Searching for Happiness ?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
alr7all11@gmail.com - 22 Feb 2007 12:14 GMT Happiness is a common goal that everyone strives to attain. Philosophers, intellectuals, doctors and artists alike have all strived in search of the causes of happiness and ways to escape anxiety.
The reality is, however, that the proposed solutions achieve only partial or superficial happiness. They are more or less like drugs which only provide temporary relief; when their effect wares off, anxieties return two fold.
The following words invite you to ultimate happiness and will lead you to true success. But before you begin reading, I hope that you to take a moment to try to open your heart and mind - as the intelligent one is he who searches for the truth no matter where it lies.
An undeniable reality is that permanent happiness cannot be achieved except by believing in God - The Creator - and following His guidance. Since it is He who created mankind, He is the one who knows what pleases and benefits them, just as he knows what saddens and harms them. A number of psychologists have affirmed that only a religious person lives with true content and serenity. So if believing in God leads to ultimate happiness, then how can this be achieved?
There are numerous religions and a variety of creeds. However, their critical differences in core issues make it impossible for all of them to be correct. So which is the correct religion? What is the correct creed that God requires us to believe in and in the end pleases Him? And which one of these creeds guarantees us happiness in this life and in the hereafter?
Before answering these questions, a criterion must first be established to be used as a basis for correctly determining the true religion. I firmly believe that all sensible people will agree that a religion is not deemed correct simply due to the fact that one was raised in that religion, had parents that adhered to it, or lived in a society that practiced it. Rather a religion's accuracy and authenticity are based upon substantial evidence and firm intellectual proofs. Intellect, the distinguishing factor between mankind and animals, must be applied when studying the issue of religion, which is undeniably the most important and gravest of all matters.
A short journey into the world of religions and sifting through various creeds could prove to be a good method in arriving at the desired conclusion. In order to save you the time and effort, I say with full conviction and confidence that no matter how much you investigate this issue, you will only arrive at one reality: that the true and correct religion is Islam and that true happiness and content lies within it.
Before you hastily rebut this statement and stop reading, please realize that completing the rest would not harm you at all, and it may in fact benefit you. Also, remember that you have an intellect by which you can distinguish things and determine truth from falsehood.
Why Islam?
This is an important question, indicating that the questioner is mature and enlightened. In response I say:
Islam is a religion that includes a number of merits and characteristics that are absent from other religions. These characteristics, alone, serve as convincing evidence that Islam is the true religion of God. You can determine the authenticity of this statement by contemplating them.
Islam's many merits and characteristics make it impossible to elaborate on all of them. However, some of the most important can be summarized as follows:
1. Amongst the greatest merits of Islam is that it fulfills the spiritual aspects of the human being and enables those who embrace it to have an ongoing connection with God. This makes it possible for them to be at ease spiritually. It shields them from chaos, being lost or feeling (spiritually) empty, and protects from mental instability.
2. Another of Islam's merits is that it coincides totally with common sense. All of the Islamic legislation and its rulings are acceptable intellectually and are never contradictory. One man who embraced Islam was asked why he did so and replied, "Islam never ordered me to do anything that I later wished wasn't obligated, and it never forbade me from anything that I later wished wasn't forbidden." Much of what is readily accepted in other religions causes great confusion. This confusion makes it difficult to believe many of the fundamental tenets/doctrines that these religions are based upon. On the other hand, we find that Islam respects the intellect, prohibits ignorance, and condemns blind following.
3. Islam is an all-inclusive way of life attending to both spiritual and physical needs. Practicing Islam does not mean that one has to be secluded or that he is prohibited from the finer things in life. Rather, according to Islam, a person can be religious and still enjoy a normal life - attaining prestigious ranks/positions and achieving the highest academic degrees.
4. Among the merits of Islam is that it is a comprehensive religion. Every aspect of a person's life is managed by Islam. There is not a problem except that a solution for it lies in Islam, which makes it possible to embrace and practice in every time and place. How can this not be the case in such a well organized religion that has guidelines and positive instruction for every aspect of life including: conflict resolution, buying and selling, social and marital relations, greetings, public etiquettes, and even how a person eats, sleeps and dresses. These practices have not been addressed generally, but rather in precise detail, causing the mind to wonder in amazement. Know that Islam even provides direction on how to wear and remove footwear. It encourages people to use their right hand when eating, drinking, shaking hands, and when giving and receiving items. As for disliked affairs such as using the bathroom, the left hand is to be used. Islam also has wonderful instructions regarding going to sleep and waking up. When two Muslims meet, Islam directs them on how they should greet each other; a rider should initiate greeting the pedestrian, the youth should initiate greeting the elderly, and a small group should initiate greeting a larger group. These are but a few of Islam's many comprehensive guidelines for all aspects of life.
5. Another of Islam's merits is that it establishes good for mankind in all its regulations and safeguards them from evil. It is man himself who benefits from these regulations. Islam's prohibition of alcohol and drugs for example is only because of the great harm they cause to a person's physical and mental health. You can witness the state of a drunken man, no longer human except in appearance. A lot of murders, disputes, traffic accidents and rapes would not have taken place were it not for consuming these mind-altering products. Islam's prohibition of premarital sex relieves societies of destructive diseases (such as AIDS and other STDs), immoral behavior, and the existence of a generation of illegitimate children. This generation is often deprived of a mother's love and a father's upbringing which can lead them to become burdensome on society. Islam prohibits women from displaying themselves publicly. This is because Islam considers women to be valued, preserved pearls; not some cheap merchandise to be displayed for all to see. It does so to protect them from the wolves of mankind - those who are only concerned with satisfying their lusts, even if it is at the cost of a woman's honor, nobility, status, and purity. On the other hand, Islam permits all harmless and beneficial drinks. It also permits married couples to enjoy one another within a happy home. In summary, Islam has not eliminated freedoms and desires. Rather, it regulates them for the benefit of mankind and the society at large.
6. A radiant aspect of Islam is that it pays a great deal of attention to values, character, and praiseworthy manners, while prohibiting mankind from oppression, transgression and bad character. Islam is a religion of love, unity and mercy. It defines an individual's relationship with his parents, relatives, neighbors, friends and all people. Islam embeds the best of manners in those who embrace it and prevents them from living selfishly. It encourages its followers to help others and take others' feelings into consideration - especially the poor, orphans, elderly and widows. They all have rights in Islam that must not be taken lightly by Muslims. Muslims shouldn't feel like they are bestowing favors upon others when giving them their due rights, rather these rights are obligations upon Muslims. It is considered to be a great sin in Islam for one to go to sleep with a full stomach knowing that his neighbor is hungry. Islam even prohibits two people from whispering to each other in the presence of a third, taking his feelings into consideration. Islam goes even further than that, obligating kind treatment to animals and prohibiting harming them. More specifically, Islam prohibits slaughtering an animal while another watches, or sharpening a knife while it is watching, so that it is not tormented along with being slaughtered. Truthfulness, trustworthiness, bravery, generosity, humility, abiding by promises, visiting the sick, attending funerals, being dutiful to parents, visiting relatives and neighbors, and striving to help others are all etiquettes that are encouraged by Islam. On the other hand, Islam strictly prohibits oppression, lying, conceitedness, envy, and insulting or betraying others. It is impermissible in Islam to speak ill of a person in his absence, even if what is being said is true. Islam encourages people to moderate in spending, being neither excessive nor misers. During times when a lot of societies complain about cold heartedness, materialism, selfishness and so on, we find that Islam has proven remedies for all of these problems.
This summarized introduction should make it clear that Islam is a logical religion that can be easily understood by all people. The doors to Islam are wide open and do not shut for anyone looking to enter.
Understanding all of Islam's teachings in a short article is impossible. However, briefly discussing some of its fundamental tenets should assist in further clarifying the religion for those who are interested.
All of Islam's regulations and teachings are important, but some have precedence over others. There are six essential articles of faith that one must believe in, and five pillars that one's faith must be built upon.
As for the six articles that must be believed in:
1. Believing in Allah (God) alone, associating no partners unto Him in worship. This is done by believing that Allah alone is the Creator of this universe and everything that is within it, and that it is He alone who disposes its affairs as He sees fit. Consequently, worship can only be offered to Him alone. Worship is implementing the teachings of Islam and its legislation while believing that all other religions are false.
2. Believing in the angels. Angels were created by Allah but we can not see them. They worship Allah and never disobey Him. Allah orders them to carry out many of the universe's affairs. The angel Gabriel, for example, (peace be upon him) delivers Allah's revelation to the messengers. Another is Mikayeel (peace be upon him), who is entrusted with the affairs of rain. Still there are other angels responsible for writing the deeds of mankind - deeds which they will be held accountable for on the Day of Resurrection. It is essential to believe that all of the angels act solely upon the order of Allah and do only what He wills.
3. Believing in the Books of Revelation. This means to believe that Allah revealed books to His servants comprising of His words. These books contain bliss for mankind by clarifying what Allah is pleased with as well as what He dislikes. The Angel charged with delivering revelation to the Prophets is Gabriel (peace be upon him) - the greatest of angels. A prophet then conveys the revelation to the rest of mankind. Allah has revealed many books, amongst them: The Torah, revealed to Moses (peace be upon him), The Psalms, revealed to David (peace be upon him), The Gospel, sent down to Jesus (peace be upon him) and the Quran, which was revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him). One must believe that the Quran has abrogated all books prior to it, meaning that - after the Prophet (Muhammad) was sent - it is the only book that can be acted upon, especially since the Quran combines all the merits of past books and further supplements them. Know that the Quran is from the greatest evidences that this religion is the truth revealed by Allah (God) the Most High. The Quran was revealed over 1400 years ago. Since then till this day, no contradictions or mistakes have been found in the Quran, not even in a single word. Many of the scientific discoveries of modern times were mentioned in the Quran. Since that time until today, nothing has been added to or subtracted from the Quran, while previous revelations have been tampered with and altered. It is for this reason that you can pick up a copy of the Quran in the far East and find it to be exactly the same as one you pick up in the far West. If you were to come across a copy of the Quran that is hundreds of years old, you would also find that it is exactly the same as the one being printed currently - you wouldn't be able to find even one letter that is different. This is because of Allah's protection of this Book, the Book of the religion that sealed all other religions. Speaking about the Quran would take a lot of time. However, it is enough for you to know that there is nothing like it whatsoever; not by way of (literary) style, its effect on people, nor its information about the unseen.
4. Believing in the Prophets. This is done by believing that Allah has chosen the best of mankind to be recipients of His revelation and ordered them to convey His religion to the people. There are numerous Prophets, among them are: Noah, Abraham, David, Solomon, Lot, Joseph, Moses and others (peace be upon all of them). Also from them is Jesus. It is imperative to believe that he is among the best of Prophets and to love and respect him. Whoever despises him or denies his prophethood is not Muslim. Likewise it is compulsory to believe that Allah created him from a mother only, with no father, just as Allah created Adam with neither a mother nor a father. Having mentioned this, we now know that Jesus is a noble messenger and not God, nor is he a son of God. He foretold the coming of a prophet to come after him; Muhammad ibn (the son of) Abdullah, the last of the prophets. Muhammad ibn Abdullah (peace be upon him) was sent 1400 years ago. It is compulsory for everyone who comes after him until the Day of Judgment to believe in him and his message, and obey his orders and prohibitions. All those who studied the biography of this messenger have agreed that he is a great personality who has been bestowed with the best of manners and most noble etiquettes. He had characteristics which were not present in anyone before him and will not be present in anyone after him. Anything that you read about him, no matter how small it is, confirms what I am saying. Allah has also granted him proofs and evidences that establish the authenticity of his prophethood, thus having doubt in this fact is intellectually impossible. Having been given such proofs and evidences of his prophethood, whoever denies his truthfulness, would make it impossible for that individual to establish the truthfulness of any other prophet.
5. The Last Day. This is fulfilled firmly believing that after this life of ours is over, there is another more complete life. In it, there are immense rewards and magnificent luxuries, as well as punishment. Luxury is in Heaven and punishment in Hell. So whoever is righteous and believes in the religion of Islam enters Heaven, a place that contains untold pleasure and unimagined bliss. All the luxuries on earth cannot be compared to it at all. Whoever enters Heaven will continue to live in such luxuries for eternity as death does not exist therein. As for those who act upon evil and do not believe in Islam, they would end up in Hell, which contains fires and punishment that can not be imagined, all of the fires of earth and forms of punishment cannot be compared to the punishment of the hellfire at all. The existence of punishment and reward after this life is an issue that is intellectually acknowledged, because it is impossible for this world to exist and then just diminish into nothingness. This is trifling about, and our Lord, the Creator, does not engage in such activities.
6. Believing in Divine Decree. This is to believe that everything that happens in this world is due to Allah's knowledge and will. Nothing except what He wills takes place, and what He does not will, does not take place. Allah has written everything in a great book (The Preserved Tablet). Believing in divine decree also includes believing that Allah created everything.
As for the five pillars that must be practiced:
1. Uttering a phrase that is the key to entering into Islam. It is a contract between a servant and his Lord, signifying that he is upon this religion: "Ashhadu an la ilaha ila Allah, wa ashadu ana Muhammad 'abduhu wa rasuluhu." "I bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger." This testimony signifies the acceptance, admission, and adherence to the fact that worship must be offered to Allah alone. It also includes the acceptance of Islam as the only correct religion, Allah as the only true deity deserving worship, and that all other deities and religions are false. The second part of the testimony entails an affirmation that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and that he is to be obeyed and believed in all that he says.
2. The Prayer. It is a combination of statements, actions and invocations carried out in a specific manner. It is performed five times daily and doesn't take much time at all. In fact, a prayer may not take more than five minutes. Prayer is the link between a servant and his Lord. It enables a Muslim to be confident, mentally and spiritually at rest, calm and untroubled.
3. The Zakaat. A wealthy Muslim must give a small portion of his money to the poor, 2.5% of his wealth to be exact. Even though it is a small amount, it enables the Muslim community to be conciliated and merciful amongst each other. It propagates brotherhood, love and concern amongst Muslims. And again, Zakaat is only to be given out by the wealthy, not the poor.
4. Fasting. What is meant by fasting is that a person withholds from eating, drinking and sexual relations during the month of Ramadan [which is the 9th month of the lunar calendar] between dawn and sunset. The sick, travelers, and those with valid excuses are pardoned from fasting. They are permitted to eat and drink but must make up the missed days once they become able. Fasting has many health, personal, and social benefits. Amongst them are: giving the digestive system a break, allowing Muslims to grow spiritually and practice good mannerisms. It enables Muslims to be conscious of their needy brothers and sisters, those who are unable to find enough food to satisfy their needs throughout the year. Consequently, the Muslims humble themselves and strive to help them.
5. Hajj. It is a form of worship that must be performed only once in a lifetime, in Makkah. Those who are physically incapable or not financially able to perform it are pardoned from doing so. Hajj contains many magnificent benefits; the gathering of Muslims from all around the globe in one place getting to know each other and displaying love for one another, not to mention what a Muslim achieves by way of spiritual purification and character refinement due to experiencing such a spiritual environment in the shade of Hajj.
