Calendars - sort of OT
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Cheryl - 05 Jan 2010 19:50 GMT I hadn't realized quite how much of my reading ability isn't so much in interpreting printed words as in interpreting patterns.
I usually get a large wall calendar every year from a friend in Australia, and every year I put it up in my office. This year, I rapidly discovered Something was Wrong, so I examined the calendar more closely.
I knew that it is possible to get calendars that vary from Sunday to Saturday across the top, but hadn't happened to use them. And if anyone had asked me how I use a calendar, I would have said I read what is on it. This one, however, goes from Monday-Sunday, and I quickly realized that I was not actually reading 'Wednesday', looking a row down, and reading '6'. I was picking out the number in the centre of the first row, reading that, and concluding 'Wednesday is the 7th'.
I would never have thought such a minor change would confuse my reading skills to that extent!
 Signature Cheryl
Mike Barnes - 06 Jan 2010 09:52 GMT Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>:
>I knew that it is possible to get calendars that vary from Sunday to >Saturday across the top, but hadn't happened to use them. Most calendars in North America are like that, aren't they?
Oops! Scrub that comment. On a tenth reading I see what you meant. Vary as in "don't go", not vary as in "go".
>And if anyone had asked me how I use a calendar, I would have said I >read what is on it. This one, however, goes from Monday-Sunday, >and I quickly realized that I was not actually reading 'Wednesday', >looking a row down, and reading '6'. I was picking out the number in >the centre of the first row, reading that, and concluding 'Wednesday is >the 7th'. You obviously have a strong sense of place, as I do. I would never buy a calendar where weeks apparently started on Sunday. Also, somewhat irrelevantly, I have a strong preference for days of the week down the side, not across the top.
 Signature Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
Cheryl - 06 Jan 2010 11:28 GMT > Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>: >> I knew that it is possible to get calendars that vary from Sunday to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > irrelevantly, I have a strong preference for days of the week down the > side, not across the top. I've never seen one with the days down the side. That would really confuse me!
Yes, I was confused above. Almost every calendar I have ever seen starts the week on a Sunday. I know others exist, because those versions are options sometimes when I use a template or some computer program to generate a calendar, but I've never used one.
Conventions (like which day comes first)are only helpful so long as they are observed!
 Signature Cheryl
Nick Spalding - 06 Jan 2010 11:39 GMT Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFkacU3@mid.individual.net> on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330:
> Yes, I was confused above. Almost every calendar I have ever seen starts > the week on a Sunday. I know others exist, because those versions are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Conventions (like which day comes first)are only helpful so long as they > are observed! The convention in the UK and Ireland is Monday first. Microsoft knows this. With my normal regional settings for Ireland the Windows calendar starts on Monday and the same if I set them to UK. If I change them to USA it starts on Sunday.
 Signature Nick Spalding BrE/IrE
Cheryl - 06 Jan 2010 11:56 GMT > Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFkacU3@mid.individual.net> > on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > starts on Monday and the same if I set them to UK. If I change them to > USA it starts on Sunday. It must be the convention in New Zealand as well, since that's where the calendar comes from.
I'm sure the ones from Australia I've had started on Sunday.
 Signature Cheryl
annily - 06 Jan 2010 22:45 GMT >> Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFkacU3@mid.individual.net> >> on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I'm sure the ones from Australia I've had started on Sunday. Yes, most Australian calendars I have seen start on Sunday.
 Signature Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
Robert Bannister - 07 Jan 2010 01:18 GMT >>> Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFkacU3@mid.individual.net> >>> on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Yes, most Australian calendars I have seen start on Sunday. That's because you're not looking at the Monday start ones. They're definitely around.
 Signature Rob Bannister
annily - 07 Jan 2010 06:03 GMT >>>> Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFkacU3@mid.individual.net> >>>> on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > That's because you're not looking at the Monday start ones. They're > definitely around. Well, I don't actually look at calendars that much, but perhaps the Monday start ones are a newer invention here in Australia. I still suspect they'd be in the minority though.
