Front-door Atheism
BOWDEN DON H
came to Anchorage to install our new Alaska Chapter of American Atheists. He
challenged us to come out of the closet and take the fight to the streets and
to the people. He said the era of the court battle to secure civil rights is
past--we can no longer rely on justice and equality in today's political
climate.
Accordingly, we secured a booth at the Alaska State Fair and put the messages of
reason, logic, separation of state and church, equity of taxation, freedom from
religion and freedom from the dangers of superstition before the people. Of
course, we we preached at and prayed over, and we received two bona-fide death
threats, but now thousands of people in Alaska know that atheists exist as
group with an agenda. Scores of people came up to our booth with handshakes
and wide grins: "Man, am I glad to see you people here! I thought I was all
alone." Many more people passed by and waved or gave us the thumbs-up sign but
did not stop--poor, oppressed humans still deep in the closet but at least now
they know there's hope. Best of all, new memberships are coming in.
It's wonderful to have a forum such as this one to discuss our views and
fine-tune our philosophies, but what are we doing to eradicate the sickness of
religion from our planet? Locally, many of our members are retired and can
freely admit to being atheists, but others of us believe that public admission
to not holding mythological beliefs could result in loss of business or even
jobs. Is this the spirit of the First Amendment? I don't think we'll get
acceptance for the atheist community until we get out in front of people and
show them what we are--not baby-eaters but the most intelligent, ethical, and
moral people on the planet.
It's great that we're talking about it, but in an era when the idea of a Pat
Robertson or a Dan Quayle becoming president is not only a chilling
possiblility but downright probable, we've got to emerge from the shadows and
do something.
Jon Murray pointed out that the 60's was the decade for black civil rights, the
70's was the decade for gay rights, the 80's was the decade for women's rights,
and that the 90's are open to us--if we choose to accept the challenge. What
can *you* do?
Don Bowden at...@acad2.anc.alaska.edu at...@alaska.Bitnet
JESUS IS LARD!
Bob Beauchaine
>Jon Murray, director of American Atheists and son of Madalyn O'Hair, recently
>came to Anchorage to install our new Alaska Chapter of American Atheists. He
>challenged us to come out of the closet and take the fight to the streets and
>to the people. He said the era of the court battle to secure civil rights is
>past--we can no longer rely on justice and equality in today's political
>climate.
Since, in my time on alt.atheism, the subject comes up infrequently at most,
I would like to see some posts by those of you out there who feel a social/
political injustice has been perpetrated on yourself as a direct result of
your non-religious views -- things like Bertrand Russel's attempt to secure
a teaching position at City College in New York, etc. (Let's ignore moments
of silence in schools for now). My personal experience
has been that people are surprised/dismayed by my views, but are rarely
hostile or combative, and I can't think of one clear instance of where I have
been prejudiced against.
It has also been my observation that naming oneself "atheist" has become
more acceptable in recent years, not less so. Granted, we are still quite
a minority, but we are (for the most part) protected from a recurrence of,
say, the Inquisition.
>It's wonderful to have a forum such as this one to discuss our views and
>fine-tune our philosophies, but what are we doing to eradicate the sickness of
>religion from our planet?
"eradicate the sickness" ? Spoken with just the right amount of religious
fervor and (I'm sure) frothing and foaming at the mouth :-). I thought, at
least from this group, that tolerance of other beliefs and viewpoints was
standard. By eradication do you mean genocide (or would that be theo-cide?).
Or do we simply ban religion and jail all of the several thousand million
who belief in some deity?
>Locally, many of our members are retired and can
>freely admit to being atheists, but others of us believe that public admission
>to not holding mythological beliefs could result in loss of business or even
>jobs. Is this the spirit of the First Amendment? I don't think we'll get
>acceptance for the atheist community until we get out in front of people and
>show them what we are--not baby-eaters but the most intelligent, ethical, and
>moral people on the planet.
>
But it is the right of people in a free society, especially an open market,
to patronize whomever they see fit, for whatever reason. While the loss of
business to theists is regrettable, I welcome it as an underpinning of our
democratic society. As for jobs, please cite instances where this has or
may happen. This is/would be a truly nasty situation. Unless I am very
naive or live in a very accepting part of the country (quite possible), I
don't see this as being a large issue.
>It's great that we're talking about it, but in an era when the idea of a Pat
>Robertson or a Dan Quayle becoming president is not only a chilling
>possiblility but downright probable, we've got to emerge from the shadows and
>do something.
>
Vote.
>Jon Murray pointed out that the 60's was the decade for black civil rights, the
>70's was the decade for gay rights, the 80's was the decade for women's rights,
>and that the 90's are open to us--if we choose to accept the challenge. What
>can *you* do?
>
I can educate the people around me about my stance. But I refuse to elevate
my distaste of religion to the level of a Jihad.
Bob Beauchaine
Sorry, my dog ate my .sig file.
Steve Zellers
> I would like to see some posts by those of you out there who feel a social/
> political injustice has been perpetrated on yourself as a direct result of
> your non-religious views -- things like Bertrand Russel's attempt to secure
Since you ask...
I was rather badly assaulted in high school (Military Boarding school)
when some of the other students found out I was an atheist. (what's a
pacifist computer nerd to do?!) I attribute this to the lack of education
of the majority of the people in the school: they actually thought that
because I was an atheist, that I worshipped 'satan' - no one (except me, but
to no avail) had informed them of what being an atheist meant.
Religious people have been given free reign in this country - whatever
the religious issue (vax vs. unix, flag burning, guns, drugs, etc),
we are to quick to raise up arms and attack the oposition. Education
is the only way to alert the masses to their folly.
While I'm here: Did Bruce Tiffany ever reply with the asked for information
regarding his faith healing claims?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Zellers zel...@prisoner.sun.com
"And she wonders if the lizard likes its lettuce rare." -- The Residents
Evan Marshall Manning
> "eradicate the sickness" ? Spoken with just the right amount of religious
> fervor and (I'm sure) frothing and foaming at the mouth :-). I thought, at
> least from this group, that tolerance of other beliefs and viewpoints was
> standard. By eradication do you mean genocide (or would that be theo-cide?).
> Or do we simply ban religion and jail all of the several thousand million
> who belief in some deity?
The word for killing a god (and for the killer) is "deicide". Popular
methods include nailing to a tree. The dictionary (Webster's NewWorld)
doesn't have any word for killing a Capital-G-God, but I'd use Capital-D-
Deicide. May you have many occasions to use this word.
***************************************************************************
Your eyes are weary from staring at the CRT for so | Evan M. Manning
long. You feel sleepy. Notice how restful it is | is
to watch the cursor blink. Close your eyes. The |man...@gap.cco.caltech.edu
opinions stated above are yours. You cannot | man...@mars.jpl.nasa.gov
imagine why you ever felt otherwise. | gle...@tybalt.caltech.edu
Ben Hekster
> The word for killing a god [...] is "deicide". Popular
> methods include nailing to a tree. The dictionary (Webster's NewWorld)
> doesn't have any word for killing a Capital-G-God, but I'd use Capital-D-
> Deicide.
This brings me to the general question of capitalization of religious
references.
Whenever it is necessary I will in writing refer to the Judeo-
Christian (yes, that one again) god by capitalizing his name (i.e. `God'), as
I do that of any fictional character. However, and astute readers may have
noticed this already, I will not capitalize indirect (I don't know the correct
grammatical term for them) references as in `Him' or `His', since this would
in my opinion amount to an implied acknowledgement of his existence.
However, when I do this I most always get angry reactions from our
Christian friends (including teachers grading papers). They would at first
inform me that it is simply a grammatical error. Upon learning that it was a
conscious action on my part I am told (in certain and explicit terms) that
I am being childish for not having more respect for others' beliefs. In my
experience so far I have found that I am alone in this, since even my fellow
atheists do not `non-capitalize.'
Any opinions, anyone? Am I just being silly in splitting hairs
over some trifle? Am I lacking in proper respect?
--
________________________________________________________________________________
Ben Hekster | "Sitting targets
Installer dude | sitting praying
AppleLink: heksterb | And God is saying
Internet: heks...@apple.com | nothing"
BITNET: heksterb@henut5 | --Depeche Mode, Nothing [101]
Neal W. Miller,,,
> man...@gap.caltech.edu (Evan Marshall Manning) wrote:
>
>> The word for killing a god [...] is "deicide". Popular
>> methods include nailing to a tree. The dictionary (Webster's NewWorld)
>> doesn't have any word for killing a Capital-G-God, but I'd use Capital-D-
>> Deicide.
>
>
> Christian (yes, that one again) god by capitalizing his name (i.e. `God'), as
> I do that of any fictional character. However, and astute readers may have
> noticed this already, I will not capitalize indirect (I don't know the correct
> grammatical term for them) references as in `Him' or `His', since this would
> in my opinion amount to an implied acknowledgement of his existence.
>
> conscious action on my part I am told (in certain and explicit terms) that
> I am being childish for not having more respect for others' beliefs. In my
> experience so far I have found that I am alone in this, since even my fellow
> atheists do not `non-capitalize.'
>
> Any opinions, anyone? Am I just being silly in splitting hairs
> over some trifle? Am I lacking in proper respect?
I can obviously speak only for myself, but I make a point of non-
capitalizing god and capitalizing Man. Please note that when I refer to Man,
I refer to both genders. I've run into problems in this respect. Oddly,
these people don't complain when god is refered to as "Him". I don't like
divying (sp) out (or receiving) undeserved respect. Man certainly earned
more respect than any god in my book. A figment of collective exaggerated
imaginations should only be capitalized if it begins a sentence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neal Miller | "Why not go mad?" | mill...@clutx.clarkson.edu
Clarkson University | - Ford Prefect | mill...@clutx.bitnet
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Brownie
> Whenever it is necessary I will in writing refer to the Judeo-
>Christian (yes, that one again) god by capitalizing his name (i.e. `God'), as
>I do that of any fictional character. However, and astute readers may have
>noticed this already, I will not capitalize indirect (I don't know the correct
>grammatical term for them) references as in `Him' or `His', since this would
>in my opinion amount to an implied acknowledgement of his existence.
> However, when I do this I most always get angry reactions from our
>Christian friends (including teachers grading papers). They would at first
>inform me that it is simply a grammatical error. Upon learning that it was a
>conscious action on my part I am told (in certain and explicit terms) that
>I am being childish for not having more respect for others' beliefs. In my
>experience so far I have found that I am alone in this, since even my fellow
>atheists do not `non-capitalize.'
As a Christian, I find capitalisation annoying in most instances.
Certainly, I would capitalise "God", but not "he", "him", etc. I can
see why people want to do it, but I have never seen the necessity for
myself. Capitals in the middle of sentences tend to break up the flow
of words, which makes reading more difficult. Note that this is only
my opinion, based on my own personal preferences!
--
John Brownie
Pure Mathematics, University of Sydney
Internet: j...@maths.su.oz.au
Joe Huffman
(Steve Zellers) writes:
> While I'm here: Did Bruce Tiffany ever reply with the asked for information
> regarding his faith healing claims?
No. I have been corresponding with him some in private however. Basically
he says he isn't going to do my research for me. He also suggested I read a
particular book and attend the filming of the 700 Club show. I am currently
working 14 hour days and don't have time to respond as completely as I would
like to. Perhaps after the beta's ship...
--
j...@proto.com
FAX: 208-263-8772
BIN...@auvm.auvm.edu
.This brings me to the general question of capitalization of religious
.references.
.
. Whenever it is necessary I will in writing refer to the Judeo-
.Christian (yes, that one again) god by capitalizing his name (i.e. `God'), as
.I do that of any fictional character. However, and astute readers may have
.noticed this already, I will not capitalize indirect (I don't know the correct
.grammatical term for them) references as in `Him' or `His', since this would
.in my opinion amount to an implied acknowledgement of his existence.
.
. However, when I do this I most always get angry reactions from our
.Christian friends (including teachers grading papers). They would at first
.inform me that it is simply a grammatical error. Upon learning that it was a
.conscious action on my part I am told (in certain and explicit terms) that
.I am being childish for not having more respect for others' beliefs. In my
.experience so far I have found that I am alone in this, since even my fellow
.atheists do not `non-capitalize.'
.
. Any opinions, anyone? Am I just being silly in splitting hairs
.over some trifle? Am I lacking in proper respect?
My Comment:
You are not lacking proper respect for their beliefs. Capitalizing the _
H's in He and His is a sign of belief, which you do not have. Or rather
your beliefs are that they should not be capitalized. If you are writing
to a Christian audiance as a Christian or as a prosteletyzer for atheism
H would be appropriate. However, if you are writing for other purposes
there is no need to capitalize.
My theist brothers who insist on your capitalization are showing disrespect
for your beliefs. If they would quit being such prigs we wouldn't have
such an image problem. We might even change your mind.
Michael
Ron Wigmore
>
>In article <1990Sep6.1...@hayes.fai.alaska.edu>
>at...@acad2.anc.alaska.edu writes:
>
>>It's wonderful to have a forum such as this one to discuss our views and
>>fine-tune our philosophies, but what are we doing to eradicate the sickness
>of
>>religion from our planet?
>
> "eradicate the sickness" ? Spoken with just the right amount of religious
> fervor and (I'm sure) frothing and foaming at the mouth :-). I thought, at
> least from this group, that tolerance of other beliefs and viewpoints was
> standard. By eradication do you mean genocide (or would that be theo-cide?).
> Or do we simply ban religion and jail all of the several thousand million
> who belief in some deity?
>
I would guess that he was referring to the fundy-type of theists - you know,
the kind that will let their kids die slow and painfull deaths instead of
bringing them to a doctor.
Here in Toronto, I have heard the 'street corner fundy-types', in between
shouting out the contents of their bible, stop, and call a woman a 'whore'
simply because she was not wearing a bra (I was glad she was not! :-)).
While most likely such people are not what your average christian would
call the 'cream of the crop', they are the ones you have to worry about.
'Tolerating' (a somewhat condescending term, IMHO) someone else's beliefs
is one thing, ignoring that they are trying to take away your rights (a
little bit at a time) is something else.
666 'tolerable' christians are given a 'bad name' by one fundy-type.
If people end up saying not nice things about the 666, then they should
do something do distance themselves from the 1. Otherwise when atheists
start saying things about fundies, the 666 - by association - end up being
included with the one.
Ron,,,
_______________________________________________________________________________
|*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*|
Definition Of Demons:
Atheists who have come back from the dead to haunt and torment FUNDIES! :-)
Ron Wigmore
>
> <stuff deleted for brevity>
>
>inform me that it is simply a grammatical error. Upon learning that it was a
>conscious action on my part I am told (in certain and explicit terms) that
>I am being childish for not having more respect for others' beliefs. In my
>experience so far I have found that I am alone in this, since even my fellow
>atheists do not `non-capitalize.'
>
Why is it that while it is okay for fundies to exhibit behaviour 'A' (ie.
chosing which words to capitalize), if atheists exhibit the very same
behaviour (chosing not to), we end up being called 'childish'? Since
capitalizing words is an active act, requiring extra effort, is it not
the fundies who are being childish by making up needlessly silly rules?
As for capitalizing words, I was taught that you capitalize proper nouns.
What is it about these supposed god creature(s) that makes them proper?
Richard A. Schumacher
>> Did Bruce Tiffany ever reply with the asked for information
>> regarding his faith healing claims?
>No. Basically he says he isn't going to do my research for me. He also
>suggested I read a particular book and attend the filming of the 700 Club show.
Ahh, we guessed as much: he has no convincing evidence, and neither
does he have the strength of his convictions. Rather than "going and
making disciples of all nations" he'd rather just whine, harangue, and
offer his own opinions instead of evidence or truth.
Send in the next fundy, please.
"A religion founded on me would not be very convincing." -Wm. F. Buckley
Joe Huffman
I got this message from Bruce today. He has a valid point. I made him
sound a bit flippant. He wasn't really. I was trying to quickly get the
basics of his response and the basics of my intended response all into one
one short message. It made him out to be less than what he deserved.
----------
From Bruce:
----------
>No. I have been corresponding with him some in private however. Basically
>he says he isn't going to do my research for me. He also suggested I read a
>particular book and attend the filming of the 700 Club show. I am currently
>working 14 hour days and don't have time to respond as completely as I would
>like to. Perhaps after the beta's ship...
Actually, Joe, I suggested you visit CBN (CBN produces the 700 Club)
where you can do the research, or at least contact CBN regarding obtaining
some information. The suggestion to attend the 700 Club was by way of giving
you some ideas of other things to do in the area if you were going to make
such a big trip, and it included visiting Colonial Williamsburg, the beach,
the Norfolk Naval Base, etc. The way you worded your reply -- perhaps
unintentionally -- makes it sound like I was being flippant. Perhaps you
could correct it.
-- Bruce
------------------
--
j...@proto.com
FAX: 208-263-8772
Florian Hars
>fine-tune our philosophies, but what are we doing to eradicate the sickness of
>religion from our planet?
A dogmatic attitude equal to the darkest time of christianity...
Bye, Florian.