Hopefully what has preceded is sufficient in clarifying - in a summarized fashion - some of the merits of Islam. I invite all who have not yet entered into the fold of Islam to listen to a sincere invitation from one who only wants good for you: save yourself before death takes you by surprise, and thus you die upon other than Islam - what a great loss that is!
Do you know what dying upon other than Islam means? It means that you would enter the Hellfire, abiding therein for eternity. This is what Allah has warned all those who die without embracing Islam. So why would you take a chance with an issue as grave as this?
I'm going to ask you a question that I want you to answer honestly: What would you lose if you embraced Islam?
If you embrace Islam, you can continue living your normal ordinary life, but in a more spiritual, organized, and pleasant fashion...and after death, tremendous delight and eternal pleasure await you.
If you have reached a level of conviction, believing that Islam is the true religion, but fear that embracing Islam would prevent you from enjoying pleasures that you cannot live without, then compare these temporary pleasures with eternal pleasure. Which of the two should be given preference?
Furthermore, you can embrace Islam and then gradually try to reduce such pleasures. And if you were to honestly invoke Allah, He would surely aid you in leaving them. In any case, embracing Islam and having shortcomings is better than not embracing Islam at all.
If the barrier between you and Islam is due to having a weak personality, the inability to make such a big decision, or because you fear that people may talk about you or mock you, know that these are just unrealistic thoughts. You would not be the first person to embrace Islam; a lot of others have made the decision to do so. They did not lose anything, their lives were not ruined, nor do they have any regrets. Furthermore, does it make sense that you sacrifice your own well being and happiness in this life and in the hereafter just because you fear mockery or admonishment?
This affair is worthy of your time. Contemplate upon it deeply.
My last words: Do not lose yourself! I ask Allah to bless you with true guidance.
One who wishes only the best for you, Dr. Saleh Abdul Azeez As Sindee.
Archie Valparaiso - 22 Feb 2007 12:45 GMT > Happiness is a common goal that everyone strives to attain. >Philosophers, intellectuals, doctors and artists alike have all [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >partial or superficial happiness. They are more or less like drugs >which only provide temporary relief; when their effect wares off, After that, I couldn't bare to read any more.
 Signature Archie Valparaiso
Tunbridge Wells borough residents are the second best recyclers in Kent.
John Dean - 22 Feb 2007 13:52 GMT >> Happiness is a common goal that everyone strives to attain. >> Philosophers, intellectuals, doctors and artists alike have all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > After that, I couldn't bare to read any more. Indeed. Should obviously be warez. I was searching for happiness when this damn bird flew up my nostril. Only caught a brief glimpse but it seemed to be a kind of turquoise-y, glas-y kind of colour.
 Signature John Dean Oxford
Peter Moylan - 23 Feb 2007 11:11 GMT > I was searching for happiness when this damn bird flew up my nostril. > Only caught a brief glimpse but it seemed to be a kind of turquoise-y, > glas-y kind of colour. If the nose cannot go to paradise, then paradise must come to the nose.
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time.
John Dean - 23 Feb 2007 13:43 GMT >> I was searching for happiness when this damn bird flew up my nostril. >> Only caught a brief glimpse but it seemed to be a kind of >> turquoise-y, glas-y kind of colour. > > If the nose cannot go to paradise, then paradise must come to the > nose. A nose in time saves nine.
 Signature John Dean Oxford
Robin Bignall - 23 Feb 2007 23:35 GMT >>> I was searching for happiness when this damn bird flew up my nostril. >>> Only caught a brief glimpse but it seemed to be a kind of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >A nose in time saves nine. She nose, you know.
 Signature Cynthia
Robert Bannister - 22 Feb 2007 23:15 GMT > An undeniable reality is that permanent happiness cannot be achieved > except by believing in God - The Creator - and following His guidance. Like millions of other happy people, I deny this utterly.
 Signature Rob Bannister
the Omrud - 22 Feb 2007 23:21 GMT > > An undeniable reality is that permanent happiness cannot be achieved > > except by believing in God - The Creator - and following His guidance. > > Like millions of other happy people, I deny this utterly. There was an article on BBC Radio 4 "Women's Hour" today about retreats. Somebody who runs one was interviewed about what sort of person goes on a retreat and why. It seems that folk want to get away from the world to have time to try to make sense of the world and seek answers to all those big questions.
She was asked whether they take people of all faiths and people of no faith. She said yes, everybody is welcome and "of course" those with no faith have more questions to be answered.
Arrogant theist nonsense, which as usual went unchallenged. As far as I can tell, believers consider that those with no faith have a religion- shaped hole in their consciousness which they are desperate to fill.
 Signature David ===== Warwick Hilton
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Mike Page - 22 Feb 2007 23:41 GMT >> > An undeniable reality is that permanent happiness cannot be achieved >> > except by believing in God - The Creator - and following His guidance. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >can tell, believers consider that those with no faith have a religion- >shaped hole in their consciousness which they are desperate to fill. I heard the same thing while desperately driving about to find a tarpaulin to cover my leaking flat roof. WH was doing one of its feminist rants and had one interviewee whose every other word was "celebrate", if it wasn't "empower" or "share". It crossed my mind that hell might be eternity trapped on a retreat led by one such.
-- Mike Page Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
Tony Cooper - 23 Feb 2007 02:11 GMT >Arrogant theist nonsense, which as usual went unchallenged. As far as I >can tell, believers consider that those with no faith have a religion- >shaped hole in their consciousness which they are desperate to fill. I dunno about that. I live in a country where - if I'm to believe what I read here - believers are much thicker on the ground than they are in the UK. I don't see much in the way of a desperate need to bring religion to others. Not much, anyway, in proportion to the general population of believers.
There's a very visible and active minority that fits your description, but the average church-goer doesn't seem very aggressive in this. Believe it or not, I can go months without anyone discussing religion in my presence.
My knowledge that America is full of religious whackos is based on what I read in the newspapers rather than what I personally experience. I know many people who are church-goers and, assumedly, very devout. They're firm in their own convictions, but I don't know any that recruit.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
Archie Valparaiso - 23 Feb 2007 10:30 GMT >>Arrogant theist nonsense, which as usual went unchallenged. As far as I >>can tell, believers consider that those with no faith have a religion- [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >very devout. They're firm in their own convictions, but I don't know >any that recruit. Perhaps not, but isn't it also true that atheists in America are in much the same situation as homosexuals in most places? If you are one, it's not something you shout from the rooftops in society at large unless you're keen to acquire a rep as a some kind of weirdo who's not to be trusted.
If this wasn't the case, why do all senior American politicians without exception make a point of declaring their religious affiliation (and they all have one, and if they don't they make sure they get one before declaring their candidacy)? In some cases (e.g. Jimmy Carter) it was probably for real; in others (e.g. the Clintons) it was so obviously a cynical charade that I'm amazed the electorate didn't see right through it.
Let's also remember that the characteristic of communists that never failed to stir up the desired knee-jerk repulsion of them was that they were shamelessly "godless" (as Wayne reminded us the other day).
I certainly get the impression that being affiliated to a faith -- and any faith will do, even if it's the Mormons, Moonies or Scientologists -- is still generally thought of as an essential, non-negotiable feature of "the American Way".
Or am I way off track with this?
 Signature Archie Valparaiso
Tunbridge Wells borough residents are the second best recyclers in Kent.
cybercypher - 23 Feb 2007 10:40 GMT > Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrought: >> >>>Arrogant theist nonsense, which as usual went unchallenged. As >>>far as I can tell, believers consider that those with no faith >>>have a religion- shaped hole in their consciousness which they >>>are desperate to fill.
>>I dunno about that. I live in a country where - if I'm to believe >>what I read here - believers are much thicker on the ground than [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Perhaps not, I'm sure that all Tony means by the disingenuous bullshit remark "I don't know any that recruit" means only that none of his friends or nodding acquaintenances are that species of theoskunk. He's certainly had run-ins with plenty of evangelistic American missionaries in his 67 years in Indiana, Illinois, and Florida., He may not know their names, but he's talked to them. You can't be a resident American and not be bothered by the bastards[1].
> but isn't it also true that atheists in America are > in much the same situation as homosexuals in most places? Yep. To paraphrase Yoko Ono's "Woman is the Nigger of the World"[2], "Atheists are the faggots of the world". Dig it. Some of my best friends are atheists. Aren't some of yours?
> If you are one, it's not something you shout from the rooftops > in society at large unless you're keen to acquire a rep as a > some kind of weirdo who's not to be trusted. Amen!
> If this wasn't the case, why do all senior American politicians > without exception make a point of declaring their religious > affiliation (and they all have one, and if they don't they make > sure they get one before declaring their candidacy)? Because there are no atheists in foxholes, and the White House is the world's biggest foxhole. Bill Clinton proved that.
> In some cases (e.g. Jimmy Carter) it was probably for real; in > others(e.g. the Clintons) it was so obviously a cynical charade > that I'm amazed the electorate didn't see right through it. You missed on that one. It was Nixon and Reagan who were the religiously cynical charadists during their respective tenures in the White House. The Clintons were no better or worse than most others who've lived there.
> Let's also remember that the characteristic of communists that > never failed to stir up the desired knee-jerk repulsion of them > was that they were shamelessly "godless" (as Wayne reminded us the > other day). For a true-blue American, a Communist is always -- no two ways about it -- always "an atheistic Communist".
> I certainly get the impression that being affiliated to a faith -- > and any faith will do, even if it's the Mormons, Moonies or > Scientologists -- is still generally thought of as an essential, > non-negotiable feature of "the American Way". Well, don't ask Tony about that. He's never declared his atheism (I don't believe he is one) to anybody. All he claims is that he's a lapsed Catholic. I'll bet that he's just like the old man in that Hemingway novel, the one who denied God until his deathbed and then, like Scrooge, tried to sneak into heaven through the back door, just like that monkey in the _Bruce Almighty_ movie that popped out and then back into the Chicano gangbanger's bunghole.
> Or am I way off track with this? No, you're right on point here. You have to be honest to know the truth about this layer of American cultural slime. Anyone who denies it is either culturally blind or without doubt a dissembler of the first order.
NOTES: [1]Just like you can't be a born-and-raised resident American and not be one kind of racist or another: just look at all the bullshit about whether Mr Obama is "Black" enough to represent African Americans. But all the goody-goodies will deny it. "What? Me racist?" [2]"Woman is the Nigger of the World" was a 1972 song by John Lennon and Yoko Ono. The phrase was originally coined by Ono during a magazine interview in 1967. Lennon later said it took him until 1970 to 'dig it'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_Is_the_Nigger_of_the_World
 Signature Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007; http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Tony Cooper - 23 Feb 2007 14:34 GMT >> Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrought: >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >names, but he's talked to them. You can't be a resident American and >not be bothered by the bastards[1]. You are bringing up a different aspect of the true believer. I was responding to a comment that believers try to bring religion to the non-believers. Attempts at recruiting or conversion.
I can honestly say that I have not experienced that. No one has ever made any attempt to bring me to religion or to their religion. Not even an invitation to pursue a discussion in that area. Never bothered in this area.
"Run-ins", though, is a different aspect. I've been involved in many discussions with true believers where we differ, and differ greatly. I wouldn't consider a run-in with a true believer over tolerance towards homosexuals, teaching of evolution, or any of the other hot buttons of the religious to be an attempt to bring me to religion.
I do omit the door-knockers from my observation. JW's and Mormons do come to my door with hopes of finding someone to bring to their religion, but I don't allow a discussion to take place. I also omit them because this is a shot-gun approach rather than an attempt to bring me - as an individual - to their religion.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
cybercypher - 23 Feb 2007 14:13 GMT > cybercypher <dontbother@easypeasy.com> wrote: [...]
>>I'm sure that all Tony means by the disingenuous bullshit remark >>"I don't know any that recruit" means only that none of his [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > was responding to a comment that believers try to bring religion > to the non-believers. Attempts at recruiting or conversion. They do and they don't. If they're Christians, especially BACs, they're supposed to bruit and bray the Good News about. That's part of what it means to be an evangelical Christian.
> I can honestly say that I have not experienced that. No one has > ever made any attempt to bring me to religion or to their > religion. Not even an invitation to pursue a discussion in that > area. Never bothered in this area. You and I have different definitions of "no one". In fact, your definiion of "no one" would probably earn you a citation for contempt and maybe even a trial for perjury in a court of law. Those JWs and Mormons who come a knock-knock-knockin' on your door are not "no one"; they are all "some one".
> "Run-ins", though, is a different aspect. I've been involved in > many discussions with true believers where we differ, and differ > greatly. I wouldn't consider a run-in with a true believer over > tolerance towards homosexuals, teaching of evolution, or any of > the other hot buttons of the religious to be an attempt to bring > me to religion. I wouldn't either, but that's not what I meant by "run-ins". I meant what you dismiss as irrelevant to the discussion: the JWs and the Mormons and anyone else who might have wanted score a few points with God by scoring a soul for Jesus.
> I do omit the door-knockers from my observation. But they are the essential Gabriels (messengers) of the attempt to bring you and all the the world's heathens to their religion.
> JW's and Mormons do come to my door with hopes of finding someone > to bring to their religion, but I don't allow a discussion to take > place. That does not negate their intentions. You may stifle them so that their missionary attempts are stillborn, but that just makes them more zealous at subsequent doors.
> I also omit them because this is a shot-gun approach rather than > an attempt to bring me - as an individual - to their religion. Good try, but this is just another rationalization redolent of Anastasia's and Drizella's attempts to fit into the glass slipper.
 Signature Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007; http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Tony Cooper - 23 Feb 2007 16:28 GMT >> cybercypher <dontbother@easypeasy.com> wrote: >[...] [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >they're supposed to bruit and bray the Good News about. That's part >of what it means to be an evangelical Christian. They may feel they are supposed to, but that doesn't mean that they feel they are supposed to at every meeting with someone who they don't feel is on the right track.
I've worked with and known BACs and Evangelicals. I know that they hit the streets and door-knocked. None of them ever instigated a conversation with me that gave me any indication they were trying to bring me to religion or their religion.
>> I can honestly say that I have not experienced that. No one has >> ever made any attempt to bring me to religion or to their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Mormons who come a knock-knock-knockin' on your door are not "no >one"; they are all "some one". None of them ever made an attempt to bring me to religion or their religion. Their appearance on my doorstep does not, in my opinion, qualify as an attempt. I feel that it's perfectly acceptable for them to appear on my doorstep. If their conviction says to do it, then they should do it. I have never encountered one who persisted after my polite rebuff of any attempt at discussion.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
HVS - 23 Feb 2007 16:35 GMT On 23 Feb 2007, Tony Cooper wrote
> I've worked with and known BACs and Evangelicals. I know that > they hit the streets and door-knocked. None of them ever > instigated a conversation with me that gave me any indication > they were trying to bring me to religion or their religion. They've probably written you off as a hopelessly godless, non- Christian catholic.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
Tony Cooper - 23 Feb 2007 16:56 GMT >On 23 Feb 2007, Tony Cooper wrote > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >They've probably written you off as a hopelessly godless, non- >Christian catholic. The hopelessly godless, non-Christians of my sort prefer that you write "Catholic" with a capital "C" in this usage. Our tastes are very catholic in this.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
HVS - 23 Feb 2007 17:14 GMT On 23 Feb 2007, Tony Cooper wrote
>> On 23 Feb 2007, Tony Cooper wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > you write "Catholic" with a capital "C" in this usage. Our > tastes are very catholic in this. Awwwww...I was trying to imitate the wilder-eyed BACs who I think like to reserve capital C solely for "Christian".