 Signature Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
Nick Spalding - 07 Jan 2010 11:36 GMT Robert Bannister wrote, in <7qkr3jFpc8U9@mid.individual.net> on Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:18:43 +0800:
> >>> Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFkacU3@mid.individual.net> > >>> on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > That's because you're not looking at the Monday start ones. They're > definitely around. Windows thinks it should be Monday.
 Signature Nick Spalding BrE/IrE
Robert Bannister - 07 Jan 2010 01:17 GMT >> Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFkacU3@mid.individual.net> >> on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I'm sure the ones from Australia I've had started on Sunday. Last year I had both. (This year, I was only given one calendar, so I had buy one - I think they're both Sunday starters, but there's no reason to expect that).
 Signature Rob Bannister
Apteryx - 09 Jan 2010 21:39 GMT >> Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFkacU3@mid.individual.net> >> on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > It must be the convention in New Zealand as well, since that's where the > calendar comes from. I don't think there is a fixed convention in New Zealand. I keep old calendars (to reuse when January 1 falls on the same day of the week) so I have a collection currently of 12 going back to 1989 and extending to this year (the other one I am using this year is from 1993). They all start the week on Sunday, except for one of two I have for 2003, which starts on Monday.
But on checking Windows Calendar, I found the calendar running from Monday to Sunday. I changed it to be consistent with (most) of my paper calendars.
I must admit I hadn't noticed the difference before.
Apteryx
Yusuf B Gursey - 07 Jan 2010 03:46 GMT > Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFka...@mid.individual.net> > on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > starts on Monday and the same if I set them to UK. If I change them to > USA it starts on Sunday. the week starting on Sunday is older, Hebrew yom ri:*sh*on (from the word "head", i.e. beginning), yawmu~l'aHad in arabic ("first day").
> -- > Nick Spalding > BrE/IrE Yusuf B Gursey - 08 Jan 2010 11:55 GMT > > Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFka...@mid.individual.net> > > on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the week starting on Sunday is older, Hebrew yom ri:*sh*on (from the > word "head", i.e. beginning), yawmu~l'aHad in arabic ("first day"). the concept of the week came from the Middle East, but before Constantine.
> > -- > > Nick Spalding > > BrE/IrE Mike Barnes - 06 Jan 2010 12:00 GMT Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>:
>> Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>: >>> I knew that it is possible to get calendars that vary from Sunday to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >I've never seen one with the days down the side. http://www.ataglance.uk.com/ataglance_website/images/90M-600.jpg
>That would really confuse me! I imagine it would, but I like to cut off past weeks so that I can see at least three weeks ahead. That's not possible with the traditional design.
>Yes, I was confused above. Almost every calendar I have ever seen >starts the week on a Sunday. I think that's the North American tradition. In the UK, the weeks starts on Monday and calendars generally reflect this. Of course there are exceptions, usually designed for other markets and thoughtlessly imported.
 Signature Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
Bertel Lund Hansen - 06 Jan 2010 14:50 GMT Mike Barnes skrev:
> I think that's the North American tradition. In the UK, the weeks starts > on Monday and calendars generally reflect this. Of course there are > exceptions, usually designed for other markets and thoughtlessly > imported. Danish calenders start on Monday. That may be because somebody takes "weekend" literally.
 Signature Bertel, Denmark
James Hogg - 06 Jan 2010 14:59 GMT > Mike Barnes skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Danish calenders start on Monday. That may be because somebody takes > "weekend" literally. It's also sensible to have Saturday and Sunday side by side, not only in real life but also on the calendar.
 Signature James
Peter Moylan - 08 Jan 2010 13:16 GMT >> Mike Barnes skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It's also sensible to have Saturday and Sunday side by side, not only in > real life but also on the calendar. I've just checked my (only) Australian calendar. It starts on a Sunday.
I assume that everyone has seen the calendar that starts with "Mirday". That's the day at the end of the month, and before the start of the new month, where miracles assure that accounts will be balanced and the the new month will start with a clean slate.
