A few questions
Jim Sarbeck
<kestr...@hotmail.com<removetag>> wrote:
>1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
> 1a) If not, what replacement theory is subscribed to?
The 'wait and see' theory.
>2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
>limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
Current law is about right, in the U.S.
>3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
> 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
What other methods do you have in mind? I don't know of any.
> 3b) Do you see these methods as equal to, less than, or more valuable
>than science?
See above.
>
>4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
Naah, you guys are too much fun.
>5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
>Christianity specifically?
Religion plays an important social role otherwise it would not exist.
Christianity is one example.
>Thank you for your time and consideration,
Your are welcome. Let us know how you deal with the answers.
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
yang hu
> 1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
> 1a) If not, what replacement theory is subscribed to?
Is there a difference between 'believe' and 'In my opinion, it is the
best explanation for the origin of species we have right now'?
> 2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
> limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
no, religion should neither be limited nor encouraged by the government.
> 3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
for what?
> 4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
no. I'd be on a.a. moderated if I were
> 5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
> Christianity specifically?
nice looking churches.
Since I don't view religion as something wholly separate from the human
experience, religion seems to be as beneficial to some as folk dancing
is to others.
Yang
#28
Chaos Theory
Kestrel_MP
> 1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
"Believe" is a word used when you do not have a basis for acceptance.
Therefore, I do not "believe" in evolution, rather I accept it as the most
accurate and consistent description of the development of life on Earth
> 1a) If not, what replacement theory is subscribed to?
>
> 2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
> limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
Dunno. Since I can't answer your question, I'll state my general views.
Religion should not be exempt from any law or benefit from any law because of
religion. If there is some other reason for exemption or benefit, then
religion should benefit from that normally. Basically, the law should be blind
to religion.
>
>
> 3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
Non-scientific means to me that you didn't test your idea (properly, I might
add); why should I believe anything that has not been tested?
> 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
> 3b) Do you see these methods as equal to, less than, or more valuable
> than science?
I see these alternate methods (astrology etc.) as nothing more than amusement
>
>
> 4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
Nah. It's fun to argue. From time to time I actually learn something from you
guys.
>
>
> 5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
> Christianity specifically?
Karl Marx put it best: "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Otherwise put,
religion keeps stupid people in line. For non-stupid people, I see no value in
religion.
>
>
> Thank you for your time and consideration,
>
> kestrel_mp
Kestrel_MP
2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
3a) If so, what sort of methods?
3b) Do you see these methods as equal to, less than, or more valuable
than science?
4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
Christianity specifically?
Thank you for your time and consideration,
kestrel_mp
Landis D. Ragon
>1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
> 1a) If not, what replacement theory is subscribed to?
I do not "believe" in the Theory of Evolution. Changes in allele
frequencies is a fact and the current Theory of Evolution is the best
model for explaining why that fact occurs.
>
>2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
>limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
Limit it how?
Disallow a family to pray together in a public place? No.
Forbid a religious organization from using a public facility that
other organizations are allowed to use? No.
Remove tax exemptions from non-philanthropic portions of religious
organizations? Yes
Forbid publicly funded organizations from promoting religion? Yes.
>
>3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
What? Distance-viewing? Astrology? NDEs?
> 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
> 3b) Do you see these methods as equal to, less than, or more valuable
>than science?
>
>4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
"Where's the fun in that?"
>
>5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
>Christianity specifically?
Well, some theists (Xians in particular) insist that if they didn't
have a magic space pixey to punish them if they are bad, they wouldn't
have any morals at all, so, yes, I do see some redeeming value in
religion. It keeps the naturally immoral in check.
>
>Thank you for your time and consideration,
>
>kestrel_mp
>
>
Landis D. Ragon
Chief Elf in the toy factory...
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech
censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom
denied, chains us all, irrevocably."
Darwin
<kestr...@hotmail.com<removetag>> wrote:
>1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
> 1a) If not, what replacement theory is subscribed to?
Yes, I would imagine most atheists subscribe to evolution. While I
don't believe evolution/creation is necessarily an either/or question
(even if evolution ever disproved, creation is not true by default),
we have yet to conceive of any other theory to account for our
origins.
>
>2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
>limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
Got an example? I support separation of church and state, of course,
if that's what you are referring to. However, many religious people
also support it.
>
>3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
> 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
> 3b) Do you see these methods as equal to, less than, or more valuable
>than science?
I don't think anything can match the scientific method as a tool for
searching for the truth.
>
>4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
I don't really care.
>
>5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
>Christianity specifically?
No. I believe nothing good can come from falsity, but I realize many
people think a moral society cannot be formed without religion. I am
not so cynical, and I think a strong secular morality can be taught in
public schools. Religion is unnecessary and false, and has caused
much suffering in the world.
The only problem with atheism is that it *seems* to lead to nihilism,
but I get by alright.
Darwin
Stefan C. F.
I have a strong feeling you’re only asking these questions so you can
tell us all how wrong we are, but I’ll bite anyway. Call me a
masochist who didn’t learn his lesson with the many baited questions
of Anderson...
>1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
> 1a) If not, what replacement theory is subscribed to?
Yes, I would say that most atheists believe in evolution to one degree
or another. Personally, I only believe it to a point. I believe in
the evolution that I can see plainly for myself, such as the amazingly
complete fossil record of the horse from a three toed animal
resembling nothing so much as a cross between a goat and a mule to the
beast we see today. It’s changed, and there are no apparent gaps.
I find that many Christians seem to get the impression that evolution
is an opinion on the origin of life. I hold no opinions on the origin
of life, nor do I concede that there needs to BE an origin.
Certain things, however, do make more sense to me than others.
Christianity is one of the many things I have discarded as
superstition. There is simply no evidence other than the chopped up
writing of long dead, and very fallible, human beings. What if Paul
were a con artist? What if he was influenced by your devil for the
sole purpose of bringing about some of the historical atrocities
Christianity has motivated?
I could be wrong, and I’m more than willing to admit that. I can not
take things on faith, though. I have very little scientific
education, but I’ve spent years looking at the various theologies of
the world. Just show me proof of some deity, and I’ll be the best
darned -insert proven religion here- there is.
>2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
>limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
That’s a rather large question, loaded with specific instances...
There’s way too much room for varying case scenarios to really answer
this completely, so I’ll just mention some examples.
I would very much like to see the constitutional separation of church
and state more strictly enforced. Any organized prayer in public
school is an obvious violation in my mind. When I was in school,
there was a prayer meeting before and after school hours in Mr.
Serbus’ classroom that was perfectly legal. I think that should be
more than enough prayer in public school. Mandatory prayer would
raise the question of teachers influencing the atmosphere to promote
one religion over another, which is unacceptable. If you don’t
believe this could happen, just look at the school principle in (I
think) Alabama who declared that two Jewish student’s wearing the star
of David was a display of gang symbols. When asked about it, he
simply stated that if the parents weren’t going to save their kids’
souls, he would, then referring to the Jewish faith as "child abuse."
I think denying a child medical care in favor of a faith healing is a
reprehensible (and sometimes criminal) act that should be treated as
such. I would also like to see "In God we trust" removed from the
currency. In a very different situation, I would very much like to
see the Makah tribe’s spiritual hunting of Grey whales off the Pacific
coast stopped. Not because of any religious reason, but because of
all the public funds going to protect them from the anti-whaling
organizations. I see their religious activity creating a burden on
the community. I would like to see churches pay taxes just like the
rest of us when they make huge profits from donations or
merchandising. I saw Pat Robertson talking about how Clinton’s tax
returns should get extra scrutiny to make sure he wasn’t cheating... I
laughed so hard I had tears in my eyes. Some of the things that man
gets away with are just astonishing.
>3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
Yes, I would certainly think so. You really have to realize that
atheists don’t share any common beliefs, unlike members of a religion.
Christians believe in Jesus, and I can’t help but feel that you are
trying to find some ground to generalize about us in a similar way.