Wouldn't they refuse to let godless heathens like yourself borrow their special capital letter?
 Signature Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
Eric Schwartz - 23 Feb 2007 18:11 GMT > On 23 Feb 2007, Tony Cooper wrote > > The hopelessly godless, non-Christians of my sort prefer that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Awwwww...I was trying to imitate the wilder-eyed BACs who I think > like to reserve capital C solely for "Christian". Not to my knowledge, though they do prefer to reserve "Christian" for people like themselves; I doubt they'd bother with even a lower-case variety for Catholics.
> Wouldn't they refuse to let godless heathens like yourself borrow > their special capital letter? They generally don't use the word 'Catholic' at all, regardless of case. "Romish" or "Papist" are more common.
-=Eric
R H Draney - 23 Feb 2007 19:19 GMT HVS filted:
>On 23 Feb 2007, Tony Cooper wrote > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Wouldn't they refuse to let godless heathens like yourself borrow >their special capital letter? They're not even all that chuffed about letting it stand for "carbon" or "Celsius"...when you sit down at the Wurlitzer, they prefer you keep to the black keys....r
 Signature "You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
cybercypher - 23 Feb 2007 16:48 GMT > cybercypher <dontbother@easypeasy.com> wrote: >>> cybercypher <dontbother@easypeasy.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > they feel they are supposed to at every meeting with someone who > they don't feel is on the right track. True. As Groucho and Siggy said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".
> I've worked with and known BACs and Evangelicals. I know that > they hit the streets and door-knocked. None of them ever > instigated a conversation with me that gave me any indication they > were trying to bring me to religion or their religion. You must have sacred the sh.t out of them, then.
>>> I can honestly say that I have not experienced that. No one has >>> ever made any attempt to bring me to religion or to their [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > religion. Their appearance on my doorstep does not, in my > opinion, qualify as an attempt. I love it, Tony. Here you go constructing your own convenient version of reality so that it conveniently supports your even more convenient rationalizations.
> I feel that it's perfectly acceptable for them to appear on my > doorstep. If their conviction says to do it, then they should do > it. I have never encountered one who persisted after my polite > rebuff of any attempt at discussion. But they wanted to and you knew that they wanted to or you would not have rebuffed them. But I suppose you don't think you're contradicting yourself. I think you are.
 Signature Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007; http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Tony Cooper - 24 Feb 2007 05:49 GMT >> I feel that it's perfectly acceptable for them to appear on my >> doorstep. If their conviction says to do it, then they should do [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >have rebuffed them. But I suppose you don't think you're >contradicting yourself. I think you are. What does their desire to do something have to do with it? My statement was that no one has taken the action of trying to bring me to religion or their religion.
If having a desire to do something is the same as doing it, then I am guilty of many things. Many's the time, for example, that I have had the desire to....
Awww, never mind.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
cybercypher - 24 Feb 2007 05:28 GMT > cybercypher <dontbother@easypeasy.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What does their desire to do something have to do with it? I guess you don't understand the legal notion of "intent" either. Their desire has everything to do with it. They trod on your doorstep with the intention of converting you to their religion. You knew that, so you proactively prevented them from succeeding.
The next thing you're gonna tell me is that because firewalls and antivirus programs prevent certain kinds of malware from attacking your computer that no hacker has ever tried to attack your computer simply because your firewall and AV program blocked their attempts.
You can argue that line all you like, but that's the argument of a fool, I'm afraid.
> My statement was that no one has taken the action > of trying to bring me to religion or their religion. A journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step. Simply by ringng your doorbell or knocking on your door or walking toward your front door they took the first "action of trying to bring [you] to religion or their religion." Had you not recognized them for what they were, they would have taken the second step, at which point you no doubt would have stopped their intrusion.
Your arguments are disingenuous and dissembling to the ultimate degree. You need to meet a guy called Diogenes and ask him what an intellectually honest man might be. You certainly don't have a clue.
> If having a desire to do something is the same as doing it, then I > am guilty of many things. Read the Sermon on the Mount lately? Both you and Jimmy Carter are guilty, as is every other human being.
> Many's the time, for example, that I have had the desire to.... > > Awww, never mind. Cutsey sh.t like this is vapid fluff and faffle. It ought to be beneath your dignity, but you continue to demonstrate that you have none. My ad hominem remarks are honest and open. I don't try to hide them.
 Signature Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007; http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Tony Cooper - 24 Feb 2007 06:58 GMT >> Many's the time, for example, that I have had the desire to.... >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >none. My ad hominem remarks are honest and open. I don't try to hide >them. Crank down that ego or paranoia or whatever it is. I wasn't thinking of you.
 Signature
Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
cybercypher - 24 Feb 2007 06:44 GMT >>> Many's the time, for example, that I have had the desire to.... >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Crank down that ego or paranoia or whatever it is. I wasn't > thinking of you. It doesn't matter what or whom you were thinking of.
 Signature Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007; http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Tony Cooper - 24 Feb 2007 07:03 GMT
>My ad hominem remarks are honest and open. I don't try to hide >them. Such an odd thing to be proud of. Did you puff out your chest when you wrote it?
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
Tony Cooper - 24 Feb 2007 06:49 GMT >I love it, Tony. Here you go constructing your own convenient version >of reality so that it conveniently supports your even more convenient >rationalizations. I think we all do that. We all construct a version of reality that coincides with what we'd like reality to be. Or, at least, we filter reality to achieve this.
You and I are very different. In your reality, there are monsters under every bed. In mine, some of them are just dust bunnies. I think you *want* monsters there because you want things to rail against. You want examples of PC creep and examples of outrageous religiosity. They are mental fuel for you. You're afraid if you can't keep adding fuel, the fire will go out.
When I see those same examples, I want to filter them and think that these are ordinary people doing ordinary things and it's really nothing to get all het up about. Some guy thinks that when he dies he'll go up a golden ladder, pass through some bling gates, and be fitted with wings...that's OK with me. If it helps him get through the day, that's fine. It doesn't make him a moron; he's still smart enough to refuse the extended warranty and not split a pair of sixes.
I draw the line when he tries to take some action based on his beliefs where that action would encroach on my rights or the rights of others. But I don't think the great majority of the religious in America do that. Most of them just go to church, say grace over meals, and put "Honk if you love Jesus" stickers on their bumpers. That includes a lot of those BACs that you feel are all evil.
There are the fringe lunatics in that group, but they're just the visible ones. They want power over other people, and religion offers them what they see as a respectable way to exercise power. Take away religion, and they'd find some other avenue to exercise power.
Keep on railing and ranting, though, Franke. It's your version of testifying. It sustains you. Personally, I don't see much difference between a religious zealot and an anti-religion zealot. They both devote far too much energy to insisting that the other guy's wrong.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
Pat Durkin - 23 Feb 2007 18:29 GMT > None of them ever made an attempt to bring me to religion or their > religion. Their appearance on my doorstep does not, in my opinion, > qualify as an attempt. Why do you think they are at your doorstep, if _not_ to provide you with a spiel?
The fact that they are there means they are intruding on your peace of mind, doesn't it? Are you listed with the no-call for your state or the federal telephone annoyance-prevention department? Don't you have a "No solicitors" sign on your door or on the gate to your residential area? (not that the true BAC evangelicals, especially Mormons and Witnesses can or wish to learn to read. But you should really set yourself up for suing them as nuisances.
> I feel that it's perfectly acceptable for them to appear on my > doorstep. If their conviction says to do it, then they should do it. > I have never encountered one who persisted after my polite rebuff of > any attempt at discussion. Well, if their conviction says they should hog the microphone, or at least grab control of it for a while at any venue called together by any group whatsoever, whether the attendees pay admission or get in free, what do you do to protest their insistence on preaching to all and sundry?
Do you get up and walk out? Do you ask for your money back? Do you loudly protest that _their_ belief_ is not _your_ belief?
If they insist on supporting a war and put their trust in God to get us out of it, what do you reply? (I mean, in a public venue at which they have hijacked the microphone/speakers/dais, or whatever.)
Tony Cooper - 23 Feb 2007 21:57 GMT >> None of them ever made an attempt to bring me to religion or their >> religion. Their appearance on my doorstep does not, in my opinion, >> qualify as an attempt. > >Why do you think they are at your doorstep, if _not_ to provide you with >a spiel? They stand at the ready, but if they don't launch the spiel they are not attempting anything.
>The fact that they are there means they are intruding on your peace of >mind, doesn't it? No. My peace of mind is not so lightly disturbed.
>Are you listed with the no-call for your state or the federal telephone >annoyance-prevention department? Yes. Just because I utilize that option to deny this form of access, you can't conclude that I feel it's necessary to deny all forms of access to all who would approach me. If the Mormons made a similar option available, I'd probably take advantage of it. Not because their visits bother me, but because I don't want to waste their time.
>Don't you have a "No solicitors" sign >on your door or on the gate to your residential area? No.
>> I feel that it's perfectly acceptable for them to appear on my >> doorstep. If their conviction says to do it, then they should do it. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >what do you do to protest their insistence on preaching to all and >sundry? I'd exercise the same form of protest that I would if someone with Franke's position tried to hog the microphone: ignore them. It's not the fact that person is espousing religion or anti-religion that would bother me. It's the fact that they have hogged the microphone in a meeting not their own to assail the crowd with their personal convictions.
I see no difference between your example and what we see at political rallies. If there's a Bush rally, I think it's perfectly acceptable for an anti-Bush spectator to stand there with a sign expressing his dismay with Bush. I do not think it's acceptable for him to shout out interruptions or mount the stage in protest. He's interfering with the rights of others to hear what they want to hear.
It's the conduct, not the content, that I would object to.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
Pat Durkin - 24 Feb 2007 00:29 GMT >>> None of them ever made an attempt to bring me to religion or their >>> religion. Their appearance on my doorstep does not, in my opinion, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > They stand at the ready, but if they don't launch the spiel they are > not attempting anything. If you open the door, do they not introduce themselves and begin to ask you questions about "knowing Jesus"? Yes, my visitors have been courteous, waiting for me to say "Pleased to meet you". But some have then, even upon being told that "I am eating now", or "I am watching television now", begun their spiel. Godspell. You know the routine.
>>The fact that they are there means they are intruding on your peace of >>mind, doesn't it? > > No. My peace of mind is not so lightly disturbed. OK. I envy you.
>>Are you listed with the no-call for your state or the federal >>telephone [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > option available, I'd probably take advantage of it. Not because > their visits bother me, but because I don't want to waste their time. So you don't think it a waste of your time to answer the door. Hmm.
>>> I feel that it's perfectly acceptable for them to appear on my >>> doorstep. If their conviction says to do it, then they should do [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > meeting not their own to assail the crowd with their personal > convictions. You would let them use up your time and mildly accept their right to spend your money? Does "ignore" involve continuing the private conversation you were involved in while awaiting the beginning of the event for which you paid admission? No? How mild and Christian you are!
> I see no difference between your example and what we see at political > rallies. If there's a Bush rally, I think it's perfectly acceptable > for an anti-Bush spectator to stand there with a sign expressing his > dismay with Bush. I do not think it's acceptable for him to shout out > interruptions or mount the stage in protest. He's interfering with > the rights of others to hear what they want to hear. But the people who go to those rallies are presumably going to hear some political speech. Do you think you want to hear a religious speech at a football game? At a car race?
> It's the conduct, not the content, that I would object to. Whose conduct? Whose content?
Tony Cooper - 24 Feb 2007 01:14 GMT >>>> None of them ever made an attempt to bring me to religion or their >>>> religion. Their appearance on my doorstep does not, in my opinion, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >then, even upon being told that "I am eating now", or "I am watching >television now", begun their spiel. Godspell. You know the routine. Hasn't happened to me. I don't know if the door-knockers down here are more polite, or if there's something about my technique that holds them at bay. My usual spiel is "Hi. Thanks for coming by, but I'm really not interested." This is delivered as I open the door, back away, and close the door; all in one smooth motion. I think you leave yourself open if you stand there and offer reasons like "I'm eating dinner". That presents the challenge to them that you consider mere food more important than Eternal Salvation.
Trick #2 is to keep one hand on the door and one hand on the door frame. A loose hand invites something being poked into it. A tract, for example.
>>>The fact that they are there means they are intruding on your peace of >>>mind, doesn't it? >> >> No. My peace of mind is not so lightly disturbed. > >OK. I envy you. These things just don't disturb me. I'm not disturbed by the door-knocker who wants to trim my trees or leave their card in case I ever want to sell my house. I'm not disturbed by the cashier who wants to sell me an extended service plan on a flashlight. I'm not disturbed by the counter person who wants to know if I want to super-size my order.
>>>Are you listed with the no-call for your state or the federal >>>telephone [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >So you don't think it a waste of your time to answer the door. Hmm. You value my time more than I do. I'm perfectly capable of deciding when the time I have is better applied to something else. I can let the doorbell go unanswered and the ringing phone unpicked-up. I can peek out the window and see if I want to spend 30 seconds dismissing someone, or I can let the machine pick up the phone.
When I do look out the window, and see two or three neatly dressed people standing there with briefcases, I dismiss them politely and feel I've done a minor mitzvah. I've helped them make their quota of attempts. They can walk away satisfied that they tried to make contact and it's my fault that I will rot in Hell.
I feel that the worst thing that I can do is to allow them to make their pitch and then reject them. That makes it their fault. They weren't good enough to convince me.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
Tony Cooper - 24 Feb 2007 01:34 GMT >>>Well, if their conviction says they should hog the microphone, or at >>>least grab control of it for a while at any venue called together by [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >conversation you were involved in while awaiting the beginning of the >event for which you paid admission? I don't really follow you here.
>No? >How mild and Christian you are! There's a time to be mild. If you are at an event that is disrupted, and you start shouting down the shouter-outers, you are just adding to the disruption. You become part of the problem. The shouter-outers take on momentum when you protest. You are playing into their hands because you are adding to the disruption. They aren't seeking agreement. They are seeking to disrupt.
>> I see no difference between your example and what we see at political >> rallies. If there's a Bush rally, I think it's perfectly acceptable [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >But the people who go to those rallies are presumably going to hear some >political speech. Usually, people go to political rallies to hear a speech about what they already know they support or to hear a speech by the scheduled speaker to see if they will or will not support him. They don't go to rallies to hear the non-scheduled interrupters and hecklers.