-->
Florian Hars | Close to the middle of the network
fl...@mcshh.hanse.de | It seems we're looking for a center
D-2000 Hamburg | What if it turns out to be hollow?
| - Suzanne Vega
vf...@pqe1.phx.mcd.mot.com
>Ben Heckster writes:
[ about not capitalizing personal pronouns when referring to a
supreme supernatural being and getting hassled for it ]
>If you are writing
>to a Christian audiance as a Christian or as a prosteletyzer for atheism
>H would be appropriate. However, if you are writing for other purposes
>there is no need to capitalize.
Hell, Billy Graham doesn't even capitalize them in his newspaper column
with the made-up letters asking for advice. (Guess what he always advises!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Quella, vf...@PQE1.phx.mcd.mot.com
International Feel / Interplanetary Deal / Interstellar Appeal / Universal Ideal
_________________________________________________________________ - Rundgren ___
Jon Livesey
>at...@acad2.anc.alaska.edu (BOWDEN DON H) writes:
>
>>fine-tune our philosophies, but what are we doing to eradicate the sickness of
>>religion from our planet?
>
>A dogmatic attitude equal to the darkest time of christianity...
Of course, Christianity's dark time dosn't seem to have quite
left us:
"Toccoa, Ga: Officials in this northeastern Georgia town
have cancelled a government-sponsored yoga class, bowing
to pressure from protesters who contend that yoga invites
devil worship.
The class, sponsored by the local recreation department,
was cancelled last Friday, after city and county
commissioners received complaints from members of various
churches.
"Some felt that they were under too much pressure", Mayor
Bill Harris said of the commissioners.
Philip Lawrence, a local chiropractor, who has been
leading the protests that he said included Baptists,
Lutherans and Church of God members, asserted that people
who relax their minds by performing yoga are opening the
door to the devil.
"The people who are signed up for the class are just
walking into it like cattle to the slaughter," he said
"Half of yoga is a branch of Eastern mysticism and it has
strong occult influences"
New York Times: Saturday September 8.
If Christianity didn't already exist, some comedian would have to
invent it, I think.
jon.
BOWDEN DON H
>at...@acad2.anc.alaska.edu (BOWDEN DON H) writes:
>
>>fine-tune our philosophies, but what are we doing to eradicate the sickness of
>>religion from our planet?
>
>A dogmatic attitude equal to the darkest time of christianity...
>
If this be dogma, Florian, them make the most of it.
Yes, Bob, I'm intolerant.
Would you tolerate a religious belief that demanded the slow, painful torture
and death of children? How about a belief that forced its followers to
ritualistically rape, mutilate, and murder weaker people? Would you sit idly
by and allow your next-door neighbor to put his child on a chopping block and
cut out her heart?
See, you're just as intolerant as I am. While there appear to be few Absolute
Truths in the universe, we, as human beings, have developed a set of
more-or-less mutually agreed-upon beliefs regarding good and evil. Most of us
think helping each other is good, and killing and hurting each other is evil.
Had we not evolved these beliefs and feelings, we would not have survived. We
behave because we innately know that it's for the common good.
Those interested in the problem of good and evil would do well to begin with a
study of Lawrence Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development. He has attempted to
delineate the natural progression of moral and ethical motives from birth
though adulthood. Various environmental and genetic factors tend to arrest
this development somewhere along the way, so that fewer than half of adults
attain the fifth level and fewer still (maybe none) reach the sixth and highest
level. (I will post the stages/levels with brief descriptions in another
article, or you may look it up in your psychology text.)
One of the main arrestors of this natural process of moral development is
religion. Religion (at least the one in power in this country) denies the
innate good of humans. In the xian view, people are born evil and must have
jesus christ or they will always remain evil, and along with this acceptance
and worship of certain supernatural entities comes a list of acceptable
behavior--ideals that, if not followed to the letter, result in eternal torture
and/or eternal death. Such severe threats promote good behavior at the lowest
stages of the Kohlbergian scale--that of behavior to avoid punishment.
Atheists, as has been pointed out on another thread of this group, are good
because they have developed an internal locus of control built upon humanistic
values. The reason I do not burglarize your house is not the fear of arrest
(an improbable event) nor the fear of retribution from ghosts and goblins (an
even more improbable event); it is because I have a set of values born of eons
of evolution, a reasonably intact mind, and a lifetime of experiences that have
imbued me with standards that are socially and personally acceptable in this
day and time. Most of us are the same way--enough of us to keep the species
going in spite of the many environmentally and/or genetically damaged
defectors. Though our society seems riddled with crime, untold millions of
people get through day after day without hurting anyone. Religion denies this
innate good exists.
Religion is, therefore, anti-human. Religious parents teach their children
explicitly that they were born evil. The child comes to believe that she has
no power over her own behavior (i.e., she develops what is called an external
locus of control) and is therefore denied the higher levels of moral
attainment. This is child abuse, and I am not tolerant of child abuse.
Religion is anti-life. In its fundamentalist extreme, religion seeks the
ultimate war: many fundies (maybe most or all) believe that the Second Coming
is very imminent and that nuclear war would be just the ticket to bring on the
ultimate jihad--the christian Armageddon. There are thousands upon thousands
of people who would not hesitate to push the proverbial button if it were
available to them, and if we continue to be so tolerant of such maniacal and
fanatical beliefs then sooner or later one of these guys will find that button
in his grasp. In this regard, Pat Robertson is much more of a threat to
humanity than Saddam or Kadahffi. I am not tolerant of murder.
Religion is anti-environment. Why should we protect this planet when god's
gonna wipe it clean and restore it someday anyway? And why should we preserve
natural resources and respect animal life? After all, the bible clearly
implies that everything was "put on earth" for man to "use" as he sees fit. If
god wants more rhinos, he can make more rhinos. If we kill them all off, then
it's god's will. These are not necessarily extremist fundamentalist
views--even in the more liberal religious circles, supernatural beliefs are
dangerous to our planet and therefore to all forms of life. I am not tolerant
of wanton greed, waste, and destruction.
Religion is anti-science. This should be obvious but many don't realize the
extent of the problem. A few years ago, the creationists (led by the Institute
for Creation Research in San Diego) launched an attack on the public school
systems of several states. Although creationism was soundly defeated in the
courts, it did manage to insert an element of doubt into the public mind about
evolution; so much so that our then-president Ronald Reagan publicly supported
"equal treatment" legislation on the basis that "some questions have been
raised about the validity of evolution" (or words to that effect) and that we
should allow the "other worldview" and equal forum in our schools. When the
ICR's lies and distortions reach the top office in the land and threaten the
very basis of public education, it's time to reconsider what we are willing to
tolerate. (Please don't plead for the right of free enquiry into
creationism--it has been thoroughly and freely enquired into and found
completely wanting.) I am not tolerant of the numbing of the mind.
Religion is also anti-democracy, anti-freedom, and anti-just about everything
else we've found to be useful and valuable. I am not tolerant of a return to
the Dark Ages.
So you see, children, we must lose our vision of the kindly old christian
sitting in a rocker and quietly enjoying the comfort of religion. The sickness
of religion, apparently benign in its gentler forms, is nonetheless insidious
in its anti-human nature and it represents a clear and present danger to the
survival of our society and our very species. Through the people it enslaves,
religion continues to propagate much evil and ultimately cannot be tolerated.
Religion, like war and pollution and despotism and slavery and a host of other
related ills, must eventually be eradicated.
Yes, I am intolerant of the superstition and ignorance and myth of religion and
of the pain and suffering and neglect it causes. I believe if you are really
an atheist you are intolerant, too. You are doubtless intolerant of cults,
phayth healers and pious parents who deny the efficacy of medicine and allow
the infirm to die in jesus' name, so why do you tolerate the underlying evil?
We do the human race a service by discussing these issues here, in this forum,
but we cannot sit by and allow superstition, myth, and ignorance to destroy the
minds and bodies of ourselves and our children. (How's that for emotional
impact?) We should do something. All atheists should come out of the closet
and act.
I am assembling a list of things atheists might do--singly or in aggregate--to
promote atheism and/or combat theism. If you would like to contribute, please
do. I will post the list here.
"Love the religionist, hate the religion."
Don Bowden
_|_
Atheism worships LIFE, not DEA | H.
Ron Wigmore
at...@acad2.anc.alaska.edu (BOWDEN DON H) says:
>
>In article <80...@mcshh.hanse.de>, fl...@mcshh.hanse.de (Florian Hars)
>writes...
>>at...@acad2.anc.alaska.edu (BOWDEN DON H) writes:
>>
>o
>>>religion from our planet?
>>
>>A dogmatic attitude equal to the darkest time of christianity...
>>
>
>If this be dogma, Florian, them make the most of it.
>
>Yes, Bob, I'm intolerant.
>
>Would you tolerate a religious belief that demanded the slow, painful torture
>and death of children? How about a belief that forced its followers to
>ritualistically rape, mutilate, and murder weaker people? Would you sit idly
>by and allow your next-door neighbor to put his child on a chopping block and
>cut out her heart?
I think we need to keep things in the proper perspective. Me, I prefer
the Libertarian view. Namely, everyone has the freedom to live their
lives the way they desire, but that that freedom ends when their actions
begin affecting other people's lives.
Excluding the people who like to force other people to live their lives
the way the former feel they should, everyone ends up happy. We even end
up with people having calm, rational, intelligent conversations (something
not possible with fundies!)
Religions (ie. belief systems (like Libertarianism)) can serve a
constructive purpose (for those who do not like to think for themselves).
Even though I believe people should always face reality, and avoid
superstitions like the plague, I would no more require someone to
live their life accoring to my beliefs then visa-versa. (Doing so
would make me a fundy (argh!!!!!!))
You will always have a bunch of dorky people trying to interfere with
your life (that is part of human nature), but any 'fix' should not
'cut off one's nose to spite one's face'. Me, I can take care of
myself (after all, I am an atheist!)
I think I am beginning to sound naive, time to go ...
Evan Marshall Manning
>at...@acad2.anc.alaska.edu (BOWDEN DON H) writes:
>>fine-tune our philosophies, but what are we doing to eradicate the sickness of
>>religion from our planet?
>A dogmatic attitude equal to the darkest time of christianity...
Oh I wish what you said were true. It is in fact a dogmatic attitude
quite prevalent among Xians today. The true "darkest time of Xianity"
was probably the period around the inquisition, and was much much worse.
The specific belief of Xians of that period which made it impossible for
them to participate in a civilized pluralistic society was that Gawd
would punish them for tolerating the peaceful coexistance of heretics.
Jon Taylor
I ignored Mr. Bowden's first posting, hoping that his raging anger
might have subsided and he might return
to his self-righteous shell. However, he seems intent on preaching
bigotry and ignorance, thus calling for
another defense of freedom.
In article <1990Sep9.0...@hayes.fai.alaska.edu>,
at...@acad2.anc.alaska.edu (BOWDEN DON H) writes:
> Would you tolerate a religious belief that demanded the slow, painful torture
> and death of children? How about a belief that forced its followers to
> ritualistically rape, mutilate, and murder weaker people? Would you sit idly
> by and allow your next-door neighbor to put his child on a chopping block and
> cut out her heart?
Of course I would tolerate THE BELIEF - what I would not tolerate are
the violent acts. The distinction may seem superfluous to someone with
Mr. Bowden's impressive arrogance, but I think it's essential. As has
been written so many times before, freedom of belief is freedom for ALL
beliefs, not freedom for those who agree with me. As I've also said
before, it's remarkable that any thinking atheist can be so
short-sighted as to indulge in the kind of intolerance that cost their
free-thinking forerunners so dearly.
> One of the main arrestors of this natural process of moral development is
> religion. Religion (at least the one in power in this country) denies the
> innate good of humans. In the xian view, people are born evil and must have
> jesus christ or they will always remain evil, and along with this acceptance
> and worship of certain supernatural entities comes a list of acceptable
> behavior--ideals that, if not followed to the letter, result in
eternal torture
> and/or eternal death. Such severe threats promote good behavior at
the lowest
> stages of the Kohlbergian scale--that of behavior to avoid punishment.
First, this is a trivial straw-man view of Christianity, not worthy of
posting in this forum (though it appears from the fanatics all too
often!). As has been pointed out before, not all Christians accept this
simplistic formulation, and even those that do have, I believe, deeper
understanding of morality than Mr. Bowden seems to think.
As for the assertion that "threats to promote good behavior" are the
lowest stages of morality: I think Mr. Bowden should get off his
philosophical high-horse and take a good look at the real world.
Punishment may not be the abstract ideal of morality, but it does seem
to work for most of us mortals. Religions tend to reflect human nature,
being as they are human institutions.
(As an aside: who is this Kohlberg, whose work is so profound that Mr.
Bowden elevates it to near-religious status? Must we all now measure
our lives against "the Kohlbergian scale"? Sounds to me like
pop-psychology gone wild!)
> Atheists, as has been pointed out on another thread of this group, are good
> because they have developed an internal locus of control built upon
humanistic
> values. The reason I do not burglarize your house is not the fear of arrest
> (an improbable event) nor the fear of retribution from ghosts and goblins (an
> even more improbable event); it is because I have a set of values born
of eons
> of evolution, a reasonably intact mind, and a lifetime of experiences
that have
> imbued me with standards that are socially and personally acceptable in this
> day and time.
No disagreement here, with the exception of the first word,
"atheists". It seems to me that most people of all philosophical and
theological bents base their lives on this credo, in one way or another.
> Religion denies this innate good exists.
Well, I've never heard this said by any religious person I know. I
assume Mr. Bowden is alluding to the concept of "original sin", which
postulates (in my understanding) that humans are inherently fallible.
Is saying that humans are fallible identical to saying that they have NO
innate good? I think not. There's a lot of room in between the
extremes of infallibility and utter evil.
> Religion is, therefore, anti-human. Religious parents teach their children
> explicitly that they were born evil. The child comes to believe that she has
> no power over her own behavior (i.e., she develops what is called an external
> locus of control) and is therefore denied the higher levels of moral
> attainment. This is child abuse, and I am not tolerant of child abuse.
This is good-sense-abuse, which I do tolerate, but will not leave
unanswered. I've never heard of any religion that teaches that one has
no power over his/her own behavior. Would Mr. Bowden care to give an
example? If any philosophy in modern times can be said to have led to
this result, it is the "philosophy" of liberal psycho-babble which
teaches that all moral decadence is due to societal factors, and that
individuals need not accept blame for any of their own actions. While
Christianity has had some influence on this kind of thinking, one can
hardly pin its entirety on the church.
> Religion is anti-life. In its fundamentalist extreme, religion seeks the
> ultimate war: many fundies (maybe most or all) believe that the
Second Coming
> is very imminent and that nuclear war would be just the ticket to
bring on the
> ultimate jihad--the christian Armageddon.
Again, a straw-man point of view. No doubt there are some fanatical
Christians who truly feel this way, but they're pretty few and far
between. To conclude that "religion is anti-life" is to ignore the much
greater number of rational religionists, in the interest of stirring up
one's own self-righteous fervor.
... lots of other blather deleted ....
> I am not tolerant of the numbing of the mind.
Gee, then, I hope Mr. Bowden is out fighting commercial TV stations,
Nintendo game sellers, alcohol vendors, and a host of other purveyors of
mind-numbing products. I just can't wait until we live in a world where
all activities and ideas are those sanctioned by Mr. Bowden and his army
of mind stimulators!
> Religion is also anti-democracy, anti-freedom, and anti-just about everything
> else we've found to be useful and valuable. I am not tolerant of a return to
> the Dark Ages.
Well, don't you know, I'm not either. In fact, I've never met ANYONE
who was, be they reactionary, radical, atheistic, paganistic, Christian,
Jew, whatever. I hope Mr. Bowden will acknowledge that it's possible to
disagree with him without being an endorser of the Dark Ages.
> So you see, children, we must lose our vision of the kindly old christian
> sitting in a rocker and quietly enjoying the comfort of religion. The
sickness
> of religion, apparently benign in its gentler forms, is nonetheless insidious
> in its anti-human nature and it represents a clear and present danger to the
> survival of our society and our very species.
Ah, now we come to the core of Mr. Bowden's sermon. He feels we're
all just children, needing his strict guidance in order to understand
the perils of religion. Let me pull another nice quote out of Mr.
Bowden's first posting which makes his attitude crystal clear:
(referring to the American Atheists booth at a state fair)
# Many more people passed by and waved or gave us the thumbs-up sign but
# did not stop--poor, oppressed humans still deep in the closet but at
least now
# they know there's hope. Best of all, new memberships are coming in.
Yup, Mr. Bowden is convinced that anyone who doesn't choose to cough
up funds to American Atheists and shout their opinions in everyone
else's face is a "poor, oppressed human". I am so glad to hear how much
compassion he has for us!
Please allow me to set Mr. Bowden straight: some atheists do not feel
the need to indulge in overheated, ignorant rhetoric in order to "come
out of the closet". Some of us do not have this crushing need to defeat
the opposition, to win the great game of theology, to have TRUTH AS WE
KNOW IT blasted into everyone's head. Some of us actually like the
world of diverse ideas, and welcome a chance to meet people of differing
attitudes. Some of us were never "in the closet" to begin with, and
need no help from American Atheists to get out. It is indeed possible
to be an atheist without despising every other outlook on life.
Jim Perry
...
>"Love the religionist, hate the religion."
