Religion and Babylon 5
Daniel Tropea
For quite a few years some religious fanatics
have been moaning and groaning about
Star Trek.
But it seems like they are leaving B5 unscathed. This to me is
remarkable.
B5 delves right into Judeo/Christian beliefs
much more extensively. With the
infamous Shadow war with the Vorlons
being seen as Angels and the Shadows
as demons.
The entire saga could almost be called
biblical with Sinclair being the equivalent
of John the Baptist and Sheridan as being
Christ. Sheridan saved all mankind and
the universe literally from the evil of chaos
and the shadows.
In the last episode of season 4 he is seen
as a biblical messiah in 10000 years
from now.
The show has also shown man throwing
God out of the garden. When Sheridan
asked the First One to leave.
And yet the religious right seems to remain
silent. Any theories on why?
Captain Infinity
In rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5
In article <690t2n$88r$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
Daniel Tropea wrote:
I want to get this into the thread early:
o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> <o
(`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (~')
o> o> o> o> o> o> <o
(`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (~')
o> o> o> o> o> o> <o
(`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (~')
o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> <o
(`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (~')
o> o> o> o> <o
(`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (~')
o> o> o> o>
(`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) <o
o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> (~')
(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~) *mqs
Thank you.
**
Captain Infinity, F.E.W., Kamikaze Peep Squad
LisaB
Innf...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOCK.com (Captain Infinity) wrote:
>Daniel Tropea wrote:
>
>>For quite a few years some religious fanatics have been
>>moaning and groaning about Star Trek. But it seems like they
>>are leaving B5 unscathed. This to me is remarkable.
<snip>
>>Any theories on why?
>
>
>I want to get this into the thread early:
>
>
> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> <o
>(`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (~')
> o> o> o> o> o> o> <o
>(`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (~')
> o> o> o> o> o> o> <o
>(`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (~')
> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> <o
>(`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (~')
> o> o> o> o> <o
>(`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (~')
> o> o> o> o>
>(`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) <o
> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> (~')
>(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~) *mqs
>
I have to concur with my colleage on this one.
LisaB, Classified Dammit, KPS
jdn
LisaB wrote in message <34ba1591....@news.magicnet.net>...
I can't even read the damn thing. Bad ASCII art is so annoying.
jdn
Franklin Hummel
In article <690t2n$88r$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Daniel Tropea <Fals...@webtv.net> wrote:
>For quite a few years some religious fanatics
>have been moaning and groaning about
>Star Trek.
>But it seems like they are leaving B5 unscathed. This to me is
>remarkable.
>B5 delves right into Judeo/Christian beliefs
>much more extensively. With the
>infamous Shadow war with the Vorlons
>being seen as Angels and the Shadows
>as demons.
>The entire saga could almost be called
>biblical with Sinclair being the equivalent
>of John the Baptist and Sheridan as being
>Christ. Sheridan saved all mankind and
>the universe literally from the evil of chaos
>and the shadows.
>In the last episode of season 4 he is seen
>as a biblical messiah in 10000 years
>from now.
>The show has also shown man throwing
>God out of the garden. When Sheridan
>asked the First One to leave.
>And yet the religious right seems to remain
>silent. Any theories on why?
Because religion on B5 is shown cutting both ways. It shows the
good side and the bad side. It is shown as part of life. Giving that it
argues both sides of it and that while the show features religion in a
more postive way that STAR TREK every has, BABYLON 5's creator is an
athetist, nakes it difficult for the religious right to condemn or praise
it.
And, also simply put, BABYLON 5 does not have the public spotlight
in the way that now-a-cultural-icon STAR TREK does. You don't hear the
religious right discussing the Companions in EARTH: FINAL CONFLICT being
worshipped, do you?
-- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
--
====================================================================
* NecronomiCon, 4th Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention *
August 1999, Providence, RI * Guests: Fred Chappell & T.E.D. Klein
Visit our web site at: http://www.necropress.com/necronomicon
Ben Matterson
Captain Infinity wrote:
>
> In rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5
> In article <690t2n$88r$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>
> >For quite a few years some religious fanatics
> >have been moaning and groaning about
> >Star Trek.
>
> I want to get this into the thread early:
>
> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> <o
> (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (~')
> o> o> o> o> o> o> <o
> (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (~')
> o> o> o> o> o> o> <o
> (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (~')
> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> <o
> (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (~')
> o> o> o> o> <o
> (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (~')
> o> o> o> o>
> (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) <o
> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> (~')
> (`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~) *mqs
>
A bit showy, Captain, but I certainly can't disagree with the
seniment.
--
Ben - Admiral Dan, KPS
Dirk A. Loedding
In article <691c7g$j...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
"jdn" <king...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>LisaB wrote in message <34ba1591....@news.magicnet.net>...
>:Innf...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOCK.com (Captain Infinity) wrote:
>:>Daniel Tropea wrote:
>:>>For quite a few years some religious fanatics have been
>:>>moaning and groaning about Star Trek. But it seems like they
>:>>are leaving B5 unscathed. This to me is remarkable.
>:<snip>
>:>>Any theories on why?
>:>I want to get this into the thread early:
>:> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> <o
>:>(`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (~')
>:> o> o> o> o> o> o> <o
>:>(`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (~')
>:> o> o> o> o> o> o> <o
>:>(`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (~')
>:> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> <o
>:>(`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (~')
>:> o> o> o> o> <o
>:>(`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) (~')
>:> o> o> o> o>
>:>(`~) (`~) (`~) (`~) <o
>:> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> (~')
>:>(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~)(`~)(`~) (`~) *mqs
>:I have to concur with my colleage on this one.
>:LisaB, Classified Dammit, KPS
>I can't even read the damn thing. Bad ASCII art is so annoying.
>jdn
Try using a fixed font, rather than a proportional one. And, is there
really any question what Cap would be saying, anyway? :)
[extra lines to satisfy the server]
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dirk A. Loedding <*> ju...@america.net |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Scott Cantor
In article <EMGuF...@world.std.com>, hum...@world.std.com (Franklin Hummel) wrote:
>>And yet the religious right seems to remain
>>silent. Any theories on why?
>
> Because religion on B5 is shown cutting both ways. It shows the
>good side and the bad side.
That's a point as to why they've remained silent? That's usually the
easiest way to get a rise out 'em. Dare to imply religion might not be a
good thing. Doesn't matter if you try and give equal time, either.
>It is shown as part of life. Giving that it
>argues both sides of it and that while the show features religion in a
>more postive way that STAR TREK every has, BABYLON 5's creator is an
>athetist, nakes it difficult for the religious right to condemn or praise
>it.
The fact that he's an atheist (didn't know that, BTW) makes it hard for them
to condemn him? I'm missing something. As an agnostic who leans toward
atheism, I've never had trouble finding religious people to attack me. :)
> And, also simply put, BABYLON 5 does not have the public spotlight
>in the way that now-a-cultural-icon STAR TREK does. You don't hear the
>religious right discussing the Companions in EARTH: FINAL CONFLICT being
>worshipped, do you?
That's the real reason. They simply haven't seen it. Plus, the Catholics
are too busy protesting Nothing Sacred to notice the TNT ad blitz for B5.
--------
Scott Cantor When you are courting a nice girl, an hour seems
cant...@osu.edu like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder,
Univ Tech Services a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.
The Ohio State Univ - Albert Einstein
LisaB
Dirk, Dirk, Dirk. The claim of illegibility was a total ruse on
jdn's part. He was trying to get Scott to say, well, you know...
LisaB, Classified Dammit, K<censored>S
more stuff to make my newsreader happy
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Marty Cole
> >:>Daniel Tropea wrote:
>
> >:>>For quite a few years some religious fanatics have been
> >:>>moaning and groaning about Star Trek. But it seems like they
> >:>>are leaving B5 unscathed. This to me is remarkable.
> >:<snip>
> >:>>Any theories on why?
>
Maybe they're not watching it?
--
R. Martin Cole, III O-
mar...@ix.netcom.com
Barometer: An ingenious instrument which indicates what kind of weather
we are having.
jdn
LisaB wrote in message <34b8b6a8...@news.magicnet.net>...
:Dirk, Dirk, Dirk. The claim of illegibility was a total ruse on
:jdn's part. He was trying to get Scott to say, well, you know...
:
:LisaB, Classified Dammit, K<censored>S
Say what? "Ni"? "It"?
Oh, you mean that lame, contrived, "ooh, we took over a dead newsgroup,
aren't we neat," "we have to fight the evil purple bunnies" shit?
Nah, I'd never do such a thing.
"Pippen."
"Ho-ho's."
Damn same thing.
jdn
Michael Johnson
On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 22:14:42 GMT, cant...@osu.edu (Scott Cantor)
wrote:
>In article <EMGuF...@world.std.com>, hum...@world.std.com (Franklin Hummel) wrote:
>>>And yet the religious right seems to remain
>>>silent. Any theories on why?
>>
>> Because religion on B5 is shown cutting both ways. It shows the
>>good side and the bad side.
>
>That's a point as to why they've remained silent? That's usually the
>easiest way to get a rise out 'em. Dare to imply religion might not be a
>good thing. Doesn't matter if you try and give equal time, either.
The real reason is simple.. the stories that are written are well done
and without a particular bias to one over the other.
-MJ
jdn
Michael Johnson wrote in message <34b6f9dd...@news.connectnet.com>...
:On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 22:14:42 GMT, cant...@osu.edu (Scott Cantor)
Oh, okay, I'll bite.
What's the bad side shown on Bab5?
jdn
Franklin Hummel
In article <696vg1$f...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Fanaticism. And showing that what is sometimes believe to be
holy is often not. (Vorlons being angels is one example.)
Robert Cook
"jdn" <king...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Oh, okay, I'll bite.
>What's the bad side shown on Bab5?
Well, there was one episode where a family let their child die because
having him/her treated was against their religion..
Robert M. Cook
co...@sos.net
NEW ISP-MANDATED WWW ADDRESS:
http://www.sos.net/~cook/index.htm
Gareth Wilson
Franklin Hummel wrote:
> >And yet the religious right seems to remain
> >silent. Any theories on why?
> argues both sides of it and that while the show features religion in a
> more postive way that STAR TREK every has, BABYLON 5's creator is an
> athetist, nakes it difficult for the religious right to condemn or praise
> it.
>
> in the way that now-a-cultural-icon STAR TREK does.
on...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Christchurch
New Zealand
remove "xxx" from address to reply
Commercial e-mail will be deleted unread
"Medical personnel pick their noses
three times an hour, on average"
-Nurse, "ER"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
j plummer
jdn wrote:
>
> Michael Johnson wrote in message <34b6f9dd...@news.connectnet.com>...
> :On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 22:14:42 GMT, cant...@osu.edu (Scott Cantor)
> :wrote:
> :
> :>In article <EMGuF...@world.std.com>, hum...@world.std.com (Franklin
> :>>>And yet the religious right seems to remain
> :>>>silent. Any theories on why?
> :>> Because religion on B5 is shown cutting both ways. It shows the
> :>>good side and the bad side.
> :>
> :>That's a point as to why they've remained silent? That's usually the
> :>easiest way to get a rise out 'em. Dare to imply religion might not be a
> :>good thing. Doesn't matter if you try and give equal time, either.
> :
> :The real reason is simple.. the stories that are written are well done
> :and without a particular bias to one over the other.
> :
> : -MJ
>
> Oh, okay, I'll bite.
>
> What's the bad side shown on Bab5?
>
Well, for starters, all those angels people have being seeing have
actually been aliens lying to and manipulating us.
RDAB
Gareth Wilson wrote:
>
> Franklin Hummel wrote:
> > >And yet the religious right seems to remain
> > >silent. Any theories on why?
> > argues both sides of it and that while the show features religion in a
> > more postive way that STAR TREK every has, BABYLON 5's creator is an
> > athetist, nakes it difficult for the religious right to condemn or praise
> > it.
> >
> > And, also simply put, BABYLON 5 does not have the public spotlight
> > in the way that now-a-cultural-icon STAR TREK does.
> Plus the religious right is probably in bed by the time B5 used to come
> on...
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Gareth Wilson
> Christchurch
> New Zealand
> remove "xxx" from address to reply
> Commercial e-mail will be deleted unread
> "Medical personnel pick their noses
> three times an hour, on average"
> -Nurse, "ER"
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
his stories, and some of the dialogue and hints throughout the show.
