validate anything.
> Do you think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil
> things and not get punished?
C: Yes. Correction and punishment are not the same thing.
A: Mu.
> No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want that. He
> want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
> He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and
> repent from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is
> that so hard to understand? God works the same way we would discipline
> our own children.
C: God does not act in human ways, and it is inappropriate to suggest
that he does. He has the ability to not punish without performing a
mystic ritual. It is not hard to understand, it is just false.
A: Your God is curious indeed, to be both the illness and the cure.
> The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too
> much pride. To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and
> most of you can't do that. That would mean you're not perfect like
> you probably think you are.
C: Pride is possible irrespectible of position.
A: I certainly do not think that I am perfect, nor do I know anyone who
does.
> I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
> since I'm a Christian. The fact is, you will face judgement day without
> knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and
> do and it will be displayed before you and God. Everything you do will
> come back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by
> accepting Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all
> held accountable for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
C: But you just said that if I accepted Jesus, that I would be an
exception! You are reducing God to a failsafe in case you err. You make
him sound like an executioner who will only spare your life if you bribe
him. You turn Christianity into a religion about the afterlife, instead
of a religion about this one. You cannot accept that others will do evil
and get away with it, so you imagine a reality where "justice is served".
You ignore the metaphorical meanings of the Bible, and reduce it to a
comic book of a war between God and sin--a war that God set up in the
first place. Were Jesus here in the flesh, he would rip apart your
beliefs and tell you to find love.
A: Assertion is not proof, and your assertions such that I find your god
quite unbelievable.
> Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
> stupid replies...
C: Is "I disagree" stupid?
A: Flames? Are we still talking about your hell?
> - Mark Barry
> NASA/Edwards AFB
Mark wants security, and science and truth fail in that respect,
so he dismisses them. Unfortunately, God does not give 100% security to
Christians, either, but if he works hard enough, Mark can juggle the
problems around so that he feels happy. I suppose that is good in some
sense, but now he is trying to tell others that they are wrong. Mark
likes things simple, so that he doesn't have to deal with complex
problems, like justice in an unjust world, or when a human becomes a
human, or when the human race itself began. Mark admonishes the reader to
have an open mind, but asks for replies that aren't "stupid" to him,
suggests that atheists are all just college students who worship
computers, and asserts, without proof, that things must be a particular
matter, such as God "punishing" humankind. He does not care about truth
as much as he does about his dogma. He prefers anything that _might_
validate his faith to anything that might enlighten him.
C: When Mark find out about all the things in which he is wrong, he will
curse himself and pray that God may save him despite his error. (Which,
of course, would be missing the point.)
A: Mark will never find out that he is wrong, because he will die rather
than give up his precious.
--
David Hollingsworth star...@bard.mit.edu Send me NeXTMail or kill me
Colman Reilly
>Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this newsgroup
>for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
Thanks, nice to know you're listening.
>I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
>hasn't a clue to life. Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
>though most of you think Christians can't think. Most of you who make
>these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
>think their gods on computers. But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
>in college. So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
>not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
Well bully for you. In NASA? And with a degree? I _am_ impressed. You must
be _so_ smart.
So I'm an undergrad. So what, precisely? You're right, you are going to get
flamed, but for being an arrogant f*ck-wit, not for being a theist.
>First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no matter
>what. Then when there are just atheists talking about atheism, the subject
>matter is about the level of a first grader.
As opposed to the stratospheric level of discussion at NASA I assume.
>Anyway, here are some questions
>for you atheists. I'm just curious about your way of thinking and I bet
>I will find contradictions upon many of your answers about your "atheistic
>faith."
There is no atheist faith, oh clear thinking one. I thought you said you'd
been reading this. I mean, it's all first grade stuff so you must of
understood it. Or maybe not.
>It seems that none of you atheists ever agrees with each other.
Of course not. If we did we wouldn't need this news group, would we?
>You
>all have some far-fetched ideal of what you believe or don't believe and have
>nothing to back it up. Okay, I'll shut up. Just read on...
_We_ have a far-fetched ideal? You're a christian? Far-fetched? Ha.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1. What is your definition of faith?
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
No, it's a myth. Just a youngish one so it's closer to history than,say,
Greek myths.
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
What? That's a comparison? When'd youlast use your ability to think?
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Plate tectonics. Go read geology books. Think. Enjoy.
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
No.
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
Rubbish. See previous discussions. Or would you like it in single
syllables?
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
Because none of them are completely right. Go read Darwin. _He_ said his
stuff wasn't quite right. Think. You're not you know.
>3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
It's science. They can't prove stuff 100% so they say so. Unlike religion,
which can't prove it at all and claims it as fact. Back to first grade
foryou I guess.
>4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
Of course I believe in it. I've seen copies. I've read it.
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
The old testament. The new testament.
> * What do you believe in the bible?
Zippo.
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
Real life. The bit you can see. As little as possible.
>5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
A hodge-podge of things that seem like a good idea. Sort of like theists.
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
There isn't.
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
Only by me. Or society, if I really piss it off.
>6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
Maybe. Prove it. No. Oh, you're confusing atheism with pro-choice'ean. Silly
boy. You're not so smart. There are such things as pro-choice Xians and
anti-abortion atheists you know.
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
You's talking cr*p kid. Because it is. It grows that way.
>7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
Only when they were below a certain age.
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
Because he doesn't exist. And even if he did he would have no right to
interfere in my affairs, because I don't want him to.
>EDITORIAL:
Ooohh goodie, more wisdom from the great and mature one.
>So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
>a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
>people to die and bla bla bla. The fact is, that God gave us a free will to
>basically do what we want.
No he didn't. He ain't there.
>We can choose between good and evil. And many
[condesending theist cr*p deleted]
>understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
I'm not a child. Are you? Do you require your fifty year old child to do as
you say? No? Go away. Dumb argument.
>The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
>pride.
[tears hair out in frustration]
>To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
>can't do that. That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
>you are.
Actually, all that's required is that you can believe some pretty incredible
things. I'm not perfect and I don't expect myself to be. But I don't sin,
because there's no such thing in my book. It's defined by religion so I
don't have it.
>I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
>since I'm a Christian.
No, I think you're pretty arrogant, because you're a Xian that "knows THE
truth".
>The fact is, you will face judgement day without
>knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
>and it will be displayed before you and God. Everything you do will come
>back in full living color.
Wrong.
>But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
>Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
>for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
You know something? I'm quite happy that even if there is a judgement day,
which there won't be, that I can stand tall and say "Yep, that was me, I did
that. I did my best. What about you?" I'm afraid that "God" has a lot to
answer for.
>Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
>stupid replies...
Well given the drivel we were given to work with . .
>- Mark Barry
>NASA/Edwards AFB
Idiot. Glad it's not my tax dollars.
I quote again:
>I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
>hasn't a clue to life. Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
>though most of you think Christians can't think. Most of you who make
>these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
>think their gods on computers. But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
>in college. So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
>not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
Get a clue, Joe.
--
Colman Reilly (cre...@maths.tcd.ie) [+353-(0)1-7022280]
c/o School of Mathematics,18.05 Westland Row,Trinity College,Dublin.
Eric Rescorla
>for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
>I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
>hasn't a clue to life.
This is a non sequiter, but I'll take your word for it.
>these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
>think their gods on computers.
Lesse. I'm a college student, yes. Kent Sandvik isn't. Ken Arromdee isn't.
I don't think that Mathew(Keeper of the FAQ) is. Gerry Roston isn't.
Mikel Evins isn't. Perhaps you are misreading the evidence.
> But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
>in college.
Huh? You ever try to get a job as a professional scientist without
a college degree AND a PhD? Nontrivial, let me tell you.
This is not a good start. Two errors in the second paragraph alone.
>First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no matter
>what.
Not true.
Ron House, for instance, does not usually get flamed. People who do
get flamed are Christians who try to proselytize.
> Then when there are just atheists talking about atheism, the subject
>matter is about the level of a first grader. Anyway, here are some questions
>for you atheists. I'm just curious about your way of thinking and I bet
>I will find contradictions upon many of your answers about your "atheistic
>faith."
Sure. We disagree on a lot. Atheism simply means that we DON'T believe
in god.(Or that we believe that God does not exist, depending on if you
ask Joe Francis or me.) In any case, that leaves a lot of room for disagreem
ent.
Secondly, atheism is not a faith.
>1. What is your definition of faith?
>
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
Who knows? Who cares?
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
History per se or the study of history? The Bible is some history
but a lot of non-history too. 1 Peter, for instance, is not history.
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
The flood has been pretty clearly shown to be total garbage. I suggest
you head over to talk.origins and check it out.
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
I wasn't aware they did. Who is "they?"
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
I believe there were prophecies made.
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
I didn't know it, because I don't think it's true. I've read the
Bible and I'm familiar with a fair number of prophecies, and it's
not at all obvious to me that they've been fulfilled. In passing
I note that it is possible--and many have--read Jesus as saying
he would be back about 1900 years ago.
>2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
Which three theories of evolution?
You really should take this to talk.origins.
>3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
Because that's the way scientists talk. Science is error correcting, but
there is always the possibility that there was an error. Some things we're
sure beyond a reasonable doubt about--that the earth is ~4 billion years
old, for instance. Some we're not.
>4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
I believe that the Bible exists. I can see one sitting next to me.
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
The list is rather long. For starters, I don't believe that man was
created ex nihilo anywhere on the order of 6000 years ago.
> * What do you believe in the bible?
The list is rather long here too. I believe there once was a king
named Herod, for starters.
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
I do believe some things, so I won't answer this question.
>5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
I do what makes me happy.
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
There isn't.
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
If the cops catch me.
>6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
Putting a sperm and an egg together doesn't produce human life.
The sperm and egg are already alive.
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
This belongs in talk.abortion. Why don't you take it there?
>7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
The only reason I would punish a child is because the universe
has certain rules that they will in the main be happier if they
follow. Punishment can help a child learn to follow those rules.
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
Because God designed the rules of the universe. He could have designed
rules that would have made us happy in any case.
>The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
>pride.
I'm glad you're a mind reader. I have no faith because I don't see any
reason I should.
>you are. I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
>since I'm a Christian.
No, I think you're an arrogant self-righteous fool. Don't you think
we've heard this a hundred times before?
> The fact is, you will face judgement day without
>knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
>and it will be displayed before you and God.
Interesting "fact." Do you have any evidence for this "fact?"
>back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
>Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accounta
>for our actions. You are no exception to the rules. ble
I agree that I am no exception to the rules. I simply disagree with
you about what the rules are.
-Ekr
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider resc...@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry We hack anything.
Golden Anniversary: It's bad beer, but it's beer.
Les Fister
>for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
A question: why do you continue to stay? Why not simply drop this group?
>I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
>hasn't a clue to life. Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
>though most of you think Christians can't think. Most of you who make
>these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
>think their gods on computers. But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
>in college. So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
>not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
I am neither a college student, nor a computer "god." It seems that it is you
who is perched upon the high horse.
>First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no matter
>what.
Funny, you'd think this was a group for atheists or something (BTW...I would
consider myself more of an agnostic than an atheist).
>Then when there are just atheists talking about atheism, the subject
>matter is about the level of a first grader.
I disagree...although all groups have their share of moronic discussions, I
have learned a great deal from alt.atheism.
>Anyway, here are some questions
>for you atheists. I'm just curious about your way of thinking and I bet
>I will find contradictions upon many of your answers about your "atheistic
>faith."
Yes, because it is open-minded and not locked into a particular dogmatic
system.
>It seems that none of you atheists ever agrees with each other.
Yes, we definitely lack the agreements you find between, say, Catholicism,
fundamemtalists, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Oh, they aren't all true
Christians? Silly me...
>You
>all have some far-fetched ideal of what you believe or don't believe and have
>nothing to back it up.
>Okay, I'll shut up. Just read on...
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>1. What is your definition of faith?
Faith is a trust in something which is outside of my experience or beyond my
control. I have faith in a pilot, for example, to be sober and experienced in
flying aircraft. This is due to statistical information which shows air travel
to be safe. Yes, sometimes planes do crash. With the evidence, however, I
choose to fly.
>
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
I have faith in atomic theory and that this computer actually does what it is
supposed to do, despite the fact that I cannot see an electron buzzing about in
a semiconductor. So yes, with evidence I can accept the unseen.
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
In true form, history is based on evidence. If I desired to, I could backtrace
and witness much of this evidence myself. A great deal of historians agree on
certain issues, however, and I can accept this consensus.
Yes, many events in the Bible have historical evidence. But the important ones
to religion - revelations, miracles, etc - do not. Many events written in
Homer's work were factual as well.
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
The fact that the Americas are now inhabited show that, at some point, they
were discovered. As for Columbus, some people question the validity of such
written history and, with evidence, my mind will change as well.
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Stupid, no, but perhaps ignorant: I have never heard such a claim. Please
supply traceable information so I can investigate this issue.
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
No. After 2,000+ years, almost anything will eventually come about. But if I
accept Biblical prophecy, I must accept others such as Nostradamus who have
shown as equal a foretelling.
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
According to "him," some of the disciples will still be alive when he does.
Perhaps Mel Brooks' "2000 year old man" ISN'T a joke???
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
They *prove* nothing...they are theories (see below).
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
Again, these are theories. They are made when a large amount of evidence
supports a hypothesis. They are *not* laws which are to be accepted without
question, and we say "perhaps" because it is what we mean. We, unlike you, do
not claim ultimate, unquestionable truth.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
Although I do not believe the Bible as the unerring word of "God", I do not
leave out the possibility that it *may* be. I just wonder why God is so
confused and erratic, that's all. (Yes, I have.)
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
The ones between the covers (sorry, I had to). Actually, to me it is an issue
of acceptance. As stated earlier, I cannot accept the miracles and revelations
without pragmatic, repeatable experience. A just God should offer such.
> * What do you believe in the bible?
I believe in the events which have historical evidence (and again I refer to
that which still shows to be true. An event witnessed by a mere dozen people
cannot hold up historically withou similar observations from separate sources).
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
I believe life is beautiful. I believe in love. I believe in human potential.
And I believe that, if a God exists, that he will make himself known to me in
a manner I can accept.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
I use several standards, including our Constitution and my personal
philosophical ethics.
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
The God in my mind will let me know what "it" wants. "It" would not want a
scripture-spouting robot which lowers the opinion of "it's" creation (I am
*not* calling you such).
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
On a humanistic level, yes...if I steal a car, I will be fairly judged (I
hope!). On a "Godly" level, no...I consider judgement in the Christian
viewpoint as sadistic and not the workings of a loving creator.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
The issue is not that of life but that of human rights. As for me, the issue
is that of one person to control the choice of another (I do not wish to get
into an argument on abortion, although I think my viewpoint would surprise
you).
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
I have no children, and any answer would be hypothetical without experience. I
certainly would not cause them to suffer.
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
Forever? In a fiery torture? For a measly number of years with no proof that
such laws should be followed? I consider it far more than wrong.
>EDITORIAL:
>
>So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
>a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
>people to die and bla bla bla.
You must have sourced this out. I can't see a NASA SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR
writing "bla bla bla."
>The fact is, that God gave us a free will to
>basically do what we want. We can choose between good and evil. And many
>times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world. Not
>because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen. Do you
>think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
>get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
>that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
>He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and repent
>from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
>understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
If God is so just, so caring, I wish he would give us some evidence.
Unquestionable, unshakeable evidence for which faith is not required. This is
God we are talking about here. It should be a piece of cake. But we continue
to live in a world with conflicting religious systems and beliefs.
>The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
>pride.
No, it is that I lack evidence.
>To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
>can't do that.
>That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
>you are.
I am far from perfect. I am flawed in many ways. All that without a God.
>I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
>since I'm a Christian. The fact is, you will face judgement day without
>knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
>and it will be displayed before you and God.
And you thought Rodney King got a bad deal :^)
>Everything you do will come
>back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
>Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
>for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
I cannot accept Jesus unless he presents himself in a fashion which I *can*
accept. To see "Christians" roll their eyes in joy for the eternal torture of
everyone else truly makes me wonder about their "God."
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
>stupid replies...
>
>- Mark Barry
>NASA/Edwards AFB
If you learn anything from this, let it be the awareness that not everyone that
opposes your viewpoint is egotistical and close-minded. Like many of the
people in this group, I have contacted, investigated and even tried
Christianity. I found an empty shell with offered nothing but a brutal vision
of the world and it's people by a vengeful, hating God.
Eric Rescorla
>In article <1992May5.1...@news.dfrf.nasa.gov> bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry) writes:
>I am a sysadmin with a degree. Big deal! That means I know something
>of AIX, a bunch of software, and keeping my users happy. My CS degree
Frank, admitting that you're an AIX user is not a good way to establish
credentials or intelligence.
Leonard Lensink
>Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this newsgroup
>for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
[Curriculum vitae and wild accusations deleted]
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1. What is your definition of faith?
How about: Strong belief in unprovable propositions? (Sorry, I haven't
thought about it before and this one seems suitable to me.)
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
I am not sure I understand your question. Do you mean that believing
something your eyes can't see requires faith or that belief is only
faith when it involves some unseen entity?
Anyway, I don't agree with neither proposition.
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
Yes, I think history is based upon faith, but not upon more faith
than usual science is based. I regard history as a science, so it
doesn't make much sense to me to say that the bible is a form of
history. I think however that you mean that a literal interpretation
of the bible is history. If this is the case I strongly disagree,
because it doesn't qualify as science.
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
Well, see above for an answer. I have a counterquestion though. Do you
believe Homerus' Illias is history?
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
This, I think, is due to plate-tectonics.
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
No. Do you believe in Nostradamus' prophecies?
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
I think someone on the net (was it mr. Lippard?) posted a refutation
of this claim some time ago. I am neither interested nor capable of
adressing this issue.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
Hell, I wouldn't know if this is true, I wouldn't even know if there
are three theories of evolution. But isn't that kinda what one would
expect from competing theories?
Check out talk.origins if you want to get this question answered.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
I doubt that scientists always use those words, but if that's the case
then it's because science doesn't reveal an absolute truth, just a
best known theory.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
I do believe that's it's a compilation of books written by early christians,
to defend and spread their beliefs.
Oh, and yes, I've read parts of the bible. (I went to a catholic high
school)
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
For starters, any event contradicting known laws of nature. Like
resurrection, walking on water and similar miracles.
> * What do you believe in the bible?
Uhm, difficult one. I do believe the description of the setting might
be accurate. But it's hard to tell, afterall it's a heavily biased
source.
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
Does one have to believe anything?
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
My conscience.
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
I am constantly held accountable/judged for my actions by my
relatives, friends and other people in my surrounding. Oh, and not to
forget our big brother, the state.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
How can you be so sure? Because we can't do it NOW doesn't mean we
can't do it in the future.
No, life isn't produced at conception, not unless you define life as
beginning at conception.
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
I don't think that life starts after birth either. Life is such a
fuzzy concept that there is no clear definition possible.
I think you are making a bit of a mistake here. If all living humans
have beating hearts doesn't mean that all 'humans' with beating hearts
are living.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
I would punish them uptill a certain age.
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
Well, first of all, because we aren't children and God isn't a human.
Secondly, if I had children I wouldn't wait thirty years and then beat
them to death just because he/she did something wrong a long time ago.
The whole idea of punishment only works when applied immedeately.
>EDITORIAL:
>So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
>a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
>people to die and bla bla bla. The fact is, that God gave us a free will to
>basically do what we want. We can choose between good and evil. And many
>times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world. Not
>because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen. Do you
>think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
>get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
>that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
>He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and repent
>from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
>understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
Well, as I said, he sure doesn't work the same way as I would
discipline my children. Why am I not struck by lightning everytime I
commit an offense?
Anyway, I have not contributed to the particular thread you are
referring to, so I didn't follow it intensively, but my impression was
that if god was so benevolent, why didn't he create us with free
will, yet unable to choose wrong? I don't think a satisfying answer
can be given to that question.
>The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
>pride. To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
>can't do that. That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
>you are. I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
>since I'm a Christian. The fact is, you will face judgement day without
>knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
>and it will be displayed before you and God. Everything you do will come
>back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
>Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
>for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
I think you have a completely wrong image of atheists. I think that
most atheist damned well know that they make mistakes and that they
are not perfect. I know I do.
I even think that we are on moral higher ground. Afterall, we are
going to be judged for our actions. But you try to chicken out by
accepting Jesus. Are you afraid to be judged?
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
>stupid replies...
>- Mark Barry
>NASA/Edwards AFB
I am really amazed, how can you be so hostile? If you have read
alt.atheism carefully you would have noticed that the flames are for
the ones that barge in and try to convert us by giving some
bible-quotes or threatening us with eternal damnation.
It must have occurred to you that most atheist have thought their
position over and don't feel the need for any higher being.
I, for instance, went to a catholic high school. I had to follow
religious classes overthere. Allthough I must credit them with giving
a fair share to all major religions, I must say that in five years they
didn't came up with a single argument which forced me to reconsider my
position. So don't expect us to break down and cry, just because you
come up with some (rhetorical) questins, which the real net.people
probably have seen a thousand times before.
My apologies for the times I might have misrepresented other atheists'
views.
Leonard Lensink | Cartesian mosquito: "They itch, therefor
amateur-atheist | I exist!"
Jonathan W Newton
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
hasn't a clue to life.
Me:
Working at NASA doesn't make you a master of philosophy, but I'm sure most people
will give you the benefit of the doubt.
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
though most of you think Christians can't think.
Me:
I think they can, and I think alot do. I doubt you'd be a sys admin if you
didn't think. The problem is that most christians cease to think when it
comes to issues of religion. You have to have FAITH, right?