Would it surprise you to know that I’m a Republican? In fact, a very
active one working on several federal and state campaigns including a
paid staff position with Mark Hatfield for President in 96 and
currently as a volunteer for Linda Smith for Senate.
> 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
Pretty much everything, though I’ve always liked things that are very
clean. When A, then B. When people start making all kinds of
assumptions, I lose interest very fast. Stating that God exists is an
insupportable assumption. Saying that the Bible is true is only very
slightly above it, and then only because of some historical
information. I accept that there was a really nice guy 2000 years
ago. Now show me proof that he was the son, by a virgin birth, of the
God you haven’t yet shown to exist -without- basing your proof on a
butchered book written by people who have yet to be shown reliable or
truthful...
You should be able to see my dilemma. Give me something I can accept
without a leap of faith, because it’s a leap I’m never going to make.
Many parts of evolutionary biology provide me that something. I can
go to the museum and see the skeletons of horses as they’ve changed
over time. No leap of faith is necessary, it’s all right there in
front of me. As for human evolution, I see the same changes taking
place. Yes, there are gaps, but only one very large one. That’s why
it’s called the missing link rather than the missing chain. I’m
reading a fairly wild book right now about the possibility that the
missing link may have been aquatic. Some makes sense, some is a
stretch.
I feel that I have seen enough to discount the commonly held creation
story. I see things changing over time, undeniably. The idea that
everything was created instantly in it’s present form is effectively
disproven for me. If we were created by a supernatural being, I can’t
help but assume things were created in a different form a long time
ago, and everything changed over time. Perhaps evolution is the
process of creation, and we’re still being created. Who knows? I
don’t, and neither do you if you’re honest about it. We also might
have been deposited by little green men as a Martian high school
science project. Perhaps humans are the fruit flies of the galaxy.
At least we have real, honest to goodness photographs of the space
men. Talk about evidence! ;)
> 3b) Do you see these methods as equal to, less than, or more valuable
>than science?
Personally, I find science to be one of the more reliable, therefor I
suppose, more valuable. History may show that my symptoms indicate a
strange disease with a cure that’s fatal unless I really have it, but
I’d like a scientist in a medical lab to run some blood tests before I
have a shot.
Likewise, a really old book of myths and philosophy may tell me that
prayer and faith is the best cure for an infected cut, but I’d rather
have the antibiotics.
>4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
No. I’ve seen some interesting conversations in here between atheists
and theists, even taking part in some. What I would like to see gone
are people like David, Michael Anderson or Boatright who ask baited
questions under the pitifully transparent guise of "learning about
atheism" in order to get us to say something they can attack. Read
some of David’s posts over the last year or so... He comes in here
advertising a link to his website with a little tirade about how
atheism is this that and some more, all of it made up out of his own
little fantasies. I tried talking to him several months ago with what
I thought were well thought out posts, but he never responded, much
preferring the offensive and insulting ones. Notice I haven’t taken
part in his latest efforts. You might especially look at how often he
makes statements as if they are facts, then when challenged for proof
or evidence shifts the burden of proof to someone else. Does this
pattern seem familiar? "God exists and He created everything" "Prove
it" "If you have an argument against God, make it" "You have the
burden of proof for your assertion" "I knew you had nothing to say, I
win"
What’s the point? They’re sometimes fun for a flame or two, just to
work off a little steam from a hard day, but mostly just make it a
pain to skim over the hundreds of messages to and from them while I
look for something of interest.
I’m very much hoping you are not just another one.
>5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
>Christianity specifically?
I see a lot of positives in religion, but an equal number of
negatives. For every church that helps it’s members and holds a
neighborhood picnic, there’s another that steals unmercifully from
it’s members and calls medical attention a sin. For every missionary
hospital in a war torn nation, there’s a psychotic religious zealot
walking around with 50 ponds of explosives taped to his chest. For
every Minister holding an elderly woman’s hand on her deathbed,
there’s another out there like Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn or Jim Baker
only occasionally breaking finding balance between their good works
and their criminal activities. For every Christian who wants to revel
in what they see as God’s love, there is another who only wants to let
everyone in the world know how much they will suffer for not as
righteous and holy as himself. The list could go on forever... I
think people are people, regardless of religion. There’s good ones
and bad ones. Those people who are going to be good don’t need God to
do it, and those who are going to be assholes certainly don’t seem to
be halted in their acts by any influence from Jesus or whatever other
religious icon.
I’m also rather fond of Catholic architecture, though cookies and wine
are hardly proper refreshments for their parties. Don’t you just hate
it when the Body of Christ gets all stuck to the roof of your mouth?
(No, I’m not a Catholic, nor even an ex-Catholic.)
>Thank you for your time and consideration,
>
>kestrel_mp
I’d just like to add that many, many times it has been stated that
atheism tries to answer the questions of why we’re here and where we
come from then somehow failed. Its been said hundreds of times, but
still doesn’t seem to have gotten through to some people in this
group: If I want answers to those questions, it’s not atheism nor
anything associated with it that would or could answer them. I don’t
believe in supernatural powers or beings. Period. It’s a label to
simplify my stance on Gods and religion, not an organized movement.
So why do I come here? Because I enjoy being in s situation where,
for the first time in my life, I’m not the minority trying desperately
to defend myself from a huge population who sees me as being less than
dirt. Here, atheists are attacked and ridiculed, but WE are the
majority, which is very refreshing. Yes, it’s probably rather
cowardly. So what?
Don Kresch
<kestr...@hotmail.com<removetag>> etched in the space-time continuum
>1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
Dunno. I happen to acknowledge that it happens, due to the weight of
evidence.
>2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
>limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
Elaborate.
>3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
Such as?
Personally, if you can't use reason, you can't find truth.
>4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
Yes and no. Yes, just to get away from the annoying fuck. No cuz sometimes
I do love to dissect them/
>5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
>Christianity specifically?
None.
Don
alt.atheism atheist #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
Go away--the message is over
Carl Funk
>
> 1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
>
evolution is some kind of philosophical system, which can help us live
our lives? Or did you mean "believe in the truth of evolution theory"?
I'd say most atheists accept the *idea* of evolution, but might have
some concerns about particular aspects of the current theories. I
can't imagine any atheist believing evolution hasn't occured.
> 2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
> limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
>
I wouldn't support any legislation that singles out *religious*
activities,
but there should be limits on what *any* group can legally do.
> 3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
> 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
> 3b) Do you see these methods as equal to, less than, or more valuable
> than science?
>
What other methods of *inquiry* are there? Praying, and getting
knowledge
by revelation? (I would lump astrology in the same category.) With
revelation, you are assuming there is some kind of intelligence out
there,
willing to impart knowledge to you. If that intelligence isn't there,
you have no idea how accurate any "knowledge" you think you might've
received actually is.
With science, the assumption is that, whether or not their is a deity,
we should be able to acquire knowledge be observing the world around us.
We can try to test this knowledge, to see how accurate it is. I would
say science is the most *reliable* source of knowledge we have.
> 4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
>
No.
> 5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
> Christianity specifically?
>
Obviously there is some value in any religion prevalent in the world
today.
(If there wasn't, the religion would've died out.) I get the impression
most people use their religion as an emotional crutch. I guess I'd
agree
that religion is good, for *some* people.
> Thank you for your time and consideration,
>
> kestrel_mp
And thank *you* for not using an insulting sign-off.
--
Carl Funk "nil illegitimi carborundum"
a.a atheist #1229 ICQ#16282427
to bypass my SPAM-deflector, it helps if you realize I am
asthmatic. i.e. no SMOKING please!
maff91
<kestr...@hotmail.com<removetag>> wrote:
>1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
Many do but it's not a requirement for atheism.
> 1a) If not, what replacement theory is subscribed to?
You have to ask those individual atheists.
>
>2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
>limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
Nope. There should be strict wall of separation between church and
state.