 Signature Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
R H Draney - 06 Jan 2010 18:34 GMT Bertel Lund Hansen filted:
>Mike Barnes skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Danish calenders start on Monday. That may be because somebody >takes "weekend" literally. American calendars start on Sunday because somebody takes "weekend" literally...like a piece of rope, a week has two ends, one at the start and the other at the finish....r
 Signature A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this?
Mike Barnes - 06 Jan 2010 20:17 GMT R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>:
>American calendars start on Sunday because somebody takes "weekend" >literally...like a piece of rope, a week has two ends, one at the start and the >other at the finish....r That would make it "weekends". Which it isn't.
British calendars start on Monday so that the weekend is at the end of the week. Our brains are too small to cope with anything more complicated than that.
 Signature Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
Steve Hayes - 07 Jan 2010 05:33 GMT >British calendars start on Monday so that the weekend is at the end of >the week. Our brains are too small to cope with anything more >complicated than that. When did they start doing that?
 Signature Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Mike Barnes - 07 Jan 2010 08:27 GMT Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net>:
>>British calendars start on Monday so that the weekend is at the end of >>the week. Our brains are too small to cope with anything more >>complicated than that. > >When did they start doing that? I've no idea. I don't remember things being any different.
 Signature Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
Steve Hayes - 07 Jan 2010 20:34 GMT >Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net>: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I've no idea. I don't remember things being any different. I first enountered the Monday start to diaries etc among the Dutch in the 1960s. In both Britian and South Africa they started with Sunday. Now it's impossible to get one that starts with Sunday, but some computer versions let you choose.
 Signature Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Bertel Lund Hansen - 08 Jan 2010 06:13 GMT Steve Hayes skrev:
> I first enountered the Monday start to diaries etc among the Dutch in the > 1960s. In both Britian and South Africa they started with Sunday. Now it's > impossible to get one that starts with Sunday, but some computer versions let > you choose. My Sony-Ericsson cell phone (a few years old) lets me choose to start the calender with Sunday or Monday.
 Signature Bertel, Denmark
Steve Hayes - 08 Jan 2010 06:52 GMT >Steve Hayes skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >My Sony-Ericsson cell phone (a few years old) lets me choose to >start the calender with Sunday or Monday. And so does Google calendar and similar kinds of calendar software.
My problem is with printed diaries.
Some of them do not print the date very clearly, and as I get older I can't see as well. As others have mentioned there, one remembers numbers as a series of fingerstrokes. So I don't go off to fetch my reading glasses to disarm the burglar alarm. I just press the keys from knowing their positions.
So with diaries -- I note an appointment by the space on the page. And on a few occasions I've turned up a day early, because the stupid diary publishers began the week on Monday instead of Sunday.
I had the same problem when I used MS Outlook, where the days and dates are hard to see. And though I had set it to begin the week with Sunday, it didn't seem to work, and so I entered appointments in the wrong space. I stopped using MS Outlook for that reason.
 Signature Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Mike Barnes - 08 Jan 2010 07:18 GMT Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net>:
>So with diaries -- I note an appointment by the space on the page. And on a >few occasions I've turned up a day early, because the stupid diary publishers >began the week on Monday instead of Sunday. There's nothing stupid about publishing that sort of diary. The stupid thing is selling it where it conflicts with local custom.
 Signature Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
Bertel Lund Hansen - 06 Jan 2010 23:12 GMT R H Draney skrev:
> American calendars start on Sunday because somebody takes "weekend" > literally...like a piece of rope, a week has two ends, one at the start and the > other at the finish....r A piece of rope can be turned either way.
 Signature Bertel, Denmark
R H Draney - 07 Jan 2010 06:24 GMT Bertel Lund Hansen filted:
>R H Draney skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >A piece of rope can be turned either way. ObTopology: but that doesn't change the number of ends....r
 Signature A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this?
