ucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP (08/02/83)
#R:umcp-cs:-111400:ucbesvax:11400005:37777777600:4104 ucbesvax!turner Aug 2 00:22:00 1983 I say "If, on the other hand (long-parenthetical-comment) *before*" being taken from the womb. But you say: "Stop right there." Well, I say read to the period. Maybe even to the end of the paragraph. In any case, I am clearly using "killed" in the very broadest sense: one can be killed equally by accident or by a malicious person or a person defending herself. And with no particular blame on the part of the person killed. In any case, you misread my purpose. Liz has not responded to me personally, nor to net.philosophy. You believe that she is capable of defending herself. Yet she has not tried to defend herself against what I have said, because I was not attacking her beliefs. I say, OK: it's killing babies. But I don't say "poor, harmless babies." I say POC. Now, liz has three choices: 1. SHE can say "POC" in her responses; 2. she can go on tugging heartstrings (in her admittedly intelligent and reasonable-sounding way), and even attack me for being cold and cruel; 3. she can shut up (as she finally did in net.women). I sympathize with your desire to have the abortion controversy settled on its merits. However, at one point I saw that this person, Liz, had almost single-handedly set 4 or 5 newsgroups aflame. I have read much of what she has to say. I settled, finally, on one weakness: she has worked in centers that counsel pregnant women with a decided emphasis on the supposed inhumanity of abortion. I concluded that she had worked with women who had had abort- ions, and even some who had gone ahead with them against her counsel. It is clear that Liz is not a fire-and-brimstone "pro-lifer". She forgives this sin. So I asked her (essentially) whether she would tolerate a judicial system that was less forgiving than she is. And she shut up. This is no more or less than what I set out to do. My contribution is certainly no example to be held up as a way to argue about abortion. But I think it's successful on its own terms, which happen not to be your terms. Some of your twistings of my words astound me. You ask me "Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the state should protect only decision-making humans and itself." I look at what I wrote, and fail to see where you find the "should". The State is amoral. It protects decision-making humans that might turn against it if it didn't, and in this sense protects ONLY itself. If abortion were massively unpopular (it so happens that it is not), then for the state to protect abortion rights would lead it to endanger itself. Would the State would consider a babykiller's "ignorance" of the humanity of their victims? I find this hard to believe. Would repeat offenders then be subject to the penalties for murder, since their ignorance was clearly dispelled by their first conviction? (Legally, it is only the State's definition of "murder" that matters.) I suppose there is some- thing to this: the Jim Crow South was rather tolerant of lynching parties for not recognizing the humanity of black people. I suppose that mobs that lynched abortionists might also enjoy some clemency by virtue of *their* ignorance of the abortionist's ignorance of fetal rights. You are nowhere examinating the political complexities of this issue. (BTW, the only conscientious objector I know spent 2 years in Lompoc. He was admittedly one of only 60 or so in the country to do time in a federal prison for his crime--he was used as a deterring example, unsuccessfully. And I suspect that most of the character-based community-service sentences were, in reality, also examples: expressions of protest on the part of the judiciary to defend the legitimacy of *their* share of state-power against an increasingly outraged citizenry. The social dynamics of unpopular wars are such that the State has to contradict itself, and partially resolve those contradictions, in order to survive.) In your ostensible position of referee, I see a moralistic tilt. Please correct me if I am wrong. It might be unconsciously inferred from your login name. Michael Turner ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner
holly@hpfcly.UUCP (holly) (03/16/85)
If any of you out there have questions about the Mormon doctrine I suggest that you buy the book "The Godmakers" and read it and then get your hands on some of their material. You will have a rude awakening as to what the foundation of their church is based on. I new some of the things, but this book is an eye opener. There is also a movie called "The Godmakers" and it can be obtained through the Saints Alive for Jesus foundation P.O. Box 1076, Issaquah, WA 98027.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (04/28/85)
All right, Paul. You're so fucking unhinged by my decapitation of your concepts that you spend hundreds of lines just plowing through dictionaries picking out as many words as you can to support your "cause". (e.g., "WILFRED: a large green thing that is almost an anagram of the phrase "free will" and has nothing to do with "souls" or anything else Rich Rosen has said", as extracted from the Oxford English dictionary. See?) My point was and still is: the notion of free will as you describe it, being free to engage in actions independent of any external or internal interference, IMPLIES DIRECTLY some agent that is external to physical cause and effect! IMPLIES DIRECTLY, meaning that it can be deduced LOGICALLY from the premises of the definitions using the very same logical reasoning you take as a given elsewhere! You ignored my points on "how can one have free will if one is not free to 'choose' the experiences