help please, when did Isaac Asimov die?
Rae Stabosz
My daughter would like to prove to someone that Isaac Asimov has died.
This person, a real fan of Asimov's, refuses to believe it. She's
also got $20 riding on this. Can someone give me either his actual
date of death, or at least the month? She's going to start looking
through newspaper archives, but all we can remember is that it was
maybe sometime in winter.
Rae
Jim Kasprzak
Kibo at a diner in Schenectady, NY.
Terry Chan
+ Isaac Asimov is not dead. I saw him eating hot dogs with Elvis Presley and
+Kibo at a diner in Schenectady, NY.
Plus, he's still writing the ASK MARILYN column in _Parade_ magazine.
I just saw today's.
Terry "Or was that Harlan Ellison?" Chan
--
Internet: TWC...@lbl.gov I disclaim all disclaimers.
David Kassover
>Kibo at a diner in Schenectady, NY.
I dunno exactly what Jim saw, but Schenectady is a singularly
appropriate place for a sighting of this kind.
Some years ago, in a fit of pique, a science fiction writer
answered the question "Where *do* you get your ideas" with "Well,
I'm not supposed to let this out, but there's a P.O. box in
Schenectady, NY. We writers send $2.00 and an SASE, and back
comes an idea". Somewhat later, several short stories of this
writer were collected, and published in a volume entitled _It
Came From Schenectady". The cover art was a futuristic rendering
of the view of GE's main plant. When I had an office in building
37, I made a point to keep a copy on my desk, waiting for people
to recognize the meatball.
Now, then, if the sighting had been in Rensselaerville, I might
have been a little less skeptical...
--
David Kassover "Proper technique helps protect you against
uupsi!khazad!kassover sharp weapons and dull judges."
kass...@aule-tek.com F. Collins
kass...@ra.crd.ge.com
Jim Kasprzak
|> In article <3pp...@rpi.edu> kas...@rpi.edu writes:
|> > Isaac Asimov is not dead. I saw him eating hot dogs with Elvis Presley and
|> >Kibo at a diner in Schenectady, NY.
|>
|> I dunno exactly what Jim saw, but Schenectady is a singularly
|> appropriate place for a sighting of this kind.
|>
|> Some years ago, in a fit of pique, a science fiction writer
|> answered the question "Where *do* you get your ideas" with "Well,
|> I'm not supposed to let this out, but there's a P.O. box in
|> Schenectady, NY. We writers send $2.00 and an SASE, and back
|> comes an idea". Somewhat later, several short stories of this
|> writer were collected, and published in a volume entitled _It
|> Came From Schenectady". The cover art was a futuristic rendering
|> of the view of GE's main plant.
|>
|> have been a little less skeptical...
diners in Rensselaerville are all lousy. Absolute grease-pits.
James 'Kibo' Parry
HEY! The Wonder Burger is NOT a diner!
I think I caught my flu from Elvis. Also, there was this near-disaster
when our sideburns all collided.
-- K.
Duncan Peter G. Thornton
> Isaac Asimov is not dead. I saw him eating hot dogs with Elvis Presley and
>Kibo at a diner in Schenectady, NY.
Jesus, have some respect. It's not "dead," it's metabolically
challenged. Get with the program.
- Duncan
__________________________________________________________________
Prolongs | | Restores
* | E*L*E*C*T*R*I*C*I*T*Y I*S L*I*F*E! | *
Life! | | Health!
__________________________________________________________________
Duncan Thornton tho...@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Rae Stabosz
Got it. April 6, 1992. Thanks to all who responded! My daughter won
her choice of $20 in cash or $20 in free videogames from the owner of
the new arcade in town. She chose the cash. Good move.
Rae
Richard John Rauser
Are you kidding? What about Street Fighter II? Sorry, wrong newsgroup...
--
Richard J. Rauser "Remember, no matter where you go,
rau...@sfu.ca there you are."
WNI -Buckaroo Banzai
chi...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
>In <3pp...@rpi.edu> kas...@jacob.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes:
>
>> Isaac Asimov is not dead. I saw him eating hot dogs with Elvis Presley and
>>Kibo at a diner in Schenectady, NY.
>
>Jesus, have some respect. It's not "dead," it's metabolically
>challenged. Get with the program.
>
>- Duncan
>
Does that mean Elvis would have a problem using one?
-Jen
Rich Greenberg
> Hi,
> My daughter would like to prove to someone that Isaac Asimov has died.
> This person, a real fan of Asimov's, refuses to believe it. She's
> also got $20 riding on this. Can someone give me either his actual
> date of death, or at least the month? She's going to start looking
> through newspaper archives, but all we can remember is that it was
> maybe sometime in winter.
Acording to the editorial in the 9/92 issue of Isaac Asimov's SF Magazine,
he died April 6, 1992 :-(((
He was 72 years old and had been ill for about a year.
RIP Isaac.
--
Rich Greenberg - N6LRT - 310-649-0238 - ri...@hatch.socal.com
Larry Gilmore
>>>RIP Isaac.
>>^^^^ ^^^^^
>>
>>NOT Isaac! He's up there raising H*** with someone!
>>
>
>Ah, a-hem, that would be *down* there.
NOT! Isaac is UP there, that's why he's RAISING it!
--
Larry A. Gilmore Internet: gil...@venice.sedd.trw.com
TRW SEDD, DH1/2849
P.O. Box 6213 Phone: (310)764-3318
Carson, CA 90746 Fax: (310)764-3946
lawrence finkel cis stnt
>In article <1992Jul21....@venice.sedd.trw.com> gil...@venice.sedd.trw.com (Larry Gilmore) writes:
>>In article <Brq09...@hatch.socal.com> ri...@hatch.socal.com (Rich Greenberg) writes:
>>>>In article <BrL9w...@news.udel.edu>, sta...@chopin.udel.edu (Rae Stabosz) writes:
>>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> My daughter would like to prove to someone that Isaac Asimov has died.
>>>
>>>he died April 6, 1992 :-(((
>>>
>>>He was 72 years old and had been ill for about a year.
>>>
>>>RIP Isaac.
>>
>>NOT Isaac! He's up there raising H*** with someone!
>>
>
>Ah, a-hem, that would be *down* there.
Sorry folks ,
Asimov was freeze dried 2 hours before his official _Death_.
Attempts will be made to reconstitute him in 2437.
--
#-----------------------------------------------------------------------------#
# Lawrence Finkel: lxf...@hertz.njit.edu #
# "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." #
#-----------------------------------------------------------------------------#
Jim Heath
> In article <1992Jul21....@venice.sedd.trw.com> gil...@venice.sedd.trw.com (Larry Gilmore) writes:
>>In article <Brq09...@hatch.socal.com> ri...@hatch.socal.com (Rich Greenberg) writes:
>>>>In article <BrL9w...@news.udel.edu>, sta...@chopin.udel.edu (Rae Stabosz) writes:
>>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> My daughter would like to prove to someone that Isaac Asimov has died.
>>>
>>>Acording to the editorial in the 9/92 issue of Isaac Asimov's SF Magazine,
>>>he died April 6, 1992 :-(((
>>>
>>>He was 72 years old and had been ill for about a year.
>>>
>>>RIP Isaac.
>>^^^^ ^^^^^
>>
>>NOT Isaac! He's up there raising H*** with someone!
>>
>
> Ah, a-hem, that would be *down* there.
But do atheists _go_ anywhere when they die?
--
"Land of song, said the warrior bard, Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee." (Thomas Moore)
bill nelson
: >>
: >>NOT Isaac! He's up there raising H*** with someone!
: >>
: >
: > Ah, a-hem, that would be *down* there.
:
: But do atheists _go_ anywhere when they die?
accept any "Devine text" as literal truth.
Bill
Crunchy Frog
>jhe...@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath) writes:
>: >>
>: >>NOT Isaac! He's up there raising H*** with someone!