>> It's the conduct, not the content, that I would object to. > >Whose conduct? The conduct of the heckler or interrupter.
>Whose content? Whatever it is that the heckler or interrupter says.
If I go to a Hillary Clinton rally, I'll go because I want to hear what she has to say. I'm not interested in what the anti-Hillary Clinton contingent has to say. Not at that time, anyway. If I want to hear their views, I'll go to their candidate's rally.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
Tony Cooper - 23 Feb 2007 15:50 GMT >> I certainly get the impression that being affiliated to a faith -- >> and any faith will do, even if it's the Mormons, Moonies or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >don't believe he is one) to anybody. All he claims is that he's a >lapsed Catholic. Well, I'm not sure I am an atheist. M-W says an atheist is someone who believes there is no deity. I fit that description. Absolutely.
However, my views are a little more complex. I don't accept that there is a deity, and I don't accept any part of Creationism.
However, I do believe that some people have an absolute conviction that there is a deity. That deity exists in their mind. So if I believe that someone else can absolutely accept that there is a deity, but I don't accept the same thing, can I be an atheist?
If God exists for some, can you say that God doesn't exist at all even though you don't share that belief?
I told you my view is complex.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
cybercypher - 23 Feb 2007 16:44 GMT >>> I certainly get the impression that being affiliated to a faith >>> -- and any faith will do, even if it's the Mormons, Moonies or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Well, I'm not sure I am an atheist. I don't call myself an atheist either. I don't see the point to taking sides when the issue is inherently moot.
> M-W says an atheist is someone who believes there is no deity. > I fit that description. Absolutely. I don't believe in supernatural beings. That doesn't qualify me as an atheist, except in the eyes of those who believe in supernatural beings.
> However, my views are a little more complex. I don't accept that > there is a deity, and I don't accept any part of Creationism. To accept the latter, you would have to accept the former. This is not surprising.
> However, I do believe that some people have an absolute conviction > that there is a deity. Yep, the sun does rise in the east, doesn't it?
> That deity exists in their mind. So if I believe that someone > else can absolutely accept that there is a deity, I can't believe that such people exist. They only pretend to exist. They're teolologically stunted -- er, I mean, challenged. If their DNA had worked well enough, they would've matured and become emotionally and intellectually adult.
> but I don't accept the same thing, can I be an atheist? Lemme get this straight. You, Mr C, know that Mr A and Mr B are delusional because God exists in their minds, kinda like in the mind of that Muslim cleric who assassinated a Pakistani government minister the other day because he believed that she was leading an un-Islamic life and so, as happens with so many Christian murderers of prostitutes, his god whispered into ear that she had to die. So you believe that Messers A and B believe in the reality of their delusions, and that somehow soils your intellect by forcing you to be involved in their delusions simply because you know they exist? Sounds like a cyberworm or trojan of some sort. Maybe you ought to see if Symantec can fix your security holes.
> If God exists for some, can you say that God doesn't exist at all > even though you don't share that belief? There are gods and goddesses everywhere. Even Purl Gurl threatens to fall into thlatter category: nice nipples and an enchanting face. And then there are Osiris and Ra and Toth and Zeus and his pals, and all those Hindu deities that we can actually see with our own eyes, an even the Buddhists have gone and deified the Buddha, who was most certainly a man like other men.
> I told you my view is complex. Don't worry. One of these days you'll figure it all out. I've already given you a few hints.
 Signature Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007; http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Archie Valparaiso - 23 Feb 2007 17:55 GMT >> If God exists for some, can you say that God doesn't exist at all >> even though you don't share that belief? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >even the Buddhists have gone and deified the Buddha, who was most >certainly a man like other men. I liked Richard Dawkins's reply to the same question in one interview. I can't find the exact quotation, but it was along the lines of "Nobody today is stupid enough to believe in Thor with his hammer or Mercury with his wings. I just go one god further."
 Signature Archie Valparaiso
Tunbridge Wells borough residents are the second best recyclers in Kent.
cybercypher - 23 Feb 2007 17:44 GMT >>> If God exists for some, can you say that God doesn't exist at >>> all even though you don't share that belief? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > lines of "Nobody today is stupid enough to believe in Thor with > his hammer or Mercury with his wings. I just go one god further." My land, but Dawkins is a caution, an't he?
 Signature Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007; http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
HVS - 23 Feb 2007 17:58 GMT On 23 Feb 2007, cybercypher wrote
> Lemme get this straight. You, Mr C, know that Mr A and Mr B are > delusional because God exists in their minds, kinda like in the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > intellect by forcing you to be involved in their delusions > simply because you know they exist? It depends on what you mean by "exist".
If someone believes that their delusion is real -- and acts on the instructions of that delusionary reality -- it seems to me that it does, in fact, qualify as having achieved a form of "existence".
The voice in the mind of a deluded person exists only for that person: but that *is* a form of existence.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
cybercypher - 23 Feb 2007 17:48 GMT > On 23 Feb 2007, cybercypher wrote > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The voice in the mind of a deluded person exists only for that > person: but that *is* a form of existence. True enough, as far as it goes, but that's about as compelling an argument as demanding that we recognize the validity and the truth of the syllogism:
1: I am a man like all men. 2: I believe in God. 3: Therefore, all men believe in God
 Signature Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007; http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
HVS - 23 Feb 2007 18:59 GMT On 23 Feb 2007, cybercypher wrote
>> On 23 Feb 2007, cybercypher wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > 2: I believe in God. > 3: Therefore, all men believe in God I don't see it that way; the syllogism, to me, is:
1: Your thoughts are part of your reality. 2: My thoughts are part of my reality. 3: Your thought-reality is unrelated to my thought-reality.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
Lanarcam - 23 Feb 2007 18:06 GMT HVS a écrit :
> On 23 Feb 2007, cybercypher wrote > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The voice in the mind of a deluded person exists only for that > person: but that *is* a form of existence. The voice exists in reality in the brain, only its origin is delusional.
Does the mind really exist?
HVS - 23 Feb 2007 18:13 GMT On 23 Feb 2007, Lanarcam wrote
> HVS a écrit : >> On 23 Feb 2007, cybercypher wrote [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Does the mind really exist? It depends on what you mean by "exist".
It certainly exists for the one to whom it belongs, but beyond that -- well, as I underestand it, Descartes never managed to verify external/independent existence when he started from that particular first principle.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
Lanarcam - 23 Feb 2007 18:24 GMT HVS a écrit :
> On 23 Feb 2007, Lanarcam wrote > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > It depends on what you mean by "exist". We could take for granted that atoms of the brain exist in reality but what about ideas, are they part of a virtual reality?
Does a virtual reality have a real existence?
Does this newsgroup exist apart from the electrons?
Why am I sitting in this part of the universe? ;)
> It certainly exists for the one to whom it belongs, but beyond that > -- well, as I underestand it, Descartes never managed to verify > external/independent existence when he started from that particular > first principle. HVS - 23 Feb 2007 18:45 GMT On 23 Feb 2007, Lanarcam wrote
> HVS a écrit : >> On 23 Feb 2007, Lanarcam wrote
>>> Does the mind really exist? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Does this newsgroup exist apart from the electrons? All valid questions, the answer to which depend on what is meant by "exist".
Until common agreement is reached on whether things and ideas which are imagined or non-corporeal "exist", questions about what things or ideas qualify as "existing" are unanswerable.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
Robert Bannister - 23 Feb 2007 23:34 GMT > Why am I sitting in this part of the universe? ;) Ah, but you only think you are.
 Signature Rob Bannister
R H Draney - 23 Feb 2007 19:23 GMT Lanarcam filted:
>HVS a écrit : >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Does the mind really exist? The flag is not faffling; the wind is not faffling...Tao is faffling....r
 Signature "You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Eric Schwartz - 23 Feb 2007 18:17 GMT > However, I do believe that some people have an absolute conviction > that there is a deity. That deity exists in their mind. So if I > believe that someone else can absolutely accept that there is a deity, > but I don't accept the same thing, can I be an atheist? You might consider Omniquantism:
http://freefall.purrsia.com/default.htm
-=Eric
HVS - 23 Feb 2007 18:17 GMT On 23 Feb 2007, Eric Schwartz wrote
>> However, I do believe that some people have an absolute >> conviction that there is a deity. That deity exists in their [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://freefall.purrsia.com/default.htm Who was it that wrote that one should never denigrate somebody else's religion, because when we die we may discover that the tree-dwelling spirit of some obscure African tribe was really top dog after all.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
cybercypher - 23 Feb 2007 17:49 GMT > On 23 Feb 2007, Eric Schwartz wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > tree-dwelling spirit of some obscure African tribe was really top > dog after all. Pascal?
 Signature Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007; http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
HVS - 23 Feb 2007 18:52 GMT On 23 Feb 2007, cybercypher wrote
>> On 23 Feb 2007, Eric Schwartz wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Pascal? Could be; I must check it out.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
Evan Kirshenbaum - 27 Feb 2007 18:43 GMT > On 23 Feb 2007, cybercypher wrote > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Could be; I must check it out. Unlikely. Pascal was the one who said that we can't know whether or not the Christian god exists, but since the consequences for being wrong if we don't believe in him are infinitely more severe than the consequences of being wrong if we do, we should rationally choose to do so.
Let us now speak according to natural lights...Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up... Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
He appears to have implicitly assumed that "Christianity is wrong, but some other religion, which will punish you for being a Christian, isn't" isn't an option.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Now every hacker knows 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | That the secret to survivin' Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Is knowin' when the time is free | And what's the load and queue kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |'Cause everyone's a cruncher (650)857-7572 | And everyone's a user |And the best that you can hope for http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Is a crash when you're through
cybercypher - 28 Feb 2007 03:22 GMT >> On 23 Feb 2007, cybercypher wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Unlikely. Yes, it certainly wasn't Pascal. I'm quite familiar with his argument. The point to my post was that it doesn't matter which superstitious a.shole said it, it's still assholery. Even the great Pascal was susceptible
> Pascal was the one who said that we can't know whether > or not the Christian god exists, but since the consequences for > being wrong if we don't believe in him are infinitely more severe > than the consequences of being wrong if we do, we should > rationally choose to do so. Ah, yes, the wisdom of being rational about the irrational. I'm sorry, but that is lost on me.
> Let us now speak according to natural lights...Let us then > examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > wrong, but some other religion, which will punish you for being a > Christian, isn't" isn't an option. That's obviously contradictory. Anyone who would argue that the only two options are believing in and not believing in the existence of the Christian God must be a Christian and a believer and a person speaking with a forked tongue.
But matters of faith are not easily understood in terms of human reason, which, we hope, is logical and rational. It usually isn't, though.
One of Pascal's basic premisses is incorrect. We are not forced to choose between the heads and tails of ontology unless we are in a society that punishes those who do not publicly broadcast their politically correct choice. Pascal lived in a Christian world in which ontology was a burning issue (on many levels). We live in a significantly less enlightened world -- particularly Americans in general and Muslims everywhere.
One part of his conclusion is false: "if you lose, you lose nothing". This assumes that it costs you nothing to bet that God exists, but even an idiot knows that this is patently false.
Faith is the willingness to believe even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Faith is, for example, the irrational belief that one's child, no matter how many children he's admitted to molesting, kidnapping raping, and murdering, is still "a good boy who wouldn't harm a fly".
But I suppose that whether one loses one's self-respect in the embrace of faith is a moot question if it occurs only after death.
 Signature Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007; http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Matthew Huntbach - 23 Feb 2007 11:50 GMT >> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:21:11 -0000, the Omrud
>>> Arrogant theist nonsense, which as usual went unchallenged. As far as I >>> can tell, believers consider that those with no faith have a religion- >>> shaped hole in their consciousness which they are desperate to fill.
>> My knowledge that America is full of religious whackos is based on >> what I read in the newspapers rather than what I personally >> experience. I know many people who are church-goers and, assumedly, >> very devout. They're firm in their own convictions, but I don't know >> any that recruit.
> Perhaps not, but isn't it also true that atheists in America are in > much the same situation as homosexuals in most places? If you are one, > it's not something you shout from the rooftops in society at large > unless you're keen to acquire a rep as a some kind of weirdo who's not > to be trusted. As David has well demonstrated, in England it's exactly the other way round. If you have any sort of religious belief or practice, you're likely to be dismissed as some sort of weirdo who's not to be trusted, or abused as e.g. "arrogant" even if you have said or done nothing which supports the accusation.
Matthew Huntbach
cybercypher - 23 Feb 2007 12:18 GMT >>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:21:11 -0000, the Omrud > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > be trusted, or abused as e.g. "arrogant" even if you have said or > done nothing which supports the accusation. Being a believer in invisible non-entities is quite enough to put you into the dustbin as all the other weirdos, don'tcha think? No, I guess not. But that's okay. When Londistan really does turn Muslim, you'll have something real to whinge about -- if they let you live, that is -- you poor abused believer, you.
 Signature Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007; http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Sara Lorimer - 23 Feb 2007 17:58 GMT > > Perhaps not, but isn't it also true that atheists in America are in > > much the same situation as homosexuals in most places? If you are one, > > it's not something you shout from the rooftops in society at large > > unless you're keen to acquire a rep as a some kind of weirdo who's not > > to be trusted. Not true in my experience, and I come from a long line of atheists. The only group I think that's true for is politicians. One reason I liked Howard Dean when he was running for president was that he wouldn't discuss his religion... until he started losing in the polls.
> As David has well demonstrated, in England it's exactly the other way > round. If you have any sort of religious belief or practice, you're > likely to be dismissed as some sort of weirdo who's not to be trusted, > or abused as e.g. "arrogant" even if you have said or done nothing which > supports the accusation. How does that tie in with English public (in the American sense) schools officially being religious?
 Signature SML
Mike Page - 23 Feb 2007 23:20 GMT >> > Perhaps not, but isn't it also true that atheists in America are in >> > much the same situation as homosexuals in most places? If you are one, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >How does that tie in with English public (in the American sense) schools >officially being religious? Do you mean UK state schools? Most are not overtly religious although there is a requirement for a daily (I think) act of worship that must be 'wholly or mainly' of a Christian character. The state also provides support to religious schools, including Jewish and Islamic ones. The English[1] regard most school teachers as weirdos who are not to be trusted[2]
[1] but not the Welsh or the Scots
[2] in the case of the most of the ones who taught me, with good cause.
-- Mike Page Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
Sara Lorimer - 23 Feb 2007 23:43 GMT > >How does that tie in with English public (in the American sense) schools > >officially being religious? > > Do you mean UK state schools? Yes, that's the term I couldn't think of.
> Most are not overtly religious > although there is a requirement for a daily (I think) act of > worship that must be 'wholly or mainly' of a Christian character. > The state also provides support to religious schools, including > Jewish and Islamic ones. The English[1] regard most school > teachers as weirdos who are not to be trusted[2] So English schools are officially religious, but that isn't acted on. And American schools are officially not religious, but there certainly is plenty of it in there. I _think_ I prefer it your way...