that happen in one's life, some truamatic, that directly influence and in some cases control the way events and phenomena are interpreted by the brain, stored, and used as a BASIS for later decisions?" You ignored them completely. Why? Because it INTERFERES DIRECTLY with your blind assumptions that free will, in some form, MUST exist, no matter how much twisting and redefinition you must do. I never claimed that the implications were imbedded in the definition! I said that they were CONSEQUENCES of that definition. For reasons listed above. (How can you be free to choose anything if the elements of choice and decision are part of your physical make-up which is involved in the cause and effect chain? Thus to have such a thing, you MUST have something outside this chain... I repeat myself very unnecessaily. I've said this before and Paul's obviously not listening anyway.) -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rapaport@ellie.UUCP (04/29/85)
> > I recently mail-ordered a copy of the 2nd edition of *Dictionary of > Philosophy*. > My advice to others is: Don't get it; get the 1st edition. Professional philosophers (of whom I am one) generally avoid Runes's DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY for its inaccuracies and for a celebrated controversy over its articles on logic. (Apparently, Runes changed the articles without the authors' permission.) If you want a good reference on philosophy, go to the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY (Macmillan Free Press, 1967). It's a bit out of date, but authoritative. A good dictionary is A. R. Lacey, A DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1976). I'm told that the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITTANICA has good articles, too, though I haven't checked it out myself. -- Bill Rapaport Dept. of Computer Science SUNY Buffalo Buffalo, NY 14260 (716) 636-3193 uucp: ...decvax!sunybcs!rapaport csnet/arpanet: rapaport%buffalo@csnet-relay.
bill@hpfcms.UUCP (bill) (05/17/85)
>Being a Christian myself, I think I will add my comments, before >someone assumes Bill talks for all Christians. Sorry. I don't mean to speak for all Christians. > Now I disagree, science and Christianity(or at least the Bible) >address different sets of questions. The Bible is concerned with the >relationships of man to man and man to God. Science is concerned with >the causes of events *within* the structure of the Universe. Science >does not refute the existence of God, it merely says that since He is >outside the structure of the Universe, He is not a matter to be considered >by science. That is science simply has nothing to say on the issue. But don't you think the Bible has A LOT to say about the same things Science comments on? Have you ever studied what the Bible has to say about science? I have, and it's amazing! Because the Bible encompasses ALL of life, ALL of God's creation, it necessarily is a deciding factor of whether or not Science has correctly interpreted our world. No, I don't look to the Bible for Physics equations, or anything like that. But, if scientific theory collides with Biblical scripture, then something has to give. For me, Science must give. I'm an electrical engineer, and as such, I respect Science - heck, my job's BUILT on it! And you're right, much of what Science has to say doesn't touch on Scriptural truths. Perhaps, as I think about it, what we have is a confusion of terms. "Science" is a field of study, and as such, is no threat to Biblical truths. Various "scientists" I have talked to, however, have definitely opposed Biblical teachings in preference to theory, and have refuted the existence of God. THAT'S what I was addressing. > Even within Christianity there is this thing called free-will, >which I consider equivilant to being responsible(at least in part) for >my own fate. Remember also that science only deals with the Universe, >and within that framework we *do* determine our own fate. I agree. I didn't address free will at all, but I believe in it. We DO have free will to make choices and change things. However, I was speaking in opposition to humanism, which would deny that God has anything to do with it. God is ultimately over all, and therefore ultimately brings about His Will (I mean, we read about his ultimate will in Revelation, don't we?). >> Man evolved from other, lower life forms. >> vs. >> God created man, just as he created all other life forms. >> > Again, not a real conflict. The first statement is a statement >of a *process*, like the statement "Cars are made on assembly lines", >that is it is a scientific statement. The second statement is a >statement of a relationship, like "Ford Motors makes cars". Thus they >are talking about different things and can *both* be true, just like >both statements about cars are true. Well, here I disagree. I don't believe the Bible upholds the concept of "God created the basic building blocks, and then they all began evolving into what we have today, including man". Nope - can't buy that, 'cause the Bible explicitly states that God made each living thing after its own kind. Also, scientific study has shown that much of what was thought of as evolution turned out to be the result of passive genes that were stimulated by a different environment - hence, the adaptability was built into the genes to occur - the result is that the living being was still the same species, just showing its pre- programmed adaptability. >The Bible should be read as what it is, a book about the relationships >of man to his creator written in simple, colloquial language so that >all may understand. It is *not* a science text, if it attempted to be >scientifically accurate at all