>:
>
>I would not say that he was an atheist. More correctly, he just did not
>accept any "Devine text" as literal truth.
You might not say he was an atheist, but Asimov sure did.
>Bill
C Frog
Don Fearn
|> I would not say that he was an atheist.
Perhaps *you* wouldn't, but *he* did in his long two-volume autobiography.
--
Pooder - Rochester, MN - DoD# 0591 (I think) - LotN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quid tibi (est) opiniones aliorum: What do you care what other people think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I share garage space with: Gretchen - '86 K75 Harvey - '72 CB500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. E. Shum
However, in his auto-biography, he did refer to himself as a "jewish
atheist."
--
<j...@mitre.org>|--------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------| Libertarian Party
Andre Marrou Nancy Lord for | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE (202)543-1988
for President Vice-President | Washington, DC 20003 (800)682-1776
Robert Church
>In article <1992Jul22.1...@CERIS.Purdue.EDU> jhe...@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath) writes:
>>
>>But do atheists _go_ anywhere when they die?
>
>standard image of 'heaven' to be appropriate for any rational man...
The problem with Asimov was the he felt (feels, is he dead?) that reality would
actually shape itself into what he thought it should be. If you disagree read
the intro to "Before the Golden Years".
--
*********************************************
* bob church *
* bch...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu *
* D-8195 NFS #27 *
Terry Chan
but I can't receive e-mail, so forget it. [cool name, BTW] writes:
+In article <1992Jul22.1...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>,
bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
+
+|> I would not say that he was an atheist.
+
+Perhaps *you* wouldn't, but *he* did in his long two-volume autobiography.
Ah, what does HE know.
Terry "mono[syllabic]theist" Chan
bill nelson
:
: > I would not say that he was an atheist. More correctly, he just did not
: > accept any "Devine text" as literal truth.
: >
: > Bill
: >
:
: However, in his auto-biography, he did refer to himself as a "jewish
: atheist."
Hm. I must have missed it when I read the autobiography. Guess I will
have to re-read it. I will report back in a couple of years, after I
get my library bookcases built, so I can find the books.
Bill
Wilson Heydt
"Andy", no doubt . . .
I think Asimov made it pretty plain that he considered the existence
to the supernatural--of any sort--to be exceedingly unlikely. It's a
fair claim to describe him as having been an atheist.
As to where an atheist goes . . . 6 feet under, one presumes.
--Hal
--
Hal Heydt | "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell | --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447 | "... kill all the lawyers."
whh...@pbhya.PacBell.COM | --William Shakespeare
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
tho...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Duncan Peter G. Thornton) writes:
>
|>
|>> Isaac Asimov is not dead. I saw him eating hot dogs with Elvis
|>Presley and
|>>Kibo at a diner in Schenectady, NY.
|>
|>Jesus, have some respect. It's not "dead," it's metabolically
|>challenged. Get with the program.
The Azimov death myth has been about since the seventies. Azimov himself
debunked it in his book of collected short stories:
"Many of my readers assume that I am dead and are quite surprised to
find me still alive. Nevertheless this is indeed the case."
Need I say more?
Phill
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
jhe...@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath) writes:
|>But do atheists _go_ anywhere when they die?
Depends if they are taking part in a snuff movie called `Dinner at
Dahmers or not'.
Phill
Charles Lasner
>>
>> I would not say that he was an atheist. More correctly, he just did not
>> accept any "Devine text" as literal truth.
>>
>> Bill
Is that Andy Devine? (or is it Smilin' Ed?)
cjl
bill nelson
: In article <1992Jul22.1...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: >
: >I would not say that he was an atheist. More correctly, he just did not
: >accept any "Devine text" as literal truth.
:
: "Andy", no doubt . . .
:
: I think Asimov made it pretty plain that he considered the existence
: to the supernatural--of any sort--to be exceedingly unlikely. It's a
: fair claim to describe him as having been an atheist.
Yes and no. An atheist would deny that there could be a supernatural. An
agnostic would say that he did not currently believe in the supernatural
but is open to proof otherwise.
I would expect that Asimov, being the scientist he was, would always be
willing to accept proof to the contrary.
Bill
JH Hofmeyr
>Subject: Re: help please, when did Isaac Asimov die?
>Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 03:55:57 GMT
>RIP Isaac.
Ah! At last someone who answers a question!
Thanks Rich.
** ~~~~~/ / /* JH Hofmeyr * "If I want a kettle, I buy **
** / / / / * 914...@sunvax.sun.ac.za * one, I don't buy a 486 **
** / /~~~/~~~/ * Univ of Stellenbosch * to do the job! **
**\__/ / / / * South Africa * -- Meself **
Urban F
>>>>RIP Isaac.
>>>^^^^ ^^^^^
>>>NOT Isaac! He's up there raising H*** with someone!
>>
>>Ah, a-hem, that would be *down* there.
>NOT! Isaac is UP there, that's why he's RAISING it!
As an atheist, he is naturally in neither place.
--
Urban Fredriksson ( N.G.U.Fredri...@oasis.icl.co.uk )
/ <- this is an ASCII map of Sweden
Clark Adams
He has said he was an atheist humanist. Until he died he was President
of the American Humanist Association. Also, at a speech he gave in New Jersey
a few years ago, which a couple of my friends were able to attend, he
said that there came a point early in his life when he matter-of-
factly-accepted atheism as he previously had religion.
Conatact the American Humanist Association in Amherst, NY or The Freefom
From Religion Foundation (P.O. Box 750, Madison, WI 53701) to verify
this.
Barbara Haddad
> In article <1992Jul21....@venice.sedd.trw.com> gil...@venice.sedd.tr
> >In article <Brq09...@hatch.socal.com> ri...@hatch.socal.com (Rich Greenber
> >>>In article <BrL9w...@news.udel.edu>, sta...@chopin.udel.edu (Rae Stabos
> >>> Hi,
> >>
> >>> My daughter would like to prove to someone that Isaac Asimov has died.
> >>
> >>Acording to the editorial in the 9/92 issue of Isaac Asimov's SF Magazine,
> >>he died April 6, 1992 :-(((
> >>
> >>He was 72 years old and had been ill for about a year.
> >>
> >>RIP Isaac.
> >^^^^ ^^^^^
> >
> >NOT Isaac! He's up there raising H*** with someone!
> >
>
> Ah, a-hem, that would be *down* there.
>
.........ah, come on, we all know he didn't believe in an afterlife.
Right now Asimov is waiting to be recycled. If anyone has a kid 6 or so
months from now that starts crawling off to type madly on their
typewriter, we'll know he's back in the saddle again. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Haddad -> (bha...@clubzen.fidonet.org)
S. Mudgett aka little gator
> I would not say that he was an atheist.
you wouldn't, but he did.
little "isaac asimov made a pass at my husband once" gator
--
-- little gator aka S. Mudgett email: s...@harvee.uucp
-- friend of a gator is a friend of mine
jim hori
I assume this is a reference to Andy Devine.
Matt Hucke
Asimov himself wrote that he'd prefer nothingness, as he doesn't consider the
standard image of 'heaven' to be appropriate for any rational man...
--
"What? Over? Did you say it's over? Nothing's over, till we decide it is!
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!" --John Belushi
hu...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu _ V_ a_ l_ h_ a_ l_ l_ a BBS, 217-352-3682, WWIV4.21, 14.4k
Larry M Headlund
>In article <Brt90...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> hu...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul22.1...@CERIS.Purdue.EDU> jhe...@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath) writes:
>>>
>>>But do atheists _go_ anywhere when they die?
>>
>>Asimov himself wrote that he'd prefer nothingness, as he doesn't consider the
>>standard image of 'heaven' to be appropriate for any rational man...
>
>The problem with Asimov was the he felt (feels, is he dead?) that reality would
>actually shape itself into what he thought it should be. If you disagree read
>the intro to "Before the Golden Years".
>
ObUL request:
This is vaguely related to Asimov since he was a skeptic.
