------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: The Philosopher's Stone Date: Fri May 13 09:33:28 CDT 1994 Message number: 1 Reply to message number: unavailable Ramble ... rant ... `The Philosopher's Stone' is a place to discuss what has meaning to you in life, be it religious beliefs or a strong streak of existentialism. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Starfire Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Sun Aug 11 18:57:45 CDT 1996 Message number: 2 Reply to message number: -2 S> When you are in a position such as would constitute wanting an abortion who S> would really listen to church policy? Some do, which I think is unfortunate. It instills a fer of God, and I do not believe that God is fearful. S/he is love. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFIRE To: Starfox Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Mon Aug 12 04:35:13 CDT 1996 Message number: 3 Reply to message number: -1 S> Or you can change the word abortion with other words. I dont listen to what S> my church says to do unless I feel myself, it is good for me. I am a main part of my church and I only do what I feel I should. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFIRE To: Froggy Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Mon Aug 12 04:39:15 CDT 1996 Message number: 4 Reply to message number: 2 F> Some do, which I think is unfortunate. It instills a fer of God, a F> I do not believe that God is fearful. S/he is love. What religion are you? I agree that there has to be a balance between all aspects of the Goddess, God and the natural world. Even people are a part of that balance (accept they may be tipping the scales in a not so good way). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Starfire Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Mon Aug 12 08:05:33 CDT 1996 Message number: 5 Reply to message number: 3 S> I am a main part of my church and I only do what I feel I should. Good hehe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Starfire Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Mon Aug 12 17:00:46 CDT 1996 Message number: 6 Reply to message number: 4 F> Some do, which I think is unfortunate. It instills a fer of God, a F> I do not believe that God is fearful. S/he is love. S> S> What religion are you? I agree that there has to be a balance between all S> aspects of the Goddess, God and the natural world. Even people are a part o S> that balance (accept they may be tipping the scales in a not so good way). I thought I told you. I am a Quaker. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFIRE To: Froggy Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Tue Aug 13 05:39:45 CDT 1996 Message number: 7 Reply to message number: 6 F> I thought I told you. I am a Quaker. You have said that some of you friends are Quakers. I have never spoken to a Quaker and know very little about it. Would you care to enlighten me? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Starfire Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Tue Aug 13 06:56:42 CDT 1996 Message number: 8 Reply to message number: 7 S> You have said that some of you friends are Quakers. I have never spoken to S> Quaker and know very little about it. Would you care to enlighten me? The people who make the oatmeal screwed something up... Froggy, can you explain that again too??? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Starfire Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Tue Aug 13 08:55:28 CDT 1996 Message number: 9 Reply to message number: 7 S> Quaker and know very little about it. Would you care to enlighten me? Quakers were founded in England in 1658 by George Fox. He was irritated that peoples' religions were decided by law and society because he felt that religion was a personal relationship between the person and God. People formed around him and formed very dedicated groups of people, or Meetings. They rejected all forms of ritual and what they considered phony religions. Quakers do not baptize, have communion, an altar, ordain ministers, or any of the other things that other so-called Christian groups have used to replace Jesus. The Meeting for Worship is completely unplanned and is silent meditation. Therefore, it is natural that I and people like me understand the Spirit we have been talking about. Anything other than this, I will answer questions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Froggy Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Wed Aug 14 01:45:13 CDT 1996 Message number: 10 Reply to message number: 9 F> religions. Quakers do not baptize, have communion, an altar, ordain Why not baptism? One would think that with so many biblical referances (John the Baptist) that would be something of a must? *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Wed Aug 14 04:26:47 CDT 1996 Message number: 11 Reply to message number: 10 F> religions. Quakers do not baptize, have communion, an altar, ordain BT> BT> Why not baptism? One would think that with so many biblical referances (Jo BT> the Baptist) that would be something of a must? BT> Depends on how you interpret the Bible. Quakers do not believe in external rituals. True Baptism is the descention of the Spitit of God into the soul of a person, which happens frequently in Quaker Meetings, but not at the contrivance of humans. Othere than that they become quiet, center, and prepare for it to happen. In fact, Quakers call this "waiting for the Spirit." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Froggy Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Thu Aug 15 02:37:37 CDT 1996 Message number: 12 Reply to message number: 11 F> external rituals. True Baptism is the descention of the Spitit of God into F> the soul of a person, which happens frequently in Quaker Meetings, but not a So how does one know when they have been "baptised" in this sense? *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Thu Aug 15 09:43:21 CDT 1996 Message number: 13 Reply to message number: 12 F> external rituals. True Baptism is the descention of the Spitit of God into F> the soul of a person, which happens frequently in Quaker Meetings, but not a BT> BT> So how does one know when they have been "baptised" in this sense? BT> You feel it. If you do not feel it, it didn't happen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Froggy Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Thu Aug 15 10:10:49 CDT 1996 Message number: 14 Reply to message number: 13 BT> So how does one know when they have been "baptised" in this sense? BT> F> You feel it. If you do not feel it, it didn't happen. But couldn't this just be a manifestation of your own imagination - your mind is already looking for something like this so what's to say it doesn't "trick you" so to speak? *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Thu Aug 15 15:50:12 CDT 1996 Message number: 15 Reply to message number: 14 BT> So how does one know when they have been "baptised" in this sense? BT> F> You feel it. If you do not feel it, it didn't happen. BT> BT> But couldn't this just be a manifestation of your own imagination - your mi BT> is already looking for something like this so what's to say it doesn't "tri BT> you" so to speak? BT> Yes, it could. It is important to be careful and selective to make sure of that. But there are also other things that point to it, like another person across the room in a Quaker Meeting rising to discuss what you have been mulling over, when you have not expressed it. Also, do you really think there is value in an empty ritual of Baptism. where there is no assumption of influence by Spirit at all? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Froggy Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Thu Aug 15 16:05:06 CDT 1996 Message number: 16 Reply to message number: 15 F> been mulling over, when you have not expressed it. Also, do you really thin F> there is value in an empty ritual of Baptism. where there is no assumption o F> influence by Spirit at all? No I don't - not at all. I find alot of the standard Christian Church pratices laughable at best. I find much more comfort with "God" (if that's what it is) meditating on my own then going to church - singing offkey hymnals and listening to propaganda speeches never was a big attraction for me. I think you've got your religious beliefs down pretty well, I was just looking for elaboration. This put me in a very uncomfortable position earlier this year - confirmation at my Luthern church. I don't have any faith in Jesus or the Trinity - just God - Jesus was always presented to me more like a "middle man" that talks to God than the real thing so to speak. (How capitalistic..) But I went through with it to please my family, and it was kind of tough for me because I was sacrificing my own ideals in the process. But I figured that I know and God knows what I really care about so hurting others over my pride wasn't worth it. *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Thu Aug 15 20:02:24 CDT 1996 Message number: 17 Reply to message number: 16 F> been mulling over, when you have not expressed it. Also, do you really thin F> there is value in an empty ritual of Baptism. where there is no assumption o F> influence by Spirit at all? BT> BT> No I don't - not at all. I find alot of the standard Christian Church BT> pratices laughable at best. I find much more comfort with "God" (if that's BT> what it is) meditating on my own then going to church - singing offkey hymn So do we Quakers. That is why we call it a Meeting (among other reasons.) Meditating and communing with God is what we *do.* BT> This put me in a very uncomfortable position earlier this year - confirmati BT> at my Luthern church. I don't have any faith in Jesus or the Trinity - jus BT> God - Jesus was always presented to me more like a "middle man" that talks BT> God than the real thing so to speak. (How capitalistic..) But I went throu Sometimes putting on a public front and being honest to yourself is the most reasonable thing to do. I do not see Jesus as "middle man." I think he *was* God, and that his purpose was to appear as a human and talk and operate in language that most humans could not understand. If you read and study the religious histories, you see that there was a major chang in the way people related to God before and after the arrival of Jesus. The ancient Jews were afraid to call him by name. They believed that anyone who looked directly at God would die. They saw God as punishing and judgemental. Jesus sofened this. He told us that God was our father. That he had a house with many mansions for us. That he wanted us to love one another. Most astoundingly, he told us that we could pray directly to God and taught us how. I think that Jesus was the real deal, but humans have built so much nonsense around him that people become disgusted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: FROGGY Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Mon Aug 19 15:34:14 CDT 1996 Message number: 18 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy to Starfire <=- S> Quaker and know very little about it. Would you care to enlighten me? Fr> Fr> Quakers were founded in England in 1658 by George Fox. He Fr> was irritated that peoples' religions were decided by law and society Fr> because he felt that religion was a personal relationship between the Fr> person and God. People formed around him and formed very dedicated Fr> groups of people, or Meetings. They rejected all forms of ritual and Fr> what they considered phony religions. Quakers do not baptize, have Fr> communion, an altar, ordain ministers, or any of the other things that Fr> other so-called Christian groups have used to replace Jesus. The Fr> Meeting for Worship is completely unplanned and is silent meditation. Fr> Therefore, it is natural that I and people like me understand the Fr> Spirit we have been talking about. Anything other than this, I will Fr> answer questions. Hmmm...the complete opposite of the current notions of the so called Religious Right. A public relationship seems to be desired over a personal relationship. Ritual is relished and demanded in many cases. I wonder how groups like the Quakers will fair in the next few years. ... A snicker is a candy bar and also a sneaky smile. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Sandman Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Mon Aug 19 18:07:13 CDT 1996 Message number: 19 Reply to message number: 18 S> Hmmm...the complete opposite of the current notions of the so S> called Religious Right. S> Eeeek! Yes, by God, yes! S> A public relationship seems to be desired over a personal S> relationship. S> Well, Quakers have been known to publicly picket and vigil at the Pentagon, Honeywell headquarters, transport men across the border into Canada. We usually pray about it in private before we make public asses out of ourselves. :) S> Ritual is relished and demanded in many cases. S> Ritual is usually phony and transparent, unless you are working with the real deal. S> I wonder how groups like the Quakers will fair in the next few S> years. S> The same way we have since before most of these other groups existed. Underground and in private. Quakers originated the antislavery movement, Women's Rights and suffragette groups, the Underground Railroad, and Planned Parenthood, all movements that were politically unpopular at the time. Many Quaker activists were persecuted, but for the most part, their issues won, and there are Quakers still around. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARKSHINE To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Mon Aug 19 23:40:45 CDT 1996 Message number: 20 Reply to message number: 16 BT> sacrificing my own ideals in the process. But I figured that I know and Go BT> knows what I really care about so hurting others over my pride wasn't worth BT> it. I'm sure all the money rolling in after confirmation didn't hurt too much either. (: |05 . ś . ś . |05 ®(š=-Darkshine-=š)Æ |05 ł . ł . ł ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Darkshine Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Tue Aug 20 03:44:31 CDT 1996 Message number: 21 Reply to message number: 20 D> I'm sure all the money rolling in after confirmation didn't hurt too muc D> either. (: Yeah, that's true, I guess I wouldn't of gotten that if I ran around the church screaming "Satan has possesed me!" Makes for an interesting mental picture at least. :) *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARING DIANE J. To: SANDMAN Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Tue Aug 20 18:23:19 CDT 1996 Message number: 22 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Sandman to Froggy <=- -=> Quoting Froggy to Starfire <=- S> Quaker and know very little about it. Would you care to enlighten me? Fr> Fr> Quakers were founded in England in 1658 by George Fox. Sa> I wonder how groups like the Quakers will fair in the next few Sa> years. Since we've made it through a few centuries now, I think we'll continue as an identifiable religious group. At Twin Cities Friends Meeting in St. Paul, we've been having a lot of people attending worship and a small, steady stream of folks going through the process of becoming full Members in the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). I was a Lutheran 4 years ago when I quit wor- shipping and living in the Lutheran way; I decided I needed to evolve as a Friend to fulfill my spiritual calling. Quakerism is appealing to a lot of folks. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daring Diane J. Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Tue Aug 20 20:00:38 CDT 1996 Message number: 23 Reply to message number: 22 DD> identifiable religious group. At Twin Cities Friends Meeting in St. Paul, DD> we've been having a lot of people attending worship and a small, steady str DD> of folks going through the process of becoming full Members in the Religiou Sigh :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: HOWARD ROARK To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Wed Aug 21 06:48:06 CDT 1996 Message number: 24 Reply to message number: 16 BT> This put me in a very uncomfortable position earlier this year - confirmati BT> at my Luthern church. I don't have any faith in Jesus or the Trinity - jus I am in a some what simmilar situation. I am currently going throught the confirmation stuff for the Catholic church and I am not sure how I feel about it all. For one I am not entirly sure of my belife in God and I fell that If there is a God to be confirmed is somewhat of a promise or a commitment to the ideals that that church offers and I find more and more increasingly that I do not agree with many of the belifs and practices of the catholic church. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFIRE To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Thu Aug 22 19:13:09 CDT 1996 Message number: 25 Reply to message number: 21 BT> Yeah, that's true, I guess I wouldn't of gotten that if I ran around the BT> church screaming "Satan has possesed me!" Makes for an interesting mental BT> picture at least. :) I would have gone to see that. I had to "join" my parent's church and all I got was a lot of embarrasment and a couple handshakes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Starfire Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Fri Aug 23 06:14:20 CDT 1996 Message number: 26 Reply to message number: 25 BT> Yeah, that's true, I guess I wouldn't of gotten that if I ran around the BT> church screaming "Satan has possesed me!" Makes for an interesting mental BT> picture at least. :) S> S> I would have gone to see that. I had to "join" my parent's church and all I S> got was a lot of embarrasment and a couple handshakes. Especially if he undressed first. Now, THAT would be a ticket worth $52. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Froggy Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Fri Aug 23 06:24:19 CDT 1996 Message number: 27 Reply to message number: 26 F> Especially if he undressed first. Now, THAT would be a ticket wort F> $52. :) The congregation would of just sat there looking doe eyed, but what would of been really interesting is to see how the pastor(s) would of reacted. *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Fri Aug 23 09:23:55 CDT 1996 Message number: 28 Reply to message number: 27 F> Especially if he undressed first. Now, THAT would be a ticket wort F> $52. :) BT> BT> The congregation would of just sat there looking doe eyed, but what BT> would of been really interesting is to see how the pastor(s) would of react BT> Ya missed your chance. :) There might have been a great future in that. Wonder what Robin Williams would have done. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFIRE To: Froggy Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Fri Aug 23 10:50:40 CDT 1996 Message number: 29 Reply to message number: 26 BT> Yeah, that's true, I guess I wouldn't of gotten that if I ran around the BT> church screaming "Satan has possesed me!" Makes for an interesting mental BT> picture at least. :) S> S> I would have gone to see that. I had to "join" my parent's church and all I S> got was a lot of embarrasment and a couple handshakes. F> F> Especially if he undressed first. Now, THAT would be a ticket wort F> $52. :) :) yeah well not I wouldn't want him giving all those nicce old people heart attacks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFIRE To: Froggy Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Fri Aug 23 10:52:44 CDT 1996 Message number: 30 Reply to message number: 28 F> Ya missed your chance. :) There might have been a great future in F> that. Wonder what Robin Williams would have done. :) Should have told them that you worshiped the disembodies head of Orvil Redimbacker. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARING DIANE J. To: SANDMAN Subject: Re: catholicism Date: Sat Aug 24 03:37:09 CDT 1996 Message number: 31 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Sandman to Froggy <=- -=> Quoting Froggy to Starfire <=- S> Quaker and know very little about it. Would you care to enlighten me? Fr> Fr> Quakers were founded in England in 1658 by George Fox. Sa> I wonder how groups like the Quakers will fair in the next few Sa> years. Since we've made it through a few centuries now, I think we'll continue as an identifiable religious group. At Twin Cities Friends Meeting in St. Paul, we've been having a lot of people attending worship and a small, steady stream of folks going through the process of becoming full Members in the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). I was a Lutheran 4 years ago when I quit wor- shipping and living in the Lutheran way; I decided I needed to evolve as a Friend to fulfill my spiritual calling. Quakerism is appealing to a lot of folks. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MR. CHANG To: Froggy Subject: intolerance Date: Sun Sep 08 18:36:27 CDT 1996 Message number: 32 Reply to message number: unavailable I previously tried to explain that you and at least one other person became upset based on a misunderstanding. Since I have not heard back from you I will have to assume that the misunderstanding is continuing. The reason may or may not be intolerance of other views. My life has become extremely busy with recently being married and starting a new business. I do not expect to continue correspondance on this bbs. Thanks for the discourse. Godspeed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TRASH To: Mr. Chang Subject: Re: intolerance Date: Tue Oct 01 08:54:58 CDT 1996 Message number: 33 Reply to message number: 32 MC> I previously tried to explain that you and at least one other person became MC> upset based on a misunderstanding. Since I have not heard back from you I Ah who cares they are all a pack of crabby holier than thou brats anyway. Trash ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: All Subject: losing our religion... Date: Thu Dec 12 13:15:57 CST 1996 Message number: 34 Reply to message number: unavailable Sorry for paraphrasing such a trite saying, but I've scanned a few recent posts and gotten the impression that most people in this discussion are: a) young (or young adults, depending on your persuasion) b) puzzled about the nature of God, or at least possessed of a healthy skepticism that He is the Entity they've been led to believe He is. I'm not here to recommend a religion, sect, faith, cult, or brotherhood (though perhaps that last should be changed to "siblinghood"). I'm not going to claim that God exists or doesn't exist. But there is one thing I do want to say at the risk of seeming "holier-than-thou": never lose the sense of wonder in the presense of that which is greater than you are. I truly believe religion started when early humans looked up at the night sky and were overwhelmed by what they saw there. Even though we now know what those lights are, generally how they work, and how far away they are, there's still so much to be overwhelmed about. This is what I believe Jesus meant when He exhorted the faithful to believe "as a little child", not without question (anyone with children knows that they rarely fail to ask questions), but with a sense of wonder. This is the core of spirituality. When it is lost, all that remains is soulless mechanism. -DTL "Isn't it funny that God knows everything, but He only listens when you're talking to Him?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: losing our religion... Date: Sat Dec 14 13:37:52 CST 1996 Message number: 35 Reply to message number: 34 DT> Sorry for paraphrasing such a trite saying, but I've scanned a few recent DT> posts and gotten the impression that most people in this discussion are: DT> DT> a) young (or young adults, depending on your persuasion) me. DT> b) puzzled about the nature of God, or at least possessed of a healthy DT> skepticism that He is the Entity they've been led to believe He is. not me. I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm pretty sure about what I believe and I am in no way a skeptic. Maybe a little too rationalistic about my religion, but not skeptical. I do disagree with many of the tenets of mainline Christianity, but I still look at God with a sense of overwhelming awe. That's just me. My personal statement. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFIRE To: Specter Subject: Re: losing our religion... Date: Sat Dec 21 17:58:30 CST 1996 Message number: 36 Reply to message number: 35 DT> a) young (or young adults, depending on your persuasion) S> S> me. ditto. DT> b) puzzled about the nature of God, or at least possessed of a healthy DT> skepticism that He is the Entity they've been led to believe He is. S> S> not me. I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm pretty sure about what S> believe and I am in no way a skeptic. Maybe a little too rationalistic abou S> my religion, but not skeptical. I do disagree with many of the tenets of S> mainline Christianity, but I still look at God with a sense of overwhelming S> awe. That's just me. My personal statement. I happen to be very sure in what I believe as being correct for myself and no one else. I have a set of views that I could never pass off as any one religion but my views are just that, mine. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Starfire Subject: implications... Date: Sun Dec 22 12:36:18 CST 1996 Message number: 37 Reply to message number: 36 DT> b) puzzled about the nature of God, or at least possessed of a healthy DT> skepticism that He is the Entity they've been led to believe He is. Sp> not me. I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm pretty sure about Sp> what I believe and I am in no way a skeptic. Maybe a little too Sp> rationalistic about my religion, but not skeptical. I do disagree Sp> with many of the tenets of mainline Christianity, but I still look at Sp> God with a sense of overwhelming awe. That's just me. My personal Sp> statement. St> I happen to be very sure in what I believe as being correct for myself and St> no one else. I have a set of views that I could never pass off as any one St> religion but my views are just that, mine. That's odd. I think what both of you are saying is that you don't know what God is, but that you know what He is to you. Unless one of you is claiming that God doesn't exist, your views are completely incompatible. If God exists, than He exists in some way. What you two are describing is a fundamental paradox of God's existence: if He is real, then either everybody has to have the same idea of Him, or somebody is wrong. By the way, saying that you have your own views about God that you wouldn't try to force on anybody else is just a polite way of saying, "I'm right, and everybody else is wrong." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Starfire Subject: Re: losing our religion... Date: Mon Dec 23 06:06:58 CST 1996 Message number: 38 Reply to message number: 36 S> I happen to be very sure in what I believe as being correct for myself and n S> one else. I have a set of views that I could never pass off as any one S> religion but my views are just that, mine. Then we have at least two younger people who are sure of their beliefs. Thee and me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: implications... Date: Mon Dec 23 06:18:32 CST 1996 Message number: 39 Reply to message number: 37 DT> That's odd. I think what both of you are saying is that you don't know wha DT> God is, but that you know what He is to you. Unless one of you is claiming DT> that God doesn't exist, your views are completely incompatible. If God DT> exists, than He exists in some way. What you two are describing is a DT> fundamental paradox of God's existence: if He is real, then either everybo DT> has to have the same idea of Him, or somebody is wrong. As for me, that's not quite what I'm saying I'm saying I cannot know what God is, but I have some idea of what He/She/It must incorporate for He/She/It to be a deity worthy of worship. For instance I do not know what God is, but I believe He/She/It to be a benevolent being. Or I cannot know hwat God is, but based upon reason and my own perceptions I assume that He/She/It is something greater than myself. I assume God to be full of paradoxes, to be one thing to me and something else to another, and yet be both in Itself. I shall henceforth refer to God as It to avoid confusing myself. I doubt humanity can begin to understand the full existence of God in even a fraction, but I do believe that God incorporates some elements which I believe to be truth. And those elements are why I worship God. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Specter Subject: Re: implications... Date: Mon Dec 23 17:35:13 CST 1996 Message number: 40 Reply to message number: 39 S> As for me, that's not quite what I'm saying I'm saying I cannot know what S> God is, but I have some idea of what He/She/It must incorporate for S> He/She/It to be a deity worthy of worship. That seems wrong to me. Don't you have to believe that God exists before you can determine if God is worthy of worship? Worshipping a God that doesn't exist would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it? S> For instance I do not know what S> God is, but I believe He/She/It to be a benevolent being. Or I cannot know S> hwat God is, but based upon reason and my own perceptions I assume that S> He/She/It is something greater than myself. By referring to God as a "being" and assuming that "He/She/It is something greater" than yourself, you are presupposing God's existence. To paraphrase my earlier argument, doesn't something have to be real before it can be really good? By the way, I refer to God as He strictly out of misogynistic pride, not because, assuming that God existed, He could appear in any way, including in a form indescribable by our pronouns. In other words, I'm evil, not lazy. S> myself. I doubt humanity can begin to understand the full existence of God S> even a fraction, but I do believe that God incorporates some elements which S> believe to be truth. And those elements are why I worship God. I agree with your assessment that humanity will never fully understand the existence of God. But then we'll never fully understand our own existence, either, even though we know that we exist. Couldn't we do the same with God? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: SPECTER Subject: Re: losing our religion.. Date: Mon Dec 23 18:38:53 CST 1996 Message number: 41 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Specter : Sp> not me. I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm pretty sure Sp> about what I believe and I am in no way a skeptic. Maybe a little too Sp> rationalistic about my religion, but not skeptical. I do disagree Sp> with many of the tenets of mainline Christianity, but I still look at Sp> God with a sense of overwhelming awe. That's just me. My personal Sp> statement. Reminds me of a (very condescending) editorial they had in the Strib the other day, saying that Carl Sagan was a great skeptic who always tried to apply the same standards to religion and new age beliefs as he did to science. The editorial then got really insulting, wishing that Sagan had realized how the Christian god fit into the universe ... and almost welcoming Sagan's death, pining for the day when Sagan dies to find out how "wrong" he was about God ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: implications... Date: Thu Dec 26 08:14:23 CST 1996 Message number: 42 Reply to message number: 40 S> As for me, that's not quite what I'm saying I'm saying I cannot know what S> God is, but I have some idea of what He/She/It must incorporate for S> He/She/It to be a deity worthy of worship. DT> DT> That seems wrong to me. Don't you have to believe that God exists before y DT> can determine if God is worthy of worship? Worshipping a God that doesn't DT> exist would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it? Um yes. I would agree with that. I already presuppose God exists. For me that isn't even a question so I'm confused. Wait now I understand what you're saying. It's the way I've traveled my religious path. I started as a child by believing in God, and worshipping God. Then as I've grown older I've begun to question what elements God has to make me want to worship him. Assuming both that God exists and that God is worthy of worship before I define what traits he must have. It sounds backwards the way I describe it but there are many other aspects I haven't defined with which the whole thing begins to make sense. Let me just say I presuppose God exists before I try to guess parameters. DT> By referring to God as a "being" and assuming that "He/She/It is something DT> greater" than yourself, you are presupposing God's existence. To paraphras DT> my earlier argument, doesn't something have to be real before it can be rea DT> good? Um yes. I believe God is real, then after that I assume based upon evidence that God is benevolent. DT> By the way, I refer to God as He strictly out of misogynistic pride, not DT> because, assuming that God existed, He could appear in any way, including i DT> form indescribable by our pronouns. In other words, I'm evil, not lazy. Most people do. I generally do out of laziness, but while I'm writing I can check myself faster so I change it to It rather than He. my belief is that God transcends gender so refering to God as having one is up to the speaker's choice. DT> I agree with your assessment that humanity will never fully understand the DT> existence of God. But then we'll never fully understand our own existence, DT> either, even though we know that we exist. Couldn't we do the same with Go Again I assume God exists. I'm sure if that's an answer to your question. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: losing our religion.. Date: Thu Dec 26 08:18:14 CST 1996 Message number: 43 Reply to message number: 41 DR> Sp> not me. I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm pretty sure DR> Sp> about what I believe and I am in no way a skeptic. Maybe a little too DR> Sp> rationalistic about my religion, but not skeptical. I do disagree DR> Sp> with many of the tenets of mainline Christianity, but I still look at DR> Sp> God with a sense of overwhelming awe. That's just me. My personal DR> Sp> statement. DR> DR> Reminds me of a (very condescending) editorial they had in the Strib DR> the other day, saying that Carl Sagan was a great skeptic who always DR> tried to apply the same standards to religion and new age beliefs as DR> he did to science. The editorial then got really insulting, wishing DR> that Sagan had realized how the Christian god fit into the universe ... DR> and almost welcoming Sagan's death, pining for the day when Sagan dies DR> to find out how "wrong" he was about God I'm not trying to be condescending. Personally I'm very fond of Sagan's writings and I have only the greatest respect for Sagan as a scientist and author, I disagree with many of his assumptions, but I'm fine with living my own beliefs and him living with his. I'm upset that the article would get insulting, Sagan simply had a different demand for proof than some of the rest of us. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Specter Subject: Re: implications... Date: Thu Dec 26 15:30:49 CST 1996 Message number: 44 Reply to message number: 42 S> As for me, that's not quite what I'm saying I'm saying I cannot know what S> God is, but I have some idea of what He/She/It must incorporate for S> He/She/It to be a deity worthy of worship. DT> That seems wrong to me. Don't you have to believe that God exists before y DT> can determine if God is worthy of worship? Worshipping a God that doesn't DT> exist would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it? S> Um yes. I would agree with that. I already presuppose God exists. [snip] S> saying. It's the way I've traveled my religious path. I started as a child S> by believing in God, and worshipping God. Then as I've grown older I've beg S> to question what elements God has to make me want to worship him. Assuming S> both that God exists and that God is worthy of worship before I define what S> traits he must have. It sounds backwards the way I describe it but there ar S> many other aspects I haven't defined with which the whole thing begins to ma S> sense. There's nothing wrong with your religious path or your religion for that matter. You're right though, it does seem backward to start by believing in God and then looking for excuses to justify that belief. Put another way, I assume you started as a child believing in Santa Claus. I also assume you have since gotten over that belief. Could you not describe a similar "falling away" in your beliefs about God? For equal time's sake, I'll point out that as a child I was sent off to whatever Sunday school was within van pick-up distance. I've had a lot of exposure to religion, but not all that much to God. I suppose the defining moment of my young religious awakening was the Sunday after John Lennon was assassinated. The pastor (I was Baptist then) explained that Lennon was actually an agent of Satan (quoting selected lyrics of the song "Imagine" to prove his point), so nobody should grieve for him. The next weekend he was gone, and the congregation spent three months looking for someone to replace him. The point was not that the pastor was overzealous against rock-n-roll or even down on Lennon (my own opinion was that Lennon, after the Beatles, was purely full of his own excrement). The point was that the pastor was a victim of politics, and God didn't save him. This is why I fear Newt Gingrich more than Robert Schuller, and Ralph Reed more than anybody. DT> To paraphrase DT> my earlier argument, doesn't something have to be real before it can be rea DT> good? S> Um yes. I believe God is real, then after that I assume based upon evidence S> that God is benevolent. I've said earlier that you are welcome to consider your own beliefs to be reality. But, just because you believe something to be real, that doesn't mean that it is real. DT> By the way, I refer to God as He strictly out of misogynistic pride, not DT> because, assuming that God existed, He could appear in any way, including i DT> form indescribable by our pronouns. In other words, I'm evil, not lazy. S> Most people do. I generally do out of laziness, but while I'm writing I ca S> check myself faster so I change it to It rather than He. my belief is that S> God transcends gender so refering to God as having one is up to the speaker' S> choice. Sorry! I intended my statement to be sarcastic. I'm not really evil (see my comments in another message area for proof). It's just that the use of multiple pronouns ("he/she/it") irritates me the same way that someone who constantly says "You know what I mean?" after every sentence irritates me. As you mentioned, and in keeping with my sentiment above, God is whatever gender the speaker assumes God is. DT> I agree with your assessment that humanity will never fully understand the DT> existence of God. But then we'll never fully understand our own existence, DT> either, even though we know that we exist. Couldn't we do the same with Go S> Again I assume God exists. I'm [not] sure if that's an answer to your S> question. It isn't. My question, point blank: "Is it possible for us to know whether or not God exists without understanding God's existence or non-existence?" You have 30 minutes. Show all work. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Specter Subject: Re: losing our religion.. Date: Thu Dec 26 15:33:18 CST 1996 Message number: 45 Reply to message number: 43 DR> Reminds me of a (very condescending) editorial they had in the Strib DR> the other day, saying that Carl Sagan was a great skeptic who always DR> tried to apply the same standards to religion and new age beliefs as DR> he did to science. The editorial then got really insulting, wishing DR> that Sagan had realized how the Christian god fit into the universe ... DR> and almost welcoming Sagan's death, pining for the day when Sagan dies DR> to find out how "wrong" he was about God S> I'm not trying to be condescending. Personally I'm very fond of Sagan's S> writings and I have only the greatest respect for Sagan as a scientist and S> author, I disagree with many of his assumptions, but I'm fine with living my S> own beliefs and him living with his. I'm upset that the article would get I agree with you, Specter, regardless of our discussion in this area. And Daedalus, isn't it more satisfying to read the article and think to yourself, "Gee, I wonder what the writer will think when he dies and discovers that the afterlife is nothing but oblivion. I guess he won't think much!" ;) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFIRE To: Specter Subject: Re: implications... Date: Thu Dec 26 16:01:44 CST 1996 Message number: 46 Reply to message number: 42 DT> By the way, I refer to God as He strictly out of misogynistic pride, not I choose to refer to god as she not out of feminist pride but because I assume that one's personal pronouns should be used in accordance to belief and equality of usage. Any kind of hatred, in my opinion, is horribly petty. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: implications... Date: Fri Dec 27 10:58:27 CST 1996 Message number: 47 Reply to message number: 44 DT> Put another way, I assume you started as a child believing in Santa Claus. DT> also assume you have since gotten over that belief. Could you not describe DT> similar "falling away" in your beliefs about God? Actually my parents made a point out of teaching me not to believe in Santa Claus. If anything, I've become more sure of my belief in God. What has happened is that I've used what little evidence I have of God's existence to change the structure of my belief in God. i've never wavered in my belief in God, but I've changed what I believe God is comprised of. DT> This is why I fear Newt Gingrich more than Robert Schuller, and Ralph Reed DT> more than anybody. Ralph Reed scares the crap out of me. I am totally afraid of any kind of church based state. DT> I've said earlier that you are welcome to consider your own beliefs to be DT> reality. But, just because you believe something to be real, that doesn't DT> mean that it is real. Well that goes without saying, but I have to believe something is real i choose what I believe and wait until someone gives me evidence that what I believe isn't real. DT> form indescribable by our pronouns. In other words, I'm evil, not lazy. DT> S> Most people do. I generally do out of laziness, but while I'm writing I ca S> check myself faster so I change it to It rather than He. my belief is that S> God transcends gender so refering to God as having one is up to the speaker' S> choice. DT> DT> Sorry! I intended my statement to be sarcastic. I'm not really evil (see DT> comments in another message area for proof). It's just that the use of DT> multiple pronouns ("he/she/it") irritates me the same way that someone who DT> constantly says "You know what I mean?" after every sentence irritates me. DT> DT> As you mentioned, and in keeping with my sentiment above, God is whatever DT> gender the speaker assumes God is. i understood that it was sarcastic. If my response didn't put that across, I'm sorry my brain is kind of fuzzy during vacation. I agree he/she/it is obnoxious, which is one of the reasons I use It. DT> It isn't. My question, point blank: "Is it possible for us to know wheth DT> or not God exists without understanding God's existence or non-existence?" DT> DT> You have 30 minutes. Show all work. It's too bad this response took almost that long to write. I would say no it isn't possible to KNOW if God exists without understanding God's existence. I would say it is possible to find evidence of God's existence and believe It exists without understanding, but again that gets back to belief. This'll take a while. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Starfire Subject: Re: implications... Date: Fri Dec 27 10:59:48 CST 1996 Message number: 48 Reply to message number: 46 S> I choose to refer to god as she not out of feminist pride but because I S> assume that one's personal pronouns should be used in accordance to belief a S> equality of usage. Any kind of hatred, in my opinion, is horribly petty. I agree. Hatred is almost always petty, there are instances where I think hatred isn't petty, but almost all cases I would say it is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Specter Subject: Re: implications... Date: Fri Dec 27 13:12:03 CST 1996 Message number: 49 Reply to message number: 47 DT> Put another way, I assume you started as a child believing in Santa Claus. DT> also assume you have since gotten over that belief. Could you not describe DT> similar "falling away" in your beliefs about God? S> S> Actually my parents made a point out of teaching me not to believe in Santa S> Claus. Ye gods! In some places those would be grounds for alleging child abuse and placing you in the care of the state! DT> I've said earlier that you are welcome to consider your own beliefs to be DT> reality. But, just because you believe something to be real, that doesn't DT> mean that it is real. S> Well that goes without saying, but I have to believe something is real i S> choose what I believe and wait until someone gives me evidence that what I S> believe isn't real. But there's a fallacy of thought there, Specter. If I tell you that I believe in Santa Claus and I will continue to do so until somebody gives me evidence that my belief isn't real, then I'll never be convinced. Arial photography doesn't show any evidence of a workshop at the North Pole? That's because the workshop is magically hidden. There's no way a single man in a sleigh could visit 1.7 billion households in 24 hours? Yes there is, Santa can affect time; it only appears like 24 hours to us, but to Santa it's as much time as it takes. Why is this a problem? Because Santa hasn't left me any presents in over ten years, and the only explanation I can come up with is that I'm irredeemably bad. So, I'm going to wind up a hopeless neurotic (or worse) because I have an unshakeable belief that cannot be disproved. It is not a coincidence that many deeply psychologically disturbed people are or were extremely religious. To me, this alone is reason to be much more skeptical of God's existence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Starfire Subject: Re: implications... Date: Fri Dec 27 13:23:20 CST 1996 Message number: 50 Reply to message number: 46 S> I choose to refer to god as she not out of feminist pride but because I S> assume that one's personal pronouns should be used in accordance to belief a S> equality of usage. I agree. I have no objection to someone who wants to call God She, unless that person tries to take the analogy too far and claim that God suffers from PMS. Would that mean that the currently accepted God peeks at his female creations while they bathe? Or perhaps the reason we haven't heard from Him in nearly two millenia is that there's a really good game of football going on in Heaven... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Starfire Subject: Re: implications... Date: Fri Dec 27 13:28:12 CST 1996 Message number: 51 Reply to message number: 46 S> Any kind of hatred, in my opinion, is horribly petty. I disagree. Sometimes you have no choice but to hate. Can you merely be irritated at the oppressor who grinds your face into the dirt? Can you be peeved at the man who dismisses you because of your gender and the color of your hair? Can you merely sneer with mild disdain at an economic system that places millions in an impossible dilemma; I must work to eat, but nobody will hire me? I would not recommend hatred as a philosophy; it's too hard on the soul. But there are times when hatred is not only the best choice, but the only meaningful choice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Specter Subject: Re: losing our religion.. Date: Sat Dec 28 16:16:56 CST 1996 Message number: 52 Reply to message number: 43 DR> Reminds me of a (very condescending) editorial they had in the Strib DR> the other day, saying that Carl Sagan was a great skeptic who always S> I'm not trying to be condescending. Personally I'm very fond of Sagan's S> writings and I have only the greatest respect for Sagan as a scientist and I didn't mean to imply that I thought you were condescening, it's just that the *topic* reminded me of the article I had read. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. S> writings and I have only the greatest respect for Sagan as a scientist and S> author, I disagree with many of his assumptions, but I'm fine with living my S> own beliefs and him living with his. I'm upset that the article would get S> insulting, Sagan simply had a different demand for proof than some of the re S> of us. Despite being being somewhat anal and inclined to tunnel-vision, I still think he was an interesting fellow. And his foray into fiction, "Contact", is still one of my favorite boks. Ironicaly, written by a non-believer, it treats religion more respectfully than most anything else out there. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: losing our religion.. Date: Sat Dec 28 16:20:05 CST 1996 Message number: 53 Reply to message number: 45 DT> And Daedalus, isn't it more satisfying to read the article and think to DT> yourself, "Gee, I wonder what the writer will think when he dies and discov DT> that the afterlife is nothing but oblivion. I guess he won't think much!" Naw, because he'll never know the difference :-) The sad thing is, I think the guy was the editor of the damned newspaper. Talk about media bias! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFIRE To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: implications... Date: Sat Dec 28 19:53:26 CST 1996 Message number: 54 Reply to message number: 51 DT> I would not recommend hatred as a philosophy; it's too hard on the soul. B DT> there are times when hatred is not only the best choice, but the only DT> meaningful choice. I can understand dislike but I cannot hate. Hate has to be something that you have experienced and know to do. I have not known true hate of self fo I cannot hate others. (No matter how much I would love to sometimes.) Saying that I hate someone is just as diffuculy as believing in true love. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: losing our religion.. Date: Sun Dec 29 05:57:27 CST 1996 Message number: 55 Reply to message number: 53 DR> The sad thing is, I think the guy was the editor of the damned newspaper. DR> Talk about media bias! I think a lot of folks have forgotten about the role of the media in our society and how it affects the people who work for it. For example, I spent two years working at the college radio station in Yuma, AZ. Nobody on the station staff could be legitimately described as a liberal (except possibly for the chief technician, Mr. Gaboury, and only then if you define liberalism as a point-of-view rather than an ideology). Two staff members, including the news director, were unabashed fans of Rush Limbaugh. You might think that this would be an intolerable working situation for someone (i.e.: me) who is a self-declared liberal and has publicly admitted that Jimmy Carter is a personal hero. It wasn't; in fact, I was recognized as talented by that conservative staff and became the first student in over ten years at the college to be allowed to edit and read the morning news on the air. I was able to do this because my job as a broadcaster is to provide information and to let the listener decide on the meaning of that information. The problem comes when some media organizations (and I admit there are more and more of them every day, it seems; it used to be that KARE was the only guilty news organization around here, now everybody but KMSP and KTCA are guilty, and occasionally everyone is) assume responsibilty for placing news within a narrative frame. This can be a good thing; it allows listeners who might not be up-to-date on a story to gain a sense of the story's history and thus a better idea of where the current information fits in. (The Twin Cities Reader does the best job of creating unbiased narrative frames, in my opinion.) Unfortunately, the narrative frame can be skewed in order to reinforce a particular stereotypical view of the world. KARE is the worst at this; every child's death generates a "massive show of support from the community" and points up the "tremendous concern that we all share for these senseless killings", and then ignores the follow-up stories that invariably demonstrate that "mainstream" society, even here in the 2nd most liberal city in America, just doesn't care about minorities killing each other, especially when drugs and gangs are involved. As long as the violence acts as a "self-cleaning oven", it is tolerated. If the editor of the STrib wants to publish his personal opinions on the Opinions page, that's his business. (And, however insulted you might be by his opinions, those of the editor of the PiPress are far worse.) Please don't be naive enough to believe that his opinions are news. And please, save the power of your accusations of bias for the targets who truly deserve them: KARE, "Hard Copy", and Rush. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Starfire Subject: Re: implications... Date: Sun Dec 29 06:17:02 CST 1996 Message number: 56 Reply to message number: 54 S> Saying that I hate someone is just as diffuculy as believing in true love. I'm glad to hear you say that, Starfire. It tells me that you are smart, that you're not afraid to think for yourself, and that you've learned to be cautious when dealing with emotions. These are all good things. (Are you sure you're a product of public education?) However... S> I can understand dislike but I cannot hate. There was a time when I would have said the same thing about myself. After all, dislike is a rational thing; you need a reason to dislike somebody. What possible reason could there be to hate anyone? But I was wrong; hatred isn't rational. That's part of the reason why it is so dangerous, and the biggest reason why it is so hard to get rid of. I can honestly say that I've hated two people in my lifetime thus far, and I had no good reason to hate either. The first was a man who was arguably my best friend in Navy basic training, but I slowly grew to hate him; perhaps as the personification of my unhappiness and disillusionment with military life. The other was a woman whom I had been attracted to. She was bright and perceptive, the first woman to ever discover my fear of growing old alone. But slowly I began to see in her the antithesis of all I believed in: I like to ask questions, she preferred to get the class over with so she could go dancing. As Honors Club President, I believed that authority grew from below--the members would decide what to do and then I would try to come up with a way to make it happen. She, as President, believed that authority was "top-down"; she decided what we would do and ordered us to make it happen. I like classic rock, she preferred "art grunge", music I saw as too self-important to be taken seriously. And the whole time I saw this, I could never rid myself of my feelings for her. She, of course, had no such feelings for me; maybe that just made it worse. So, I've really never been oppressed, at least not in a way that I didn't invite (anyone who joins the military asks for the treatment, in my opinion). But I know that I can hate, and for no good reason. Sometimes, that realization scares me, but I can't just pretend that it isn't true. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFIRE To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: implications... Date: Sun Dec 29 08:55:06 CST 1996 Message number: 57 Reply to message number: 56 DT> cautious when dealing with emotions. These are all good things. (Are you DT> sure you're a product of public education?) I had two years of private education during which I was totally oppressed because I was female. "Women can't do anything they want" is the worst mentality that you can teach a 12 year old. I think a lot that it has to do with is that I am self educated in everything I deem important. DT> So, I've really never been oppressed, at least not in a way that I didn't DT> invite (anyone who joins the military asks for the treatment, in my opinion DT> But I know that I can hate, and for no good reason. Sometimes, that DT> realization scares me, but I can't just pretend that it isn't true. I would aggree from this synopsis that there was no good reason to hate in these cases. My life has been hard, not because of lack of material goods (I live in Eagan for pete's sake), but becaause of lack of understand and abuse. I still cannot hate, even my abuser. Life is to diffucult the way it is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: losing our religion.. Date: Sun Dec 29 15:07:08 CST 1996 Message number: 58 Reply to message number: 55 DR> The sad thing is, I think the guy was the editor of the damned newspaper. DR> Talk about media bias! DT> be naive enough to believe that his opinions are news. And please, save th DT> power of your accusations of bias for the targets who truly deserve them: DT> KARE, "Hard Copy", and Rush. I have plenty of ammunition left for them, not to worry. Limbaugh, I at least give some credit to - he's fairly straightforward about his biases. If the KARE producers would out themselves as ratings-obsessed whores, I might give them the same amount of credit .. DT> opinion.) Unfortunately, the narrative frame can be skewed in order to DT> reinforce a particular stereotypical view of the world. KARE is the worst It's one of the ways which the news can be manipulated, but there are similar techniques qhich all have the same root cause - pandering to the lowest common denominator to grab the ratings points. That's the kind of media bias that will only get worse, methinks ... the root cause shows no sign of changing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: implications... Date: Mon Dec 30 04:57:34 CST 1996 Message number: 59 Reply to message number: 49 DT> Ye gods! In some places those would be grounds for alleging child abuse an DT> placing you in the care of the state! I certainly hope not. Santa Claus is the most obnoxious fabled character around. DT> But there's a fallacy of thought there, Specter. If I tell you that I beli DT> in Santa Claus and I will continue to do so until somebody gives me evidenc DT> that my belief isn't real, then I'll never be convinced. Arial photography DT> doesn't show any evidence of a workshop at the North Pole? That's because DT> workshop is magically hidden. There's no way a single man in a sleigh coul DT> visit 1.7 billion households in 24 hours? Yes there is, Santa can affect DT> time; it only appears like 24 hours to us, but to Santa it's as much time a DT> it takes. That's different from how I'm approaching the problem. Your example is somewhat valid of my thinking, but the starting direction is wrong. I'm starting by believing in God and then finding evidence to support the existence of God rather than trying to have others find reasons why God doesn't exist. I started by assuming God exists and then finding evidence to back that up. It's illogical, but having been raised starting as a child to believe God exists, it's a fairly natural progression without starting with the assumption as Descartes did that nothing I assume to know is real. DT> It is not a coincidence that many deeply psychologically disturbed people a DT> or were extremely religious. To me, this alone is reason to be much more DT> skeptical of God's existence. Mmm. I'd be curious as to how people's psychological profiles and their religious beliefs ought to make us more skeptical of God's existence, but that's a different logic puzzle. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: losing our religion.. Date: Mon Dec 30 05:00:26 CST 1996 Message number: 60 Reply to message number: 52 DR> I didn't mean to imply that I thought you were condescening, it's just tha DR> the *topic* reminded me of the article I had read. Sorry if I didn't make t DR> clear. you probably did. I just interpreted it wrong. Sorry. DR> Despite being being somewhat anal and inclined to tunnel-vision, I still DR> think he was an interesting fellow. And his foray into fiction, "Contact", DR> still one of my favorite boks. Ironicaly, written by a non-believer, it tre DR> religion more respectfully than most anything else out there. Quite true. I'm really fond of his writings. I liked the response in the Strib to the previous article. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: losing our religion.. Date: Mon Dec 30 13:55:23 CST 1996 Message number: 61 Reply to message number: 58 DR> Limbaugh, I at least give some credit to - he's fairly straightforward abo DR> his biases. If the KARE producers would out themselves as ratings-obsessed DR> whores, I might give them the same amount of credit .. Still, I'd say it's more dangerous to believe in Limbaugh than in KARE's news. At least KARE is pushing "our" agenda... DR> It's one of the ways which the news can be manipulated, but there are simi DR> techniques qhich all have the same root cause - pandering to the lowest com DR> denominator to grab the ratings points. That's the kind of media bias that DR> will only get worse, methinks ... the root cause shows no sign of changing. The root cause is us, after all. When we demand better, then we'll deserve better. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Specter Subject: Re: implications... Date: Mon Dec 30 14:09:05 CST 1996 Message number: 62 Reply to message number: 59 S> Santa Claus is the most obnoxious fabled character S> around. Santa is a great guy compared to Uncle Sam. S> I'm S> starting by believing in God and then finding evidence to support the S> existence of God rather than trying to have others find reasons why God S> doesn't exist. But there's plenty of evidence to support the contention that Santa exists. 1) His image is everywhere, and almost identical where it does appear. How could so many people have the same image of Santa if they weren't drawing from a real source? 2) There are so many songs and stories written about his goodness. Wouldn't it be foolish if all these songs and stories were fictions? 3) Santa is the greatest giver of all. Now consider, a Santa who doesn't exist isn't as great a giver as a Santa who does exist. Therefore, Santa must exist. 