points it would be entirely >incomprehensible to everyone, but especially to the pre-scientific >cultures to which it was originally written. The Bible is the absolute Word of God. That's what I take it to be. As I said before, I don't consider it a science text. My specific references to scientific theory show the two points where the Bible and general scientific thought contradict each other. Those are the only two issues I'm addressing. (evolution, and humanism) >>One last point. This notestring has been discussing how all laws and >>other absolute truths are but good hypotheses. Thus, nothing is absolute - >>it just hasn't been contradicted yet. Well, in a Christian's life, there >>ARE absolute truths. Since basic beliefs state that the Bible is the >>Word of God, what's written there must be absolutely true, having been >>written by the only One who knows it all! >> > But He had to write it so we could understand it! Also He >didn't write it, He merely inspired the various authors to write it, >each in thier own idiom and style. > > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) I really don't see what you mean by your response to this last point. For me, the Bible is the Word of God, and is therefore absolute. The truths presented therein are absolute truths. God can't make mistakes. Yes, He inspired various authors to write the Bible, and He preserved their idioms and styles. If that last remark was meant to degrade the authority of the Bible, I take issue to it. There is too much effort in this world to gloss over the Bible. I'm determined to preserve it (in my own life, at least) for what it is. Finally, it was good (and surprising!) to hear from a believer on the net! You're the first one I've encountered. Bill Gates
jjm@faust.UUCP (05/22/85)
Remember: There is power in numbers. "Organized religion" is a hiding place for people who are scared to learn about this universe. People want to believe ther is an "after-life" that they can concieve of now! Why do people sit around and wonder what will happen to them when they die? They are missing NOW!! You cannot live thinking about tomorrow (ie. your death, if your reading this you arn't dead), or hiding in the past (ie. religion based on good ol' books that tell the story). If people put as much effort into their existance now as a citizan of this planet, this universe, then maybe there would be no overpopulation, starvation, torture, war, etc., etc.,etc. ------- But, you know, human nature won't allow it. Huh? Maybe I'll just start a religion ;-) I claim to know knothing. pasta fazool, joe macdougald
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/27/85)
Don't you wnt net.religion? This is net.philosophy -- the concern here is with thinking!
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/28/85)
In article <1310007@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: > > Don't you wnt net.religion? This is net.philosophy -- the concern here > is with thinking! Then what's your excuse? I'd be happy just to see a bit more politeness and addressing of the questions, rather than pomposity. (The above violations of my own point are merely for example.) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
bjanz@watarts.UUCP (Bruce Janz) (05/29/85)
In article <12900002@faust.UUCP> jjm@faust.UUCP writes: > > Remember: There is power in numbers. > "Organized religion" is a hiding place for people who are scared > to learn about this universe. People want to believe ther is an > "after-life" that they can concieve of now! Why do people sit > around and wonder what will happen to them when they die? They > are missing NOW!! You cannot live thinking about tomorrow (ie. > your death, if your reading this you arn't dead), or hiding in the > past (ie. religion based on good ol' books that tell the story). > If people put as much effort into their existance now as a citizan > of this planet, this universe, then maybe there would be no > overpopulation, starvation, torture, war, etc., etc.,etc. ------- > But, you know, human nature won't allow it. Huh? > Actually, I thought that a lot of the humanitarian effort, especially in third world areas, was initiated by organized religion. You may want to claim that their reasons for starting this action are inauthentic (ie. proselytization), but I think there are a fair number of religious organizations are concerned about their existence "now as a citizen". However, shouldn't this discussion be in net.religion? -b. janz -- From the Flying Fingers of Bruce Janz... watmath!watarts!bjanz OR watmath!watarts!bbjanz
dat@hpcnoa.UUCP (dat) (06/10/85)
Something that's always bothered me about burials and such is the waste of some of the most lovely land in the world. In the local area there are some really nice park areas that are taken up by tombstones and (presumably) lots of bones in wood boxes. Wouldn't it make more sense to bury people straight into the ground and then utilize the area as a parkland? When I die I want to be buried at the foot of a tree or something - I am very much against having a 'hallowed' ground where my body is entrenched. Comments? --- Dave Taylor
bill@hpfcms.UUCP (06/16/85)