I was recently reading _The Faith Healers_ by Randi and realized I
haven't heard any faith healer UL's. There is no lack of religious UL's
(The Vanishing Hitchhiker) nor sickness UL's (Craig) but no faith healing
UL's.
So, has anyone one had a FOAF healed by a faith healer? Or has
anyone had a FOAF die after throwing away their insulin after visting
a faith healer.
This would seem a natural field for UL's but maybe I travel in
the wrong circles?
Famous people you have met that have been healed by faith
healers qualifies for extra points.
Larry "The Oral Roberts of the computer field: I put my hand on the
terminal and CAST OUT THESE GERBILS" Headlund
--
Larry Headlund l...@world.std.com Eikonal Systems (617) 482-3345
LUCIFER
>But do atheists _go_ anywhere when they die?
yup.Low income housing, somewhere in a back corner of limbo.
James D. Jones
Nope. They go to Heck, which is sort of like an eternal college faculty
party in a large, rambling flat. It's always 11:30 p.m. on Friday night,
the bathtub's full of imported beer, and they've got good Mondavi jug wine in
the kitchen. If you're not lucky, though, you might end up arguing
phenomenology with a bearded guy in a tweed jacket (pipe smoker, of course)
until the end of time.
LUCIFER
>An agnostic would say that he did not currently believe in the supernatural
>but is open to proof otherwise.
I consider myself an agnostic, yet I am a practicing Jew, becouse I think
that that religion has a lot going for it. But I am not certain that it's
(Judeaism) is correct.
I think most agnostics practice athiesm, simply becouse it is easier. or that
they are closet athiests, but are afraid to admit it)
HELD HOSTAGE -- YEAR ONE
>
>The Azimov death myth has been about since the seventies. Azimov himself
>debunked it in his book of collected short stories:
>
>"Many of my readers assume that I am dead and are quite surprised to
>find me still alive. Nevertheless this is indeed the case."
>
>
>Need I say more?
>
>Phill
Looks like it finally caught up with him. 6 April 1992 was not a good day.
One book of Asimov's collected short stories? That would be on hell of a
big book.
M.
--
------------------------ man...@iies.ecn.purdue.edu ------------------------
Nobody likes you.
Everybody hates you.
You're gonna lose.
Jim Heath
>
> In article <1992Jul22.1...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>> jhe...@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath) writes:
>> : >>
>> : >>NOT Isaac! He's up there raising H*** with someone!
>> : >>
>> : >
>> : > Ah, a-hem, that would be *down* there.
>> :
>> : But do atheists _go_ anywhere when they die?
>>
>> I would not say that he was an atheist. More correctly, he just did not
>> accept any "Devine text" as literal truth.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
> However, in his auto-biography, he did refer to himself as a "jewish
> atheist."
>
I think he mentioned being an atheist in one of his editorials in
"his" magazine. 'Course if he was wrong, either of the first 2
statements may be true.
"There is no good, scientific evidence for life after death.
However, there is no good scientific evidence against it either.
Why fret about it? You'll know soon enough."
L. Long
Brad Templeton
and say that there is no way one can know for sure, but the fact is
that the vast bulk of them do not believe there is a god, and thus
in my book they are athiests, (literally non-theist.)
The number of athiests who state that they know there is a god and that
it is impossible that there be any sort of god is small. The Objectivists
are about the only ones I have met of that stripe.
Most athiests and agnostics are the same. They think there is no god,
they admit it is possible but unlikely and that nobody knows for certain.
There's no difference between them.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Gary Heston
No, he stated he was a scientific agnostic; he had no scientific evidence
of the existance of a god.
Asimov loved to burst peoples' misconceptions; in one of his books,
he recounted an exchange with a clueless student. In the course of
the conversation, the student vociferously decried the modern world,
and claimed that things were much better run in the "old days",
referring to pre-Roman empire times, when there was a high level of
culture, etc.
As I recall, the exchange went something like this:
Asimov: "So, you'd like to live in, say, ancient Greece? Athens?"
Clueless: "Yeah! That would be *great*!"
Asimov: "You'd enjoy being a slave in the Athenian silver mines?"
Cluless abruptly sat down without a word, and didn't say anything to
anyone for a while; later, he came by and thanked Asimov for giving
him a more realistic perspective on things. It hadn't occured to him
that all that ancient culture was enjoyed by a very few, and the average
person (of which he would have been one) had a very miserable existance.
I'd like to have seen the look on that guys' face....
The saddest part about his death, though, is that he died the same weekend
as Sam Walton, and $am got allmost all the press coverage. Wonder which one
will be better known in 50 years?
--
Gary Heston SCI Systems, Inc. ga...@sci34hub.sci.com site admin
The Chariman of the Board and the CFO speak for SCI. I'm neither.
"Always remember, that someone, somewhere, is making a product that will
make your product obselete." Georges Doriot, founder of American R & D.
Tom Streeter
>Nope. They go to Heck, which is sort of like an eternal college faculty
>party in a large, rambling flat. It's always 11:30 p.m. on Friday night,
>the bathtub's full of imported beer, and they've got good Mondavi jug wine in
>the kitchen. If you're not lucky, though, you might end up arguing
>phenomenology with a bearded guy in a tweed jacket (pipe smoker, of course)
>until the end of time.
Now *this* is scary...............
--Tom "going to go sign up for a religion, quick!" Streeter
--
Tom Streeter | stre...@cs.unca.edu
Dept. of Mass Communication | 704-251-6227
University of North Carolina at Asheville | Opinions expressed here are
Asheville, NC 28804 | mine alone.
Chris Brewster
I think people put too fine a point on this. Agnostics proudly stand up
and say that there is no way one can know for sure, but the fact is
that the vast bulk of them do not believe there is a god, and thus
in my book they are athiests, (literally non-theist.)
...
Most athiests and agnostics are the same. They think there is no god,
they admit it is possible but unlikely and that nobody knows for certain.
There's no difference between them.
This is confused. You're muddling the difference between "I don't believe
in God" and "I believe there is no God". One position states the question
is indeterminate, the other states a position on one side. Remember,
"don't believe" doesn't mean "disbelieve".
Agnostic position:
"...there is no way one can know for sure..."
"...do not believe there is a god..."
"...it is possible but unlikely and that nobody knows for certain."
^^^^^^^^^^^^
This "leaning" isn't particularly in either camp,
atheistic or agnostic.
Atheistic position:
"They think there is no god..."
Agnostics, logically, are no closer to atheists than they are to believers.
Your point seems to be that agnostics lean toward atheism, but this is only
from the standpoint of believers. I'm an agnostic and I don't lean toward
either atheism or belief in a god.
Chris Brewster
Larry M Headlund
>In article <Brun1...@world.std.com> l...@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund) writes:
>>>
>> Gee, I didn't know Asimov was an engineer.
>
>Boston U (or somewhere around there).
>
What I was responding to was a statement to the effect that Asimov
believed that his thoughts could change the world to reflect what he imagined.
Are we going to have to resort to smileys?
Why ya askin?
owner of BEHEMOTH
please respond fran...@clciris.chem.umr.edu
or fran...@ibm530.chem.umr.edu
or fran...@cs.umr.edu
thanx
.
--
\></<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></
/<>\BLAK**TO**BASICS********* \></ We Must Educate Our Own. /<>\
\></ francois otherwise.. /<>\For Tomorrow Belongs To Those\></
/<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></<>\></,>\></Who Prepare For It Today...../<>\
Philip Wang
My perspective here is that atheist seems to be derogatory and agnostic more
positive in the sense that I find in my experience atheists out to prove that
God doesn't exist while agnostics don't think there is a God, but they don't
discount the possibility of God's existence and therefore don't try to prove
anything (or don't try as hard). I'm agnostic, but I don't try to prove that
there is no such thing as dieties or supernatural beings (I do believe in
ghosts). My point being that the way I see it, atheists are definite that God
doesn't exist and agnostics just aren't sure and choose not to believe in God
as sort of a default. At least that's what I do.