>
>Don Bowden
>
> _|_
>Atheism worships LIFE, not DEA | H.
I don't suppose you read American Atheist? You'd like it. How about
"JESUS IS LARD"? Real high-brow stuff here.
Your perception of "religion" is highly warped and colored by
minority practices by some Christians in the United States. I'm not
particularly keen on religion, but you're being just as dogmatic as any
religionist. Atheism doesn't "worship" anything, and the only thing
atheists as a group agree on is the lack of deities.
I tend to agree that the dominant trend in this country is hostile to
atheists, and that should be addressed, but this sort of ranting is only
playing up to their worst stereotypes of atheism. Dogmatism is the real
evil, and it can be applied to religion, patriotism, regionalism, racism,
sexism, and most all other -isms, apparently even atheism.
A little more "come, let us reason together", and a little less "all
religionists are ignorant scum" would go a long way in advancing our cause.
-
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!
Jim Perry
>In article <1990Sep9.0...@hayes.fai.alaska.edu> at...@acad2.anc.alaska.edu writes:
>...
>>"Love the religionist, hate the religion."
>>
>>Don Bowden
>>
>> _|_
>>Atheism worships LIFE, not DEA | H.
>
>I don't suppose you read American Atheist? You'd like it. How about
>"JESUS IS LARD"? Real high-brow stuff here.
Whoops! I should try to keep my threads straight! I knew I'd seen someone
spewing AA's venom recently, and at least you're being consistent: You've
got the AA dogma down pretty well. "Religion is MYTH-information". Yuk.
As a disclaimer, that sort of negative stereotyping is not entirely
characteristic of American Atheists, but when they get on a roll they
really go for it. I enjoy leafing through their magazine from time to
time, and it can be fun to take the mickey out of religion, but theirs is
not a demeanor calculated to improve the perception of atheists in this
country. I get the same sort of guilty pleasure out AA as out of Destroyer
novels: completely Politically Unacceptable, but entertaining, in a coarse
way.
I'm an atheist, and AA don't particularly represent *my* views.
Bob Beauchaine
>>
>
>
>Yes, Bob, I'm intolerant.
>
>Would you tolerate a religious belief that demanded the slow, painful torture
>and death of children? How about a belief that forced its followers to
>ritualistically rape, mutilate, and murder weaker people? Would you sit idly
>by and allow your next-door neighbor to put his child on a chopping block and
>cut out her heart?
>
demented followers who adhere to the sort of behavior you describe above.
Certainly, not a single one of my theist acquaintances (and I have many,
including a wife) mutilate anything more than a good grilled sirloin.
>
>
>One of the main arrestors of this natural process of moral development is
>religion. Religion (at least the one in power in this country) denies the
>innate good of humans. In the xian view, people are born evil and must have
>jesus christ or they will always remain evil, and along with this acceptance
>and worship of certain supernatural entities comes a list of acceptable
>behavior--ideals that, if not followed to the letter, result in eternal torture
>and/or eternal death. Such severe threats promote good behavior at the lowest
>stages of the Kohlbergian scale--that of behavior to avoid punishment.
>
For someone ranting so strongly about religion, you have a very poor grasp
of it's basic tenets. Ask *any* fundamental christian (to use christianity
as an example), and most of the mainline christian religions, about
salvation. They will tell you that:
1. Yes, we are inherently evil, and each of us falls short of the
perfection that god would like of us. (NOTE: Evil, in this sentence,
means failing to follow behaviors deemed proper by god.)
2. Yes, there is a list of acceptable (or unacceptable) behaviors that
should (should not) be practiced. None of us, however, follow these
behaviors to the letter.
3. Most importantly, god is able to and willing to forgive *any*
transgession of these "laws", provided we sincerely ask for this
forgiveness.
Many theologians even go so far as to reject the existence of hell,
though this may not be a commonly held belief.
>Atheists, as has been pointed out on another thread of this group, are good
>because they have developed an internal locus of control built upon humanistic
>values. The reason I do not burglarize your house is not the fear of arrest
>(an improbable event) nor the fear of retribution from ghosts and goblins (an
>even more improbable event); it is because I have a set of values born of eons
>of evolution, a reasonably intact mind, and a lifetime of experiences that have
>imbued me with standards that are socially and personally acceptable in this
>day and time. Most of us are the same way--enough of us to keep the species
>going in spite of the many environmentally and/or genetically damaged
>defectors. Though our society seems riddled with crime, untold millions of
>people get through day after day without hurting anyone. Religion denies this
>innate good exists.
>
>Religion is, therefore, anti-human. Religious parents teach their children
>explicitly that they were born evil. The child comes to believe that she has
>no power over her own behavior (i.e., she develops what is called an external
>locus of control) and is therefore denied the higher levels of moral
>attainment. This is child abuse, and I am not tolerant of child abuse.
When was the last time you watched a group of children on the playground?
Long before they have the ability to grasp religious or philosophical
ideals, they possess a nearly infinite ability to be cruel to each other.
Only through socialization do they acquire the skills to interact properly
with each other. With as many problems as Freud's theories may have, he
was certainly correct about the influence of the ID in young children.
Where is the eons of evolutionarily developed standards? It is not innate
in the young mind.
I am also not so self righteous as to believe that every action you
choose not to engage in is the result of altruistic reasons. The fear
of punishment is a strong deterrent to atheists as well as theists,
whether the administrator of that punishment is god or state.
>Religion is anti-life. In its fundamentalist extreme, religion seeks the
>ultimate war: many fundies (maybe most or all) believe that the Second Coming
>is very imminent and that nuclear war would be just the ticket to bring on the
>ultimate jihad--the christian Armageddon. There are thousands upon thousands
>of people who would not hesitate to push the proverbial button if it were
>available to them, and if we continue to be so tolerant of such maniacal and
>fanatical beliefs then sooner or later one of these guys will find that button
>in his grasp. In this regard, Pat Robertson is much more of a threat to
>humanity than Saddam or Kadahffi. I am not tolerant of murder.
>
You said it best yourself: in its fundamentalist extreme. Now let's talk
about real religion in the real world. In its fundamentalist extreme,
hedonism, certainly a form of atheism, would likely mean the end to
any form of useful civilization.
>Religion is anti-environment. Why should we protect this planet when god's
>gonna wipe it clean and restore it someday anyway? And why should we preserve
>natural resources and respect animal life? After all, the bible clearly
>implies that everything was "put on earth" for man to "use" as he sees fit. If
>god wants more rhinos, he can make more rhinos. If we kill them all off, then
This is so much bullshit I nearly choked. I dare you to post proof that
any theist believes this nonsense. Yes, the Bible gives man "dominion"
over all creatures on the land and sea, but the intent was one of
sheparding, not wanton destruction.
>Religion is anti-science. [stuff about creationism vs. evolution deleted].
Religion is not anti-science. Religion simply rejects some of the
answers science gives to questions about this world when those answers
directly conflict with religious beliefs. True, religion was at one
time very anti-science (at least the Catholic church), but religion
has gone a long way towards reforming its views. Or doesn't accepting
your shortcomings and attempting a change for the better count for
anything?
>Religion is also anti-democracy, anti-freedom, and anti-just about everything
>else we've found to be useful and valuable. I am not tolerant of a return to
>the Dark Ages.
>
I find few theists as anti-anything as your endless drivel.
>So you see, children, we must lose our vision of the kindly old christian
>sitting in a rocker and quietly enjoying the comfort of religion. The sickness
>of religion, apparently benign in its gentler forms, is nonetheless insidious
>in its anti-human nature and it represents a clear and present danger to the
>survival of our society and our very species. Through the people it enslaves,
>religion continues to propagate much evil and ultimately cannot be tolerated.
>Religion, like war and pollution and despotism and slavery and a host of other
>related ills, must eventually be eradicated.
>
Mankind has *always* had more people who believed in the currently accepted
deity than who did not. This certainly hasn't stopped the progression
of mankind as a whole. This last paragraph is especially disturbing to me.
It bears far too much resemblance to the kind of rhetoric used to justify
the eradication of over 6 million jews 45 years ago. Or do you consider
the Holocaust to be a "good thing" ?
>Yes, I am intolerant of the superstition and ignorance and myth of religion and
>of the pain and suffering and neglect it causes. I believe if you are really
>an atheist you are intolerant, too. You are doubtless intolerant of cults,
>phayth healers and pious parents who deny the efficacy of medicine and allow
>the infirm to die in jesus' name, so why do you tolerate the underlying evil?
>
By the same reasoning that I tolerate every human being that I encounter
(with a few exceptions :-)), even though there are people like you out
there. I find religion to be a crutch, and attempt at understanding
a very puzzling world. I also find the vast majority of theists innocuous
at worst, and very often I find them to be possessed of some of the best
moral integrity, no matter the method by which they came to be so.
>We do the human race a service by discussing these issues here, in this forum,
>but we cannot sit by and allow superstition, myth, and ignorance to destroy the
>minds and bodies of ourselves and our children. (How's that for emotional
>impact?) We should do something. All atheists should come out of the closet
>and act.
>
>I am assembling a list of things atheists might do--singly or in aggregate--to
>promote atheism and/or combat theism. If you would like to contribute, please
>do. I will post the list here.
>
Thanks, I'll remain a closet atheist, if coming out means persecuting
my fellow human beings.
In re-reading this article, it seems I am arguing strongly for religion.
Lest you attempt to use this to my demise, let me state unequivocally:
I am an atheist. I believe in no religion, just as strongly as I believe
that I have no right to force others to my opinion, especially when no one
can prove my opinion to be any better than anyone else's. Try a little
tolerance, a little less "eradication".
++++++++++++++
Bob Beauchaine.
My opinions are my own alone, unless of course, you agree.
Jon Livesey
>
>I think we need to keep things in the proper perspective. Me, I prefer
>the Libertarian view. Namely, everyone has the freedom to live their
>lives the way they desire, but that that freedom ends when their actions
>begin affecting other people's lives.
If you adopt a more or less common sense view of what it means to
"affect other people's lives", this is fine, but of course that merely
begs the question.
One fundamentalist response to this is to say that *everything* affects
his life. If there is no moment of silence in school, then the
education system is expressing hatred against Christanity. If the NEA
funds gay artists, then the NEA is corrupting his children.
Then what?
jon.
Jon Livesey
>>>
>>
>>
>>Yes, Bob, I'm intolerant.
>>
>>Would you tolerate a religious belief that demanded the slow, painful torture
>>and death of children? How about a belief that forced its followers to
>>ritualistically rape, mutilate, and murder weaker people? Would you sit idly
>>by and allow your next-door neighbor to put his child on a chopping block and
>>cut out her heart?
>>
> What's your point? Show me a mainstream religion with more than a few
> demented followers who adhere to the sort of behavior you describe above.
> Certainly, not a single one of my theist acquaintances (and I have many,
> including a wife) mutilate anything more than a good grilled sirloin.
How soon religionists forget. Not two months ago, a Christian Science
couple were prosecuted in Mass. for denying their child medical care,
for religious reasons, even though that child had an obstructed bowel
and was vomiting its own faeces. The child died.
For my money, that is every bit as cruel a form of torture as anything
in the Bible. As if it were not bad enough, the Christian Science
church has been lobbying to try to get stuff like this exempted from
the laws on child abuse as long as it is done for religious reasons.
In other words, the same form of slow torture would be abuse in
ordinary life, but not abuse if the parents claimed to be carrying out
for religious reasons. One can only hope that they don't get away
with it.
jon.
malcolm wallace
|>
|> I ignored Mr. Bowden's first posting, hoping that his raging anger
|> might have subsided and he might return
|> to his self-righteous shell. However, he seems intent on preaching
|> bigotry and ignorance, thus calling for
|> another defense of freedom.
|> Please allow me to set Mr. Bowden straight: some atheists do not feel
|> the need to indulge in overheated, ignorant rhetoric in order to "come
|> out of the closet". Some of us do not have this crushing need to defeat
|> the opposition, to win the great game of theology, to have TRUTH AS WE
|> KNOW IT blasted into everyone's head. Some of us actually like the
|> world of diverse ideas, and welcome a chance to meet people of differing
|> attitudes.
Wow! An athiest fundmentalist has at last been found to misrepresent his
religion too!
-malc.
-----
Malcolm Wallace \\\\\\ Internal: 645094
RT3321, B68, Rm 21. > \\\\\\ External: (0473) 645094
British Telecom Research C U\\\\ International:
Martlesham Heath, IPSWICH IP5 7RE "= " \|/ + 44 473 645094
""" /|\
e-mail: mwal...@axion.bt.co.uk / ||\\ Tel me about it.
Path: ..!mcsun!ukc!axion!mwallace / \\\\
The iconoclast
> For my money, that is every bit as cruel a form of torture as anything
> in the Bible. As if it were not bad enough, the Christian Science
> church has been lobbying to try to get stuff like this exempted from
> the laws on child abuse as long as it is done for religious reasons.
From the August 1990 issue of "Freethought Today":
At this time, 43 states have religioius exemption laws provideing
for spiritual treatment as alternatives to medical care. These are
blanket laws with very few guidelines as to what kind of religions
are included, not matter how obscure, offbeat or extreme the belief
system may be. Some statutes go so far as to exempt parents from
notifying authorities in the case of contagious or communicable
diseases. The Massachusetts law reads:
"A child shall not be deemed neglected or lack proper physical
care for the sole reason that he is being provided treatment by
spirtiual means alon in accordance with the tnets an practice of a
recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited
practitioner thereof."
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts found at an inquest that this
law was not enough to exempt David and Ginger Twitchell from
prosecution.
I grew up in a Christain Science household. I avoided immunizations
of all types by claiming religious exemption. I believe I had an
appendicitis attack when I was in the 5th grade. I was very sick for
several days with severe pain in my right side. It gradually subsided over
a period of two weeks. I was not taken to the doctor, my mother called the
Practitioner who prayed for me. My mother read Science and Health with
Key to the Scriptures and the bible to me.
Today I am a militant atheist.
--
ic...@proto.com | an alias requested by a co-worker to avoid offending people
uunet!proto!icon | with my 'racy' postings with detrimental impact on business
G. Andrew McGehee
>
> Whenever it is necessary I will in writing refer to the Judeo-
>Christian (yes, that one again) god by capitalizing his name (i.e. `God'), as
>I do that of any fictional character. However, and astute readers may have
>noticed this already, I will not capitalize indirect (I don't know the correct
>grammatical term for them) references as in `Him' or `His', since this would
>in my opinion amount to an implied acknowledgement of his existence.
>
>
> ... being childish for not having more respect for others' beliefs ...
>
> Any opinions, anyone? Am I just being silly in splitting hairs
>over some trifle? Am I lacking in proper respect?
>
It sounds to me like you are a victim of hair-splitting, not the perpetrator.
I didn't hear you say that you tried to tell them how to write, only that
they tried to tell you. And as far as respect goes, the fact that you
would ask questions such as these shows me that you have a great deal of
respect for others.
As to what I do, I tend to capitalize words like "God", "Jesus", "Holy
Spirit", "Jehovah", etc. just as I would capitalize "Zeus", "Mars", "Isis",
"Buddah", "Kali", etc. I do not capitalize "him" or "he" when refering
to the Christian deities for the same reason that I do not do this for the
"pagan" ones.
I do not think that using lower case for any of these words constitutes
disrespect. I have read the writings of atheists who IMHO use terms that
are: Refering to the Bible as the bibble, spelling Jesus as Jeezus, etc.
Unless you are doing this, I cannot think that you are showing disrespect.
This is not to say that disrespect does not have its place. :-)
-- Andy
Mathemagician
> Many theologians even go so far as to reject the existence of hell,
> though this may not be a commonly held belief.
I've always sort of wondered about this. If we can do away with
the concept of Hell, why not also do away with the concept of Heaven?
> In its fundamentalist extreme,
> hedonism, certainly a form of atheism, would likely mean the end to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> any form of useful civilization.
Ummm...no. Hedonism does not imply atheism. One can be quite
the theist and still be hedonistic if those are the tenets of
the religion. Of course this depends on how you define "hedonism."
If you mean "without moral guidance," then hedonism does not imply
atheism as *-theism and morality are not the same thing. If
you mean "without god," then why did you use the word "hedonism"?
>>Religion is anti-science. [stuff about creationism vs. evolution deleted].
> Religion is not anti-science. Religion simply rejects some of the
> answers science gives to questions about this world when those answers
> directly conflict with religious beliefs.
"Naw! We ain't anti-science. But, that stuff that you scientists
proved just don' quite jibe with this book whut says dif'ren' so
you better be quiet about it."
That's not anti-science. The moment someone rejects what has been
rigorously proven because it doesn't agree with religious beliefs,
one is being anti-science.
> True, religion was at one
> time very anti-science (at least the Catholic church), but religion
> has gone a long way towards reforming its views. Or doesn't accepting
> your shortcomings and attempting a change for the better count for
> anything?
It's more the fact that religions need to beat over the head with
the facts before they'll admit that something is wrong. And even
then, it's more likely to be "Oh, we just misinterpreted these
passages. Our book is still infallible, we just don't quite under-
stand how to read it."
Yes, I realize that you are an atheist, but some of things you are
saying aren't exactly true.