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
Most of you who make
these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
think their gods on computers. But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
in college. So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
Me:
I think you are making a very prejudiced statement. The only time people in this
group get p.o.'ed is when christians get on here and preach or post something
inflammatory (For all you "atheists".... is a good example). If we are smart,
then where would we be if not in college? Did NASA take you straight out of
high school? You had to get some training somewhere, didn't you? I would make
a NASA joke about now, but I believe in the program and think it has enough bad
press as it is.
Furthermore, don't prejudge us. Don't tell us to get off of our high horse when
we haven't even had the chance to read your article. We haven't even had the
chance to get onto our high horse yet.
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no matter
what. Then when there are just atheists talking about atheism, the subject
matter is about the level of a first grader. Anyway, here are some questions
for you atheists. I'm just curious about your way of thinking and I bet
I will find contradictions upon many of your answers about your "atheistic
faith." It seems that none of you atheists ever agrees with each other. You
all have some far-fetched ideal of what you believe or don't believe and have
nothing to back it up. Okay, I'll shut up. Just read on...
Me:
Meet my "high horse" Fungool. Gitty yup, Fungool! Your observation strikes me
as entirely too generalized. People do get flamed on this news group, as on
about any newsgroup. We don't have it in for christians. As long as people
ask intelligent qeustions or make intelligent (if mislead) observations, everyone
gets along fine. Sometimes people get mad when others post who OBVIOUSLY haven't
read the FAQ. After a while, it gets frustrating. "The subject matter is about
the level of a first grader"???? What's your "high horse" called? There are alot
of people on this newsgroup who I don't agree with, but the arguements they use
are made on a far higher level of comprehension than anything you've mailed me
in the last few weeks of our correspondence. If you don't want to get flamed,
don't post something inflamatory. So what if we don't agree with each other.
All atheism is is a lack of beleif in god (in the broadest sense). It upholds
nothing else. Obviously you have been rather oblivious in your readings. Gee,
all the sects of christianity get along REAL well. They never disagree on
anything. Yeah, Ireland is a genuine "Happy-Fun Land". WE HAVE A FAR FETCHED
IDEAL? All we have is a lack of belief. It is nothing grand, nor do we claim it
to be. We don't have to back anything up; we aren't drawing a conclusion. Due
to an obvious lack of evidence, many choose not to draw a conclusion about god(s).
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
1. What is your definition of faith?
* Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
can not see?
Me:
No.
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
* Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
a form of history?
Me:
History is not based on blind faith, like christianity. Most people believe man's
historical recordings are imperfect; I do. Yes, the bible is history; it is also
imperfect.
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
* Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
that history also?
Me:
As for Christopher Columbus, I don't think he "discovered" america. American
indians were here long before. Furthermore, I've heard theories about
vikings finding america before columbus did. I take it all with a grain of
salt. Nothing is perfect, including history and recordings made by mankind.
BTW, this includes the bible. No it doesn't sound stupid. I don't
unquestioningly believe in anything. There actually are contradictions in
some of the data on Columbus.
There is a little truth in every myth. I wouldn't be suprised if regions in the
middle east experienced a flood at about the time of the "great one".
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
* Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
* Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
Me:
Could you please enlighten us. What are all of these prophecies that you speak
of that have come true? People have been saying the same thing about prophecies
since the dawn of time in all cultures. What makes the christian ones so special?
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
* Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Me:
Since you obviously don't have a clue about archeology, I'll try to explain this
again. Over millions of years, the Earth's crust shifts. What was once an ocean
can become a sea. I have a sharks tooth from the rocky mountains, that is
milions of years old. This sure doesn't justify a global flood. Read a book.
BTW, just how old were these fossils?
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry
2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
two are impossible?
Me:
Theories contradicting each other is nothing new in science. Because a theory
contradicts another theory doesn't mean it is invalid; it doesn't mean it is true
either. Since all the christian sects contradict each other, does that make
christianity invalid? This question is just as justified as yours:
Why do all XX theories about christianity claim that the others are wrong?
Furthermore, I'd like to hear some sources to back up these assertions you are
making.
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
"may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
Me:
It's a theory for Pete's Sake!!! Here's a novel idea: You encounter something
you don't understand. Rather than being lazy and attributing the cause to some
mystical creature, you use empirical laws of physics to hypothesize a workable
solution. As the bounty from technology has proven, this is a much better avenue.
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
* What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
* What do you believe in the bible?
* If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
Me:
I was a christian until about the 10th grade; I know the bible better than alot
of "christians". I believe there is a little fact in the bible; I beleive there
is a little fact in the Odessey. When my little sister is getting to be a pain,
I believe in 1st Timothy 2:9-15 (This is a joke, for all you who take life too
seriously).
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
* If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
* Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
Me:
I use my intellect to determine my standards (a novell concept indead). If there
is such a thing as a god(s), I doubt it would care about the affairs of something
as relatively insignificant as mankind. Of course I will be held accountable for
my actions. If I commit a crime, I run the risk of going to jail.
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
conception?
* If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
Me:
Good grief. Are you sure you've been reading this newsgroup for a "long time"?
It certainly doesn't seem like it. A sperm and an egg cell are alive also.
Without interference, they will result in a human life. Are all people who use
birth control going to Hell? They're killing potential human life, just like
aborting a fetus is killing potential human life.
This is all trivial though. The important issue is rights. Who are you to
dictate your belief about what a woman does with her own body?
You are also making a stupid mistake assuming that all atheists are pro-choice.
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
let them do what they want?
* If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
Me:
Unlike god, mankind is VERY limited in its means of educating. Furthermore,
there is a huge difference between what god and my parents do. My parents let me
know all the time when I have done something wrong, and then they punish me. God
never tells you anything. He gives you a failed "owners manual to the soul", and
if you screw up he tortures your soul for eternity. Don't try to compare my
parents to your god; it would be a true insult. If the christian god were a
parent, he'd be in jail for child neglect.
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
Do you
think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
that.
Me:
If god wants us to be with him so badly, why doesn't he tell us to our face?
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
So, if we believe in Him and repent
from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
Me:
What kind of childhood did you have?!?!
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
pride. To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
can't do that. That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
you are.
Me:
Speaking of pride, you really are full of yourself. You're so proud of your
humility (detect the contradiction???) You truly are ignorant of the people who
are involved in this newsgroup. Find me one quote made by an atheist on this
newsgroup that seriously claims they are perfect. We all make errors in
judgement all the time. Rather than pray to a mystical creature, we try to
figure out what we did wrong, and how to correct those mistakes in the future.
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
The fact is, you will face judgement day without
knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
and it will be displayed before you and God. Everything you do will come
back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
Me:
We've all heard this sermon before, and it gets old very quickly. Do you realize
what are crime is???? Our crime is a lack of blind faith in the contents of a
book. Life always teaches us that blind faith is a mistake; why should we make
an exception for christianity? There are thousands of religions, many of which
have the same type of "proof" as christianity. How are we supposed to know which
one to choose? In all this confusion, does our lack of faith truly merit the
ultimate penalty?
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
stupid replies...
Me:
Have you ever thought about the credibility of your statements?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been around alot of christians who I consider good people. I've been
through enough years of religious functions to know what a good christian is. I
highly doubt that you are a good christian. You probably go through the motions,
but I'd guess that you lack the love and feeling that goes hand in hand. You're
attitude from the beginning of your letter was hostile. I detected no compassion
for the numbers of lost souls you were talking to. You flippantly speak of Hell,
in your childish security that you are going to heaven and all of these dirty
atheists are going to Hell. I have seen christians openly weep over the idea of
non-believers going to hell. These were good people who truly lived, practiced,
and FELT what they preached. The idea of Hell is so shocking to most christians,
that many question if non-believers will be doomed to it. I'm sure you disagree;
I bet that takes some of the fun out of being a christian. Did you shed a tear
when you pronounced or fate? I doubt it.
You asked for flames....enjoy.
Jon Newton atop his trusty "high horse" Fungool - biochemist and agnostic
Chris Colby
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament?
Uh, because there is no evidence of a flood or enough water
on the planet to have such a flood (and water is too heavy to reach
escape velocity so you can't say it has gone away).
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
First, please supply a reference to this. I know marine
fossils have been found at high altitudes, but not fish fossils.
Second, go learn a little (just a little) geology. You will
find that erosion helps shape the earth. But, yet the earth hasn't
become flat yet. There must be a counter process (I wonder what that
could be 8-) Perhaps this wasn't covered at your Jr. High School.
>2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
Uh, I'm a grad student studying evolutionary (molecular
evolution of repeated gene sequences to be specific) and I'm only
aware of one theory of evolution. In fact, I wrote a big long
post concerning it for talk.origins. You have just given me an
excuse to post it here. It will follow this posting.
>3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
Um, because they aren't lying weasels like the ICR (and
please get all huffy and demand an apology so I can post numerous
examples (I've saved from reading talk.origins) of creationist
chicanery -- it would really make my day.) Instead of telling
people we have the "TRUTH", scientists are careful to delineate
what is supported by the data and what isn't.
Science doesn't deal with absolutes; scientists reflect
that in their speech. Having said that, I _will_ say that evolution
is a fact(*). The process has been observed, the mechanisms have been
shown to work, speciation has been observed and piles of evidence
point to the fact that all organisms share a common ancestor (these
include comparative genetic studies, comparative biochemical data,
comparative anatomy, comparative developmental biology, biogeography
and the fossil record.)
(*) before you flame me for this, look up "fact" in a dictionary.
Chris Colby --- email: co...@bu-bio.bu.edu ---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
Chris Colby
AN INTRODUCTION TO EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY -- BY CHRIS COLBY
*********************************************************
INTRODUCTION
------------
Evolution is one of the most powerful theories science has ever known.
For a variety of reasons, however, it is also one of the most
misunderstood. One common misunderstanding is that the phrase "survival
of the fittest" summarizes evolutionary theory. In fact, it does not.
The phrase is both incomplete and misleading. The notions that;
evolution represents progress and, that organisms can be arranged on an
evolutionary ladder from bacteria to man, are two other common
misunderstandings.
This post is an outline of the basics of evolutionary biology. It is
intended to be a brief overview of the concepts and mechanisms of
evolution. Creationist arguments are not addressed directly here; nor
is a "laundry list" of reasons to believe in evolution provided. Many
interesting topics in evolutionary biology are not covered (symbiosis
and endosymbiosis, origins of life, punctuated equilibrium, evolution
of sex, human evolution and much more) because I can't include
everything and keep this down to a readable length.
WHAT IS EVOLUTION?
Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The
gene pool is the set of all genes of a species or population. The
English moth, _Biston__betularia_, is a frequently cited example of
observed evolution. In this moth, rare black variants spread through
the population as a result of their habitat becoming darkened by soot
from factories. Birds could see the lighter colored moths more readily
and ate more of them. The moth population changed from mostly light
colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. Since their color was
determined by a single gene, the change in moth color represented a
change in the gene pool. This change, by definition, was evolution.
The kind of evolution documented above is called "microevolution".
Larger changes (taking more time) are termed "macroevolution". Some
biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from
those of microevolutionary change. Others, including myself, feel the
distinction between the two is arbitrary. Macroevolution is cumulative
microevolution.
In any case, evolution is defined as a change in the gene pool. Later
in this post I will discuss macroevolution as well as microevolution.
For the sake of brevity I will use the terms as if it is useful to draw
a distinction between them.
I have defined "evolution", here, as a process and that is how I will
use the term in this essay. Keep in mind, however, that in everyday use
"evolution" often refers to a variety of things. The fact that all
organisms are linked via descent to a common ancestor is often called
evolution. The theory that life arose solely via natural processes is
often called evolution (instead of abiogenesis). And frequently, people
use the word "evolution" when they really mean natural selection -- one
of the many mechanisms of evolution.
WHAT ISN'T EVOLUTION?
For many people evolution is equated with morphological change, i.e.
organisms changing shape or size over time. An example would be a
dinosaur species slowly turning into a bird species. It is important
to note that evolution is often accompanied by morphological change,
but this need not be the case. Evolution can occur without
morphological change; and morphological change can occur without
evolution. For instance, humans are larger now than in the past few
hundred years, but this is not an evolutionary change. Better diet and
medicine brought about this change, so it is not an example of
evolution. The gene pool did not change -- only its manifestation did.
An organism's morphology is determined by both its genes and its
environment. Morphological changes induced solely by changes in
environment do not count as evolution, because this change is not
heritable. In other words the change is not passed on to the organism's
offspring. Most changes due to environment are fairly subtle (e.g. size
differences). Large scale morphological changes (such as dinosaur to
bird) are obviously due to genetic changes, and therefore are
evolution.
WHAT EVOLUTION ISN'T
Evolution is not progress. Organisms simply adapt to their current
surroundings and do not necessarily become better over time. A trait or
strategy that is successful for an organism at one time may be
deleterious at another. Studies in yeast have shown that "more evolved"
strains of yeast can sometimes be competitively inferior to "less
evolved" strains. An organisms success or failure depends to a great
deal on the behavior of its contemporaries; for most traits or
behaviors there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only
contingent designs/strategies.
HOW DOES EVOLUTION WORK?
If evolution is a change in the gene pool; what causes the gene pool to
change? Several mechanisms can bring about a change in the gene pool,
among them: natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, mutation and
recombination. I will discuss these in more detail later. It is
important to understand the difference between evolution (change in the
gene pool) and the mechanisms that bring about this change.
GENETIC VARIATION
-----------------
Bringing about a change in the gene pool assumes that there is genetic
variation in the population to begin with, or a way to generate it.
Genetic variation is "grist for the evolutionary mill". For example, if
there were no dark moths, the population could not have evolved from
mostly light to mostly dark. In order for continuing evolution there
must be mechanisms to both increase genetic variation, or create it,
(e.g. mutation) and decrease variation (e.g. natural selection and
genetic drift).
HOW IS GENETIC VARIATION DESCRIBED?
Genetic variation has two components: allelic diversity and non-random
associations of alleles. Alleles are different versions of the same
gene at a given locus. For example, at one eye color locus (locus means
location) humans can have the blue allele or the brown allele (there
are other alleles also). Most organisms, including humans, are
diploid. This means they contain two alleles for every gene at every
locus. If the two alleles are the same type (for instance two blue eye
alleles) the individual would be termed "homozygous" for that locus. An
individual with two different alleles at a locus is called
"heterozygous".
Allelic diversity is simply the number of alleles at each locus scaled
by their frequency in the gene pool. At any given locus there can be
many different alleles in the gene pool. It is important to realize
that there can be more alleles in the gene pool at a given locus than
any single organism can possess.
Linkage disequilibrium is a measure of association of alleles in the
gene pool. If each gene assorted entirely independently, the gene pool
would be at linkage equilibrium. However, if some alleles were often
found together in organisms (ie. did not assort randomly) these alleles
would be in linkage disequilibrium. Linkage disequilibrium can be the
result of physical proximity of the genes or maintained by natural
selection if some combinations of alleles work better as a team.
HOW MUCH GENETIC VARIATION IS THERE?
Considerable variation has been detected in natural populations. At
about 70% of gene loci, there is more than one allele present in the
gene pool. Any given individual is likely to be heterozygous at 30% of
its loci. Most loci have been found to be assorting independently (i.e.
they are at linkage equilibrium). In most populations, there are enough
loci and enough different alleles that every individual (barring
monozygotic twins) has a unique combination of alleles.
EVOLUTION WITHIN A LINEAGE (ANAGENESIS)
***************************************
The following sections deal with evolution within a population or
lineage -- this is called anagenesis.
MECHANISMS THAT DECREASE GENETIC VARIATION
------------------------------------------
MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION: NATURAL SELECTION
Natural selection is held to be the only mechanism as far as _adaptive_
evolution is concerned; it is defined as differential reproductive
success. Selection is not a force in the sense that gravity or
magnetism is. However, biologists often, for the sake of brevity, refer
to it that way. Selection is not a guided or cognizant entity; it is
simply an effect. Some organisms have alleles that enable them to
reproduce more efficiently than others of their species. Organisms with
these alleles, therefore eventually replace the others of their species
without these alleles.
If environmental conditions change, new traits (new combinations of
alleles) will be selected for. Natural selection is a mechanism that
allows organisms to adapt to their current environment only; it does
not have any foresight. Structures or behaviors do not evolve for
future utility. The organism must be, to some degree, adapted to its
environment at each stage of its evolution.
Of course, this raises the question; how do complex traits evolve? If
half a wing is no good for flying, how did wings evolve? Half a wing
may be no good for flying, but it may be useful in other ways. Feathers
are thought to have evolved as insulation (ever worn a down jacket?)
and/or as a way to trap insects. Later, proto-birds may have learned to
glide when leaping from tree to tree. Eventually, the feathers that
originally served as insulation now became co-opted for use in flight.
This illustrates the point that a trait's current utility is not always
indicative of its past utility. It can evolve for one purpose, and be
used later for another. A trait evolved for its current utility is
called an adaptation; a trait evolved for another utility than its
current use is termed an exaptation. An example of an exaptation would
be a penguins wing. Penguins evolved from flying ancestors. Now,
however, they are flightless and use their wings for swimming.
Natural selection works at the level of the individual. The example I
gave earlier was an example of evolution via natural selection. Dark
colored moths had higher reproductive success because light colored
moths suffered a higher predation rate. The decline of light colored
moths was caused by light colored individuals being removed from the
gene pool (selected against). It is the individual organism that
either reproduces or fails to reproduce. Individual genes are not the
unit of selection (because their success depends on the organism's
other genes as well); neither are groups of organisms a unit of
selection. There are some exceptions to this "rule".
The individual organism is what reproduces or fails to reproduce. It
competes primarily with others of it own species for its reproductive
success. For this reason, organisms do not perform any behaviors that
are for the good of their species. Natural selection favors selfish
behavior because any truly altruistic act increases the recipient's
reproductive success while lowering the donors. Altruists would quickly
disappear from a population as the non-altruists would reap the
benefits, but not pay the cost, of any altruistic act.
Of course, many observable behaviors appear, at first glance, to be
altruistic in nature. Biologists, however, can demonstrate (in the
cases they have studied) that these behaviors are only apparently
altruistic. Cooperating with or helping other organisms is often the
most selfish strategy for an animal. Often, this is called by the
oxymoronic name "reciprocal altruism". A good example of this is blood
sharing in vampire bats. In these bats, those lucky enough to find a
meal will often share part of it with an unsuccessful bat by
regurgitating some blood into the others mouth. Biologists have found
that these bats form bonds with other bats and help each other out when
the other is needy. If a bat is found to be a "cheater", (ie. he
accepts blood when starving, but does not donate when his partner is)
the partner will abandon the cheater.
Keep in mind that the words "selfish" and "altruistic" have
connotations in everyday use that biologists do not intend. "Selfish"
simply means behaving so that one's own best interest comes first;
"altruistic" means behaving so that anothers best interest comes
first.
Natural selection does not induce genetic variation to occur, it only
distinguishes between existing variants. Variation along all possible
axes is not possible, so not every possible adaptive solution is open
to an organism. For example, a steel shelled turtle would probably be
an improvement. Turtles are killed quite a bit by cars these days
because, when confronted with danger, they retreat into their shells --
not a great strategy against a two ton automobile. However, there is no
variation in metal content of shells, so it would not be possible to
select for a steel shelled turtle.
Natural selection does not necessarily produce individually optimal
structures or behaviors. Selection works on the organism as a whole,
not individual traits. So, specific traits are not optimized, but
rather combinations of traits. In addition, natural selection may not
necessarily even select for the the most optimal set of traits. In any
population, there would be a certain combination of possible alleles
that would produce the most optimal set of traits (the global optima);
but are probably several other sets of alleles that would yield a
population almost as adapted (local optima). Transition from a local
optima to the global optima may be hindered or forbidden because the
population would have to pass through less adaptive states to make the
transition. So, natural selection only works to bring populations to
the nearest optimal point.
SEXUAL SELECTION -- A SUBSET OF NATURAL SELECTION
Darwin, and others, noticed that in many species males developed
prominent secondary sexual charactoristics. A few oft cited ex-
amples are the peacocks tail, coloring and patterns in male birds in
general, voice calls in frogs and flashes in fireflies. Many/most of
these traits are a liability from the standpoint of survival, mainly
because any ostentatious trait or noisy, attention getting behavior
will catch the eyes/ears/nose/whatever of predators. How then could
natural selection favor these traits?
Natural selection can be broken down into many components, of which
survivability is only one. Sexual attractiveness is a very important
component of selection, so much so that biologists use the term
sexual selection when they talk about this subset of natural selection.
Sexual selection occurs when the sexual attractiveness of a trait
outweighs the liability incurred for survival. A male who lives a short
time, but produces many offspring is much more successful than a long
lived one that produces few. His genes will eventually dominate the
gene pool of his species. In many species, especially polygynous
species where only a few males monopolize all the females, sexual
selection has caused pronounced sexual dimorphism. In these species
males compete against other males for mates. The competition can be
either direct (i.e. the largest males guarding their harems and
fending off other males physically) or mediated by female choice.
In species where females chose, males compete by displaying striking
phenotypic charactoristics or undergoing elaborate courtship
behaviors or both. The females then mate with the males that
most interest them, often the ones with the most outlandish
phenotypes or behaviors.
There are many competing theories as to why females are attracted
to these displays. One model, the "good genes" model, states that the
display indicates some component of male fitness. A "good genes" advo-
cate would say that bright coloring in male birds indicates a lack of
parasites. The females are cueing on some signal, in this example color,
that is correlated with some other important trait (ex. parasite load).
Another model, proposed by Fisher, is called the "runaway sexual
selection" model. In his model he proposes that females develop a
preference for some male trait (without regards to fitness) and then
mate with these males. The offspring of these matings will therefore
have the genes for both the trait _and_ the preference for the trait.