>
>3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
An individual atheist may do so.
> 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
You have to that from an individual atheist who subscribes to any
other methodology.
> 3b) Do you see these methods as equal to, less than, or more valuable
>than science?
It's crap.
>
>4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
There is no objection to religious posters wanting to find out about
atheism and interests of individual atheists.
>
>5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
>Christianity specifically?
Nope.
>
>Thank you for your time and consideration,
You're welcome.
>
>kestrel_mp
>
>
*****************************************************
"The Age of Paine" by Jon Katz
http://www.wired.com/wired/3.05/features/paine.html
*****************************************************
David J. Devejian
kestr...@hotmail.com says...
> 1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
I believe that evolution is a reasonably accurate theory. I believe
that evolution has been observed both in the field and in the lab. I
believe there is at this point no better competing theory. I do not
'believe in evolution.'
> 1a) If not, what replacement theory is subscribed to?
I dont know, I guess there may be a few lingerers holding on to
Lamarkism. Kinda silly if you ask me, considering the evidence.
> 2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
> limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
Question is too broad to answer. What specific types of legislation
are you speaking of? Generally, I am somewhat more strict in my
interpretation of the FA, and the separation of church and state than
the current court, but I consider recent opinions fairly reasonable.
> 3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
Please define non-scientific.
> 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
> 3b) Do you see these methods as equal to, less than, or more valuable
> than science?
I will accept any method of inquiry that uses a predetermined
objective measure to evaluate the probative value of evidence, and
then applies reason and logic to that evidence. Its relative value to
other methods of inquiry is dependent on how strict I consider its
threshold of probative value and how well it applies reason and logic.
However, I think you will find that most methods of inquiry which meet
this standard can be subsumed under the mantle of science.
>
> 4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
I think it would be useful. Personally, I dont think I would post as
much to it, because I enjoy the debate with religious types. However,
I enjoy it most where we can find a certain amount of agreement in
base assumptions. For example, a recent discussion regarding the
teleological implications of a least action principle has been quite
interesting. What I do not appreciate is the efforts of some such as
MRA, who simply refuse to accept the evidence presented, but rather
continually claim the bible is infallible and refuse to
address the arguments presented, but rather repeatedly recount their
initial claim.
> 5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
> Christianity specifically?
Yes. Whether the redeeming value outweighs the detriment, depends on
the particular religion, and particular sect.
> Thank you for your time and consideration,
Youre welcome.
--
regards,
David J. Devejian
widsith <at> panix <dot> com
mike
Kestrel_MP
> 1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
> 1a) If not, what replacement theory is subscribed to?
>
I think they do. but i don't know the replacement theory, perhaps they are in
no need of one.
>
>
>
> 2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
> limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
>
nope, unless it infringed upon my rights.
>
>
>
> 3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
> 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
> 3b) Do you see these methods as equal to, less than, or more valuable
> than science?
>
? no idea at this time
>
>
>
> 4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
>
no. I think the chance to be able to make them skeptics, and let them no we
are smart is good.
>
>
>
> 5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
> Christianity specifically?
>
no
>
>
>
> Thank you for your time and consideration,
>
> kestrel_mp
>
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
: 1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
: 1a) If not, what replacement theory is subscribed to?
Evolution makes more sense than Adam and Eve. It's all those fossils and
things. The archeological evidence for the Garden of Eden is a bit sparse.
: 2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
: limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
Eliminate th 501(c) religious tax exemption.
: 3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
What would those be?
: 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
: 3b) Do you see these methods as equal to, less than, or more valuable
: than science?
So far, science wins, hands down.
: 4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
Nope. I have a killfile.
: 5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
: Christianity specifically?
If I looked really hard, and thought long and carefully, I could probably
come up with one or two redeeming values.
: Thank you for your time and consideration,
No problem.
Beck
Charles Fiterman
Kestrel_MP
> 1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
> 1a) If not, what replacement theory is subscribed to?
Today most atheists believe in evolution but
there were recorded atheists as far back as
500 B.C. Anaxagorus for example.
Before evolution the replacment theory was an
honest admission of ignorance. In a theological
debate I ignore evolution in favor of saying I don't
have all the answers and don't need them.
> 2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
> limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
I oppose the cult of thugee practicing human
sacrafice on non members. But I am more in
favor of religious freedom than most Christians.
For example some religions use marijauna as
a sacrement, I'm on their side. What you do to
your mind is your business. If you don't have
rights to your own mind what rights do you
posess?
> 3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
> 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
> 3b) Do you see these methods as equal to, less than, or more valuable
> than science?
I don't speak for all atheists, I limit non scientific
methods to establishing the basis of science.
> 4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
NG??
> 5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
> Christianity specifically?
Some people get great comfort from it. As long
as they don't try to push it on me I have no problem.
Charles Fiterman
Charles Fiterman
Kestrel_MP
Charles Fiterman wrote in message <361A55C7...@geodesic.com>...
>> 4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
>
>NG??
News-Group, Usenet.
Sorry, I slipped into internetese there.
kestrel_mp
Xalan
Kestrel_MP > wrote in message ...
|1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
| 1a) If not, what replacement theory is subscribed to?
I accept it as the best description to date, but reserve the right to amend
my thinking with any new discoveries.
|2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
|limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
I would accept any legislation to seperate religon and state. Anything else
is up to them.
|3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
| 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
| 3b) Do you see these methods as equal to, less than, or more valuable
|than science?
I see most forms of open minded enquirey as science. Science to me is the
study of why, when and how. I beleive anything that attempts to find answers
fits.
|4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
Yes.
|5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
|Christianity specifically?
No. I have yet though to see any religon live up to its own rules.
|Thank you for your time and consideration,
|
|kestrel_mp
Anytime for reasonable questions like these.
||| |||
|||
||| |||Alan #1211
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no God, Nature sufficeth unto herself;
in no wise hath she need of an author."
Marquis de Sade
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAC Trainee Pilot #666
Homepage: http://www3.mistral.co.uk/xalan/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Kirby
>
> 1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
> 1a) If not, what replacement theory is subscribed to?
Statistically (not that I'm look at any), most atheists subscribe to
biological evolution as a theory of the descent of life. Those who do not
probably are not aware of the theory or do not care.
> 2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
> limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
I don't understand the question. What kind of limitations do you have in
mind? In the U.S., at least, legislation whose primary purpose (in intent or
practice) is to hinder or promote religion is unconstitutional (cf. the
'Lemon test'). And I think that's how it should be.
> 3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
> 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
> 3b) Do you see these methods as equal to, less than, or more valuable
> than science?
Here you will have to define 'science'. You are probably thinking of the
hard, physical sciences such as physics and biology. But then, logic and
mathematics are perfectly good methods of inquiry. So is history. I would
be willing to consider literary criticism as a valuable 'method of inquiry',
or even philosophy, even if there are no concrete answers. However, if you
use 'science' to cover everything that requires rational thought and allows
for review and criticism, then science is the only valuable method of
epistemic inquiry. I do not consider astrology, tarot, prayer, bone-casting,
LSD, or NDEs to be viable methods of inquiry, of course.
> 4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
Having one out of the 30,000+ on Usenet wouldn't be all that bad, would it?
Maybe alt.atheism.exclusive? Too bad it would only would attract flamers.
Maybe we need to make one with an obfuscated name...
> 5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
Buddhism and Wicca are thought to relieve stress and tension by many.
Whatever floats your boat...
> Christianity specifically?
......
After five minutes, the only things that I thought of were sarcastic. I
can't think of anything positive that Christianity offers *and* that can't be
found in other religions.
--
Peter Kirby <ki...@earthlink.net>
XTIANITY list owner, alt.atheism atheist #16
Home page: http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/ (updated 8/27/98)
Organic Machinery
>Kestrel_MP
[snip bogus "evolution" question]
>> 2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
>> limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
I would not support legislation that would allow religious groups "special
rights" compared to the non-religious - such as giving churches special tax
breaks, or allowing public institutions to promote religion via prayer. I
would not support any legislation that singles out specific "religious
activities" as crimes either, such as, let's make up a wild example, a law
which would outlaw the construction of voodoo dolls.