--
Brian Evans |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first
bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."
Jim Perry
I don't think Bob's a religionist. In any event the Twitchell case was
extensively discussed here, and it was not as conclusive or as one-sided as
you propose (this is great: school starts and we're having discussions with
atheists arguing toleration of religion with other atheists!)
The Twitchells didn't ignore their child, they actively sought out the
assistance of a CS practitioner. You or I might think this foolish, but
faith healing does have a certain track record of success. It's not 100%,
but then neither is conventional medicine. [Would you advocate that
atheists be prosecuted for withholding prayer in cases where conventional
medicine doesn't help? Most of our society places faith in the power of
prayer.] Anyway, they acted in the sincere belief that it would help, and
*it did appear to be working*. It also happens, by the way, that CS faith
healing *is* in fact explicitly excluded from the Mass. child abuse law...
This is not to say that I don't think changes are in order. I think faith
healing should be subject to the same sort of recording, success and
failure, as regular medicine, and if it is shown ineffective, then it
should be made illegal (as applied to children; adults of course can choose
for themselves). I think the CS practitioners should be held liable under
the same standards as medical practitioners are (they've contrived to
position themselves on the one hand as legitimate medical treatment and on
the other as a religion, and thus expect the best of both worlds). I think
that would change the frequency with which the tough cases were referred on
to conventional treatment (which is not forbidden by CS doctrine).
That said, there are some despicable aspects to this sort of religious
healing, for instance the practitioner's implication that the child wasn't
successfully healed because of the inadequacy of the faith of the parents;
that's just what the parents need to hear at this point, no doubt. I also
would agree that there are real abuses of religious freedom as applied to
children (various sects who take "spare the rod and spoil the child" to
heart and wind up beating kids to death with electrical cords) but THOSE
ARE FAR AND AWAY THE EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE RULE, even among
religionists.
Dave Marks {PRIP mgr}
In article <4cbf935...@apollo.HP.COM>, pe...@apollo.HP.COM (Jim Perry)
writes:
...
> The Twitchells didn't ignore their child, they actively sought out the
> assistance of a CS practitioner. You or I might think this foolish, but
> faith healing does have a certain track record of success. It's not 100%,
> but then neither is conventional medicine.
Ah, there it is! The Fundies' Big Lie, the implication that even though
faith healing doesn't always work, neither does modern medicine, so both
are somehow equivalent. Faith healing has NO record of success. There is
not one case anywhere on record that props up the fundy contention that faith
healing works. The Twitchells, for all their care, might as well have
ignored their child for all the good the faith healing would do.
As for conventional medicine (sic) having a track record of less than 100%,
just let me say that I'd rather take the 33%, or 57%, or 99.999% assured
record of success that modern medicine offers me as opposed to the 0%
(barring luck and/or chance) that faith healing offers.
-Dave Marks
Jon Livesey
>In article <142...@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, liv...@solntze.Eng.Sun.COM (Jon Livesey) writes:
>> For my money, that is every bit as cruel a form of torture as anything
>> in the Bible. As if it were not bad enough, the Christian Science
>> church has been lobbying to try to get stuff like this exempted from
>> the laws on child abuse as long as it is done for religious reasons.
>
>From the August 1990 issue of "Freethought Today":
>
> At this time, 43 states have religioius exemption laws provideing
> for spiritual treatment as alternatives to medical care. These are
> blanket laws with very few guidelines as to what kind of religions
> are included, not matter how obscure, offbeat or extreme the belief
> system may be. Some statutes go so far as to exempt parents from
> notifying authorities in the case of contagious or communicable
> diseases.
Does anyone besides me find it interesting that some courts have now
ruled that the exercise of religion *is* enough to exempt you from,
for example, notifying the authorities of communicable diseases, yet
courts have also ruled that American Indians may be prevented from
using peyote in their religion.
jon.
Jon Livesey
>
>I don't think Bob's a religionist. In any event the Twitchell case was
>extensively discussed here, and it was not as conclusive or as one-sided as
>you propose (this is great: school starts and we're having discussions with
>atheists arguing toleration of religion with other atheists!)
Actually, what I am going to argue with you about is misrepresenting
the facts. Sorry about that.
>The Twitchells didn't ignore their child,
That is a fairly obvious straw man, since noone has ever alleged that
the twitchells "ignored their child". What they did do was to refuse
to get regular medical help for their child when it was obviously in
a dying state [see below].
>they actively sought out the assistance of a CS practitioner.
This is not what the complaint is about. The Mass. prosecutor even
said in court that the state *encourages* people to use Faith Healing
if they want. However, the state also insists that regular medical
help be sought for a child when it is obviously required.
>You or I might think this foolish, but faith healing does have a
>certain track record of success.
How do you know? When I get a cold, I pray to Ubizmo. Strangely, I
always get better. Does this mean Ubizmo "has a certain track
record"? All Hail Ubizmo!
>It's not 100%, but then neither is conventional medicine.
That's not the problem. If both Faith Healing and conventional
medicine fail, the state has nothing further to say, and noone is
prosecuted.
The problem is: if some ailments can only be cured by conventional
medicine, then a religion that witholds conventional medicine will
sooner or later be responsible for killing someone. When that
religion also lobby to shield their followers from the legal
consequences, we know that the leaders of the religion *themselves*
know that they are responsible for killing people.
>[Would you advocate that atheists be prosecuted for withholding prayer
>in cases where conventional medicine doesn't help? Most of our society
>places faith in the power of prayer.]
This is another straw man. Noone demanded that the Twitchells
practice conventional medicine themselves; only that they call someone
who could. If someone wants to pray for the child of an atheist, noone
can stop them from doing so.
>Anyway, they acted in the sincere belief that it would help, and
>*it did appear to be working*.
Yes, it appeared to be working so well that the child was going into
convulsions and vomiting its own faeces.
>It also happens, by the way, that CS faith healing *is* in fact
>explicitly excluded from the Mass. child abuse law...
This is another misrepresentation of the facts. Mass. law does *not*
exclude CS faith healing, or prevent anyone from using CS faith
healing. It merely prevents one from *witholding* conventional
medical care.
jon.
Jon Livesey
>
>In article <4cbf935...@apollo.HP.COM>, pe...@apollo.HP.COM (Jim Perry)
>writes:
>...
>> The Twitchells didn't ignore their child, they actively sought out the
>> assistance of a CS practitioner. You or I might think this foolish, but
>> faith healing does have a certain track record of success. It's not 100%,
>> but then neither is conventional medicine.
>...
>
>Ah, there it is! The Fundies' Big Lie, the implication that even though
>faith healing doesn't always work, neither does modern medicine, so both
>are somehow equivalent. Faith healing has NO record of success. There is
>not one case anywhere on record that props up the fundy contention that faith
>healing works. The Twitchells, for all their care, might as well have
>ignored their child for all the good the faith healing would do.
Yup. In fact, it's not hard to invent any wierd 'treatment' and
manufacture a track record for it in a way that will fool most people.
Let's say you want to boost Praying Upside Down, for example. Take a
random set of patients and tell them not to seek conventional medical
treatment, but to pray standing on their heads instead. Now some will
die (Hey, we never claimed it would be perfect, did we?) and some will
recover with or without medical treatment. My God, it works! Call
in the Press!
jon.
Bob Beauchaine
>In article <57...@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bo...@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes:
>
>> In its fundamentalist extreme,
>> hedonism, certainly a form of atheism, would likely mean the end to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> any form of useful civilization.
>
>Ummm...no. Hedonism does not imply atheism. One can be quite
>the theist and still be hedonistic if those are the tenets of
>the religion. Of course this depends on how you define "hedonism."
>If you mean "without moral guidance," then hedonism does not imply
>atheism as *-theism and morality are not the same thing. If
>you mean "without god," then why did you use the word "hedonism"?
>
I meant hedonism as the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the highest
good. This is in direct opposition to most commonly held definitions of God,
certainly the Christian God. Of course, I suppose one could believe in a
god whose doctrine was exactly one of pursuing personal pleasure, but such
a god would find himself lacking in worshippers, unless somehow that worship
itself brought about a state of pleasure greater than any other use of the
same time and effort.
>>>Religion is anti-science. [stuff about creationism vs. evolution deleted].
>
>> Religion is not anti-science. Religion simply rejects some of the
>> answers science gives to questions about this world when those answers
>> directly conflict with religious beliefs.
>
>"Naw! We ain't anti-science. But, that stuff that you scientists
>proved just don' quite jibe with this book whut says dif'ren' so
>you better be quiet about it."
>
What about the arguments about God himself creating the fossil record,
etc.,etc. Certainly an assinine argument in my book, but you have to
admit, it would explain the facts, and I kind of like a god with
enough of a sense of humor to go that far out of his way do be
difficult.:-)
Or, more plausibly, the concept of a god who started the Big Bang, and
takes an interest in the outcome of his cosmic experiment.
>That's not anti-science. The moment someone rejects what has been
>rigorously proven because it doesn't agree with religious beliefs,
>one is being anti-science.
>
[My stuff deleted]
>
>It's more the fact that religions need to beat over the head with
>the facts before they'll admit that something is wrong. And even
>then, it's more likely to be "Oh, we just misinterpreted these
>passages. Our book is still infallible, we just don't quite under-
>stand how to read it."
>
Unfortunately, obstinance is not found only among those who believe.
True, some of the best wafflers are found within the ranks of theists.
And while change is certainly embraced more readily by the science
community, it still requires time and a preponderance of evidence
before old theories are rejected for new. Personally, a don't find it
at all unusual that a book written several thousand years ago and
subject to several subsequent translations might be difficult to
interpret correctly. Even then, who's to say what the "correct"
interpretation is? All of these arguments sorely weaken the theist
position, but they do not render religion lock-stock-and-barrell void
of any merit.
>Yes, I realize that you are an atheist, but some of things you are
>saying aren't exactly true.
>
If you think I'm lying, please say so unequivocally. If you think I'm
misinformed, please read above. The truthfullness of my arguments
depends entirely on what you want to believe to be the truth.
I can't tell you (or even myself) what the truth *is*, only what I
believe it not to be.
Bob Beauchaine
Mike Prather
>> Religion is not anti-science. Religion simply rejects some of the
>> answers science gives to questions about this world when those answers
>> directly conflict with religious beliefs.
>
>"Naw! We ain't anti-science. But, that stuff that you scientists
>proved just don' quite jibe with this book whut says dif'ren' so
>you better be quiet about it."
>
>That's not anti-science. The moment someone rejects what has been
>rigorously proven because it doesn't agree with religious beliefs,
>one is being anti-science.
"When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted
its data."
Henry Morris
Head of Institute for Creation Research
I love this quote. It's from a book by Henry Morris. I read it quite
a while ago, so I don't remember which book it's from, but I'm pretty
sure the quote is correct. Mr Morris has a great attitude, huh?
Mike
--
*****************************************************************************
mi...@mcs213k.cs.umr.edu Standard Disclaimer
*****************************************************************************
Ron Wigmore
(Dave Marks {PRIP mgr}) says:
>
>As for conventional medicine (sic) having a track record of less than 100%,
>just let me say that I'd rather take the 33%, or 57%, or 99.999% assured
>record of success that modern medicine offers me as opposed to the 0%
>(barring luck and/or chance) that faith healing offers.
While I am absolutely sure that acts of faith healing are as successful
as suicide, let's not cut short the benefits of positive thinking, trust
in someone (placebo affect of a doctor giving you sugar pills for a migrane),
good old fashioned refusal to give in. (Wouldn't it be wonderful if a
fundy, having ruled out the involvment of their god, were to respond with
a "you see, proof that faith healing works" type of statement!)
As far as the laws go (except where it applies to their children) I say
let the fundies vomit feces(!). Once they have all died out, we can go
about our lives on a wonderful, caring, loving, tolerant Earth!
Ron Wigmore
>
>Does anyone besides me find it interesting that some courts have now
>ruled that the exercise of religion *is* enough to exempt you from,
>for example, notifying the authorities of communicable diseases, yet
>courts have also ruled that American Indians may be prevented from
>using peyote in their religion.
Not in the least! Most fundies have an Orwellian-type of doublespeak
meaning when they use words. "Equality" to a fundy is the right of
everyone to do what THEY think is right, but able to do nothing that they
think is not right (ie. not covered by their bible). We shall ignore
a few preachers getting their jollies off of little boys, for now!)
Fundies like to act as if "unless you abide by the preachings of this
Afician religion (relax, that was meant as an anti-Aryan statement - I
am an atheist, not a low-life!), then you are scum, and that THEY are
justified in doing to us whatever THEY want"
house ron
>...but what are we doing to eradicate the sickness of
>religion from our planet?
This doesn't sound exactly like the words of an enlightened member of
a modern democracy - sounds more like mediaeval Catholicism in reverse.
>...
>I don't think we'll get
>acceptance for the atheist community until we get out in front of people and
>show them what we are--not baby-eaters but the most intelligent, ethical, and
^ ^ ^
>moral people on the planet.
^ ^ ^ ^
But not the most modest, obviously.
>...What
>can *you* do?
>...
> JESUS IS LARD!
I can point out the immorality of slinging mindless insults at the
deceased - at least when it is done by one so tremendously intelligent
and "moral" (sorry, sick joke) as yourself.
--
Regards,
Ron House. (s64...@zeus.usq.edu.au)
(By post: Info Tech, U.C.S.Q. Toowoomba. Australia. 4350)
malcolm wallace
Wigmore) writes:
|> In article <1990Sep11.1...@axion.bt.co.uk>,
mwal...@vega.axion.bt.co.uk
|> (malcolm wallace) says:
|> >
|> >In article <13...@paperboy.OSF.ORG>, j...@osf.org (Jon Taylor) writes:
|> >
|> >|> Please allow me to set Mr. Bowden straight: some atheists do not feel
|> >|> the need to indulge in overheated, ignorant rhetoric in order to "come
|> >|> out of the closet". Some of us do not have this crushing need to defeat
|> >|> the opposition, to win the great game of theology, to have TRUTH AS WE
|> >|> KNOW IT blasted into everyone's head. Some of us actually like the
|> >|> world of diverse ideas, and welcome a chance to meet people of differing
|> >|> attitudes.
|> >
|> >Wow! An athiest fundmentalist has at last been found to misrepresent his
|> >religion too!
|>
Whoops. I wasn't entirely clear there that I was referring to the good
Mr Bowden as the athiest fundie, NOT Mr Taylor. Apologies for the
confusion. By the way, I don't understand your request to ``explain how
the many errors in this statement''.
|> Ron,,,
-malc
Barbara Vaughan
>
>As far as the laws go (except where it applies to their children) I say
>let the fundies vomit feces(!). Once they have all died out, we can go
>about our lives on a wonderful, caring, loving, tolerant Earth!
>
Seriously, do you really believe this? Is it because of all the fundies
running around the streets that babies are being killed in their beds
by stray bullets? That the U.S. has the world's highest homicide rate?
Jon Livesey
>In article <142...@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, liv...@solntze.Eng.Sun.COM (Jon Livesey)
>says:
>
>terrible parents/teacheers THEY must be if they themselves cannot teach
>their children that they can prey anytime they want/feel or what their
>bible says about gays (Dad to son: "One day you will come home and say you
>are getting married. I want people to say ' ... not losing a son, gaining
>a daughter' and not 'not losing a son, gaining another son'" :-))
Well, you get my vote. I usually add that I find it rather peculiar
that the things fundies get excited about usually go in fads, lasting
about a decade or so. Ten years ago, they were blabbling about the
evils of inter-racial dating and miscegenation. More recently there
was a big fuss about Creationism and the evils of Communist-inspired
Evolution. Now the fuss is about so-called 'Satanism' in spelling
games, yoga classes and computer games. Each fad has its moment in
the Fundamentalist sun, and then dies away as though it had never really
been all that important.
When you spell it out for them like that, even the most dim-witted
Christian will admit that you can't exactly claim that your ideas are
timeless and eternel if you change them more frequently than Paris
fashions. With luck they start to get the idea that maybe they are
being torqued around to suit the purposes of publicity-hungry
Ministers.
>If I still was not making headway, I would use their own bible against them
>(like where the man himself says "don't prey in public (for some ego-type
>reason), prey in your closet instead".
At this point, I was seriously tempted, but resisted.
jon.
Chan Benson
> manufacture a track record for it in a way that will fool most people.
Guess what! This has happened with conventional medicine as well. I
can't remember the specifics at the moment (don't worry, I'll provide
a reference), but basically doctors were performing surgery for a
particular condition and were convinced it worked. After some further
research it was discovered that the successes were entirely due to
the placebo effect. Faith in modern medicine is sometimes as misguided
as faith in God.
The book that I read this in is by Dr. Andrew Weil. I believe it's
called "Health and Healing: A Guide to Traditional and non-Traditional
Treatments". Or something like that. Of course, reading it may call
into question some of your closely held beliefs (something that some
atheists find almost as distasteful as fundamentalists do).
-- Chan
Ron Wigmore
Oops! You're right! Only a fundy could be so self-centered so as to view
the entirity of the world as revolving around themselves. I guess the thing
to do would be to pit fundy against fundy (ie. catholic against baptist)
in defining what is "morally right" behaviour. Hmmm ... that could result
in another Northern Ireland ... maybe its a bad idea.