Sorry, can't think of any jokes. Maybe next time.
philip
"Inside the power cage, I can feel the music call my rage
It's paranoid, first degree. It's telling me that I'm not free.
I've got heavy metal music in my blood and I like to get it to you if I could"
-Holocaust, "Heavy Metal Mania" ||||||||| pw...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu |||||||||
John McCarthy
there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that
the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence
on the werewolf question.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Ron Dippold
>>Most athiests and agnostics are the same. They think there is no god,
>>they admit it is possible but unlikely and that nobody knows for certain.
>>There's no difference between them.
>My perspective here is that atheist seems to be derogatory and agnostic more
>positive in the sense that I find in my experience atheists out to prove that
>God doesn't exist while agnostics don't think there is a God, but they don't
Let's not forget the Apatheists. We don't know and we don't really care.
--
Even paranoids have enemies. -- Jim Pastore
Sea Wasp
>I think people put too fine a point on this. Agnostics proudly stand up
>and say that there is no way one can know for sure, but the fact is
>that the vast bulk of them do not believe there is a god, and thus
>in my book they are athiests, (literally non-theist.)
Well, perhaps I'm unusual, but I put myself in the agnostic camp. I
say that at the moment the evidence I see would weigh more towards the
conclusion that there is no "God", but any contrary evidence is welcome.
I see the difference between the two [in their MODERN, rather than their
older, definitions] as being similar to the difference between your average
American Catholic/Christian and a Fundamentalist.
There's a story I like which points up the difference:
An atheist and an agnostic are sitting on the shore of the Red Sea
when Moses comes booking out of Egypt, bringing the Hebrews with him
and pursued by all of Pharoah's men.
Both the spectators ask what's going on; when told, they look at the
mob of soldiers approaching and recommend either fast surrender or quick
swimming lessons.
Moses just smiles and raises his arms.
With a roar of a thousand cataracts, the Sea parts, while a great
pillar of fire holds the shocked Egyptians at bay. The Hebrews follow Moses'
gesture and run.
The agnostic, eyes wide, looks at the water, looks at Moses, looks
back to the water.
Then he drops to his knees, looking skyward, and says, "HALLELUJA,
I am SAVED! Brother, I BELIEVE!"
The atheist, eyes wide, looks at the water, looks at Moses, looks
back to the water.
Then he nods and smiles appreciatively. "Great trick. Mirrors,
right?"
In other words, an agnostic is willing to read the evidence as
it appears; a TRUE atheist just WON'T believe, even if God Himself
were to come down and talk with him.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Clark Adams
>In article <1992Jul23....@clarinet.com> br...@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>>I think people put too fine a point on this. Agnostics proudly stand up
>>and say that there is no way one can know for sure, but the fact is
>>that the vast bulk of them do not believe there is a god, and thus
>>in my book they are athiests, (literally non-theist.)
>
> Well, perhaps I'm unusual, but I put myself in the agnostic camp. I
>say that at the moment the evidence I see would weigh more towards the
>conclusion that there is no "God", but any contrary evidence is welcome.
>I see the difference between the two [in their MODERN, rather than their
>older, definitions] as being similar to the difference between your average
>American Catholic/Christian and a Fundamentalist.
(Humorous Atheist-Agnotstic Jode Deleted)
> In other words, an agnostic is willing to read the evidence as
>it appears; a TRUE atheist just WON'T believe, even if God Himself
>were to come down and talk with him.
>
>
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
;;;
I think you are falling into stereotypes. Atheism is a default position:
the lack of belef in G/god/s. Agnosticism is the position that the
existence of G/god/s (and other supernatural stuff) is unknowable (usually
improbable). The two positions are not mutually exclusive. Most atheists
(at least the hundred+ that I know ) would gladly believe in a god if
it were proven that he/she/it/them existed. To agree with Brad, most
atheists are agnostics and vice versa if you take the words for their
denotation and not their sterotypical connotation.
THOUGHTfully Yours:
Clark Adams
cad...@athena.cs.uga.edu
Clayton Cramer
> In article <1992Jul22.1...@CERIS.Purdue.EDU>,> Depends if they are taking part in a snuff movie called `Dinner at
> Dahmers or not'.
>
> Phill
"Dinner at Dahmer's" -- doubtless, the next movie released by Time-
Warner. I'm sure it will be very successful.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
DNA Kaifeng
>(Humorous Atheist-Agnotstic Jode Deleted)
I've long been interested in the definition of atheist and agnostic. I've
heard a few, but I prefer this one: an atheist is one who BELIEVES that
God does NOT exist and an agnostic is one who is simply skeptical about
the existence of God. So under this definition, only an agnostic can be
a true scientist (of thought, not necessarily profession).
-steve
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@******************************************
@ email: sr...@beagle.colorado.edu @* "Nothing in biology makes sense except *
@ Dept. of Molecular, Cellular @* in the light of evolution." *
@ and Developmental Biology @* - T. Dobzhansky *
@ University of Colorado, Boulder @* Opinions are my own. *
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@******************************************
Speaker-to-Minerals
>I think people put too fine a point on this. Agnostics proudly stand up
>and say that there is no way one can know for sure, but the fact is
>that the vast bulk of them do not believe there is a god, and thus
>in my book they are athiests, (literally non-theist.)
There's a big difference between not believing there is a god and believing
that there is no god.
Brad Templeton
>This is confused. You're muddling the difference between "I don't believe
>in God" and "I believe there is no God". One position states the question
>is indeterminate, the other states a position on one side. Remember,
>"don't believe" doesn't mean "disbelieve".
Well, I've read your explanation, and I still think this is a moot point.
In my worldview, these are the same statement. Whatever difference
you perceive between them has no meaning in the real world. No matter
which of these views you take, your life and relationship to god are
the same, ie. you have no relationship to god. You don't worship, go
to church or change your behaviour in any way that is based on the
existence of a god.
Agnostics are not theists. As far as I am concerned that makes them
athiests in thought and deed.
In all their behavior they are MUCH closer to athiests, even the
Objectivist kind, then they are to believers.
I would call myself an athiest. I have no belief in god and have
good confidence in that belief. I'm open to new evidence at all times,
but I've spent a lot of time examining the evidence (and my dad has
a Doctor of Divinity, was a very famous preacher and is now an agnostic,
so I've had this evidence from early on in life) and what I've seen
lead me to declare with confidence that I see no reason for belief in god.
But you see, to me "I see no reason for belief in" leads inexorably to
"I do not believe in." To me they are the same, and that is why an
agnostic and athiest are no different. An agnostic also sees no reason
for belief in god. She's much farther from the faithful than from me.
Torkel Franzen
EDU (Speaker-to-Minerals) writes:
>There's a big difference between not believing there is a god and believing
>that there is no god.
At last alt.atheism stretches its tentacles into the dens of bookishness.
You are about to learn that life isn't all beer and skittles and the
civilized exchange of labored witticisms. The Definition of Atheism is about
to grab you by your scrawny throats and shake you until you are dead.
Jos Horsmeier
|I've long been interested in the definition of atheist and agnostic. I've
|heard a few, but I prefer this one: an atheist is one who BELIEVES that
|God does NOT exist and an agnostic is one who is simply skeptical about
|the existence of God. So under this definition, only an agnostic can be
|a true scientist (of thought, not necessarily profession).
I still thank God on my bare knees that I'm an atheist! ;-)
Jos aka j...@and.nl
Rosalie J Casey
>>positive in the sense that I find in my experience atheists out to prove that
>>God doesn't exist while agnostics don't think there is a God, but they don't
>
>Let's not forget the Apatheists. We don't know and we don't really care.
>--
>Even paranoids have enemies. -- Jim Pastore
If you had a bet to take, either for a god and go to
'eternal bliss', or that there is no god and take your chances...
where would your money be?