Bertel Lund Hansen - 07 Jan 2010 09:16 GMT R H Draney skrev:
> >A piece of rope can be turned either way.
> ObTopology: but that doesn't change the number of ends....r No, but it explains why you can't designate one of them as the start.
Alas, the week can be 'turned around', which ruins my argument.
 Signature Bertel, Denmark
John Varela - 06 Jan 2010 20:18 GMT > Mike Barnes skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Danish calenders start on Monday. That may be because somebody > takes "weekend" literally. I've always assumed it has to do with differing opinion as to which is the seventh day, the Sabbath.
 Signature John Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Evan Kirshenbaum - 06 Jan 2010 22:51 GMT >> Mike Barnes skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I've always assumed it has to do with differing opinion as to which > is the seventh day, the Sabbath. So the North Americans go with the older Jewish sabbath and the Europeans with the Christian one that replaced it?
I'm curious, though, do Christians (Seventh-Day Adventists excepted) really think of Sunday as the sabbath described in the Genesis story? That would be hard to reconcile with the gospels, which had Jesus crucified on Friday because it had to be finished before the sabbath and the women finding him missing on Sunday morning, after the sabbath was over.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Other computer companies have spent 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |15 years working on fault-tolerant Palo Alto, CA 94304 |computers. Microsoft has spent |its time more fruitfully, working kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |on fault-tolerant *users*. (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
franzi - 06 Jan 2010 23:24 GMT > >> Mike Barnes skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'm curious, though, do Christians (Seventh-Day Adventists excepted) > really think of Sunday as the sabbath described in the Genesis story? British Christians do, no doubt with some hidden dissenters. Sunday is the Sabbath in this country at the Protestant end of the Christian scale especially, and at the northwestern end of the Protestant scale especially.
The Scotsman reported on Hebridean Sabbath-breaking six months ago: <http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Breakdown-of-Sabbath-ferry-is. 5471947.jp>
> That would be hard to reconcile with the gospels, which had Jesus > crucified on Friday because it had to be finished before the sabbath > and the women finding him missing on Sunday morning, after the sabbath > was over. That would be the Jewish sabbath, a different thing altogether.
Here's another straw in the British Christian Sabbath wind:
Monday's child is fair of face, Tuesday's child is full of grace. Wednesday's child is full of woe, Thursday's child has far to go. Friday's child is loving and giving, Saturday's child works hard for his living. But the child that is born on the Sabbath day Is bonny and blithe, and good and gay.
The seventh day on which God rested was Sunday, of course. Why else should Sunday be the day of rest?
Irony alert, for those that need it.
But now I too am curious. Given that no-one was counting the days accurately from the creation, who is to say with any authority which named day of the hebdomadal cycle should be nominated to commemorate God's successful week's work? -- franzi
Evan Kirshenbaum - 06 Jan 2010 23:48 GMT >> >> Mike Barnes skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Christian scale especially, and at the northwestern end of the > Protestant scale especially. I have no doubt that they consider it the sabbath. What I find harder to believe is that they also consider it the "seventh day", since their very own book calls it the "first day".
>> That would be hard to reconcile with the gospels, which had Jesus >> crucified on Friday because it had to be finished before the sabbath >> and the women finding him missing on Sunday morning, after the sabbath >> was over. >> > That would be the Jewish sabbath, a different thing altogether. Right, but that's the "seventh day" sabbath. I had thought that the popular notion was that the "Christian sabbath" was thought of as a new thing, commemorating Jesus, and *not* the "and on the seventh day God rested" sabbath of the creation story.
> Here's another straw in the British Christian Sabbath wind: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The seventh day on which God rested was Sunday, of course. Why else > should Sunday be the day of rest? Spanish speakers also rest on Sunday, but their word for Saturday is "sábado". Interestingly, the DRAE defines this as
Sexto día de la semana, séptimo de la semana litúrgica.
Sixth day of the week, seventh of the liturgical week.