In fact, in my opinion, the Constitution (of the US) is written to prevent the
very legislation I describe.
>> 3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
Accept non-scientific methods of inquiry for what purposes?
>> 4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
I would prefer a *world* devoid of religious posters... if asked my idea of
Utopia. I think the world would be a much better place if people dropped
their superstitions and myths, and started thinking about things more
logically.
>> 5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
Not much, especially NOT in the modern world. It served certain psychological
and social purposes for the more primitive. It helped unite the pack, at
the very least. Hell, a lot of religions weren't even really all that poor
"scientific" theories when most were invented, given the information available
at the time.
>> Christianity specifically?
Not much. I don't think, specifically, that Christianity has really been all
that helpful and beneficial for humanity.
But, to each their own.
--Organic Machinery (O.M.)
a.a. atheist #284
Head of EAC Research and Development,
and Asst. Pet Lion Feeder
"been around the world and found
that only stupid people are breeding
the cretins cloning and feeding..."
-Harvey Danger
--------------------------------------------------------
Remove the obvious, and the Z's, to contact me via email
--------------------------------------------------------
Organic Machinery
>> 2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
>> limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
>
>I oppose the cult of thugee practicing human
>sacrafice on non members. But I am more in
>favor of religious freedom than most Christians.
>
>For example some religions use marijauna as
>a sacrement, I'm on their side. What you do to
>your mind is your business. If you don't have
>rights to your own mind what rights do you
>posess?
Personally, I'm opposed to granting ANY religion "special rights," for any
purpose. Why should someone have the right to smoke pot for religious
purposes, and I not have the right to smoke it for entertainment purposes?
If this "exclusion from law" were allowed for the religious, the government
would be promoting a religion, like Rastafarianism, by granting them more
freedom than the atheist.
I'm against human sacrifice, regardless of reasons for the sacrifice (religion
or just plain thrill killing).
I'm for the legalization of marijuana, regardless of the reasons for smoking
it - religious, medical, or entertainment.
Of course, some drugs should perhaps be restricted, except for medical reasons
- like morphine - but THAT'S a whole 'nother ball of wax.
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: 1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
That'd be my guess.
: 2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
: limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
Be more specific.
: 3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
I'd hazard that the overwhelming majority do not.
: 4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
Me? No.
: 5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in
: religion? Christianity specifically?
Some of the Christmas carols are pretty catchy.
--
****************************************************************
Men think epilepsy divine merely because they do not
understand it. But if they called everything divine
which they do not understand, why, there would be no
end of divine things.
- Hippocrates of Cos
****************************************************************
Stix
alt.atheism:
>1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
Dunno.
Do most atheists believe in gravity?
> 1a) If not, what replacement theory is subscribed to?
Does such a theory exist?
>2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
>limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
Not if the limits restrict personal freedom. If the limits were to
remove mysticism from schools, television, etc., and to curtail the
promulgation of mis- and dis- information, I'd support it -- inasmuch as
I 'support' prohibitive legislation, which ain't much.
>3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
Such as?
> 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
Dunno, you're asking the questions.
> 3b) Do you see these methods as equal to, less than, or more valuable
>than science?
Science: observation, experimentation, measurement.
Coupled with logic and reason, what other methods are there?
>4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
Nah. They're still people, some of whom contribute worthwhile
information. The idiots I dislike are the arrogant pixie zealots who
seriously believe they hold some sort of wisdom; the creationist liars;
the proselytizers; the fire and brimstone doomsday screechers;
fundamentalists; the smooth-as-mucus 'god-lovers' like your cuddly
companion Mathews; and the smarmy, typically dishonest general bleaters
who waltz in here to dance the JC tango. Mind you, I'm quite happy to,
err, how shall we say....'indulge' them....so I don't need a group
devoid of them.
>5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
Not a jot.
>Christianity specifically?
You must be kidding!
But I'll let my sig file explain my thoughts on *that* particularly
nasty little death cult.
>Thank you for your time and consideration,
Eh, t'weren't nothin'.
Stix
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Christianity ~ arguably the most vile, depraved,
hypocritical and dishonest perversion of human nature
ever to seep from the mind of man."
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Jeff Dee
>
> 1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
I accept it as the theory which most closely fits
the available facts.
> 2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
> limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
"As an atheist"? No. I support the intended
constitutional boundaries on religious
activities as an *American*.
> 3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
Inquiry into what? If the thing being inquired into
falls within the bounds of science, then I support
science as the most effective means of conducting
that inquiry. On the other hand, if the thing being
inquired into does *not* fall within the bounds of
science, then in general we're talking about things
not subject to any sort of rational inquiry - which
means there isn't any useful method of inquiry to
use.
> 4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
No, I would prefer a planet devoid of superstition.
> 5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
No.
> Christianity specifically?
No.
> Thank you for your time and consideration,
You're welcome!
-Jeff Dee
--
"It is as morally bad not to care whether a thing is true
or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to
care how you got your money as long as you have got it."
-Edmund Way Teale, "Circle of the Seasons", 1950
je...@illusionmachines.com *
illusionmachines.com/personal/jeff/index.html
Cabrutus
Kestrel_MP <kestr...@hotmail.com<removetag>> wrote in article
<opfS1.189$Hz2.4...@news4.mia.bellsouth.net>...
> 1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
Most of the atheists with whom I've spoken accept evolutionary theory.
> 1a) If not, what replacement theory is subscribed to?
>
> 2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
> limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
That depends. I would support legislation which keeps state-sponsored
religious activities away from state-sponsored institutions.
>
> 3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
Only for determining one's personal opinion.
> 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
Intuition is the only applicable one here.
> 3b) Do you see these methods as equal to, less than, or more valuable
> than science?
Less valuable, in most cases, although they're really on different axes.
>
> 4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
No. I would prefer a NG devoid of preaching religious posters. When the
posters actually attempt to make an argument, I welcome them.
>
> 5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in
religion?
> Christianity specifically?
Religion itself is currently causing more harm than good. In the past, it
was responsible for some good things, including preservation of knowledge.
It provides hope when some people need it. However, overall, it is more of
a Bad Thing than a Good Thing. Christianity includes some of the worst
traits of religion including violence, hate, and absurdity, but it also has
the redeeming qualities listed above for religion in general.
I wouldn't mind if all people on earth decided not to be members of any
religion tomorrow.
>
> Thank you for your time and consideration,
>
> kestrel_mp
--
Cabrutus -- alt.atheism atheist #820 -- EAC conspirator #29
loc...@geocities.SPAMMERS.SUCK.PAT.ROBERTSON.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3587/summary.html
Darryl L. Pierce
<kestr...@hotmail.com<removetag>> wrote:
;1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
; 1a) If not, what replacement theory is subscribed to?
I *KNOW* fact/existence of evolution exists, so belief is
irrevelevant. I subscribe to some aspects of the theories to explain
evolution as well.
;2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
;limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
Depends on what you mean by "limit" and "religious activities".
;3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
; 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
; 3b) Do you see these methods as equal to, less than, or more valuable
;than science?
Define "inquiry". If you mean non-scientific methods of inquiring
about reality, then no. If you mean non-scientific methods of
inquiring about metaphysics, I'd say yes.
;4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
Just the invasive ones.
;5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
;Christianity specifically?
"Jesus Christ: Superstar" was great. So was "The Last Temptation of
Christ". Oh, and "A Charlie Brown Christmas"!
;Thank you for your time and consideration,
No problem.
Mise le meas,
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Darryl L. Pierce #1142, BAAWA Knight Apprentice |
| http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/1335/ |
| http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Library/1454/ |
| "Have you found Jesus?" "I didn't know he was missing, sir!" |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Alikhat
"Kestrel_MP" <kestr...@hotmail.com<removetag>> wrote:
>1) Do most atheists believe in evolution?