Look at the time when Ivanonva said I am God, but when the camera change
angles and then came back to her she looked up as if she was looking at
the sky and said kidding about the god part. He is always talking about
stuff from the bible, like Garibaldi talking about the last man that
turned traitor got thirty pieces of silver, once again reffering to
judas. And again some of the titles that are thrown out there,
soulhunter, the holy grail, IN THE BEGINNING, and so on. Something tells
me you have your facts wrong.
jdn
RDAB wrote in message <34BA0C...@prodigy.net>...
:First off where do you get that JMS is an athiest. Look at the title of
:his stories, and some of the dialogue and hints throughout the show.
:Look at the time when Ivanonva said I am God, but when the camera change
:angles and then came back to her she looked up as if she was looking at
:the sky and said kidding about the god part. He is always talking about
:stuff from the bible, like Garibaldi talking about the last man that
:turned traitor got thirty pieces of silver, once again reffering to
:judas. And again some of the titles that are thrown out there,
:soulhunter, the holy grail, IN THE BEGINNING, and so on. Something tells
:me you have your facts wrong.
jms is a self-professed Atheist, and has said so on a number of occasions.
One can be an Atheist while also using biblical references and presenting
religion even-handedly, as he has generally done.
jdn
Pioneer
In article <34BA0C...@prodigy.net>, RD...@prodigy.net wrote:
<snip>
> First off where do you get that JMS is an athiest.
He said so. He has written so. I do believe that he worked a bit for/with
American Atheists down in Texas (but I may be incorrect on that point)
Roddenbery was openly a humanist and very non-theistic in his views. I find
this to be a very interesting parallel. Boty non-theistic, both pretty much
sole-creators of fantastic science-fiction TV series against great odds and
with large fan-followings, both attempting to explore human nature and the
human condition.
Very interesting prallels. How much simply coincidental?
Look at the title of
> his stories, and some of the dialogue and hints throughout the show.
And?
> Look at the time when Ivanonva said I am God, but when the camera change
> angles and then came back to her she looked up as if she was looking at
> the sky and said kidding about the god part.
And?
Look at the episode "Parliament of Dreams" where earth belief systems are
introduced - who's first? An atheist. Naturally this does not "prove" that
JMS is an atheist - it doesn't prove anything. Any more than what you write
about "proves" anything.
What counts is what JMS has said about his religious beliefs. He has none.
He has no beliefs in any supernatural gods. He may even deny that a bunch
of them exist.
He is always talking about
> stuff from the bible, like Garibaldi talking about the last man that
> turned traitor got thirty pieces of silver, once again reffering to
> judas.
And? The bible is a great source for mythology - and of course, he draws in
mythology from all over the world. He has also made use of Arthurian
legends - but that doesn't mean that he believes them to be factual, now
does it?
And again some of the titles that are thrown out there,
> soulhunter, the holy grail, IN THE BEGINNING, and so on. Something tells
> me you have your facts wrong.
Sorry, but you do.
--
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher
esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
- Nietzsche "The Dawn" (1881)
Prodigal
RDAB wrote in message <34BA0C...@prodigy.net>...
>First off where do you get that JMS is an athiest. Look at the title of
From his public statements that he is an athiest. JMS may have studied
religion extensively, but none of it actually took.
Aaron Bergman
:First off where do you get that JMS is an athiest.
JMS stating it numerous times online probably has given us some clue.
:Look at the title of
:his stories, and some of the dialogue and hints throughout the show.
:Look at the time when Ivanonva said I am God, but when the camera change
:angles and then came back to her she looked up as if she was looking at
:the sky and said kidding about the god part. He is always talking about
:stuff from the bible, like Garibaldi talking about the last man that
:turned traitor got thirty pieces of silver, once again reffering to
:judas. And again some of the titles that are thrown out there,
:soulhunter, the holy grail, IN THE BEGINNING, and so on. Something tells
:me you have your facts wrong.
Actually, B5 has a large number of anti-religious undertones. Not in terms
of being anti-specific relgion or portraying religious people in a bad
way, but on a more intellectual level. The speech at the end of "Into the
Fire", for example.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://pantheon.yale.edu/~abergman/>
The smallest number not expressable in under ten words
Michael Johnson
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 12:30:51 +0000, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Gareth Wilson
>> Christchurch
>> New Zealand
>> remove "xxx" from address to reply
>> Commercial e-mail will be deleted unread
>> "Medical personnel pick their noses
>> three times an hour, on average"
>> -Nurse, "ER"
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>First off where do you get that JMS is an athiest.
Actually..hate to burst your bubble but JMS is quite open about the
fact that he is an athiest. He is just not anti-religion because of
it.
-MJ
electric_blue
j plummer wrote:
> Well, for starters, all those angels people have being seeing have
> actually been aliens lying to and manipulating us.
I'd been wondering myself why I hadn't heard any religious objetions to the
show after that episode with Kosh. Anyone want to hazzard a guess?
RDAB
Matthew Murray
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, RDAB wrote:
> First off where do you get that JMS is an athiest. Look at the title of
Maybe because jms has >said< that he's an atheist?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is how the world ends. Swallowed in fire, but not in darkness. You will
live on, the voice of all our ancestors, the voice of our fathers and our
mothers to the last generation. We created the world we think you would have
wished for us, and now we leave the cradle for the last time."
-J. Michael Straczynski, "The Deconstruction of Falling Stars"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Babylon 5's Fifth Season Begins January 21, 1998
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew A. Murray - mmu...@cc.wwu.edu - http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Thatcher
In article <34BA8811...@bigfoot.com>,
How about, "since angels *are* real, it is only logical that the Vorlons
would choose that image for themselves as a way of manipulating humanity.
But remember that in logic, although the statement 'All Vorlons appear
as Angels" may be true, the converse, 'All agelic-appearing beings are
Vorlons' is not automatically true."
--
Tom Thatcher | You can give a PC to a Homo habilis,
University of Rochester Cancer Center | and he'll use it, but he'll use it
tt...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu | to crack nuts.
Eric DeFonso
In article <34BA49...@prodigy.net>, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Michael Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 12:30:51 +0000, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> >First off where do you get that JMS is an athiest.
>>
>> fact that he is an athiest. He is just not anti-religion because of
>> it.
>>
>> -MJ
>THANKS FOR RUINING BY LOVE OF THE SHOW!!!!!!!
Wow. That was easy.
While we're on the subject of ruining your day.....I must report to you
that there is no easter bunny, santa claus, or tooth fairy. I'm also very
doubtful of the existence of the great pumpkin, but I'm still checking on
that.
--
Eric D UC Davis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enough with the sound bites already!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Johnson
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 16:49:32 +0000, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Michael Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 12:30:51 +0000, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >> Gareth Wilson
>> >> Christchurch
>> >> New Zealand
>> >> remove "xxx" from address to reply
>> >> Commercial e-mail will be deleted unread
>> >> "Medical personnel pick their noses
>> >> three times an hour, on average"
>> >> -Nurse, "ER"
>> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >First off where do you get that JMS is an athiest.
>>
>> Actually..hate to burst your bubble but JMS is quite open about the
>> fact that he is an athiest. He is just not anti-religion because of
>> it.
>>
>> -MJ
>THANKS FOR RUINING BY LOVE OF THE SHOW!!!!!!!
You really have to be kidding! So.. it is your contention that only a
person that believes in religion can write about religion? That is a
rather narrow view.
-MJ
LisaB
electric_blue <skil...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>
>j plummer wrote:
>
>> Well, for starters, all those angels people have being seeing have
>> actually been aliens lying to and manipulating us.
>
> I'd been wondering myself why I hadn't heard any religious objetions to the
>show after that episode with Kosh. Anyone want to hazzard a guess?
My guess is the religious right has their plate fairly full with
"Ellen" and Disney boycotts.
Seriously, B5 has not yet risen to the level of prominence that would
make a protest of the show sufficiently "newsworthy".
LisaB
Franklin Hummel
In article <34BA0C...@prodigy.net>, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because he has said he is many, many times. Go to the newsgroup
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated and ask him yourself.
>his stories, and some of the dialogue and hints throughout the show.
>Look at the time when Ivanonva said I am God, but when the camera change
>angles and then came back to her she looked up as if she was looking at
>the sky and said kidding about the god part. He is always talking about
>stuff from the bible, like Garibaldi talking about the last man that
>turned traitor got thirty pieces of silver, once again reffering to
>judas. And again some of the titles that are thrown out there,
>soulhunter, the holy grail, IN THE BEGINNING, and so on. Something tells
>me you have your facts wrong.
He has them right.
JMS said he has read the Bible twice. This does not mean he
believes it.
Nyrath the nearly wise
In rec.arts.sf.tv RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 12:30:51 +0000, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>> fact that he is an athiest. He is just not anti-religion because of
>> it.
>> -MJ
> THANKS FOR RUINING BY LOVE OF THE SHOW!!!!!!!
I assume you ment "*my* love of the show".
All I can say is: "The truth never hurts,
unless it ought to..."
If you study the religious overtones of the various
Babylon 5 episodes, you will find that they
show a surprising grasp of religion and the
associated issues. The fact that they were
written by an atheist should tell you something.
What was your reaction to the episode
DUST TO DUST?
..... spoilers follow ....
How would you have reacted if the Vorlon
had, instead of hoodwinking G'Kar into
thinking that he was speaking to G'Quon,
hoodwinked Sheridan into thinking
that he was speaking to Jesus? It is exactly
the same thing.
--
* A B S I T * I N V I D I A * V E R B O ** I D E M * S O N A N S *
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| WINCHELL CHUNG http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/home.html |
| Nyrath the nearly wise nyr...@clark.net |
+---_---+---------------------[ SURREAL SAGE SEZ: ]--------------------------+
| /_\ | A cult is a religion with no political power. |
| <(*)> | |
|/_/|\_\| |
| //|\\ | |
+///|\\\+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
RDAB
Eric DeFonso wrote:
>
> In article <34BA49...@prodigy.net>, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >Michael Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 12:30:51 +0000, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >> >First off where do you get that JMS is an athiest.
> >>
> >> Actually..hate to burst your bubble but JMS is quite open about the
> >> fact that he is an athiest. He is just not anti-religion because of
> >> it.
> >>
> >> -MJ
> >THANKS FOR RUINING BY LOVE OF THE SHOW!!!!!!!
>
>
> While we're on the subject of ruining your day.....I must report to you
> that there is no easter bunny, santa claus, or tooth fairy. I'm also very
> doubtful of the existence of the great pumpkin, but I'm still checking on
> that.
>
> --
> Eric D UC Davis
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enough with the sound bites already!!!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPACE NINE FAN
Ben Matterson
> >THANKS FOR RUINING BY LOVE OF THE SHOW!!!!!!!
>
> You really have to be kidding! So.. it is your contention that only a
> person that believes in religion can write about religion? That is a
> rather narrow view.
A religious zealot with a narrow view? What a concept!
--
Ben
TMB
That's not going to look too good on your resume in front of St Peter,
Dude!
Yet another for the Killfile
TMB
--
Illegitimati non carborundum
RDAB wrote in article <34BA89...@prodigy.net>...
****All Caps childish profanity pecked out on Daddy's 'puter before he got
home deleted by me****
Matthew Murray
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Franklin Hummel wrote:
> JMS said he has read the Bible twice. This does not mean he
> believes it.
Actually, he said he is an atheist >because< he read the Bible
twice, if I'm not mistaken.
Platinum Dragon
RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> said to a First One:
>First off where do you get that JMS is an athiest.
Well, I suppose the man's own words count for something. He has said,
publicly, many times, he is an atheist.
(snipped utter disbelief that a guy who constantly brings up religious
themes and innuendos in his writing can be an atheist)
Nope. He just likes exploring religious angles. He also likes taking
religious symbols, like angels, and doing different things with them.
PD <*> "Even when they're crappy they're good."
-Adam K. Bailey, about Metallica
Bug me at:
E-mail: ten.mocniw at woklaibt
IRC (DALnet): #Z'ha'dum, #teenz_love, #aol-sucks
WWW: under overhaul - don't bother
ICQ: 3198979
Ubiquitous
In article <EMGuF...@world.std.com>, hum...@world.std.com (Franklin Hummel) says:
>Daniel Tropea <Fals...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>For quite a few years some religious fanatics have been moaning
>>and groaning about Star Trek. But it seems like they are leaving
>>B5 unscathed. This to me is remarkable.
>> [...]
>>Any theories on why?