Their word for Sunday is "domingo", "the Lord's [day]"
> Irony alert, for those that need it. > > But now I too am curious. Given that no-one was counting the days > accurately from the creation, who is to say with any authority which > named day of the hebdomadal cycle should be nominated to commemorate > God's successful week's work? Why, God, of course. No manna on Saturday; a double portion on Friday to tide you over. It's the kind of thing you notice, especially when it appears right around the injunction to remember the sabbath.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |People think it must be fun to be a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |super genius, but they don't Palo Alto, CA 94304 |realize how hard it is to put up |with all the idiots in the world. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Calvin (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Yusuf B Gursey - 07 Jan 2010 03:50 GMT > >> >> Mike Barnes skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > new thing, commemorating Jesus, and *not* the "and on the seventh day > God rested" sabbath of the creation story. that's what I know, unless it is another contamination of the Roman Sun (Sol Invictus) cult in Christainity.
> > Here's another straw in the British Christian Sabbath wind: > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > -- > Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ Robert Bannister - 07 Jan 2010 01:22 GMT >>>> Mike Barnes skrev: >>>>> I think that's the North American tradition. In the UK, the weeks [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > -- > franzi Moreover, why did He start on the moon's day before He had even created the moon?
 Signature Rob Bannister
Bertel Lund Hansen - 07 Jan 2010 09:18 GMT Robert Bannister skrev:
> Moreover, why did He start on the moon's day before He had even created > the moon? I suppose he couldn't even start on the first day? Were numbers invented? Had ordinal numbers evolved?
 Signature Bertel, Denmark
Robert Bannister - 08 Jan 2010 01:27 GMT > Robert Bannister skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I suppose he couldn't even start on the first day? Were numbers > invented? Had ordinal numbers evolved? I'm beginning to think the whole thing was a bit like the moon landing - a conspiracy faked in a Hollywood studio.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 08 Jan 2010 10:58 GMT >> Robert Bannister skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I'm beginning to think the whole thing was a bit like the moon landing - >a conspiracy faked in a Hollywood studio. NASA had to choose Hollywood. Bollywood's bid was cheaper but the NASA executives could not get their heads round the idea of lines of singing dancers appearing behind Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon's surface.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Robert Bannister - 09 Jan 2010 00:02 GMT >>> Robert Bannister skrev: >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > executives could not get their heads round the idea of lines of singing > dancers appearing behind Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon's surface. That would have made a much better picture.
 Signature Rob Bannister
James Hogg - 09 Jan 2010 09:28 GMT >>>> Robert Bannister skrev: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > That would have made a much better picture. One small step for a man, one giant song-and-dance number for mankind."
 Signature James
Chuck Riggs - 07 Jan 2010 14:23 GMT >>>>> Mike Barnes skrev: >>>>>> I think that's the North American tradition. In the UK, the weeks [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >Moreover, why did He start on the moon's day before He had even created >the moon? Everyone knows that God's favourite language is Latin, not English.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Skitt - 07 Jan 2010 19:21 GMT > Everyone knows that God's favourite language is Latin, not English. Well, he had to learn it, because the Catholics were going to use it in their services.
 Signature Skitt (AmE)
Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 13:35 GMT >> Everyone knows that God's favourite language is Latin, not English. > >Well, he had to learn it, because the Catholics were going to use it in >their services. The Big Guy knew what He was doing.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Cheryl - 07 Jan 2010 12:29 GMT >>>> Mike Barnes skrev: >>>>> I think that's the North American tradition. In the UK, the weeks [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > <http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Breakdown-of-Sabbath-ferry-is. > 5471947.jp> I've always thought of that use of 'Sabbath' as being merely a fancy word for 'Sunday', not of a continuation of the Jewish idea of Sabbath. But ideas vary.
>> That would be hard to reconcile with the gospels, which had Jesus >> crucified on Friday because it had to be finished before the sabbath [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > -- > franzi I don't think it was such a big issue in the past, before everyone had calendars on their walls and thought that there was was something unchangeable about their way of calculating dates. Someone picked a day to commemorate the day of rest, and eventually everyone nearby found it convenient to do the same thing on the same day. Later, people who didn't know much about the situation took the choice as literal truth, something like the date of Christmas.