Note, these genes would be expressed in the males and females respect-
ively. As a result the process snowballs out of control until natural
selection brings it into check. Here is an example to clarify.
Suppose that, due to some quirk of brain chemistry, female birds
of one species prefer males with longer than average tail feathers.
Males in the population with longer than average feather will there-
fore produce more offspring than the short feathered males. So in
the next generation, the average tail feather length will increase.
As the generations progress, tail feather length will increase becuase
females prefer not a specific length tail, but tails a little longer
than average. Eventually tail feather length will increase to the
point were the liability to survival is matched by the sexaul attract-
iveness of the trait and an equilibrium will be established. Note
that in many exotic birds male plumage is often very showy and many
species do in fact have males with greatly elongated feathers. In
some cases these feathers are shed after the breeding season.
A third model, called "the handicap hypothesis" states that males
with the most costly displays (in terms of detriment to survival)
are advertising the fact that, despite their "handicap", they still
had what it took to survive.
None of the above models are mutually exclusive. There are millions
of sexually dimorphic species on this planet and the form of sexual
selection probably varies amongst them.
Of all the mechanisms of evolution, natural selection has the potential
to change gene frequencies the fastest. It usually acts to keep gene
frequncies constant, however. This led a famous evolutionist, George
Williams, to say "Evolution proceeds in spite of natural selection".
MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION: GENETIC DRIFT
Another important mechanism of evolution is genetic drift. Drift is a
binomial sampling error of the gene pool. What this means is, the
alleles that form the next generation are a sample of the alleles in
the current generation.
Organisms produce more gametes than are needed. Females produce many
more eggs than are ever fertilized and males produce billions of sperm
that never fertilize an egg. The alleles in this sample of gametes are
likely to be slightly different than the alleles in the parental gene
pool due solely to chance. Drift is a rather abstract concept to some;
I will try to explain it via a somewhat simple analogy.
Imagine you had a swimming pool full of one million marbles (this will
represent the parental gene pool), half are red and half are blue. If
you repeatedly picked ten marbles out, do you think you would get five
red and five blue every time (assume you replaced your sample to the
pool each time)? If you picked one hundred marbles out, do you think
you would get fifty red and fifty blue out every time? In both cases
the answer is no, some times the frequency of red marbles in the sample
would deviate from 0.50. In the case of the 100 marble sample, the
frequency of red marbles would deviate much less, however.
If, after picking out ten or one hundred marbles, you refilled the pool
with marbles at the frequency of that sample and repeated the process
over and over; what do you think would happen? What would happen is
that the frequency of red to blue would fluctuate over time.
Eventually, there would be only one color marble left in the pool. This
is roughly analogous to how genetic drift works.
Both natural selection and genetic drift decrease genetic variation. If
they were the only mechanisms of evolution, populations would
eventually become genetically homogeneous and further evolution would
be impossible. There are, however, mechanisms that replace variation
depleted by selection and drift. These are discussed below.
MECHANISMS THAT INCREASE GENETIC VARIATION
------------------------------------------
MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION: MUTATION
A mutation is a change in a gene. There are many kinds of mutations. A
point mutation is a mutation in which one "letter" of the genetic code
is changed to another. Lengths of DNA can also be deleted or inserted
in a gene; these are also mutations. Finally, genes or parts of genes
can become inverted or duplicated.
Mutation is a mechanism of evolution because it changes allele
frequencies very slightly. If an allele "A" mutates to another allele
"a", the frequency of "a" has increased from zero to some small number
(1/2N in a diploid population where N is the effective population
size). The allele "A" will also decrease slightly in frequency.
Evolution via mutation alone is very slow; for the most part, mutation
just supplies the raw material for evolution -- genetic variation.
Most, but not all, mutations are slightly deleterious or neutral. The
genome of most organisms (certainly all eukaryotes) contains enormous
amounts of junk sequences. In addition, even in coding regions, many
sites can undergo mutation and still maintain its original meaning. In
other words, the genetic code is redundant. So, most mutations are
neutral or nearly so; but, the overwhelming majority of mutations that
produce any detectable phenotypic effect are deleterious. "Good"
mutations, however, do occur.
One example of a beneficial mutation comes from the mosquito _Culex_
_pipiens_. In this organism, a gene that was involved with breaking
down organophosphates - common insecticide ingredients - became
duplicated. Progeny of the organism with this mutation quickly swept
across the worldwide mosquito population. There are numerous examples
of insects developing resistance to chemicals, especially DDT - which
was once heavily used in this country.
Mutations occur at random with respect to their adaptive significance.
Organisms cannot "decide" that they need a mutation and have it occur.
The frequency of a mutation occurring is independent of the potential
effect it would have.
Recently, certain exceptions have been found to the above "rule" in
some bacteria (E. Coli). It appears that these organisms can undergo
directed mutagenesis to repair "broken genes". The reversion mutation
that restores the gene to normal functioning occurs several orders of
magnitude more frequently when the gene is needed than when it isn't.
It is unlikely, however, that this could occur in multi-cellular
organisms.
MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION: RECOMBINATION
Recombination can be loosely thought of as gene shuffling. Most
organisms have linear chromosomes and their genes lie at specific
locations (loci) along them (bacteria have circular chromosomes). In
most sexually reproducing organisms, there are two of each chromosome
type in every cell. For instance in humans, there are two chromosomes
number one (through 22 and two sex chromosomes), one inherited from the
mother, the other inherited from the father. When an organism produces
gametes, the gametes end up with only of each chromosome per cell.
Haploid gametes are produced from diploid cells by a process called
meiosis.
In meiosis, homologous chromosomes line up. The DNA of the chromosome
is broken on both chromosomes in several places and rejoined with the
other strand. Later in meiosis, the two homologous chromosomes are
split in to two separate cells (gametes). But, because of
recombination, both of the chromosomes are a mix of alleles from the
mother and father.
For example, lets say an organism has a chromosome with three genes,
(A,B and C -- in that order). Assume that at each of these three loci
there are at least two alleles. From the father, the organism inherited
a chromosome with the alleles A1, B1 and C1. >From the mother the
organism inherited A2,B2 and C2 alleles. In meiosis the two chromosomes
would line up and the two A alleles would line up, as would the B and C
alleles. If recombination occurred between locus A and locus B, the
resulting chromosomes in the two gametes would be; one chromosome
carrying A1, B2 and C2 alleles and one chromosome carrying A2, B1 and
C1 alleles.
Real chromosomes carry many more than three genes and recombination
occurs at many locations along the chromosome. The end result is that
the two homologous chromosomes have "shuffled" alleles.
Recombination can occur not only between genes, but within genes as
well. Recombination within a gene can form a new allele. Recombination
is a mechanism of evolution because it adds new alleles and
combinations of alleles to the gene pool.
A beneficial aspect of recombination is that beneficial new alleles can
be brought together onto the same chromosome, even if the mutations
originally occurred in separate organisms.
MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION: GENE FLOW
Gene flow simply means new genes added to a population by migration
from another population. In some closely related species, fertile
hybrids can result from interspecific matings. These hybrids can vector
genes from species to species.
EVOLUTION AMONG LINEAGES (CLADOGENESIS)
***************************************
The following sections deal with how single populations ramify to
become several populations and eventually separate species - this is
called cladogenesis. The overall pattern of macroevolution is also
discussed.
SPECIATION -- INCREASING BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
---------------------------------------------
Speciation is the process of a single species becoming two or more
distinct species. Many biologists feel speciation is key to
understanding evolution. These biologists believe certain evolutionary
phenomena apply only at speciation and macroevolutionary change cannot
occur without speciation.
Other biologists think major evolutionary change can occur without
speciation. Changes between lineages are only an extension of the
changes within each lineage. In general, paleontologists fall into the
former category and geneticists in the latter.
MODES OF SPECIATION
Biologists recognize two types of speciation: allopatric and sympatric
speciation. The two differ in geological distribution of the
populations in question.
Allopatric speciation is thought to be the most common form of
speciation. It occurs when a population is split into two (or more)
subdivisions that organisms cannot bridge. The two populations are
geographically isolated; organisms from subdivision A can only breed
with organisms from subdivision A and B organisms can only breed with B
organisms. Eventually, the two populations gene pools change (both
independently) until they could not interbreed even if they were
brought back together. In other words they have speciated.
Sympatric speciation occurs when two subpopulations become
reproductively isolated without first becoming geographically
isolated. Monophytophagous insects (insects that live on a single host
plant) provide a model for sympatric speciation. If a group of insects
switched host plants they would not breed with other members of their
species still living on their former host plant. The two subpopulations
could diverge and speciate. Some biologists call sympatric speciation
microallopatric speciation to emphasize that the subpopulations are
still physically separate not at a geographic level, but on an
ecological level.
Biologists know little about the genetic mechanisms of speciation. Some
think series of small changes in each subdivision gradually lead to
speciation; others think there may be a few key genes that could change
and confer reproductive isolation. One famous biologist thinks most
speciation events are caused by changes in internal symbionts. Most
doubt this, however.
Populations of organisms are very complicated. It is likely that there
are many ways speciation can occur. Thus, all of the above ideas may be
correct, each in different circumstances.
OBSERVED SPECIATIONS
It comes as a surprise to some to hear that speciation has been
observed. In the genus _Tragopogon_ (a plant genus consisting mostly
of diploids), two new species (_T._ _mirus_ and _T._ _miscellus_)
have evolved. This occured within the past 50-60 years. The new
species are allopolyploid descendants of two separate diploid
parent species.
Here is how it this speciation occured. The new species were formed
when one diploid species fertilized a different diploid species and
produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could
not fertilize or be fertilized by either of it's two parent
species types. It is reproductively isolated, the definition of
a species.
MACROEVOLUTION VS. MICROEVOLUTION
Evolution is not linear progress. The popular notion that evolution can
be represented as progress from simple cells through complex life forms
to humans (the pinnacle of evolution), can be traced to Linneaus' Scale
of Nature. This view is incorrect.
Evolution is better viewed as a branching tree or bush, with the tips
of each branch representing currently living species. Populations or
species of organisms split and become two or more species as time goes
on. No living organisms today are our ancestors. Every species we see
today is as fully modern as we are; each has its own unique
evolutionary history. No extant species are "lower life forms",
atavistic stepping stones paving the road to humanity.
EXTINCTION -- DECREASING BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
---------------------------------------------
"ORDINARY" EXTINCTION
Extinction is the ultimate fate of all species. The reasons for
extinctions are numerous. A species can be outcompeted by a
closely related species. The habitat a species lives in can
dissappear and/or the organisms that the species eat could come
up with an unbeatable defense.
Some species enjoy a long tenure on the planet while others are
short-lived. Some biologists believe species are "programmed" to
go extinct in a manner analogous to organisms being destined to die.
Most, however, disagree with this. The majority believe that if the
environment stays fairly constant, a well adapted species could
continue to survive indefinately.
MASS EXTINCTION
Mass extinctions shape the overall pattern of macroevolution. If
you view evolution as a branching tree, it's best to picture it as one
that has been severely pruned a few times in its life. The history of
life on this earth includes many episodes of mass extinction in which
many taxa (groups of organisms) were wiped off the face of the planet.
Mass extinctions are followed by periods of radiation where new species
evolve to fill the empty niches left behind. It is probable that
surviving a mass extinction is largely a function of luck.
The most famous extinction occurred at the boundary between the
Cretaceous and Tertiary Periods (the K/T Boundary). This extinction
eradicated the dinosaurs. Following this extinction the mammalian
radiation occurred. Currently, human alteration of the ecosphere
is causing a global mass extinction. In terms of rate, this is the
largest mass extinction too date.
CONCLUSION
----------
ARE WE STILL EVOLVING?
Yes, evolution is still occurring; all organisms continue to adapt to
their surroundings and "invent" new ways of better competing with
members of their own species. In addition, allele frequencies are being
changed by drift, mutation and gene flow constantly. Studying the
process of evolution as it continues to occur is a major field of
biology today. Although evolution has been observed and all the
mechanisms have been shown to work, there is still no consensus on
the relative contribution of each of the mechanisms to the overall
pattern of evolution within a lineage. Likewise, although new species
have been seen to arise; biologists have many questions about what
influences the pattern of macroevolution. Are some groups "good" at
speciating? Who survives mass extinctions and why? These are two
questions that biologists ask.
Evolution is the unifying theory of biology. The functions of
biological entities at all levels (populations, organisms, genes) are
a product of deterministic factors (such as natural selection) and
non-deterministic factors (such as mutation and mass extinction)
acting within a framework of historical constraint. For centuries
humans have asked, "Why are we here?". A question such as that lies
outside the realm of science. However, biologists can now provide
an elegant answer to the question, "How did we get here?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SOME GOOD EVOLUTION TEXTS (IMHO)
A good introductory text in evolutionary biology is: Evolutionary
Biology, by Douglas Futuyma, 1986, Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass
The text assumes some previous knowledge of biology, but reviews most
critical background material. It contains numerous references to the
primary literature.
A good introductory text into population genetics, the field that
mathematically describes changes in the gene pool is: Principles of
Population Genetics, by Hartl and Clark , 1989, Sinauer, Sunderland,
Mass
None of the math is very daunting (it's just an intro text after all)
but it's really critical (IMHO) to really understanding what evolution
is all about. And again, lots of refs.
A text that deals with the interface of molecular biology and evolution
is: Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution, Li and Graur, 1991, Sinauer,
Sunderland, Mass
A very concise introduction to this field.
Charlie Board
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. What is your definition of faith?
>
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
Proper historical belief is based on EVIDENCE, not faith. Portions of the
Bible contain valid historical observations, but probably a smaller
proportion than say-the latest James Michener novel.
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
Well, first of all Columbus didn't discover jack - there were millions(?) of
human beings here long before your Jesus was born (IF he existed). As to why
some believe that Columbus was the first European to make it and why I don't
believe in the flood myth, well..
There WAS a first European to visit America..it's a credible event. And
there is obviously enough evidence to lead many to believe it was ol' Chris.
I'm not familiar enough with the evidence to say WHO did it.. but the fact
that I'm here proves SOMEONE DID.
On the other hand there is absolutely no evidence (of which I'm aware[:)])
that there was ever a global deluge. In fact there are continuous historical
records from several civilizations in that time period which omit the little
detail that they were submerged. There are no indications in geological
structures of such a flood. There are strong indications that the Genesis(?)
flood myth "stolen" (borrowed?) from Sumerian myths. There is the extreme
unreliability of the source (the Bible). There are the absurdities in the
story itself (millions of animals gathered onto a VERY small boat from
all corners of the world by two or three mideastern nomads ..not to mention
40 days worth of food.., etc.).
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
>
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
Of course not..and neither would you if you examined them with a rational,
open mind.
>
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
>
Too stupid a comment to warrant a reply .. but in case you hadn't noticed
that "prophecy" had a time deadline..that passed about 1950 years ago!
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
>
Because they're intellectually honest. Certainty is an extremely rare
commodity and most who claim to have it (such as yourself?) are suffering
from mental closure syndrome.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
Cover to cover three times ... and you? Finding new contradictions is a GREAT
pastime.
>
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
Heh, heh...I refuse to contribute to internet overload by listing the
obvious ad infinitum.
>
> * What do you believe in the bible?
A better question would be "What do you believe OF the bible?". I believe the
Bible is an interesting piece of mythology that documents the evolving
beliefs of a minor band of nomads over several thousand years. Unfortunately,
this particular mythology has managed to retard human progress for 2 millenium
and still threatens us today.
>
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
>
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
read the name of the newsgroup
>
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
I am held accountable by myself every day. I have family and friends whose
respect I treasure and I live under laws which hold me accountable at all
times. What I don't have (and where I differ from most Christians)
is an evil, all-powerful cattle prod threatening me into immoral behavior.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
>
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
Life is not the issue. We "abort" life daily. The issue is humanity. "Life" is
dependent on many things ... "humanity" (the capability for sentience,
consciousness,etc. in a human manner) REQUIRES an active humanbrain. Until a
fetus develops a cerebral cortex it is no more a human life than my tonsil is.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
>
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
the difference is that I punish my child to "teach" him things that will help
him eventually. The traditional Christian God "punishes" eternally..with no
possible aim other than vanity-driven sadism.
>
>
[ garbage deleted]
> The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
> pride.
No - it's because we USE our brains rather than letting them atrophy.
Douglas Graham
>In article <1992May5.1...@news.dfrf.nasa.gov>, bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry) writes...
>> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
>> that history also?
>
>The fact that the Americas are now inhabited show that, at some point, they
>were discovered. As for Columbus, some people question the validity of such
>written history and, with evidence, my mind will change as well.
I doubt if you intended it, but this almost sounds to me like you may
have forgotten that the Americas were quite definitely inhabited long
before Columbus accidentally bumped into them.
--
Doug Graham dgr...@bnr.ca My opinions are my own.
Jeff Lee
>
> Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this newsgroup
> for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
Agreed. But only because many theists (especially fundamentalist
Christians) don't feel they have to bother with net.etiquette when it
comes to alt.atheism. People who wouldn't dream of posting an article
about the rock group Extreme on rec.music.early, or a VAX/VMS-related
question on comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer, think nothing of posting
condemnatory or proselytizing messages on alt.atheism.
> I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
> hasn't a clue to life. Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
> though most of you think Christians can't think. Most of you who make
> these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
> think their gods on computers.
Sorry, can't resist: it really ruins the effect of telling us how
intelligent you are when you follow up with a truly sophomoric
grammatical error.
> But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
> in college.
Check the domains of the frequent posters' addresses -- most of them in
the US end in .com (which indicates a company), rather than .edu (which
indicates an educational institution).
> So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
> not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
With an inflammatory lead-in like this, I hardly expect that you'll
practice what you preach while reading this reply, but I'll do so anyway.
> First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no matter
> what.
Untrue. Ron House, for example, is a Christian whose input is valued
on alt.atheism. Flames are generally reserved for the laughable posts,
either theist *or* atheist.
> Then when there are just atheists talking about atheism, the subject
> matter is about the level of a first grader.
Examples?
> I'm just curious about your way of thinking and I bet
> I will find contradictions upon many of your answers about your "atheistic
> faith." It seems that none of you atheists ever agrees with each other.
You have a good chance of seeing your prediction realised -- apart from
lack of belief in deities, atheists have no real commonality to hold their
worldviews in a similar state.
However, the same can be said about Christians, even though there IS a
commonality. Ask a Catholic, a Methodist, and a Jehovah's Witness any
particular theological question, and you're apt to get three different
answers.
> You all have some far-fetched ideal of what you believe or don't believe
> and have nothing to back it up.
Far-fetched ideal, with nothing to back it up? Ah, the irony of such a
statement coming from a Christian!
> 1. What is your definition of faith?
"Faith" has several meanings. It can be trust, as in having faith that
someone will keep his word. It can mean belief without any evidence, as
in religious faith. It can mean belief based upon past experience with
no apparent contrary evidence, such as faith that the sun will rise on
the next morning.
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
Quite often. Yet certain kinds of faith are based on past experience,
whereas religious faith is based only upon teachings without any
unequivocal corroborating evidence.
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
That's a ridiculous question. History based on faith? History is based
on the records of past events; yes, one must have faith that the events
were recorded accurately (which is often not the case; history is always
written by the victors), but it is not BASED on faith.
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
Bah. Columbus thought he was in India! (Ever hear of Leif Erikssohn or
Amerigo Vespucci?) Why can't I believe in the flood? If it was a flood
of fresh water, the salt-water species would have died, and vice-versa.
Furthermore, where'd all the water come from, and where'd it go?
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Ever hear of plate tectonics? (Furthermore, I'd love to see your
references for this claim -- it would be interesting to see how old
these reputed species were.)
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
No.
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
Bzzzt. Wrong answer; it was supposed to happen while some of the Apostles
were still alive (Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1). So which ones still have not
tasted of death?
> 2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
Give some references, and perhaps I'll be able to answer your questions.
> 3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
So what's your problem with this? Without actually observing it, there is
no way to *know* the accuracy of *any* theory.
It's very easy to say, "Well, God created it all," but that's simply
intellectual laziness.
> 4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
Define "believe in". I don't believe that it was authored by a deity, nor
that it is The Truth (tm), nor even that large passages in it are true.
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
Practically the whole thing, but I will make a short list of some of them.
o The creation of the universe
o The flood
o Any of the miracles described anywhere in the Bible
o Jacob altering the phenotypes of cattle by putting certain types
of sticks into their parents' watering holes.
o Anything describing the manifestation of divine influence or power
> * What do you believe in the bible?
Very little. The only one I can think of offhand is that Judah could
not overcome tribes with higher technology, even though it was claimed
that his god was on his side (see Judges 1:19).
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
I believe only that which can be reconciled with my own observations of
how the universe operates. I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa
Claus, elves, ghosts, or gods.
> 5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
Myself. One tenet, however, that much of my morality agrees with, was
stated by Rabbi Hillel in about 70 BCE: Do not do to others that which
is loathsome to yourself. You may find it familiar; many Christians
claim that it was first said by their messiah.
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
This question is much like "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
I don't believe in gods, therefore the question is irrelevant.
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
But all of us ARE judged and held accountable for our actions, every day
of our lives. I shall assume that you were speaking of some sort of
afterlife; I don't believe in that either.
> 6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
Ever hear of parthenogenesis? Furthermore, define "life" -- an
unfertilised ovum is no less "alive" than a fertilised one.
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
Again, it depends on your definition of "life". When does the foetus
become human? When it's a blastula, a hollow sphere of cells? When it
becomes fertilised? When the separate gametes are produced in the
parent's gonads?
> 7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
Leading question, but I'll answer it anyway: discipline is necessary in the
upbringing of a child.