>
> Because religion on B5 is shown cutting both ways. It shows the
>good side and the bad side. It is shown as part of life. Giving that it
>argues both sides of it and that while the show features religion in a
>more postive way that STAR TREK every has, BABYLON 5's creator is an
>athetist, nakes it difficult for the religious right to condemn or praise
>it.
I don't think 'trek has ever shown religion in a good light; in fact,
didn't Picard make the claim that man had "outgrown silly things like
religion"?
==============================================================================
"Gay people, well, gay people are EVIL, evil right down to their
cold black hearts which pump not blood like yours or mine, but
rather a thick, vomitous oil that oozes through their rotten
veins and clots in their pea-sized brains which becomes the
cause of their nazi-esque patterns of violent behavior. Do
you understand?"
Franklin Hummel
>>
>> fact that he is an athiest. He is just not anti-religion because of
>> it.
>>
*sigh*
Franklin Hummel
In article <34ba9975...@news.connectnet.com>,
Michael Johnson <d...@connectnet.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 16:49:32 +0000, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 12:30:51 +0000, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >First off where do you get that JMS is an athiest.
>>>
>>> Actually..hate to burst your bubble but JMS is quite open about the
>>> fact that he is an athiest. He is just not anti-religion because of
>>> it.
>>> -MJ
>>THANKS FOR RUINING BY LOVE OF THE SHOW!!!!!!!
>
>You really have to be kidding! So.. it is your contention that only a
>person that believes in religion can write about religion? That is a
>rather narrow view.
Maybe I should tell him about the convent where all the nuns get
together and watch BABYLON 5.
Bip
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
One of the best episodes (in my opinion) in season 1 was the episode dealing
with the alien family that wouldn't let Franklin operate on their child. (I
think June Lockhart was a guest star in this one.) If memory serves, it was
a stab at Christian scientists who don't believe in medicine and surgery.
The family wouldn't allow it because they believed that if you cut someone
open, their soul is released (or something like that). Franklin goes ahead
anyway and saves the kid, but the kid is shunned by his family. Just when
you think the episode has a nice, neat, tidy Star Trek ending, you find out
the parents murder the child because "he was already dead" without his soul.
I'm surprised there was no religious backlash over this one.
smegger
jdn wrote in message <696vg1$f...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>Michael Johnson wrote in message <34b6f9dd...@news.connectnet.com>...
>:On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 22:14:42 GMT, cant...@osu.edu (Scott Cantor)
>:wrote:
>:
>:>In article <EMGuF...@world.std.com>, hum...@world.std.com (Franklin
>Hummel) wrote:
>:>>>And yet the religious right seems to remain
>:>>>silent. Any theories on why?
>:>>
>:>> Because religion on B5 is shown cutting both ways. It shows the
>:>>good side and the bad side.
Michael Johnson
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 21:20:09 +0000, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Eric DeFonso wrote:
>>
>> In article <34BA49...@prodigy.net>, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> >Michael Johnson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 12:30:51 +0000, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >> >First off where do you get that JMS is an athiest.
>> >>
>> >> Actually..hate to burst your bubble but JMS is quite open about the
>> >> fact that he is an athiest. He is just not anti-religion because of
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >> -MJ
>> >THANKS FOR RUINING BY LOVE OF THE SHOW!!!!!!!
>>
>> Wow. That was easy.
>>
>> While we're on the subject of ruining your day.....I must report to you
>> that there is no easter bunny, santa claus, or tooth fairy. I'm also very
>> doubtful of the existence of the great pumpkin, but I'm still checking on
>> that.
>>
>> --
>> Eric D UC Davis
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Enough with the sound bites already!!!
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>YOU ARE A REAL FUCKING DICK HEAD, YOU KNOW THAT. YOU MUST
>BE A DEEP SPACE NINE FAN
Actually... i think the term 'smart ass' would have been more like it.
As per you, you really do seem to have your shoes on too tight,
because you have forgotten how to dance.
-MJ
Michael Johnson
>
>In article <34ba9975...@news.connectnet.com>,
>Michael Johnson <d...@connectnet.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 16:49:32 +0000, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 12:30:51 +0000, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >First off where do you get that JMS is an athiest.
>>>>
>>>> Actually..hate to burst your bubble but JMS is quite open about the
>>>> fact that he is an athiest. He is just not anti-religion because of
>>>> it.
>>>> -MJ
>>>THANKS FOR RUINING BY LOVE OF THE SHOW!!!!!!!
>>
>>You really have to be kidding! So.. it is your contention that only a
>>person that believes in religion can write about religion? That is a
>>rather narrow view.
>
>
> Maybe I should tell him about the convent where all the nuns get
>together and watch BABYLON 5.
Bah.. he'd probably dismiss it as satan's propaganda machine at work.
-MJ
Chris Spencer
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:06:24 GMT, hum...@world.std.com (Franklin Hummel) wrote:
>In article <34BA49...@prodigy.net>, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 12:30:51 +0000, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>> >First off where do you get that JMS is an athiest.
>>>
>>> Actually..hate to burst your bubble but JMS is quite open about the
>>> fact that he is an athiest. He is just not anti-religion because of
>>> it.
>>>
>
>
There certainly are some stupid people out there. How could JMS' belief
system have ANYTHING to do with your enjoyment of the show? I think Franklin's
response is too subdued here. My response is...
Flabbergasted, amused, horrified, suprised, boggled, and not a little bit angry.
JMS may have much respect for religion, but I must say that I do not.
Call it lack of maturity on my part. I feel that anyone who is so brainwashed
by their belief system that they can not enjoy a TV show written by a person
with another belief system must have a weak mind.
Too many people in this world have died because of religious fanaticism.
They are *still* dying because of it.
I guess this person still thinks the world is flat, that the earth is at
the center of the universe, and that there are witches who should be burned at
the stake.
GROW UP. Your religion is nothing but a fragile shell of broken
promises and boldfaced lies.
Chris.
James Battista
electric_blue (skil...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: j plummer wrote:
: > Well, for starters, all those angels people have being seeing have
: > actually been aliens lying to and manipulating us.
: I'd been wondering myself why I hadn't heard any religious objetions to the
: show after that episode with Kosh. Anyone want to hazzard a guess?
Because there's not anything antireligious about it.
Just because I pretend to be a tadpole doesn't mean there aren't real tadpoles.
Just because Vorlons pretend to be angels doesn't imply anything about the
existence of 'real' angels, gods, demons, what have you.
Jim
James S. Coleman Battista
PhD candidate, Dept of Political Science, Duke Univ.
james.b...@duke.edu
king of the impossible
Mike Griffith
>
> publicly, many times, he is an atheist.
>
> (snipped utter disbelief that a guy who constantly brings up religious
> themes and innuendos in his writing can be an atheist)
>
> Nope. He just likes exploring religious angles. He also likes taking
> religious symbols, like angels, and doing different things with them.
>
> PD <*> "Even when they're crappy they're good."
> -Adam K. Bailey, about Metallica
> Bug me at:
> E-mail: ten.mocniw at woklaibt
> IRC (DALnet): #Z'ha'dum, #teenz_love, #aol-sucks
> WWW: under overhaul - don't bother
> ICQ: 3198979
He is also trying to let you know that it is very possible fo ran alien
species to pretend that they are a god and manipulate the people.
Mike
Franklin Hummel
In article <34BA89...@prodigy.net>, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Eric DeFonso wrote:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>YOU ARE A REAL FUCKING DICK HEAD, YOU KNOW THAT. YOU MUST BE A DEEP
>SPACE NINE FAN
You know, we really need to introduce Eric here to TVsPerkins.
They would do quite well together, I think.
Nina & Akiva Smith
his own straw man and knocks it down. I didn't see the show in
question, but if the family were space aliens, with a space-alien (in
other words, fictional) religion that prohibited surgery, nobody is
really being insulted. Now, if the family were Earth people actually
identified as Christian Scientists, that would be different. And it
wouldn't take that much nerve either, as that conflict has long been a
staple of doctor dramas (in the last few years it's turned up on
Chicago Hope, and even on the ludicrous one-season embarrassment
University Hospital) without attracting much media attention.
nina
Pioneer
In article <34bb732e...@nntp.one.net>, clsp...@one.net (Chris
Spencer) wrote:
<snip>
> JMS may have much respect for religion, but I must say that I do not.
> Call it lack of maturity on my part.
I wouldn't call it a lack of maturity. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Religions are irrational belief systems. No one should accord them any more
or less respect than they accord a variety of other irrational belief
systems. Examples include the belief in a flat earth; that aliens are
trying to control your mind via your microwave; crystal power; irrational
political systems (which shall remain namless, but which are also obvious);
etc.
Just because a religion is a *popular* irrational belief does not make it
any more justified or worthy of respect.
--
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher
esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
- Nietzsche "The Dawn" (1881)
jdn
Pioneer wrote in message ...
:In article <34bb732e...@nntp.one.net>, clsp...@one.net (Chris
:Spencer) wrote:
:
:<snip>
:
:> JMS may have much respect for religion, but I must say that I do
not.
:> Call it lack of maturity on my part.
:
:I wouldn't call it a lack of maturity. Quite the opposite, in fact.
:
:Religions are irrational belief systems.
<snip of drivel>
Now, *that's* a troll. Good example.
jdn
Eric DeFonso
>> >THANKS FOR RUINING BY LOVE OF THE SHOW!!!!!!!
>>
>> Wow. That was easy.
>>
>> While we're on the subject of ruining your day.....I must report to you
>> that there is no easter bunny, santa claus, or tooth fairy. I'm also very
>> doubtful of the existence of the great pumpkin, but I'm still checking on
>> that.
>YOU ARE A REAL FUCKING DICK HEAD, YOU KNOW THAT. YOU MUST BE A DEEP
>SPACE NINE FAN
Funny you should bring that up - I actually didn't start watching B5 until
about a year and a half ago. At the time, I actually *was* a mild DS9 fan.
However, after the onslaught of what I thought were some lousy
developments in the Trek Universe (ST:FC, the DS9 ep where they go back in
time to visit Kirk, the entire Voyager franchise, etc.) I went in search
of a replacement show. I had heard about B5 before, but never really
looked into it since it was on at a very inconvenient time, and what
snippets I had seen made it clear that I had missed a lot of backstory. At
least I could always figure out what was going on at DS9, even if I'd not
seen the show in a while. But, I just stopped caring - the stories had
become too ridiculous for me.
I decided to make the effort to figure out what was going on in
the B5 Universe. The CGI caught my eye - and the show seemed so much more
sober. I visited the Lurker's web page and the Encyclopedia Xenobiologica
web site, and started cramming. (Also, finally getting a VCR helped). As
soon as I did, I wished I had known sooner what I'd been missing. B5
seemed so much more serious and so much less gimmicky - after all the
insults to my intelligence from other Trek offerings at the time, B5 was
like a breath of fresh air. That's not to say that I think the show is
perfect - but it was definitely a vast improvement. I even got a couple of
my friends here, who had also previously been exclusively Trek fans, to
start watching. Now, we never miss a single show.
I still catch DS9 occasionally - I do think there's some good
dialogue there, and I think the acting is generally very good. But the
direction of the show is lacking for my tastes, and besides, it's too late
now - I'm definitely hooked on B5. That I can now watch all the episodes
that I missed is very satisfying - and even knowing where the show is
going overall doesn't seem to diminish my interest even in these first
season episodes.
But anyway, back to you. If finding out that the creator of the show is an
atheist ruins your whole experience, then you are one shallow individual.
I wanted to think that I was mistaken about that, but your subsequent
puerile insult reinforces my initial belief.
Surprise me, and give me a real explanation. Be an adult and just
deal with the reality - use that lump of neurons that you've been blessed
with, and think: "Why do I feel threatened by the spiritual orientation of
the show's creator?"
Pioneer
In article <69ga2j$o...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, "jdn"
<king...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Pioneer wrote in message ...
> :I wouldn't call it a lack of maturity. Quite the opposite, in fact.
> :
> :Religions are irrational belief systems.
>
> <snip of drivel>
Notice the in ability to form a rational rebuttal to anything written.
> Now, *that's* a troll. Good example.
No, it's not a troll. It's an honest statement. A troll is statement not
honestly believed and made in order to elicit a reaction.
Religions and belief in them are not fundamentally founded on logic,
reason, and evidence. They require faith. Thus they are, by definition,
irrational. If the irrationality of religious beliefs bothers you, don't
believe them.