I guess I would next try going after their ego/self image. Point out what
terrible parents/teacheers THEY must be if they themselves cannot teach
their children that they can prey anytime they want/feel or what their
bible says about gays (Dad to son: "One day you will come home and say you
are getting married. I want people to say ' ... not losing a son, gaining
a daughter' and not 'not losing a son, gaining another son'" :-))
If I still was not making headway, I would use their own bible against them
(like where the man himself says "don't prey in public (for some ego-type
reason), prey in your closet instead". I doubt I would make any real
progress in as much as 'commandment 0' says "thou shalt not listen to the
words/ides of non-fundies - they are all doing the devil's work".
Closed minds are like that!
Ron Wigmore
>
>|> Please allow me to set Mr. Bowden straight: some atheists do not feel
>|> the need to indulge in overheated, ignorant rhetoric in order to "come
>|> out of the closet". Some of us do not have this crushing need to defeat
>|> the opposition, to win the great game of theology, to have TRUTH AS WE
>|> KNOW IT blasted into everyone's head. Some of us actually like the
>|> world of diverse ideas, and welcome a chance to meet people of differing
>|> attitudes.
>
>Wow! An athiest fundmentalist has at last been found to misrepresent his
>religion too!
Huh? Care to explain how the many errors in this statement?
Especially the point that atheism is a religion
Ron Wigmore
> good. This is in direct opposition to most commonly held definitions of God,
> certainly the Christian God. Of course, I suppose one could believe in a
> god whose doctrine was exactly one of pursuing personal pleasure, but such
> a god would find himself lacking in worshippers, unless somehow that worship
> itself brought about a state of pleasure greater than any other use of the
> same time and effort.
>
I can't wait to hear the fundy response to this paragragh! "Hedonism is in
direct opposition to the definition of christian god". Hmmm ... that means
christian god is against the pursuit of pleasure and happiness (my what
a truly 'godless' country the USA must be - unless I misread their
constitution).
Does this also not mean that christianity is for pain and sorrow? So, how
about it fundies, what have you done today to increase/seek pain and
sorrow. As an atheist, christianity sounds like an awfully barbaric and
uncivilized belief system.
Ron Wigmore
Hmmm ... Yup! After all, they are adults doing what they believe *AND*
their actions would not affect me. How does the above differ from those
who are, say, clinically obese, smoke, do drugs, drink booze, and don't
exercise, who refuse to adopt a healthier lifestyle? Maybe we should lock
those people up and properly condition (ie. brainwash) them into 'correct'
healthy behaviour!
It's their (if they are adults) life, they can live
it as they chose, as long as it doesn't affect me. I think they are
stupid and can look forward to a slow agonizing death, but, like I said
it's their life. (No socialist responses please, I vote Libertarian!)
'Babies being killed .... highest homicide rate' what do these have to do
with fundies, because of their beliefs, letting their children die slow
and very agonizing deaths? Did any of the babies killed by stray bullets
ask to be? Did any of the homicide victims ask to be? Did the fundy
parents 'willingly and with forethought' just drop to their knees and,
for days, just watch their child get worse and worse, and then die?
( think you are belittling the deaths of a lot of innocent people).
The answer to the first three is NO. To the last question YES. So what
is your point? Hmmm ... you not confusing my use of the word "FUNDY"
to mean any and all theists, were you? There is a significant difference
between 'emotionally strong believers' and FUNDIES. The former one can
co-exist with (even have good (calm/rational) conversations with), the
latter, well, let's just say for societies benefit, we better have a lot
of good human right's lawyers!
Ron,,,
________________________________________________________________________________
|*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| <- Canadian Flags -> |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*|
"When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted
its data." Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research
"He-He-He-He-He-He-He-He" Ron Wigmore, Senior VM System Systems Programmer
Graham Matthews
>Huh? Care to explain how the many errors in this statement?
>Especially the point that atheism is a religion
It depends what you mean by atheism.
If atheism means believing that there is no god, then yes it is a
religion as it based on pure faith.
If atheism means no belief in God then it is not a religion.
graham
Mathemagician
>In article <1990Sep11....@ariel.unm.edu> bev...@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
> I meant hedonism as the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the highest
> good. This is in direct opposition to most commonly held definitions of God,
> certainly the Christian God. Of course, I suppose one could believe in a
> god whose doctrine was exactly one of pursuing personal pleasure, but such
> a god would find himself lacking in worshippers, unless somehow that worship
> itself brought about a state of pleasure greater than any other use of the
> same time and effort.
I beg to put before you (sorry, I've been listening to "The Small
House of Uncle Thomas" from _The Kind and I_) the Dionysian cult
that attracted quite a lot of Ancient Greeks (so many, in fact,
that it was banned in a few city-states). Pleasure was the prime
goal and they pursued it with vigor.
Even your definition of hedonism does not imply atheism. Pursuit
of pleasure does not mean that there is no deity worship. One
could give thanks to the deity for providing such wonderful delights
or try to serve the deity by having ritualistic orgies under the
belief that the deity will spiritually participate.
>>"Naw! We ain't anti-science. But, that stuff that you scientists
>>proved just don' quite jibe with this book whut says dif'ren' so
>>you better be quiet about it."
> What about the arguments about God himself creating the fossil record,
> etc.,etc. Certainly an assinine argument in my book, but you have to
> admit, it would explain the facts, and I kind of like a god with
> enough of a sense of humor to go that far out of his way do be
> difficult.:-)
But it goes beyond that. There are many claims in the Bible that
just cannot exist in Nature. For example, sheep which mated under
the shadows of sticks produced striped offspring. Really? I
didn't know a fetus could get a suntan before it was even a fetus!
> Or, more plausibly, the concept of a god who started the Big Bang, and
> takes an interest in the outcome of his cosmic experiment.
But that goes against what _The Bible_ (literary works are under-
lined) says about its god.
>>It's more the fact that religions need to beat over the head with
>>the facts before they'll admit that something is wrong. And even
>>then, it's more likely to be "Oh, we just misinterpreted these
>>passages. Our book is still infallible, we just don't quite under-
>>stand how to read it."
> Unfortunately, obstinance is not found only among those who believe.
[...]
> All of these arguments sorely weaken the theist
> position, but they do not render religion lock-stock-and-barrell void
> of any merit.
Then why did it take centuries for the Catholic Church to admit
that Galileo was right and that the earth orbits the sun? I refer
specifically to the edict Pope John Paul II made in 1985 (I believe
it was 85) that declared that Galileo was not a heretic for claiming
the earth orbited the sun.
>>Yes, I realize that you are an atheist, but some of things you are
>>saying aren't exactly true.
> If you think I'm lying, please say so unequivocally. If you think I'm
> misinformed, please read above. The truthfullness of my arguments
> depends entirely on what you want to believe to be the truth.
If I thought you were lying, I'd have said so. That I think you
are misinformed should be obvious in my reply. That I still think
you are misinformed should be obvious in this reply.
Snide remarks don't help much.
line fodder just in case
line fodder just in case
line fodder just in case
house ron
> Whenever it is necessary I will in writing refer to the Judeo-
>Christian (yes, that one again) god by capitalizing his name (i.e. `God'), as
>I do that of any fictional character. However, and astute readers may have
>noticed this already, I will not capitalize indirect (I don't know the correct
>grammatical term for them) references as in `Him' or `His', since this would
>in my opinion amount to an implied acknowledgement of his existence.
> However, when I do this I most always get angry reactions from our
>Christian friends (including teachers grading papers). They would at first
>inform me that it is simply a grammatical error. Upon learning that it was a
>conscious action on my part I am told (in certain and explicit terms) that
>I am being childish for not having more respect for others' beliefs. In my
>experience so far I have found that I am alone in this, since even my fellow
>atheists do not `non-capitalize.'
> Any opinions, anyone? Am I just being silly in splitting hairs
>over some trifle? Am I lacking in proper respect?
No, you are not. I capitalise "Him" because I believe He exists.
But it would be outragious of me to force my beliefs upon you, even
indirectly.
Ronald BODKIN
>at...@acad2.anc.alaska.edu (BOWDEN DON H) writes:
>>...but what are we doing to eradicate the sickness of
>>religion from our planet?
>
>This doesn't sound exactly like the words of an enlightened member of
>a modern democracy - sounds more like mediaeval Catholicism in reverse.
on faith, that would be very (medieval) Catholic. Just because you
tolerate other's ideas doesn't mean you don't oppose them. Replace
"religion" with "racism" and see if the statement above sounds
unreasonable. I would say without qualification that racism, as bad
as it is, is less harmful than religion (of course this is silly,
because they are the product of the same mindset).
>>I don't think we'll get
>>acceptance for the atheist community until we get out in front of people and
>>show them what we are--not baby-eaters but the most intelligent, ethical, and
> ^ ^ ^
>>moral people on the planet.
> ^ ^ ^ ^
>But not the most modest, obviously.
What is the virtue of false modesty? However I think the initial
poster is wrong in his assumption that there is only one morality/ethics
(if I read him right), although I think there is only one correct such.
(I infer he thinks this by trying to exhibit ethics, assuming there is
only one standard of ethics).
>> JESUS IS LARD!
>I can point out the immorality of slinging mindless insults at the
>deceased - at least when it is done by one so tremendously intelligent
>and "moral" (sorry, sick joke) as yourself.
Oh, what's immoral or stupid about poking fun at people?
If people insist on running their lives with worthless little proverbs,
they (and these) deserve to be ridiculed. I don't think its immoral
to dispute the incorrect, nor even to enjoy at laugh at the ignorant.
Ron
The iconoclast
A lot of people have been calling C.S. a 'FUNDY' religion. While I agree that
C.S. is a bunch of B.S. I think it is inaccurate to call them 'FUNDIES'.
I grew up under C.S. and know a fair amount about it. Movies, newspapers,
dances, stores open on Sunday, etc, etc, where just fine. Unlike the
religion of some of my classmates (including the woman I married who now
has a rather low opinion of the church). They don't believe in Hell (or
Heaven), the devil, or the trinity. Hell fire and damnation type FUNDIES
are looked upon as misguided and are to be pitied.
C.S. driving force is their view that the physical world is an illusion.
Disease, broken bones, pestilance, calamity, famine, and even death are
regarded as illusion -- nothing that a good, just, loving god would cause
to happen. These are the stock in trade of the FUNDY'S god(s).
Like I said 'C.S. is B.S.' but I don't think of them as FUNDIES.
Jim Perry
slowly. I have no doubt overreacted recently to the suddenly negative tone
of this newsgroup, and to compounded misunderstandings of what I've
intended to say. This is rather long, but I'd appreciate it if you read
the whole thing if you want to respond to any of it.
I'm sorry several people misinterpreted my intent in citing the
hyperthermia experiment. I was just observing that Mr. Livesey's "Praying
Upside Down" suggestion wasn't as outlandish as intended; I was *not*
attempting to draw a parallel with faith healing. Relatively outlandish
treatments are attempted, sometimes on questionable evidence, and the
coverage of the hyperthermia experiments has implied that that was such a
questionable case. It was not based on particularly good science (again,
from what I hear in the media), and was not representative of mainstream
medical or HIV research, and I didn't intend to characterize it as such.
I have no personal belief in faith healing, quite the opposite, and got
drawn much further into a devil's advocate position there than I should
have. From my initial article in this thread:
>This is not to say that I don't think changes are in order. I think faith
>healing should be subject to the same sort of recording--success and
>failure--as regular medicine, and if it is shown ineffective, then it
>should be made illegal (as applied to children; adults of course can choose
>for themselves). I think the CS practitioners should be held liable under
>the same standards as medical practitioners are (they've contrived to
>position themselves on the one hand as legitimate medical treatment and on
>the other as a religion, and thus expect the best of both worlds). I think
>that would change the frequency with which the tough cases were referred on
>to conventional treatment (which is not forbidden by CS doctrine).
Now, as to Mr. Livesey's comment:
>That's probably a very good idea, because, atheist or not, so long as
>you go on mis-stating what happened in this case, I am going to go on
>correcting you.
I've looked back over the thread, and tried to decide just where he thinks
I am misrepresenting facts.
In a couple of places he seems to believe that I'm advancing straw-man
arguments. One of those was the issue of whether the Twitchells ignored
the child. That was a reference to a topic discussed in more detail the
last time we talked of this case; if Mr. Livesey wasn't following that
discussion I can understand that this seems irrelevant out of the blue.
In another instance,
>>[Would you advocate that atheists be prosecuted for withholding prayer
>>in cases where conventional medicine doesn't help? Most of our society
>>places faith in the power of prayer.]
>
>This is another straw man. Noone demanded that the Twitchells
>practice conventional medicine themselves; only that they call someone
>who could. If someone wants to pray for the child of an atheist, noone
>can stop them from doing so.
Here my intent was misunderstood; I still think it's clear that the analogy
is that (again, in context, given that society accords some credence to
faith healing) as CS believers are expected to get conventional medical
treatment where faith healing fails, hypothetically atheist parents could
be required to seek faith healing (e.g. from a CS practitioner) in cases
where medicine fails. It's not a perfect analogy, but not as stupid as the
bizarre interpretation Mr. Livesey read into it.
Then, I suspect this is the big one:
>>Anyway, they acted in the sincere belief that it would help, and
>>*it did appear to be working*.
>
>Yes, it appeared to be working so well that the child was going into
>convulsions and vomiting its own faeces.
Now, before I go any further, I want to make it clear that my position is
that the law is (rightly) that children must be given medical treatment
where religious attempts fail, as they did in this case (and as they do in
all cases, as far as I'm concerned). A better statement of the *'d passage
would have been "they did believe it to be working", which is true: I've
seen nothing to suggest that the Twitchells realized the extremity of the
situation of their child. They, in their best judgment as parents,
believed that the situation was improving. They were absolutely wrong, and
the CS practitioner (who should be educated enough about medicine to
recognize the severity of this condition) should be liable. However, to
parents, vomiting foul-smelling liquid is just a sign of illness, and other
indicators (such as alertness on the child's part) were more positive.
It's very emotionally wrenching to talk about "vomiting its own faeces"
(the "a" gives that extra $2 touch), but it's not at all clear that a
parent would recognize that symptom for what it was. Again, that's why the
practitioner should be liable, as I said in the original article. If the
*'d passage, intended as subjective, were read as objective, i.e.
equivalent to "it was working", I can see that that could be interpreted as
misrepresentation.
>>It also happens, by the way, that CS faith healing *is* in fact
>>explicitly excluded from the Mass. child abuse law...
>
>This is another misrepresentation of the facts. Mass. law does *not*
>exclude CS faith healing, or prevent anyone from using CS faith
>healing. It merely prevents one from *witholding* conventional
>medical care.
This appears to be a case of Mr. Livesey reading more into what I wrote
than I said; I referred to the child abuse law, which another poster has
since quoted:
"A child shall not be deemed neglected or lack proper physical
care for the sole reason that he is being provided treatment by
spiritual means alone in accordance with the tenets and practice of a
recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited
practitioner thereof."
I fail to see how what I said misrepresents the facts. This was an aside
relative to Mr. Livesey's statement that the Christian Science church was
lobbying to get such a law passed; I was merely observing that it's on the
books here.
Now we come to my favorite:
>> My initial reaction, of
>>course, was that this case was completely black and white, and that all we
>>had to do now was use it as a test to get faith healing outlawed.
>
>I am amazed. This is the same misrepresentation of the facts that I
>was originally complaining about.
This is truly amazing logic. The only fact in this exchange is my
statement of my having held a particular opinion at one point in time. I
can assure you, I am neither lying nor misled when I say that I did indeed
hold that opinion at that point in time. I am at a complete loss for what
Mr. Livesey sees here as a misrepresentation of facts.
Looking these over, it would appear that Mr. Livesey has systematically
misunderstood or misinterpreted what I've actually been saying. It's
entirely possible that this is due to poor communication on my part (my
thinking and phrasing were influenced by the previous extensive discussion
on the topic, which he may have missed), or it could be that he was looking
for a particular point of view and saw it where it wasn't, which is easy to
do when attacking one paragraph sentence by sentence and ignoring the rest
of the article.
This is very long: sorry. I hope we can clear the air and get this all
behind us: I don't believe that there are many points of fact on which Mr.
Livesey and I actually disagree in this case (and I'm sure he'll let me
know about those where we do!). Let's please try to demonstrate our
superior nonsuperstitious reasoning ability, and see more light than heat.
Ron Wigmore
says:
I shall try to be succinct - am I to understand that those who believe
that there is no god share a 'set of beliefs'? Even though they can
differ greatly on all other aspects as far as their beliefs of 'being/
existing/purpose/etc.' go? Does this mean that those who believe there
are no 'purple people eaters' are also, because of this belief, religious
people?
I think we have greatly different understandings of what 'religion' is.
Religions are (IMHO) simply a group's cosmology. These types of atheists
must be very bored people, since all they do all day is say 'I believe
that there is no god, yup, that's what I believe!', simply because they
have no other beliefs in common.
As far as the second definition you gave goes, how does answering 'no'
to the 'do you believe there is a god' question make one not a religious
person, but answering 'No. I do not believe there is a god' make one
a religious person?