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
Of course, to answer that question, I would have to believe in your god,
which I do not.
> So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
> a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
> people to die and bla bla bla.
Got news for you: one must believe in God to "get hung up on" that "fact".
That's why Christians worry about it, and atheists use it to their
advantage when debating with Christians.
> The fact is, that God gave us a free will to basically do what we want.
A challenge: prove it.
> We can choose between good and evil. And many
> times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world. Not
> because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen.
That's a nice tautology you've constructed there.
> Do you
> think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
> get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell.
Prove that Hell exists.
> But God does not want that.
> He want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
> He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and repent
> from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
> understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
This is all very well and good, if true.
> The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
> pride.
Nice generalisation, but if you'd been reading the newsgroup for any period
of time, you'd know that it isn't true.
> To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
> can't do that.
Obviously, since "sin" isn't part of an atheist's belief system.
> That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think you are.
Again, nice generalisation, but untrue.
> I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
No, I think you're probably a Fundamentalist. Look up Matthew 7:1
sometime.
> [condemnatory proselytization deleted]
> Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
> stupid replies...
I invite you to do likewise.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Lee - jl...@smylex.uucp - jlee%smyle...@uhasun.hartford.edu
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Iron rusts from disuse; stagnant water loses its purity and in cold weather
becomes frozen; even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind -- da Vinci
Jim Cowling
Let's look at what you have to say, one point at a time, shall we?
Faith:
Faith implies belief without the benefit of rationality, and not
necessarily based on empirical evidence. History may or may not be based
on faith. I've yet to see original New Testament pre-publication
manuscripts. There is more evidence that Columbus was ONE of the
discoverers of the New World than the Great Flood occurred in the manner
described in the Old Testament.
Here we have to come up with axioms: my axiom is that the Bible is a wor
of fiction. Yours is that it is a book of fact. We could get into how i
must be a poorly-conceived historical book with the profusion of
contradictions, but that's a topic for another thread.
As for the prophecies, I neither believe them nor believe that they have
occurred.
2. Evolution
Could you be more specific than simply "all three theories of evolution"?
And if there are only three, how can there be another "two"?
4. The Bible
I've read it a number of times. It's entertaining and provides a good
background in Western Literature; specifically, in symbolism. However, I
no more believe in it as fact as I believe in the works of Calvino or
Atwood.
What do I believe in? Lots of things. Trees. Cars. My next paycheque.
5. Accountability
We're held accountable for our actions every day of our lives, by
ourselves, the people around us, and our societies.
6. The Pro-Life thing
IMHO, living tissue is created at conception. However, my belief is that
until birth, the foetus is a part of the mother which the mother has the
right to remove at any time, like an appendix, or a tonsil.
7. Punishment
A more healthy attitude is discipline, rather than punishment. I'd rathe
instill a strong moral code in my children than punish them. A strong
moral code can be adhered to without the dubious benefit of Christianity
or other mythologies.
-------
Scowling Jim Cowling
Creative Writing Department, University of Victoria
Opinions Disassociated
BASKING IN THE ATOMIC AFTERGLOW - my new chapbook - $2.5
Graeme Nattress
>Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this newsgroup
>for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
1st point to you I'm afraid. You've got one thing right! YES, you're going to
get flamed!
>I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
>hasn't a clue to life. Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
>though most of you think Christians can't think.
OK, I'll take your word for it.
>Most of you who make
>these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
>think their gods on computers. But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
>in college.
I'm at University, I don't know about the American educational system.
>So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
>not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
I'm always open minded. I don't own a high horse and I don't sit on a fence
cos I get a sore arse :-).
>First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no matter
>what.
No I don't.
>Then when there are just atheists talking about atheism, the subject
>matter is about the level of a first grader.
What ever a first grader is I'll take it as an insult.
>Anyway, here are some questions
>for you atheists. I'm just curious about your way of thinking and I bet
>I will find contradictions upon many of your answers about your "atheistic
>faith."
1st point to me. "Atheistic Faith" is a contradiction. I am an atheist with
no faith.
>It seems that none of you atheists ever agrees with each other.
Dissagreeement is the beginning of discussion, argument and general debate.
Atheists are not an organisation or a faith or religion. Why should we agree
with each other. I agree with myself, thats what counts!
>You
>all have some far-fetched ideal of what you believe or don't believe and have
>nothing to back it up. Okay, I'll shut up. Just read on...
Okey dokey!
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1. What is your definition of faith?
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
no.
Faith is the capacity to believe in what you know is not true.
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
What the hell are you going on about?? Every thing in the past by
definition is History. The bible is a historical document and like all
documents it is open to interpretation.
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
Well, quite frankly, I don't care. America was probobly discovered by an
Indian chap who said to himself. "What am I standing on?" "I know I'll call
it america!" :-). Seriously, does it really matter who discovered America.
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
That is very silly. Basic geology leeson:
(And this is from an Open University programme so it must be right :-) )
Mountains are formed when continental plates drift together forcing land
that was flat up into the air.
QED.
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
No, do you?
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
And astrologers give prophicies in the newspaper every week. An they are
fullfilled:-).
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
Because they are theories, not facts.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
Do you not guess? Is it a crime to guess. Scientists are people you know
and at least tey tend to realize that they do not know everything and by saying
maybees they are being "open Minded", which was one of your criteria for
answering these questions.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
I have read some of it. I was forced to at school. Yet another example of
Christian brainwashing.
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
I cannot answer this question because I think the whole book is a work of
fiction.
> * What do you believe in the bible?
Not much. It mentions romans. I'm pretty certain there were people
called Romans.
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
I belive nothing at all. I'm pretty certain that I exist, but I'm not
totally sure. Everthing else I believe in less than that and The bible comes
pretty close to the bottom of the list somewhere inbetween, "the Earth is flat"
and "Mermaids" .
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
I have my own set of ethics, or morals if you like. They come from me and
becuase they are mine I'm bound by them more strongly than trying to follow a
little book.
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
N/A, there is no god. Therefore the question is meaningless. If there
was a god he would probobly have the sense to let people learn from their
own mistakes an not meddle in peoples lives. He would not be so cruel to
enforce his morals on others. I do not force my morals on others. But Many a
christian through the ages has made laws in countries based on their morals
therefore forcing their views and morals on others. Now that is evil.
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
Only by myself. What right does any other have to question my morals
when theirs are likely to be more suspect than mine.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
Life is when you can think about question such as this. I'm pretty certain
I'm alive, and I'm nearly as certain that you're alive and not just a computer
generated message. The problem is "What is life?"
Life is not produced at conception. A few cells is not life, it's a few
cells. It might have the consiousness of an Amoeba, but it certainly isn't a
human being by any definition.
Also, is a cloned frog alive. If a normal frog is alive, is a cloned frog
dead??
Is a worm who is split in two thus forming a new worm alive. No eggs or sperms
there.
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
Life is dependant on consciousness.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
If they learned by their own mistakes then they would be ok. If they were
stupid enough to not learn then they are pretty worthless and will probobly
kill themsleves due to stupidity. This may sound harsh, but if we help these
people to survive aren't we contaminating our collective gene pool further.
Anyway who is to say what is wrong. BTW what is wrong???
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
Pull the other one. Who is this god chap.
>EDITORIAL:
>So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
>a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
>people to die and bla bla bla.
I don't, there is no GOD!!!!!!
>The fact is, that God gave us a free will to
>basically do what we want.
FACT, FACT!!! Is is in the bible that god gave us a free will. Does it say
it in B/W. Surely that's the only facts you believe in....
> We can choose between good and evil.
What is good, what is evil.????
>And many
>times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world. Not
>because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen. Do you
>think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
>get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
>that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity.
Eternity sounds like boredom to me. We'd have to have an infinite amount of
things do do and the power to do them. I think being god for a few years might
relieve some of the boredom. But that userps god doesn't it. Hell sounds a
lot more interesting. But I don't believe in either of them.
>Therefore, that was why
>He sent His son Jesus to die for us.
What asilly thing to do. He doesn't sound like a good father. If he was my
dad I'd disown him.
>So, if we believe in Him and repent
>from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
>understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
You naughty kid, you don't believe in god. We'd better burn you at the stake!!
>The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
>pride.
No, not really.
>To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
>can't do that.
A sin by whose morals. Certainly not be my own. If I stick to my own
morals, which I do, how can I sin.
If you sin then by your own moral grounds you are EVIL. And you know what
christians do to evil people, they burn them or whatever.
>That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
>you are.
I'm certainly not perfect. But perfection is such a meaningless word. If
someone can show me something that was perfect I'd probobly have a heart attack
and die. But then it wouldn't be perfectly safe would it???
>I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
>since I'm a Christian.
No, just a closed mind that was brainwashed.
>The fact is, you will face judgement day without
>knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
>and it will be displayed before you and God.
I've told you before. Who is this god chap. And if this god chap does judge me
he'll say. " Right, you don't believe in me, but you made your own morals, and
they are good morals, and you stuck to them. You are a really nice chap."
>Everything you do will come
>back in full living color.
I'm pleased I'm not american, I don't want to see my life with a strange
yellow, puple tint like NTSC television :-)
>But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
>Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
>for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
What a load of Bullshit!!! You are speaking crap.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
>stupid replies...
>- Mark Barry
>NASA/Edwards AFB
RightT....
Although you started ok, You soon turned evangelist. I've heard of
televAngelists, are you a USEvangelist or a compuvangelist. I thought it was
frowned upon to try that lark on usenet on Alt. Atheism. YOU HAVE BEEB
WARNED>>>>>>
I speak for no one but myself,
Graeme,
{--- T.G.Na...@uk.ac.ncl -----------------------------------------}
{--------------------------------- The Moral of this story is: ---------}
{--- Never trust a Venusian Floghorn with a Perigosto Stick. --------}
{-----------------------------------------------------------------------}
Michael Hammill '92
As an side issue, there have been incidents throughout history of certain
miracles, UFO sitings, and the like. I have a question...
How does one dismiss them by some psychological phenomenon known as
"mass hallucination". I will believe in God, Santa Claus, and Elvis
before I believe in mass hallucination. The idea that large groups of
presumably sane people all have the same hallucination at the same time
is ludicrous. Don't point me towards magic tricks and optical illusions,
either, for there are events (i.e. Fatima) that defy any illusions.
This should be fun.
Mark
dave budd
>Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this newsgroup
>for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
++++++++Yep, some of them do. I un-subscribed for a while.
>I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
>hasn't a clue to life.
++++++++Ability in a given field does not imply ability elsewhere.
Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
>though most of you think Christians can't think. Most of you who make
>these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
>think their gods on computers.
++++++++Try to avoid typos and mis-spellings: you'll get flamed unfairly.
++++++++(missing apostrophe in gods, I assumed)
++++++++Don't make rash assumptions about who is out here on the net.
But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
>in college.
++++++++????????????I always thought it was the smart guys who went to
college, that's what college is for isn't it?
So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
>not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
++++++++OK
>First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no matter
>what.
++++++++Don't confuse flame with criticism that you don't happen to like
Then when there are just atheists talking about atheism, the subject
>matter is about the level of a first grader. Anyway, here are some questions
>for you atheists. I'm just curious about your way of thinking and I bet
>I will find contradictions upon many of your answers about your "atheistic
>faith." It seems that none of you atheists ever agrees with each other.
+++++++++Well how many different versions of Christianity are there now?
You
>all have some far-fetched ideal of what you believe or don't believe and have
>nothing to back it up. Okay, I'll shut up. Just read on...
++++++++Far-fetched? We're the ones who like evidence for our world-view.
And we find the evidence for God sadly lacking in substance.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1. What is your definition of faith?
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
+++++++++Faith in your God would.
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
++++++++++History is based on events that actually happened. Which events
happen may be affected by people's faith, but that doesn't make
history related to faith in any necessary way.
So the supplementary question is irrelevant.
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
++++++++I can't be bothered to go into detail on this one: anybody else?
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
+++++++++I know a man who can
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
+++++++++No. I have no reason to.
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
+++++++++I'm sure somebody here can argue that with you.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
++++++++++Which 3 are these?
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
+++++++++At least we're honest about it. If we're not sure, we say so.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
+++++++++Some of it is based on historical events. Not all the way, no.
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
++++++++ Lots of them (assuming you meant events plural)
> * What do you believe in the bible?
++++++++ Some of the people really existed
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
+++++++++ I believe in the laws of thermodynamics etc
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
+++++++++++I aim to get maximum enjoyment while causing least harm to
others, and as a side issue I think it's a good idea to keep
the gene pool as diverse as possible.
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
++++++++++++'a god in my mind' ? What do you mean here?
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
+++++++++++++I have a boss, colleagues, a family, a cat, friends......
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
+++++++++++Hey I thought you were the one who was into virgin birth
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
++++++++++++You're saying a guy in a coma whose heart has to be kept going
artificially is dead? I thought you guys were into souls?
There's a discussion of what constitutes life in, I think,
alt.philosophy
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
++++++++++++I would attempt to train them by whatever techniques worked
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
++++++++++++If he does, it isn't. But he doesn't.
>EDITORIAL:
>So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
>a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
>people to die and bla bla bla. The fact is, that God gave us a free will to
>basically do what we want. We can choose between good and evil. And many
>times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world. Not
>because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen. Do you
>think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
>get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
>that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
>He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and repent
>from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
>understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
+++++++So if your kids don't really repent, you're going to burn them up?
>The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
>pride. To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
>can't do that.
++++++++Well you have to define sin first. Not easy if there's no God
That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
>you are.
++++++++I know I'm a very poor specimen. Most of us are well aware of our
faults.
I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
>since I'm a Christian. The fact is, you will face judgement day without
>knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
>and it will be displayed before you and God. Everything you do will come
>back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
>Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
>for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
>stupid replies...
>- Mark Barry
>NASA/Edwards AFB
++++++++++Parting comment which may get me barred from alt.atheism:-
I think there may well be something out there, but there's
absolutely no evidence that satisfies me that whatever it is
is a being in any sense, so I don't call it God, I don't think
of it as God, and I only rarely wonder if it's there at all.
+--Great Quotes of our Time---------------------------------------------+
| It is not the policy of this department to backstitch corrective code |
+----------------------------------------R J Collins, compilers, UMRCC--+
Paul J. Bentkowski
>
>Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this newsgroup
>for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
Yes. for silly "anal-rectum" retentive responses with out a forthought
and proper common courtesies.
>
>I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
>hasn't a clue to life. Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
>though most of you think Christians can't think. Most of you who make
>these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
>think their gods on computers. But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
>in college. So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
>not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
>
Obviously, you have a great deal of knowledge in the area of
Philosophy and Eastern and Western Thought, with this degree of yours
working at NASA ... I AM A VAX/SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR FOR 8 COLLEGE CAMPUS
IN LOCAL/WIDE AREA NETWORKINGS (LANS/WANS) ... but does this make me
an expert in alternate areas ... I THINK NOT.
I myself have few degrees, (from well-known universities) but am not so
POMPIOUS to think that though it is not forte, and I can not learn something
by listening and formulating some well thought out comments... I know my
experiences andknowledge and try and learn more in areas of interest to me...
Using my personal,military-service,professional experiences...
I have gathered (in my opinion) knowledge in different unrelated areas...
Just for kicks ... try listening to "joe shmoe" (in your terms) ... you
might learn something from "the average person" ...
Thought: Its bad enough to be flamed on these posting but not to use
a Spell_Checker makes you look darn ignorant.
>First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no matter
>what. Then when there are just atheists talking about atheism, the subject
>matter is about the level of a first grader.
I personally find small 'graders' interesting ... what they lack in
common-traditional knowledge they make up with HONESTY and LACK OF
INTOLERANT BEHAVIOR TOWARD OTHERS ... which I find you lacking here...
> Anyway, here are some questions for you atheists. I'm just curious
> about your way of thinking and I bet
>I will find contradictions upon many of your answers about your "atheistic
>faith."
Then please, expell these GREAT CONTRADITIONS to me ... I'm giving you
an Open invitation ... And its "lack and faith in a belief in supernatural
beings or deities", my_friend_who_holds_a_NASA_JOB_and_some_sort_of_degree.
>It seems that none of you atheists ever agrees with each other. You
>all have some far-fetched ideal of what you believe or don't believe and have
>nothing to back it up. Okay, I'll shut up. Just read on...
Oh, at this point, I wish you would have stopped ... but as I see there
are more of these "pithy-little" platitudes to come....
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>1. What is your definition of faith?
>
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
Could care less.
>
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
History is based on historical records... get it ...
History = historical records .... where have you heard of FAITH records?
... and all Historical records are open to intepretations.
>
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
>
Historical records.
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Shifting of the Earth's strataspheric plates.
>
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
No.
>
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
>
Show me them. Like the one where your Christ determines the
Apocylpse within 'his' generation ... he's only 2,000 years
to late ...
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
>
Wow, didn't know that there were 3 evolutionary theories ...
what ... Darwins,Yours and Mark Barry's
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
>
Because they are simply trying to be able to honestly, determine
its source... they are not 'mindless sheep' following the
flock over the side of the cliff...
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
Yes I have...READ the FAQ, Atheist/Agnostics just don't
'come from smoke' ... most of us have Traditional-religious
backgrounds... unlike your theories that seem to come
from 'smoke'
>
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
>
Not much.
> * What do you believe in the bible?
Yea, that's it been published and copywrited.
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
>
In myself and the physical world that exists.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
My own morals,conduct and good judgment.
>
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
>
You must be kidding ... with this cr*p ... god in the mind?
I don't know ask "why do some psychotics, like Charles Manson
why they obey the "God-like-voices" they hear?
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
>
In a court of Law, yes.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
>
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
>
Why does the Catholic Church (which I was a former member of)
do NOT baptise miscarriages or still-borns at funerals ...
might be because they don't even belief it has a "soul" or
"life"
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
>
I'd punish them if they knew it was wrong.
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
Don't believe in god... I don't worry about such cr*p.
>
>
>EDITORIAL:
>
>So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
>a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
>people to die and bla bla bla. The fact is, that God gave us a free will to
>basically do what we want. We can choose between good and evil. And many
>times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world. Not
>because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen. Do you
>think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
>get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
>that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
>He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and repent
>from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
>understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
>
>The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
>pride. To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
>can't do that. That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
>you are. I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
>since I'm a Christian. The fact is, you will face judgement day without
>knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
>and it will be displayed before you and God. Everything you do will come
>back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
>Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
>for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
>
*crap*
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
>stupid replies...
Well ... hopefully intelligent ... but if not.
STUPID INQUIRIES = STUPID REPLIES.
Gavin Williams
I have yet to see a UFO, etc. and as such will not credit a sighting unless
I have completely incontrovertible proof. That is not to say I do not
acknowledge the likelihood of their existance.
Just as a remark, once when I was younger, I saw glowing discs flying in the
sky and it quite mystified me. Then I found out that there had been a
special exhibition in town that evening, and the flying discs I saw were
the searchlights shining on the clouds.
On the subject of mass hallucination, I can quite easily believe that some
proportion of a croud at the sermon of the mount were so taken in by his
charisma that they actually thought they were eating. Of course the whole
loaves-and-fishes thing is academic, as I do not believe it happened anyway.
After all, whose word do we have to verify it?
ob.pedantic: Unless each fish was of a different species, then it should
actually have been 'five loaves and two fish'.
What is Fatima?
--
As usual, JIMHO.
Gavin... Plus qu'il n'en faut.
will...@unix1.tcd.ie
Gavin Williams
>I myself have few degrees, (from well-known universities) but am not so
>POMPIOUS to think that though it is not forte, and I can not learn something
^^^^^^^^
>Thought: Its bad enough to be flamed on these posting but not to use
>a Spell_Checker makes you look darn ignorant.
Oops! (could not help it!)
:-)
Harry Weseman
bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
Here is my two cents, for what it is worth (0.04 Dutch guilders?).
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
There is history and there is myth. Columbus discovering the Americas is
history, the flood is myth. The difference is proof. I suppose you can prove
that Columbus discovered America, with old records, the flood cannot be proved.
And of course it was Eric the Red who discovered America..., or rather Hiawatha,
25,000 years ago...
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Interestingly, there are quite a few fossils of animals and plants that died
in desert areas, or in oil-lakes, like there are some in the Los Angeles area.
Fossils dating back millions of years ago. Can you reconcile that with the
flood hypothesis?
>4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
No and yes and it burnt quite nicely when I decided to get rid of it, together
with some other junk.
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
Genesis and the Revelations and everything in between, except for the
references to prove-able facts, like the Romans and all that. Sometimes
the bible has been a source of something that later proved to be a fact,
like the one about the Hittites. Only in the last century it was discovered
that the Hittites really have existed, as a people in what is now Turkey.
This is not to say that _everything_ in the bible that is not proven so far
eventually will be.
>5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
I believe that we humans descend from ape-like creatures, with the
chimpanzees as our closest relatives. Nearly all apes, in fact all primates are
socially organized, living in groups with a hierarchy. We share that trait
with our relatives. So, good social conduct is rewarded, bad social conduct
punished. Doing good gives a feeling of well-being, doing bad a feeling of
guilt. There is no universal definition of good and bad, as several groups
of humans behave slightly differently, socially. In the Aztec society it
was good to kill prisoners by cutting their hearts out while alive.
In the Fenician society children were sacrificed, and girls spent some
time as a temple prostitute, of which they were very proud. What's good?
In Somalia it is considered bad not having your baby-daughter taken her
clitoris away. What's bad?
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
We are held accountable here and now; we're social animals, aren't we?