But if the above is your limit in ability to respond to those who don't
agree with you, I suggest you refrain from bothering yourself. You just
make yourself look foolish.
John W. Kennedy
In <34BA89...@prodigy.net>, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> writes:
>Eric DeFonso wrote:
>>
>> In article <34BA49...@prodigy.net>, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 12:30:51 +0000, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> >> >First off where do you get that JMS is an athiest.
>> >>
>> >> fact that he is an athiest. He is just not anti-religion because of
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >THANKS FOR RUINING BY LOVE OF THE SHOW!!!!!!!
>>
>> Wow. That was easy.
>>
>> While we're on the subject of ruining your day.....I must report to you
>> that there is no easter bunny, santa claus, or tooth fairy. I'm also very
>> doubtful of the existence of the great pumpkin, but I'm still checking on
>> that.
>>
>> Eric D UC Davis
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Enough with the sound bites already!!!
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>SPACE NINE FAN
I would just like, as a Christian, to apologize to the newsgroups at large
on behalf of my -- errr.... -- weaker brother. I would like to make some
joke about having him thrown to the lions, but it wouldn't really serve,
would it?
What can I say? The fact that some people use their idea of American
patriotism to justify racism, social Darwinism, and God-knows-what-else
damnable nonsense doesn't mean that, on the whole, the USA isn't one
of the more decent nations in history. Same thing for religions.
And, of course, some people can't see the difference between the
theological virtue of Faith and brand-name loyalty.
Jonathan Jarrard
What about Mr. Hanky, the Christmas Poo?
James Battista
Pioneer (Pio...@infidels.org) wrote:
: In article <34bb732e...@nntp.one.net>, clsp...@one.net (Chris
: Spencer) wrote:
: <snip>
: > JMS may have much respect for religion, but I must say that I do not.
: > Call it lack of maturity on my part.
: I wouldn't call it a lack of maturity. Quite the opposite, in fact.
: Religions are irrational belief systems.
Nonrational n.e. irrational, which connotes subrational.
Love, pity, and compassion are nonrational, but I hope that you
don't intend to impugn them.
: No one should accord them any more
: or less respect than they accord a variety of other irrational belief
: systems. Examples include the belief in a flat earth;
Believing that the Earth is flat is an entirely rational conclusion
drawn from incorrect premises, and ignoring some data. You're working
against yourself here by showing that rationality is susceptible to
error as 'irrationality' is.
: that aliens are
: trying to control your mind via your microwave; crystal power; irrational
: political systems (which shall remain namless, but which are also obvious);
: etc.
The last is what gets me going. I don't whether you mean to insult the
far right, the far left, communitarians, libertarians, nonlibertarians,
nonanarchists, or what -- it's not at all obvious which political
systems are 'irrational,' which apparently equals 'bad' in your mind.
In any case, all political systems or lack thereof are 'irrational'
in that they are suboptimal and inefficient, including recourse to
the market, minarchy, anarchy, communism, what have you. A weakly-
defined optimal political system is absolutely, fundamentally impossible.
Kenneth Arrow got a Nobel for proving this in, IIRC, 1951. Do a search
for _Social Choice and Individual Values_, the Arrow Theorem,
Arrow's impossibility theorem, or Arrovian dictator. Any of these should
get you to one or another version of the proof.
: Just because a religion is a *popular* irrational belief does not make it
: any more justified or worthy of respect.
So love and compassion are no more worthy of respect than paranoid delusions?
Ugh.
jdn
Oh, he's real.
jdn
Jonathan Jarrard wrote in message <34BBC3...@ah1170.pto.ford.com>...
:What about Mr. Hanky, the Christmas Poo?
jdn
Pioneer wrote in message ...
:In article <69ga2j$o...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, "jdn"
:<king...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:
:> Pioneer wrote in message ...
:
:> :I wouldn't call it a lack of maturity. Quite the opposite, in fact.
:> :
:> :Religions are irrational belief systems.
:>
:> <snip of drivel>
:
:Notice the in ability to form a rational rebuttal to anything written.
:
:> Now, *that's* a troll. Good example.
:
:No, it's not a troll. It's an honest statement. A troll is statement not
:honestly believed and made in order to elicit a reaction.
:
:Religions and belief in them are not fundamentally founded on logic,
:reason, and evidence. They require faith. Thus they are, by definition,
:irrational. If the irrationality of religious beliefs bothers you, don't
:believe them.
:
:But if the above is your limit in ability to respond to those who don't
:agree with you, I suggest you refrain from bothering yourself. You just
:make yourself look foolish.
:
Cap? Lisa? Blackhawk? Should I?
Oh, what the hell, it's a troll, I'll hook myself.
Consider the following two statements:
A) Belief in religion, by definition, is irrational.
B) Belief in atheism, by definition, is evil.
Both statements are grammatically and logically equivalent in structure.
They are both false (not to mention entirely goofy) and based only on views
of religion and atheism that are simple-minded and myopic, not to mention
factually-incorrect.
If you'd like to see one of the *many* ways in which an attempt to ground
religion on logic and reason was made, try reading Aquinas or Anselm.
But you haven't, of course, offered any real reasons in support of your
opinion, other than "If it requires faith, then it is by definition
irrational." Not to mention that this ignores the difference between
something being irrational and non-rational, there are many rational
inquiries which require faith. Do a keyword search on "faith" at DejaNews
to see one of the umpteen discussions of it from this very newsgroup.
I shouldn't have to add that this has nothing to do with whether any
particular religion is true or false, or if atheism is true or false, but it
seems to be a particular difficulty that some people have when discussing
religion to grasp this, so I add it (then again, I never said faith was good
or bad, unlike your implication, which, of course, you didn't support with
anything).
So, although there probably exists a tradition within just about every
religion I can think of where some faction accepts the idea that religion is
completely and utterly based on faith, if you really think that by
definition religion must be separate from logic, reason, and, oh yes,
evidence, and must be by definition irrational, then you don't even know
what religion is.
So, flame-away troll-boy, it's your turn!!!!
jdn
By the way, even if one honestly believed the statement "O'Hare was fired
from Babylon 5 by the suits because his acting sucked," uttering such a
thing on rastb5unruly would still, almost undoubtedly, constitute being a
troll.
jdn
Pioneer wrote in message ...
:Religions and belief in them are not fundamentally founded on logic,
:reason, and evidence. They require faith.
Speaking of faith, anybody taking the Broncos and the points?
jdn
Pioneer
Follow-ups altered to appropriate newsgroups.
In article <69ghdm$7...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, "jdn"
<king...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Consider the following two statements:
>
> A) Belief in religion, by definition, is irrational.
>
> B) Belief in atheism, by definition, is evil.
>
> Both statements are grammatically and logically equivalent in structure.
Except for the fact that it makes more sense to say someone "believes in"
religion, which has something to "believe in" than it does to say that
someone "believes in" atheism which doesn't postulate anything to "believe
in."
So I guess they aren't so equivalent. You're off to pretty poor start.
> They are both false (not to mention entirely goofy) and based only on views
> of religion and atheism that are simple-minded and myopic, not to mention
> factually-incorrect.
A rational belief is one that is a justified belief based sufficiently on
reason, logic, and evidence. That which isn't, is irrational.
If religion is not irrational, then can you think of any belief which *is*
irrational?
> If you'd like to see one of the *many* ways in which an attempt to ground
> religion on logic and reason was made, try reading Aquinas or Anselm.
Been there. Done that. Many times.
Key word: *attempt*. In the end, they reduce to mere assertion instead of
logic, reason, and evidence. In this way they are easily refutable.
Perhaps you imagine that I haven't spent gobs of time dealing with
religion, its history, its roots, and its present effects on society?
> But you haven't, of course, offered any real reasons in support of your
> opinion, other than "If it requires faith, then it is by definition
> irrational."
That's how it's defined in terms of emprical beliefs. If the empirical
belief were *rational* - based on reason, logic, evidence - then there
would be no need to resort to *faith*. Faith, in terms of believing
something empirically, is only needed if the others foundations are not
deemed relevant or sufficient. But once you dispense with them, you
dispense with the ability to call that belief "rational."
An empirical belief based on faith is not rational (whether religious or
not). An empirical religious belief which eliminates the need for faith and
attempts to be grounded solely in reason (for example, cosmological
arguments for gods) have, in my extensive experience, always been easily
refuted - and if held onto despite their obvious inadequacy, then become
faith again. And irrational.
<snip>
> So, although there probably exists a tradition within just about every
> religion I can think of where some faction accepts the idea that religion is
> completely and utterly based on faith, if you really think that by
> definition religion must be separate from logic, reason, and, oh yes,
> evidence, and must be by definition irrational, then you don't even know
> what religion is.
Incorrect. I've spent years studying it. But I challenge you to provide a
rational, supernatural religion. Or retract your claims. Whichever. Your
choice.
Notice that *you* said "separate from logic, reason, etc." Notice that *I*
speak only about what religion is grounded in. Quite different things. Can
we say "straw man argument?"
> So, flame-away troll-boy, it's your turn!!!!
where troll = anything jdn doesn't like.
Must be nice living in your fantasy world. I guess it's easier to label
someone a "troll" rather than approach them civilly and treat them as a
human being. Saves time and effort.
Gareth Wilson
Nina & Akiva Smith wrote:
> Possibly because it's hard to get worked up when a TV writer designs
> his own straw man and knocks it down. I didn't see the show in
> question, but if the family were space aliens, with a space-alien (in
> other words, fictional) religion that prohibited surgery, nobody is
> really being insulted.
seemingly supporting some alien religion...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Christchurch
New Zealand
remove "xxx" from address to reply
Commercial e-mail will be deleted unread
"Medical personnel pick their noses
three times an hour, on average"
-Nurse, "ER"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pioneer
Follow-ups altered to avoid spamming
In article <69gk6d$sa8$1...@news.duke.edu>, jim...@acpub.duke.edu (James
Battista) wrote:
> Pioneer (Pio...@infidels.org) wrote:
> : Religions are irrational belief systems.
>
> Nonrational n.e. irrational, which connotes subrational.
> Love, pity, and compassion are nonrational, but I hope that you
> don't intend to impugn them.
Since they are not *belief systems* which make *empirical claims*, they
aren't a part of the same topic, now are they?
> : No one should accord them any more
> : or less respect than they accord a variety of other irrational belief
> : systems. Examples include the belief in a flat earth;
>
> Believing that the Earth is flat is an entirely rational conclusion
> drawn from incorrect premises, and ignoring some data.
By deliberately ignoring some data, you move from the realm of rational to
irrational. If you are legitimately *unaware* of the relevant data, then
you don't move. A rational conclusion can be incorrect given faulty or
inadequate data.
You're working
> against yourself here by showing that rationality is susceptible to
> error as 'irrationality' is.
Nope. Sorry. Do a bit more studying on the matter.
Aaron Bergman
:If you'd like to see one of the *many* ways in which an attempt to ground
:religion on logic and reason was made, try reading Aquinas or Anselm.
If you even mention an ontological argument, I'm going to whack you with
my Most Perfect Whacking Stick.
Aaron (it must exist)
--
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://pantheon.yale.edu/~abergman/>
The smallest number not expressable in under ten words
Raghu Mani
RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> writes:
>
> Michael Johnson wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 12:30:51 +0000, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >> Gareth Wilson
> > >> Christchurch
> > >> New Zealand
> > >> remove "xxx" from address to reply
> > >> Commercial e-mail will be deleted unread
> > >> "Medical personnel pick their noses
> > >> three times an hour, on average"
> > >> -Nurse, "ER"
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >First off where do you get that JMS is an athiest.
> >
> > Actually..hate to burst your bubble but JMS is quite open about the
> > fact that he is an athiest. He is just not anti-religion because of
> > it.
> >
> > -MJ
> THANKS FOR RUINING BY LOVE OF THE SHOW!!!!!!!
You could react in two ways to this. You could appreciate the fact that an
atheist has taken the trouble to try and understand what religion means to
people and, despite his beliefs, portrayed it in a remarkably positive light on
his show - or you could act like a typical bigot and start disliking the show
because its creator does not share your religious views.
It's a pity you chose the latter approach.
Raghu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this mail are mine and not necessarily
those of Oracle Corporation.
Tom Jordaan
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 13:54:51 -0500, "jdn" <king...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>RDAB wrote in message <34BA0C...@prodigy.net>...
>
>:First off where do you get that JMS is an athiest. Look at the title of
>:his stories, and some of the dialogue and hints throughout the show.