4) If Santa doesn't exist, then Christmas has become the most popular of secular holidays by random chance. How could something as complex and majestic as Christmas evolve from pure chance? Obviously these same arguments (slightly modified) could support God's existence as well. DT> It is not a coincidence that many deeply psychologically disturbed people a DT> or were extremely religious. To me, this alone is reason to be much more DT> skeptical of God's existence. S> Mmm. I'd be curious as to how people's psychological profiles and their S> religious beliefs ought to make us more skeptical of God's existence, but S> that's a different logic puzzle. Not a puzzle at all, but a classic _modus ponens_ argument: That which can be harmful to human health should be approached with caution. An unquestioning belief in God can be harmful to human health. Therefore, an unquestioning belief in God should be approached with caution. I don't mean to imply that religion should be banned; it has a place in human existence. I just don't believe that religion should have an exclusive place in human existence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: losing our religion.. Date: Mon Dec 30 14:51:26 CST 1996 Message number: 63 Reply to message number: 61 DR> Limbaugh, I at least give some credit to - he's fairly straightforward abo DR> his biases. If the KARE producers would out themselves as ratings-obsessed DR> whores, I might give them the same amount of credit .. DT> DT> Still, I'd say it's more dangerous to believe in Limbaugh than in KARE's ne DT> At least KARE is pushing "our" agenda... "Our" agenda? Hell, the only thing they're pushing is ratings and more ratings. If it was my agenda they were pushing, I don't think I'd be seeing Tony Snow host the Fox news station and Jason Lewis be brought in as a political analyst on KSTP. :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: implications... Date: Tue Dec 31 08:54:22 CST 1996 Message number: 64 Reply to message number: 62 DT> Santa is a great guy compared to Uncle Sam. True, but he still annoys the heck out of me. DT> 1) His image is everywhere, and almost identical where it does appear. Ho DT> could so many people have the same image of Santa if they weren't drawing f DT> a real source? Simple, they all developed the same idea of Santa Claus based upon a picture drawn sometime around an odd hundred or so years ago. Someone created the image and then the image became popular and over hundreds of years was copied into a certain reality. DT> 2) There are so many songs and stories written about his goodness. Wouldn DT> it be foolish if all these songs and stories were fictions? Yes, but all the stories I'm aware of were written with the idea of making a ficticious story. I'm not aware of any writers who have written about Santa Claus because they believe he truly exists and they believe they were writing truth. DT> 3) Santa is the greatest giver of all. Now consider, a Santa who doesn't DT> exist isn't as great a giver as a Santa who does exist. Therefore, Santa m DT> exist. I'm not aware of anyone actually receiving something from Santa. Gifts in the name of Santa, but actually from parents or relatives. DT> 4) If Santa doesn't exist, then Christmas has become the most popular of DT> secular holidays by random chance. How could something as complex and DT> majestic as Christmas evolve from pure chance? It's not a secular holiday. And yes a holiday can evolve by outside circumstances, for instance Christmas was only chosen on the 25th of December to take the place of certain pagan celebrations around the solstice. And remember, Christmas evolved from a Christian holiday. A holiday which was created to celebrate an event believed to be real with a fair amount of historical evidence to show that the birth actually did take place, whether or not one believes Christ actually was some form of divinity. DT> Obviously these same arguments (slightly modified) could support God's DT> existence as well. Now I realize in arguing against the previous four statements, I may have accomplished what you were trying to get me to do. Namely, to dispel the normal methods of proving God's existence. I argue that a problem arises that the arguments for God differ in slightly modified ways, but in such modified ways as to avoid the mirrored arguments against I used to try to dispel the existence of Santa Claus. S> Mmm. I'd be curious as to how people's psychological profiles and their S> religious beliefs ought to make us more skeptical of God's existence, but S> that's a different logic puzzle. DT> DT> Not a puzzle at all, but a classic _modus ponens_ argument: DT> DT> That which can be harmful to human health should be approached with caution Again I disagree with how you've interpreted this statement. One must first wonder did the people who were harmed by having a deep-seated belief in God believe so deeply in God because they were unstable to begin with. I also argue that the interpretation is wrong. Yes, we ought to approach with caution those things that are harmful, but I don't think that's the way to look at it. I think being skeptical of God because some people were harmed by not being skeptical is like being skeptical a hot pan exists because some people were burned by it. I'm saying to some extent, it's not God's fault people were harmed because they believed in God, therefor that shouldn't affect our approach to whether or not God exists. Cautious, we should be, but I'm not sure if skeptical is the right place to start. DT> An unquestioning belief in God can be harmful to human health. DT> DT> Therefore, an unquestioning belief in God should be approached with caution I agree with this part at least. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Dawkins interview 1/2 Date: Thu Jan 02 18:30:59 CST 1997 Message number: 65 Reply to message number: unavailable Interview: Sheena McDonald and Richard Dawkins 1/2 McDonald's intro: Imagine no religion! Even non-believers recognize the shock value of John Lennon's lyric. A godless universe is still a shocking idea in most parts of the world. But one English zoologist crusades for his vision of a world of truth, a world without religion, which he says is the enemy of truth, a world which understands the true meaning of life. He's called himself a scientific zealot. In London I met Richard Dawkins. McDonald: Richard Dawkins, you have a vision of the world---this world free of lies, not the little lies that we protect ourselves with, but what you would see as the big lie, which is that God or some omnipotent creator made and oversees the world. Now, a lot of people are looking for meaning in the world, a lot of them find it through faith. So what's attractive about your godless world, what's beautiful---why would anyone want to live in your world? Dawkins: The world and the universe is an extremely beautiful place, and the more we understand about it the more beautiful does it appear. It is an immensely exciting experience to be born in the world, born in the universe, and look around you and realize that before you die you have the opportunity of understanding an immense amount about that world and about that universe and about life and about why we're here. We have the opportunity of understanding far, far more than any of our predecessors ever. That is such an exciting possibility, it would be such a shame to blow it and end your life not having understood what there is to understand. McDonald: Right, well, let's maximize this opportunity. Paint the world, describe the opportunity that too many of use---you will probably say most of us---are not exploiting to appreciate the world and to understand the world. Dawkins: Well, suppose you look at an animal such as a human or a hedgehog or a bat, and you really want to understand how it works. The scientific way of understanding how it works would be to treat it rather as an engineer would treat a machine. So if an engineer was handed this television camera that engineer would get a screwdriver out, take it to bits, perhaps try to work out a circuit diagram and try to work out what this thing did, what it was good for, how it works, would explain the functioning of the whole machine in terms of the bits, in terms of the parts. Then the engineer would probably want to know how it came to be where it was, what's the history of it---was it put together in a factory? Was it sort of suddenly just gelled together spontaneously? Now those are the sorts of questions that a scientist would ask about a bat or a hedgehog or a human, and we've got a long way to go, but a great deal of progress has been made. We really do understand a lot about how we and rats and pigeons work. I've spoken only of the mechanism of a living thing. There's a whole other set of questions about the history of living things, because each living thing comes into the world through being born or hatched, so you have to ask, where did it get its structure from? It got it largely from its genes. Where do the genes come from? From the parents, the grand-parents, the great-grand parents. You go on back through the history, back through countless generations of history, through fish ancestors, through worm-like ancestors, through protozoa-like ancestors, to bacteria-like ancestors. McDonald: But the end point of this process would simply be an understanding of the physical world. Dawkins: What else is there? McDonald: But to accept your vision, one has to reject what many people hold very dear and close, which is faith. Now, why is faith, why is religious faith incompatible with your vision? Dawkins: Well, faith as I understand it---you wouldn't bother to use the word faith unless it was being contrasted with some other means of knowing something. So faith to me means knowing something just because you know it's true, rather than because you have seen any evidence that it's true. McDonald: But if I say I believe in God, you cannot disprove the existence of God. Dawkins: No, and the virtue of using evidence is precisely that we can come to an agreement about it. But if you listen to two people who are arguing about something, and they each of them have passionate faith that they're right, but they believe different things---they belong to different religions, different faiths, there is nothing they can do to settle their disagreement short of shooting each other, which is what they very often actually do. McDonald: If religion is an obstacle to understanding what you're saying, why is it getting it wrong? Dawkins: A creator who created the universe or set up the laws of physics so that life would evolve or who actually supervised the evolution of life, or anything like that, would have to be some sort of super-intelligence, some sort of mega-mind. That mega-mind would have had to be present right at the start of the universe. The whole message of evolution is that complexity and intelligence and all the things that would go with being a creative force come late, they come as a consequence of hundreds of millions of years of natural selection. There was no intelligence early on in the universe. Intelligence arose, it's arisen here, maybe it's arisen on lots of other places in the universe. Maybe somewhere in some other galaxy there is a super-intelligence so colossal that from our point of view it would be a god. But it cannot have been the sort of God that we need to explain the origin of the universe, because it cannot have been there that early. McDonald: So religion is peddling a fundamental untruth. Dawkins: Well, I think it is yes. McDonald: And there is no possibility of there being something beyond our knowing, beyond your ability as a scientist, zoologist, to [...] Dawkins: No, that's quite different. I think there's every possibility that there might be something beyond our knowing. All I've said is that I don't think there is any intelligence or any creativity or any purposiveness before the first few hundred million years that the universe has been in existence. So I don't think it's helpful to equate that which we don't understand with God in any sense that is already understood in the existing religions. The gods that are already understood in existing religions are all thoroughly documented. They do things like forgive sins and impregnate virgins, and they do all sorts of rather ordinary, mundane, human kinds of things. That has nothing whatever to do with the high-flown profound difficulties that science may yet face in understanding the deep problems of the universe. McDonald: Now a lot of people find great comfort from religion. Not everybody is as you are---well-favored, handsome, wealthy, with a good job, happy family life. I mean, your life is good---not everybody's life is good, and religion brings them comfort. Dawkins: There are all sorts of things that would be comforting. I expect an injection of morphine would be comforting---it might be more comforting, for all I know. But to say that something is comforting is not to say that it's true. McDonald: You have rejected religion, and you have written about and posited your own answers to the fundamental questions of life, which are--- very crudely, that we and hedgehogs and bats and trees and geckos are driven by genetic and non-genetic replicators. Now instantly I want to know, what does that mean? Dawkins: Replicators are things that have copies of themselves made. It's a very, very powerful---its' hard to realize what a powerful thing it was when the first self-replicating entity came into the world. Nowadays the most important self-replicating entities we know are DNA molecules; the original ones probably weren't DNA molecules, but they did something similar. Once you've got self-replicating entities---things that make copies of themselves---you get a population of them. McDonald: In that very raw description that makes us---what makes us us? We're no more than collections of inherited genes each fighting to make its way by the survival of the fittest. Dawkins: Yes, if you ask me as a poet to say, how do I react to the idea of being a vehicle for DNA? It doesn't sound very romantic, does it? It doesn't sound the sort of vision of life that a poet would have; and I'm quite happy, quite ready to admit that when I'm not thinking about science I'm thinking in a very different way. It is a very helpful insight to say we are vehicles for our DNA, we are hosts for DNA parasites which are our genes. Those are insights which help us to understand an aspect of life. But it's emotive to say, that's all there is to it, we might as well give up going to Shakespeare plays and give up listening to music and things, because that's got nothing to do with it. That's an entirely different subject. McDonald: Let's talk about listening to music and going to Shakespeare plays. Now, you coined a word to describe all these various activities which are not genetically driven, and that word is 'meme' and again this is a replicating process. Dawkins: Yes, there are cultural entities which replicate in something like the same way as DNA does. The spread of the habit of wearing a baseball hat backwards is something that has spread around the Western world like an epidemic. It's like a smallpox epidemic. You could actually do epidemiology on the reverse baseball hat. It rises to a peak, plateaus and I sincerely hope it will die down soon. McDonald: What about voting Labour? Dawkins: Well, you can make---one can take more serious things like that. In a way, I'd rather not get into that, because I think there are better reasons for voting Labour than just slavish imitation of what other people do. Wearing a reverse baseball hat---as far as I know, there is no good reason for that. One does it because one sees one's friends do or, and one thinks it looks cool, and that's all. So that really is like a measles epidemic, it really does spread from brain to brain like a virus. McDonald: So voting intentions you wouldn't put into that bracket. What about religious practices? Dawkins: Well, that's a better example. It doesn't spread, on the whole, in a horizontal way, like a measles epidemic. It spreads in a vertical way down the generations. But that kind of thing, I think, spreads down the generations because children at a certain age are very vulnerable to suggestion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Dawkins interview 2/2 Date: Thu Jan 02 18:32:05 CST 1997 Message number: 66 Reply to message number: unavailable Interview: Sheena McDonald and Richard Dawkins 2/2 They tend to believe what they're told, and there are very good reasons for that. It is easy to see in a Darwinian explanation why children should be equipped with brains that believe what adults tell them. After all, they have to learn a language, and learn a lot else from adults. Why wouldn't they believe it if they're told that they have to pray in a certain way? But in particular---let's just rephrase that---if they're told that not only do they have to behave in such a way, but when they grow up it is their duty to pass on the same message to their children. Now, once you've got that little recipe, that really is a recipe for passing on and on down the generations. It doesn't matter how silly the original instruction is, if you tell it with sufficient conviction to sufficiently young and gullible children such that when they grow up they will pass it on to their children, then it will pass on and it will pass on and it will spread and that could be sufficient explanation. McDonald: But religion is a very successful meme. I mean, in your own structures the genes that survive---the ones with the most selfish and successful genes presumably have some merit. Now if religion is a meme which has survived over thousands and thousands of years, is it not possible that there is some intrinsic merit in that? Dawkins: Yes, there is merit in it. If you ask the question, why does any replicating entity survive over the years and the generations, it is because it has merit. But merit to a replicator just means that it's good at replicating. The rabies virus has considerable merit, and the AIDS virus has enormous