------
no sig , to cheep
rca...@iris.calpoly.edu
Ralph Marrone
Agnosticism is the Schrodinger's Cat of theism. Believers/Atheists
already know that the cat is alive/dead (or dead/alive if you prefer);
they've perceived enough evidence to support their positions. For
agnostics, the Cat is in a live/dead state; i.e., the evidence does not
support either position. I think this is called healthy skepticism.
Oh, by the way, I'm agnostic.
Regards,
rafem
Gerry cafolla
I personally think that Agnostics just can't make up their minds !.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Gerry Cafolla - No job is ever too -
- - small !! -
----------------------------------------------------------------
allen.j.tino
> I've long been interested in the definition of atheist and agnostic. I've
> heard a few, but I prefer this one: an atheist is one who BELIEVES that
> God does NOT exist and an agnostic is one who is simply skeptical about
> the existence of God. So under this definition, only an agnostic can be
> a true scientist (of thought, not necessarily profession).
>
> -steve
People who are truly skeptical of something usually don't believe
it (until and unless evidence to the contrary is presented).
That's what an atheist is with respect to the existence (or even
the concept) of god.
Do you really think that scientists have no beliefs? Does having
a belief require absolute certainty and a refusal to change your
mind in the light of new knowledge?
_______
Al Tino
ti...@globe2.ATT.COM
A. Jing Hippy
|> >
|>
Yeah, Cleveland. Although George Carlin says that he thinks you end up in
a coin-return slot in Philadelphia.
+--------------------------------------------------+
|Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC |
|coc...@dg-rtp.dg.com |
+--------------------------------------------------+
|If I owned Texas and Hell, I would rent out Texas |
|and live in Hell. - Philip Henry Sheridan |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Simon Clippingdale
> heard a few, but I prefer this one: an atheist is one who BELIEVES that
> God does NOT exist and an agnostic is one who is simply skeptical about
> the existence of God. So under this definition, only an agnostic can be
> a true scientist (of thought, not necessarily profession).
Well, it's a matter of degree. I have no evidence either way that the universe
was or wasn't created by a 19-dimensional divine blue banana (although those
damn bananaians will insist that of course the evidence is all around us, the
very fabric of the universe itself).
Do I reserve judgement and pronounce myself an agnostic (I don't believe that
a 19-D DBB created the universe), or do I stick my neck out and pronouce myself
an abananaist (I believe that a 19-D DBB didn't create the universe)?
How small does the estimated probability of a theory being true have to get
before one comes right out and believes it's wrong? If some evidence turns
up, nothing prevents me from revising my belief accordingly, so I don't
accept your last statement. One can always change one's mind; one is not
required to reserve judgement in order to be scientific, merely to modify
it as appropriate.
> -steve
Cheers
Simon
--
Simon Clippingdale si...@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K. or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Gary Heston
>>> My daughter would like to prove to someone that Isaac Asimov has died.
>>> This person, a real fan of Asimov's, refuses to believe it.
This person is lying to your daughter. If he were a real fan of Asimovs',
he'd have a subscriber to _Isaac Asimovs' Science Fiction Magazine_, and
would have read the announcement in the issue before last, as well as the
editorial in the last issue.
This person, therefore, is not a Real Fan [TM].
Your daughter wins by default!
David LeCompte
>
>Hm. I must have missed it when I read the autobiography. Guess I will
>have to re-read it. I will report back in a couple of years, after I
>get my library bookcases built, so I can find the books.
>
>Bill
Make sure you add in the weight of the books during construction. :)
--
---------------------
ObSig
Stephen P. Guthrie
>
>There's a big difference between not believing there is a god and believing
>that there is no god.
Well the predicate logic equations would be different, I can see that,
but what is the practical difference? Seems the same to me.
Mark Santesson
>
>In article <1992Jul24.0...@zeus.calpoly.edu>, rca...@zeus.calpoly.edu (Rosalie J Casey) writes:
>>
>> If you had a bet to take, either for a god and go to
>>'eternal bliss', or that there is no god and take your chances...
>>
>>where would your money be?
>>
>a little "after life" insurance. As good a reason as any. Now, which
>religion is the best "after life" insurance policy. So many to pick
>from... Hindu, Moslem, Christian, Jewish... Maybe all...
>
Definitely Moslem (at least for men), there you get to enjoy all the things
that Christianity would send you to hell for... or so the rumors say.
--
==============================================================================
Mark Santesson Portland Technology Development, Intel Corp.
msa...@ptdca0.intel.com (503) 642-8355 I don't speak for intel
Stephen P. Guthrie
>
> If you had a bet to take, either for a god and go to
>'eternal bliss', or that there is no god and take your chances...
>
>where would your money be?
But if it's just a question of hedging your bets why stop with worshipping
just one God. After all, betting on the wrong horse loses you more than
hanging on to your money (what if the real God is jealous).
So to be safe you should worship Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Apollo, Zeus, Thor,
the Sun, the Moon, Satan, the Big Rabbit,...
Andrew Prock
Well it just seems to me, from reading these posts and reviewing the
dictionary that atheism implies a more stubborn pigheaded view of
the non-existance of god i.e. one who denies the existance of god
(whether or not proof is offered. While agnosticism iplies a more open
levelheaded view of god i.e. one who holds the view that any ultimate reality
is unknown and unknowabe.
Both my definitions come from websters (online) and it seems that this
def. of agnostic leaves the actual question of belief open ended.
An agnostic could believe in god or not and still hold that the definite
knowledge is unknowable but that faith suffices. Or could disbelive
god for that very reason.
It seems to me that the definite standpoint of the atheist is a relic
of times when the church was much more powerful. But then that assumes
that proof can be found, which I don't believe can be. So the whole
concept of challenging an atheist is metaphysical because it won't happen.
So in conclustion (really I'm trying not to lose myself here),
it seems that someone who belives in god but does not accept any proof
offered by the church as sufficient should be labeled an agnostic while
one who disbelives god for lack of proof should be labeled atheist.
(with the note that if given proof most atheists will believe, but may
not like it).
well thats my 2 cents worth (BTW why is there no cent sign on my keyboard?)
Andrew Prock
Michael T Adams
To all the posters of articles on atheism/agnosticism/etc. on rec.humor
lately -- please post somewhere else.
sorry for the interruption, now back to the
previously scheduled programming.
mikey
Rujith S DeSilva
(Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>I have no evidence either way that the universe was or wasn't created by a
>myself an agnostic (I don't believe that a 19-D DBB created the universe), or
>do I stick my neck out and pronouce myself an abananaist (I believe that a
>19-D DBB didn't create the universe)? How small does the estimated
>probability of a theory being true have to get before one comes right out and
>believes it's wrong?
A nice argument, but I don't quite agree with your conclusion. One does not
have to believe or disbelieve in the DBB; one can merely say that one doesn't
know. Of course, the real test is when one is forced to decide whether to do
or not to do something depending on whether the DBB exists or not. In this
case, I see no alternative to resorting to probabilities as you did, or to
Occam's razor (perhaps the same idea in a different guise?).
Anyway, here's the obligatory anecdote (for the benefit of rec.humor): Some
philosopher/theologician, when questioned as to whether he believes in God,
replied, [paraphrased] ``Either God exists or He doesn't. Either I believe in
God or I don't. Of the four possibilities, only one is to my disadvantage.
To avoid that possibility, I believe in God.''
BTW, could someone tell me who said the above?
Rujith de Silva.
Carnegie-Mellon University.
James J. Lippard
>I've long been interested in the definition of atheist and agnostic. I've
>heard a few, but I prefer this one: an atheist is one who BELIEVES that
>God does NOT exist and an agnostic is one who is simply skeptical about
>the existence of God. So under this definition, only an agnostic can be
>a true scientist (of thought, not necessarily profession).
How does that follow? Scientists have beliefs, even about the accuracy
of their theories--but they should simply be open to future revision.
Why can't one believe that no gods exist and still be open to the possibility
that one or more gods *might* prove to exist in the future?