>:Look at the time when Ivanonva said I am God, but when the camera change
>:angles and then came back to her she looked up as if she was looking at
>:the sky and said kidding about the god part. He is always talking about
>:stuff from the bible, like Garibaldi talking about the last man that
>:turned traitor got thirty pieces of silver, once again reffering to
>:judas. And again some of the titles that are thrown out there,
>:soulhunter, the holy grail, IN THE BEGINNING, and so on. Something tells
>:me you have your facts wrong.
>
>jms is a self-professed Atheist, and has said so on a number of occasions.
>One can be an Atheist while also using biblical references and presenting
>religion even-handedly, as he has generally done.
Further, an atheist can usually have a laugh at religion's expense...
Tom.
--
Tom Jordaan (at home) - tj....@phlebas.demon.co.uk
"The British are subtle, but nasty when provoked."
Brian Hoffman
Pioneer wrote:
>
> In article <34bb732e...@nntp.one.net>, clsp...@one.net (Chris
> Spencer) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > JMS may have much respect for religion, but I must say that I do not.
> > Call it lack of maturity on my part.
>
>
> or less respect than they accord a variety of other irrational belief
> trying to control your mind via your microwave; crystal power; irrational
> political systems (which shall remain namless, but which are also obvious);
> etc.
>
> any more justified or worthy of respect.
>
OK. I won't call it lack of maturity. I will call it lack of
intellectual sophistication in your simplistic labeling of atheism as
"rational" and theism as "irrational".
Who BEHAVES more rationally? A THEIST who ACTS as if THESIM is true, or
an ATHEIST who professes that theism is false, yet ACTS as if THEISM is
true?
My main problem with atheism is that every atheist I have ever met
insists on acting like a theist, using terms such as "right" and
"wrong", and even "good" and "evil". I contend that an internally
consistent atheism/materialism wouldn't resort to such terms, yet I have
yet to meet an atheist who, when push comes to shove, doesn't believe in
right/wrong and good/evil.
"Pioneer" needs to look beyond the shallow platitudes of his (likely
atheistic) college philosophy courses, and examine his own
preconceptions,reasoning, and conclusions.
Example.
Pioneer: I claim that atheists have had little difficulty duplicating
the worst attrocities commited by theists (Does the name "Stalin" mean
anything to you?), yet they seem to have tremendous difficulty
duplicating the great humanitarian achievements of theists. Why is
this?
I would submit to you that athiests have no ultimate basis for prefering
humanitarian achievements over attrocities, since both are mere
materialistic interactions between matter and energy.
I await your well-reasoned response. (And I admit such responses are
possible, though I have so far found them ultimately unsatisfying and
unconvincing.)
I suppose I am a pragmatic theist.
Who would you rather have as a neighbor? A self-consistent atheist,
denying the actual existence of good and evil, or a self-consistent
theists in the Judeo-Christian tradition, who believes he should "love
his neighbor as himself"?
If you would prefer the former, I would like to hear why.
Michael Passmore
Daniel Tropea wrote:
>
> For quite a few years some religious fanatics
> have been moaning and groaning about
> Star Trek.
>
> But it seems like they are leaving B5 unscathed. This to me is
> remarkable.
> B5 delves right into Judeo/Christian beliefs
> much more extensively. With the
> infamous Shadow war with the Vorlons
> being seen as Angels and the Shadows
> as demons.
<snip>
> And yet the religious right seems to remain
> silent. Any theories on why?
Perhaps because unlike most sci-fi, religion isn't trashed. Also, B5
does not trash conservative values. The only other sci-fi shows I'v
seen which appear conservative friendly (or at least neutral) are
Battlestar Galactica and V. Star Trek, however, has almost always
vigorously ridiculed religion.
Michael Passmore
mgp...@prodigy.net
pyotr filipivich
Michael Passmore <mgp...@prodigy.net> writes:
And then they take the "logically" controled unemotional race
and make them a bunch of half-baked mystics with more "rituals" than a
confused neo-pagan. Arrgh - what a load of schlock. Which lead the
exchange in Battlestar Gsalactica "They only have sex every seven years.
That explains why their such good poker players."s
I like the recent episode (season 1, I missed the title) with
the parents with the sick child and their religious belief vs Dr
Franklin and _his_ religious belief. Never gave much thought to what
sort of 'cosmology' might develop in an egg laying sentient.
"Interesting".
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich, SCA: Nikolai Petrovich. There is no fish in the edress.
New Years Day: when the future transforms itself from the Beautiful
Promise of Tomorrow into the Ugly Reality of Today, and the disgusting
miasma of Now moves into the Rosy Netherworld of Yesteryear.
jdn
Brian Hoffman wrote in message <34C08B...@discover.net>...
<snip>
:My main problem with atheism is that every atheist I have ever met
:insists on acting like a theist, using terms such as "right" and
:"wrong", and even "good" and "evil". I contend that an internally
:consistent atheism/materialism wouldn't resort to such terms, yet I have
:yet to meet an atheist who, when push comes to shove, doesn't believe in
:right/wrong and good/evil.
<snip>
:-bhof...@discover.net
There is no logical inconsistency in being an atheist and believing in an
objective distinction between right/wrong, good/evil. Ethical realism
doesn't require theism as a foundation.
jdn
Aaron Bergman
:My main problem with atheism is that every atheist I have ever met
:insists on acting like a theist, using terms such as "right" and
:"wrong", and even "good" and "evil". I contend that an internally
:consistent atheism/materialism wouldn't resort to such terms, yet I have
:yet to meet an atheist who, when push comes to shove, doesn't believe in
:right/wrong and good/evil.
Secular ethics is a well-developed field. Look into it.
(munch)
:I would submit to you that athiests have no ultimate basis for prefering
:humanitarian achievements over attrocities, since both are mere
:materialistic interactions between matter and energy.
:
:I await your well-reasoned response. (And I admit such responses are
:possible, though I have so far found them ultimately unsatisfying and
:unconvincing.)
You could read some Kant, Singer or maybe some Hobbes.
:
:I suppose I am a pragmatic theist.
:
:Who would you rather have as a neighbor? A self-consistent atheist,
:denying the actual existence of good and evil, or a self-consistent
:theists in the Judeo-Christian tradition, who believes he should "love
:his neighbor as himself"?
Actually, that quote's from the New Testament.
Aaron (note follow-ups)
Michelle Malkin
In <69r11a$8...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> "jdn"
<king...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>
>Brian Hoffman wrote in message <34C08B...@discover.net>...
><snip>
>:insists on acting like a theist, using terms such as "right" and
>:"wrong", and even "good" and "evil". I contend that an internally
>:consistent atheism/materialism wouldn't resort to such terms, yet I
have
>:yet to meet an atheist who, when push comes to shove, doesn't believe
in
>:right/wrong and good/evil.
>
>:-bhof...@discover.net
>
>
>There is no logical inconsistency in being an atheist and believing in
an
>objective distinction between right/wrong, good/evil. Ethical realism
>doesn't require theism as a foundation.
>
>jdn
>
>
>
system based on the ideas of right and wrong. I am crossposting this
message to alt.atheism so that he may learn differently. Considering
that all atheism is is the lack of belief in a god or gods, an atheist
can follow the ethical or moral system of their choice and not out of
fear of celestial retaliation.
And on that note, I was glad that JMS had the atheist first in line in
the episode about religions, so that he wasn't included among the
religions. Atheism is not a religion; it is the lack of religion. As an
atheist himself, JMS knows this.
Mickey
Steven Wright
In article <69sadb$b...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>, Michelle Malkin
<malk...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>In <69r11a$8...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> "jdn"
><king...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>Brian Hoffman wrote in message <34C08B...@discover.net>...
>><snip>
>>:My main problem with atheism is that every atheist I have ever met
>>:insists on acting like a theist, using terms such as "right" and
>>:"wrong", and even "good" and "evil". I contend that an internally
>>:consistent atheism/materialism wouldn't resort to such terms, yet I
>have
>>:yet to meet an atheist who, when push comes to shove, doesn't believe
>in
>>:right/wrong and good/evil.
>>
>><snip>
>>:-bhof...@discover.net
>>
>>
>>There is no logical inconsistency in being an atheist and believing in
>an
>>objective distinction between right/wrong, good/evil. Ethical realism
>>doesn't require theism as a foundation.
>>
>>jdn
>>
>>
>>
>
I am an atheist.
I theorise that good and evil do not exist beyond concepts.
However, I still consider myself to be moral:
"We only have one life, and we should make it the best life possible for all the
people on earth"
--
Steven Wright
#492
jdn
Steven Wright wrote in message ...
:>>There is no logical inconsistency in being an atheist and believing in
:>an
:>>objective distinction between right/wrong, good/evil. Ethical realism
:>>doesn't require theism as a foundation.
:>>
:>>jdn
:>>
:>>
:>>
:>
:
:I am an atheist.
:
:I theorise that good and evil do not exist beyond concepts.
What does this mean?
:
:However, I still consider myself to be moral:
Is "moral" a concept here or something else?
:"We only have one life, and we should make it the best life possible for
all the
:people on earth"
Why?
jdn
:Steven Wright
:#492
Invid fan
In article <69u05c$n...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>, "jdn"
<king...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Steven Wright wrote in message ...
> :>>There is no logical inconsistency in being an atheist and believing in
> :>an
> :>>objective distinction between right/wrong, good/evil. Ethical realism
> :>>doesn't require theism as a foundation.
> :>>
> :>>jdn
> :>>
> :>>
> :>>
> :>
> :
> :I am an atheist.
> :
> :I theorise that good and evil do not exist beyond concepts.
>
>
> What does this mean?
>
It means that 'good' and 'evil' are lables that man has invented, and have
no existance in the universe outside of our minds. There is no 'good' in
the universe, or 'evil' that must be fought. They're just names.
> :
> :However, I still consider myself to be moral:
>
>
> Is "moral" a concept here or something else?
>
Being moral means to have an internal code of conduct, one that stays
within the excepted bounds of society.
> :"We only have one life, and we should make it the best life possible for
> all the
> :people on earth"
>
>
> Why?
>
Because, as there is no afterlife, making the lives of others miserable
would be a crappy thing to do :)
--
Chris Mack 'With a price on his head, the Carrot becomes a
'Invid Fan' desperado, aided only by a small band of adventuresome
coeds whose unquestioning loyalty has been won through
his romantic prowess in more peaceful times!'
"Like all guerrilla fighters...their clothes get torn...SEE?!!"
-Flaming Carrot
in...@localnet.com
jdn
Invid fan wrote in message ...
:In article <69u05c$n...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>, "jdn"
:<king...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:
:> Steven Wright wrote in message ...
:> :>>There is no logical inconsistency in being an atheist and believing in
:> :>an
:> :>>objective distinction between right/wrong, good/evil. Ethical realism
:> :>>doesn't require theism as a foundation.
:> :>>
:> :>>jdn
:> :>>
:> :>>
:> :>>
:> :>
:> :
:> :I am an atheist.
:> :
:> :I theorise that good and evil do not exist beyond concepts.
:>
:>
:> What does this mean?
:>
:It means that 'good' and 'evil' are lables that man has invented, and have
:no existance in the universe outside of our minds. There is no 'good' in
:the universe, or 'evil' that must be fought. They're just names.
Fair enough. Then was Hitler not really evil (to use a stock, boring
example)? What was he then?
:> :
:> :However, I still consider myself to be moral:
:>
:>
:> Is "moral" a concept here or something else?
:>
:Being moral means to have an internal code of conduct, one that stays
:within the excepted bounds of society.
Why does it have to stay within the accepted bounds of society? What if the
society itself is crappy?
:> :"We only have one life, and we should make it the best life possible for
:> all the
:> :people on earth"
:>
:>
:> Why?
:>
:Because, as there is no afterlife, making the lives of others miserable
:would be a crappy thing to do :)
Well, yes, I would agree with that <grin>, but what if you don't care? If
evil isn't real, and you don't care about the bounds of society, this seems
to imply that there's nothing really wrong with making the lives of others
miserable.
:--
:Chris Mack 'With a price on his head, the Carrot becomes a
:'Invid Fan' desperado, aided only by a small band of adventuresome
: coeds whose unquestioning loyalty has been won through
: his romantic prowess in more peaceful times!'
:
: "Like all guerrilla fighters...their clothes get torn...SEE?!!"