To an atheist the question is in no way different from asking us 'Do you
believe in "Purple People Eaters"'. People can ask others if they
believe any 'x' they want. Responding 'no' to these questions does
not make one religious, or anything. It is up to the one asking to
provide evidence, etc.
Ron,,,
________________________________________________________________________________
|*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| <- Canadian Flags -> |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*|
"When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted
its data." Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research
"He-He-He-He-He-He-He-He" Ron Wigmore, Senior VM System SYstems Programmer
Jon Livesey
>OK. It's the end of the week, I'll take a deep breath and approach this
When someone says that they will post no more on a subject, and then
they post a long piece of self-jsutification, I don't take it too
seriously. Two small points:
I posted a point by point explanation of how Mr Perry
was misrepresenting the Twitchell case, and he simply
deleted the points and replied with insults.
I was closely involved in the previous discussion of the
twitchell case in this news group, and posted extensively about
it, so I don't need Mr Perry's patronizing suggestions that I
"might not have been following".
Give it up. Several people have shown in detail what's wrong with
what you are saying. It's not just me.
jon.
Steven Arnold
In your article you make the comment that faith healing has a zero
percent success rate. The only way you could possibly prove such a
comment would be if you have personally observed each and every faith
healing throughout history, and compared the results of such a healing
against a control group in which no cure had been attempted. I assume
that you have not been alive long enough to do this, which in turn leads
me to believe that you have no idea what you are talking about. In the
future, instead of spouting off nonsense, why don't you ADMIT IT when
you don't know something? Open your mind a little and admit that maybe,
somewhere, somehow, faith healing might have some validity, however
small. At least don't claim to KNOW something when you obviously
couldn't possibly know anything of the sort.
Sincerely, Steven Arnold
Tom Ng
(Steven Arnold) says:
>
>Mr. Marks:
> In your article you make the comment that faith healing has a zero
>percent success rate. The only way you could possibly prove such a
I think you've misinterpreted what he meant to say. Of course you're
right in saying that Mr. Marks cannot know for certain that there have
been no successful faith healings, but there have been zero examples that
fit scientific standards of proof. This means that _proof_ of the type
"...my brother once knew an uncle of a friend who had cancer..." does not
count.
>comment would be if you have personally observed each and every faith
>healing throughout history, and compared the results of such a healing
>against a control group in which no cure had been attempted. I assume
Again this would prove nothing. I refer you to the flying reindeer example.
When it doesn't work the theist will say something like the patient really
didn't have enough faith, which may very well be true but (very conveniently)
nobody can show.
>me to believe that you have no idea what you are talking about. In the
>future, instead of spouting off nonsense, why don't you ADMIT IT when
Oh come on, relax. This is a rough newsgroup especially for the religious
so you have to have thick skin here. Mr. Marks obviously didn't mean what
you are trying to imply he meant.
>Sincerely, Steven Arnold
-------------
Good day, ay! BitNet: EETD...@RYERSON.CA or ADVI...@RYERSON.CA
-Tom Ng UseNet: ...!tmsoft!ryescs!tng
Clever Quote: "Oh well, such is life..." - Dave Mason
Jon Livesey
>> Yup. In fact, it's not hard to invent any wierd 'treatment' and
>> manufacture a track record for it in a way that will fool most people.
>
>Guess what! This has happened with conventional medicine as well. I
>can't remember the specifics at the moment (don't worry, I'll provide
>a reference), but basically doctors were performing surgery for a
>particular condition and were convinced it worked. After some further
>research it was discovered that the successes were entirely due to
>the placebo effect.
This argument is often produced, but it is fallacious. We know that
the body can heal itself in some situations. Your immune system
clears up small infections all the time. I wouldn't mind betting
that a large number of medical procedures have some element of placebo
effect with some patients, but this does not mean that medicine does
not work, or that we can't measure when treatments are effective and
when they are not.
It is precisely to isolate and eliminate the placebo effect that
medical statisticians use the so-called double-blind system, in which
neither the patient nor his doctor knows whether he received the
treatment under test, or some other treatment, or none at all. That
way the psychological effects of receiving treatment are the same for
all the subjects.
At this point, you might want to wonder: Gee, who told me that
conventional medicine has a manufactured track record, and that people
are being fooled, and what was their motive for telling me that?
jon.
Graham Matthews
>>If atheism means believing that there is no god, then yes it is a
>>religion as it based on pure faith.
>>
>>If atheism means no belief in God then it is not a religion.
>>
Ron Wigmore:
>Am I to understand that those who believe
>that there is no god share a 'set of beliefs'? Even though they can
>differ greatly on all other aspects as far as their beliefs of 'being/
>existing/purpose/etc.' go? Does this mean that those who believe there
>are no 'purple people eaters' are also, because of this belief, religious
>people?
[stuff deleted]
I don't understand your comments. I suspect it is because you don't
understand my somewhat vague intial comments.
Please clarify in light of what I say below.
Ron:
>As far as the second definition you gave goes, how does answering 'no'
>to the 'do you believe there is a god' question make one not a religious
>person, but answering 'No. I do not believe there is a god' make one
>a religious person?
You have missed the distinction. There are (broadly speaking) 2 types of
atheists, being
1. those who when asked "Do you believe in God", answer "I belief that
God does not exist".
2. those who when asked "Do you believe in God", answer "I hold no belief
in God's existence".
The difference is that the first group make a statement about God's
NON-existence, whereas the second do not.
THe first group are a religion as a denial of God's existence is pure
faith.
The second group is not a religion because the second group dp not hold
a position.
graham
Ron Wigmore
says:
>
>You have missed the distinction. There are (broadly speaking) 2 types of
>atheists, being
>
>1. those who when asked "Do you believe in God", answer "I belief that
> God does not exist".
>
>2. those who when asked "Do you believe in God", answer "I hold no belief
> in God's existence".
>
>The difference is that the first group make a statement about God's
>NON-existence, whereas the second do not.
>
>THe first group are a religion as a denial of God's existence is pure
>faith.
>
>The second group is not a religion because the second group dp not hold
>a position.
>
I think we have different definitions for 'belief' and 'religion' or we
are both looking at this issue from different perspectives. Maybe an
analogy will help explain my 'perspective'. I have belief in that (while
I am typing this :-)) I am at home, typing on my keyboard, during a slow,
sunny afternoon. Does my having this belief make it a "religious" belief?
Now, emotionally I have no feelings about those god creatures. My intellect
tells me that religions stem from a primitive people's cosmology (in their
attempt to understand their existence, the need for a 'law' regarding
social conduct, as an explaination for damage done by a tornado, etc.).
This is what my rational part of me tells me what religions/gods are.
Does this mean I am a 'religious' atheist or just an atheist? Me, I say
it makes me just an atheist. I think (by the way you use the words 'belief'
and 'religion', that, to you, I am a religious atheist (or an atheist with
a religion).
So, are we simply two people with different 'understandings' as what the
words 'belief' and 'religion' mean, or are we two people with different
opinions?
Ron,,,
________________________________________________________________________________
|*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| <- Canadian Flags -> |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*|
"When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted
its data." Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research
"He-He-He-He-He-He-He-He" Ron Wigmore, Senior VM System Systems Programmer
Joe Francis
There are (broadly speaking) 2 types of atheists, being
1. those who when asked "Do you believe in God", answer "I belief that
God does not exist".
2. those who when asked "Do you believe in God", answer "I hold no belief
in God's existence".
[...]
The first group are a religion as a denial of God's existence is pure
faith.
Your conclusion is reached via two implicit assumptions.
1) "Pure faith" is sufficient to label a position as religious.
2) Denial of the existence of a diety requires "pure faith".
Both of these assumptions are mistaken.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Read My Lips: No Nude Texans!" - George Bush clearing up a misunderstanding
Dave Marks {PRIP mgr}
Sender: ne...@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu
Reply-To: ma...@ahmeek.cps.msu.EDU (Dave Marks {PRIP mgr})
Organization: PRIP Lab, Comp. Sci. Dept., MSU
Lines: 11
Dear Mr. Arnold,
You apparently missed my point. There have been studies of the
sort you mention. At least 4 that I have personally seen in various
refereed medical journals, as well as the oft previously mentioned study
by James Randi. To date there are no successful cures by faith healing
on record. So faith healing's current success rate is zero! As sooon
as someone publishes a successful cure by faith healing in a refereed
medical journal, I will change my position.
My mind is and has always been open, you need only provide the evidence.
Eagerly awaiting said evidence,
Dave Marks
Matthew Hannigan
>In article <88...@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>, sa11...@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU
>(Steven Arnold) says:
>>
>>Mr. Marks:
>> In your article you make the comment that faith healing has a zero
>>percent success rate. The only way you could possibly prove such a
>
> I think you've misinterpreted what he meant to say. Of course you're
>right in saying that Mr. Marks cannot know for certain that there have
>been no successful faith healings, but there have been zero examples that
>fit scientific standards of proof. This means that _proof_ of the type
>"...my brother once knew an uncle of a friend who had cancer..." does not
>count.
I thought this quote relevant here ..
"There is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested
by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good sense,
education and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in
themselves" - David Hume
This is from 'God and The New Physics' (yes! another plug!)
by Paul Davies. This is an excellent book, and if everyone
posting here read it, it improve the quality and maturity of
the debates out of sight.
>>Sincerely, Steven Arnold
-Matt Hannigan
PS. My copy is Pelican, ISBN 0-14-022550-1.
First published date is 1983.
Jim Perry
>
>When someone says that they will post no more on a subject, and then
>they post a long piece of self-jsutification, I don't take it too
>seriously.
>
> was misrepresenting the Twitchell case, and he simply
> deleted the points and replied with insults.
>
> I was closely involved in the previous discussion of the
> twitchell case in this news group, and posted extensively about
> it, so I don't need Mr Perry's patronizing suggestions that I
> "might not have been following".
>
>Give it up. Several people have shown in detail what's wrong with
>what you are saying. It's not just me.
>
>jon.
I said I would post no more on the subject because I thought the arguments
being used were unnecessarily inflammatory. Coming back to find Mr.
Livesey's smug statements about "facts" (that he says I misrepresent) led
me to go back over what had been said seeking such "facts". I could find
none. I made a rather long response, touching on what I could determine
were points where Mr. Livesey objected and attempting to clarify my
position, quoting what had actually been said, without intentionally
omitting any points that seemed germane. You're welcome to repost any
points you think were omitted.
In rereading what was actually contained in the initial recent exchanges on
the Twitchell case (I won't vouch for what I said during asides on faith
healing; I was stretching a devil's advocate position far beyond what I
believe, and went too far), I couldn't come up with a single factual
disagreement in the exchange, just insults originating with Mr. Livesey.
My observation was that he completely misunderstood my intent in virtually
every statement he took exception to. I haven't had this problem with
anyone else, but I must include the possibility that my statements were
not clear -- as they still seem clear to me I proposed that they were
perhaps unclear in context because they might refer back to previous
discussions. If that doesn't cover these misunderstandings, then other
explanations must be put forth.
I called for an argument with more light than heat, but am answered with
smoke. This is the sort of poor reasoning I initially condemned here. I
pulled in refutable statements, juxtaposing my statements and his
responses, and Mr. Livesey "doesn't take it too seriously". He calls on
the uncited authority of "several people" to support him (though he's the
one who claims I've misrepresented facts), and calls on me to "give it up".
For all my discussions here and elsewhere with religionists, this is the
most sustained application of bad logic I've seen; at least in those other
cases there's sincere disagreement on what the facts are and actual debate
can occur. From what I can tell Mr. Livesey doesn't actually disagree with
me about facts but just delights in argument for its own sake. That's the
kind of argument I see little point in continuing. Does that mean I'm big
enough to take Mr. Livesey's smug insults and misstatements without
responding? Maybe, maybe not. (So far, not, I admit). Fortunately, I'm
expecting to take some "vacation" (corporate America's version of paternity
leave) any day now, so perhaps this will die down while I'm away.
Steven Arnold
Jon:
You said in an earlier article that any mental function depends to some
extent on logic. Elsewhere Graham speculated that emotions may be a
form of logic. And in a recent article you said that even the neurons
in my brain have a logical component in their interconnection. I would
add that one could also view flat-out irrationality and fundamentalist
theology as a form of logic! With that broad of a definition for the
word, I concede the point! With this definition, any nonsense or drivel
that happens is the result of some form of logic.
When *I* use the word logic, I am referring to standard Boolean logic,
the kind of logic where all meaningful propositions are either true or
false, the kind where a proposition cannot be at one and the same time
true and false. If you accept *this* as the definition for logic, then
my proposition stands, because most mental functions do not in fact
depend at all on standard Boolean logic or anything close!
If you maintain your apparent previous definition for the word logic,
then I contend that your statement is of such a general nature that it
can hardly be challenged. If logic is defined as any given set of rules
of inference, then your statement is saying: "any mental function
depends to some extent on whatever set of rules of inference a person
may have." I still disagree, but I think that even this is not what you
are trying to say. You said that even the activities of my brain's
neurons have a logical component in their interconnection. So logic is
clearly not limited to mere rules, but includes physical activites, such
as neuron activity, which operate in a predictable manner. So perhaps
what you are really trying to say is that logic is defined as any given
predictable system. So then your statement comes out as: "any mental
function depends to some extent on any given predictable system." So if
THAT is what you are REALLY trying to say, then I must concede the
point. You've really convinced me! Yup, I'll grant the whole world
that any mental function depends to some extent on any given predictable
system, such as, for example, Newton's laws. Or the theory of
Relativity. Good point.
S. Arnold
Jon Livesey
>
>I thought this quote relevant here ..
> "There is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested
> by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good sense,
> education and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in
> themselves" - David Hume
Gibbon makes an interesting point in "Decline and Fall". He says that
everywhere you look in early Christian history, there are miracles, but
they always involve *other* people. Bishop X in town A writes about
miracles involving Bishop Y in town B. Meanwhile Bishop Y in town B
is writing about miracles involving hermit Z in desert C, but does not
mention any miracles involving himself. It could be modesty, but on
the other hand a lot of pious wishful thinking and hearsay might also
be involved.
jon.
Steven Arnold
I said in a previous article:
>> What's wrong with believing something just because you want to?
Jon's reply:
> Nothing, but what does this have to do with what I said? I am talking
about the validity of
> an argument, not about the constitutional rights of those who present it.
Actually, I wasn't really responding to your argument at all at that
point, but merely expounding on my own point. Forgive me for not
addressing my full attention to your words all the time, Jon, but I have
other things to do as well.
By the way, *I* was talking about the validity of an argument too,
although I made the error of not attacking your point fully enough when
I had the opportunity. There is only one way to determine the validity
of an argument, and that way is to analyze the argument using some
system of rules of inference. Now rules of inference are basically
arbitrary animals. Therefore, you have no basis for the attitude that
your system of logic is inherently better that any given religionists
system of logic. Your system may be more convenient for some purposes,
but then surely the religionists system is convenient in some ways too,
or he would not hold it.
In sum, you have no way to determine the validity of an argument except
with reference to your particular system of logic. So get off your high
horse buddy.
Jon quoting me:
>> Try to come up with a great new idea using logic!
Jon's reply:
> You want me to believe that the people who invented religion did not
"use" logic?
> Sure, I can believe that. So what?
I'm sorry, Jon, but I just don't see the relationship between my
statement and your reply. In addition, I don't recall ever making the
statement that "the people who invented religion did not "use" logic,"
so I see no reason to defend it. However, I'd be grateful if in the
future you refrain from putting words in my mouth. Fair enough?
In another place, Jon, you say that you "...doubt that intuition and
faith are superior guides to reality than rationality..." Fine. I
unconditionally grant you the right to doubt, OK? But your doubt means
exactly nothing to me, or I daresay almost anyone else. You have not
offered an argument to attack, and my comments were not intended to
attack your doubt. Therefore, when I pointed out the defects of
rationality, I was pointing them out merely to show that rationality is
no final answer to man, NOT to address your statements about your doubt.
Later, you re-introduce your question of whether the supporters of
faith have access to more information than rationalists, or if they just
deal with it in different ways. Allow me to answer.
Obviously you don't know, and I admit that I don't know, whether
religionists have access to more information than you or I. Maybe they
do! I can't disprove it, and many of them claim to have a divine source
of some kind.
However, I think it likely that religionists deal with what information
they do receive in a different way than you or I. Yes, most
religionists probably interpret the world in terms of their God. So
possibly the *reason* they interpret things differently is because they
have seen something that we have not seen.
Let me offer an analogy similar to one I read about in one of Raymond
Smullyan's books. This is not intended to be a waterproof analogy, but
rather to give you a feeling for what might be the case.
Imagine a world wherein an object is a certain color if and only if it
is a certain shape. Then all spheres would be red, for example, and all
pyramids green, and so on for all shapes. Now suppose in this world
that half the people could see color and the other half were colorblind.
Imagine the difficulty of those who could see color in proving to those
who could not that color existed! If I can see color and you can't, and
we both see a sphere which is red, I would tell you that there is
something about the sphere that you can't see and I can't show you, but
it exists! There is something about the sphere, in addition to what you
see, and that something is "red".