I consider myself an atheist on the grounds that I think the arguments
for the nonexistence of gods are better than the arguments for the existence
of gods. I do not, however, consider theists necessarily irrational or
discount the possibility of gods.
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Robert Rubinoff
>Anyway, here's the obligatory anecdote (for the benefit of rec.humor): Some
>philosopher/theologician, when questioned as to whether he believes in God,
>replied, [paraphrased] ``Either God exists or He doesn't. Either I believe in
>God or I don't. Of the four possibilities, only one is to my disadvantage.
>To avoid that possibility, I believe in God.''
This sounds like Pascal, who argued that belief in God was the way to bet.
Unfortunately, there are two flaws in this reasoning:
1) Belief in God may carry disadvantages, e.g. you may avoid doing things
that you would otherwise enjoy.
2) Belief in God based on this notion that it's the safest thing to do may
actually count against you. For all we know, a sincere disbelief may leave
you better off than belief motivated by a desire to play the odds.
Actually, the second flaw is an instance of a more general problem with this
type of reasoning: how do we know what God(s) want(s) us to do? Maybe God
prefers non-believers in general; there's just no possible way to estimate the
odds.
Basically, you have to believe what you think is right based on other reasons,
and just hope you haven't got it fatally wrong.
Robert
SCOTT I CHASE
>
>A nice argument, but I don't quite agree with your conclusion. One does not
>have to believe or disbelieve in the DBB; one can merely say that one doesn't
>know. Of course, the real test is when one is forced to decide whether to do
>or not to do something depending on whether the DBB exists or not. In this
>case, I see no alternative to resorting to probabilities as you did, or to
>Occam's razor (perhaps the same idea in a different guise?).
This point of view forces you to say "I don't know" to everything. I don't
know if my wife exists. I am only highly confident. The probability, in
my best assessment, is such that I should always act as if she exists, but
I will never "KNOW" if she exists. Sorry, I don't buy it.
-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase "The question seems to be of such a character
SIC...@CSA2.LBL.GOV that if I should come to life after my death
and some mathematician were to tell me that it
had been definitely settled, I think I would
immediately drop dead again." - Vandiver
Clark Adams
>have to believe or disbelieve in the DBB; one can merely say that one doesn't
>know. Of course, the real test is when one is forced to decide whether to do
>or not to do something depending on whether the DBB exists or not. In this
>case, I see no alternative to resorting to probabilities as you did, or to
>Occam's razor (perhaps the same idea in a different guise?).
>
>Anyway, here's the obligatory anecdote (for the benefit of rec.humor): Some
>philosopher/theologician, when questioned as to whether he believes in God,
>replied, [paraphrased] ``Either God exists or He doesn't. Either I believe in
>God or I don't. Of the four possibilities, only one is to my disadvantage.
>To avoid that possibility, I believe in God.''
>
>BTW, could someone tell me who said the above?
>
>Rujith de Silva.
>Carnegie-Mellon University.
Thsis is a version of Pascal's Wager , Blaise Pascal, French Cartesian
theologian. This is fallacious for a couple of reasons: 1) Which god? and
2)it assumes a dichotomy between atheism and Christianiyty.
richardson craig s - CS500
>>
>> If you had a bet to take, either for a god and go to
>>'eternal bliss', or that there is no god and take your chances...
>>
>>where would your money be?
>>------
>>no sig , to cheep
>>rca...@iris.calpoly.edu
>>
>a little "after life" insurance. As good a reason as any. Now, which
>religion is the best "after life" insurance policy. So many to pick
>from... Hindu, Moslem, Christian, Jewish... Maybe all...
Plus, you get more holidays that way :-).
--Craig
--
These remarkable insights were brought to you from the fertile imagination of:
Craig S. Richardson (cric...@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu)
GM, Pullman Sleepers (Original Bitnet Fantasy Baseball League)
GM, Seattle Rainiers (Internet Federal AL League)
Margaret Mikulska
"He who refuses to use logic is doomed to talk nonsense."
(With apologies to John McCarthy for using and paraphrasing his .sig without
authorization :-) .)
-Margaret
miku...@astro.princeton.edu
Unknown
>
> In article <1992Jul24.1...@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> si...@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
> Anyway, here's the obligatory anecdote (for the benefit of rec.humor): Some
> philosopher/theologician, when questioned as to whether he believes in God,
> replied, [paraphrased] ``Either God exists or He doesn't. Either I believe in
> God or I don't. Of the four possibilities, only one is to my disadvantage.
> To avoid that possibility, I believe in God.''
>
> BTW, could someone tell me who said the above?
>
I believe you are refering to Pascal's Wager, in which he examined the risk/reward of believing
or not, and even if there is little evidence of God, the reward is so great (eternal bliss vs.
eternal pain) it's better to believe. The possible loss (a little prayer, worship, etc.. ) was not
as great as any other possible loss. I will confirm the title this weekend, I read it
in "Aha! Gotcha", by Gardner"
Jon jmho...@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
===============================
"Is this any time to make enemies?" Voltaire, on his deathbed, on being told
to renounce Satan.
Martin Veneroso
>In article <1992Jul24.0...@zeus.calpoly.edu>, rca...@zeus.calpoly.edu (Rosalie J Casey) writes:
>>
>> If you had a bet to take, either for a god and go to
>>'eternal bliss', or that there is no god and take your chances...
>>
>>where would your money be?
>>------
>>no sig , to cheep
>>rca...@iris.calpoly.edu
>>
>Hmm... Maybe you are right, wouldn't hurt to take up a religion for
>a little "after life" insurance. As good a reason as any. Now, which
>religion is the best "after life" insurance policy. So many to pick
>from... Hindu, Moslem, Christian, Jewish... Maybe all...
I recall that Blaise Pascal used logic like this to conclude that it
was a good "bet" to attend church once a week against the chance that
god exists and give a flying f**k what you do with your time. Given
the time and place in which he lived, he had little choice of
religions, simplifying his problem greatly.
I maintain that an agnostic is an atheist without the strength of
his/her convictions!
--
Martin Veneroso
sl...@netcom.com
Jung'f vg gb ln?
Steve Lamont
>I think he mentioned being an atheist in one of his editorials in
>"his" magazine. 'Course if he was wrong, either of the first 2
>statements may be true.
Asimov was unquestionably an atheist. He was on the editorial board
of "The Humanist," a magazine devoted to secular humanism or humanist
secularism or something of that sort and general religion bashing. I
subscribed to the magazine for a short period of time and recall
seeing articles by Asimov from time to time.
spl
--
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- s...@dim.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"Out of the ash/I rise with my red hair/And I eat men like air."
- Sylvia Plath, "Lady Lazarus"
~WISP at CU~
>>
>>Let's not forget the Apatheists. We don't know and we don't really care.
Please can I join?
The Wisp.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Williams <cs...@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <cs...@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
Bjorn Knutsson
the alt.atheism FAQ (which is crossposted to news.answers and FTP:able from
pit-manager.mit.edu). But since this message is crossposted to just about every
group EXCEPT alt.atheism and news.answers...
In article <1992Jul24.0...@zeus.calpoly.edu> rca...@zeus.calpoly.edu (Rosalie J Casey) writes:
> >>My perspective here is that atheist seems to be derogatory and agnostic more
> >>positive in the sense that I find in my experience atheists out to prove that
> >>God doesn't exist while agnostics don't think there is a God, but they don't
To quote from the FAQ:
4. "Agnostics are people who 'can't make up their minds'."
Most agnostics are of the opinion that determination of the existence or
non-existence of supernatural entities is not possible. They may go
through the world under the assumption that such things don't exist, but
that is because they have no evidence that such things do.
They have no reason to believe that there is a supernatural entity
watching over them. However, that is no reason to assume that such an
entity isn't doing so.
> >Let's not forget the Apatheists. We don't know and we don't really care.