: -Flaming Carrot
:in...@localnet.com
You know, I've seen your .sig. before, but never got around to asking
(although something tells me I might not want to know the answer <grin>) but
where does this come from? What is it about? Most importantly, is there a
place to buy an official Flaming Carrot T-shirt?
jdn
Robert Cook
Brian Hoffman <bhof...@discover.net> wrote:
(snip)
>Who would you rather have as a neighbor? A self-consistent atheist,
>denying the actual existence of good and evil, or a self-consistent
>theists in the Judeo-Christian tradition, who believes he should "love
>his neighbor as himself"?
(snip)
Depends on whether or not the theist has a positive self-image.
John Dilick
Yea, verily, on Sat, 17 Jan 1998 02:43:39 -0800, Brian Hoffman
<bhof...@discover.net> proclaimed:
>OK. I won't call it lack of maturity. I will call it lack of
>intellectual sophistication in your simplistic labeling of atheism as
>"rational" and theism as "irrational".
>
>Who BEHAVES more rationally? A THEIST who ACTS as if THESIM is true, or
>an ATHEIST who professes that theism is false, yet ACTS as if THEISM is
>true?
Whichever one doesn't use so many capital letters indiscriminately.
>My main problem with atheism is that every atheist I have ever met
>insists on acting like a theist, using terms such as "right" and
>"wrong", and even "good" and "evil". I contend that an internally
>consistent atheism/materialism wouldn't resort to such terms, yet I have
>yet to meet an atheist who, when push comes to shove, doesn't believe in
>right/wrong and good/evil.
So?
Theism teaches that right is right and wrong is wrong because a deity says
so. Atheism teaches that right is right because it IS. Do you honestly
believe that all atheists are amoral and unethical?
>"Pioneer" needs to look beyond the shallow platitudes of his (likely
>atheistic) college philosophy courses, and examine his own
>preconceptions,reasoning, and conclusions.
Physician, heal thyself.
Your obvious preconceptions include a belief that atheism is wrong, bad,
invalid and unsupported. Thankfully, your beliefs are merely shallow
platitudes echoing your (theistic) college religion courses. You should
examine your own preconceptions, reasoning and conclusions.
>Example.
>
>Pioneer: I claim that atheists have had little difficulty duplicating
>the worst attrocities commited by theists (Does the name "Stalin" mean
>anything to you?), yet they seem to have tremendous difficulty
>duplicating the great humanitarian achievements of theists. Why is
>this?
>
>I would submit to you that athiests have no ultimate basis for prefering
>humanitarian achievements over attrocities, since both are mere
>materialistic interactions between matter and energy.
So, you _do_ believe that all atheists are amoral and unethical.
Don't look now, but your bigotry is showing. You might want to fix that
before making a fool of yourself in public again.
Claiming that atheists have no ultimate basis for preferring the
humanitarian over the atrocious is beyond inane. Right is right and wrong
is wrong whether or not God says it is so. Is the Jihad the Arabs wage
against the Jews right or wrong? Answer carefully -- you will be judged on
your answer.
>I await your well-reasoned response. (And I admit such responses are
>possible, though I have so far found them ultimately unsatisfying and
>unconvincing.)
Go to your local library. Look up practically _any_ book on secular
ethics. Read it. Perhaps Kant or Hobbes. Or, if you're feeling like a
spot of history, Plato. Re-read it until you understand what they are
saying. _Then_ read your above screed and realize why you look foolish.
>I suppose I am a pragmatic theist.
>
>Who would you rather have as a neighbor? A self-consistent atheist,
>denying the actual existence of good and evil, or a self-consistent
>theists in the Judeo-Christian tradition, who believes he should "love
>his neighbor as himself"?
Which would you rather have as a neighbor? A self-consistent atheist, who
believes right is right and wrong is wrong, or a self-consistent theist who
believes it is God's Will to eradicate the heretics?
>If you would prefer the former, I would like to hear why.
Nice straw men you've lined up there, but they're now burning in effigy.
--
John Dilick
dili...@cris.com
pyotr filipivich
t...@phlebas.demon.co.uk (Tom Jordaan) writes:
So can some religionists.
Although it is often best if you laugh at your own. Politeness
you know.
"Cats are like Baptists. You know they are out raising hell all
night, but you never catch 'em at it. I can say that, I'm a Baptist.
I was born a Baptist, raised as a Baptist, even married a Baptist. Got
no ambition at all." Jim Stafford, on the Jim Stafford show, back in the
mid 70s.
>"The British are subtle, but nasty when provoked."
Paul Ho
Brian Hoffman wrote:
>
> Pioneer wrote:
> >
> > In article <34bb732e...@nntp.one.net>, clsp...@one.net (Chris
> > Spencer) wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > JMS may have much respect for religion, but I must say that I do not.
> > > Call it lack of maturity on my part.
> >
> > I wouldn't call it a lack of maturity. Quite the opposite, in fact.
> >
> > Religions are irrational belief systems. No one should accord them any more
> > or less respect than they accord a variety of other irrational belief
> > systems. Examples include the belief in a flat earth; that aliens are
> > trying to control your mind via your microwave; crystal power; irrational
> > political systems (which shall remain namless, but which are also obvious);
> > etc.
> >
> > Just because a religion is a *popular* irrational belief does not make it
> > any more justified or worthy of respect.
> >
>
> intellectual sophistication in your simplistic labeling of atheism as
> "rational" and theism as "irrational".
>
> Who BEHAVES more rationally? A THEIST who ACTS as if THESIM is true, or
> an ATHEIST who professes that theism is false, yet ACTS as if THEISM is
> true?
Be rational. Be scientific.
Game Theory:
In a two players game, player can cheat or play by the rule.
There are 4 possible out come.
Situations | Out Come
-------------------+-----------------
Both play fair | A Good Game.
Opponent Cheat | Opponent Win.
You Cheat | You Win.
Both Cheat | Chaos.
At first glance, some will claim they should cheat because "if
you cheat, you win!" But that is the wrong conclusion.
(Talking about lack of intellectual sophistication here.)
If you think that way, your opponent could think that way too.
The result is chaos.
Since we all know:
1) Winning isn't everything.
2) Nobody want chaos. If both side cheat, you might as well not to
play.
The rational conclusion is to play fair.
This apply to any game including "the game of life".
Think about it.
> My main problem with atheism is that every atheist I have ever met
> insists on acting like a theist, using terms such as "right" and
> "wrong", and even "good" and "evil". I contend that an internally
> consistent atheism/materialism wouldn't resort to such terms, yet I have
> yet to meet an atheist who, when push comes to shove, doesn't believe in
> right/wrong and good/evil.
Because, "don't do to others what you would not want yourself".
Religion is not required.
Good people do good deed.
Why theist do good deed? What are their motive?
1) Fear. Afraid of their god. Afraid of dead.
2) Bribe. To please their god.
3) Mortgage payment. To buy immortality.
4) Insurance premium. Just in case there is a god.
5) Blind faith. Faith in gods.
IMHO, those are not the right motive.
Sure, there are other motive. The right reason.
But those apply equally to theist and atheist.
> "Pioneer" needs to look beyond the shallow platitudes of his (likely
> atheistic) college philosophy courses, and examine his own
> preconceptions,reasoning, and conclusions.
But, you didn't answer Pioneer's questions about flat earth etc.
Do you think belief in flat earth is rational?
> Example.
>
> Pioneer: I claim that atheists have had little difficulty duplicating
> the worst attrocities commited by theists (Does the name "Stalin" mean
> anything to you?), yet they seem to have tremendous difficulty
> duplicating the great humanitarian achievements of theists. Why is
> this?
Some theists still think the crusade was "great humanitarian
achievement".
Atheist using the simple rule of "don't do to others what you would
not want yourself", can easily determine both crusade and Stalin
were wrong.
> I would submit to you that athiests have no ultimate basis for prefering
> humanitarian achievements over attrocities, since both are mere
> materialistic interactions between matter and energy.
Again, "don't do to others what you would not want yourself".
Since both theists and atheists are capable of both atrocity and
humanity.
There is no winner here.
> I await your well-reasoned response. (And I admit such responses are
> possible, though I have so far found them ultimately unsatisfying and
> unconvincing.)
>
> I suppose I am a pragmatic theist.
>
> Who would you rather have as a neighbor? A self-consistent atheist,
> denying the actual existence of good and evil, or a self-consistent
> theists in the Judeo-Christian tradition, who believes he should "love
> his neighbor as himself"?
Do you mean "love his *theist* neighbor as himself".
> If you would prefer the former, I would like to hear why.
Truth self-consistent theists are mostly harmless, but there are a
lot
of hypocrite out there. Atheists are a least honest.
Honest people hate hypocrite.
I know a bunch of church goer associated themselves with a church
(which shall remain namless) famous for their soup kitchen for the
poor and homeless. So what do they do at Thinkgiving and Christmas?
I thought they will all go to the soup kitchen to help out and have
dinner with the poor. But no, they organize their own dinner party.
And than I discover most worker at the soup kitchen are salary
staff.
Sure there are volunteers, and they do an admirable job there.
The problem is the majority simply don't want to sit side by side
and eat with _those people_ (the poor)...
Yes, they donate money. But "love his neighbor as himself"?
Sure those poor people are not your neighbor.
Keep telling yourself that.
Cheers,
Paul
Proto
jdn wrote in message <69u999$2...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>...
>Invid fan wrote in message ...
>:In article <69u05c$n...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>, "jdn"
>:<king...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>:> Steven Wright wrote in message ...
>:>
>:> What does this mean?
>:>
>:It means that 'good' and 'evil' are lables that man has invented, and have
>:no existance in the universe outside of our minds. There is no 'good' in
>:the universe, or 'evil' that must be fought. They're just names.
>
>Fair enough. Then was Hitler not really evil (to use a stock, boring
>example)? What was he then?
Hitler was "evil" to non-Nazis. To Nazis, he was "good". See why they're
just labels?
To a human, Venus would be "hot", to a Venusian (let's just assume one
exists) Venus
would be "nice" and Earth would be "cold". It's all relative.
>:> :"We only have one life, and we should make it the best life possible
for
>:> all the
>:> :people on earth"
>:>
>:> Why?
>:>
>:Because, as there is no afterlife, making the lives of others miserable
>:would be a crappy thing to do :)
>
>Well, yes, I would agree with that <grin>, but what if you don't care? If
>evil isn't real, and you don't care about the bounds of society, this seems
>to imply that there's nothing really wrong with making the lives of others
>miserable.
It does imply that, that's why morality (not that
religion-fear-of-punishment brand morality) is
"being good for goodness sake" and not "being good because it would be a
neat thing to
try."
>: "Like all guerrilla fighters...their clothes get torn...SEE?!!"
>: -Flaming Carrot
>
>You know, I've seen your .sig. before, but never got around to asking
>(although something tells me I might not want to know the answer <grin>)
but
>where does this come from? What is it about? Most importantly, is there a
>place to buy an official Flaming Carrot T-shirt?
Flaming Carrot is a comic book character. He's small press, so I doubt they
have any FC shirts.
jdn
Proto wrote in message ...
:jdn wrote in message <69u999$2...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>...
:>Invid fan wrote in message ...
:>:In article <69u05c$n...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>, "jdn"
:>:<king...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:>:> Steven Wright wrote in message ...
:>:> :I theorise that good and evil do not exist beyond concepts.
:>:>
:>:> What does this mean?
:>:>
:>:It means that 'good' and 'evil' are lables that man has invented, and
have
:>:no existance in the universe outside of our minds. There is no 'good' in
:>:the universe, or 'evil' that must be fought. They're just names.
:>
:>Fair enough. Then was Hitler not really evil (to use a stock, boring
:>example)? What was he then?
:
:
:Hitler was "evil" to non-Nazis. To Nazis, he was "good". See why they're
:just labels?
:To a human, Venus would be "hot", to a Venusian (let's just assume one
:exists) Venus
:would be "nice" and Earth would be "cold". It's all relative.
So the Nazis weren't really wrong? Why should anyone believe that? Then is
fighting, say for instance, racial discrimination a waste of time, since
there's nothing really wrong with discrimination? Why should anyone believe
that?
:>:> :"We only have one life, and we should make it the best life possible
:for
:>:> all the
:>:> :people on earth"
:>:>
:>:> Why?
:>:>
:>:Because, as there is no afterlife, making the lives of others miserable
:>:would be a crappy thing to do :)
:>
:>Well, yes, I would agree with that <grin>, but what if you don't care? If
:>evil isn't real, and you don't care about the bounds of society, this
seems
:>to imply that there's nothing really wrong with making the lives of others
:>miserable.