>EDITORIAL:
>So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
>a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
>people to die and bla bla bla. The fact is, that God gave us a free will to
>basically do what we want. We can choose between good and evil. And many
>times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world. Not
>because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen. Do you
>think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
>get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
>that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
>He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and repent
>from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
>understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
>
>The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
>pride. To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
>can't do that. That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
>you are. I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
>since I'm a Christian. The fact is, you will face judgement day without
>knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
>and it will be displayed before you and God. Everything you do will come
>back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
>Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
>for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
>stupid replies...
>- Mark Barry
>NASA/Edwards AFB
My comment:
As heirarchically organized animals, we "need" a chief to guide us. As the
number of people grew larger, it was nearly impossible to dominate all the
individuals personally, therefore the chief invented an invisible being
from which he claimed authority. With help of a caste of priests he was now able
to rule the mob. This is in short where religion comes from. It can be
explained in zoological terms, in evolutionary terms even. That religion will
survive with which the ruling class can dominate the rest in the best way.
The chief survives himself, and his family, so his genes. That is why it is
so perverse to see that Roman-Catholic priests cannot marry...
Anyway, that was the situation till we atheists realized what was happening.
This posting form Mark Barry proves that a lot of people are still under
the spell. It is our duty as atheists to open their eyes.
Cheers!
Harry Weseman
--
===============================================================================
Harry Weseman - Digital Equipment Enterprise bv - Apeldoorn - The Netherlands
UUCP : ...!hp4nl!philapd!cssnl!harry | "For a thing unknown there is no
NET : ha...@syssup.tds.philips.nl | desire" - Ovid
Yuan Hsieh
>for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
Sigh...
>I am a system admin with NASA with a degree.
>[blab,blab,blab]
>But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be in college.
So I take it that you were never in college? If that's the case,
You must be really proud of yourself for being able to work in NASA with
out a college degree. And here I am, a proud owner of a B.S., working on a
M.S. can't even knock on the door of NASA, sigh, B.S. must really stands
for Bull Shit and M.S. must really stands for More Shit. Life is so rough.
And of course all the real intelligent people don't go to college. They just
graduate from high school and go on to become sys-admin at NASA, where all
the engineers and scientist, with their university degrees, are really a
clueless bunch. [Oh, I could go on and on, but you get my drift.]
A lot of questions had been answer, so I'll just pick and choose questions
that I think I have something to add...
>1. What is your definition of faith?
Blind Belief. Belief without evidences.
>5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
1. Myself.
2. If there are things I do not want others to inflict upon me, I will not
inflict these things upon other people.
3. Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law.
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
First of all, if there's a god, I would not want to second guess
him/her/it/them.
Secondly, if there's a god, and if I still have my free will,
I will still live my life the way I want. Afterall, it is my life,
and not his/her/its/theirs.
>6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
ok, so let's say fetus is alive, so what? As far as I am concern,
fetus is just a parasite, if the host(pregnant lady) does not
want it(fetus, the parasite) in her womb.
What do you do with a parasite?
>basically do what we want. We can choose between good and evil. And many
>times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world. Not
>because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen.
Good, next time you do something bad, don't say devil made me do it.
>Do you
>think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
>get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
>that.
Wrong, if god doesn't not want that, he/she/it/they would give us more than 1
or 2 chances at it.
Actually, Hindu/Buddism sense of salvation does give people inifinte chances at
salvation...maybe I'll become a hindu instead, the odds of me getting into
heaven is a lot better than being a christian.
Of course, we are assuming god exists, and if he does,
we are second guessing god here, and you are trying to put words in
god's mouth. Do you think he/she/it/them likes that?
>To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
>can't do that.
Hold'on a second, what exactly is your definition of sin. Most christian
friends of mine think sin means "absent of god, and not perfect like god",
if that's the case, then I have sinned because I am definite no where near
god and not perfect. However,
if your sin means secular crimes, "evils"...etc. than I must disagree with
you. I have never killa fellow human, rob, steal, lie..etc. Ok, I recalled
lying twice when I was younger, but I have not lied once in the past 5 years.
I am not a sinner.
>That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
>you are.
I admit I am not perfect, but I strive towards "perfection". do you?
>I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
>since I'm a Christian.
(armchair psy. mode)
No, I just don't think you are a real christian. IMHO, you are not secure
in your faith, therefore, you had to make noise, condemn others to prove to
yourself that you really do believe in what you are saying.
>But make sense with your comments instead of those stupid replies...
You should do the same...
>- Mark Barry
>NASA/Edwards AFB
-Y'
Chris Colby
>bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry) writes:
>>6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
>> an egg together?
In theory, yes (cloning). In practice, no.
>> Therefore, isn't life produced at
>> conception?
No, life was "produced" several million years ago and continues
in millions of diversified lineages (of which humans are one). Conception
merely marks the transition (in the life cycle) from haploidy to
diploidy(*) Sperm cells and egg cells (both haploid) are living. They
fuse to form a living cell which then differentiates into a human
(which is diploid).
If you think life is "produced" for each human, please tell
me what stage of the life cycle is not living (or human).
(*) I guess strictly it would be dikaryotic first, then diploid
when the the sperm and eggs chromosomes fuse. I can't remember
how long that takes.
gl_...@titan.kingston.ac.uk
>
> Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this newsgroup
> for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
>
> hasn't a clue to life. Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
> though most of you think Christians can't think. Most of you who make
> these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
> think their gods on computers. But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
> in college. So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
> not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
>
> what. Then when there are just atheists talking about atheism, the subject
> for you atheists. I'm just curious about your way of thinking and I bet
> I will find contradictions upon many of your answers about your "atheistic
> all have some far-fetched ideal of what you believe or don't believe and have
> nothing to back it up. Okay, I'll shut up. Just read on...
>
>
> 1. What is your definition of faith?
>
> can not see?
>
> a form of history?
>
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
>
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
>
>
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
>
>
> 2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
>
>
> 3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
>
>
> 4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
>
>
>
>
>
> 5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
>
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
>
>
>
> 6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> conception?
>
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
>
>
Well,being a geology student,I found your comment about the fishes,among
other things interesting.
Marine Fish on mountain tops:Well,I won't go into this into great detail as
you probably know the details,but......anyway here is the basics:
You get tectonic plates colliding,rucking up the oceanic crust between the
continents.The oceanic crust(and sediments containing fossils) is pushed up,as
it is squeezed out of its original position.Well,that is the basics.The
Himalayas for example consists of the Asian and Indian plates colliding,pushing
the inbetween ocean up.This has also occured in the european Alps,between the
African and European continents.Further,to back up this theory,in Cyprus,the
Troodos mountains contains structures identical in composition and structure to
that of material found in present-day oceanic crust.
Myself,I am undecided about the existence of God.
Steve
Simon Clippingdale
In article <1992May5.1...@news.dfrf.nasa.gov> bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry) writes:
> [there are deletions at various points]
>Ok, so I'll get flamed for this.
I was planning just to be really condescending, if that's OK with you, petal.
>So what. But after reading this newsgroup
>for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
I think this is an exaggeration, Mark. I am aware of only one *really*
asinine posting in recent days.
>First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no matter
>what.
There are some Christians here with brains, courtesy and an inclination
to serious debate. They don't get flamed, as you should know if you have
indeed been reading here for several months. They are often responsible
for generating much of the interesting traffic on this group.
You can spot 'em. Usually they don't open (and close!) with stuff like
"You filthy atheist garbage scum and your pigf***ing mothers will
burn in Hell. Intelligent replies only please, and no flames."
You would be wise to emulate them, even if some of them (horrors!) are
college students.
Just a few points on the rest of your stimulating post:
Surprisingly enough, many of your questions (despite their being well-
conceived, well-expressed, thought-provoking, spellt gud, and rocking
the very foundations of atheist thinking to their flimsy core) have been
asked and answered here before. We call them Frequently Asked Questions.
Can you guess what "FAQ" stands for? (Hint: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.)
Can you extrapolate as far as guessing what the "FAQ file" for this group
is? Can you guess what it's for? Good. So how about doing it? Hmmmm?
Definition of "faith" - look it up in a book.
Definition of "history" - look it up in a book.
Bet they're not the same.
_The Bible_ is a book of stories. Yes I've read it. *And* I believe it exists.
The flood story is a story in _The Bible_. Fairly crap one, but there y'go.
I couldn't follow it, what with the author changing his mind about whether
there were two of each kind on the ark or seven, and so on. I prefer the
blood'n'guts stuff like the end of Malachi. All the Righteous stamping on
the burning skulls of the damned with that cackling laugh. Was that you
laughing, Mark?
You should post something on talk.origins (where there are lots of people
with even more degrees than you) if you actually think that the biblical
flood happened. Hint: don't; *much* smarter people than you dress their
burns to this day.
Just a little query: you have a degree and work for NASA. So do lots of
cosmologists, astronomers, geologists and the like, right? How old do
most of them think the earth is? Assuming you don't agree, why not?
Don't worry, I know why not.
I see that Chris Colby has posted his evo FAQ for your benefit. Be smart
and read it before saying anything else about evo. (Followups on that to
talk.origins).
Now, what else was there? Abortion stuff. Again, had you been reading for
longer than about 10 minutes, you'd know that there is no atheist position
or even consensus on abortion (or anything else, other than the nonexistence
of god/s). Alternatively you could have discovered that at zero bandwidth
cost from the FAQ.
Morality and its source/s. The usual statement/question from theists is
something like:
"(1)The way I see it, (2)you atheists are compelled by your lack of
belief to go forth and murder, loot, rape and pillage with
abandon, (3)so why don't you?".
Why indeed. Luckily, even the first-graders who you think live here could
see that (3) screws up (2) and begs the question on (1). We don't hear:
"Please would all you atheists stop murdering, looting, raping
and pillaging with abandon".
and that should tell you something, shouldn't it, petal?
>EDITORIAL:
>The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
>pride.
No, the real reason that most of us have no faith is because we have no
faith. This is the basis of many an atheist's belief system, but the atheism
comes from the lack of faith, not the other way round.
>To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
>can't do that.
"Sin" is a construct of your religion, and this group, goodness gracious,
is alt.atheism. See if you can get your brain (it's in your head) around
the idea that atheists don't subscribe to the constructs, tenets and
vocabulary of your religion.
Anyhow, most of us don't want to be Christians, thanks all the same.
That even includes some of us (e.g. myself) who used to be Christians and
remember to this day what an end-to-end fun riot it was.
>That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
>you are. I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
>since I'm a Christian.
No, I don't think that what you say is cruel. I think that what you say
is foolish and that saying it here, without having at least read the FAQ,
is boorishly arrogant and inconsiderate. But hey, that's OK. We're big
on tolerance and forgiveness here; it's not like we're gonna jump on your
head `a la Malachi while you burn in Hell or anything.
Not unless you got the wrong god, anyway. (Pascal's Wager. It's in the FAQ.)
>The fact is, you will face judgement day without knowing Jesus
>and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
>and it will be displayed before you and God. Everything you do will come
>back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
>Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
>for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
And that's a fact, is it? Gosh. And I thought it was a tenet of a religion.
But I tell you what. All you have to do to convince me is to demonstrate that
your god exists. I ask no more.
If that's too much, you could at least get me warmed up by demonstrating that
the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Naturally you will have to account for
all the apparent evidence to the contrary, but for an intellectual heavyweight
such as yourself that should be no problem.
>- Mark Barry
>NASA/Edwards AFB
Cheers
Simon
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every morning when you wake up and look in the mirror, check yourself
for signs of collective identity" - Consolidated on "This Is Fascism"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Lee
net.etiquette, but I will not engage in private converstion with him.
I received the following message today.
**************************************************************************
Message-Id: <920506173...@vista.dfrf.nasa.gov>
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
To: cz...@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
Subject: Re: QUESTIONS To Atheists From A Christian
References: <1992May5.1...@news.dfrf.nasa.gov> <f8DO02y...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Organization: NASA
> Actually Columbus wasn't the first. There was a Viking whose name I
> forget. Also the Celts were reputed to have reached it. Where did all
> the water (a) come from? (b) go afterwards? No, it's a legend.
You, like many others, missed the point entirely. I expected this from
this group. The point was about believing in history without actually
being there!
ME: I did not miss the point. The point is that there is no evidence for
a world-wide flood, whereas there is evidence that Columbus (and
others) crossed the Atlantic from Europe.
> Plate upthrust? But then I'm not a geologist.
Then why isn't there evidence of towns and villages at those heights?
ME: Why isn't my cat a dog?
And you have the arrogance to demand sensible answers?
> >2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> > two are impossible?
>
> Do they? Which three are they? Please provide evidence for this.
Read about them somewhere...
ME: No. You read about them somewhere. Not on ICR-type literature, either.
Then if you disagree, take your arguments to talk.origins, not here.
1. Evolution (chance)
2. Progressive Evolution
3. Theistic Evolution
ME: You will have to explain in more detail than this. But do it on
talk.origins. Not here.
> Stupid question. This is alt.atheism.
Is it? I've gotten many different answers from this group...
> then all anybody has to do is point out one of the many
> contradictions (eg the old testament - the order of creation, eg the
> new testament - how did Judas Iscariot die), and then ask which bits you
> believe, and how you know that they are the bits to believe.
What contradictions? Be very specific and cite verses...
ME: No. Read the FAQ, like you should have done before your original
posting. YOU have come into OUR group and are trying to tell us
we are wrong without bothering to find anything out first.
> I'm not a parent, but I suspect that I would try to explain to the child
> what is right and wrong, before punishing him/her. As to your god, that
> is another matter. I don't share your delusion.
Of course not because it makes too much sense...
ME: Because it makes no sense at all. Remember, YOU have intruded on this
board. YOU have to back up your assertions. Why does it make too much
sense?
> Consider yourself flamed, but that is not because you are a Christian. It
> is because you have made stupid, unsupported assertions. You have also
> made them on the wrong board. Also you have tried to sermonise. How would
> you like it if I posted something equivalent and opposite (and with just
> as many holes) on a Christian board?
Go ahead, more than likely you will get witnessed to and you probably won't
ME: (witless?)
like it. As for me, I don't mind because I not only get flamed on the
computer but in person because I walk up to total strangers and tell people
about Christ. Most of them are very open and some could care less. But
that is what real Christians are suppose to do...
ME: And the majority who don't, aren't real christians?
Chris (p.o.'ed) Lee
cj...@minster.york.ac.uk
> Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this newsgroup
> for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
Matter of opinion, my friend. I, for one, will be reading follow ups
with interest to see which was more rude and offensive. Your flame or
the follow up flames.
> I am a system admin with NASA with a degree. I am not some Joe Smoe who
> hasn't a clue to life. Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
> though most of you think Christians can't think. Most of you who make
> these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
> think their gods on computers. But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
> in college. So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
> not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
>
> First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no matter
> what. Then when there are just atheists talking about atheism, the subject
Nathan, are you reading this? I think you are better qualified to
respond than I. Mark -- Nathan is an articulate Christian who is
generally (it seems) appreciated and respected for his integrity,
politeness and intelligence.
> matter is about the level of a first grader. Anyway, here are some questions
> for you atheists. I'm just curious about your way of thinking and I bet
> I will find contradictions upon many of your answers about your "atheistic
> faith." It seems that none of you atheists ever agrees with each other. You
> all have some far-fetched ideal of what you believe or don't believe and have
> nothing to back it up. Okay, I'll shut up. Just read on...
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. What is your definition of faith?
>
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
Yes.
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
No, history is not based on faith. Yes, the bible is a form of history.
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
Yes, Columbus' voyages are history. No, the flood is not history. The
reason we believe one and not the other is that history is not based
on faith.
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Yes.
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
No, for the most part.
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
I know that this is false.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
I am unsure what three theories you mean. A theory is a framework for
explaining facts. The basic facts of common descent over millions of
years are not in dispute. There are a number of proposed theories to
explain the observed facts. For the most part they are not diametrically
opposed, and investigation seeks to find how they interact.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
It depends what they are refering to. Scientists do not usually
say: `The moon appears to orbit the Earth' or `Humans may have a
common ancestor with chimpanzees'.
They will say `There appears to be a planet-like body orbiting such and
such a star' or `The most recent common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees
probably lived about 5 million years ago'.
They are guessing, but these are educated guesses, which are then tested
against any available evidence.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
I believe it exists. I find it a fascinating book. I have read it cover
to cover twice, and many parts (The first five books, the major prophets,
the new testament) about four times, and many sections (Ruth, Jonah, parts
of the gospels and epistles) more times than I can recall.
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
There are many parts of the bible which I believe are essentially myth.
There are many other parts which I believe are essentially history, but
not word for word reliable. Much of the theology I think is flawed. Many
of the basic assumptions, such as the existence of God, I do not share.
> * What do you believe in the bible?
Hard to answer, since you seem to be using the word "believe" is an
extremely black and white manner. I don't believe anything as a matter
of faith, but I do believe certain propositions are likely on the basis
of available evidence. All such assumptions are open to review. With
that in mind, I think that most of the history of the Kings of Israel
recorded from Samuel thru Chronicles is based on fact, though individual
stories are emergent myths. For example, consider David and Goliath.
I would guess that this is based on stories arising from an actual
conflict between an Israelite soldier or soldiers against Philistine
fighting man/men. The stories were later attributed to King David.
I could go on. But how do we evaluate some of the really interesting
bits, like Psalms or Ecclesiastes, which do not even claim to be
history?
As far as evaluating the bible as history, my views are not that
different from many Christian scholars. Just now I happen to be
reading "Can We Trust the New Testament", by Bishop John Robinson,
who answers his own question a qualified "yes". He seems to make
admirable sense to a great extent, and I tend to give him more
weight than Robert Schaeffer (an atheist scholar who can be found
on sci.skeptic, and who has rather more disparaging views of the
New Testament).
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
In the bible or in general? As above, I don't hold things on the basis
of faith. I'm (hopefully) open to what can reasonably be argued,
rather than simply asserted.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
The bible, to a large extent. This is perhaps an historical accident,
as I was brought up in a Christian home and later was an active Christian
independently in my own right, before I became an atheist. That formative
influence remains very strong. Fortunately, I had (and still have) wise
and loving parents, who emphasized the best in biblical morality. Using
the bible for standards is a risky thing. It requires wisdom.
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
Depends on what sort of a god it was in my mind I guess. This is a
hypothetical question, and you give no indication of what this god
might want.
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
Of course. Frequently. People do seem to hold me accountable for what
I do.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
Is this a question or a statement? In fact, life exists before, during
and after conception. Sexual organisms such as humans pass through
diploid and haploid phases. Both are alive.
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
A sperm, an ovum, a zygote, a fetus, etc is a unique living individual
organism, by normal scientific use of the word. Being alive has
nothing much to do with having a heart. Nor is this scientific definition
of being alive of overwhelming significance to certain contentious moral
questions which we have both coyly left nameless. :-)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
Depends on the circumstances. Sometimes, reproval and correction is
sufficient. Frequently, however, some punishment is appropriate.
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
Let us concede the existence of God for the purposes of the question.
The observed events in this life which might be attributed to divine
punishment or discipline are far too arbitrary to be of any use
whatever. Certainly they bear no relation to the disciple of a loving
parent. Even the bible concedes this (cf Ecclesiastes).
The alternative proposed by certain theists is that God defers reproval
and discipline until after this life is over. This is a hopeless
scheme, devoid of any redeeming features. Furthermore, the punishment
suggested by certain theists is eternal torment. This is unspeakably evil.
> EDITORIAL:
>
> So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
> a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
> people to die and bla bla bla. The fact is, that God gave us a free will to
> basically do what we want. We can choose between good and evil. And many
> times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world. Not
> because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen. Do you
> think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
> get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
> that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
> He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and repent
> from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
> understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
There is nothing in common between the proposed discipline you
suggest and the discipline of a loving parent. Loving disciple
is in proportion to the offense, comes immediately (or as soon as
possible) after the offense, and is given in such a way as to make
it easy to re-establish normal relations as soon as possible so
as to get on with living and learning.
You have proposed no punishment at all until after the end of life,
with no possibility of normalising relations after punishment or of
learning from the experience. In fact, the only way for a relationship
with the parent to persist is for no punishment to be given at all.
A better analogy would be a parent who gives their children a list of
instructions, and then goes out for a number of years. On return, if
they have disobeyed these instructions in any way, they sell them to
for perpetuity to gold miners in Brazil.
Since this is manifestly evil, the parents torture some other innocent
child. They do not, however, send him to Brazil for perpetuity; just
for a couple of days.
Now the other children get a choice. They can be sent to Brazil, or
if they say they are sorry and are really nice to this other tortured
child, then there will be no punishment whatever.
By the way -- most Christian theologians would consider your
description of divine discipline to be extremely naive.
> The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
> pride. To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
> can't do that. That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
> you are. I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
> since I'm a Christian. The fact is, you will face judgement day without
> knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
> and it will be displayed before you and God. Everything you do will come
> back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
> Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
> for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
I am a sinner. I because an atheist not because I couldn't admit that,
but because I found the hypothesis of God's existence to be unlikely on
the basis of the evidence.
I have suggested to you above why your proposed modus operandi for a
loving God is far fetched. If that was the best explanation for God,
I'd have become an atheist much much earlier. Even so, eventually even
the less naive theologies for resurrection and salvation ceased to
measure up to my experience.
I have attempted to be as rational as I can in this reply. However, I
do not really expect it to be productive.
Best wishes -- Chris Ho-Stuart
young.u.huh
>[...] Do you
>think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
>get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
>that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
>He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and repent
>from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
>understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
Is this the way you discipline your own children?
Do you want your children to live with you "in eternity"?
Do you allow a special son of yours (or someone) to be punished
(or even "die") for the "sins" of the rest of your children?
So, if they "believe in him" and "repent" from their "sins", does
that allow them to "avoid the big H"?
Do you have an analog of "hell" and "the big H" in disciplining
your children?