 Signature SML
Mike Lyle - 24 Feb 2007 13:53 GMT [...]
> So English schools are officially religious, but that isn't acted on. > And American schools are officially not religious, but there certainly > is plenty of it in there. I _think_ I prefer it your way... But there are special provisions, though, under the Thatcher-Blair principle of bargain-basement privatisation. If some looney sectarian wants to cough up two million quid, the Government will hand him a brand-new school in which to push his creationism or whatever he pleases.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Matthew Huntbach - 24 Feb 2007 18:23 GMT > > >How does that tie in with English public (in the American sense) schools > > >officially being religious?
> > Do you mean UK state schools?
> Yes, that's the term I couldn't think of. The term "state school", though widely used, isn't entirely accurate. They are officially run by local government (under very strong direction from national government), rather than national government. "State school" would imply being run directly by national government. A better term would be "county schools" or "borough schools", not that this term is often used.
The term "public school" (UK usage) derives from the time before education was compulsory and paid for through taxation. It refers to a school which is open in general to all members of the public (so long as they pay the fees and meet the entrance requirements), as opposed to education through privately hired tutors (which in the past would have been how aristocrats educated their children, and was how the royal family did up to very recently). Given this meaning had already been established when county schools were first established, "public school" came to mean "fee-paying school, open to all, but run privately" as opposed to "non fee-paying school, run by the county council". Compare also with "public transport", which means "transport open to all", it doesn't imply the transport is free of charge or run by national or lcoal government.
> > Most are not overtly religious > > although there is a requirement for a daily (I think) act of > > worship that must be 'wholly or mainly' of a Christian character. > > The state also provides support to religious schools, including > > Jewish and Islamic ones. The English[1] regard most school > > teachers as weirdos who are not to be trusted[2]
> So English schools are officially religious, but that isn't acted on. Some county schools are officially religious, but most aren't. The situation dates back to the time before county schools were set up, when there were already schools run by the parts of the Church of England. In order for these to be incorporated into the county school system, the CofE was allowed to maintain some control over them. Later, the Catholic Church in particular sought and gained similar status for schools it constructed. There are a very small number of schools with a similar status but Jewish. The setting up of schools with that status and Islamic or Hindu or Sikh religion is a controversial issue - it is only in recent decades (large scale Hindu/ Islam/Sikh immigration only started in the 1960s) that there were sufficient people of these religions to make it an issue, and for some of them to demand schools under the same principles that the Catholic Church had long established. There are only a tiny number of them, it is not like the Catholic School system where there are enough Catholic schoools for most Catholics to send their children to them.
Those schools - the majority - which do not have any religious status are obliged by law to give religious education. In the past this would have been straightforward Christianity because it was just assumed that everyone in the country was at least nominally Christian. Now, particularly in areas with large number of people practising non- Christian religions, the education will generally be divided amongst the religions - everyone learns a bit about every religion. Religious education is taught in a stultifyingly boring way which avoids anything controversial, and for many schools it is done in a fairly obviously "going through the motions" way. There is some law which suggests Christianity should predominate in the religious education, but also a get-out clause for those parts of the country where most children would be associated with non-Christian religions. It would certainly be a mistake to suppose this means that these schools are in any way "religious". Most people in England grow up knowing almost nothing about religion.
Matthew Huntbach
Robert Bannister - 24 Feb 2007 22:14 GMT > The term "state school", though widely used, isn't entirely accurate. > They are officially run by local government (under very strong > direction from national government), rather than national government. > "State school" would imply being run directly by national government. > A better term would be "county schools" or "borough schools", not that > this term is often used. For a long time, probably most schools had "County High" in their name and probably still do. Although I ended up going to a minor public school in the end, my choices were Buckhurst County High or Wanstead County High. I lived in Woodford, but I couldn't go to Woodford County High because it was a girls' school.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Wood Avens - 24 Feb 2007 22:21 GMT >For a long time, probably most schools had "County High" in their name >and probably still do. Although I ended up going to a minor public >school in the end, my choices were Buckhurst County High or Wanstead >County High. I lived in Woodford, but I couldn't go to Woodford County >High because it was a girls' school. Weren't those just the grammar schools (the top rung of a three-tier system), or am I misremembering?
 Signature Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
LFS - 24 Feb 2007 23:08 GMT >>For a long time, probably most schools had "County High" in their name >>and probably still do. Although I ended up going to a minor public [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Weren't those just the grammar schools (the top rung of a three-tier > system), or am I misremembering? "County" seemed to be a feature of school names at both primary and secondary level WIWAL. None of our local grammar schools had "high" in their names, though.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
Robert Bannister - 25 Feb 2007 22:36 GMT >>For a long time, probably most schools had "County High" in their name >>and probably still do. Although I ended up going to a minor public [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Weren't those just the grammar schools (the top rung of a three-tier > system), or am I misremembering? Absolutely. The "Secondary Mod." part of the name of the other schools usually seemed to be omitted in conversation, if I am remembering correctly, so yes, I did have another choice: St Barnabas or possibly St Barnabas', which was the local secondary modern.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Tony Cooper - 24 Feb 2007 23:27 GMT >For a long time, probably most schools had "County High" in their name >and probably still do. Although I ended up going to a minor public >school in the end, my choices were Buckhurst County High or Wanstead >County High. I lived in Woodford, but I couldn't go to Woodford County >High because it was a girls' school. I can't imagine an American saying he went to a minor private school or a minor university. That would imply that the school was second-rate at best. ("Public" switched to "private" to adjust to how an describes a non-state school)
 Signature
Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
Mike Lyle - 25 Feb 2007 13:46 GMT >> For a long time, probably most schools had "County High" in their >> name and probably still do. Although I ended up going to a minor [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > second-rate at best. ("Public" switched to "private" to adjust to how > an describes a non-state school) "Minor public school" is almost a technical term in BrE, and doesn't refer to quality of education. On the surface it means, pretty well, "public school whose name you wouldn't expect to find in a crossword puzzle". The sub-text of "minor public school" is variable, but often includes "I'm not posh, even if you think I sound it" -- or sometimes its opposite.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Robert Bannister - 25 Feb 2007 22:42 GMT >>For a long time, probably most schools had "County High" in their name >>and probably still do. Although I ended up going to a minor public [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Unless you went to one of the better known "public" schools in England, it's best to keep quiet about it or dismiss it as minor. Eton, Harrow, Rugby, etc. undoubtedly had a superior method of flogging the boys. Mine was run by the Honourable Drapers Company, so we were only beaten with a cat-of-tape-measures, although the school uniform of 3-piece suit (black jacket and waistcoat [AmE vest] and pin-stripe trousers were up there in spirit.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Mike Page - 24 Feb 2007 22:50 GMT >> > >How does that tie in with English public (in the American sense) schools >> > >officially being religious? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >A better term would be "county schools" or "borough schools", not that >this term is often used. Local government is not an arm of the state? 'County' and 'borough' now sound terribly old fashioned in this context, especially as the boroughs have either been integrated into the counties, or become unitary authorities. ...>
>> So English schools are officially religious, but that isn't acted on. I'm not sure what is meant by this 'officially religious' bit, other than having to have this 'act of worship'.
....> Most people in England grow up knowing almost
>nothing about religion. My children learned a reasonable amount about a variety of religions in PSVE at school, more than I knew about most of them.
-- Mike Page Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
Matthew Huntbach - 25 Feb 2007 16:03 GMT > >> > >How does that tie in with English public (in the American sense) schools > >> > >officially being religious?
> >> > Do you mean UK state schools?
> >> Yes, that's the term I couldn't think of.
> >The term "state school", though widely used, isn't entirely accurate. > >They are officially run by local government (under very strong > >direction from national government), rather than national government. > >"State school" would imply being run directly by national government. > >A better term would be "county schools" or "borough schools", not that > >this term is often used.
> Local government is not an arm of the state? 'County' and > 'borough' now sound terribly old fashioned in this context, > especially as the boroughs have either been integrated into the > counties, or become unitary authorities. Why should "county" and "borough" sound old fashioned when that's the name of the local authorities? In London and the other metropolitan areas, the main local authorities *are* the boroughs, they are the local education authorities.
As to whetehr it's appropriate to call this "state", other local authority services are not called "state" services, so I think otherwise "state" does imply run by national government.
> ....> Most people in England grow up knowing almost > >nothing about religion.
> My children learned a reasonable amount about a variety of > religions in PSVE at school, more than I knew about most of them. Yes, as others have also said what they now learn is a little bit about every religion, rather than a lot about Christianity. I would suggest that schools "being religious" would mean they have am inclination to one religion, which English schools no longer do. Sara may clarify what she meant, but I don't think she meant she supposed English schools teach a little bit about all the major religions.
Matthew Huntbach
Mike Page - 26 Feb 2007 20:27 GMT >> >> > >How does that tie in with English public (in the American sense) schools >> >> > >officially being religious? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >authority services are not called "state" services, so I think >otherwise "state" does imply run by national government. As you have pointed out, local authorities have precious little influence over what goes on in schools these days. A little googling restricted to UK sites will show that "state school" is more common than "county school" and "borough school" put together, and many of the last two refer to the names of schools which might be expected to be more persistent than the usage of the broad mass of ordinary working people.
I thought I had caught a usage of "borough school" in the wild on the Basingstoke website, but since the next item referred to a "borough stream", the Basingstoke PR people obviously just use the adjective as elegant variation from Basingstoke. And what, I have to ask, would not be more elegant than Basingstoke?
The usage of 'state' for schools is probably somewhat peculiar because the usual way of referring to something generally available and paid for out of taxation is 'public', as in 'public library', 'public art gallery', but as 'public' in relation to schools has been hijacked by the private schools, another word has to be found.
...
-- Mike Page Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
LFS - 24 Feb 2007 23:05 GMT Most people in England grow up knowing almost
> nothing about religion. Not these days. Learning about a range of religions seems fairly central to the curriculum. The number of school groups, of all ages, visiting our synagogue as part of their study of Judaism grows exponentially each year.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
the Omrud - 25 Feb 2007 10:41 GMT mhuntbach@hotmail.com had it:
> > > >How does that tie in with English public (in the American sense) schools > > > >officially being religious? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > A better term would be "county schools" or "borough schools", not that > this term is often used. There was an attempt a few years ago to rename local government schools as "Community Schools", but it seems to have failed.
 Signature David =====
Robert Bannister - 24 Feb 2007 00:09 GMT > Do you mean UK state schools? Most are not overtly religious > although there is a requirement for a daily (I think) act of > worship that must be 'wholly or mainly' of a Christian character. > The state also provides support to religious schools, including I wonder just how firm this requirement is. When I was first applying for promotion in England (c. 1969), I turned down one job because I would be required to take assembly (including the prayer, hymns and bible-readings) once a week. The job I finally took as Head of Modern Languages was at a school that had no hall large enough for its 1500 pupils, so we only had House and Year assemblies. The former were about twice a year and mainly about sports teams; the latter were once a month and did include hymns.
Certainly my own schooling included daily, religious assemblies, although only in secondary school. I can barely remember what happened in primary school, but we didn't have whole-school assemblies very often.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Peter Moylan - 24 Feb 2007 11:20 GMT >> As David has well demonstrated, in England it's exactly the other >> way round. If you have any sort of religious belief or practice, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > How does that tie in with English public (in the American sense) > schools officially being religious? Anglicans have an interesting approach to religion. Belief in a deity is, I gather, optional.
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time.
the Omrud - 23 Feb 2007 19:30 GMT mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk had it:
> >> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:21:11 -0000, the Omrud > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > or abused as e.g. "arrogant" even if you have said or done nothing which > supports the accusation. I firmly stand by "arrogant", not as a general description of those with faith but specifically in the case I related. The woman on WH stated plainly that atheists "have more questions to be answered" than those with a faith. She (like some with faith, but obviously not all) took it as axiomatic that those with no faith are searching for meaning in their lives. Arrogant. I could use a stronger word.
 Signature David =====
Wood Avens - 23 Feb 2007 20:50 GMT >mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk had it: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >not all) took it as axiomatic that those with no faith are searching >for meaning in their lives. Arrogant. I could use a stronger word. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it seems to me that if an atheist signs up for a retreat in a religious setting it's not entirely unreasonable to suppose that they (the atheist) may well have more questions than a signer-up who's already an affiliate of the religion concerned.
 Signature Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
the Omrud - 24 Feb 2007 00:01 GMT woodavens@askjennison.com had it:
> >mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > questions than a signer-up who's already an affiliate of the religion > concerned. I can agree with that, but I took the statement to be more generic, along the lines of "atheists have more questions to be answered than religious people". Prefixed by "of course" which is, I think, what got my goat.
 Signature David =====
Tony Cooper - 23 Feb 2007 21:36 GMT >mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk had it: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >not all) took it as axiomatic that those with no faith are searching >for meaning in their lives. Arrogant. I could use a stronger word. My own observation is the UKians brag that they are not religious, and Americans brag that they are. Which is the most arrogant?
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
Sara Lorimer - 23 Feb 2007 23:45 GMT > My own observation is the UKians brag that they are not religious, and > Americans brag that they are. Which is the most arrogant? I'm a church-going atheist. I'm either afraid to take a stand, or I've taken two of them.
 Signature SML
Mike Page - 24 Feb 2007 09:31 GMT >> My own observation is the UKians brag that they are not religious, and >> Americans brag that they are. Which is the most arrogant? > >I'm a church-going atheist. I'm either afraid to take a stand, or I've >taken two of them. I'm curious, why do you go to church?
(I go myself at Christmas, but that is a family ritual. Otherwise, I'm a buttress of Quakerism - I support it from the outside.)
-- Mike Page Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
Sara Lorimer - 24 Feb 2007 14:03 GMT > >I'm a church-going atheist. I'm either afraid to take a stand, or I've > >taken two of them. > > I'm curious, why do you go to church? It has a book group, parents' group, game night, playgroup, lots of music, an interesting Sunday school for the kids, bake sales, and sermons that are usually thought-provoking. It's a chance to hang out with a bunch of friendly, politically active, and intelligent people in my neighborhood.
Is it possible to reclaim the word "community" from the mealy-mouthed?
 Signature SML
the Omrud - 24 Feb 2007 14:45 GMT que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com had it:
> > >I'm a church-going atheist. I'm either afraid to take a stand, or I've > > >taken two of them. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Is it possible to reclaim the word "community" from the mealy-mouthed? That sounds like you are going into a church, rather than "going to church".
 Signature David =====
Sara Lorimer - 24 Feb 2007 16:00 GMT > que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That sounds like you are going into a church, rather than "going to > church". Hmmm. What does "going to church" mean to you?
 Signature SML
the Omrud - 24 Feb 2007 16:12 GMT que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com had it:
> > que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Hmmm. What does "going to church" mean to you? It means you are attending services and taking part in them. My choir rehearses in a cathedral, so I enter the building every week, but I haven't been to church for 45 years.