merit. These things spread very successfully, and natural selection has built into them extremely effective methods of spreading. In the case of the rabies virus it causes its victims to foam at the mouth, and the virus is actually spread in saliva. It causes them to bite and to become aggressive, so they tend to bite other animals, and the saliva gets into them and it gets passed on. This is a very, very successful virus. It has very considerable merit. In a way the whole message of the meme and gene idea is that merit is defined as goodness at getting itself spread around, goodness at self- replication. That's of course very different from merit as we humans might judge it. McDonald: You've chosen an analogy there for religion which a lot of them would find rather hurtful---that it's like an AIDS virus, like a rabies virus. Dawkins: I think it's a very good analogy. I'm sorry if it's hurtful. I'm trying to explain why these things spread; and I think it's like a chain letter. It is the same kind of stick and carrot. It's not, probably, deliberately thought out. I could write on a piece of paper "Make two copies of this paper and pass them to friends". I could give it to you. You would read it and make two copies and pass them, and they would make 2 copies and it becomes 4 copies, 8, 16 copies. Pretty soon the whole world would be knee-deep in paper. But of course there has to be some sort of inducement, so I would have to add something like this "If you do not make 2 copies of this bit of paper and pass it on, you will have bad luck, or you will go to hell, or some dreadful misfortune will befall you". I think if we start with a chain letter and then say, well, the chain letter principle is too simple in itself, but if we then sort of build upon the chain letter principle and look upon more and more sophisticated inducements to pass on the message, we shall have a successful explanation. McDonald: But that's all it can be, I mean, sophisticated inducements or threats. I was only bothered that a successful meme may invoke something which has not yet been found in your universe by your methods. Dawkins: The sophisticated inducements can include the B Minor Mass and the St. Matthew Passion. I mean, they're pretty good stuff. They're very sophisticated and very, very beautiful---stained glass windows, Chartres Cathedral, they work and no wonder they work. I mean they're beautifully done, beautifully crafted. But I think what you're asking is, does the success of religion down the centuries imply that there must be some truth in its claims? I don't think that is necessary at all, because I think there are plenty of other good explanations which do a better job. McDonald: Does it exasperate you that people find more pleasure and inspiration in Chartres or Beethoven or indeed great mosques than they do in the anatomy of a lizard? Dawkins: No, not at all. I mean, I think that great artistic experiences-- -I don't want to downplay them in any way. I think they are very, very great experiences, and scientific understanding is on a par with them. McDonald: And yet, these great artistic achievements have been impelled by untruths. Dawkins: Just think how much greater they would have been if they had been impelled by truth. McDonald: But can the anatomy of a lizard provoke a great choral symphony? Dawkins: By calling it the anatomy of a lizard, you, as it were, play for laughs. But if you put it another way---let's say, does geological time or does the evolution of life on earth, could that be the inspiration for a great symphony? Well, of course, it could. It would be hard to imagine a more colossal inspiration for a great piece of music or poetry than 2,000 million years of slow, gradual evolutionary change. McDonald: But ultimately, there's no point beyond the personal celebration of each life, as far as you're able to. We hope that we're not born into a famine queue in central Africa. But that's not sufficient for people. Maybe they want [...] Dawkins: Look, it may not be [...] McDonald: But tough, you say [...] Dawkins:Tough, yes. I don't want to sound callous. I mean, even if I have nothing to offer, that doesn't matter, because that still doesn't mean that what anybody else has to offer therefore has to be true. McDonald: Indeed, but you care about it. Dawkins: Yes, I do want to offer something. I just wanted to give as a preamble the point that there may be a vacuum which is left. If religion goes, there may well be a vacuum in important ways in people's psychology, in people's happiness, and I don't claim to be able to fill that vacuum, and that is not what I want to claim to be able to do. I want to find out what's true. Now, as for what I might have to offer, I've tried to convey the excitement, the exhilaration of getting as complete a picture of the world and the universe in which you live as possible. You have the power to make a pretty good model of the universe in which you live. It's going to be temporary, you're going to die, but it would be the best way you could spend your time in the universe, to understand why you're there and place as accurate model of the universe as you can inside your head. That's what I would like to encourage people to try to do. I think it's an immensely fulfilling thing to do. McDonald: And that will be a better world? Dawkins: It will certainly be a truer world. I mean, people would have a truer view of the world. I think it would probably be a better world. I think people would be less ready to fight each other because so much of the motivation for fighting would have been removed. I think it would be a better world. It would be a better world in the sense that people would be more fulfilled in having a proper understanding of the world instead of a superstitious understanding. McDonald: So here we are, in your truer world---except we're not, because for the reasons of juvenile gullibility you suggested the religion meme will continue to replicate itself around the world. For ever will it, or will we ever come to your world? Dawkins: I suspect for a very long time. I don't know about for ever, whatever for ever is. I mean, I think religion has got an awful long time to go yet, certainly in some parts of the world. I find that a rather depressing prospect, but it is probably true. McDonald: Isn't that to an extent because you've said yourself, what you have to say may not fill the vacuum which would be left if religion were discarded? Dawkins: I feel no vacuum. I mean, I feel very happy, very fulfilled. I love my life and I love all sorts of aspects of it which have nothing to do with my science. So I don't have a vacuum. I don't feel cold and bleak. I don't think the world is a cold and bleak place. I think the world is a lovely and a friendly place and I enjoy being in it. McDonald: Do you think about death? Dawkins: Yes. I mean, it's something which is going to happen to all of us and [...] McDonald: How do you prepare for death in a world where there isn't a god? Dawkins: You prepare for it by facing up to the truth, which is that life is what we have and so we had better live our life to the full while we have it, because there is nothing after it. We are very lucky accidents or at least each one of us is---if we hadn't been here, someone else would have been. I take all this to reinforce my view that I am fantastically lucky to be here and so are you, and we ought to use our brief time in the sunlight to maximum effect by trying to understand things and get as full a vision of the world and life as our brains allow us to, which is pretty full. McDonald: And that is the first duty, right, responsibility, pleasure of man and woman. Christians would say "love God, love your neighbor". You would say "try to understand". Dawkins: Well, I wouldn't wish to downplay love your neighbor. It would be rather sad if we didn't do that. But, having agreed that we should love our neighbor and all the other things that are embraced by that wee phrase, I think that, yes, understand, understand is a pretty good commandment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: THROCKMORTON To: STARFIRE Subject: Re: implications... Date: Fri Jan 03 11:47:44 CST 1997 Message number: 67 Reply to message number: unavailable S>DT> I would not recommend hatred as a philosophy; it's too hard on the soul. >B >DT> there are times when hatred is not only the best choice, but the only >DT> meaningful choice. S>I can understand dislike but I cannot hate. Hate has to be something that y >have experienced and know to do. I have not known true hate of self fo I >cannot hate others. (No matter how much I would love to sometimes.) Saying >that I hate someone is just as diffuculy as believing in true love. The hatred should be towards the action or effects, not towards the individual. There is a subtle but distinct difference. --- ž OLX 1.53 ž Don't take life so serious, it ain't nohow permament ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Dawkins interview 2/2 Date: Sat Jan 04 06:28:16 CST 1997 Message number: 68 Reply to message number: 66 DR> add something like this "If you do not make 2 copies of this bit of paper DR> and pass it on, you will have bad luck, or you will go to hell, or some DR> dreadful misfortune will befall you". I think this part right here has to be the most interesting of the piece.. How can we truly know when religious scriptures are telling the truth when they are biased in favor of their own existence? Christians, Jews, and Muslims all have the promise of eternal hell if they don't do as their consecutive books tell them too.. Now obviously, only one can be right ... or none of them. Maybe we really _should_ send in that $20 to The Church of the Subgenius so we wont be blasted by the aliens on X-Day. *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: Dawkins interview 2/2 Date: Sat Jan 04 18:15:29 CST 1997 Message number: 69 Reply to message number: 68 BT> Muslims all have the promise of eternal hell if they don't do as their BT> consecutive books tell them too.. Now obviously, only one can be right ... BT> none of them. Maybe we really _should_ send in that $20 to The Church of t BT> Subgenius so we wont be blasted by the aliens on X-Day. So religion is a giant chain letter/protection scheme racket, where if you don't cooperate you end up suffering eternally in the fires of hell or some such thing? The problem with sending in your money to the SubGenious, though, is that the predictions and threats are neverending. There'll always be another crackpot with a threat around the corner, and eventually you're going to run out of twenty dollar bills. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: Dawkins interview 2/2 Date: Sun Jan 05 03:26:46 CST 1997 Message number: 70 Reply to message number: 68 BT> Christians, Jews, and BT> Muslims all have the promise of eternal hell if they don't do as their BT> consecutive books tell them to. Ah, but for most Christians in America today, there is no real danger of hell. It's sort of a "deep in the back of your mind" sort of thing that doesn't bother you at all once you've been "saved." BT> Now obviously, only one can be right ... BT> or none of them. Depends on what you mean by "right". If you mean "absolutely 100% correct in every detail", then I agree, none of them are right. In fact, I would argue that no human philosophy is absolutely 100% right. If instead you're saying that "right" means valueless, then I think the article itself should dissuade you. Even one of the most ardent opponents of religion thinks there are good things to learn from religion, just that it goes about it in a very self-serving way. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Dawkins interview 2/2 Date: Sun Jan 05 03:38:30 CST 1997 Message number: 71 Reply to message number: 69 DR> The problem with sending in your money to the SubGenious, though, is that DR> predictions and threats are neverending. There'll always be another crackpo DR> with a threat around the corner, and eventually you're going to run out of DR> twenty dollar bills. Psychologists describe an interesting phenomenon that occurs when an apocalyptic group has pinned itself down to a date, and that date then passes without incident. One would think that the logical train would run something like this: We predicted the world would end on this date. (R>E; R="we are right") The world did not end on this date. (-E; not-E) Therefore, we were wrong. (-R; not-R) This is a perfectly valid argument form, discovered by the ancient Greeks. However, the actual logical pathway looks something like this: We predicted the world would end on this date. (R>E) The world did not end on this date. (-E) We must have done something to forestall the end. (-E>D; D="we did something") If the end has been delayed, we must prepare. (D>R) We were right. (R) The problem is that, despite the logical form and that many members of apocalyptic sects actually believe the argument, it is contradictory. Remember the first argument? All of the premises of that argument are still available in this one; therefore it is possible to eventually argue to the conclusion: We were right and we were wrong. (R.-R; R and not-R) The third rule of Aristotelian logic is the "law of the excluded middle"; this says that something can either be a positive or negative, R or not-R, and not both. If it is possible to argue a set of premises to a contradiction, then the set of premises are unsound and cannot generate any true knowledge about the world. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: Dawkins interview 2/2 Date: Sun Jan 05 11:57:49 CST 1997 Message number: 72 Reply to message number: 71 DT> The third rule of Aristotelian logic is the "law of the excluded middle"; DT> this says that something can either be a positive or negative, R or not-R, Logic doesn't apply well to Doomsday cults, unfortunately. DT> We must have done something to forestall the end. (-E>D; D="we did somethin DT> DT> If the end has been delayed, we must prepare. (D>R) Or more likely, "we misinterpreted the signs. It won't be the 12th, but the 21st." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Dawkins interview 2/2 Date: Mon Jan 06 15:13:59 CST 1997 Message number: 73 Reply to message number: 72 DT> If the end has been delayed, we must prepare. (D>R) DR> Or more likely, "we misinterpreted the signs. It won't be the 12th, but th DR> 21st." That doesn't happen as much as you might think. While most cultists are fairly credulous about their masters, few would fail to see through something as petty as transposed digits. Besides, this opens the door to yet another failure, which further shakes the foundations of belief. The more common response is the "we did something wonderful that delayed the end indefinately" because it has three main advantages: 1. It's impossible to disprove. 2. It makes the cult (and therefore the leader) the center of responsiblity, which actually increases the leader's power, at least with the loyalists. 3. By making the new end "indefinate", the thralls can be kept working tirelessly with no end in sight. Any moment could be the last. (In fact, there is some validity in the recognition that the traditional Christian argument to be ready for the Second Coming of Christ because it could come without warning is exactly this sort of argument--cult-like.) If anyone is interested, the classic work on this subject is called "When Prophecy Fails" by Leon Festinger, Henry W. Reicken, and Stanley Schaechter. A copy should be in storage at the public library, but the language is pretty high-powered and the argument assumes a basic college-level understanding of general psychology. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: implications... Date: Tue Jan 21 09:30:36 CST 1997 Message number: 74 Reply to message number: 44 DT> It isn't. My question, point blank: "Is it possible for us to know wheth DT> or not God exists without understanding God's existence or non-existence?" Well, a short awnser for an easy question: It is just what you believe. Believe is not to notice.. believe is just some faith. And I guess if we were suposed to understand He/She/It we would. Personally, I think there is something out there. Mind/Matter. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Starfox Subject: Re: implications... Date: Sun Jan 26 17:34:37 CST 1997 Message number: 75 Reply to message number: 74 DT> It isn't. My question, point blank: "Is it possible for us to know wheth DT> or not God exists without understanding God's existence or non-existence?" S> Well, a short awnser for an easy question: It is just what you believe. S> Believe is not to notice.. believe is just some faith. And I guess if we we S> suposed to understand He/She/It we would. Personally, I think there is S> something out there. Mind/Matter. Sorry, Starfox, but I can't accept your answer, because it isn't an answer. As an analogy, suppose I ask whether it is possible to know whether or not there are blue M&Ms without understanding how it is that blue M&Ms might or might not exist. Your answer would be that it doesn't matter, because it's all a matter of belief. In fact, I think the answer is a flat no; we could prove that blue M&Ms exist if we find one, but just because we don't find one doesn't mean that they don't exist. I think the same is true of God. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: DAVE THE LUCKY Subject: Re: implications... Date: Wed Jan 29 00:51:56 CST 1997 Message number: 76 Reply to message number: unavailable DTL>DT> It isn't. My question, point blank: "Is it possible for us to know DTL>DT> or not God exists without understanding God's existence or non-existen DTL>S> Well, a short awnser for an easy question: It is just what you bel DTL>S> Believe is not to notice.. believe is just some faith. And I guess if DTL>S> suposed to understand He/She/It we would. Personally, I think there is DTL>S> something out there. Mind/Matter. DTL>Sorry, Starfox, but I can't accept your answer, because it isn't an answer Gee, thanks. Always looking forward to "constructive criticism" DTL>As an analogy, suppose I ask whether it is possible to know whether or not DTL>there are blue M&Ms without understanding how it is that blue M&Ms might o DTL>might not exist. Your answer would be that it doesn't matter, because it' DTL>all a matter of belief. In fact, I think the answer is a flat no; we coul DTL>prove that blue M&Ms exist if we find one, but just because we don't find DTL>doesn't mean that they don't exist. I think the same is true of God. It's faith.. Thats all I have to say. --- ž QMPro 1.53 ž Lovers don't snore. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Starfox Subject: Re: implications... Date: Wed Jan 29 15:22:59 CST 1997 Message number: 77 Reply to message number: 76 S> DTL>As an analogy, suppose I ask whether it is possible to know whether or n S> DTL>there are blue M&Ms without understanding how it is that blue M&Ms might S> DTL>might not exist. Your answer would be that it doesn't matter, because i S> DTL>all a matter of belief. In fact, I think the answer is a flat no; we co S> DTL>prove that blue M&Ms exist if we find one, but just because we don't fin S> DTL>doesn't mean that they don't exist. I think the same is true of God. S> It's faith.. Thats all I have to say. Hmmm. A Stoic. This could be difficult... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFIRE To: Starfox Subject: Re: implications... Date: Sat Feb 15 21:00:44 CST 1997 Message number: 78 Reply to message number: 77 S> It's faith.. Thats all I have to say. Do you have any reasons for that belief? Any things that you would consider to be proof? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: COSIMA To: Starfire Subject: Re: implications... Date: Mon Feb 17 05:49:37 CST 1997 Message number: 79 Reply to message number: 78 S> It's faith.. Thats all I have to say. S> S> Do you have any reasons for that belief? Any things that you would consider S> to be proof? * nope, there wouldn't be any proof. that's what makes it faith- and what makes it either ecstasy or insanity. -=c=- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFIRE To: Cosima Subject: Re: implications... Date: Tue Feb 18 14:03:39 CST 1997 Message number: 80 Reply to message number: 79 C> nope, there wouldn't be any proof. that's what makes it faith- and what make C> it either ecstasy or insanity. How about just some reasons? I cannot prove anything but I know why I believe what I do. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: COSIMA To: Starfire Subject: Re: implications... Date: Wed Feb 19 04:44:08 CST 1997 Message number: 81 Reply to message number: 80 C> nope, there wouldn't be any proof. that's what makes it faith- and what make C> it either ecstasy or insanity. S> S> How about just some reasons? I cannot prove anything but I know why I belie S> what I do. * reasons for faith? OK..just simple, off the top of my pointed little head. first, if one thinks the universe and everything in it is totally random, then it would be absolutely terrifying to walk outside- or INSIDE for that matter. you have faith every time you see a red light, that the fools on the other side of the street are going to see it and acknowledge it. basic stuff like that. * also, if everything's random, *someone* or something has to control it- i sure can't. if i'm not going to go through my life assuming everything and everyone has a 50/50 chance of killing me or screwing up, i have to have some kind of basic faith that, somehow, things are mostly going to be OK. * now, sometimes, serious shit DOES happen. that's when *real* faith comes in- whether it's faith in god or goddess, faith in yourself, your lover or your friend- and somehow it's going to be worth it to continue on to the next day. -=c=- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFIRE To: Cosima Subject: Re: implications... Date: Wed Feb 19 14:38:31 CST 1997 Message number: 82 Reply to message number: 81 C> first, if one thinks the universe and everything in it is totally random, th C> also, if everything's random, *someone* or something has to control it- i su C> now, sometimes, serious shit DOES happen. that's when *real* faith comes in- I agree with all of these things. I was just wondering. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: COSIMA Subject: Re: implications... Date: Mon Feb 24 16:10:43 CST 1997 Message number: 83 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Cosima : Co> reasons for faith? OK..just simple, off the top of my pointed little Co> head. first, if one thinks the universe and everything in it is Co> totally random, then it would be absolutely terrifying to walk outside- Co> or INSIDE for that matter. ... Co> also, if everything's random, *someone* or something has to control Co> it- i sure can't. if i'm not going to go through my life assuming Co> everything and everyone has a 50/50 chance of killing me or screwing Co> up, i have to have some kind of basic faith that, somehow, things are Co> mostly going to be OK. * I mean no offense by this, but I don't think that you understand what (scientifically minded) people mean when they say that the universe is random. Take a coin, flip it. 50/50, random. Flip a hundred. Maybe you'll get 60 heads, 40 tails. Maybe you'll get 50 heads, 50 tails. Maybe even 90 heads, 10 tails. That's random. Now flip ten billion. Chances are, about 5 billion will be heads and about 5 billion tails. The more you flip, the better chance you have of getting a predictable result (very near to fifty percent). Atoms are random too. They all bounce around in a completely random fashion. One of the first clues to this came up, way back when, when people looked at tiny objects under a microscope ... these objects would bounce back and forth seemingly at random. It was called "brownian motion". It turns out, the motion was due to the objects being struck by high-speed atoms. Because when atoms move around some move fast, some move slow - some move left, some move right. We don't really notice it, because we're so big. So atoms move randomly. Why don't we ever see it? Becasue while it is statistally possible that all the atoms in your table will decide to jump a few feet to the left all at once, it's not very probable. Chances are, you wouldn't see it happen even in a trillion years. (Yes, there are anal retentive mathematicians who work out problems like this ... go figure). Why do they move randomly? The person who answers that one deserves a Nobel, but it probably has something to do with their wave/particle nature ... when you get to be that small, quantum mechanical effects become more severe. Even if there was an answer to this one, it would take a rare genius to translate it into plain English methinks. Interestingly, though, it doesn't stop there. The whole damned universe is random. Take a vacuum. A real one, not a Hoover. Supposedly, there's nothing in there - no air, no atoms, nothing. But in reality, atoms pop in and out of existance all the time (in milliseconds). Some last a bit, but some just collide with their anti-particle pair and disappear again. When you get to the really, really, really small-scale universe (10-23 if memory serves), this randomness becomes so severe that all that's left is some kind of random cosmic backwash Incidentally, wheelchair-bound guru Stephen Hawking made his mark on black hole theory by applying this knowledge. Basically, he proved that black holes actually radiate energy: when those atoms form out of nothing randomly, occasionally one member of a particle-antiparticle pair gets sucked into a black hole and the other one goes free. This free atom is radiated as energy, in accordance with something called "Planck's Constant". But to tie this back into the everyday world, why am I not afraid that the random universe will screw up my life? Because by the time it gets to my "level" of 6'3"/220 pounds, it's no longer very random. Like rolling ten billion dice, it's actually pretty damned predictible. One more brief example, then I'll sign off. Radioactive decay is random, too. If you have a bar of plutonium in your purse with a half-life of sixty days it means that, statistically, half of the radiation will escape in sixty days. No one could predict *which* half, or whether it will be exactly half or 50.0000000001%, but statistically half will decay in sixty days. No one can predict exaxtly when *all* of the radiation will escape, becasue that last little single piece might defy all odds and stick around forever ... but with a few tests, anyone can tell you what the half-life is because it's based on statistics. And so is our everyday world, it's all based on statisics. Odds are, your table won't be jumping three feet to the left anytime soon because it's just so horribly, terribly improbable. ... Yield to temptation; It may not pass your way again. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: implications... Date: Thu Feb 27 11:04:16 CST 1997 Message number: 84 Reply to message number: 83 DR> But to tie this back into the everyday world, why am I not afraid DR> that the random universe will screw up my life? Because by the time DR> it gets to my "level" of 6'3"/220 pounds, it's no longer very random. DR> Like rolling ten billion dice, it's actually pretty damned predictible. This is off the original subject, but I have a rather intelligent mathematically-minded friend who believes that the entire universe isn't truly random, but is the result of many particles on a fractal-based descension of size interacting in patterns determined by fractals. He believes that the entire universe could be explained by fractal mathematics if we had sufficient data, I find myself fascinated listening to him describe his view of a world entirely controlled by mathematical fractals... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: SPECTER Subject: Re: implications... Date: Thu Feb 27 18:23:04 CST 1997 Message number: 85 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Specter : Sp> I have a rather intelligent mathematically-minded friend There's your problem right there! Remember, Ted Kazinski was a math major in college. Math does weird things to the head. Sp> He believes that the entire universe could be explained by Sp> fractal mathematics if we had sufficient data, I find myself fascinated Sp> listening to him describe his view of a world entirely controlled by Sp> mathematical fractals... I'm initially suspicious of the theory, because it just seems so "trendy" ... fractals are kind of in vogue, and it's almost too cliched to try and use them to build a universe. But, who knows? One of the popular theories today, superstrings, is basically built with infintesimally tiny rotating strings ... as they vibrate, they create "notes", which create the particles which populate our universe. Compared to that idea, most anything seems sane by comparison :-) ... Jesus saves, Allah protects, Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: implications... Date: Fri Feb 28 14:02:38 CST 1997 Message number: 86 Reply to message number: 85 DR> Remember, Ted Kazinski was a math major in college. Math does weird DR> things to the head. True, true... Math is weird in general, with infinities and limits and all the calculus stuff... DR> I'm initially suspicious of the theory, because it just seems so DR> "trendy" ... fractals are kind of in vogue, and it's almost too DR> cliched to try and use them to build a universe. True, it is vogue. But I doubt my friend gives a damn about their vogueness, he is (and I'm very serious here) one person who cares almost nothing about what anyone else thinks except in terms of philosophical questions. He is one of the few people I've met face to face who understands fractals, he has also in my presence derived/created his own formulas for defining various mathematical devices... Anyway my point is that he thinks of so much of life in terms of mathematics that it seems to be a general progression of his thinking. Offhand, he wrote one of his college essays on fractals, and specifically fractals he created with equations and formulas (E=mc^2, and others) DR> But, who knows? One of the popular theories today, superstrings, DR> is basically built with infintesimally tiny rotating strings ... as DR> they vibrate, they create "notes", which create the particles which DR> populate our universe. Compared to that idea, most anything seems sane DR> by comparison :-) Unusual to say the least... very unusual... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFIRE To: Specter Subject: math Date: Sat Mar 01 08:11:40 CST 1997 Message number: 87 Reply to message number: 86 S> True, true... Math is weird in general, with infinities and limits and all S> the calculus stuff... We were working with "i" in school the other day and one of my class mates asked where we neede to use imagenary numbers because really who wants an imagenary hamburger from Mickey Dee's? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Starfire Subject: Re: math Date: Sat Mar 01 16:01:30 CST 1997 Message number: 88 Reply to message number: 87 S> We were working with "i" in school the other day and one of my class mates S> asked where we neede to use imagenary numbers because really who wants an S> imagenary hamburger from Mickey Dee's? Mmm. Depends. It's not really necessary for most life activities, although I think the comment wasn't as clever as it could have been. But a lot of higher mathematics is based on imaginary numbers. Daedalus was commenting on the popularity of fractals, fractal equations are built around "i". If one was going to be an engineer or work in a mathematics related field it would be very important. It's pretty typical to get that kind of comment, I heard years of it in math classes. I eventually stopped listening and tuned others out so I could learn the material. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Cloning Date: Fri Mar 07 18:45:48 CST 1997 Message number: 89 Reply to message number: unavailable What'cha all think of this? From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5) Lines: 38 "As an atheist, do you find Clinton's ban on human cloning somewhat silly? Do you think of a cloned child as any different than any other child?" Go ahead, ask me the easy ones that won't get me into trouble.... I think people are overly-frightened by the idea. They have an exaggerated idea of what it means. You can clone me (a scary thought on its own terms, but that's a different discussion) to your heart's content...but the fact is, though the genetic makeup is the same, the environmental, social and psychological conditions that made me what I am (insert joke here) will not be present for the new kid, and you'll get a VERY different adult. In a sense, there's been 50% cloning going on throughout history; it goes on every day, every 30 seconds: a child is conceived using DNA templates from two people, the parents. Now we're talking about DNA templates from one person. Should caution be used? Absolutely. A total ban on research? How can we make proper ethical decisions without the most thorough information we can get our hands on? "No, let's not find out what's really involved until *after* we make our decision." This is like having a trial after the jury has rendered a verdict. Because that technology has potential uses *outside* strict cloning. If a father is infertile, could you use the cloning techniques to separate out his DNA and use it to fertilize his wife's eggs? There are many other possible uses for this technology; to throw the baby out with the DNA seems to me a poor idea. jms ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Cloning Date: Fri Mar 07 22:32:18 CST 1997 Message number: 90 Reply to message number: 89 DR> "As an atheist, do you find Clinton's ban on human cloning somewhat DR> silly? DR> Do you think of a cloned child as any different than any other DR> child?" DR> DR> I think people are overly-frightened by the idea. They have an DR> exaggerated idea of what it means. You can clone me (a scary thought DR> on its own terms, but that's a different discussion) to your heart's DR> content...but the fact is, though the genetic makeup is the same, the DR> environmental, social and psychological conditions that made me what DR> I am (insert joke here) will not be present for the new kid, and DR> you'll get a VERY different adult. DR> This is true. In fact, there are a lot of questions about nature or nurture that we do not understand that might see some light using this technique. DR> In a sense, there's been 50% cloning going on throughout history; it DR> goes on every day, every 30 seconds: a child is conceived using DNA DR> templates from two people, the parents. Now we're talking about DNA DR> templates from one person. DR> This is ridiculous. By definition, cloning is using the diploid nuclear structure from one parent to initiate a new individual. There is no such thing as "50% cloning." DR> Should caution be used? Absolutely. A total ban on research? How DR> can we make proper ethical decisions without the most thorough DR> information we can get our hands on? "No, let's not find out what's DR> really involved until *after* we make our decision." This is like DR> having a trial after the jury has rendered a verdict. DR> This is the problem. Admittedly, there may be some very good uses for this technology, but it is also open to serious abuse. I agree that we should not ban basic research, but there should be strong ethical models drawn up and strong and immediate punishments for violating them. DR> Because that technology has potential uses *outside* strict cloning. DR> If a father is infertile, could you use the cloning techniques to DR> separate out his DNA and use it to fertilize his wife's eggs? There Yes, possibly. But then the child would not be the wife's. Only the father's. Artificial insemination does basically the same thing without the possible biological risks of cloning. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Cloning Date: Sat Mar 08 03:10:35 CST 1997 Message number: 91 Reply to message number: 89 DR> "As an atheist, do you find Clinton's ban on human cloning somewhat DR> silly? Has it been outlawed? *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Cloning Date: Sat Mar 08 05:22:15 CST 1997 Message number: 92 Reply to message number: 89 DR> What'cha all think of this? I'll not quote the entire message, but it is interesting. The school newspaper I write for is running an opinion article very similar to this in our next issue. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: Cloning Date: Sat Mar 08 08:32:57 CST 1997 Message number: 93 Reply to message number: 91 DR> "As an atheist, do you find Clinton's ban on human cloning somewhat DR> silly? BT> BT> Has it been outlawed? BT> I don't think that there is an actual bill yet, but Clinton has expressed that he is very askance at it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: Cloning Date: Sun Mar 09 04:06:11 CST 1997 Message number: 94 Reply to message number: 91 DR> "As an atheist, do you find Clinton's ban on human cloning somewhat DR> silly? BT> BT> Has it been outlawed? In England and some other countries, yes. In America, no. However, the President has issued an executive order prohibiting the use of Federal funds in cloning research. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: Zen & debunkery Date: Fri May 02 17:13:23 CDT 1997 Message number: 95 Reply to message number: unavailable Ä Area: Skeptic ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ From: Kevin Gibson Read: Yes Replied: No Subj: a) How To Debunk Don't you think that all things, no matter how they appear are subject to JK> personal perceptions? That there is nothing true that is not true for you? JK> Hence it is all a matter of well, what one percieves, I guess. Most people JK> don't even know how water or electricity comes into thier homes yet they wi JK> speculate on the most amazing, sometimes ridiculous, sometimes whimsical JK> stuff. Wonder why that is. Just a thought. JK> XXXXJack * i always have trouble with this line of thought...it seems to be the obsession of most serious undergraduates. all i know is, when some asshole smashes my car, it's real, no matter how i perceive it. damn. -=c=-] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JACK KNIFE To: All Subject: Perception Date: Sun Jul 13 19:44:06 CDT 1997 Message number: 104 Reply to message number: unavailable Well, I can see that you percieve your car is important. Your perceptions generate your hierarchy of priorities. See, you car isn't important to me. It doesn't even exist to me. I don't even know if you have a car. I don't know you. My younger brother is a Philosophy Professor and my baby brother is a Lutheran Minister. So your perception that I have an undergraduate viewpoint is delightful to me on an age level but highly biased by your own perceptions of what undergraduates talk about. I, frankly, cannot recall what I talked about as an undergraduate nor as a gradute student but I know it wasn't about cars. There is something to be said for the viewpoint that regardless of heady philosophical issues you still have to to live in the real world and as Voltaire said in Candide, "tend to your garden". However how your percieve your life will have a direct impact on how you physically react to it. I have no doubt that you have trouble with this line of thinking. It's all in your perceptions of what it is. I suggest you read some Wittgenstein. XXOOJACK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LEMON To: Jack Knife Subject: Whooo... Date: Tue Jul 15 01:43:57 CDT 1997 Message number: 105 Reply to message number: 104 1, 2, 3. Down for the count with no rematch And by the way, the post that was in reponse to only proved her point further. You say that everyone has their own perceptions, I disagree. Duh? -lemon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: COSIMA To: Jack Knife Subject: Re: Perception Date: Sat Jul 19 17:00:42 CDT 1997 Message number: 106 Reply to message number: 104 JK> My younger brother is a Philosophy Professor and my baby brother is a Luthe JK> Minister. So your perception that I have an undergraduate viewpoint is * my sister works in a warehouse, and one of my best friends just died. does this make me more profound than you? puh-leese...one doesn't get an intellectual pedigree by being biologically related to people who have interesting professions. * JK> However how your percieve your life will have a direct impact on how you JK> physically react to it. I have no doubt that you have trouble with this li JK> of thinking. It's all in your perceptions of what it is. I suggest you re JK> some Wittgenstein. JK> JK> XXOOJACK * ah, grasshopper, but you *should* have doubt...*great* doubt. after all, i might be a totally different person in real life than i am here on dissent...in fact, what you perceive might not indeed exist, right? and, re: wittgenstein...read him. as an undergrad. -=c=- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JACK KNIFE To: Cosima Subject: Re: Perception Date: Sun Jul 20 08:14:48 CDT 1997 Message number: 107 Reply to message number: 106 I didn't mean to infer I had a pedigree because of what my brothers did. I meant to infer that if my BABY brother is a lutheran minister and you do the math then you'll figure I'm not the freshest blossom on the rose bush. I do not assume anything about anyone on boards. I hope you will do likewise. As for reading, I think an undergraduate reading of Wittgenstein is worth about as much as an undergraduate reading of anything is. Undergrad readings and grad school readings generally perform functions. With any good book an independant re-reading will help deepen the words. This phenomena will not occur with my posts, unfortunately. What you read for pleasure is a totally different thing than what you read for classes. That's why assuming that one is reading things in college is so damn offensive. Auto-didactics are the true students of the world. You probably have things you can teach me. Everybody does. No matter how old or educated a person is there is much that can be learned from people. But that's just my perception. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LEMON To: Cosima Subject: fuck fuck fuck 666 Date: Sun Jul 20 13:09:12 CDT 1997 Message number: 108 Reply to message number: 106 Here is my perception. You have red hair, which is long. You are female, and as you are reading this, you are wearing a black shirt with the logo of a band you just saw at the Mainroom embroidered on it. You wear dark blue Doc Martins, and have your nose pierced with a gold ring. This is my perception. And it IS correct. Because this is my world. You may percieve this to be false. It is not. Because in my own image of you, that's what you are. Therefore, in my definition of truth - that is also what you are. Your perceptions of true and false are disconnected from my own. If I were to see you - my perception of truth about your looks would most likely be closer to your own. However to me your hair might be red, whereas to you your hair might be brown. Everything I say is truth. To me. Now. If I were to read some of my old essays later on in my life, I might see falsehoods in them. -lemon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: THROCKMORTON To: JACK KNIFE Subject: inner space Date: Sun Jul 20 14:50:31 CDT 1997 Message number: 109 Reply to message number: unavailable >Hence it is all a matter of well, what one percieves, I guess. Most people >don't even know how water or electricity comes into thier homes yet they wi >speculate on the most amazing, sometimes ridiculous, sometimes whimsical >stuff. Wonder why that is. Just a thought. >XXXXJack Because you have to learn something to know how electricity and plumbing work. Some of that other stuff, you just make it up as you go along. --- ž OLX 1.53 ž It's not hard to meet expenses, they're everywhere. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Jack Knife Subject: Re: inner space Date: Wed Jul 23 10:36:42 CDT 1997 Message number: 110 Reply to message number: 102 JK> Don't you think that all things, no matter how they appear are subject to JK> personal perceptions? That there is nothing true that is not true for you? Technically, yes -- the laws of nature dictate that even something as simple as time and space are different for each person. But realistically, we live in a pretty static corner of reality, and oftentimes it is possible to percieve the same event in the same way. What we do with that perception often differs greatly, however ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LEMON To: All Subject: ... Date: Sat Jul 26 23:50:22 CDT 1997 Message number: 111 Reply to message number: unavailable But still, in that - you're using "often". But I don't even think that's true. Our perception of certain people may be similar, but rarely the exact same. -lemon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JACK KNIFE To: All Subject: perception Date: Sun Jul 27 20:05:53 CDT 1997 Message number: 112 Reply to message number: unavailable Isn't what Einstein said about perception valid? That perspective is just how it appears to you- that if you are in a boat the shore looks like it is moving, if you are on the shore the boat appears to be moving? So how can we all percieve the same thing if we are all separate entities. Sure, we can agree that something happened but how we see it differs wildly. So that what appears to be an argument can actually just be a different way of seeing the same thing through an individual perspective. We may be agreeing on something but our perceptions of what the other is saying somehow appears negative. It's that pesky language problem. I think. more like a ginsu than a spoon, Jack Knife ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: COSIMA To: Jack Knife Subject: Re: perception Date: Mon Jul 28 04:46:56 CDT 1997 Message number: 113 Reply to message number: 112 JK> Isn't what Einstein said about perception valid? That perspective is just h * depends upon who you perceive einstein to be. :) -=c=- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JACK KNIFE To: Me Subject: me Date: Mon Jul 28 19:19:22 CDT 1997 Message number: 114 Reply to message number: unavailable Or who I percieve you to be, I guess ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TEMP To: Jack Knife Subject: Re: me Date: Wed Jul 30 06:23:05 CDT 1997 Message number: 115 Reply to message number: 114 the elephant is very like a wall a rope a snake a wastebasket a person-eating monste... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LEMON To: Paul Westerberg Subject: I dunno Date: Wed Jul 30 21:55:20 CDT 1997 Message number: 116 Reply to message number: unavailable Wow. How deep. -lemon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TEMP To: All Subject: deepth Date: Thu Jul 31 09:47:17 CDT 1997 Message number: 117 Reply to message number: unavailable how to fathom anything ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: COSIMA To: Temp Subject: Re: deepth Date: Wed Aug 06 06:54:17 CDT 1997 Message number: 118 Reply to message number: 117 T> how to fathom anything ? * an anchor helps. -=c=- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TEMP To: Cosima Subject: Re: deepth Date: Wed Aug 06 21:49:34 CDT 1997 Message number: 119 Reply to message number: 118 T> how to fathom anything ? C> * C> an anchor helps. Possibly the best use for a computer more than nine months old. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: COSIMA To: Temp Subject: Re: deepth Date: Mon Aug 11 07:56:46 CDT 1997 Message number: 120 Reply to message number: 119 T> how to fathom anything ? C> * C> an anchor helps. T> Possibly the best use for a computer more than nine months old. * this is true. when i first got my 286, the only language it had loaded into it was Ancient Aramaic. -=c=- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TEMP To: Cosima Subject: Re: deepth Date: Wed Aug 13 02:32:33 CDT 1997 Message number: 121 Reply to message number: 120 C> this is true. when i first got my 286, the only language it had loaded into C> was Ancient Aramaic. The language of our Lord! Do you still haveit? Maybe yr computer was UNique: Maybe Jesus was trying to talk to you. Gone!!! The great chance to find out if what he said 'then' is what he would say now. Oh, to know Aramaic; to be able to think like Mary.