Do your children want to live with you "in eternity"?
Is all this supposed to be easy to understand?
>[...]
>- Mark Barry
>NASA/Edwards AFB
Young Huh
yh...@ihlpe.att.com
Dan Yergeau
In article <1992May5.1...@news.dfrf.nasa.gov>, bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry) writes:
|>
|> Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this newsgroup
|> for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
|> 1. What is your definition of faith?
|>
|> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
|> can not see?
Yes, faith is a belief in something for which there is not proof.
|> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
|> a form of history?
By the definition above, yes, history is based upon faith. But, let
us not forget that history is a "truth" based upon events (facts).
There are two problems with blindly accepting history as a completely
accurate. 1) Historical events are often recorded by the dominant
side. 2) The "facts" may be different depending on the observer.
|> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
|> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
|> that history also?
Did I say that I deny that a major flood occurred in the Middle
East back a few thousand years ago? I don't deny the event (it
may or may not have happened). I do not believe that it was an
"act of God," however.
If you are suggesting that the flood was world-wide, then why is
it not recorded in the history of other people in other regions of
the world. Some of their culture and history goes back before
the estimated time of the flood.
|> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
|> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Take a course in plate tectonics. Sure, you may claim that this
doesn't *prove* that it happened that way, but you only asked me
to explain it. (Please, no more stupid questions).
|> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
No.
|> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
|> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
[Shake, shake, shiver] Gee, maybe I should convert. You know that
Sadeem Hussein (sp?) is still in power, and he sure looks like the
anti-Christ. I wouldn't want to miss out on the Second Coming. Heard
it's going to be a great party.
|> 2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
|> two are impossible?
This has been hashed to death several times. Just because the theories
are inconsistant does not mean that an alternative theory (i.e.
creationism) is correct. That a course in basic logic.
|> 3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
|> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
Evolutionists and scientists apply the scientific method. Are you
unfamiliar with it? This produces theories which are based on
a sample of events. They are seldom able to prove something
conclusively using only a sample.
|> 4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
The bible is a historical document. Given the caveats I mentioned
above, it would be foolish to write it off as entirely fiction.
It would be equally foolish to think that it is absolute fact.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the Dead Sea Scrolls
are more widely studied. Of course, this is not intended to imply
that the scrolls are any more accurate than current translations
of the bible. I'm simply saying that the differences between them
may be "interesting."
|> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
Since you brought it up, that the great flood wiped out ALL (above
ground) life on earth, except for Noah's family and his animals.
In fact, most of the cute biblical stories told to children are
pretty unbelievable.
|> * What do you believe in the bible?
The exodus of of Jews from Egypt. That a man whom we now refer
to as Jesus did live (this is not saying that he was the son of God).
|> 5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
|> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
Read the FAQ. I tend to go along with the Golden Rule.
Christians also use the bible to try to force their "morality" on
others by quoting (sometimes dated) passages (sometimes entirely out
of context). Often, upon a closer inspection of the bible, there are
enough inconsistancies that is is impossible to tell if an action
is morally wrong in God's eyes. The best example of this that I can
come up with is homosexuality. But, that doesn't stop bible thumping
Christians for inflicting emotional torture on people.
|> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
After death, no. But, then, there is nothing after death anyway, so
what does it matter.
I may be judged here on earth for my actions if I choose to do thing
harmful to society.
|> 6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
|> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
|> conception?
Cells have been successfully cloned and engineered. Don't make
such a statement just because it hasn't been done YET.
|> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
|> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
|> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
You say THIS, and you accuse people in this group of discussing things on
the level of a first grader.
I'm not going to get into this further, since it is obvious that you
opinions on this subject are based on a grade school mentality. Some
things you may want to consider are
What is (human) life?
Does it require (the potential for) intelligence?
Does it require the ability to live separately from a "host"?
|> So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
|> a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
|> people to die and bla bla bla. The fact is, that God gave us a free will to
|> basically do what we want. We can choose between good and evil. And many
|> times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world. Not
|> because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen. Do you
|> think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
|> get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
|> that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
|> He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and repent
|> from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
|> understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
It is not hard to understand. It is, however, difficult to accept. I've
dealt with too many Christian/hypocrites who believe that their belief
in God will get them into heaven, regardless of their actions because
anything can be forgiven (provided they are repentant). These same
people tell me that I cannot get into heaven, no matter how well I live
my life, unless I accept Christ. This doesn't make any sense to me. It
certainly doesn't make any sense when you consider that many people
in the world have never even heard about the Christian God. Are these
people (who have been denied that choice) also damned? If so, then
what is good about God, a being who punishes people whose only wrong
is no having knowledge of him? If not, then why is acceptance of God
necessary for those who have heard of God (i.e. why is it wrong for
me to live my life as an atheist).
|> The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
|> pride. To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
|> can't do that.
I admit that I am far from perfect. I admit that I (on occasion)
do things that I should not.
|> That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
|> you are.
Back to the first grade level, aren't we?
|> I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
|> since I'm a Christian.
What you are saying is pretty typical of the Christian/hypocrites I've
encountered.
Dan Yergeau
yer...@gloworm.Stanford.EDU
Eric Rescorla
>I realise that by posting this, I am committing a gross breach of
>net.etiquette, but I will not engage in private converstion with him.
I think it would have been better to tell him that and see what he
said than to just post his email.
Self righteous mode off...
All in all, he said to you about what he seems to be saying in general
and I more or less agree with your replies.
Mikel Evins
>>First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no matter
>>what.
>Ron House, for instance, does not usually get flamed. People who do
>get flamed are Christians who try to proselytize.
Although Ron is not an atheist, he is also not a Christian.
A better example might be Nathan Shafer, who posts here
often, is a Christian, and manages to hold intelligent
conversations with Christians and atheists alike.
David O Hunt
1. What is your definition of faith?
Probably the one in the dictionary. :)
* Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
can not see?
Belief isn't necessarily tied to faith. I believe that gravity is, but I
don't see _gravity_, I see its effects.
* Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
a form of history?
History is written by winners - I daresay there's a lot we don't know. As to
the bible, perhaps it is, and perhaps it isn't history. At most, it's the
rather jazzed-up history of one people, at least, it's a great collection of
fables.
* Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
that history also?
Columbus "discovering" america is historic fact - there are witnesses, and the
effects are plain to see. There is no evidence for the flood. Nor has it been
shown where the water came from or went to.
* Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Sure - plate tectonics, shifting and folding of geological strata, etc.
* Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
Nope.
* Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
Where? When? The biblical prophesies are vague at best, full of allegorical
references. There's been some analysis to show that the comments were aimed
at the then-rulers, not for today. As to his return, I'll believe it when I
see it.
2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
two are impossible?
I know of two - natural selection and punctuated equilibrium. The big flaw in
the creationist argument regarding dissent in the ranks of evolutionists is
that the issue of evolution is NOT being argued. The mechanism is what
is being
debated.
3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
"may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
Sure - and maybe they recognize that nothing in science is proven. It's called
not being dogmatic, and allowing for the possibility that you might be wrong.
4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
Have I read it - sure. All of it. Taken a couple of courses in it as well.
* What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
All of the miraculous stuff, as well as a goodly proportion of the history.
* What do you believe in the bible?
That _some_ of the rules laid down have merit - like the "Golden Rule". This
needs no divine standard to rest on, it's a good rule in general if you want
a functioning society that isn't filled with violence. Pity a lot of people
today aren't following it.
* If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
I believe I'll have a drink! :)
Seriously, to go into my life's philisophy would take all day...more
than a day.
5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
My conscience is very good at alerting me about things I shouldn't do.
* If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
IF I thought there were a god, he were the biblical god, then I judge
him not to
be worthy of my worship. Pure and simple.
* Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
If I commit a wrong, then my conscience (and the law) will hold me accountable.
6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
conception?
Not yet there isn't. It depends on what you term "life". As a part of my
definition is the ability to sustain itself. By definition, a fetus can't.
Incidentally, I refer you to Exodus 21:22, in which a pregnant woman miscarries
by another's violent actions. In not calling for a life for a life, where the
"slayer" of the fetus (his actions caused the miscarriage) it seems clear to me
that the BIBLE directly states that a fetus is not a life.
* If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
See above comment. I _do_ object to third trimester abortions, when the fetus
has a chance outside the body.
7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
let them do what they want?
I'd punish them if they did something wrong.
* If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
Because it should be up to the law to punish me, not some ectoplasmic being who
seems very ready to hold himself above his own law.
>The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
>pride. To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
>can't do that. That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
>you are. I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
>since I'm a Christian. The fact is, you will face judgement day without
>knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
>and it will be displayed before you and God. Everything you do will come
>back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
>Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
>for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
I have a question for YOU:
Suppose I were to live a fully upright life by any "christian" standard.
Didn't
kill, monogamous marriage, was charitable,etc. etc. etc. But I didn't believe
in god or jesus or anything else. Would god condemn me for that? Because if
he did, then I'd say that he wasn't worthy of my worship. A god who is more
concerned with how strong your belief is rather than what you do with your life
is, IMHO, vain beyond belief.
As to my being proud - yes, I am. I also concede that I'm not perfect. To say
that simply because I don't believe in a god means that I think I am perfect
does not follow.
David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own. | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>> | Jewish homeland!
============================================================================
Email: dh...@andrew.cmu.edu Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"
"God created me in his own image and likeness. That explains my total
depravity." - J.D. Allen
Michael Hammill '92
>What is Fatima?
Oops, forgot to say what it was.
During the period between May and October 1917, an apparition of Mary
was said to have appeared to three sisters (ages between 8-17) on a
particular hill near Fatima, Portugal. The apparition took place once
a month, and the sisters talked with her. Mary apparently spoke of her
sorrow for the world, etc (you know, the usual stuff). The sisters
asked her for a sign.
On the last apparition in October, the apparition of Mary said that the
sun was going to come down and almost touch the earth. And apparently
it took place. There were thousands of witnesses surrounding the hill,
throughout the town of Fatima, throughout Portugal, and even as far
away as England witnesses apparently saw the same thing: the sun appeared
to grow in size in the sky till it nearly touched the earth. Mass
hallucination? You have to have remarkable faith to believe in mass
hallucination.
Apparently, Mary's last words included something like this. Russia was
about to undergo a change for the worse. She asked that Christians
everywhere "pray for the conversion of Russia". This of course was only
a few days before the October Revolution...
Anyway, what we have iin this example is the most compelling example of
a miracle. It occurred in modern times, was fairly well documented,
and had thousands of witnesses. The best argument I have ever heard against
this is 'if it's so compelling, how come I've never heard of it?' I answer
that maybe some non-Christians don't like to deal with it because it is
so compelling.
Make your own conclusions. I choose to believe the testimony of thousands
and the coming of Mary's supposed prophesies than a quack psychological
phenominon called "mass hallucination".
Mark.
Robert Krawitz
I realise that by posting this, I am committing a gross breach of
net.etiquette, but I will not engage in private converstion with him.
I received the following message today.
**************************************************************************
Message-Id: <920506173...@vista.dfrf.nasa.gov>
From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
To: cz...@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
Subject: Re: QUESTIONS To Atheists From A Christian
References: <1992May5.1...@news.dfrf.nasa.gov> <f8DO02y...@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Organization: NASA
> Plate upthrust? But then I'm not a geologist.
Then why isn't there evidence of towns and villages at those heights?
ME: Why isn't my cat a dog?
And you have the arrogance to demand sensible answers?
I'm surprised enough that he's even bothering to read this, but it might
be noted that the time it takes to raise mountains is very long (as in
several orders of magnitude longer) compared to the amount of time that
towns and villages have been in existence.
> Consider yourself flamed, but that is not because you are a Christian. It
> is because you have made stupid, unsupported assertions. You have also
> made them on the wrong board. Also you have tried to sermonise. How would
> you like it if I posted something equivalent and opposite (and with just
> as many holes) on a Christian board?
Go ahead, more than likely you will get witnessed to and you probably won't
ME: (witless?)
like it.
Probably wouldn't be worth any of our time, more like.
As for me, I don't mind because I not only get flamed on the
computer but in person because I walk up to total strangers and tell people
about Christ. Most of them are very open and some could care less. But
that is what real Christians are suppose to do...
Gee, maybe he should have tried that in LA last weekend...
--
ames >>>>>>>>> | Robert Krawitz <r...@think.com> 245 First St.
bloom-beacon > |think!rlk Cambridge, MA 02142
harvard >>>>>> . Thinking Machines Corp. (617)234-2116
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write lea...@prep.ai.mit.edu
Chris Lee
Eric,
You're right of course, but if there's one thing that p*sses me off, it's
proselytising, especially with such weak arguments. I don't mind it on
the net, where I can choose whether or not to respond, but the
pseudo-questionnaire was open, and my responses were open, and I felt
that if there were to be a debate, it should be open.
Chris Lee
Charles Hedrick
>> can not see?
>no.
> Faith is the capacity to believe in what you know is not true.
I admit that Christians often act in ways that leave this impression.
However I think that's a misunderstanding of what faith really is.
I have a problem with "faith" as some sort of independent source of
information: "Take it on faith..." To me faith has two meanings, both
of which refer to the manner in which we hold onto belief in
something, but not to the source of that belief. One meaning is
commitment. Belief in God is different from faith in God. As it is
said "Satan believes, but trembles". Faith in God has in addition to
the implication that we think he exists the implication that we trust
him and have committed ourselves to him.
The other meaning of faith for me is holding to a belief in the face
of intellectural or emotional attacks (discouragement or apparent
evidence against). However this is a virtue only up to a point. I
may have faith in a friend's innocence even when there is very
damaging evidence against him. The willingness to trust is an
important property of a friend. But if the person isn't innocent,
eventually one is called on to accept the truth. This sort of faith
is important even in science, or no scientist would be able to persist
in his efforts to make sense out of an often apparently perverse
nature. But let me say again: there must be some reason to have
accepted the belief in the first place, and an openness to consider
alternatives. We want to avoid abandoning things due to
discouragement, but we *should* abandon them due to sufficient
contrary evidence. I take this as the sense in which faith is used in
the famous Biblical passage Hebrews 11. It is having confidence in
things that aren't immediately visible. But I don't think the faith
talked about there comes out of thin air. The things may not be
immediately visible, but there has to be some reason to believe in
them.
cj...@minster.york.ac.uk
> *sigh* I *just* *can't* decide if it is God's will for me to reply to
> this. :-)
For David Hollingsworth...
I am fascinated at how much response is being generated by this poll by
Mark Barry. I hypothesize that it is because this is the kind of thing
we atheists love to see. A reply is so easy, and the original poll was
so bad that any reply will leave us smelling like roses and the theist
looking like a jerk.
I also am confident (and hinted as much in my own reply) that Mark's
poll would make other Christians cringe. Christians will object his
basic assumptions and approach as much as atheists, and with better
reason. His theology is as naive as his metaphysics and science.
Now you provide two, sometimes three sets of replies concurrently, from
a Christian perspective, and an atheist perspective, and sometimes from
a referee who comments on the simple logical errors without expressing
an opinion. That was a very good idea! I wish I had thought of it!
I am left wondering which view, if any, you adhere to yourself....
Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Gavin Williams
>Oops, forgot to say what it was.
<intro snipped>
> On the last apparition in October, the apparition of Mary said that the
> sun was going to come down and almost touch the earth. And apparently
> it took place. There were thousands of witnesses surrounding the hill,
> throughout the town of Fatima, throughout Portugal, and even as far
> away as England witnesses apparently saw the same thing: the sun appeared
> to grow in size in the sky till it nearly touched the earth. Mass
> hallucination? You have to have remarkable faith to believe in mass
> hallucination.
Ok, two things,
1. Sounds weird, I'm off to check an astronomy book (or something).
2. If the sun were to come so close, we'd all be dead.
I'll check it out. Anyone else heard about it?????
> Apparently, Mary's last words included something like this. Russia was
> about to undergo a change for the worse. She asked that Christians
> everywhere "pray for the conversion of Russia". This of course was only
> a few days before the October Revolution...
Well, I would hardly put it down as a change for the worse. I am in no way
a communist, but a lot of the poorer people benefited greatly from the
Revolution.
> Anyway, what we have iin this example is the most compelling example of
> a miracle. It occurred in modern times, was fairly well documented,
> and had thousands of witnesses. The best argument I have ever heard against
> this is 'if it's so compelling, how come I've never heard of it?' I answer
> that maybe some non-Christians don't like to deal with it because it is
> so compelling.
As I have said, I'd like to check this out for myself. Incidentally, where did
you get your documentation, who is it's author(s) etc.
Paul J. Bentkowski
>In <1992May6.1...@acsu.buffalo.edu> bent...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul J. Bentkowski) writes:
>
>>I myself have few degrees, (from well-known universities) but am not so
>>POMPIOUS to think that though it is not forte, and I can not learn something
> ^^^^^^^^
>
>>Thought: Its bad enough to be flamed on these posting but not to use
>>a Spell_Checker makes you look darn ignorant.
>
got me on that one, Gavin ... must have hit [pass], instead of [replace]
word.
pb :^)
From A to B
> In article <1992May5.1...@news.dfrf.nasa.gov> bar...@dryden.dfrf.nas
> >Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this newsgroup
> >for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
>
> been posted within the last two months.
Within the last two weeks, actually. To be more precise, it's posted on the
last weekday before the first day of each month. Reminders with instructions
on how to obtain it are posted weekly, usually on the Monday.
mathew
Ed Watkeys
In article <1992May5.1...@news.dfrf.nasa.gov> (alt.atheism), bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry) writes:
>
>
> Ok, so I'll get flamed for this. So what. But after reading this newsgroup
> for the last several months, the postings start to get pretty stupid.
>
> hasn't a clue to life. Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
> though most of you think Christians can't think. Most of you who make
> these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
> think their gods on computers. But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
> in college. So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
> not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
I wasn't going to reply to this, but seeing how it has stuck around...
1. Ad hominem attack. ("college students who think their[sic] gods on computers")
2. Strawman / lie. ("most of you think Christians can't think")
>
> First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no matter
> what. Then when there are just atheists talking about atheism, the subject
> matter is about the level of a first grader. Anyway, here are some questions
> for you atheists. I'm just curious about your way of thinking and I bet
> I will find contradictions upon many of your answers about your "atheistic
> faith." It seems that none of you atheists ever agrees with each other. You
> all have some far-fetched ideal of what you believe or don't believe and have
> nothing to back it up. Okay, I'll shut up. Just read on...
Are you right now compiling a post of contradictions? I'll send you mail
every other day, just so you won't forget...
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. What is your definition of faith?
>
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
>
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
Here, good ole Mark is trying to lower history to the level of religion. Why
is he doing this? Well, READ ON...
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
OH, THIS IS WHY! Since religion and history are equivalent, we're being
hypocritical for selectively accepting the history which suits our egos.
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
I think Mark knows that any answer which takes less than five pages and
has fewer than twenty citations is going to *look* stupid. Furthermore, if
we give citations, he'll say that we're believing the scientists we cite on
faith, and therefore, sciece is a religion, no better than Christianity. Is
this correct, Mark?
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
This one I can't figure out -- I think he lost his train of thought.
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
Okay, he wants to show our supreme ignorance of the truth of the bible. Well,
I was talking to a fervent Chrisitian the other day, and he told me that only
half have been fulfilled. Who's correct, Mark? There seems to be a lot of
confusion over it. You're a bright guy, you even have "a degree" -- tell us
the correct answer, would you?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
Strawman alert (thanks for the definition a few weeks ago)! As far as I
understand it (and I don't claim to be an evoluionary biologist), the current
theories regarding *how* (not if) evolution occurs are not mutually exclusive;
it is "merely" a debate of how these different processes interact.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
Why do Christians always fault science for not declaring that "Truth has been
found." I see science as not a body of knowledge but as a method (you're from
NASA, you should know about the scientific method). If we were to loose all
of our scientific knowledge, it could in principle be regained completely.
In fact, one particuarly intelligent, long-lived person could do it, in
principle. I find it hard to believe that you work for NASA and hold these
opinions. I'm not saying they should fire you; I can't believe that you'd
want to work there. Do you really think that scientists "are guessing"?
I've said this before, but why is it that creationists "believe" in the science
that makes microwave ovens and computers and space shuttles possible, but
not in the things which lower their perceived sense of self-worth.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
>
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
>
> * What do you believe in the bible?
>
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
I don't have time to read the sacred book of every crackpot religion -- I have
better things to do. I have read portions of the bible (Revelation was fun),
but not a lot. I do have a working knowledge of what Fundamentalist Christians
believe, and know more about the bible than most Christians.
I believe in thinking for yourself. If there is a Christian god, I'm sure
he'll make himself known to people who think for themselves.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
>
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
>
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
I believe in treating others as I would like to be treated. I do not believe
that this will have any ramifications after I am dead. I do not need the threat
of eternal damnation to be a decent person. I, however, do not have a high
opinion of humanity -- I think most people *do* need some sort of "all-powerful
cattle prod" as someone else said. Christianity has its uses.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
>
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
I really doubt that most pro-choice people would advocate abortions in the
32th week of pregnancy, but this beside the point. I cow has a beating heart,
but I imagine that you've eaten cows before.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
>
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
What is the point of punishing people eternally? Of course, the Fundies I know
say that people choose to go to hell, but then again, a lot of them probably
think that women choose to get raped...
> EDITORIAL:
>
> So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
> a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
> people to die and bla bla bla. The fact is, that God gave us a free will to
> basically do what we want. We can choose between good and evil. And many
> times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world. Not
> because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen. Do you
> think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
> get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
> that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
> He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and repent
> from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
> understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
I don't have children and don't plan on having any, but if I did, I wouldn't
let them near any beast such as you just described.