 Signature David =====
Tony Cooper - 24 Feb 2007 16:34 GMT >que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >choir rehearses in a cathedral, so I enter the building every week, >but I haven't been to church for 45 years. If she attends the service, I think she's going to church. She commented about the sermons, so she evidently attends the service.
Neither praying nor accepting the sermon as gospel is required to make going to church be going to church. "Taking part in them" is kinda open. We Catholics have some taking part involved since we have to bob and duck on cue, but I'm sure there are services where just sitting and listening is all that's required.
I'm not sure if listening to the sermon is really required. When I was a practicing Catholic I certainly blanked out some sermons and still considered myself to have attended the service.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
the Omrud - 24 Feb 2007 16:39 GMT tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it:
> >que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > was a practicing Catholic I certainly blanked out some sermons and > still considered myself to have attended the service. Sorry, I missed the mention of sermons, amongst the social stuff. If Sara sits in a pew facing the right way during a service then I agree that she's going to church. But all the other activities put together don't amount to going to church in my mind.
 Signature David =====
Sara Lorimer - 24 Feb 2007 17:23 GMT > Sorry, I missed the mention of sermons, amongst the social stuff. If > Sara sits in a pew facing the right way during a service then I agree > that she's going to church. I do, indeed. I'm a member, I go to the service almost every week, and I fully partake. There aren't any prayers, although there are times for silent reflection during which I presume many people are praying.
 Signature SML
Matthew Huntbach - 24 Feb 2007 18:55 GMT > I'm not sure if listening to the sermon is really required. When I > was a practicing Catholic I certainly blanked out some sermons and > still considered myself to have attended the service. That's Catholics for you. Sermons just don't have the importance to Catholics that they do in many Protestant denominations. In England at least, most Catholics switch off at the sermon - I guess if you asked members of the congregation after mass what the sermon was about, half wouldn't remember at all. It's usually regarded as the mark of a good priest that he keep his sermons short.
Matthew Huntbach
Amethyst Deceiver - 27 Feb 2007 11:59 GMT >> I'm not sure if listening to the sermon is really required. When I >> was a practicing Catholic I certainly blanked out some sermons and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > wouldn't remember at all. It's usually regarded as the mark of a good > priest that he keep his sermons short. Out of interest, what makes you think Catholics are different from Protestants in this regard? I've attended Methodist, CofE and Baptist churches and would confidently say those congregations also have a tendency to switch off at the sermon.
 Signature Linz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary
Matthew Huntbach - 27 Feb 2007 12:17 GMT >>> I'm not sure if listening to the sermon is really required. When I >>> was a practicing Catholic I certainly blanked out some sermons and >>> still considered myself to have attended the service.
>> That's Catholics for you. Sermons just don't have the importance to >> Catholics that they do in many Protestant denominations. In England at >> least, most Catholics switch off at the sermon - I guess if you asked >> members of the congregation after mass what the sermon was about, half >> wouldn't remember at all. It's usually regarded as the mark of a good >> priest that he keep his sermons short.
> Out of interest, what makes you think Catholics are different from > Protestants in this regard? I've attended Methodist, CofE and Baptist > churches and would confidently say those congregations also have a > tendency to switch off at the sermon. I'll take your word for it, I was assuming that for Catholics the sacramental aspect of the mass was the most important part, so the earlier part involving scripture readings and sermon tends to be seen as a sort of warm-up to the holy communion part. Protestantism, however, is more centred around scripture. I've always had the impression that in the traditional Protestant denominations, the sermon was considered a much more central aspect of the service.
Matthew Huntbach
Peter Duncanson - 27 Feb 2007 15:07 GMT >>>> I'm not sure if listening to the sermon is really required. When I >>>> was a practicing Catholic I certainly blanked out some sermons and [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Matthew Huntbach Yes. There is also the point that in many Protestant denominations holy communion is not an essential part of a service. The position of HC in their scheme of things is very different from that in the RC world.
The Methodist congregation of which I was a member years ago celebrated holy communion once a month. In Methodism holy communion is lead by an ordained Minister.[1] As many services are conducted by Local (lay) Preachers it is not possible to have HC at every service. The participation of an ordained minister in a service does not automatically mean that HC will be celebrated.
The current schedule of services at Wesley Memorial Church, Oxford, (where my father's memorial service was held) is at the URL below. There are two services each Sunday. HC is celebrated at 6 of the 24. http://wesleymem.org.uk/whatson.shtml
A Presbyterian woman I used to know in Belfast was a regular church goer but never attended HC. To her Christianity was a purely spiritual matter. She perceived HC as being excessively physical, and verging on paganism.
[1] Unless something has changed since I was a Methodist, there is no doctrinal bar to anyone leading the service of holy communion. As a matter of practice and discipline this task is normally reserved for ordained ministers. However, if a group of lay Methodists were to be isolated on the proverbial desert island it would be in order for any of them to lead acts of worship including HC.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Mike Lyle - 24 Feb 2007 16:36 GMT > que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > choir rehearses in a cathedral, so I enter the building every week, > but I haven't been to church for 45 years. Uh-oh! Here comes "in hospital" again. In the near future.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Pat Durkin - 24 Feb 2007 19:16 GMT >> que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com had it: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Uh-oh! Here comes "in hospital" again. In the near future. Oh, not "in future", then.
Matthew Huntbach - 24 Feb 2007 18:51 GMT > que.sara.saraDEL...@gmail.com had it:
> > > >I'm a church-going atheist. I'm either afraid to take a stand, or I've > > > >taken two of them.
> > > I'm curious, why do you go to church?
> > It has a book group, parents' group, game night, playgroup, lots of > > music, an interesting Sunday school for the kids, bake sales, and > > sermons that are usually thought-provoking. It's a chance to hang out > > with a bunch of friendly, politically active, and intelligent people in > > my neighborhood.
> > Is it possible to reclaim the word "community" from the mealy-mouthed?
> That sounds like you are going into a church, rather than "going to > church". No, "going to church" means going to the activities of the Church one feels affiliated to. That does not necessarily mean one is a fundamentalist or that one believes that Church is the "one true way" and everyone else will go to Hell. Perhaps you can't understand this, with your readiness to accuse religious people of being "arrogant" without any real evidence except your own prejudiced suppositions. Sorry if I am sounding rude, but I really was rather shocked by what you said, because I really felt it wasn't justified at all, and said much more about you than it did about the person you applied it to.
"Going to a church" means just dropping in without any feeling of affiliation, maybe out of curiosity, or to look at its architecture, or whatever. That's quite obviously not what Sara is doing.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach - 24 Feb 2007 18:42 GMT > > >I'm a church-going atheist. I'm either afraid to take a stand, or I've > > >taken two of them.
> > I'm curious, why do you go to church?
> It has a book group, parents' group, game night, playgroup, lots of > music, an interesting Sunday school for the kids, bake sales, and > sermons that are usually thought-provoking. It's a chance to hang out > with a bunch of friendly, politically active, and intelligent people in > my neighborhood. Indeed, one may enjoy the ritual and sense of community, and yet regard the beliefs as essentially allegorical.
The problem in modern England is that as most people have no religious attachments at all, and as what they see of religion tends to be extremists and "fundamentalist" types, they suppose *all* of us must be like that, they simply can't understand the more relaxed postion that are actually very common amongst those who attend religious services. To them, we are all "arrogant" "God-botherers" who believe they will all "go to Hell" and wish to "push religion down our throats".
Matthew Huntbach
Mike Page - 24 Feb 2007 23:01 GMT ..>
>The problem in modern England is that as most people have no religious >attachments at all, and as what they see of religion tends to be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >they will all "go to Hell" and wish to "push religion down our >throats". What a splendid rant? Can you do them to order or do you have to work yourself up to them?
-- Mike Page Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
Matthew Huntbach - 25 Feb 2007 16:14 GMT > On 24 Feb 2007 10:42:17 -0800, "Matthew Huntbach" > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Mike Page > Posting trivia to aue since April 1997 Robert Bannister - 24 Feb 2007 22:20 GMT > It has an interesting Sunday school I always thought the sole purpose of Sunday school was to get the kids out of the house long enough for mum and dad to engage in marital activities.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Matthew Huntbach - 24 Feb 2007 18:35 GMT > m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk had it:
> > As David has well demonstrated, in England it's exactly the other way > > round. If you have any sort of religious belief or practice, you're > > likely to be dismissed as some sort of weirdo who's not to be trusted, > > or abused as e.g. "arrogant" even if you have said or done nothing which > > supports the accusation.
> I firmly stand by "arrogant", not as a general description of those > with faith but specifically in the case I related. The woman on WH > stated plainly that atheists "have more questions to be answered" > than those with a faith. She (like some with faith, but obviously > not all) took it as axiomatic that those with no faith are searching > for meaning in their lives. Arrogant. I could use a stronger word. Well, I didn't hear the broadcast, but from what you have written it sounds to me like your supposition says more about you and your knee- jerk reaction to religion than it does about the woman in question. It looks to me like she was making a straight factual point which reflected on the particular situation she was in, and your jump from that to this accusation of "arrogance" stems from a pre-existing belief of yours that religious people are arrogant, so you look for what you expect to find.
The problem is that most of us in England who have some vague religious connections but don't like to make a thing about it, find if we even mention it we get jumped on, and accused of being "arrogant" etc. So we keep quiet, and the only people who are vocal about religion are the extremists and "fundamentalists". The consequences of this is that the non-religious majority in England come to think that the vocal fringe of religion is actually what all people who have any sort of religion are like. It is the sort of thing I was writing about elsewhere, the squeezing out of the moderates.
Matthew Huntbach
Mike Page - 24 Feb 2007 23:04 GMT >The problem is that most of us in England who have some vague >religious connections but don't like to make a thing about it, find if [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >sort of religion are like. It is the sort of thing I was writing about >elsewhere, the squeezing out of the moderates. Is this a different 'the problem' from the one mentioned two of your posts back up the thread?
-- Mike Page Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
Matthew Huntbach - 25 Feb 2007 16:13 GMT > >The problem is that most of us in England who have some vague > >religious connections but don't like to make a thing about it, find if [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >sort of religion are like. It is the sort of thing I was writing about > >elsewhere, the squeezing out of the moderates.
> Is this a different 'the problem' from the one mentioned two of > your posts back up the thread? I think it's saying the same thing. That is, as religion is increasingly becoming something people in England don't even have a remote personal link to, their image of it tends to come from what they see on the news (often negative), or from those religious sorts who do go out on the streets and shout out their message - they often tend to be of an extremist or fundamentalist nature.
Matthew Huntbach
the Omrud - 24 Feb 2007 23:07 GMT mhuntbach@hotmail.com had it:
> > m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk had it: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > belief of yours that religious people are arrogant, so you look for > what you expect to find. Nope, I know dozens of people of all faiths who are all moderate and effectively silent about their religion unless asked direct questions. My children went to a CoE primary (it was the local school); I was at school with Baptists and Methodists who invited me to their services; there are many Muslims and Hindus at work; I sing in a choir in an Anglican cathedral and I worked in a Jewish summer camp when I was a student.
I reacted against this woman's view that those with no faith are desperately searching for meaning in their lives. I agree that the vast majority of Europeans with a religion would not go out of their way to express the opinion without prompting - in this case she was being interviewed about it - but I suspect that a considerable number of them would agree with it.
 Signature David =====
Tony Cooper - 24 Feb 2007 23:21 GMT >Nope, I know dozens of people of all faiths who are all moderate and >effectively silent about their religion unless asked direct >questions. The above statement would lead me to conclude that you have asked dozens of people direct questions about their religion. Even Americans aren't that brassy.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
the Omrud - 25 Feb 2007 10:33 GMT tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it:
> >Nope, I know dozens of people of all faiths who are all moderate and > >effectively silent about their religion unless asked direct [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > dozens of people direct questions about their religion. Even > Americans aren't that brassy. That's not what I intended to impart. I know religious people (they might wear symbols or special clothing, or attend the office Christmas service at which I play in the band) who have never spoken to me about religion. I do sometimes chat to my Muslim friends about their religion, for example after they've just spent several months getting a visa for Saudi Arabia so that they can visit Mecca.
 Signature David =====
Tony Cooper - 25 Feb 2007 14:19 GMT >tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >That's not what I intended to impart. I knew that, of course. The turnip truck that brought me to aue passed this way several years ago.
I have been here - in a watching the monitor sense - long enough to know that I am supposed to point out that false conclusions should be jumped at when any opening is presented by the construction of a post. It shows that I'm paying attention.
Ash Wednesday fell last week. My wife's co-workers now know that my wife is Catholic. She got the usual ration of "You've got some sort of dirt smudge on your forehead" comments. Also, as usual, some were intended as genuine notifications that something was amiss, and some were joking comments by people aware of what the mark was.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
the Omrud - 25 Feb 2007 14:32 GMT tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it:
> Ash Wednesday fell last week. My wife's co-workers now know that my > wife is Catholic. She got the usual ration of "You've got some sort > of dirt smudge on your forehead" comments. Also, as usual, some were > intended as genuine notifications that something was amiss, and some > were joking comments by people aware of what the mark was. You, or another American, have mentioned this before. I don't recognise the practice. Do UK Catholics do it?
We UK folk know it was Ash Wednesday last week, because we had pancakes on Tuesday.
 Signature David =====
Tony Cooper - 25 Feb 2007 14:44 GMT >tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >You, or another American, have mentioned this before. I don't >recognise the practice. Do UK Catholics do it? Watch the phrasing, there. Your statement and questions are quite clear to me, but Matthew may find some buried attack on Catholics in it.
 Signature
Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
Mike Lyle - 25 Feb 2007 15:49 GMT >> tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > clear to me, but Matthew may find some buried attack on Catholics in > it. Nice touch in, it must have been, _Whisky Galore_. One of the communicants was so hung over that he exposed his tongue at the wrong juncture, and Fr Mac..? duly put the ash on it. Not at all politically acceptable in today's Scotland, but Compton Mackenzie's a lot of fun: I rather wish I'd kept the books.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Matthew Huntbach - 25 Feb 2007 16:07 GMT > tony_cooper...@earthlink.net had it:
> > Ash Wednesday fell last week. My wife's co-workers now know that my > > wife is Catholic. She got the usual ration of "You've got some sort > > of dirt smudge on your forehead" comments. Also, as usual, some were > > intended as genuine notifications that something was amiss, and some > > were joking comments by people aware of what the mark was.
> You, or another American, have mentioned this before. I don't > recognise the practice. Do UK Catholics do it? Yes. Though I guess most of us wipe them off as we leave church because we don't want to draw attention to ourselves.