You mean "blindly believe because it makes us warm and tingly all over?"
Um, no. I can't speak for all or even "most atheists", but after studying
the subject, I've come to the conclusion that the fossil, geological and
DNA evidence is strong enough to support the theory.
> 1a) If not, what replacement theory is subscribed to?
What'cha got? Better be a good 'un, tho'.
>2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
>limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
My only interest in this subject is simply to reinforce the wall of
separation between church and state...with titanium, if necessary. Oh,
and that tax-exemption thingy just simply *has* to go. No special status,
and all that.
>3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
Well, I guess if I ask someone if they thought this dress makes me look
fat, I wouldn't be too thrilled if they were to dunk me in a tank to see
how much water I displaced, but other than that...
> 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
Lemme ask *you* something; Would you be willing to go up in a jet knowing
that the ground crew's idea of an instrument check was praying to Jesus
that the plane didn't fall outt'a the sky after take-off?...Me neither.
> 3b) Do you see these methods as equal to, less than, or more valuable
>than science?
See answer to 3a.
>4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
Y'know, when I first started posting here, I would have said yes. But now
I think some of you guys can be kind of interesting. Strange, but interesting.
>
>5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
Nice music, lovely artwork. Too bad y'all didn't stick to just arts and
entertainment and leave the rest of existence alone. The world would be a
much nicer place.
>Christianity specifically?
Take my word, honey, you don't want to know what I think of Christianity
*specifically*.
>Thank you for your time and consideration,
My pleasure...Can't wait to see the punchline to all this.
Alikhat
#757
Fish
> Alikhat wrote in message <6vi9qo$e...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>...
[snip]
> > Lemme ask *you* something; Would you be willing to go up in a jet knowing
> >that the ground crew's idea of an instrument check was praying to Jesus
> >that the plane didn't fall outt'a the sky after take-off?...Me neither.
>
> You are quite right on this point.
>
> Would you ask your parent, child, sibling, husband, wife, best friend, for
> scientific proof of their love?
And your point would be.............. what?
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"Faith: a waste product given off by human ignorance."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Aatu Koskensilta
This is a rather meaningless question, in my opinion. Asking
whether I believe in evolution would be more sensible....
1) But yes, it is my impression that most atheists do believe in
evolution.
1a) Why would you need a replacement theory at all?
> 2) Would you, the reader, as an atheist, support legislation that would
> limit religious activities? (Within constitutional boundaries, of course)
2) Yes, I would. In Finland we have quite strong church/state integration
(at least in practice). For example, religion is taught and does hold
quite a strong position in public schools.
> 3) Do any atheists accept non-scientific methods of inquiry?
> 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
> 3b) Do you see these methods as equal to, less than, or more valuable
> than science?
3) By scientific method*s*, what do you mean? I know of only one scientific
method :)
Well, anyways, when it comes to the external world I do believe that the only
way we can gain any knowledge of it is thru perception, ie. empirical science.
I can only wonder what other methods you have in mind? Introspection? Pure
logic?
> 4) Would you prefer a NG devoid of religious posters?
Of course not, where'd all the fun be?
> 5) Do you, the reader, as an atheist, see any redeeming value in religion?
> Christianity specifically?
Of course. Obviously religion has a great psychological effect on the 'truly'
believing. And, I have to say, it seems to be quite positive - otoh I do
know of many a case where religion has completely ruined a person's life.
In general I maintain that any 'mental construct' that aids you to endure
trough your life is a good thing, be it scientific or religious :)
> Thank you for your time and consideration,
My pleasure.
> kestrel_mp
--
Aatu Koskensilta (squ...@seaga.org)
"Religion and politics - stigmata of a diseased society."
Kestrel_MP
Alikhat wrote in message <6vi9qo$e...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>...
>> 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
>
> Lemme ask *you* something; Would you be willing to go up in a jet knowing
>that the ground crew's idea of an instrument check was praying to Jesus
>that the plane didn't fall outt'a the sky after take-off?...Me neither.
You are quite right on this point.
Would you ask your parent, child, sibling, husband, wife, best friend, for
scientific proof of their love?
kestrel_mp
Alikhat
"Kestrel_MP" <kestr...@hotmail.com<removetag>> wrote:
Well, as I thought I made clear in my answer to #3, (y'know, the part about
fashion sense and water tanks) I seldom, if ever, require scientifically
testable proof of a subjective opinion or emotion.
It does bring up an interesting point, however. Since, after all, emotions
are nothing more than electro-chemical signals firing off in the brain,
there is every reason to believe that one day science *will* be able to
quantify love. One can imagine tests that would chart what portions of the
brain are active when one is feeling "loving", what chemicals are being
produced and in what amounts and how that results in specific physiological
reactions throughout the body. Leaving aside the fact that asking one's
dinner date to take such a test might be construed as a tad neurotic, if
not outright antisocial, it would, nevertheless, be possible someday.
Now, if by your question, you were starting to lead off into the area of
equating god with emotions, then, seeing as how emotions are nothing more
than the brain doing a pharmeceutical juggling act on itself, with the
properties in question having no reality outside the confines of an
individual's own skull, then hey, I'm right with 'ya, babe!
Something tells me, though, that that wasn't quite what you'd had in mind.
;-)
Alikhat
#757
Fish
> It does bring up an interesting point, however. Since, after all, emotions
> are nothing more than electro-chemical signals firing off in the brain,
I disagree.
What you are describing is "electro-chemical signals firing off in the
brain" and nothing more. Those electro-chemical signals firing off in
the brain *give rise to* emotions (as well as thoughts), but the
electro-chemical signals themselves, nor their intensity, variety or
frequency, could ever be considered "emotions" IMO.
Emotions, like thoughts, are purely subjective; they're an illusion;
they're not *real*. The electro-chemical signals firing off in the brain
are demonstrably real enough since they can be independently observed
and measured in an objective manner, but the thoughts and emotions those
electro-chemical signals give rise to cannot be observed or measured by
any objective means.
The resulting effect of those electro-chemical signals and other
physiological reactions displayed by the person directly experiencing
them is interpreted by those affected by that person's actions as "acts
of love". The acts themselves, however, like the electro-chemical
signals and other physiological reactions themselves, are not "love".
They're simply the end product. Love is a purely subjective mental state
and nothing more.
Alikhat
fi...@infidels.org.god (Fish) wrote:
>Alikhat posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
>> It does bring up an interesting point, however. Since, after all, emotions
>> are nothing more than electro-chemical signals firing off in the brain,
>
>I disagree.
>
>What you are describing is "electro-chemical signals firing off in the
>brain" and nothing more. Those electro-chemical signals firing off in
>the brain *give rise to* emotions (as well as thoughts), but the
>electro-chemical signals themselves, nor their intensity, variety or
>frequency, could ever be considered "emotions" IMO.
They "give rise to"? Fish, without electro-chemical activity going on
in the brain *there are no thoughts or emotions*. If you imagine that
thoughts and emotions are separate from the activity of neurons
communicating with each other, exactly *what* is it they are
stimulating? You surely don't believe that there is some isolated
fairy tale singular entity within that gets jump-started into feeling
things? That isn't science, that's fantasy.
>Emotions, like thoughts, are purely subjective; they're an illusion;
>they're not *real*. The electro-chemical signals firing off in the brain
>are demonstrably real enough since they can be independently observed
>and measured in an objective manner, but the thoughts and emotions those
>electro-chemical signals give rise to cannot be observed or measured by
>any objective means.
I'm hoping that we are merely having a semantic argument, here. I
absolutely agree with you that thoughts and emotions are illusory. No
problem, there. They have no reality whatever outside the confines of
an individual's mind. But to say that the brain's sole form of
communicating and processing information and stimuli (the electro-
chemical interaction between neurons) is distinct from thought/emotion
only begs the question "What does thought and emotion consist of, if
not that?" Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you, but you seem to be
suggesting that thoughts and emotions are somehow *magical* and distinct
from purely physiological activity. If this isn't your position, please
clarify.