> The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
> pride. To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
> can't do that. That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
> you are. I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
> since I'm a Christian. The fact is, you will face judgement day without
> knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
> and it will be displayed before you and God. Everything you do will come
> back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
> Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
> for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
Preaching is not welcome here. Please read the FAQ...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Go ahead, flame me. But make sense with your comments instead of those
> stupid replies...
>
> - Mark Barry
> NASA/Edwards AFB
>
Please read the .sig, Mark...
--
Ed Watkeys (Drexel U. Comp Sci) "Moral judgement and condemnation is
e...@caligula.cts.com the favorite form of revenge for the
edw%cali...@phlpa.pha.pa.us spiritually limited on those who are
ls.com!phlpa!caligula!edw less so...." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Colleen Davis
>
>
>
>
> 1. What is your definition of faith?
>
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
>
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
>
No, history is based on facts. The fact that the bible contains some
historical facts does not prove that it is 100% true or that God exists.
The parts of the Christian bible that can be accepted as history are those
parts that can be verified by examining other documents and artifacts from
the same time period.
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
>
The evidence for Columbus is concrete. The evidence for the flood is shaky.
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Geology shifts. As a University-educated person, you should know that. Also,
the fact that they are fossilized at all spoils biblical accounts anyway,
because the bible claims that the earth was created around 8000BC, and things
need a graet deal more than 10000 years to fossilize.>
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
>No.
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
That is a matter of opinion. I for one do not believe that Jesus was the
savior. Religious prophecies are bound to be self-fufilling because people
want to believe that they are true.>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
>
I can't answer this, since I'm not a paleobiologist, but I will point out that the
the fact that there isn't a seamless theory of evolution is not evidence for
God, creation, or anything else. All it shows is that science isn't quite
as advanced as we might like it to be. Primitive peoples took lightening to
be evidence of god(s) since they didn't have a scientific explanation for it.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
>
All of science is about educated guessing--coming up with a plausible theory
and then testing it. Once again, this proves nothing. I think you are
perhaps confusing several issues. First, you are confusing atheism with
belief in particular scientific theories. Second, you are confusing the ideas
of a scientific reason for something and HAVING that reason. For example, not
HAVING the reason for lightening did not mean that there was no reason.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
>
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
>
All references to the existance of God, "God's" commandments, the Messiah, etc.
> * What do you believe in the bible?
>
Basically just the bits about treating others well. And that is not dependant
on religious thought and especially not on Christian thought.
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
I'm basically a utilitarian. I should try to promote happiness and reduce
suffering for others and myself. >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
>
I can set my own standards, and I set them based on what good I can do in the
world. Since I am not expecting rewards in the afterlife, this may be my one
chance, so I'd better make the best go of it possible.
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
There isn't a God in my mind, and even if there were, I certainly don't know
how I would know how he/she/it would want me to determine moral standards.
That's a silly question.
>
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
No. There is actually the possibility that I'm dead wrong. Please refer to
my Corollary to Pascal's Wager>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
>
Yes, you are correct. However, there is an ethical difference between
human biological life and personhood. By your argument, one of the main
priorities of medical science should be preventing the spontaneous
expulsion of 60% of zygotes, since those are human beings who die. Also, once
again you are confusing issues. Not all pro-choicers are atheists and not all
atheists are pro-choice.
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
Actually, that belief is quite uncommon. Most pro-choice advocates believe
that the fetus acquires some rights to life around 22 weeks. Once again,
there is a difference between human biological life and personhood. Come
to think of it, human spermatazoa are alive. Are you careful with your
sperm? Do they have a right to life?>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
>
I would punish a child, of course. Learning to get along in the world is
important.
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
It isn't wrong, it just plain doesn't exist.>
>
> EDITORIAL:
>
> So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
> a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
> people to die and bla bla bla. The fact is, that God gave us a free will to
> basically do what we want. We can choose between good and evil. And many
> times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world. Not
> because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen. Do you
> think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
> get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
> that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
> He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and repent
> from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
> understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
>
> The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have too much
> pride. To be a Christian you have to admit you are a sinner and most of you
> can't do that. That would mean you're not perfect like you probably think
> you are. I know you probably think that I'm pretty cruel to say all of this
> since I'm a Christian. The fact is, you will face judgement day without
> knowing Jesus and you will be accountable for everything you think and do
> and it will be displayed before you and God. Everything you do will come
> back in full living color. But you can avoid that judgement by accepting
> Jesus. You can live your life how you want, but we are all held accountable
> for our actions. You are no exception to the rules.
>
Quit threatening me. I've heard all this before, and I just don't believe it.
STOP PREACHING.
-Colleen Davis
Bob Beauchaine
>The other meaning of faith for me is holding to a belief in the face
>of intellectural or emotional attacks (discouragement or apparent
>evidence against). However this is a virtue only up to a point. I
>may have faith in a friend's innocence even when there is very
>damaging evidence against him. The willingness to trust is an
>important property of a friend. But if the person isn't innocent,
>eventually one is called on to accept the truth. This sort of faith
>is important even in science, or no scientist would be able to persist
>in his efforts to make sense out of an often apparently perverse
>nature.
Is this also true for god? A quick trip through the old
testament provides ample evidence that perhaps god isn't as all
loving as he would have us believe. Do we accept his "innocence"
simply because he keeps saying so? Or do we hold him to a higher
standard and say, "gee, god, you've fallen a bit short of
omni-benevolence this week. 10 demerits."?
It's easy to have faith that a being as powerful as god is
supposed to be is looking out for our best interests. It would
certainly seem a hopeless situation if he weren't. But on what
do you base this assumption? His own testimony. I'm of the
opinion that the evidence speaks otherwise.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bo...@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
Well, I vote for us to believe in an honest lawyer. There's a
better chance that one exists than there is a chance that there is a god.
No jesus, know peace. Know jesus, no peace.
Trent Tobler
It was interesting to note one of the postings Mark Barry posted in
talk.origins. (Remember Mark, the sysadmin at NASA with a degree?)
: From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
: Subject: EXPLAIN THIS (From A Christian)
:
: If evolution is true, then how can the 3rd law of thermodynamics be possible?
:
: 3rd Law: Everything is decaying faster than it can evolve.
:
:
: - Mark
Now, either he REALLY likes to post flame bait in the newsgroups he disagrees
with, or he isn't as qualified as he thinks he is (I seem to remember him
saying he wasn't some Joe Smoe from the street in his article posted here.)
--
Trent Tobler - tto...@csulx.weber.edu
Disclaimer: These are my comments, and mine alone.
Ed McCreary
>
>>What is Fatima?
>
>Oops, forgot to say what it was.
> During the period between May and October 1917, an apparition of Mary
> was said to have appeared to three sisters (ages between 8-17) on a
> particular hill near Fatima, Portugal. The apparition took place once
> a month, and the sisters talked with her. Mary apparently spoke of her
> sorrow for the world, etc (you know, the usual stuff). The sisters
> asked her for a sign.
>
> On the last apparition in October, the apparition of Mary said that the
> sun was going to come down and almost touch the earth. And apparently
> it took place. There were thousands of witnesses surrounding the hill,
> throughout the town of Fatima, throughout Portugal, and even as far
> away as England witnesses apparently saw the same thing: the sun appeared
> to grow in size in the sky till it nearly touched the earth. Mass
> hallucination? You have to have remarkable faith to believe in mass
> hallucination.
>
...stuff deleted to conserve space...
Hmm, I follow such events when I can, and I must say although I've read
on Fatima, I've never heard of this particular event. Could you please
provide references?
--
McCr...@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com Computers are like Old Testament gods;
Me? Speak for Compaq? Yeah, right. lots of rules and no mercy.
"By this time my lungs were aching for air..." Joseph Campbell
cj...@minster.york.ac.uk
[.. lots of helpful stuff for Mark Barry omitted ..]
> You should post something on talk.origins (where there are lots of people
> with even more degrees than you) if you actually think that the biblical
> flood happened. Hint: don't; *much* smarter people than you dress their
> burns to this day.
Too late. He has already done it! Just three lines worth, but enough to
make us glad that his role at NASA has nothing to do with physics.
Article <1992May6.2...@news.dfrf.nasa.gov>
by bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
>If evolution is true, then how can the 3rd law of thermodynamics be possible?
>
>3rd Law: Everything is decaying faster than it can evolve.
Cheers -- Chris
Graham Matthews
>[lots of deleted drivel]
I would just like to thank everyone for such a controlled and
non-inflammatory reponse to Mr Barry's article. May I make a
further suggestion, namely that we just ignore him completely.
graham
--
Graham Matthews And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
gra...@maths.su.oz.au
dean.kaflowitz
>
> It was interesting to note one of the postings Mark Barry posted in
> talk.origins. (Remember Mark, the sysadmin at NASA with a degree?)
>
> : From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
> : Subject: EXPLAIN THIS (From A Christian)
> :
> : If evolution is true, then how can the 3rd law of thermodynamics be possible?
> :
> : 3rd Law: Everything is decaying faster than it can evolve.
> :
> :
> : - Mark
>
> Now, either he REALLY likes to post flame bait in the newsgroups he disagrees
> with, or he isn't as qualified as he thinks he is (I seem to remember him
> saying he wasn't some Joe Smoe from the street in his article posted here.)
He sent me the same question. He ought to go over to talk.origins
where all the nonsense he's been sspouting has been debunked ad
nauseum. I don't know if he would understand the answerss, though.
I found his surprise at people's negative reactions to his flaming,
er, "think piece" very funny. I found his secular proofs to be
equally as laughable, especially the bit about the Flood. The
Flood, for those who haven't tried talk.origins, get sdebunked
regularly there.
I keep telling you folks, they send these guys out from Christian
Central on a regular basis. I suspect they're salaried.
Dean Kaflowitz
dave budd
> Anyway, what we have iin this example is the most compelling example of
> a miracle. It occurred in modern times, was fairly well documented,
> and had thousands of witnesses. The best argument I have ever heard against
> this is 'if it's so compelling, how come I've never heard of it?' I answer
> that maybe some non-Christians don't like to deal with it because it is
> so compelling.
> Make your own conclusions. I choose to believe the testimony of thousands
> and the coming of Mary's supposed prophesies than a quack psychological
> phenominon called "mass hallucination".
> Mark.
And I can introduce you to rastafarians who SAW the late emperor Haille
Selassie return to Jamaica in an aeroplane made of clouds........
Mass hallucination is only one step up from mass hysteria, and anybody who
studies crowds can tell you how to produce that real easy.
+--Great Quotes of our Time---------------------------------------------+
| Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future. |
+--------------------------------------------------------Niels Bohr-----+
Simon
>
> 1. What is your definition of faith?
>
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
>
By it's definition it requires a belief in something imperceptable.
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
>
No. History is based on documentary evidence from different sources which
fit together to create a larger picture.
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
>
Because we have written evidence of Columbus which was written down near
the time when the event happened. The stuff in the OT about the flood was
written around 600BC which is many hundreds of years after the flood is
alleged to have happened. There were no eye-witness accounts and the matter
is the seat of myth and hearsay.
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Ask an 'O' level geology student. The answer is too obvious to resort to
crap like 'a flood put them there'.
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
No.
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
I can't for one minute believe this. There are three main ways in which
Christians force 'prophecies' to become fulfilled:
a) By knowledge of the prophecy by the person fulfilling it. Jesus knew
that prophecy said that the Messiah would arrive in Jerusalem on a
donkey since he was a Rabii and was familiar with Jewish teachings. So he
arrived on a donkey to augment his claim to Messiahood.
b) By misinterpreting and reinterpreting the OT in the light of the NT.
Passages in the OT are given meanings which they weren't designed to have.
c) By engineering the written 'prophecy' such that it has come true before
it is written down. Many Christian authors wrote pseudonymously, attributing
their texts to earlier Christians in order to augment veracity.
> 2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
They don't.
>
> 3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
>
Because they are not as dogmatic as the looney Christians. Christians
arrogantly tell us that things ARE as it is said in the Bible, and God
IS such-and-such, and Jesus WAS such-and-such. Scientists have the
courage to admit that they do not know all the answers and then try to
offer a plausible argument rather than brow-beating us with dogma.
> 4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
I have read some of it and do believe that SOME of it is true.
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
>
It would be easier to invert the question.
> * What do you believe in the bible?
>
That Jesus was a Messiah in the original sense of the word (Hebrew word
meant 'the rightful king chosen by God'), not that he was the son of God.
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
That Christianity has been responsible for more slaughter than Adolf Hitler.
> 5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
>
My own morality. I am able to think for myself.
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
If, if, if.....
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
Only by myself. I am responsible for my own spiritual development.
> 6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
You are right, there is no other way, nor, in my opinion, will there ever
be. The body is definately seeded at fertilisation, but, in my opinion,
there is no incarnation until birth, so the answer to your second question
is 'no'.
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
Like a lot of Christians, you do not understand the concepts of simple
logic. If 'A' implies 'B', it does not follow that 'B' implies 'A'. The
heart's beating is a prerequisite for life, but the beating of
the heart does not imply life.
> 7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
I would punish them if they did wrong.
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
Meaningless question. God does not punish us.
I think Ronald Rayguns was a good Christian. he believed that he would be the
person who would precipitate 'Armaggedon' as depicted in 'Revelations' and
that he would do it by pressing the big red button. Christianity is as
dangerous now as it was 500 years ago. (I believe it is customary to make
my irony clear by following this with the word 'NOT!').
################################################################################
# Simon Day @ BT, Angel Centre, London si...@cyborg.bt.co.uk #
################################################################################
# "If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as #
# it is : infinite. For man has closed himself up till he sees things thro' #
# narrow chinks of his cave." - William Blake #
################################################################################
Paul J. Bentkowski
>bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
>>[lots of deleted drivel]
>
>I would just like to thank everyone for such a controlled and
>non-inflammatory reponse to Mr Barry's article. May I make a
>further suggestion, namely that we just ignore him completely.
>
>graham
>--
Graham,
I must admit that you are probably right on what should be
done with Mr. Barry's posting ... but it's been a while
since I LAUGHED SO HARD sitting in the office (at the
posting(s) of his, and different responses) ... that I think
I needed it...
As I mentioned (directly-email) to Mr. Barry (my good
'joe shmoe'_non-physco(in his terms)_man_with_the_big_time
_NASA_job_and_degree_whoop-ty_doo friend) ...
Just a another classic example, of one whom is
"OVEREDUCATED FOR ONE'S OWN INTELLIGENCE".
Please, let's ponder that before responding-irresponsibly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul J. Bentkowski, Senior Systems Administrator,
Systems and Data Communications
Computing Services Internet: Bent...@snybufva.cs.snybuf.edu
State University of New York BITNET: BentkoPJ@snybufva
at Buffalo SUNY DECnet: sbufva::BentkoPJ
Twin Rise 208 VOICE: 716-878-4611
1300 Elmwood Avenue FAX: 716-878-4235
Buffalo, New York, 14222
Ed McCreary
>
>talk.origins. (Remember Mark, the sysadmin at NASA with a degree?)
>
>: From: bar...@dryden.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mark Barry)
>: Subject: EXPLAIN THIS (From A Christian)
>:
>: If evolution is true, then how can the 3rd law of thermodynamics be possible?
>:
>: 3rd Law: Everything is decaying faster than it can evolve.
>:
>:
>: - Mark
>
>Now, either he REALLY likes to post flame bait in the newsgroups he disagrees
>with, or he isn't as qualified as he thinks he is (I seem to remember him
>saying he wasn't some Joe Smoe from the street in his article posted here.)
>
He may not be a Joe Smoe, but he really should read a book on *basic*
thermodynamics.
Mitchell S Todd
> 1. What is your definition of faith?
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
"Faith" has many definitions. In this case, "faith" is a
belief without any supporting evidence, or even belief *against*
the weight of evidence.
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
History is based on the corpus of artifacts that people leave behind.
This includes buildings, literature, records, graffitti, corpses,
the garbage pile, etc.
Is the Bible a "form" of history? In a way. Some parts of the
Bible are factual (mostly things like kingly lineages and
wars), and have been verified by other societies' records.
Most things in the Bible are either inventions or gross
exagerations.
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
Columbus' feat is well recorded by contemporary chroiclers, and not
only in the records of the Spanish. The Bible wasn't written
down until the Babylonian captivity, long after "the flood".
Among many river- and costal based civilizations, there is
a common thread of flood folklore. However, these stories tend
to differ radically from each other.
Further, there are questions like, how did Noah get millions
of animals onto such a tiny ship? Or, where did all that
water come from?
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Plate techtonics. Mountain building. Crustal folding. Nothing
new or amazing, really.
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
I would say that some "prophecies" have been fulfilled. Many
"prophecies" were "fulfilled" before the account of the events
were written. Some of the "prophecies" were so obvious that
any idiot could make them. Others "fulfilled propehcies" were
never "prophecies" to begin with -- they were twisted into
prophecies for the sake of expedience.
> 2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
And which theories are these?
> 4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
Not really. bWell some. And I've probably studied the Bible,
and about the Bible, far more than you have.
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
o About 95% of the New Testamant.
o Anything about this silly God-thing protrayed within the
Bible
o All those rediculous miracles
> * What do you believe in the bible?
About one half of the "history" section of the OT.
At least, the stuff that either probably happened, or
that has been established (by archeology, etc) to have
happened.
>> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
To begin with, I believe that "Bible" is supposed to be
capitalized.
Actually, why does anyone have to believe in any Supreme Being/Truth,
etc?
Actually, I believe I'll go and have a beer in a few minutes.
> 5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
My guide? My own head and heart.
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
If there were a God in my mind, I'd ask Him to pay rent or get
out.
Seriously, If there is a God, I figure that He gave us a
brain so that we would use it and not follow some dusty old
tome around blindly like a stupid herd of sheep. In fact,
is there is a God, I think He gives bonus points for
thinking for oneself.
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
If there is a God, a truly transcendental Supreme Being, then He
will judge me for his own reasons, not yours, not the Bibles,
of the Koran's, or the Veda's, or whatever.
> 6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
Life. Of course. And life existed *before* the merger of the
sperm and egg. The question is, when can a fetus be considered
a human being.
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
Actually, very, very few (if any) pro-choicers believe that
"Life (or personhood, if you will) begins after birth".
Life exists independently of the heart. Many creatures without
hearts manage to live, feed, and reproduce without hearts.
Furthermore, the going definition of human death these days
is a cessation of meaningful brain activity, rather than the
lack of a heartbeat.
> 7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
Depends. If they do something wrong, but they don't know it was
wrong, I tell them what they did and why it is wrong. If they
are causing trouble, and I know they are doing it to get my
attention, I ignore them. In this case punishing them is really
just rewarding them. If they do something wrong that they know
is wrong, I punish them.
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
Partly, it is wrong because God (at least yours) wants to
punish me infinately for what amounts to a finite sin.
Partly, it is because, since God is all knowing and all
powerful, there is no freewil in any world he creates.
> EDITORIAL:
>
> So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
> a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
> people to die and bla bla bla. The fact is, that God gave us a free will to
> basically do what we want. We can choose between good and evil.
Ah, but we don't have freewill. If God is all knowing, then He
knew every detail of every event that would unfold in his
creation. Because He is the all powerful Creator, then He
had the power to change the universe so that sin would be
impossible. He chose to create a world, knowing exactly the
chain of events that would unfold, yet He chose to create it
anyway. Any freewill, then, is only illusion.
>And many
> times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world. Not
> because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen.
Who brought evil into this world? Not man, but God. If God
is the First Cause, then He caused evil. If He is the Alpha and
the Omega, and everying in between, then He must be evil
somewhere in there.
> Do you think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things
> and not get punished?
My, my, my, you do seem to like this punishment thing quite a
bit. Are you a punishment fetishist? Will you show up on
judegement day in a leather S&M outfit, hoping God will
tie you up and slap you around a bit?
> No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
> that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity.
If he wants us all to be with Him, then why Hell and torment and
sin in the first place?
|
\ | /
\|/
_________________________ ---(0)--- ______________________________________
\__ \___/~/|\~\___/ _______/
\__ mst...@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ Ambiguity is the ______////
\__ Mitchell S Todd / | \\ Devil's tetherball ______////
\___________________/ \\____________________________////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
/////\\\\\\\\\\\
Kent Sandvik
> hasn't a clue to life. Therefore, I do know how to think for myself even
> though most of you think Christians can't think. Most of you who make
> these accusations against Christians are usually college students who
> think their gods on computers. But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
> in college. So get off your high horse and read this open mindedly and
> not be p.o.'ed because some Christian wrote it.
Here we go again, I'm sure Bertrand Russell, as an atheist, was a
college drop-out...
Anyway,
> 1. What is your definition of faith?
>
> * Do you believe faith requires you to believe in something your eyes
> can not see?
Why place such burden on the five senses? "Reality is what refuses to go away
when I stop believing in it."
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible also
> a form of history?
Not true, history is based on people's personal opinions.
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
> but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament? Isn't
> that history also?
The flood has no scientific grounds - I do neither believe in a flat
Earth.
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top of
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
Ever heard about earth movement, I guess I'm just now sitting here
in California on old sea surface...
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
No, because they don't reflect at all our modern world.
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible have
> been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
This is a myth, and many writers, from Thomas Paine, to current day
Steve Allen has clearly shown that his is not true.
> 2. Why do all three theories of evolution "conclusively" prove the other
> two are impossible?
Are there suddenly more than one evolution theory?
>
> 3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-"probably"-
> "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like they are guessing.
It's part of the scientific tradition to always question, and make
a better theory. Compare this with dogmas defined in the Middle
Ages, style that the Earth is flat.
> 4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
Another silly assumption, most atheists have certainly at least
read parts of the bible, some even been active Christians.