This pyramid, on the other hand, has a similar characteristic to the
sphere but different in a way. You still can't see it or touch it, but
the characteristic of the pyramid is "green".
In fact, the whole world resonates with these characteristics that you
can't touch, see or perceive in any way! But I can! And this here is
blue, and that over there is yellow, and on and on and on.
You would surely think me insane, wouldn't you? Here I am, claiming to
perceive something I can't show you, expecting you to believe it, even
becoming furious when you don't! You live your life just fine without
color, so this mystic nonsense I call color, even if it did exist, would
surely not be of any use.
Perhaps something along similar lines is the case with religionists.
S. Arnold
Steven Arnold
A Public Apology to Mr. Marks!
Mr. Marks:
In a previous article I attacked your statement that faith healing has
a zero percent success rate. I realized at the time that that was
probably not what you intended to say. In my own defense, that is what
you *actually* said, and I think in the future that we all should watch
what we say more carefully, but I certainly carried a trivial point too
far, and for that I apologize.
As I do not wish to engage in a war of words with you, I hope you will
accept my humble apology.
Cordially, S. Arnold
Jon Livesey
>
>Jon:
> You said in an earlier article that any mental function depends to some
>extent on logic. Elsewhere Graham speculated that emotions may be a
>form of logic. And in a recent article you said that even the neurons
>in my brain have a logical component in their interconnection. I would
>add that one could also view flat-out irrationality and fundamentalist
>theology as a form of logic! With that broad of a definition for the
>word, I concede the point! With this definition, any nonsense or drivel
>that happens is the result of some form of logic.
Depends on? No, I don't think 'nonsense and drivel' depend on logic.
I think you are confusing two levels of the argument here. The
original assertion is that rationality *itself* in somehow unreliable
in dealing with issues such as God. Pointing out that some people may
produce drivel when they think they are arguing rationally is not a
criticism of rationality. How would you know they are talking drivel
without examining what they say rationally?
> When *I* use the word logic, I am referring to standard Boolean logic,
>the kind of logic where all meaningful propositions are either true or
>false, the kind where a proposition cannot be at one and the same time
>true and false. If you accept *this* as the definition for logic, then
>my proposition stands, because most mental functions do not in fact
>depend at all on standard Boolean logic or anything close!
But this is still wrong. Standard Boolean logic *does* play a part
in the functioning of your brain. If there is something grossly wrong
with Boolean logic, then things like neurons and their connections stop
working the way we think.
> If you maintain your apparent previous definition for the word logic,
>then I contend that your statement is of such a general nature that it
>can hardly be challenged. If logic is defined as any given set of rules
>of inference, then your statement is saying: "any mental function
>depends to some extent on whatever set of rules of inference a person
>may have."
Unfortunately, you are now contradicting what you previously said
about creativity. There you talked about:
"I do not think that someone can be creative by following a set
of rules. It seems to me that creativity occurs when someone
*breaks* the fixed rules, and strikes out into uncharted
space. But then I suppose you could teach a computer how to
break it's own rules, to challenge it's own assumptions..."
There you seem to be talking about any set of rule, but now, without
explaining why, you want to talk about a particular set of rules.
Why?
>I still disagree, but I think that even this is not what you
>are trying to say. You said that even the activities of my brain's
>neurons have a logical component in their interconnection. So logic is
>clearly not limited to mere rules, but includes physical activites, such
>as neuron activity, which operate in a predictable manner. So perhaps
>what you are really trying to say is that logic is defined as any given
>predictable system.
You are getting close. What I am saying is if there is a logical
component to things like intuition, perception, instinct and emotion,
then if logic is in trouble as a way of knowing the world, then these
things are in even more trouble.
jon.
Steven Arnold
It seems that there are two "Jon's" who write to this bulletin board.
My previous comments are directed toward "Jon Livesey" NOT "Jon Taylor" of OSF.
S. Arnold
Jon Livesey
As someone already mentioned, Godel gets tossed around a lot here, but
I wonder if the people who invoke him quite understand the implications.
Very (!) roughly, what Godel did was first to show how to produce a
unique encoding of any statement in a system, then showed how to
enumerate the statements in the system, and then showed how to
construct a statement that was itself true in the system, but for which
the existence of a proof of the statement in the system would lead to a
contradiction. Thus the system contains statements which are true,
but cannot be proved within the system [1].
Some people have seized on this as evidence that logic is inadequate as
a means to know about the world, and then, by a logical jump that I
don't follow, they conclude that faith and intuition *are* reliable
guides to reality.
I often wonder if these people have considered the following two
aspects of this.
First, Godel proceeded logically to derive his result. Noone would
have listened to Godel for five minutes if he had said he 'intuited' or
'believed' his result, or if he had offered to burn alive anyone who
doubted it.
The second point is that before Godel, the intuition of most people on
this subject was wrong. Today, hairdressers and telephone sanitizers
talk about Godel all the time, and if you ask them, they will say that
their intuition tells them that 'logic' is incomplete. But before
Godel, many of the people who bothered to think about the issue would
have said that since logical statements can be written down formally,
then certainly some proofs can be obtained mechanically, and likely
they all can.
In other words, this was a good example of how rationality comes to the
rescue of intuition, and what thanks does rationality get?
jon.
[1] Please don't tell me this is oversimplified. I know that.
Jon Livesey
>although I made the error of not attacking your point fully enough when
>I had the opportunity. There is only one way to determine the validity
>of an argument, and that way is to analyze the argument using some
>system of rules of inference. Now rules of inference are basically
>arbitrary animals.
This is nonsense, of course. Rules of inference are not something
you are allowed to make up as you go along.
>Therefore, you have no basis for the attitude that
>your system of logic is inherently better that any given religionists
>system of logic. Your system may be more convenient for some purposes,
>but then surely the religionists system is convenient in some ways too,
>or he would not hold it.
Note the argument here. We can conclude that a particular system of
argument may be *convenient* for a religionist to hold, else he would
not hold it. So in some sense, according to Mr Arnold at least,
'convenience' has something to do with validity.
> In sum, you have no way to determine the validity of an argument except
>with reference to your particular system of logic. So get off your high
>horse buddy.
This is fairly typical of the extravagant remarks made by people who don't
know much about logic.
> In another place, Jon, you say that you "...doubt that intuition and
>faith are superior guides to reality than rationality..." Fine. I
>unconditionally grant you the right to doubt, OK? But your doubt means
>exactly nothing to me, or I daresay almost anyone else. You have not
>offered an argument to attack, and my comments were not intended to
>attack your doubt. Therefore, when I pointed out the defects of
>rationality, I was pointing them out merely to show that rationality is
>no final answer to man, NOT to address your statements about your doubt.
But I have presented an argument. You just havn't addressed it.
>
> Later, you re-introduce your question of whether the supporters of
>faith have access to more information than rationalists, or if they just
>deal with it in different ways. Allow me to answer.
> Obviously you don't know, and I admit that I don't know, whether
>religionists have access to more information than you or I. Maybe they
>do! I can't disprove it, and many of them claim to have a divine source
>of some kind.
> However, I think it likely that religionists deal with what information
>they do receive in a different way than you or I. Yes, most
>religionists probably interpret the world in terms of their God. So
>possibly the *reason* they interpret things differently is because they
>have seen something that we have not seen.
It's interesting, isn't it. Mr Arnold says I have 'offered no
argument' in support of my suggestion that rationality and faith don't
give you more or less information about the world, but merely offer
different ways to deal with the information. And how does he answer
this suggestion: by saying he does not know whether they have more
information, or not, but that they deal with the information in
different ways.
This is a rebuttal?
> Imagine a world wherein an object is a certain color if and only if it
>is a certain shape. Then all spheres would be red, for example, and all
>pyramids green, and so on for all shapes. Now suppose in this world
>that half the people could see color and the other half were colorblind.
> Imagine the difficulty of those who could see color in proving to those
>who could not that color existed! If I can see color and you can't, and
>we both see a sphere which is red, I would tell you that there is
>something about the sphere that you can't see and I can't show you, but
>it exists! There is something about the sphere, in addition to what you
>see, and that something is "red".
You don't need to confuse things by dragging in Mr S. How do we
convince colour-blind people in *this* world? We set up test cards
in which you can see particular patterns if you are not colour-blind,
and not if you are. Then, when someone comes to us complaining that
they can't tell the red traffic lights from the green ones - my own
brother is one such - we first test them using the test cards, and tell
them the type and degree of their colour blindness, and then if they
still refuse, for reasons, perhaps of wounded ego, to beleive that they
are colour blind, we can take them out and show them a traffic light,
and predict for them when one traffic stream will move, and when
another will. They can't predict, but we can, so we can see something
they can't.
Now do that for god.
jon.
Graham Matthews
>>You have missed the distinction. There are (broadly speaking) 2 types of
>>atheists, being
>>
>>1. those who when asked "Do you believe in God", answer "I belief that
>> God does not exist".
>>
>>2. those who when asked "Do you believe in God", answer "I hold no belief
>> in God's existence".
>>
>>NON-existence, whereas the second do not.
>>
>>faith.
>>
>>The second group is not a religion because the second group dp not hold
>>a position.
>>
Ron Wigmore:
>I think we have different definitions for 'belief' and 'religion' or we
>are both looking at this issue from different perspectives. Maybe an
>analogy will help explain my 'perspective'. I have belief in that (while
>I am typing this :-)) I am at home, typing on my keyboard, during a slow,
>sunny afternoon. Does my having this belief make it a "religious" belief?
[stuff deleted]
>Does this mean I am a 'religious' atheist or just an atheist? Me, I say
>it makes me just an atheist. I think (by the way you use the words 'belief'
>and 'religion', that, to you, I am a religious atheist (or an atheist with
>a religion).
>So, are we simply two people with different 'understandings' as what the
>words 'belief' and 'religion' mean, or are we two people with different
>opinions?
You are religious if you say categorically that while you are typing
you are at home, typing, on a sunny afternoon. If you assert that that
is what you are doing and that there are no other possibilites for what
you are doing then you are a religious atheist.
To take a simpler example.
- a religious atheist asserts "I exist". There is no other interpretation
for the sensory experiences I am having.
- a non-religious atheist asserts "I exist I think - but there is the
possibility that I don't exist and that I am simply a figment of some
other beings imagination.
It all has to do with how categorically you state things.
Plenty of people in this group belong in spirit (if not in word) to the
former group.
graham
Graham Matthews
> There are (broadly speaking) 2 types of atheists, being
> 1. those who when asked "Do you believe in God", answer "I belief that
> God does not exist".
> 2. those who when asked "Do you believe in God", answer "I hold no belief
> in God's existence".
> [...]
> The first group are a religion as a denial of God's existence is pure
> faith.
Joe Francis
>Your conclusion is reached via two implicit assumptions.
>1) "Pure faith" is sufficient to label a position as religious.
>2) Denial of the existence of a diety requires "pure faith".
>Both of these assumptions are mistaken.
I would agree that I have made the first assumption. I have chosen
to equate "having faith" with "religious" because I believe that to
be a fairly standard equivalence.
But we can use another word if you like - it won't change the
point.
As for the second assumption that is pure drivel. Denial of the
existence of God requires as much faith as assertion of his existence.
Show me your reasons for denial and I willl show you the element of
faith in them.
graham
Ronald BODKIN
>of an argument, and that way is to analyze the argument using some
>system of rules of inference. Now rules of inference are basically
>arbitrary animals. Therefore, you have no basis for the attitude that
>your system of logic is inherently better that any given religionists
>system of logic. Your system may be more convenient for some purposes,
>but then surely the religionists system is convenient in some ways too,
>or he would not hold it.
discussion of this nature. You wouldn't accept it if I used the "rule
of inference: I said it, so it is true" as equally valid as the kind
of reasoning that we are using in this discussion. Essentially, I'm
saying that in trying to refute logic as a form of reasoning (informal
logic which can be tightened into fully formal terms), you are
embracing it. A rule of inference must be sound (and preferably "as
complete as possible", i.e. able to derive lots of things). That
is, it must identify facts in a non-contradictory manner.
> In sum, you have no way to determine the validity of an argument except
>with reference to your particular system of logic. So get off your high
>horse buddy.
See the above. Additionally, there is always a court of appeal for
arguments -- reality. If your logical system asserts that "man can fly",
try jumping off a cliff, and see if you can still say your argument was
invalid!!
> In fact, the whole world resonates with these characteristics that you
>can't touch, see or perceive in any way! But I can! And this here is
>blue, and that over there is yellow, and on and on and on.
Wait a second. If these characteristics can be perceived by
some people directly, then all people can detect their effects through
indirect means (e.g. analysis of waves, or their effects on something).*
You see, in assuming something that exists but which has effects that
are absolutely undetectable to some people, you assume a lot about
the nature of the world, which makes your analogy no easier to
swallow than assuming God anyhow (i.e. I deny that there are physical
properties which are subjective).
Ron
* The issue is clouded if you have people who have such severe limitations
on sense that they can't live at all. That isn't the point here, IMHO,
as you postulate people who have a wealth of other sensory information
and, hence, the ability to build machines and to examine what causes
this information in the others' minds.
Joe Francis
>As for the second assumption that is pure drivel. Denial of the
>existence of God requires as much faith as assertion of his existence.
Would you care to eloborate, or are you just going to make outrageous
claims from an argument of authority.
>Show me your reasons for denial and I willl show you the element of
>faith in them.
Although I did not say so in post, I do indeed deny the existence of
certain types of deities - namely those who are omniscient, omnipotent,
morally perfect, and who play the (lead?) role of god in the bible.
However, in the unlikely event that you could demonstrate that my
belief demands more faith than the belief that I won't spontaneously
explode tomorrow, you still would not have argued successfully for your
claim that denial of the existence of god requires as much faith as
assertion of his existence. Showing this is true in one case is far
short of showing it is necessarily true in all cases. To succeed in this
you will have to construct a general argument rather than find individual
data points. Are you up to the task?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald BODKIN
>- a religious atheist asserts "I exist". There is no other interpretation
> for the sensory experiences I am having.
>- a non-religious atheist asserts "I exist I think - but there is the
> possibility that I don't exist and that I am simply a figment of some
> other beings imagination.
>
>It all has to do with how categorically you state things.
been getting at. Religious would tend to mean an irrational
willingness to believe something that could be disproven. However,
you could never prove I don't exist, and indeed people tactictly
assume realism in their life, so its contradictory to say "There
are no contractions -- I think -- but its possible I'm wrong".
Ron
Richard Caley
This is nonsense, of course. Rules of inference are not something
you are allowed to make up as you go along.
Gasp, splutter...
The only possible responce to this is to quote fromm your own article...
This is fairly typical of the extravagant remarks made by people who don't
know much about logic.
Where do you think they come from? Under a bush somewhere? People make
them up.
--
r...@uk.ac.ed.cstr
Mathemagician
>hyperthermia experiment. I was just observing that Mr. Livesey's "Praying
>Upside Down" suggestion wasn't as outlandish as intended; I was *not*
>attempting to draw a parallel with faith healing. Relatively outlandish
>treatments are attempted, sometimes on questionable evidence, and the
>coverage of the hyperthermia experiments has implied that that was such a
>questionable case. It was not based on particularly good science (again,
>from what I hear in the media), and was not representative of mainstream
>medical or HIV research, and I didn't intend to characterize it as such.
Well, that depends on what you mean by "good science." That is,
it is known that viruses do not do well in high temperatures. That's
why people get a fever when they are ill: the heat helps to kill
the infecting agent (but it also has the downside of not exactly
helping the body in the short run, either. As my chem professor
said, if your fever goes up too much, your hydrogen bonds break
down...and that's a Bad Thing (C).) Therefore, the doctor theorized
that perhaps a controlled fever would help an HIV infected person.
He performed a test: A person infected with HIV had his blood
removed, heated to 108F and put back into his body. This had
the effect of having a rather high fever. There were many medical
precautions taken (he was under much supervision in case anything
went wrong since a 108 fever is pretty bad for the body.) Upon
recovering from the fever, it appeared that there were no signs
of HIV in his blood, his Kaposi's sarcoma went away, and his T-cell
count improved dramatically. This indicates success. However,
the doctor did NOT claim that he had found a cure. He invited
anyone and everyone to investigate the experiment, procedures,
and results. He stressed the need for more experiments. Thus,
the 8 people (I think it was 8) who went to Mexico. Hyperthermia
was deemed "unacceptable" by the hospital where the doctor worked
so he was unable to perform the experiments in the US (other states
were rather wary of allowing it). He did not force the people
into the experiment. That one person died shows how dangerous
this treatment is (as I said, a high fever is a Bad Thing (C).)
I believe the second person to undergo this treatment didn't do
as well as the first.
Again, not once was there a claim that a cure had been found.
This is, in my opinion, good science. You are right to say that
it isn't mainstream medical or HIV research. But that doesn't
make it ipso facto poor science. It was a well-thought plan
that didn't quite work as expected.
And now back to your regular alt.atheism program already in progress.
--
Brian Evans |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first
bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."
Mathemagician
While you claimed that this wasn't a water-proof analogy, I find it
to not even be water-resistant.