>The resulting effect of those electro-chemical signals and other
>physiological reactions displayed by the person directly experiencing
>them is interpreted by those affected by that person's actions as "acts
>of love". The acts themselves, however, like the electro-chemical
>signals and other physiological reactions themselves, are not "love".
>They're simply the end product. Love is a purely subjective mental state
>and nothing more.
True. But I wasn't positing the idea that behavior was love. It may be
the external signs of an internal experience, but then, a person can
behave in a loving manner without feeling anything, at all. Actors make
their living doing just that. On the opposite end of the scale, a person
may feel extremely strong emotions, but not put them out on display and
so, show no outward sign of their internal experience. Behavior is
irrelevant to the discussion of what emotion and thought consist of.
The fact is, a person can be made to see, hear and feel things simply
by altering their brain chemistry or running a low level current through
specific parts of their brains. They can be made to feel bliss or terror,
anger or joy for no other reason than that their brains were artificially
stimulated to change the chemical balance or the electrical current. If
what we think and feel consisted of anything else, this would not be
possible.
Alikhat
#757
Karl A. Krueger
: In article <MPG.108b4e1fc...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>,
: fi...@infidels.org.god (Fish) wrote:
: >What you are describing is "electro-chemical signals firing off in the
: >the brain *give rise to* emotions (as well as thoughts), but the
: >electro-chemical signals themselves, nor their intensity, variety or
: >frequency, could ever be considered "emotions" IMO.
: They "give rise to"? Fish, without electro-chemical activity going on
: in the brain *there are no thoughts or emotions*. If you imagine that
: thoughts and emotions are separate from the activity of neurons
: communicating with each other, exactly *what* is it they are
: stimulating? You surely don't believe that there is some isolated
: fairy tale singular entity within that gets jump-started into feeling
: things? That isn't science, that's fantasy.
Consider waves on the ocean. A "wave" is just the movement of many
molecules of water in a given pattern. Actually, the molecules each
move in a sort of circular path, but the energy of their motion moves
in a wave, and thus we see the wave on the water.
The movement of the molecules gives rise to the wave. The wave is an
emergent phenomenon: no one molecule moves in a wave, but all taken
together, a wave is created.
Similarly, no one signal in the brain is a happy signal or a sad
signal, a depressed signal or a loving signal or an orgasmic signal.
These phenomena are all *emergent phenomena* of many, many signals. So
are thoughts.
--
Karl A. Krueger -- ka...@simons-rock.edu
Fish
"I'm hoping that we are merely having a semantic argument, here."
My response is: I'm not sure. Perhaps, but let's continue for a few more
posts since I believe we're *very* close to agreement; I agree with much
of what you say, but disagree (slightly) on a few other points. There-
fore, perhaps the root of our disagreement *is* semantic in nature?
(I hate it when that happens! :)
Alikhat posted the following to alt.atheism:
> In article <MPG.108b4e1fc...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>,
> fi...@infidels.org.god (Fish) wrote:
>
> >Alikhat posted the following to alt.atheism:
> >
> >> It does bring up an interesting point, however. Since, after all, emotions
> >> are nothing more than electro-chemical signals firing off in the brain,
> >
> >I disagree.
> >
> >What you are describing is "electro-chemical signals firing off in the
> >brain" and nothing more. Those electro-chemical signals firing off in
> >the brain *give rise to* emotions (as well as thoughts), but the
> >electro-chemical signals themselves, nor their intensity, variety or
> >frequency, could ever be considered "emotions" IMO.
>
> They "give rise to"? Fish, without electro-chemical activity going on
> in the brain *there are no thoughts or emotions*.
Agreed.
> If you imagine that
> thoughts and emotions are separate from the activity of neurons
> communicating with each other,
I don't.
> exactly *what* is it they are stimulating?
Other neurons. :)
> You surely don't believe that there is some isolated
> fairy tale singular entity within that gets jump-started into feeling
> things? That isn't science, that's fantasy.
Agreed.
> >Emotions, like thoughts, are purely subjective; they're an illusion;
> >they're not *real*. The electro-chemical signals firing off in the brain
> >are demonstrably real enough since they can be independently observed
> >and measured in an objective manner, but the thoughts and emotions those
> >electro-chemical signals give rise to cannot be observed or measured by
> >any objective means.
>
> I'm hoping that we are merely having a semantic argument, here. I
> absolutely agree with you that thoughts and emotions are illusory. No
> problem, there. They have no reality whatever outside the confines of
> an individual's mind. But to say that the brain's sole form of
> communicating and processing information and stimuli (the electro-
> chemical interaction between neurons) is distinct from thought/emotion
> only begs the question "What does thought and emotion consist of, if
> not that?"
What does "thought and emotion *CONSIST* of"??!! (emphasis mine)
They don't consist of *anything*, Alikhat. I thought we were agreed on
that. Thoughts and emotions are substanceless; they're an illusion;
they're NOT REAL and thus do not "consist" of *anything*.
> Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you, but you seem to be
> suggesting that thoughts and emotions are somehow *magical* and distinct
> from purely physiological activity. If this isn't your position, please
> clarify.
They are *distinct* from one another. It's just that they cannot exist
*without* the corresponding physiological activity that causes them.
One can easily induce electro-chemical activity in a population of
neurons, but doing so does not necessarily give rise to thoughts and
emotions.
> >The resulting effect of those electro-chemical signals and other
> >physiological reactions displayed by the person directly experiencing
> >them is interpreted by those affected by that person's actions as "acts
> >of love". The acts themselves, however, like the electro-chemical
> >signals and other physiological reactions themselves, are not "love".
> >They're simply the end product. Love is a purely subjective mental state
> >and nothing more.
>
> True. But I wasn't positing the idea that behavior was love.
Neither was I; sorry.
> It may be
> the external signs of an internal experience, but then, a person can
> behave in a loving manner without feeling anything, at all. Actors make
> their living doing just that. On the opposite end of the scale, a person
> may feel extremely strong emotions, but not put them out on display and
> so, show no outward sign of their internal experience. Behavior is
> irrelevant to the discussion of what emotion and thought consist of.
Agreed.
> The fact is, a person can be made to see, hear and feel things simply
> by altering their brain chemistry or running a low level current through
> specific parts of their brains. They can be made to feel bliss or terror,
> anger or joy for no other reason than that their brains were artificially
> stimulated to change the chemical balance or the electrical current. If
> what we think and feel consisted of anything else, this would not be
> possible.
Once again, thoughts and emotions do NOT "consist" of *anything*; they
are *ILLUSIONS*.
Think about it. If I'm thinking about, say, a battleship, what does that
thought "consist of"? What does the emotion of love "consist of"?
Answer: nothing. Not a damn thing.
But are such thoughts and emotions possible *without* electro-chemical
brain activity? No.
But the two, thoughts and emotions, and electro-chemical activity in a
population of neurons, *are* most definitely distinct from one another.
Booster
<kestr...@hotmail.com<removetag>> wrote:
>
>Alikhat wrote in message <6vi9qo$e...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>>> 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
>>
>> Lemme ask *you* something; Would you be willing to go up in a jet knowing
>>that the ground crew's idea of an instrument check was praying to Jesus
>>that the plane didn't fall outt'a the sky after take-off?...Me neither.
>
>
>
>You are quite right on this point.
>
>Would you ask your parent, child, sibling, husband, wife, best friend, for
>scientific proof of their love?
No, but none of them have a policy of eternal torment for people who
don't believe them...