> * What event do you NOT believe in the bible?
Most of the miracle hoopla.
> * What do you believe in the bible?
It has some historical points, which after close examination gives
us a better insight into the life of a former nomad tribe, which
settles in Israel.
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
This question is even too silly to be answered...
> 5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
> guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
Christians also use law of the land, and the Constitution - hopefully -
as the frame of reference.
> * If there is a god in your mind, do you think he would want you to
> live any way you want and use your own standard for your actions?
It depends, such Gods actually exist.
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your actions?
Yes, in a court.
> 6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm and
> an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
> conception?
100 years ago people thought that takin the egg outside the woman's body
was impossible.
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus beating?
> Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other organs)?
The heart is also beating on people who are brain dead.
> 7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
> let them do what they want?
This is another assumption, that atheist have a sloppy child discipline.
Certainly I will not physically punish my son, but I think using common
sense he will learn what is right and what is wrong.
> * If so, then why is it wrong if God punishes/disciplines us?
It's a barbaric view based on a nomadic God person punishing people
who don't worship him. It is something which should be now forgotten
by the human race. Alas, this is not the case.
Cheers,
Kent
BAKER, RICHARD ALAN
>>But if you were so smart, you wouldn't be
>>in college.
I cannot see how this man can be taken seriously after
saying something like this.
I'm glad that I don't care what you say or I might have
been 'smart' and dropped out of school.
Maybe if you were not so smart you could go to school and
learn something about reality.
Merlyn LeRoy
> was said to have appeared to three sisters (ages between 8-17) on a
> On the last apparition in October, the apparition of Mary said that the
> sun was going to come down and almost touch the earth. And apparently
> it took place. There were thousands of witnesses surrounding the hill,
> throughout the town of Fatima, throughout Portugal, and even as far
> away as England witnesses apparently saw the same thing: the sun appeared
> to grow in size in the sky till it nearly touched the earth. Mass
> hallucination? You have to have remarkable faith to believe in mass
> hallucination...
> Make your own conclusions. I choose to believe the testimony of thousands
> and the coming of Mary's supposed prophesies than a quack psychological
> phenominon called "mass hallucination".
Tell me, did any nonbelievers observe the sun doing these amazing stunts?
If I look in astronomy periodicals of the time, will I read accounts of
how the sun mysteriously changed in size?
Or did only believers in Fatima see what they expected to see?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
William Mayne
>As an side issue, there have been incidents throughout history of certain
>miracles, UFO sitings, and the like. I have a question...
>
>How does one dismiss them by some psychological phenomenon known as
>"mass hallucination". I will believe in God, Santa Claus, and Elvis
>before I believe in mass hallucination. The idea that large groups of
>presumably sane people all have the same hallucination at the same time
>is ludicrous...
Who presumes these people to be sane?
Even if you do presume them to sane, people are very suggestable. My
understanding is that at Fatima the crowd gathered in expectation of a
miracle. They were prepared for the event. They wanted to see something
and they did. Skeptics on the scene did not, and reports of "witnesses"
initially did not agree very well. Besides, memory is a very flakey
thing, especially the memories of flakey people. There has been plenty
of time since various close encounters with space aliens, Elvis sightings,
and visions of the Virgin Mary (all of which are on about the same level
of credibility as the Bible or the National Inquirer) for people to
synchronize their stories.
I find it incredible that you admit to believing in Santa Claus and
Elvis, but at least you admit that this is on the same level as belief
in God. Belief in Santa Claus and Elvis is probably less harmful,
though. So far I haven't heard of anyone killing or passing legislation
taking away anyone's freedom in the name of Elvis.
Bill Mayne
William Mayne
> the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
This whole post was so offensive and displayed such ignorance I
overlooked this blunder. The salt water fish fossils on top of
mountains (indeed mountains made from limestone full of fossils)
is actually evidence against the Biblical account of the flood.
The flood is supposed to have lasted only a little over a year,
not enough time for thousands of feet of limestone to be
deposited. The fossil record is actually excellent evidence
against the Biblical creation myth, too. Limestone with fossils
high in mountains is quite easy to explain if you believe that
the earth is billions of years old and has undergone the kind of
changes the evidence indicates, including the evolution of
new species of plants and animals and the extinction of old
ones.
Bill Mayne
Charles Hedrick
>In article <May.7.00.30....@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> hed...@dartagnan.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
> Is this also true for god? A quick trip through the old
> testament provides ample evidence that perhaps god isn't as all
> loving as he would have us believe. Do we accept his "innocence"
> simply because he keeps saying so? Or do we hold him to a higher
> standard and say, "gee, god, you've fallen a bit short of
> omni-benevolence this week. 10 demerits."?
You don't say specifically what you mean, so I'm going to assume that
you're speaking of the generally blood-thirsty nature of the OT
picture of God, who both commands his people to slaughter other
nations, and is himself responsible for various disasters. I see this
as a result of what is often called "progressive revelation".
Ultimately, I don't think God's will for us has changed. But we can't
see God's mind directly. All we have to go on is what has been
revealed to us. And I think the Biblical record shows that this has
changed over time. It certainly looks like in the early days of
Israel's history, God acted rather like a tribal war god. It's always
dangerous to try to second-guess God's reasons. But a plausible
hypothesis is that this is all the Israelites were ready for. So at
that point God's commands concentrated on abandoning idol-worship and
a fairly blunt concept of justice.
I still maintain that the commandment against killing/murder
(translations differ) ultimately does prohibit war. I don't think
God's basic principles for human life have changed. So one can say
that even in 1200 BC genocide was sin, and the wars against the
Canaanites were a violation of God's will. But this is probably being
unfair to the Israelites at that time. I think you have to judge
people against the standards of their time. I see no evidence that
God had yet revealed the complete implications of the commandment
against killing. Indeed even now the process isn't complete. At the
moment the concept of the "holy war" is fairly generally discredited,
and I think all Christians agree that starting a war is wrong. But
even now most Christians do not believe it is practical to avoid
fighting under all circumstances. (Note that I am not a pacifist.
There are situations where I don't know of any alternative to
fighting. But I do regard it as at best a lesser of evils. Perhaps a
few centuries from now civilization will have advanced to the point
where people have to make allowances for my limited perspective.)
Here are some of the major advances that we see in the OT:
- the understanding that a person is responsible for his own
behavior, and sins should not be visited on parents
and children (Ez 18)
- the understanding that God is interested in nations other
than Israel. (The most interesting reference here is
Jonah.)
- the understanding that there is not a direct connection
between sin and punishment. (Job, and in a different
sense the "suffering servant" passages of Is., such
as Is 53)
As for God's harsher instructions and actions, there are two possible
explanations, which are hard to tell apart. Did the Israelites
misinterpret God's instructions to keep apart from the pagans as
instructions to kill them? Or in their current state of development,
was there no way God could get them to coexist peacefully without also
taking over their religion? I don't know. I'm inclined to think the
first.
But the point I'm trying to make is that my approach to the Bible is
not static -- I see in it an account of God revealing himself over
time. If we want to know him, we have to look at the end of the
process, not the beginning.
In fact I think this process continues. There are places where even
the NT writers haven't seen the full impact of the Gospel. Paul
accepted slavery. He saw its dangers, but believed it made sense to
tell masters and slaves to treat each other as Christian brothers.
After a bit more experience with this, Christians generally think it's
not possible -- slavery corrupts both master and slave. I believe we
would now agree that no Christian should hold slaves. Similar
development has occured and is occuring in other areas.
Martin Gorman
> >
> > So many people/non-Christians get hung up on the fact that if God was really
> > a "good" God then why does He allow people to go to hell and for innocent
> > people to die and bla bla bla. The fact is, that God gave us a free will to
> > basically do what we want. We can choose between good and evil. And many
> > times man chooses evil and that is why there is evil in the world. Not
> > because it it "God's fault" but because we allowed it to happen. Do you
> > think a real god would allow his people/children to do evil things and not
> > get punished? No! That is why some end up in hell. But God does not want
> > that. He want's us to be with Him in eternity. Therefore, that was why
> > He sent His son Jesus to die for us. So, if we believe in Him and repent
> > from our sins, this allows us to avoid the big H. Why is that so hard to
> > understand? God works the same way we would discipline our own children.
> >
our sins. Supposedly he died for us. But what would have happened if
he hadn't, and how is it different now that he allegedly has? Who
made up these rules and why?
Secondly, the argument that god is punishing us (I say "is" as I am
an atheist and thus I am already suffering from the agony of "not
living in accord with god" allegedly) as naughty children are
punished by parents would hold a lot more (holy) water if:
1) Any parent ever in the whole history of the world would willingly
send their child to hell (I say willingly as presumably this all
powerful god could let me off as if he wanted to as he's not
bound by laws greater than himself).
AND/OR
2) Any parent in the whole history of the world who ever punished
a child at all was allegedly perfect.
Bob Beauchaine
>bo...@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes:
>
>You don't say specifically what you mean, so I'm going to assume that
>you're speaking of the generally blood-thirsty nature of the OT
>picture of God, who both commands his people to slaughter other
>nations, and is himself responsible for various disasters. I see this
>as a result of what is often called "progressive revelation".
Since you don't appear to be a literalist, I won't attack you on
those grounds. What you would call progressive revelation I would
call progressive evolution. The god of the NT can hardly be
described as a progression from the god of the OT, unless
schizophrenia can be labeled as progression. The god of the NT is
one who apparently loves the Jews and Gentiles alike. The god of
the OT can be seen to not only allow, but indeed to command the
mass slaughter of complete races, down to the last
man,woman,child, and living creature. It is evident to me why the
NT is so important to christianity, the OT less so: the god of
the OT is a difficult creature to accept and understand, and at
face value appears very cruel.
>It certainly looks like in the early days of
>Israel's history, God acted rather like a tribal war god. It's always
>dangerous to try to second-guess God's reasons. But a plausible
>hypothesis is that this is all the Israelites were ready for. So at
>that point God's commands concentrated on abandoning idol-worship and
>a fairly blunt concept of justice.
>
It also seems that the Israelites weren't ready for Jesus when he
came along either, as Jesus seemed well aware. Why would god send
a saviour to his nation when he knows that they are not ready to
accept him?
>I still maintain that the commandment against killing/murder
>(translations differ) ultimately does prohibit war. I don't think
>God's basic principles for human life have changed.
I disagree, as stated in my first paragraph. God shows blatant
disregard for any race except his own chosen people. If his
principles have not changed, then he has an amazing capacity to turn
his back on his principles and allow his nation to run rough shod
over any and all intruders (unless placing his people in bondage
served his own ends).
>that even in 1200 BC genocide was sin, and the wars against the
>Canaanites were a violation of God's will. But this is probably being
>unfair to the Israelites at that time. I think you have to judge
>people against the standards of their time.
But their time was one of more direct contact with god than at any
other time in history. Why was god so inept at making his true
wishes more evident at a time when he had a permanent hot line to the
Isrealite leadership?
>But the point I'm trying to make is that my approach to the Bible is
>not static -- I see in it an account of God revealing himself over
>time. If we want to know him, we have to look at the end of the
>process, not the beginning.
>
But are we at the end process? God doesn't seem to be revealing
himself very well nowadays, and the entire Bible has been written.
Do we now just sit and await revelations, or is there more? And
what are we doing now that's morally reprehensible to god, but
he's allowing it because we're not ready for his full revelation?
David Sumner
Mark Barry writes:
>though most of you think Christians can't think.
who would call themselves Christians.
I DO believe that most Christians do not fully exercise their
intelligence when it comes to religious matters. Let's face it, religious
beliefs have a strong emotional basis gleaned from years of
childhood teachings. It is a painful process to try and break out of
that, and many people would simply rather not. To paraphrase an old
quote, "The man who does not reason has no advantage over the man
who can not reason."
>Most of you who make these accusations against
>Christians are usually college students
very much want to believe?
>I will find contradictions upon many of your answers about
>your "atheistic faith."
Your questions are too numerous and too vague in parts for me to
attempt to answer them all. Some of them are a bit curious to me
however so I'll respond to a few.
>Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like "perhaps"-
>"probably"- "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds like
>they are guessing.
guess and substantiate. I don't see your point here.
>Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the Americas
>but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament?
>Isn't that history also?
alleged flood. The flood story is considered mythological by a great
many, if not most, Christians, so why make a point of it to
alt.atheism? Moreover, the existence of a great flood is not the thing
most people would object to. It is the story of the ark. There are
numerous problems with that story and we'd be off to the races in
discussing that.
>Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
have thought about its contents a great deal, and I find it at best
repugnant; it is not a book that I would want to believe in. Moreover,
while I suspect there are portions of the bible that are accurate, I
have no way of discerning what parts they might be. So I am at a
loss to make much significance out of the volume as a whole.
>Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is your
very good reference for life - at least not life in our times. For
example, should I feel I am defiled if I am come into the presence of
a dead person? If I suspect my wife of adultery, should I take her to
the priest and force her to drink poison as a test? Is it OK to kill an
entire race of people who worship the wrong gods? Is slavery an OK
thing? Are women meant to be subservient to men?
Although sometimes I think you may be right. The treatment of
women in modern society is consistent with the bible; the
condemnation of homosexuality is consistent with the bible.
Since there is no commandment against bigotry, I guess that must be
acceptable Christian practice.
>Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm
>and an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced at
>conception?
Genesis. More to the point, why are you assuming that all atheists are
pro-choice? Atheism is not a philosophy of life and it doesn't make
any statement about this issue. There are believers and non-
believers alike on both sides of the abortion issue.
>If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or just
>let them do what they want?
a very weak one. We don't have the option of creating our own
children and determining their characteristics. Nor are we all -
powerful beings, and so our options are limited. To say that God must
deal with us as we deal with our children is quite an affront to God's
power.
Your free-will stuff is quite well-known and personally not very
convincing in my opinion. I wonder if you really think these kinds of
hackneyed arguments are going to influence any readers of this
newsgroup? If you've read along as much as you say you have, then
you must have seen this issue discussed at length. I won't try to
reopen it here.
Jim Perry
>I still maintain that the commandment against killing/murder
>(translations differ) ultimately does prohibit war. I don't think
>God's basic principles for human life have changed. So one can say
>that even in 1200 BC genocide was sin, and the wars against the
>Canaanites were a violation of God's will. But this is probably being
>unfair to the Israelites at that time. I think you have to judge
>people against the standards of their time. I see no evidence that
>God had yet revealed the complete implications of the commandment
>against killing.
The interpretation of these events seems extremely dependent on one's
broader interpretation of the biblical accounts as literal history,
paraphrase, myth, etc. If the invasion of Canaan is taken as given,
then one must account for the fact that it is presented as being
ordered by God, including the genocidal aspects. One might say that
the divine order aspect is propaganda or later addition or something
(some of our liberal Jewish posters have suggested that the whole
story is later elaboration, with the Canaanites presented as rather
cardboard incarnations of idol-worshipping child-sacrificing evil,
therefore in some mythic sense worthy of extermination [I'm probably
not making the best presentation of this view]). Again, if one takes
this sort of view, or an archaeological one, then there needn't in
fact have *been* a genocide, except as a story, and this changes the
whole character of how one is trying to interpret the account. That
is, if something didn't really happen it's not really sinful or evil,
except perhaps in concept, but then how was God involved? The walls
of Jericho tumbling at the blast of the rams' horn trumpets makes for
a better story than "the walls had fallen when we got there".
Again, "the complete implications of the commandment against killing"
could be considered against the catalog of explicit divinely ordained
death penalty provisions in the law: certainly according to
straightforward readings that sounds rather like a contradictory set
of commandments if interpreted according to our more liberal views.
>In fact I think this process continues. There are places where even
>the NT writers haven't seen the full impact of the Gospel. Paul
>accepted slavery. He saw its dangers, but believed it made sense to
>tell masters and slaves to treat each other as Christian brothers.
>After a bit more experience with this, Christians generally think it's
>not possible -- slavery corrupts both master and slave. I believe we
>would now agree that no Christian should hold slaves. Similar
>development has occured and is occuring in other areas.
If this is understood as a progression of revelation, to whom is the
revelation occurring (post NT?) It would seem that in the case of
slavery, much (not to say all) of the sort of humanistic rights-of-man
and egalitarian thought which led to its downfall came from thinkers
who were at best (so to speak) Deists, often quite hostile to
organized Christianity. The problem I have with the Progressive
Revelation concept, either as here or e.g. as espoused by the Baha'is,
is that it seems to ascribe to the church (or however one reads the
current state of revelation) the "spirit of the age", at least equally
compatible with a "progressive non-revelation" (i.e. people just doing
all this by themselves). If one judges the Israelites against the
standards of their time, they do not come out looking any different
than those they fought against, nor their god different in meaningful
particulars from those of their neighbors (I don't consider the
question of whether the god is addressed via a symbolic statue or not
meaningful). The humanistic quasi-pacifistic diversity-tolerant etc.
philosophy you seem to hold seems not to vary much from my own, though
I see little of God or Christ in my own thinking.
I hope this doesn't come across as hostile, I'm trying to understand
the view you are describing, among others. It can get confusing when
one day we're getting a literalist fundamentalist viewpoint, and the
next a "it's just a myth/story" version, (not to mention the inevitable
"the Bible sucks"). You seem to be somewhere between the first two,
probably closer to the second (and, presumably, far from the third :-).
--
Jim Perry pe...@apollo.hp.com HP/Apollo, Chelmsford MA
This particularly rapid, unintelligible patter
Isn't generally heard, and if it is it doesn't matter!
Richard Brooksby
> First, anytime a Christian tries to post a message you flame him no
> matter what.
False. Most of the flaming messages are against Christians (or
others) who post intransigent declarations along the lines of `You're
all going to burn in Hell.'.
> 1. What is your definition of faith?
I don't understand faith, and so have skipped questions which require
some understanding.
> * Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the bible
> also a form of history?
Many of the events in the Bible which are vital to the Christian
religion are not plausible. See below.
> * Why is it easier to believe that Columbus discovered the
> Americas but you can't believe in the flood of the old testament?
> Isn't that history also?
Because the former is more plausible than the latter. The scientific
world model which has the most predictive power also indicates that
such a flood is unlikely. The discovery of the Americas is not
unlikely; somebody just had to sail there.
> * Can you explain how they found salt water fish fossils on top
> of the world's largest mountains? (Please, no stupid responses)
If you're refering to the Himalayas then perhaps it has to do with the
fact thay they are metamorphic mountains formed from sea-bed material
was thrust up due to the colision of the Indian and Asian plates.
> * Do you believe in the bible prophicies?
No, even though I don't know what they are.
> * Did you know that all but one of the prophicies in the bible
> have been fulfilled? His return is the next one.
I don't know anything about the Biblical prophecies. Perhaps you
could list them along with your evidence and we could debate them.
> 3. Why do evolutionist/scientist keep using terms like
> "perhaps"-"probably"- "may have"-"about"-"might have"?--It's sounds
> like they are guessing.
Please read up on the philosophy of science. Science does not make
absolute statements about a postulated absolute truth because they
would not be rigorous. Science gathers evidence from which it draws
conclusions, but the conclusions are non-monotonic, that is to say,
further evidence may refute earlier conclusions. For example:
All birds can fly.
Tweety is a bird. -> Tweety can fly.
Tweety has his feet set in concrete. -> Maybe he can't after all.
So, rather than say `Tweety can fly.' say `Tweety may be able to fly.'
or `Tweety can _probably_ fly.'.
> 4. Do you believe in the bible at all? (Have you ever read it!)
No and no. (I do not believe this to be an unreasonable position.
See end of message.)
> * If you believe nothing in the bible, then what do you believe?
Nothing. I'm not even an atheist.
> 5. Christians use the bible for their standard of living. What is
> your guide or frame of reference for your life's standards?
My standards are mostly drawn from the collective standards of the
society around me. This is necessary for me to function in society.
> * Do you think you will ever be held accountable/judged for your
> actions?
I don't know.
> 6. Is there any way to produce human life outside of putting a sperm
> and an egg together? There isn't! Therefore, isn't life produced
> at conception?
>
> * If life doesn't start until after birth (a popular belief among
> the pro-choice movement), then why is the heart of a fetus
> beating? Isn't LIFE dependent upon the heart (among other
> organs)?
I think you have a different definition of `life' from that of the
argument you are trying to refute, and therefore your refutation
fails. Try to understand what the other argument means by `life'
before you argue with it, or you will not convince anyone.
> 7. If you had a child, would you punish them if they did wrong or
> just let them do what they want?
If my children are to function in society they need to be instilled
with the (fairly arbitrary) morals of society. Discipline is the only
way to do this until they are capable of enough reasoning to make
their own decisions.
> The real reason that most of you have no faith is because you have
> too much pride. To be a Christian you have to admit you are a
> sinner and most of you can't do that. That would mean you're not
> perfect like you probably think you are.
These statements indicate a deep misconception of my position, at
least, and a lack of epistemology. I do not believe in the concepts
of `sin' and `perfection' and so admitting that I'm a sinner is a
meaningless action. I am not `proud' of being `perfect' nor do I
believe that I am not a `sinner' because I do not believe that these
words have any absolute meaning. Your arbitrary definitions come from
your Christianity, and so your argument is circular.
Please read something about epistemology (philosophical theory of
knowlege). It is not incompatable with Christianity, but will add
something to your understanding of your own beliefs.
All of the statements above are non-monotonic. I am open to
persuasion on any topic because of my philosophy -- the same
philosophy that makes it impossible for me to say `I believe in God.'.
Apparently, a contradiction under certain systems of thought.
---
ric...@harlqn.co.uk (Internet)
RP...@UK.AC.CAMBRIDGE.PHOENIX (JANET)
Zen Buddhist