That is, while one may not be able to "perceive" color, there is
a detailed definition that has no ambiguity. That is, color is
a certain wavelength of electro-magnetic waves that ranges from
400 nm to 800 nm (with individuals varying). With that definition,
it is possible to produce an experiment that will show what wave-
length a given object is reflecting/emitting. While a color-blind
person may not be able to perceive it the same way a non-color-blind
person would, it is possible to show that it exists.
Deities, on the other hand, deal with non-scientific things. That
is, since they are SUPER-natural, it is impossible to use natural
means to show they exist. And yet, those that believe in them
claim that there IS proof. There is no experiment that can be
done that can prove a SUPER-natural effect. While a person who
believes in deities may be able to perceive the effects of said
deities, one who doesn't believe doesn't even have proof that
said effect took place even though he didn't perceive it.
See the difference?
Mathemagician
>1. those who when asked "Do you believe in God", answer "I belief that
> God does not exist".
>2. those who when asked "Do you believe in God", answer "I hold no belief
> in God's existence".
Let 'p' be the statement, "God exists." Then ~p (not p) would be,
"God does not exist," or, "I believe god does not exist." On the
other hand, ~(p) (again, not p) would be, "It is not true that god
exists," or, "I hold no belief in the existence of god." The
difference between the two statements is whether the verb is
negated or the entire sentence is negated ("does not exist" as
compared to "false that it does exist.")
The two sentences, however, are logically equivalent so no distinction
of meaning can be derived.
Mathemagician
>To take a simpler example.
>- a religious atheist asserts "I exist". There is no other interpretation
> for the sensory experiences I am having.
>- a non-religious atheist asserts "I exist I think - but there is the
> possibility that I don't exist and that I am simply a figment of some
> other beings imagination.
>It all has to do with how categorically you state things.
This example has little to do with religion, per se. That is, it
is more of a philosophical question of faith rather than a religious
question of faith.
That is, you have given a very clear example of Cartesian doubt
("Am I just a brain in a vat?") As many people have shown,
Cartesian doubt adds nothing to the experience. That is, even
if I AM a brain in a vat, I don't know it and can't prove I am
(let alone I am not), so why live my life as if I am?
What you described isn't religious- vs. non-religious-atheists
but those who believe in Cartesian doubt and those who don't.
>Plenty of people in this group belong in spirit (if not in word) to the
>former group.
Quite true since the other group doesn't do anything differently
from the first.
Mathemagician
god since that's his name:
Ummm...isn't the name something like Yahweh or JHVH? We just call
him "god" since he's the only one, supposedly?
Jon Livesey
Is that right? Well, from now I think I am going to use one that
says (P implies ~P).
jon.
Mark Lindsay
|On capitalizing "god" when making a reference to the Judeo-Christian
|god since that's his name:
|Ummm...isn't the name something like Yahweh or JHVH? We just call
|him "god" since he's the only one, supposedly?
Personally, I think that since God has become so commonplace, you
can assume that that is his name. It is more like a nickname, since it is
not his "real name." Assuming that God is angered by taking his name in
vain, I would assume that he is more offended by "Oh God" than "Oh JHVH"
simply because that is how he is refered to in the Judeo-Christian
tradition.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damnit Bones, you're a doctor, you know that pain and guilt can't be taken
away with the wave of a magic wand. They're the things we carry with us,
the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves.
I don't want my pain taken away, I need my pain!
-- Kirk, "The Final Frontier," stardate 8451.1.
Engineering Computer Network --------------- ma...@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
| Mark A. Lindsay |
University of Oklahoma --------------- Veritas Omnia Vincit
Joe Francis
>Is that right? Well, from now I think I am going to use one that
>says (P implies ~P).
I thought you were already using that one...
:-)
Graham Matthews
>>
>> By the way, *I* was talking about the validity of an argument too,
>>although I made the error of not attacking your point fully enough when
>>I had the opportunity. There is only one way to determine the validity
>>of an argument, and that way is to analyze the argument using some
>>system of rules of inference. Now rules of inference are basically
>>arbitrary animals.
Jon Livesy:
>This is nonsense, of course. Rules of inference are not something
>you are allowed to make up as you go along.
Sorry John, Steve has it right.
Rules of inference are entirely arbitrary things that you make up.
There are many flavours of Logic, each of which has its own set of
inference rules.
Rules of inference are not magic constants across all time, space,
logic, etc!
Steve:
>> In sum, you have no way to determine the validity of an argument except
>>with reference to your particular system of logic. So get off your high
>>horse buddy.
Jon:
>This is fairly typical of the extravagant remarks made by people who don't
>know much about logic.
See previous comments. Steve has it spot on.
He is saying that the "facts" one derives in a particular logic system
depend on
1. the ground facts of that Logic system
2. the inference rules of that Logic system
He has it spot on. If you have another Logic system with either of
1. or 2. different to the first, then your "facts" will be different.
Hence the validity of an argument is very much in reference to your
particular logic system.
Steve:
>> In another place, Jon, you say that you "...doubt that intuition and
>>faith are superior guides to reality than rationality..." Fine. I
>>unconditionally grant you the right to doubt, OK? But your doubt means
>>exactly nothing to me, or I daresay almost anyone else. You have not
>>offered an argument to attack, and my comments were not intended to
>>attack your doubt. Therefore, when I pointed out the defects of
>>rationality, I was pointing them out merely to show that rationality is
>>no final answer to man, NOT to address your statements about your doubt.
Jon:
>But I have presented an argument. You just havn't addressed it.
With respect Jon, I think Steve has done a great job of addressing your
argument.
Steve:
>> Later, you re-introduce your question of whether the supporters of
>>faith have access to more information than rationalists, or if they just
>>deal with it in different ways. Allow me to answer.
>> Obviously you don't know, and I admit that I don't know, whether
>>religionists have access to more information than you or I. Maybe they
>>do! I can't disprove it, and many of them claim to have a divine source
>>of some kind.
>> However, I think it likely that religionists deal with what information
>>they do receive in a different way than you or I.
Jon
>It's interesting, isn't it. Mr Arnold says I have 'offered no
>argument' in support of my suggestion that rationality and faith don't
>give you more or less information about the world, but merely offer
>different ways to deal with the information. And how does he answer
>this suggestion: by saying he does not know whether they have more
>information, or not, but that they deal with the information in
>different ways.
>This is a rebuttal?
It is in a sense. Steve is being honest in saying that he doesn't know
whether or not rationality and faith give you more or less information about
the world.
If you were honest you would admit the same thing.
Seems fairly straigtforward to me.
graham
Graham Matthews
>>I had the opportunity. There is only one way to determine the validity
>>of an argument, and that way is to analyze the argument using some
>>system of rules of inference. Now rules of inference are basically
>>arbitrary animals.
>> In sum, you have no way to determine the validity of an argument except
>>with reference to your particular system of logic. So get off your high
>>horse buddy.
Ronald Bodkin in reply:
>Additionally, there is always a court of appeal for
>arguments -- reality. If your logical system asserts that "man can fly",
>try jumping off a cliff, and see if you can still say your argument was
>invalid!!
But what is reality?
Can you be sure HOW your senses are mapping actual reality into
the thing which you PERCIEVE as REALITY.
When the man jumps of the cliff, you perceive that he does not fly.
Does this mean that he does not?
To say that the man does not fly you must assume that your senses give
you an exact picture of reality.
And as soon as you make this assumption you are back into a formal
system of Logic with certain inference rules and ground facts on
which the validity of your claim that "man cannot fly" depends.
Just as Steve says, huh!
graham
Graham Matthews
>jon.
You can use any inference rules you like Jon because they are arbitrary.
When you come to "prove" a fact in your Logic system you must of course
do so with respect to your inference rules.
graham
Graham Matthews
Me:
>>Show me your reasons for denial and I willl show you the element of
>>faith in them.
Joe Francis writes:
>Although I did not say so in post, I do indeed deny the existence of
>certain types of deities - namely those who are omniscient, omnipotent,
>morally perfect, and who play the (lead?) role of god in the bible.
>However, in the unlikely event that you could demonstrate that my
>belief demands more faith than the belief that I won't spontaneously
>explode tomorrow, you still would not have argued successfully for your
>claim that denial of the existence of god requires as much faith as
>assertion of his existence. Showing this is true in one case is far
>short of showing it is necessarily true in all cases. To succeed in this
>you will have to construct a general argument rather than find individual
>data points. Are you up to the task?
Yep.
I will mail something out the the net in a couple of days time,
when I have some time to prepare it.
If you prefer email just say so.
graham
Graham Matthews
Me:
>>1. those who when asked "Do you believe in God", answer "I belief that
>> God does not exist".
>>2. those who when asked "Do you believe in God", answer "I hold no belief
>> in God's existence".
Mathemagician writes:
>Let 'p' be the statement, "God exists." Then ~p (not p) would be,
>"God does not exist," or, "I believe god does not exist." On the
>other hand, ~(p) (again, not p) would be, "It is not true that god
>exists," or, "I hold no belief in the existence of god." The
>difference between the two statements is whether the verb is
>negated or the entire sentence is negated ("does not exist" as
>compared to "false that it does exist.")
>The two sentences, however, are logically equivalent so no distinction
>of meaning can be derived.
The two sentences may be logically equivelant if one uses propositional
calculus.
But are you going to tell me that speech and thought work by the
rules of propositional calculus. Have you ever considered the possibilty
of ternary Logic - wow, amazing, heaven help us :-)!
This argument gets trotted out all the time and to be blunt about it, is
absolutely pathetic!
graham
Jon Livesey
>Steven Arnold writes:
>>>
>>> By the way, *I* was talking about the validity of an argument too,
>>>although I made the error of not attacking your point fully enough when
>>>I had the opportunity. There is only one way to determine the validity
>>>of an argument, and that way is to analyze the argument using some
>>>system of rules of inference. Now rules of inference are basically
>>>arbitrary animals.
>
>Jon Livesy:
>>This is nonsense, of course. Rules of inference are not something
>>you are allowed to make up as you go along.
>
>Sorry John, Steve has it right.
>Rules of inference are entirely arbitrary things that you make up.
>There are many flavours of Logic, each of which has its own set of
>inference rules.
Sorry Graham, that's incorrect here. You are making the same mistake
here that Mr Caley did: not reading the conversation.. Mr Arnold has
already told us in <89...@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> that he is not
interested in what he calls "broad" definitions of logic.
He even dismissed what he calls "my" definition of logic as being one
in which we are allowed "any given set of rules of inference" and that
then what I am saying is "of such a general nature that it can hardly
be challenged". He then insisted that the kind of logic he is thinking
of is a restricted "standard" one, with "given rules of inference" in
which it would be impossible to come up with anything original.
What I am pointing out to him is that you can't have it both ways. You
can't claim that A) we are only talking about "standard" logic, B) that
logic is very restricted, and C) *also* claim that rules of inference
are entirely arbitrary.
Of course, Mr Arnold could help us all out here by making his points in
slightly more formal ways. As it is, I am experiencing a kind of
"bait and switch" from both directions, with Mr Arnold appearing to
insist that the word 'logic' only have its everyday meaning, and you and
Mr Caley insisting that we use the meaning that, for example, Crossley
would intend.
jon.
Jon Livesey
See my previous reply to the same point.
jon.
Jon Livesey
>raham.653458
>Sender: gra...@maths.su.oz.au
>Organization: Uni Computing Service, Uni of Sydney, Australia
>Lines: 30
Listen, folks. This is getting really silly. We have Mr Arnold
using the word 'logic' in a rather everyday sense which, so far as
I can see, approximates to propositional logic, but has nothing at
all to do with ternary Logic.
Now we have everyone and his dog jumping in to point out all the neat
things they recall about meta-mathematics. It's wonderful, really,
but exactly what does it have with the point that Mr Arnold originally
made?
jon.
Jon Livesey
>Steven Arnold writes:
>>>
>
I would admit the same thing as what? As what I originally suggested?
jon.
Ron Wigmore
Hmmm ... Logic is something which is used to simply wade thru a bunch of
axioms (believe what I tell you, after all, I am a systems programmer :-)).
A person who has a fear of heights/water/spiders will respond logically
(albeit, irrationally) when confronted with these aspects of reality.
The axioms are the key (only important) factor here. If *I* define a
cumquat as being "something whose existense is impossible to disprove",
then *ALL OF YOU* must except the existense of cumquats since, by
definition, you cannot *logically* disprove their existense. (The same
goes for these god creature(s) existense).
Now, if we go after the axioms used to define cumquats, we add extra
axioms into the picture, and thus the existense of cumquats may now
be disproved.
Logic and rationality are not the same thing. Logic allows us to travel
from point A to point B. Rationality (ie. seeing the 'whole picture')
tells us of the existence of points C, D, E, etc. and of how these points
will influence our journey from point A to B.
Emotions come into the picture as simply a 'good/bad' qualification (based
on all past experiences/knowledge) of events that happen. Think of the
joy you feel when you are going to the dentist. The thrill of 'signing
your name on a cheque for the person who inflicted a bunch of pain on you'.
Think of how you then say "thank you, see you again in six months".
Emotions impede one's rational behaviour, but allow one to still behave in
a logical (albiet irrational) fashion. Boy, phrasing it like that makes
it the most obvious statement in the world!
Ron,,,
_______________________________________________________________________________
|*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*| |*|
Definition Of Demons:
Atheists who have come back from the dead to haunt and torment FUNDIES! :-)
Ron Wigmore
says:
>
>In article <89...@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> sa11...@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU
>(Steven Arnold) writes:
>
>>are trying to say. You said that even the activities of my brain's
>>neurons have a logical component in their interconnection. So logic is
>>clearly not limited to mere rules, but includes physical activites, such
>>as neuron activity, which operate in a predictable manner. So perhaps
>>what you are really trying to say is that logic is defined as any given
>>predictable system.
>
>You are getting close. What I am saying is if there is a logical
>component to things like intuition, perception, instinct and emotion,
>then if logic is in trouble as a way of knowing the world, then these
>things are in even more trouble.
>
"Logic = logic" Insane people think logically. Phobic people behave
logically. Young children behave logically. People with Alsemhimers (sp!)
disease behave logically. They are simply responding (logically), using
the sum of their knowledge, to a situation, while being influenced by their
emotions. Logic has nothing to do with rational behaviour.
Think of a young child putting a frayed electrical cord in his mouth. He
could end up dead, but in the child's mind, there is nothing illogical
about his behaviour. This is also why we have to be so carefull with
children. "Logic ^= Rationality", "Logic ^= Emotions",
"Logic (Behaviour) = Knowledge + experience + emotions + 'environment'"
Ron Wigmore
says:
>
>To take a simpler example.
>
>- a religious atheist asserts "I exist". There is no other interpretation
> for the sensory experiences I am having.
>- a non-religious atheist asserts "I exist I think - but there is the
> possibility that I don't exist and that I am simply a figment of some
> other beings imagination.
>
We seem to have different philosophies on life. Let me use another
analogy. You and I are in a bar, having a few drinks. A gunshot is heard
next door, so we go and check it out. Inside is a man laying dead on the
floor. Two people are standing in the room, pointing to each other, and
saying "he did it".
The cops show up, a trial is held (forensic evidence presented), and
person A is found to be guilty. (I'll portray myself as being the dorky
one ...) Now, person A looks into my eyes and says "I am not guilty" and
I believe him. You turn to him and say "well, all the evidence says your
guilty, either come up with some new evidence, or I'll have to call you
a liar". He cannot.
In this instance I say that I am being religious since I am relying
purely on faith (no evidence to the contrary) on person A's innocence.
You are not since you are simply relying on 'all available factual
evidence' and so you are not being religious.
The same goes for atheism, it is not a religion since no faith is
involved/required and no 'rituals of sorts' are performed.
Ron,,,
Joe Francis
->He is saying that the "facts" one derives in a particular logic system
->depend on
->
->1. the ground facts of that Logic system
->2. the inference rules of that Logic system
The only "ground facts" of a Logic system ARE the rules of inference.
If you are talking about some set of propositions that are to be
assumed true but are not rules of inference - these are not part
of "Logic". They are merely premises to any argument you are making.
>It is in a sense. Steve is being honest in saying that he doesn't know
>whether or not rationality and faith give you more or less information about
>the world.
>If you [Jon Livesy] were honest you would admit the same thing.
>Seems fairly straigtforward to me.
This kind of claim always strikes me as particularly thick-skulled. Jon
doesn't really believe what he is saying, according to Graham. If only
he would stop deceiving himself, then he would be in complete agreement
with... Graham! What a coincidence...
Perhaps Graham, who appears to know so much more about Jon's beliefs than
Jon does, will simply post Jon's next article for him - with all the
corrections (you know - the stuff Jon believes but doesn't know that he does)
already there.
Ron Wigmore
But are you not now being illogical? Logical thinking does not imply
rational thinking. Logical thinking is simply reasoning within the
sum of your knowledge and current sensory perceptions based on your
current emotional state and you overall emotions (feelings/attitudes).
I am being logical when I take a specific approach to resolve a problem
even thou it is (apparently) obvious that a faster/simpler solution
exists, IF past experience has shown me that not following said approach
often produces more problems (ie. causes more work).
Others may say that I am being illogical, but (may) acknowledge that I
am being rational. The final evaluation of my behaviour (by others)
depends solely on their mind set (knowledge, attitudes, motivations, etc.)