:
:It does imply that, that's why morality (not that
:religion-fear-of-punishment brand morality) is
:"being good for goodness sake" and not "being good because it would be a
:neat thing to
:try."
Why be good for goodness sake, especially if there is no goodness? And, by
the way, there isn't much of religion-fear-of-punishment in religious
ethics. I mean, it's there, but hardly the focal point.
jdn
Captain Infinity
In article <eBaRfuUJ9GA.144@upnetnews03>
Proto wrote:
>>where does this come from? What is it about? Most importantly, is there a
>>place to buy an official Flaming Carrot T-shirt?
>
>Flaming Carrot is a comic book character. He's small press, so I doubt they
>have any FC shirts.
Sure they do, I saw one last week. Almost picked it up, but I found one of
"Sandman"'s Destiny character that I liked better, and that ate up my T-shirt
budget for the week.
**
Captain Infinity
...one of these days I'll buy some pants
James Battista
Apologies if the attributions are wrong...
Paul Ho (paulcho-at...@w3com.com) wrote:
: Brian Hoffman wrote:
: >
: > Who BEHAVES more rationally? A THEIST who ACTS as if THESIM is true, or
: > an ATHEIST who professes that theism is false, yet ACTS as if THEISM is
: > true?
: Be rational. Be scientific.
: Game Theory:
: In a two players game, player can cheat or play by the rule.
: There are 4 possible out come.
: Situations | Out Come
: -------------------+-----------------
: Both play fair | A Good Game.
: Opponent Cheat | Opponent Win.
: You Cheat | You Win.
: Both Cheat | Chaos.
You can't really do anything with this unless you specify at least the
ordinal values of the payoff for each player -- do I prefer 'Opponent
Win' to 'Chaos' or vice versa, and by how much (if you don't mind
jumping to cardinal utility)?
: At first glance, some will claim they should cheat because "if
: you cheat, you win!" But that is the wrong conclusion.
Depends on the payoff structure. If it replicates a PD game,
you're basically hosed unless you can somehow jump into a
repeated-interaction game where the Folk Theorem says that any
outcome is realizable and sustainable. You're likewise none too
well off if you're in a game of chicken.
: (Talking about lack of intellectual sophistication here.)
: If you think that way, your opponent could think that way too.
: The result is chaos.
This isn't the way game theory usually works, particularly not
in simultaneous-move games, which is what you've described looks
like to me. Your opponent (or co-player) isn't going to do something
because you think in a certain way, or act in a certain way.
Your opponent, when deciding what to do, doesn't know what you're done
anyhow -- he or she only knows your incentive structure, same as you
know your opponent's. I can try to predict what you're going to do based
on the outcomes that you can achieve, and vice versa, but all players
are ultimately guided only by their own outcomes (though you can model
things differently)
: Since we all know:
: 1) Winning isn't everything.
It usually is in game theory. At least, maximizing your expected utility
is usually everything.
: 2) Nobody want chaos. If both side cheat, you might as well not to
: play.
Depends on how losing and 'chaos' compare. If, given that you've
'cheated,' I'm better off cheating as well, then we're in a PD
game and we're both screwed.
: The rational conclusion is to play fair.
You shouldn't say this until you've specified the payoff structures
more fully and solved for an equilibrium -- soft rational-choice
talk about a situation is _not_ game theory.
: This apply to any game including "the game of life".
: Think about it.
I do, and the PD game applies far too often for my liking.
It's often a nasty, nasty world filled up with sincerely
unpleasant people to interact with.
Cheers!
Jim
James S. Coleman Battista
PhD candidate, Dept of Political Science, Duke Univ.
james.b...@duke.edu
king of the impossible
Nina & Akiva Smith
In <eBaRfuUJ9GA.144@upnetnews03> "Proto" <Pro...@spammsn.com> writes:
>
>jdn wrote in message <69u999$2...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>...
>>Invid fan wrote in message ...
>>:In article <69u05c$n...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>, "jdn"
>>:<king...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>:> Steven Wright wrote in message ...
>>:> :I theorise that good and evil do not exist beyond concepts.
>>:>
>>:> What does this mean?
>>:>
>>:It means that 'good' and 'evil' are lables that man has invented,
and have
>>:no existance in the universe outside of our minds. There is no
'good' in
>>:the universe, or 'evil' that must be fought. They're just names.
>>
>>Fair enough. Then was Hitler not really evil (to use a stock, boring
>>example)? What was he then?
>
>
>Hitler was "evil" to non-Nazis. To Nazis, he was "good". See why
they're
>just labels?
>To a human, Venus would be "hot", to a Venusian (let's just assume one
>exists) Venus
>would be "nice" and Earth would be "cold". It's all relative.
>
>>
>>evil isn't real, and you don't care about the bounds of society, this
seems
>>to imply that there's nothing really wrong with making the lives of
others
>>miserable.
>
>It does imply that, that's why morality (not that
>religion-fear-of-punishment brand morality) is
>"being good for goodness sake" and not "being good because it would be
a
>neat thing to
>try."
>
way to define what activities are "being good." And unfortunately,
history shows that "reason" doesn't define an objective moral standard
better than anything else does. Bertrand Russell defined the problem
best: "I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of
ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that
is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it."
nina
Larry Raisch
Your problem is that you start off with an incorrect definition of
terms. "Theism" (religion) is belief in a supernatural, personal
perfect being. It is not a belief in the existence of good and evil.
It is perfectly possible for an atheist to believe that an action is
good or bad, right or wrong, without referrence to the dictates of any
supernatural power. In fact, if one bases one's morality only on the
threat of ultimate punishment from some deity, then the realization
that said deity does not exist removes all need for moral action. This
is the frightening thing about religion-based morality. It is
ultimately founded on sand.
On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 02:43:39 -0800, Brian Hoffman
<bhof...@discover.net> wrote:
>>
>
>OK. I won't call it lack of maturity. I will call it lack of
>intellectual sophistication in your simplistic labeling of atheism as
>"rational" and theism as "irrational".
>
>Who BEHAVES more rationally? A THEIST who ACTS as if THESIM is true, or
>an ATHEIST who professes that theism is false, yet ACTS as if THEISM is
>true?
>
Invid fan
In article <6a23jm$o...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, sn...@ix.netcom.com(Nina &
Akiva Smith) wrote:
> The problem here is that, absent a standard, you're still left with no
> way to define what activities are "being good." And unfortunately,
> history shows that "reason" doesn't define an objective moral standard
> better than anything else does. Bertrand Russell defined the problem
> best: "I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of
> ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that
> is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it."
>
You may want to check out an issue of Free Inquiry, the national humanist
magazine. They often have point/counterpoint articles dealing with this
subject.
--
Chris Mack 'With a price on his head, the Carrot becomes a
'Invid Fan' desperado, aided only by a small band of adventuresome
coeds whose unquestioning loyalty has been won through
his romantic prowess in more peaceful times!'
"Like all guerrilla fighters...their clothes get torn...SEE?!!"
-Flaming Carrot
in...@localnet.com
Pioneer
> Who BEHAVES more rationally? A THEIST who ACTS as if THESIM is true, or
> an ATHEIST who professes that theism is false, yet ACTS as if THEISM is
> true?
I don't know anyone who fits the latter description, so I cannot judge.
None of the many atheists I know do any such thing.
> My main problem with atheism is that every atheist I have ever met
> insists on acting like a theist, using terms such as "right" and
> "wrong", and even "good" and "evil".
Since those terms are not restricted to theistic belief systems, what's the
problem?
I contend that an internally
> consistent atheism/materialism wouldn't resort to such terms, yet I have
You contend?
OK - but please support. Please provide a rational, logical argument which
demonstrates that the concepts like right & wrong are limited to theistic
belief systems.
Bet'cha can't.
> yet to meet an atheist who, when push comes to shove, doesn't believe in
> right/wrong and good/evil.
Then you need to examine Secular Humanism - or just about any secular
ethical system.
> "Pioneer" needs to look beyond the shallow platitudes of his (likely
> atheistic) college philosophy courses, and examine his own
> preconceptions,reasoning, and conclusions.
Actually, they are the conclusions of long-standing, in-depth
investigations into religion. I re-examine these things on a regular basis
- that's how I've changed, grown, and acquired the beliefs I presently
have.
Have you?
> Example.
>
> Pioneer: I claim that atheists have had little difficulty duplicating
> the worst attrocities commited by theists (Does the name "Stalin" mean
> anything to you?), yet they seem to have tremendous difficulty
> duplicating the great humanitarian achievements of theists. Why is
> this?
The former claim is accepted, but I fail to see how it is germane to the
discussion. The latter claim is disputed.
But let's assume it for a second.
How does any of it impact on whether or not theism is a rationally based
belief system?
I'll be quite plain: I do not believe that theism can be rationally
supported (and, in general, this is what I have in mind when I think of
"religion"). Because I do not think that it can be rationally supported, I
think that it is irrational.
If you wish to show that I am incorrect, please do so. I'd be more than
happy to consider any arguments you wish to advance which you think
demonstrate a rational, logical basis for theism - either theism in general
or a specific form of theism (your choice).
> I would submit to you that athiests have no ultimate basis for prefering
> humanitarian achievements over attrocities, since both are mere
> materialistic interactions between matter and energy.
You submit.
But I would prefer it if you would *support* your claims rather than just
make them.
Please explain, in detail, how a material basis of nature would preculde
humans from assigning differing values to differing parts of nature.
> Who would you rather have as a neighbor? A self-consistent atheist,
> denying the actual existence of good and evil, or a self-consistent
> theists in the Judeo-Christian tradition, who believes he should "love
> his neighbor as himself"?
> If you would prefer the former, I would like to hear why.
The former.
Why? Because good and evil are human constructs, not things which exist
independently of sentient judgements. A person who thinks that "good and
evil" are extra-human things which are "actually existing" and independent
of us probably also thinks that things like "beauty" and "good flavor" are
similar - and I'd be very concerned about socializing too much with them.
We'd agree on nothing and would likely conflict with each other all the
time.
What's more, I would vastly prefer a neighbor who is capable of forming
their own, independent, rational conclusions about what is right and wrong
rather than someone who has been spoon-fed the concept from a holy book and
its self-appointed interpreters (read: clergy).
I'd rather be with someone with whom I *disagree*, but with whom I can have
a rational conversation because we both come to our conclusions through the
same rational, logical processes. I wouldn't want to be with someone with
whom I agree but with whom I cannot rationally discuss matters because they
came to their conclusions because of "revelation" or similar rot.
Thus, someone who bleieves "love his neighbor as himself" *only* because
they have been taught that and because they read it in a book is, IMHO, a
*danger*. There are a lot of other things in holy books, and an lot of
other messages given out by authoritative clergy. A person who blindly
believes them is capable of anything.
I'd prefer someone who decided to "love his neighbor" because they came to
the independent conclusion that it is the right thing to do.
J. Sasha Stewart
On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 10:38:33 -0500, in...@localnet.com (Invid fan)
wrote:
>In article <6a23jm$o...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, sn...@ix.netcom.com(Nina &
>Akiva Smith) wrote:
>
>> The problem here is that, absent a standard, you're still left with no
>> way to define what activities are "being good." And unfortunately,
>> history shows that "reason" doesn't define an objective moral standard
>> better than anything else does. Bertrand Russell defined the problem
>> best: "I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of
>> ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that
>> is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it."
>>
>You may want to check out an issue of Free Inquiry, the national humanist
>magazine. They often have point/counterpoint articles dealing with this
>subject.
Or better yet, this discussion is going beyond Babylon 5. A good
place to argue this stuff is in the atheism/religion newsgroups...oh,
and probably something like alt.philosophy.objectivism.
You can find some good arguments about this subject from both sides
there.
JSS
Gharlane of Eddore
>
JMS has never said that, although he's stated he's an atheist.
(note spelling.)
Michael Johnson wrote:
>
> Actually..hate to burst your bubble but JMS is quite open about the
> fact that he is an athiest. He is just not anti-religion because of
> it.
>
OBSP: "atheist."
In <34BA49...@prodigy.net>, RDAB <RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> THANKS FOR RUINING BY LOVE OF THE SHOW!!!!!!!
>
Grow up. The show hasn't changed, just the prejudiced blinders through
which you view it. If you'd been paying attention all along, you'd
KNOW that JMS is an atheist.... think of that last scene in "PARLIAMENT
OF DREAMS," where Sinclair is introducing a line of representatives
of Earth's major religious/philosophical groups.... the *FIRST* guy
in line is "Mister _____, an atheist."