> >--
> >Even paranoids have enemies. -- Jim Pastore
>
> If you had a bet to take, either for a god and go to
> 'eternal bliss', or that there is no god and take your chances...
>
> where would your money be?
Another quote from the FAQ ought to clear this one up:
8. "If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing
-- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will
go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."
This is known as Pascal's Wager. It has several flaws.
Firstly, it does not indicate which religion to follow. Indeed, there
are many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there. This
is often described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem. If a person
is a follower of religion X, he may end up in religion Y's version of
hell.
Secondly, the statement that "If you believe in God and turn out to be
incorrect, you have lost nothing" is not true. Suppose you're believing
in the wrong God -- the true God might punish you for your foolishness.
Consider also the deaths that have resulted from people rejecting
medicine in favour of prayer.
Many feel that for intellectually honest people, belief is based on
evidence, with some amount of intuition. It is not a matter of will or
cost-benefit analysis.
Formally speaking, the argument consists of four statements:
1. One does not know whether God exists.
2. Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if God does
exist.
3. Believing in God is of no consequence if God does not exist.
4. Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in God.
One problem with this argument, in the abstract, is that it creates
information from no information. This is considered invalid in
information theory. Statement 1 indicates one has no information about
God -- but statements 2 and 3 indicate that beneficial information can be
gained from the absolute lack of information about God. This violates
information entropy -- information has been extracted from no
information, at no "cost".
The biggest reason why Pascal's wager is a failure is that if God is
omniscient he will certainly know who really believes and who believes as
a wager. He will spurn the latter... assuming he actually cares at all
whether people believe in him.
> ------
> no sig , to cheep
> rca...@iris.calpoly.edu
--
Björn Knutsson <bj...@bern.docs.uu.se>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Phil Gustafson
>In article <1992Jul24.0...@zeus.calpoly.edu> rca...@zeus.calpoly.edu (Rosalie J Casey) writes:
>>
>>Let's not forget the Apatheists. We don't know and we don't really care.
>
>Please can I join?
>
>The Wisp.
They're not very well organized, but they will have a booth at the 1989
Procrastinators' Club convention this coming fall in Milwaukee.
Phil
--
|play: ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG; {ames|pyramid|vsi1}!zorch!phil |
|work: phil@gsi; sgi!gsi!phil | Phil Gustafson |
| "Don't believe in ads. Don't believe in government. Watch yourself -- |
| everybody is trying to screw you!" Bill Gaines, 1922-1992 |
Nick Vargish
>Let's not forget the Apatheists. We don't know and we don't really
>care.
Rosalie J Casey writes:
>Please can I join?
This one shows too much initiative.
Nick "secular hedonist" Vargish
--
| Nick Vargish | "I'm just another wide area network packet-herder..." |
| SURAnet Operations +-------------------------------------------------------+
| var...@sura.net | "SURAnet and I do not have a relationship based on |
| h: 301 474-1863 | mutually-shared ideologies. Don't assume otherwise." |
Jim Blakey N2MQE
-In article <1992Jul22.1...@CERIS.Purdue.EDU>, jhe...@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath) writes:
-|> >>
-|> >>NOT Isaac! He's up there raising H*** with someone!
-|> >
-|> > Ah, a-hem, that would be *down* there.
-|>
-|> But do atheists _go_ anywhere when they die?
-
-
-Yeah, Cleveland. Although George Carlin says that he thinks you end up in
-a coin-return slot in Philadelphia.
Actually, I have this all figgured out. When you die, little white
blinking ascii letters state;
G A M E O V E R
Thank you for playing
Please insert one Token to play again.
(if you've done very well, you might even get to enter your initials)
Jim 'but I'm on my last man, and I've used up all my tokens' Blakey
--
Jim Blakey ji...@tsdiag.ccur.com
Joe Beiter
>
>In article <1992Jul24.0...@zeus.calpoly.edu>, rca...@zeus.calpoly.edu (Rosalie J Casey) writes:
>>
>> If you had a bet to take, either for a god and go to
>>'eternal bliss', or that there is no god and take your chances...
>>
>>where would your money be?
>a little "after life" insurance. As good a reason as any. Now, which
>religion is the best "after life" insurance policy. So many to pick
>from... Hindu, Moslem, Christian, Jewish... Maybe all...
Thats assuming of course that *a* God can be patronized. I don't know about
the other religions you mentioned but in the Christian religion it is God
who does the choosing.
--
-=@=-=@=-=@=-=@=-::
- JoeB Joe.B...@HauppaugeNY.NCR.COM
jo...@pdnfido.fidonet.org
-=@=-=@=-=@=-=@=-::
Matt Hucke
>
>Thats assuming of course that *a* God can be patronized. I don't know about
>the other religions you mentioned but in the Christian religion it is God
>who does the choosing.
R U EL1TE D00D????!!!!!
--
"What? Over? Did you say it's over? Nothing's over, till we decide it is!
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!" --John Belushi
hu...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu _ V_ a_ l_ h_ a_ l_ l_ a BBS, 217-352-3682, WWIV4.21, 14.4k
Roger Leuthner
>In article <Brun1...@world.std.com> l...@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund) writes:
>>>
>> Gee, I didn't know Asimov was an engineer.
>
>I thought that he had a Ph.D. in biochemistry and he was tenured at
>Boston U (or somewhere around there).
Columbia University, NYC
Terry Chan
+>I thought that he had a Ph.D. in biochemistry and he was tenured at
+>Boston U (or somewhere around there).
In article <1992Jul25.1...@pony.Ingres.COM> rog...@Ingres.COM
(Roger Leuthner) writes:
+Columbia University, NYC
Actually, he was professor of biochemistry at Boston University's
school of medicine. Asimov did note though that he didn't have to
do much of anything there for many years.
Terry "Which is more than can be said for most college students" Chan
--
Internet: TWC...@lbl.gov I disclaim all disclaimers.
bill nelson
: >>
: >>Let's not forget the Apatheists. We don't know and we don't really care.
:
: Please can I join?
:
: The Wisp.
Who cares? :-)
Bill "Does it matter?" Nelson
Liam Greenwood
information which may help me decide.
Second case is There is NO God.
The second case is the same as belief in God, opposite case ie there is
NO doubt in the believers' minds.
Me? I answer N/A to all religious questions on forms.
--
Liam Greenwood ------ li...@durie.amigans.gen.nz ------ Wanganui, N.Z.
Don't tell my Mother I'm a programmer,
she thinks I'm a piano player in a brothel
Michael Chaplin
In article <Brup...@ecf.toronto.edu> ric...@ecf.toronto.edu (George Matthew Rice) writes:
>In article <Brun1...@world.std.com> l...@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund) writes:
= >>>
= >> Gee, I didn't know Asimov was an engineer.
= >
= >I thought that he had a Ph.D. in biochemistry and he was tenured at
= >Boston U (or somewhere around there).
= > Columbia University, NYC
Yeah, he was a prof. at Boston U., but it seemed mostly for show-
it wasn't like he taught or anything.
In any case, I though he got his degree at Columbia...
$.02,
chaplin.
--
===============================================================================
Michael Chaplin Language is a virus from outer space.
mic...@albert.bu.edu - William S. Burroughs
The Einstein Papers Project The opinions contained herein reflect
Boston University neither those of the project,
Boston, Massachusetts, USA nor those of Albert Einstein.
John McCarthy
but relatively soon stopped being paid, because he switched entirely
to literature.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Charles Lasner
>Brad Templeton writes:
>
> "I do not believe in."
>
>I'm not sure you read what I wrote. "I don't believe in God" does *not*
>mean "I believe there is no God". This is just sloppy use of language,
>the same way that people say "I don't like" to mean "I dislike".
>Negating a predicate implies only that the positive predicate would be
>false, not that its opposite is true.
Often it irks me to deal with people saying that "you don't have to" {perform
some task option} when in fact the requirement is that you must *not* {perform
some task option} as if there's no difference.