>kestrel_mp
>
>
Shawn Allen Atheist #383
Boo...@dynasty.net.net <--spam foiler
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_
__|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____
_____|_____|_____|DEFEND_____|_____|_____|
__|_____|_____|____THE____|_____|_____|___
_____|_____|_____|_WALL|_____|_____|_____|
__|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____
Alikhat
ka...@news.simons-rock.edu (Karl A. Krueger) wrote:
>Alikhat (ali...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In article <MPG.108b4e1fc...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>,
>: fi...@infidels.org.god (Fish) wrote:
>: >What you are describing is "electro-chemical signals firing off in the
>: >brain" and nothing more. Those electro-chemical signals firing off in
>: >the brain *give rise to* emotions (as well as thoughts), but the
>: >electro-chemical signals themselves, nor their intensity, variety or
>: >frequency, could ever be considered "emotions" IMO.
>: They "give rise to"? Fish, without electro-chemical activity going on
>: in the brain *there are no thoughts or emotions*. If you imagine that
>: thoughts and emotions are separate from the activity of neurons
>: communicating with each other, exactly *what* is it they are
>: stimulating? You surely don't believe that there is some isolated
>: fairy tale singular entity within that gets jump-started into feeling
>: things? That isn't science, that's fantasy.
>
>Consider waves on the ocean. A "wave" is just the movement of many
>molecules of water in a given pattern. Actually, the molecules each
>move in a sort of circular path, but the energy of their motion moves
>in a wave, and thus we see the wave on the water.
>
>The movement of the molecules gives rise to the wave. The wave is an
>emergent phenomenon: no one molecule moves in a wave, but all taken
>together, a wave is created.
>
>Similarly, no one signal in the brain is a happy signal or a sad
>signal, a depressed signal or a loving signal or an orgasmic signal.
>These phenomena are all *emergent phenomena* of many, many signals. So
>are thoughts.
Well, this all very lyrical, Karl, but I'm not sure what your point is.
I never said anything about a "happy signal". In fact, my very argument
was that thoughts and emotions are produced by the interaction of neurons
throughout the brain. Do I need to specify "millions of them" to clarify
my message? If you mean that there is no way we can pinpoint a specific
place where specific thoughts and emotions occur, I agree with you. But
I do believe that these neural signals do follow predictible patterns.
As do molecules in a wave. Science is only *just* starting to discover
what those patterns are and how they might be artifially reproduced or
altered. The fact that the patterns are complex and involve various parts
of the brain working in concert doesn't change my premise. In fact, it
emphasizes it.
Alikhat
#757
Alikhat
fi...@infidels.org.god (Fish) wrote:
>Let me start off by commenting on the following statement:
>
> "I'm hoping that we are merely having a semantic argument, here."
>
>My response is: I'm not sure. Perhaps, but let's continue for a few more
>posts since I believe we're *very* close to agreement; I agree with much
>of what you say, but disagree (slightly) on a few other points. There-
>fore, perhaps the root of our disagreement *is* semantic in nature?
>
>(I hate it when that happens! :)
>
A bitch, isn't it? ;-)
And yes, from the following, it does appear that we've just been doing
a semantic ballet around each other.
>Alikhat posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
>> In article <MPG.108b4e1fc...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>,
>> fi...@infidels.org.god (Fish) wrote:
>>
>> >Alikhat posted the following to alt.atheism:
>> >
>> >> It does bring up an interesting point, however. Since, after all, emotions
>> >> are nothing more than electro-chemical signals firing off in the brain,
>> >
>> >I disagree.
>> >
>> >What you are describing is "electro-chemical signals firing off in the
>> >brain" and nothing more. Those electro-chemical signals firing off in
>> >the brain *give rise to* emotions (as well as thoughts), but the
>> >electro-chemical signals themselves, nor their intensity, variety or
>> >frequency, could ever be considered "emotions" IMO.
>>
>> They "give rise to"? Fish, without electro-chemical activity going on
>> in the brain *there are no thoughts or emotions*.
>
>Agreed.
Great.
>> If you imagine that
>> thoughts and emotions are separate from the activity of neurons
>> communicating with each other,
>
>I don't.
Fab.
>> exactly *what* is it they are stimulating?
>
>Other neurons. :)
That's good. Nothing sadder than a lonely, unstimulated neuron. ;-)
>> You surely don't believe that there is some isolated
>> fairy tale singular entity within that gets jump-started into feeling
>> things? That isn't science, that's fantasy.
>
>Agreed.
4 out 4. Looking good.
>> >Emotions, like thoughts, are purely subjective; they're an illusion;
>> >they're not *real*. The electro-chemical signals firing off in the brain
>> >are demonstrably real enough since they can be independently observed
>> >and measured in an objective manner, but the thoughts and emotions those
>> >electro-chemical signals give rise to cannot be observed or measured by
>> >any objective means.
>>
>> I'm hoping that we are merely having a semantic argument, here. I
>> absolutely agree with you that thoughts and emotions are illusory. No
>> problem, there. They have no reality whatever outside the confines of
>> an individual's mind. But to say that the brain's sole form of
>> communicating and processing information and stimuli (the electro-
>> chemical interaction between neurons) is distinct from thought/emotion
>> only begs the question "What does thought and emotion consist of, if
>> not that?"
>
>What does "thought and emotion *CONSIST* of"??!! (emphasis mine)
>
>They don't consist of *anything*, Alikhat. I thought we were agreed on
>that. Thoughts and emotions are substanceless; they're an illusion;
>they're NOT REAL and thus do not "consist" of *anything*.
I think this is where the semantic trouble started...
>> Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you, but you seem to be
>> suggesting that thoughts and emotions are somehow *magical* and distinct
>> from purely physiological activity. If this isn't your position, please
>> clarify.
>
>They are *distinct* from one another. It's just that they cannot exist
>*without* the corresponding physiological activity that causes them.
>
>One can easily induce electro-chemical activity in a population of
>neurons, but doing so does not necessarily give rise to thoughts and
>emotions.
Granted. My only point was that it was theoretically possible to do so,
if one knew what portions of the brain to stimulate and how. I wasn't
trying to suggest that any random prodding of a few neurons would result
in thought or emotion.
>> >The resulting effect of those electro-chemical signals and other
>> >physiological reactions displayed by the person directly experiencing
>> >them is interpreted by those affected by that person's actions as "acts
>> >of love". The acts themselves, however, like the electro-chemical
>> >signals and other physiological reactions themselves, are not "love".
>> >They're simply the end product. Love is a purely subjective mental state
>> >and nothing more.
>>
>> True. But I wasn't positing the idea that behavior was love.
>
>Neither was I; sorry.
Pardon my mistake, as well.
>> It may be
>> the external signs of an internal experience, but then, a person can
>> behave in a loving manner without feeling anything, at all. Actors make
>> their living doing just that. On the opposite end of the scale, a person
>> may feel extremely strong emotions, but not put them out on display and
>> so, show no outward sign of their internal experience. Behavior is
>> irrelevant to the discussion of what emotion and thought consist of.
>
>Agreed.
Lovely.
>> The fact is, a person can be made to see, hear and feel things simply
>> by altering their brain chemistry or running a low level current through
>> specific parts of their brains. They can be made to feel bliss or terror,
>> anger or joy for no other reason than that their brains were artificially
>> stimulated to change the chemical balance or the electrical current. If
>> what we think and feel consisted of anything else, this would not be
>> possible.
>
>Once again, thoughts and emotions do NOT "consist" of *anything*; they
>are *ILLUSIONS*.
Agreed. In fact, that was the very point I was making to the suddenly-very-
silent-on-this-topic Kestral. If he was willing to equate his god with love,
then I was willing to agree with him on the basis that *both* were imaginary
constructs living solely in his own head. I guess he didn't appreciate the
analogy since he's been disinclined to persue it, ever since.
>Think about it. If I'm thinking about, say, a battleship, what does that
>thought "consist of"? What does the emotion of love "consist of"?
>
>Answer: nothing. Not a damn thing.
>
>But are such thoughts and emotions possible *without* electro-chemical
>brain activity? No.
Exactly.