Matthew Huntbach
Robert Bannister - 25 Feb 2007 22:48 GMT >>tony_cooper...@earthlink.net had it: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Yes. Though I guess most of us wipe them off as we leave church > because we don't want to draw attention to ourselves. That must be the case, because I never once saw it (or at least noticed it) during all my years in England. We even had Irish Catholics living with us for a couple of years and I never saw it on them either. I had never heard of the practice till it was mentioned in this forum.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Skitt - 25 Feb 2007 18:18 GMT > tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it:
>> Ash Wednesday fell last week. My wife's co-workers now know that my >> wife is Catholic. She got the usual ration of "You've got some sort [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > We UK folk know it was Ash Wednesday last week, because we had > pancakes on Tuesday. I seem to recall that in Latvia we played a little game on Ash Wednesday -- pinning a very tiny sack of ashes comewhere on other people's apparel while they were not looking. Then we'd snicker or laugh ...
 Signature Skitt Jes' fine!
K. Edgcombe - 25 Feb 2007 22:17 GMT >> intended as genuine notifications that something was amiss, and some >> were joking comments by people aware of what the mark was. > >You, or another American, have mentioned this before. I don't >recognise the practice. Do UK Catholics do it? Not just Catholics. I have been to Anglican services where it was done (ash on the forehead), and last week to a United Reformed Church, ditto. But we sang a lot of luscious Byrd and Purcell and Gibbons, and enjoyed ourselves more than we were supposed to.
Katy
Robert Bannister - 25 Feb 2007 23:58 GMT >>>intended as genuine notifications that something was amiss, and some >>>were joking comments by people aware of what the mark was. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But we sang a lot of luscious Byrd and Purcell and Gibbons, and enjoyed > ourselves more than we were supposed to. I am surprised at the United (I thought it was "Uniting") church, but of course, with anglicans you can expect anything. The music sounds good. I don't know much Gibbons. What do you recommend?
 Signature Rob Bannister
K. Edgcombe - 26 Feb 2007 14:58 GMT >> Not just Catholics. I have been to Anglican services where it was done (ash on >> the forehead), and last week to a United Reformed Church, ditto. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >course, with anglicans you can expect anything. The music sounds good. I >don't know much Gibbons. What do you recommend? Yes, it's an unusual URC (formerly Presbyterian, and still very Scottish). They seem to have no objection to Popish practices such as the imposition of ashes (though the minister was keen to say they weren't imposing anything on anybody), and the singing of "Adeste Fideles" in the proper language.
As for Gibbons, we sang "Drop, drop, slow tears", it being Ash Wednesday, but there's lots of other good stuff, both sacred and secular. "O clap your hands" (double choir) is one of the best cheerful sacred pieces ever written. And there's a very good Mag and Nunc, "This is the record of John", many other sacred pieces and a whole raft of madrigals and lute-songs, of which "The silver swan" is the best-known.
Katy
the Omrud - 26 Feb 2007 15:14 GMT ke10@cus.cam.ac.uk had it:
> As for Gibbons, we sang "Drop, drop, slow tears", it being Ash Wednesday, but > there's lots of other good stuff, both sacred and secular. "O clap your hands" > (double choir) is one of the best cheerful sacred pieces ever written. And > there's a very good Mag and Nunc, "This is the record of John", many other > sacred pieces and a whole raft of madrigals and lute-songs, of which > "The silver swan" is the best-known. Swans sing before they die - 'twere no bad thing Did certain persons die before they sing.
 Signature David Taylor Coleridge =====
Robert Bannister - 26 Feb 2007 22:13 GMT > As for Gibbons, we sang "Drop, drop, slow tears", it being Ash Wednesday, but > there's lots of other good stuff, both sacred and secular. "O clap your hands" > (double choir) is one of the best cheerful sacred pieces ever written. And > there's a very good Mag and Nunc, "This is the record of John", many other > sacred pieces and a whole raft of madrigals and lute-songs, of which > "The silver swan" is the best-known. Thanks for that. I must look out for some of these.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Roland Hutchinson - 27 Feb 2007 15:27 GMT > Yes, it's an unusual URC (formerly Presbyterian, and still very Scottish). > They seem to have no objection to Popish practices such as the imposition [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > other sacred pieces and a whole raft of madrigals and lute-songs, of which > "The silver swan" is the best-known. There are no actual lute songs by Gibbons[1] as far as I know (perhaps they are arrangements by others?). There are a couple of consort songs, however--and a few dozen viol consorts (mostly fantasies, but also some dances, variations, and in nomines; a few of these may not have been intended originally or specifically for viols, but we lay claim to them all nontheless).
[1] invariably known to ex-choristers and otherwise musical (ObAUE:) grammar school boys of my acquaintance as "Gibbos".
 Signature Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Mike Page - 25 Feb 2007 08:43 GMT >mhuntbach@hotmail.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >being interviewed about it - but I suspect that a considerable number >of them would agree with it. I heard the broadcast, too, and the item was a splendid example of 'Woman's Hour' at its self-satisfied, PC, matronising worst.
-- Mike Page Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
the Omrud - 25 Feb 2007 10:35 GMT mikeorang.page@ntlworld.com had it:
> >I reacted against this woman's view that those with no faith are > >desperately searching for meaning in their lives. I agree that the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I heard the broadcast, too, and the item was a splendid example > of 'Woman's Hour' at its self-satisfied, PC, matronising worst. Still listen though, don't we - there is much to be grateful for. And Jeni Murray is back after her initial cancer treatment.
 Signature David =====
LFS - 26 Feb 2007 07:26 GMT > mhuntbach@hotmail.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > being interviewed about it - but I suspect that a considerable number > of them would agree with it. Interesting article by Stuart Jeffries in today's Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2021337,00.html
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
Mike Lyle - 26 Feb 2007 13:56 GMT [...]
> Interesting article by Stuart Jeffries in today's Guardian: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2021337,00.html Thanks for the link, Laura: a good piece.
But -- sincere question -- why do 6000-year literalists have to believe T. rex was vegetarian?
Off the topic, I wondered at the expression "Richard Dawkins, . . chair for the public understanding of science at Oxford University".
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
the Omrud - 26 Feb 2007 15:00 GMT mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk had it:
> [...] > > Interesting article by Stuart Jeffries in today's Guardian: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But -- sincere question -- why do 6000-year literalists have to believe > T. rex was vegetarian? If they hadn't been vegetarian they would have eaten all the people.
 Signature David =====
Peter Duncanson - 26 Feb 2007 19:06 GMT >[...] >> Interesting article by Stuart Jeffries in today's Guardian: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Off the topic, I wondered at the expression "Richard Dawkins, . . chair >for the public understanding of science at Oxford University". From: http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/index.shtml
Professor Richard Dawkins is the first holder of the newly endowed Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.
This is tricky to abbreviate.
We are used to shortened forms like "A N Other, Professor of Physics", but "R Dawkins, Professor of PUS" might give his detractors too much ammunition.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Sara Lorimer - 26 Feb 2007 14:37 GMT > Interesting article by Stuart Jeffries in today's Guardian: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2021337,00.html That is interesting. I was distracted by this:
In the US, two and half million people are educated at home because their parents don't want them exposed to Darwinian thinking," says [philosopher A.C.] Grayling.
...because that number is far higher than any I've ever seen. The US government says there are just over one million children being homeschooled in the US, and that a third of those are being homeschooled for religious reasons.
<http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/index.asp>
 Signature SML
Evan Kirshenbaum - 27 Feb 2007 23:08 GMT >> Interesting article by Stuart Jeffries in today's Guardian: >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2021337,00.html [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > <http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/index.asp> According to table 4 there, 72.3% cited "to provide religious or moral instruction" as a reason. 29.8% listed it as the primary reason.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily translate into "Creationist".
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If a bus station is where a bus 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |stops, and a train station is where Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a train stops, what does that say |about a workstation? kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Peter Duncanson - 25 Feb 2007 21:21 GMT >As David has well demonstrated, in England it's exactly the other way >round. If you have any sort of religious belief or practice, you're [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Matthew Huntbach There is an example in an article in The Sunday Times (UK) which is adapted from extracts from a blog which is to be published as a book:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_ext racts/article1400071.ece
[The writer has moved from London to a rural location in the North of England. Her husband spends long periods away from home working in London. She has difficulty making friends.]
One couple have been immensely generous and welcoming, but I can't say it's not disconcerting when someone you had previously thought entirely sane admits he is waiting for Christ to return to earth. He told me: "I believe the world will end, the four horsemen of the apocalypse will come among us, death and destruction, the whole package you know. I would only say this to another believer." I shifted uncomfortably in my seat at this. Evolution he dismissed as a "theory", homosexuality an "abomination". Even slavery was okay providing it met the biblical caveat of justice within it.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Matthew Huntbach - 25 Feb 2007 21:37 GMT > On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:50:24 +0000, Matthew Huntbach > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >or abused as e.g. "arrogant" even if you have said or done nothing which > >supports the accusation.
> There is an example in an article in The Sunday Times (UK) which is > adapted from extracts from a blog which is to be published as a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > slavery was okay providing it met the biblical caveat of justice > within it. Do you quote this to support or to oppose my thesis?
Matthew Huntbach
Peter Duncanson - 25 Feb 2007 22:22 GMT >> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:50:24 +0000, Matthew Huntbach >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >Do you quote this to support or to oppose my thesis? Interesting question. I intended it to support your thesis.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Tony Cooper - 23 Feb 2007 15:14 GMT >>My knowledge that America is full of religious whackos is based on >>what I read in the newspapers rather than what I personally [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Perhaps not, but isn't it also true that atheists in America are in >much the same situation as homosexuals in most places? I would say that this is a great exaggeration. Where homosexuals are in a "situation" it is when someone believes that being homosexual is being depraved and being morally corrupt. That same person, viewing an atheist, feels that the atheist is wrong and on the wrong path.
The person who views a homosexual as being depraved and morally corrupt usually extends that view to some form of proposed action. The person doesn't want to rent an apartment to a homosexual, doesn't want a homosexual living near him, doesn't want a homosexual in the same workplace, doesn't want a homosexual in political office, and so on. That person would not advocate similar actions against atheists.
>If you are one, >it's not something you shout from the rooftops in society at large >unless you're keen to acquire a rep as a some kind of weirdo who's not >to be trusted. Well, no, but the rooftop shouter usually has some agenda, and it's the agenda - not the atheism - that marks him as a weirdo. It's perfectly OK over here to *be* an atheist - even a declared atheist - but when an atheist starts shouting from the rooftops that everyone else should be an atheist or that putting up a Christmas tree in the mall is unacceptable, the atheist starts to be viewed as a weirdo. It's the agenda, not the fact that the person is an atheist, that labels him.
>If this wasn't the case, why do all senior American politicians >without exception make a point of declaring their religious [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >it was so obviously a cynical charade that I'm amazed the electorate >didn't see right through it. Yes, politicians make a point of declaring some religious affiliation. That's done in an effort not to alienate a sector of the voting public. They don't want to be non-acceptable to some of the voters. But you've gone from atheists being viewed as the same as homosexuals to a declaration of some affiliation as being a repudiation of atheism. Too big a jump.
>I certainly get the impression that being affiliated to a faith -- and >any faith will do, even if it's the Mormons, Moonies or Scientologists >-- is still generally thought of as an essential, non-negotiable >feature of "the American Way".
>Or am I way off track with this? I think you are. It may be a feature of American politics that all candidates need to at least hand-wave at their acceptance of religion, but that's not "the American way". If we're not running for office, and hoping to be acceptable to anyone who votes, a religious affiliation is neither necessary nor generally beneficial.
I can't think of any situations that I would be in where I would be reluctant to have it known that I am not currently affiliated with a religion or that I'm an atheist. I wouldn't go around shouting it from the roof tops, but that's only because I don't think that any views should be shouted from the roof tops.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
cybercypher - 23 Feb 2007 16:28 GMT > Archie Valparaiso <gguiri@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > political office, and so on. That person would not advocate > similar actions against atheists. Have you actually asked Tim Hardaway what he thinks about atheists?
 Signature Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007; http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
the Omrud - 23 Feb 2007 19:26 GMT tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it:
> >Arrogant theist nonsense, which as usual went unchallenged. As far as I > >can tell, believers consider that those with no faith have a religion- [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Believe it or not, I can go months without anyone discussing religion > in my presence. Ah. You misconstrued my sentence because of its incompetent construction. For "they" above, please understand "those without faith".
English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are desperately seeking answers to the Big Questions of existence. For the record, I am not desperately seeking any answers.
 Signature David =====
Matthew Huntbach - 24 Feb 2007 19:00 GMT > English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who > are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are > desperately seeking answers to the Big Questions of existence. For > the record, I am not desperately seeking any answers. And, for the record, I am not desperately seeking to be rescued from my priest-ridden guilt-provoking unhappy "superstition". No matter how much English non-religionists pity me and assume that's where I am, even if they don't press their non-religion on me.
Matthew Huntbach
the Omrud - 24 Feb 2007 23:09 GMT mhuntbach@hotmail.com had it:
> > English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who > > are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > much English non-religionists pity me and assume that's where I am, > even if they don't press their non-religion on me. I don't like the word "atheist" but taking it as convenient shorthand, anybody who tries to do that is not what I would call an atheist. Nor if they apply those adjectives.
 Signature David =====
Peter Duncanson - 24 Feb 2007 23:42 GMT >> English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who >> are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Matthew Huntbach <some would say...> The fact that you are not "desperately seeking to be rescued" is a sign of the tragedy of your condition. I makes it all the more urgent to rescue you from your piteous state and to help you overcome your addiction. </some would say>
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Matthew Huntbach - 25 Feb 2007 15:53 GMT > >> English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who > >> are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are > >> desperately seeking answers to the Big Questions of existence. For > >> the record, I am not desperately seeking any answers.
> >And, for the record, I am not desperately seeking to be rescued from > >my priest-ridden guilt-provoking unhappy "superstition". No matter how > >much English non-religionists pity me and assume that's where I am, > >even if they don't press their non-religion on me.
> <some would say...> > The fact that you are not "desperately seeking to be rescued" is a > sign of the tragedy of your condition. I makes it all the more > urgent to rescue you from your piteous state and to help you > overcome your addiction. > </some would say> Yes, that's the point I'm making - David accused religionists of harbouring such attitudes towards non-religionists. As I am hinting at, it is at least as common the other way round.
Matthew Huntbach
John Holmes - 25 Feb 2007 03:06 GMT > English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who > are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are > desperately seeking answers to the Big Questions of existence. For > the record, I am not desperately seeking any answers. I pity those religious types who waste their time trying to answer "Big Questions" that turn out to be just figments of terminology, with no basis in reality.
 Signature Regards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au
Peter Moylan - 25 Feb 2007 13:50 GMT >> English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who >> are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Big Questions" that turn out to be just figments of terminology, > with no basis in reality. When I was a Catholic, I put considerable time and effort into contemplating those Big Questions. Only after answering them to my satisfaction did I become an atheist.
That probably puts me in a minority. It seems to me that most people simply adopt the religion of their parents, without ever bothering to ask themselves why. I've never fully understood that attitude. If they sincerely believe that failure to believe could result in eternal punishment, surely they ought to spend at least some time considering the consequences of picking the wrong god.
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time.