Or the fact that there's a difference between "N times as much" and "N times
more". Anybody got any more "off by one" or "one vital contingency slopped
over" examples?
cjl
Charles Lasner
>
>It seems to me that the definite standpoint of the atheist is a relic
>of times when the church was much more powerful. But then that assumes
>that proof can be found, which I don't believe can be. So the whole
>concept of challenging an atheist is metaphysical because it won't happen.
>
>So in conclustion (really I'm trying not to lose myself here),
>it seems that someone who belives in god but does not accept any proof
>offered by the church as sufficient should be labeled an agnostic while
>one who disbelives god for lack of proof should be labeled atheist.
>(with the note that if given proof most atheists will believe, but may
>not like it).
>
>well thats my 2 cents worth (BTW why is there no cent sign on my keyboard?)
>
>Andrew Prock
Part of your argument hinges on the default statement that some people
believe in a god in the first place. The atheist states that you religionists
are pigheaded in attempting to force the deity concept on him, and instead
wants you to leave him alone, and/or get a life (without a dependancy on an
external uncontrollable force, etc.) that lives without deity needs. We might
laugh at a primitive tribe as they are fearful of their local witch doctor
as the messenger of their deity, because we "know better" but I fail to see
the fundamental difference between that society and ours in this particular
regard. The atheist refuses to accept blind faith as a pillar of any argument
and the religionist must accept it. Thus there is no way a logical argument
can ever be made for or against religion. A totally logical person (if any
exists!) must be either an atheist or a god himself.
cjl
William Mason
Further, 76%; chose to decry the practice of agnostisism. To quote
one respondent. "It is hard enough being omnipotent, without the
need to go about being manifest as well."
Well ... as we in the survey biz like to say it, "Gods speak in mysterious
ways."
br...@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>Most athiests and agnostics are the same. They think there is no god,
>they admit it is possible but unlikely and that nobody knows for certain.
>There's no difference between them.
>--
>Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
--
_____ "Though the course may change, Rivers ~always~ reach the sea." lz _____
_--_|\ William Mason ACSnet: wil...@syacus.acus.OZ
/ ACUS \ Aust Ctr UNISYS S/w Internet: wil...@syacus.acus.OZ.AU
\_.--._/ Sydney, N.S.W, Voice: +61-2-390-1322
Brad Templeton
I'm simply describing the facts. The people who call themselves
agnostics do not believe in god. They make the very fine point that
this is different from the atheist's viewpoint "I believe there is no
god." I understand this difference just fine, thanks. No need
to get insulting. I just argue that it is not very meaningful.
The agnostic when asked, "is there a god?" might say "I don't know,"
rather than "I think not." SO WHAT? That's about the only difference.
The agnostic does not go to church, or follow any moral code because it was
handed down by some god. The agnostic does not worship or have specific
plans for the afterlife or any of the things that distinguish the faithful.
She is 99% the same as the athiest when it comes to everything but how
a few questions and answered and how a few points are argued. Big deal.
I was just in opposition to the statement that the agnostic is halfway
between the theist and atheist. When it comes to examining your life, your
morals, almost everything that matters, the agnostic is the same as the
atheist. Not halfway at all.
Thomas Omar Smith
>the other religions you mentioned but in the Christian religion it is God
>who does the choosing.
That's only those sects that believe in predestination. Other groups
believe that salvation comes from faith, which is a choice by man.
Which leads to an interesting point. If you're predestined, then why be
good. You're already guaranteed salvation. If you're not predestined,
then you have nothing to lose by being bad. Hmmmm.
Which leads to this interesting story. A friend told me this one, and I
laughed for a while. Seems a friend of his worked in a local store.
One day, a Jehovah's witness was preaching to people in the store. This
particular worker was a rather clever fellow, and the conversation ran
thusly,
"According to your religion, only a Jehovah's witness can be saved"
"Yes, that is our teaching".
"And according to the Bible, only 144,000 people are to be saved"
"Yes, this is also according to our teachings".
"But, there are 2,000,000 Jehovah's witnesses."
The preaching person went into emotional shock for hours.
Tom the non hacker
Kemp in 96!
"If patriotism is the last refuge
of scoundrels, Then environmentalism
is the current refuge of totalitarians."
Bob Jackson
LAU WAI KUEN
>Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
>Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:50:10 GMT
>In article <1992Jul24.0...@zeus.calpoly.edu> rca...@zeus.calpoly.edu (Rosalie J Casey) writes:
>>
>> If you had a bet to take, either for a god and go to
>>'eternal bliss', or that there is no god and take your chances...
>>
>>where would your money be?
>But if it's just a question of hedging your bets why stop with worshipping
>just one God. After all, betting on the wrong horse loses you more than
>hanging on to your money (what if the real God is jealous).
>So to be safe you should worship Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Apollo, Zeus, Thor,
>the Sun, the Moon, Satan, the Big Rabbit,...
Don't forget SATIN, the great god of sheets, and other fabrics.
Halcyon
"It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two. And those who have not
swords can still die upon them."
LAU WAI KUEN
>From: ra...@gvlf7-e.gvl.unisys.com (Ralph Marrone)
>Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
>In article <1992Jul24....@clarinet.com> br...@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>>In article <CB.92Jul...@tamarack13.timbuk> c...@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
>>
>>In all their behavior they are MUCH closer to athiests, even the
>>Objectivist kind, then they are to believers.
>>
>>I would call myself an athiest. I have no belief in god and have
>>good confidence in that belief. I'm open to new evidence at all times,
>>but I've spent a lot of time examining the evidence (and my dad has
>>a Doctor of Divinity, was a very famous preacher and is now an agnostic,
>>so I've had this evidence from early on in life) and what I've seen
>>lead me to declare with confidence that I see no reason for belief in god.
>>
>>But you see, to me "I see no reason for belief in" leads inexorably to
>>"I do not believe in." To me they are the same, and that is why an
>>agnostic and athiest are no different. An agnostic also sees no reason
>>for belief in god. She's much farther from the faithful than from me.
>>--
>>Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
>Agnosticism is the Schrodinger's Cat of theism. Believers/Atheists
>already know that the cat is alive/dead (or dead/alive if you prefer);
>they've perceived enough evidence to support their positions. For
>agnostics, the Cat is in a live/dead state; i.e., the evidence does not
>support either position. I think this is called healthy skepticism.
>Oh, by the way, I'm agnostic.
>Regards,
>rafem
Puh-lease! Don't label yourself with the name the religious nuts give
you! Anyone who decides to be undecided about religion is a FREETHINKER!
(Personally I prefer this because it's a sideways insult to the religious
nuts. (Hi god!). Implies their thinking isn't.)
Halcyon
"It is a sin to believe evil of others; but seldom a mistake."
Chris Dollin
I'm not saying at all that "you don't have to" means "you must not."
I'm simply describing the facts. The people who call themselves
agnostics do not believe in god. They make the very fine point that
this is different from the atheist's viewpoint "I believe there is no
god." I understand this difference just fine, thanks. No need
to get insulting. I just argue that it is not very meaningful.
The agnostic when asked, "is there a god?" might say "I don't know,"
rather than "I think not." SO WHAT? That's about the only difference.
The agnostic does not go to church, or follow any moral code because it was
handed down by some god. The agnostic does not worship or have specific
plans for the afterlife or any of the things that distinguish the faithful.
One distinction I would draw is that the atheists claim there statements are
about the world (``There is no god'') whereas the agnostic makes claims about
their beliefs (``I don't believe in God'', or ``I don't know if there is a
God''; or perhaps the stronger ``It is not possible to know if there is a God
or not'', which makes claims about knowing beings). This can promote a
difference in behaviour. Since I haven't explored the question of belief with
my locals, I can't be sure. (For the record, I'm agnostic.)
--
Regards, | ``In fingers of trees, and valleys of gold | Judy Tzuke
Kers. | I watch as you outshine the charlatan foe.'' | Higher & Higher