>The statement that the Bible is the word of God is a hypothesis, and, it >seems to me, a pretty poor one. OK, for the sake of common terms, it's a hypothesis. Why is it poor? Because it hasn't been subjected to carbon dating? Because it hasn't been through the wringer in net.whatever for approval? Because it hasn't been deemed as one of the "good" hypotheses we have to choose from? It's not a good one for you because it occupies the realm of faith, which goes beyond man's reasoning and logic. Try as you might, with whatever powerful arguments and points, you cannot disprove it. >While God as you no doubt define him cannot >make mistakes, you certainly can. You can be mistaken in everything you >believe about him (scientists are already well aware of their capability of >being mistaken, so it is pointless to throw this one back). Yes, I most certainly can make mistakes. But, as you have pointed out, so can everybody else. If this is a mistake, then it's perhaps the most consistent mistake around. By faith, I have accepted that the Bible is the Word of God. Everything I subsequently have come to believe is based on it. It's no different from anybody else who takes a stand on something. Why does it bother you that I have taken my stand? What's the problem? >To claim that >you know an absolute truth when you see one is, like most so-called faith, >the height of arrogance. If you were to couch everything you say within >"I suspect ... because ...", you might get a sense of what science >and philosophy are about. Arrogant? Hardly. The net (and the rest of the world, for that matter) is full of folks arguing points. Why do they argue? Because they think they are right - they have faith in what they believe. Why don't I have the right to decide what I believe and not be labeled as "arrogant"? I have NEVER made the claim that I know it all. There is much in life that I do not understand, and much that I never will. Don't give me this stuff about Science and Philosophy always dwelling in the "I suspect . . . because..." arena - it just ain't true. Sure, in the research area, the words are stated in this manner, but textbooks are full of "facts" which, quite simply, aren't. Natural "laws", philosophical theories, mathematical equations, etc. are presented as facts when NONE of them can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. They are simply models or approximations that seem to work for the time being. Keep in mind that I don't consider Science an "evil". I look to science to explain some of the many things I find inexplicable. The only time science and I part company is when science purports to have "discovered" or "proven" something that directly contradicts the Bible (my "stand"). And that doesn't happen very often. >In the meantime, for the sake of everyone else, >please keep out of net.philosophy any beliefs which you are not prepared >to subject to analysis. > >-- Jim Balter (ima!jim) I'm fully prepared to subject anything I say to analysis, or I wouldn't have said them on the net. I present my beliefs as perfectly valid alternatives (or perhaps as supporting viewpoints) to things said on the net, nothing more. And what is your definition of "analysis"? If you can't pick it apart to the point where you can fully understand it, then you cast it off of the net? I suspect so. Religious thought is thought that needs to be considered, not ignored. And what makes you the keeper of net.philosophy? Why should my postings disappear for "the sake of everyone else"? At the least, what I say should make for amusing reading, if nothing else. Look, philosophy is thought, viewpoint, and reasoning. My position qualifies. Bill Gates
mike@hpfclp.UUCP (mike) (06/19/85)
> Just recently, I read part of _Atlas Shrugged_ (part of the long speech by > John Galt); apparently Rand's attempt to derive ethics is there at least in > outline. There are gaping holes in what I read, so unless there's much more > to the argument, I agree, it's a botch. > --The developing iconoclast, > Paul V. Torek, (soon at) umcp-cs!flink Hmm. I take it that you have not read the entire book. I am very interested in what you specifically consider to be the "gaping holes" you identified in ATLAS SHRUGGED and/or Ayn Rand's essays on Objectivest Ethics. Rand's argument is that ethics can be derived objectively based on the axiom that reality is objective. If you do not believe that it is possible to derive ethics objectively, then the ONLY alternative is that ethics are subjective. Subjective ethics (and subjective morality) are tantamount to "Anything Goes". If you can't deduce an objective code by which people can live with each other, then there is no code. In such a world, the only ethics possible would be a collection of range-of-the-moment rules; rules not validated by reason, rules not validated by an understanding or respect for man's nature, rules not validated by the knowledge required for the proper survival of a rational being. People who choose their ethics as though they were choosing which pair of shoes to wear have never even glimpsed what is meant by the word "morality". Michael Bishop hplabs!hpfcla!mike-b
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/01/85)
>/* mike@hpfclp.UUCP (mike) / 7:28 pm Jun 18, 1985 */ >Rand's argument is that ethics can be derived objectively based on the >axiom that reality is objective. If you do not believe that it is >possible to derive ethics objectively, then the ONLY alternative is that >ethics are subjective. Subjective ethics (and subjective morality) are >tantamount to "Anything Goes". If you can't deduce an objective code by >which people can live with each other, then there is no code. In such a >world, the only ethics possible would be a collection of >range-of-the-moment rules; rules not validated by reason, rules not >validated by an understanding or respect for man's nature, rules not >validated by the knowledge required for the proper survival of a >rational being. > >People who choose their ethics as though they were choosing which pair >of shoes to wear have never even glimpsed what is meant by the word >"morality". It would appear that you are arguing that since ethics that are derived subjectively are not really ethics, but rather just personal preferences. This seems reasonable enough. However, you can't use this to justify a system of objective ethics. You may merely have shown that the concept of ethics is meaningless. >Michael Bishop Mike Sykora