I don't know why this is so hard for people. We pick convenient days to commemorate everything from Labor to Secretaries.
 Signature Cheryl
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 07 Jan 2010 13:16 GMT >>>>> Mike Barnes skrev: >>>>>> I think that's the North American tradition. In the UK, the weeks [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >word for 'Sunday', not of a continuation of the Jewish idea of Sabbath. >But ideas vary. I understood it to be the use of Sabbath to mean a day devoted to worship rather than work.
Where I live, Northern Ireland, most protestant churches run Sunday Schools, on Sundays. A few small and purist denominations run Sabbath Schools, on the Sabbath (Sunday to the rest of us). They reject the use of a day name that originated with Sun-worship.
>>> That would be hard to reconcile with the gospels, which had Jesus >>> crucified on Friday because it had to be finished before the sabbath >>> and the women finding him missing on Sunday morning, after the sabbath >>> was over. >>> >> That would be the Jewish sabbath, a different thing altogether. There is a very long article here: http://www.biblehistory.com/The%20Origin%20of%20Sunday%20Worship.html
It appears from what the writer says that Christians in the Roman sphere of influence observed their Sabbath on Saturday. But on March 7, 321 the emperor Constantine the Great issued a law:
"On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost." This was the first in a series of steps taken by Constantine and by later "Christian emperors" in regulating Sunday observance. It is obvious that this first Sunday law was not particularly Christian in orientation (note the pagan designation "venerable Day of the Sun"); but very likely Constantine, on political and social grounds, endeavored to merge together heathen and Christian elements of his constituency by focusing on a common practice. In A.D. 386, Theodosius I and Gratian Valentinian extended Sunday restrictions so that litigation should entirely cease on that day and there would be no public or private payment of debt. Laws forbidding circus, theater, and horse racing also followed and were reiterated as felt necessary.
The article goes on to describe how Christians adapted, over time, by moving their sabbath observances from Saturday to Sunday.
The concept of the "Christian Sabbath" has been around for a very long time even if the use the phrase is now limited.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Evan Kirshenbaum - 07 Jan 2010 16:40 GMT > I understood it to be the use of Sabbath to mean a day devoted to > worship rather than work. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sabbath Schools, on the Sabbath (Sunday to the rest of us). They > reject the use of a day name that originated with Sun-worship. Interestingly, Jewish congregations I'm familiar with have their religious schools on Sundays, as well, since it wouldn't be reasonable to make the teachers work on the sabbath.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Voting in the House of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Representatives is done by means of a Palo Alto, CA 94304 |little plastic card with a magnetic |strip on the back--like a VISA card, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |but with no, that is, absolutely (650)857-7572 |*no*, spending limit. | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Mike Barnes - 07 Jan 2010 14:45 GMT Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>:
>I don't think it was such a big issue in the past, before everyone had >calendars on their walls and thought that there was was something [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I don't know why this is so hard for people. We pick convenient days to >commemorate everything from Labor to Secretaries. Quite so. Also different cultures settle on different days, and there's nothing remarkable about that either.
 Signature Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
Robert Bannister - 08 Jan 2010 01:28 GMT >>>>> Mike Barnes skrev: >>>>>> I think that's the North American tradition. In the UK, the weeks [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > I don't know why this is so hard for people. We pick convenient days to > commemorate everything from Labor to Secretaries. And then we make sure all the shops and restaurants are open, so that only the chosen few get a rest.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Cheryl - 07 Jan 2010 12:21 GMT >>> Mike Barnes skrev: >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and the women finding him missing on Sunday morning, after the sabbath > was over. No, at least I don't. Sunday is a celebration of the Resurrection, not a continuation of the Jewish Sabbath.