Note that JMS cast a very tall, handsome fellow in the part, put him
in a GOOD suit, and introduced him FIRST. JMS did this on purpose,
as a little joke......
In <EMpFE...@world.std.com> hum...@world.std.com (Franklin Hummel) writes:
>
> *sigh*
>
Hey, look on the bright side, Frank... at least the kid doesn't worship
TREK, right?
Franklin Hummel
In article <34c48de7...@news.nac.net>,
Paul Anderson <n...@for.mail> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 21:20:09 +0000, in rec.arts.tv, RDAB
><RD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>YOU ARE A REAL FUCKING DICK HEAD, YOU KNOW THAT. YOU MUST BE A DEEP
>>SPACE NINE FAN
>
>Gee, RDAB, it's too bad that you're not an atheist, 'cause I don't
>think your god(s) would approve of language like that.
SMITE HIM!!!
-- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
--
====================================================================
* NecronomiCon, 4th Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention *
August 1999, Providence, RI * Guests: Fred Chappell & T.E.D. Klein
Visit our web site at: http://www.necropress.com/necronomicon
pyotr filipivich
cat.n...@va.pubnix.com (Cat) writes:
>Pioneer <Pio...@infidels.org> wrote:
>>In article <34BA0C...@prodigy.net>, RD...@prodigy.net wrote:
>>> Look at the time when Ivanonva said I am God, but when the camera change
>>> angles and then came back to her she looked up as if she was looking at
>>> the sky and said kidding about the god part.
>>And?
>Yeah, no lie. How simplistic must you have to be to assume that
>because a writer has one set of beliefs, he cannot create a character
>with another set of beliefs?
>Entertainment sure would be boring if writers were that limited in
>their scope.
I'm still trying to figure out the cosmology behind the line "IF any of
you screw up and get us all killed, I will personally come to the Hall of
Judgement and drag your liver to the River of Sorrows." ... It was ... a
_weird_ dream. And last I looked, the Christian Church didn't have a "hall
of judgement", a "river of sorrows", nor was your liver the repository of your
"soul", or what went to the great beyond.
tschus
pyotr
Aaron Bergman
In article <6a554m$eel$1...@halcyon.com>, py...@halcyon.com (pyotr
filipivich) wrote:
: I'm still trying to figure out the cosmology behind the line "IF any of
:you screw up and get us all killed, I will personally come to the Hall of
:Judgement and drag your liver to the River of Sorrows." ... It was ... a
:_weird_ dream. And last I looked, the Christian Church didn't have a "hall
:of judgement", a "river of sorrows", nor was your liver the repository of your
:"soul", or what went to the great beyond.
Sounds Greek. Isn't Lethe the river of sorrows? And Prometheus had his
liver pecked out over and over again.
Aaron
Michael Pelletier
In article <invid-ya02408000...@snews.zippo.com>,
Invid fan <in...@localnet.com> wrote:
>Being moral means to have an internal code of conduct, one that stays
>within the excepted bounds of society.
The expected bounds of ancient Aztec society were that it was a great
honor to have your own heart cut out of your chest and held aloft in
your view, still twitching, as the last moments of your life slipped
away.
>> :"We only have one life, and we should make it the best life possible for
>> :all the people on earth"
>>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>Because, as there is no afterlife, making the lives of others miserable
>would be a crappy thing to do :)
Define "miserable." Define "crappy." Define "others."
-Mike Pelletier.
Michael Pelletier
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980112...@titan.cc.wwu.edu>,
Matthew Murray <mmu...@cc.wwu.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Franklin Hummel wrote:
>
>> JMS said he has read the Bible twice. This does not mean he
>> believes it.
>
> Actually, he said he is an atheist >because< he read the Bible
>twice, if I'm not mistaken.
Probably the Christian Bible.
Has he read the Talmud, or Mishnah Torah, I wonder...
-Mike Pelletier.
Pioneer
In article <6a5r70$f...@valhalla.comshare.com>, mikep@-nospam-izzy.net
(Michael Pelletier) wrote:
> In article <invid-ya02408000...@snews.zippo.com>,
> Invid fan <in...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> >Being moral means to have an internal code of conduct, one that stays
> >within the excepted bounds of society.
>
> The expected bounds of ancient Aztec society were that it was a great
> honor to have your own heart cut out of your chest and held aloft in
> your view, still twitching, as the last moments of your life slipped
> away.
And?
Did you have a point?
Paul Ho
James Battista,
After reading your post I'm perplexed...
Since it seem you are very much familiar with game theory, so i assume
you are familiar with how people apply game theory to moral and ethic
in philosophical context. But you seem to object to my argument.
Are you object to the way I presented it or the whole argumnet itself?
If it's former, oh well it have been over 10 years, may be I got it
wrong. Game Theory seem to evolve a lot in the pass 10 years too.
But if it's the latter, may I ask why?
About Prisoner's Dilemma, in moral philosophical context, I suppose I should
first establish "don't do to others what you would not want yourself".
(Hey I did mention that in my provious post, just not at the right place! ;)
Paul Ho wrote:
+ : Game Theory:
+ : In a two players game, player can cheat or play by the rule.
+ : There are 4 possible out come.
+
+ : Situations | Out Come
+ : -------------------+-----------------
+ : Both play fair | A Good Game.
+ : Opponent Cheat | Opponent Win.
+ : You Cheat | You Win.
+ : Both Cheat | Chaos.
James Battista wrote:
+ You can't really do anything with this unless you specify at least the
+ ordinal values of the payoff for each player -- do I prefer 'Opponent
+ Win' to 'Chaos' or vice versa, and by how much (if you don't mind
+ jumping to cardinal utility)?
+ : At first glance, some will claim they should cheat because "if
+ : you cheat, you win!" But that is the wrong conclusion.
+ Depends on the payoff structure. If it replicates a PD game,
+ you're basically hosed unless you can somehow jump into a
+ repeated-interaction game where the Folk Theorem says that any
+ outcome is realizable and sustainable. You're likewise none too
+ well off if you're in a game of chicken.
+ : (Talking about lack of intellectual sophistication here.)
+ : If you think that way, your opponent could think that way too.
+ : The result is chaos.
+ This isn't the way game theory usually works, particularly not
+ in simultaneous-move games, which is what you've described looks
+ like to me. Your opponent (or co-player) isn't going to do something
+ because you think in a certain way, or act in a certain way.
+ Your opponent, when deciding what to do, doesn't know what you're done
+ anyhow -- he or she only knows your incentive structure, same as you
+ know your opponent's. I can try to predict what you're going to do based
+ on the outcomes that you can achieve, and vice versa, but all players
+ are ultimately guided only by their own outcomes (though you can model
+ things differently)
+
+ : Since we all know:
+ : 1) Winning isn't everything.
+
+ It usually is in game theory. At least, maximizing your expected utility
+ is usually everything.
+
+ : 2) Nobody want chaos. If both side cheat, you might as well not to
+ : play.
+
+ Depends on how losing and 'chaos' compare. If, given that you've
+ 'cheated,' I'm better off cheating as well, then we're in a PD
+ game and we're both screwed.
+
+ : The rational conclusion is to play fair.
+
+ You shouldn't say this until you've specified the payoff structures
+ more fully and solved for an equilibrium -- soft rational-choice
+ talk about a situation is _not_ game theory.
+
+ : This apply to any game including "the game of life".
+ : Think about it.
+
+ I do, and the PD game applies far too often for my liking.
+ It's often a nasty, nasty world filled up with sincerely
+ unpleasant people to interact with.
+
+ Cheers!
+
+ Jim
+
+ James S. Coleman Battista
+ PhD candidate, Dept of Political Science, Duke Univ.
+ james.b...@duke.edu
+ king of the impossible
Political Science eh? May be you can fix all this?
Too bad for most politician, cheat and lie are part of the game.
Cheers,
Paul
Captain Infinity
In article <6a5r70$f...@valhalla.comshare.com>
Michael Pelletier wrote:
>Define "miserable."
talk.bizarre
>Define "crappy."
alt.tv.friends
>Define "others."
alt.religion.kibology
YMMV.
**
Captain Infinity
Invid fan
> In article <invid-ya02408000...@snews.zippo.com>,
> Invid fan <in...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> >Being moral means to have an internal code of conduct, one that stays
> >within the excepted bounds of society.
>
> The expected bounds of ancient Aztec society were that it was a great
> honor to have your own heart cut out of your chest and held aloft in
> your view, still twitching, as the last moments of your life slipped
> away.
>
And had I been raised in that society, and brought up in that religion, I
probably would have thought that was a good thing. Your point? While not
that extreme, as an atheist I put certain aspects of many religions in the
same catagory as the Aztec custom you mention.
> >> :"We only have one life, and we should make it the best life possible for
> >> :all the people on earth"
> >>
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> >Because, as there is no afterlife, making the lives of others miserable
> >would be a crappy thing to do :)
>
> Define "miserable." Define "crappy." Define "others."
>
Why? It's my world view, and I have no desire to try and convert anyone.
Chandran D. Kumar, Esq.
The rebuttal to the assertion that religions are "irrational belief
systems" was well done.
Without a God who ultimately assess retribution and reward for "right" and
"wrong," the only defensible system of beliefs is nonmorality. All actions
flow from a personal "social" utility analysis. What is "good" is what make
a person "happy" from his or her subjective viewpoint WITHOUT regard as to
what consequences would result to other individuals or society. Laws and
penal codes devolve into merely stating what the negative "utils" there are
to a particular action. To put it in its worse sense, a rape simply the
consequence of a decision that a rapist made that (pleasure of the rape) >
(risk of incarceration)*(expected prison sentence).
The pain and suffering of the victim has no bearing on the calculus. That
is true and defensible atheism.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > JMS may have much respect for religion, but I must say that I
do not.
> > > Call it lack of maturity on my part.
> >
> > I wouldn't call it a lack of maturity. Quite the opposite, in fact.
> >
> > Religions are irrational belief systems. > >
>
> OK. I won't call it lack of maturity. I will call it lack of
> intellectual sophistication in your simplistic labeling of atheism as
> "rational" and theism as "irrational".
>
> Who BEHAVES more rationally? A THEIST who ACTS as if THESIM is true, or
> an ATHEIST who professes that theism is false, yet ACTS as if THEISM is
> true?
>
Chandran D. Kumar, Esq.
The clearest indication that JMS is an atheist comes from "Epiphanies."
Epiphany denotes the first time that Jesus Christ is revealed as God.
"Epiphanies" is a perversion of that to show the revelation of the Vorlons
and Shadows as God-like creatures.
This aspect of the show saddens me but..
Tom Jordaan <t...@phlebas.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<34bb9ad8....@news.demon.co.uk>...
> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 13:54:51 -0500, "jdn" <king...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >RDAB wrote in message <34BA0C...@prodigy.net>...
> >
> >:First off where do you get that JMS is an athiest. Look at the title of
> >:his stories, and some of the dialogue and hints throughout the show.
> >:Look at the time when Ivanonva said I am God, but when the camera
change
> >:angles and then came back to her she looked up as if she was looking at
> >:the sky and said kidding about the god part. He is always talking about
> >:stuff from the bible, like Garibaldi talking about the last man that
> >:turned traitor got thirty pieces of silver, once again reffering to
> >:judas. And again some of the titles that are thrown out there,
> >:soulhunter, the holy grail, IN THE BEGINNING, and so on. Something
tells
> >:me you have your facts wrong.
> >
> >jms is a self-professed Atheist, and has said so on a number of
occasions.
> >One can be an Atheist while also using biblical references and
presenting
> >religion even-handedly, as he has generally done.
>
> Further, an atheist can usually have a laugh at religion's expense...
>
> Tom.
>
> --
> Tom Jordaan (at home) - tj....@phlebas.demon.co.uk
jdn
Invid fan wrote in message ...
:Why? It's my world view, and I have no desire to try and convert anyone.
:
:--
:Chris Mack 'With a price on his head, the Carrot becomes a
:'Invid Fan' desperado, aided only by a small band of adventuresome
: coeds whose unquestioning loyalty has been won through
: his romantic prowess in more peaceful times!'
Because otherwise, its trivial? Individuals hanging around with their own
world views, not trying to convert anyone; a nice image, if you're into that
sort of thing (completely unrealistic, I think; society don't, can't and
shouldn't work that way).
jdn