Leslie Danks - 25 Feb 2007 14:15 GMT >>> English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who >>> are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > punishment, surely they ought to spend at least some time considering > the consequences of picking the wrong god. Can you pick your god? Surely belief in a supernatural being who is personally interested in each individual is a deep, emotional and essentially irrational trait which most believers acquire through exposure to corresponding influences while still at an impressionable age. I always think it's a bit like smoking: young children start to smoke as a result of peer pressure and a certain proportion become hooked for life. They may change their brand, but they never escape their addiction. No adult in their right mind who had never smoked before would decide to take up smoking. I suspect that adults who become believers having never been believers before must undergo some kind of deep psychological trauma in order to make their conversion possible. I imagine dying can be fairly traumatic, which probably explains many "deathbed conversions". To return to the "pick a god" aspect, I can't imagine a god with any nous at all not being able to see through the motives of the "just in case" merchants.
 Signature Les
Peter Moylan - 25 Feb 2007 14:31 GMT > order to make their conversion possible. I imagine dying can be > fairly traumatic, which probably explains many "deathbed > conversions". To return to the "pick a god" aspect, I can't imagine a > god with any nous at all not being able to see through the motives of > the "just in case" merchants. That was one of the many flaws in Pascal's famous wager.
If I were a god, I'd also be at least a wee bit cynical about those deathbed conversions.
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time.
Pat Durkin - 25 Feb 2007 16:37 GMT >>>> English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who >>>> are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > exposure > to corresponding influences while still at an impressionable age. I like Unamuno's view: we create God in our own image or in an image of what we would like God to be.
He frequently lets us down, of course, and then we have to recreate him or go God-shopping. Depending on how deep His betrayal is determines how radical a God we buy, and how strenuously we hold onto belief in His existence, deciding that it is our faith that is false, and not His existence.
> To return > to the "pick a god" aspect, I can't imagine a god with any nous at all > not > being able to see through the motives of the "just in case" merchants. I wonder what "any nous at all" means? I haven't been able to figure out what "nous" is a typo for, unless it is a term Pascal used (since Peter refers to P in his post).
Oh, I looked it up. Wonderful word to find, though I doubt I will be able to use it in any future writing or speaking. Encarta has: nous [ nooss, nowss ] noun Definition:
1. intellectual ability: in ancient Greek philosophy, the capacity to reason and acquire knowledge, as distinguished from sensation
2. intellect: in some philosophies, the part of the human spirit that is capable of rational thought
3. U.K. common sense: good sense or intelligence ( informal )
[Late 17th century. < Greek, "intelligence"]
Peter Duncanson - 25 Feb 2007 17:16 GMT >I wonder what "any nous at all" means? I haven't been able to figure >out what "nous" is a typo for, unless it is a term Pascal used (since [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > [Late 17th century. < Greek, "intelligence"] In my experience the "nowss" pronuciation predominates in the UK.
Until I gently corrected him, a cow-orker used to pronounce it more like the French "nous" (noo).
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Frank ess - 26 Feb 2007 01:02 GMT > Can you pick your god? Surely belief in a supernatural being who is > personally interested in each individual is a deep, emotional and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > aspect, I can't imagine a god with any nous at all not being able to > see through the motives of the "just in case" merchants. In my long experience and that of many of my fellow monitors-of-miscreants, gods were in jail. At least that is where most miscreants found them. It didn't seem to matter which of the many they found, but he-she-it invariably caused changes of life rendering the finder more fit for life on the outside.
A congruent conclusion was that the jail gods' influece was short-range: the farther from jail in time and distance, the more likely a backslide.
 Signature Frank ess
Sara Lorimer - 25 Feb 2007 14:46 GMT > It seems to me that most people > simply adopt the religion of their parents, without ever bothering to > ask themselves why. I suppose that's what I've done, in a way. My parents were a Catholic and an atheist, and I ended up -- to use the technical term -- a wussy atheist. I'm the sort who doesn't believe in any gods, but would go along with it if a flaming bush started talking to me (although I would check for wires and hidden cameras). An atheist, but hey -- I could be wrong.
 Signature SML
Peter Moylan - 26 Feb 2007 14:54 GMT >> It seems to me that most people simply adopt the religion of their >> parents, without ever bothering to ask themselves why. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (although I would check for wires and hidden cameras). An atheist, > but hey -- I could be wrong. If we wanted to be really pedantic about it, we're all agnostics. I can't imagine any reasonable person claiming that it's possible to know anything with absolute certainty. That, however, is a quibble. In practice we all make up our minds what we believe "beyond reasonable doubt", or some such qualification.
If a burning bush spoke to me, I like to think that I'd have the courage to mention it to my psychiatrist.
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 28 Feb 2007 22:25 GMT > If we wanted to be really pedantic about it, we're all agnostics. I > can't imagine any reasonable person claiming that it's possible to > know anything with absolute certainty. That, however, is a > quibble. In practice we all make up our minds what we believe > "beyond reasonable doubt", or some such qualification. "Agnostic" is a statement about belief in knowledge. "Atheist" is a statement about belief (or, rather, non-belief) in existence. If you are willing to posit the existence of gods as a possibility, once you've decided to believe that either their existence is unknowable or, at least, unknown (at least to you), you then need to decide whether or not you actually believe they exist.[1] Pascal's wager is a statement that we should all be agnostic theists--recognize that we can't know and then believe anyway. Other agnostics choose to say "until I get some actual evidence, I'm not going to believe". They are agnostic atheists.
[1] Strictly speaking, you don't have to decide unless the the question comes up, but if you don't, you're probably not going to have an active belief in a deity, which pretty much makes you an atheist.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |All tax revenue is the result of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |holding a gun to somebody's head. Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Not paying taxes is against the law. |If you don't pay your taxes, you'll kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |be fined. If you don't pay the fine, (650)857-7572 |you'll be jailed. If you try to |escape from jail, you'll be shot. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | P.J. O'Rourke
Pat Durkin - 25 Feb 2007 17:13 GMT >>> English religionists don't press their religion on those of us who >>> are without any, but they do pity us and assume that we are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > contemplating those Big Questions. Only after answering them to my > satisfaction did I become an atheist. AOL
To me, the unexamined faith isn't worth believing, so I find those who don't ask themselves questions about the nature of their belief, and who are not able to explain the how or why of it, to be in drastic need of the shepherds their churches provide. But they don't seem to question their leaders until the leaders are caught out in some foul deed. Then, they look for another person whose bonafides they can accept without question.
I do have to stop talking with them about the topic in general, because, I admit, I get frustrated and sarcastic. Not very Christian. Not at all.
> That probably puts me in a minority. It seems to me that most people > simply adopt the religion of their parents, without ever bothering to > ask themselves why. I've never fully understood that attitude. If they > sincerely believe that failure to believe could result in eternal > punishment, surely they ought to spend at least some time considering > the consequences of picking the wrong god. John Holmes - 26 Feb 2007 11:01 GMT >> I pity those religious types who waste their time trying to answer >> "Big Questions" that turn out to be just figments of terminology, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > contemplating those Big Questions. Only after answering them to my > satisfaction did I become an atheist. So, what is the meaning of "what is the meaning of life?"?
(Double question marks seemed somehow appropriate for that one. If a two negatives make a positive, what do two interrogatives make? Something imaginary, perhaps?)
 Signature Regards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au
Peter Moylan - 26 Feb 2007 13:45 GMT >>> I pity those religious types who waste their time trying to >>> answer "Big Questions" that turn out to be just figments of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So, what is the meaning of "what is the meaning of life?"? The meta-question is too difficult for me - and, I must admit, not very interesting to me - so I'll answer the inner question instead.
In my (genuinely, for once) humble opinion, life has no meaning other than the elementary fact that some things are alive and some aren't. Notwithstanding that trite but profound observation, we as living beings can choose to give our lives a meaning. The answer doesn't have to be the same for every person. We find ourselves here, alive, and we can do what we like about it. Valid answers range from immediate suicide to a life of striving for some major achievement.
For obvious evolutionary reasons, a live being will usually try to stay alive, and for self-aware beings like us that often translates into a wish for immortality. There are different ways to strive for immortality. Some people believe they get it by having children, who will in turn have children, and so on. Some go for fame, so that their name will live on. Many of us get our immortality by living our lives in such a way that we feel that we've made a difference to the universe. Then, of course, there are those who can't think of any way to make their lives worthwhile, so they console themselves with the hope that they'll get another chance in their next life. What makes them think that they'll have any ambition the next time around is something only they can answer.
In many ways, the question about the meaning of life is for me like the question of free will. I don't know whether or not I have free will, but I can decide to act as if I had it.
> (Double question marks seemed somehow appropriate for that one. If a > two negatives make a positive, what do two interrogatives make? > Something imaginary, perhaps?) A questionable question.
Anyway, I'm with you on this one. Style manuals tell us that only one question mark is needed. In the case of a question within a question, I can only say that the writers of the style manuals have their heads stuck in a dark place. Two question marks it is, as far as I'm concerned.
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time.
Oleg Lego - 26 Feb 2007 14:20 GMT >In many ways, the question about the meaning of life is for me like the >question of free will. I don't know whether or not I have free will, but >I can decide to act as if I had it. Well, if you don't actually have free will, you can't really make the decision.
Peter Moylan - 26 Feb 2007 15:06 GMT >> In many ways, the question about the meaning of life is for me like >> the question of free will. I don't know whether or not I have free >> will, but I can decide to act as if I had it. > > Well, if you don't actually have free will, you can't really make the > decision. Who cares? My personality and education are such that I have the illusion of making the decision, and feeling good is good enough for me.
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time.
Oleg Lego - 26 Feb 2007 15:51 GMT >>> In many ways, the question about the meaning of life is for me like >>> the question of free will. I don't know whether or not I have free [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Who cares? My personality and education are such that I have the >illusion of making the decision, and feeling good is good enough for me. Good enough for me.
(and Bobby McGee).
Peter Moylan - 26 Feb 2007 15:03 GMT > Then, of course, there are those who can't think of any way to make > their lives worthwhile, so they console themselves with the hope that > they'll get another chance in their next life. What makes them think > that they'll have any ambition the next time around is something > only they can answer. Addendum (I hit "send" too soon): I'm not suggesting that everyone who believes in an afterlife is a wimp. Many religions teach that your status in the next life will depend on how well you handled this one. For this I give them credit, especially when it motivates those whose sense of morality would otherwise be a bit shaky. I do condemn as evil those who teach that faith is sufficient, and I'm equally contemptuous of those who suggest that points may be gained by harming one's enemies.
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time.
Matthew Huntbach - 23 Feb 2007 11:47 GMT > There was an article on BBC Radio 4 "Women's Hour" today about retreats. > Somebody who runs one was interviewed about what sort of person goes on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Arrogant theist nonsense, which as usual went unchallenged. Arrogant atheist nonsense. It is quite obvious that what was meant here is that people who don't come from a religious faith background are going to be more curious about it and more questioning about the basis. If they have chosen to go on a "retreat", which from what you say has some sort of religious theme to it, then the likelihood is that they're doing so becuase they have a curiosity about religion. Of course, one may be curious or interested about it, even enjoy studying or participating in its rituals without having to have any sort of supernatural belief.
Matthew Huntbach
the Omrud - 23 Feb 2007 19:35 GMT mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk had it:
> > There was an article on BBC Radio 4 "Women's Hour" today about retreats. > > Somebody who runs one was interviewed about what sort of person goes on [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > is that people who don't come from a religious faith background are going > to be more curious about it and more questioning about the basis. That isn't what I understood. The section went into much more detail about how people go to retreats in order to have time to contemplate the big questions to which they are seeking answers. It was clear that she thought that those without a faith had more such questions to be answered.
> If they > have chosen to go on a "retreat", which from what you say has some sort > of religious theme to it, then the likelihood is that they're doing so > becuase they have a curiosity about religion. The retreat was not explicitly religious although it is run by people with faith. I don't think that attendance there implied an interest in religion - just a wish to withdraw from the world for a while for a period of peace and reflection.
> Of course, one may be curious > or interested about it, even enjoy studying or participating in its rituals > without having to have any sort of supernatural belief. Of course.
 Signature David =====
Robert Bannister - 23 Feb 2007 23:46 GMT > Arrogant atheist nonsense. It is quite obvious that what was meant here > is that people who don't come from a religious faith background are going [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > or interested about it, even enjoy studying or participating in its rituals > without having to have any sort of supernatural belief. My own first thought at hearing of an atheist trying to go on retreat is that the person is simply a trouble-maker.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Roland Hutchinson - 24 Feb 2007 21:33 GMT
> My own first thought at hearing of an atheist trying to go on retreat is > that the person is simply a trouble-maker. That rather depends on the specific nature of the retreat, wouldn't you say?
It would be hard sustain the thesis that the need for peace and quiet, pleasant but unostentatious surroundings, and contemplation is created only by a belief in a deity.
 Signature Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Robert Bannister - 24 Feb 2007 22:26 GMT > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > pleasant but unostentatious surroundings, and contemplation is created only > by a belief in a deity. Except that it surely can't be that hard to find something similar that is not run by a religious organisation. I suppose if the atheist were desperate, it might be excusable. I know that, for my mother, I gratefully accept services from the Joint Churches of Christ* because the government does not provide anything like that.
* That might not be the exact name, but it's something like that. I think it is run by a number of anglican, Catholic and whatever the congregationalists call themselves these days - unionists?
 Signature Rob Bannister
tinwhistler - 23 Feb 2007 16:29 GMT [snip]
> There was an article on BBC Radio 4 "Women's Hour" today about retreats. > Somebody who runs one was interviewed about what sort of person goes on > a retreat and why. It seems that folk want to get away from the world > to have time to try to make sense of the world and seek answers to all > those big questions. [snip]
Big questions, like "should I be a homosexual?" See a recent news article:
http://tinyurl.com/ytokdh
"...[Anthony] Venn-Brown was born in Sydney in 1951..... it was a friendship with another boy at the age of 15 that would open him to his first experience. The confusion that followed led to his first attempt to come out as a 17 year old. The family reaction was predictable. Soon afterwards he was packed off to a "retreat" in Cronulla to be "cured" of his homosexuality..."
Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
Arcadian Rises - 24 Feb 2007 05:32 GMT On Feb 22, 7:14�am, alr7al...@gmail.com wrote:
> Happiness is a common goal that everyone strives to attain. > Philosophers, intellectuals, doctors and artists alike have all > strived in search of the causes of happiness and ways to escape > anxiety. Not really.
Epicurians, hedonists and the like make hapiness their (only) priority, but many other philosophers, doctors, etc recommend abstinence, frugality, even suffering to build up character, apud Nietzsche
[...]
> Why Islam? You seem like an erudite, wise person, so I beg you to pardon my for ignorance when I ask a simple question. It's already common knowledge that Islam promises heroic men 70 virgins in the Sky when they die. What about heroic, Allah-worshiping women, what is their reward in the afterlife? Seventy virgin men of suitable age, or af any age, don't seem like a reward; to a healthy, normal woman even seven virgin men is too much of a boring thing.
> read more I think it's enough for today.
|
|
|