Of course, in a movement spanning a couple thousand years and quite a few cultures, you do get some differences of opinion, and as you point out, the SDA would disagree with me. I think there's one or two other small Christian groups that observe Saturday as the Sabbath, too.
Now I've been thinking about it a bit, I wonder if it has something to do with Sunday being the first day of the week, while Monday is only the first day of the work week? The idea of a week-end, whether at one end or both, must surely be fairly recent historically.
 Signature Cheryl
James Hogg - 07 Jan 2010 12:33 GMT >>>> Mike Barnes skrev: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > only the first day of the work week? The idea of a week-end, whether > at one end or both, must surely be fairly recent historically. I was surprised that the earliest example in the OED is as old as it is, from 1638: "The greatest weight of the said exaction will fall upon very poor people..who making every week a coarse kersey and being compelled to sell the same at the week end..are nevertheless constrained to yield one half penny apiece."
Perhaps a good indication of the relative recency of the concept is that the English word "weekend" has been borrowed into other languages, such as French and Danish.
 Signature James
Mike Lyle - 08 Jan 2010 20:23 GMT [...]
> I was surprised that the earliest example [of "week end"] in the OED > is as old as it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sell the same at the week end..are nevertheless constrained to yield > one half penny apiece." But isn't that simply "the week's end", not what we'd call "the weekend"?
> Perhaps a good indication of the relative recency of the concept is > that the English word "weekend" has been borrowed into other > languages, such as French and Danish. That's convincing. After all, the "first" day would just have been called "Sunday", "the Lord's Day", or whatever. A whole new word wasn't needed until working people started getting Saturday off.
(I've been told that in Mandate times, schools in Palestine ran only a four-day week.)
 Signature Mike.
Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 13:52 GMT <snip>
>Sunday is a celebration of the Resurrection, not a >continuation of the Jewish Sabbath. The Episcopalian sermons and Sunday school sessions I attended fifty years ago taught me that church services are held on Sunday to coincide with the metaphorical day of the week God rested, after creating the universe.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Cheryl - 08 Jan 2010 14:22 GMT > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > coincide with the metaphorical day of the week God rested, after > creating the universe. I was raised in a different branch - C of E, or Anglican Church of Canada as it is now, and although it was a day of rest, because we're supposed to rest once every seven days, but I never got the idea that it coincided with the original seventh day. I got the other explanation, involving the resurrection.
Then again, Anglicans in my experience (and probably Episcopalians as well) can and do disagree among themselves on a wide range of topics.
I even knew of one - a convert, yet, who I'd have thought would have made a study of the subject when converting - who tried to tell me that Episcopalians/Anglicans were Roman Catholic. Not 'catholic' in the broader sense, not 'Catholic' or 'Anglo-Catholic' in the 'we got it right when the Roman Catholics and Protestants didn't' sense, but actually Roman Catholic.
 Signature Cheryl
CDB - 08 Jan 2010 17:10 GMT [and on the weekend he rested]
> I even knew of one - a convert, yet, who I'd have thought would have > made a study of the subject when converting - who tried to tell me > that Episcopalians/Anglicans were Roman Catholic. Not 'catholic' in > the broader sense, not 'Catholic' or 'Anglo-Catholic' in the 'we > got it right when the Roman Catholics and Protestants didn't' > sense, but actually Roman Catholic. And now they can be, if we are to credit recent overtures from the Ratican.
Cheryl - 08 Jan 2010 17:25 GMT > [and on the weekend he rested] >> I even knew of one - a convert, yet, who I'd have thought would have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And now they can be, if we are to credit recent overtures from the > Ratican. Well, the lack of a formal invitation never stopped Anglicans from converting in the past, or for that matter, Roman Catholics converting in the other direction.
I can see that if they (the Vatican) expect a lot of converts, they'll be making plans and accommodations as announced. It's not unprecedented, I believe - aren't there Greek Catholics? (Not Greek Orthodox, Catholics looking to Rome).
I suspect, as a matter of terminology, once an Anglican converts, he or she is no longer an Anglican (or Episcopalian).