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/02/85)
>/* mike@hpfclp.UUCP (mike) / 7:28 pm Jun 18, 1985 */ >Rand's argument is that ethics can be derived objectively based on the >axiom that reality is objective. If you do not believe that it is >possible to derive ethics objectively, then the ONLY alternative is that >ethics are subjective. Subjective ethics (and subjective morality) are >tantamount to "Anything Goes". If you can't deduce an objective code by >which people can live with each other, then there is no code. In such a >world, the only ethics possible would be a collection of >range-of-the-moment rules; rules not validated by reason, rules not >validated by an understanding or respect for man's nature, rules not >validated by the knowledge required for the proper survival of a >rational being. > >People who choose their ethics as though they were choosing which pair >of shoes to wear have never even glimpsed what is meant by the word >"morality". It would appear that you are arguing that ethics that are derived subjectively are not really ethics, but rather just personal preferences. This seems reasonable enough. However, you can't use this to justify a system of objective ethics. You may merely have shown that the concept of ethics is meaningless. >Michael Bishop Mike Sykora
dat@hpcnof.UUCP (dat) (07/10/85)
>>>I just think that commitment is the keyword here, but it does not >>>necessarily have to be towards marriage. >> Nice sentiment, Colin, but marriage IS commitment and the MOST >> commitment IS marriage. >Check that. Marriage is A commitment. One of a number of possiblities. Agreed. The major significance of marriage in our society, I feel, is religious and legally. I know people who are 'living together' and who have far better relationships (ie are happier with each other and with life) (*) than others that are married. Religious significance is that in most major religions, if not all, marriage is a 'holy covenant between the couple and God' and that becoming a married couple is quite significant in this context. On a personal level, I don't subscribe to the mystical mumbojumbo that most religions espouse, so I certainly wouldn't marry someone merely to have "God smile at me" or whatever! Legally, a married couple is afforded opportunities and certain advantages (like tax breaks) that a couple living together are not. I suspect this is due to the previous reason...All the countries in the world have political systems based on local morals and mores (ie the constitution et. al.) which are in turn influenced to a VERY large degree by the prevalent religion at the time. This can be directly seen by the United States response to such anti-Puritan (the founding and most prevalent religion during the creation of the American gov- ernment, as you no doubt recall) freedoms as homosexuality, abortion, living together without being married, and the current sexual freedom. (Of course, we ARE in the upswing of a conservative phase so we might find these even MORE restrained than usual...) To move into a slightly different topic, continuing the above bit, does anyone else see a prevalence of the Puritan attitude (not Puritan oil, you twit! No "Crisco Party" discussion HERE!) (alas!) in this country? I can point to any number of public attitudes towards things that seem to spring from the original religious and moral beliefs of the founding fathers. Even with the 'Melting Pot' amalgamation of people that created the United States there still seems to be a continuing thread. Comments? Philoing Waxasophical, -- Dave Taylor HP Colorado Networks (*) It could certainly be argued that what comprises a 'good' relationship is also a personal value judgement - some people might genuinely believe that fighting with your SO is lots of fun... Again, my personal feeling is that the quality of a relationship can be measured by the amount of pleasure the two people obtain from each others company...and their satisfaction level of their own personal lives simul- taneously (ie the 'rose coloured glasses' adage)
eric@ISM780B.UUCP (09/26/85)
Communism and Tarot, what wonderful topics. My own quest for deterministic security led me to Marx & Lenin in an attempt to understand history. I find the principles of Marxism provide a method of analysis to understand what the moving forces of history are, and what the moving forces of an individual are. Where does this analysis lead? 1. labor produces all value. 2. capitalism turns everything into a commodity, including people. 3. ugly capitalists steal everything they can. 4. they who have the gold make the rules, and enforce them with viscious killers, and mass industrial death. 5. We are all determining our collective futures by the ideology we are living with. This picture can leave one rather nervous and scared. I don't have much faith in "Modern Civilization". I still approach my Tarot card readings with a dose of skepticism, how can the mere shuffling of these cards yield any significant information about life? A mere randomization? No, I make choices how long to shuffle and where to cut the deck. And behold, a perfect message. Did somebody switch the deck on me? Is this just paranoid hallucination? No, I can share the meaning of this with my friends. I find it an intuitive map to the social and psychic order. A very wise and very deep spiritual vein of humanity has brought this book of dangerous visions through the ages. I recommend: The Feminist Tarot. Conclusions: Never.