>But the two, thoughts and emotions, and electro-chemical activity in a
>population of neurons, *are* most definitely distinct from one another.
>
Again, this does seem to have been a problem of semantics based on a
perceptual distinction. Agreed and resolved.
>
>*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>"Faith: a waste product given off by human ignorance."
>*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
And BTW, *wonderful* sig file!
Alikhat
#757
Jim Sarbeck
<kestr...@hotmail.com<removetag>> wrote:
>A point of clarification - I also accept the Theory of Evolution. I have no
>problem saying that God used evolution to bring the world to its current
>state.
There is no inherent logical contradiction in saying that deity used every
natural phenomenon that we learn of, to bring things to their current state
of affairs. The problem becomes evident when what is said to be revealed to
us by deity via nature contradicts what is said to be revealed to us by
deity via scripture. Which will we believe, and why?
<big clip, but I appreciate your thoughtful comments>
>In conclusion, I would welcome any responses to this summation. How do you
>feel about the responses of other atheists? Did you learn anything? I am
>also interested in your opinions on the subject of individual theists,
>several people mentioned theists they did not like (David Mathews, etc.),
>are there any theist posters that you do like? Or can at least tolerate?
>(Frank A.S. comes to mind)
In summary response to all of this, there are theists, atheists, and
philosophers (lovers of wisdom). You have been displaying symptoms of the
last of these. It takes a certain admission of ignorance to be in that
class. This is a good (prosocial) thing.
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Kestrel_MP
Kestrel_MP > wrote in message ...
First, let me say thank you to everyone who responded.
Thanks.
Second, what did I learn? Quite a bit, actually.
Question #1: Evolution
Most people felt the first question (Atheist belief in evolution) was a
loaded question. Some people challenged the use of the word believe, which I
used as a convenience rather than a trap. I should have elaborated more--"Do
you accept the validity of the evolutionary theory as it currently stands?"
or something like that.
Most respondents did accept evolution, though a few offered skeptical
statements. Evolution is accepted, or at least until something more
definitive comes along.
A point of clarification - I also accept the Theory of Evolution. I have no
problem saying that God used evolution to bring the world to its current
state.
Question #2: Anti-Religious Legislation
Mixed responses. Some people felt that the U.S. separation of church and
state was about right, others took issue with certain aspects.
One such aspect I would like to briefly address.
Several responders thought that the church tax exemption statutes should go.
The only problem I see with this is: if church tax-exempt status is gone,
then churches in the U.S. will be free to make direct political
contributions. Would you, as an atheist, mind if the Southern Baptist
Convention started supplying candidates with campaign money? What if the
Roman Catholic's did too? Tax-exempt status cuts both ways, consider the
consequences.
Question #3: Non-scientific Inquiry
Again, many posters felt this was a trick question. It was not intended to
be. I was trying to gauge the level of realism vs. romanticism in the
alt.atheism community. Overwhelmingly the responses indicated a realist
position advocating strict scientific approaches to life, empirical
evidence, and logical reasoning. That was actually what I expected.
What I did not expect were the few posters who did acknowledge that some
things simply cannot be known by science, and while they offered no
alternatives, and seemed uncomfortable with non-scientific inquiry, a few
were open minded enough to say that they just weren't sure what the other
methods might be.
Question #4: NG with no Theists
Overwhelmingly, the response was that theists provide some function in the
NG. (Even if its just to entertain!)
I'm not sure I'd want to know the response if I asked about a NG devoid of
myself.
Question #5: Value in Religion
About half and half. Some people saw a little bit of value, maybe in art,
music or literature. Some expressed an interest in the moral value of
religion (which I thought interesting). Others simply rejected all value in
religion, professing their position that the world would be better off if
religion went away.
Final conclusion:
I must say that I am sorry that many of your encounters with theists have
been predominately hostile. In all honesty, most of my contact with atheists
has also been hostile, so apparently we're not getting along very well.
By profession and training I am a historian, by choice I am a Christian, by
nature I am a philosopher, thats why I am here. I have seen history and
philosophy abused (by both sides) and I wish to participate as a
contributing member of the debate. In light of many responses here, I must
evaluate my position in the a.a. NG. I will continue to offer for valid
history, rational philosophy, and romantic theism. However, I will try to be
a little bit clearer with my definitions, and a little bit less hostile to
some of my debate opponents. (Some, can I still be hostile a couple? I mean,
a few of these people {including a theist or 2} really irritate me!).
I have more questions, some building on the responses I got here, others
have arisen in the course of other threads in this NG. I will wait, and ask
those at another time, once I can evaluate atheist reactions to this post.
In conclusion, I would welcome any responses to this summation. How do you
feel about the responses of other atheists? Did you learn anything? I am
also interested in your opinions on the subject of individual theists,
several people mentioned theists they did not like (David Mathews, etc.),
are there any theist posters that you do like? Or can at least tolerate?
(Frank A.S. comes to mind)
Again thank you for your time,
Kestrel_Mp
Puck Greenman
<kestr...@hotmail.com<removetag>> wrote:
>
>Alikhat wrote in message <6vi9qo$e...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>>> 3a) If so, what sort of methods?
>>
>> Lemme ask *you* something; Would you be willing to go up in a jet knowing
>>that the ground crew's idea of an instrument check was praying to Jesus
>>that the plane didn't fall outt'a the sky after take-off?...Me neither.
>
>
>
>You are quite right on this point.
>
>Would you ask your parent, child, sibling, husband, wife, best friend, for
>scientific proof of their love?
>
You ask about five different feelings, and use one word to describe
them all.
Would I ask my parents? Believe it, I would.
My children? What does it matter how thy feel about me, all that
matters is how I feel about them.
My siblings? How they feel about me, is of no interest to me, nor
am I aware of any particular feelings toward them.
My wife? She is still with me, and I don't care why, all that
matters is that she is there. I don't know what love
is, I only know my own need, and my need, is to make
her happy, so that she wont want to leave me.
My best friend? I was just talking about her.
#################################################
# #
# The spelling, like any opinion stated here #
# #
# is purely my own. #
# #
# Puck #162 #
# #
# ICQ 15096558 #
# #
#################################################
.
Puck Greenman
<kestr...@hotmail.com<removetag>> wrote:
>
>In conclusion, I would welcome any responses to this summation. How do you
>feel about the responses of other atheists? Did you learn anything? I am
>also interested in your opinions on the subject of individual theists,
>several people mentioned theists they did not like (David Mathews, etc.),
>are there any theist posters that you do like? Or can at least tolerate?
>(Frank A.S. comes to mind)
Personaly, I have no strong feelings about any of the theists that
come in here, it is a game, a way of relaxing after a hard day.
I suspect that the some of the theists that post here feel the same.
I am also quite sure that one or two of them lost the plot long ago.
Tolerate them? Of course I can, I wouldn't be here if I couldn't.
Did I learn anything, not realy, what you have reported is about what
I expected
>
>Again thank you for your time,
You are welcome
What I do find slightly annoying, is the deliberatly provocotive sig.
used by many of the fundys, I dont mean the Lopez, Boatwright, or
Sinder type thing, they are ar best, a joke.
It is the snide ones, the "in jesus" and "god bless" sort of thing,
comming from seemingly intelligent people.
In signing this way, you show a total lack of respect for the feelings
and opinions of many of the members of this NG, but you expect us to
respect your own feelings and beliefs.
To put it into a more physical context:
That type of sig, is rather like having someone pat my cheek, I dont
care who it is, man, woman, or child, it is the one thing in the
world that can get me realy angry, I dont know why it is, but I have
always been that way.
I have, I believe, great self control, but no one gets a third
warning, and no one has ever touched my face a fourth time.
That sig type, is to many in the group, the same as that pat on the
cheek, innocuous to you, highly offensive me/others.
#################################################
# #
# The spelling, like any opinion stated here #
# #
# is purely my own. #
# #
# Puck #162 #
# #
# Headers are forged, to reach , use : #