 Signature Cheryl
CDB - 08 Jan 2010 22:12 GMT >> [and on the weekend he rested] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > converting in the past, or for that matter, Roman Catholics > converting in the other direction. Was he simply inviting converts? I had assumed it was something a little more generous, but didn't pay much attention (I'd have to become a Christian to make the offer remotely relevant, and if I belonged to a church it would be the Unitarian).
> I can see that if they (the Vatican) expect a lot of converts, > they'll be making plans and accommodations as announced. It's not > unprecedented, I believe - aren't there Greek Catholics? (Not Greek > Orthodox, Catholics looking to Rome). Heard of them.
> I suspect, as a matter of terminology, once an Anglican converts, > he or she is no longer an Anglican (or Episcopalian). . Perhaps. I confess that the organisational aspect of religion has never appealed to me, on the grounds that the resulting chance of real-world power inevitably attracts the wrong sort of people into the organisation. They made the trains run on time, though, give them that.
Cheryl - 09 Jan 2010 12:43 GMT >>> [and on the weekend he rested] >>>> I even knew of one - a convert, yet, who I'd have thought would [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > become a Christian to make the offer remotely relevant, and if I > belonged to a church it would be the Unitarian). Yes, as I mentioned below, he was offering accommodation for various bits of the Anglican traditions; not an unprecedented situation. At least, that's my understanding of it.
Once I figured out that the Unitarians were not the same as the United Church of Canada, I didn't really understand them at all. I don't really see the point of a religion in which a belief in God appears to be optional. I must be missing something; lots of people don't seem to have that problem with being Unitarian.
>> I can see that if they (the Vatican) expect a lot of converts, >> they'll be making plans and accommodations as announced. It's not [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > organisation. They made the trains run on time, though, give them > that. Real-world power is certainly a challenge to Christians (or anyone else, for that matter). My interests tend to be quite broad, and religion, being a very broad and ancient phenomena, is one of them.
Administrative trivia, on the other hand, doesn't interest me so much, but an interestingly unusual offer from the RCs to the Anglicans does pique my interest.
 Signature Cheryl
CDB - 09 Jan 2010 17:35 GMT [suffer the little heretics]
>> Was he simply inviting converts? I had assumed it was something a >> little more generous, but didn't pay much attention (I'd have to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > appears to be optional. I must be missing something; lots of people > don't seem to have that problem with being Unitarian. . I know about the denomination only from the accounts of Unitarian friends. They say that they have a "Christian caucus", but I had gathered they all believe in God in some form, as do I (FSVO "form"). Perhaps they include atheists or agnostics who share their humanitarian principles and goals. I'll ask if I get a chance to.
[...]
tony cooper - 09 Jan 2010 18:38 GMT >[suffer the little heretics] >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Perhaps they include atheists or agnostics who share their >humanitarian principles and goals. I'll ask if I get a chance to. I should know, because I've attended many Unitarian church services, but I don't. My mother sang in a Unitarian church choir for several years. I have a vague recollection of a Unitarian belief that there is a God, but He is in your mind and not up in the clouds.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Skitt - 09 Jan 2010 19:14 GMT >>>> Was he simply inviting converts? I had assumed it was something a >>>> little more generous, but didn't pay much attention (I'd have to [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > years. I have a vague recollection of a Unitarian belief that there > is a God, but He is in your mind and not up in the clouds. There are several kinds of churches with the word "Unitarian" in their designation, and some of them have members with various beliefs regarding deities, Christianism, and such.
My non-believer mother, near the end of her life, joined some sort of Unitarian church, but I never talked to her about that. It may have been a Unitarian Universalism church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
 Signature Skitt (Follower of the FOTIPU) "The Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them." -- Steve Eley
CDB - 10 Jan 2010 18:30 GMT >>>>> Was he simply inviting converts? I had assumed it was >>>>> something a little more generous, but didn't pay much attention [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism Yes, I should have said "Unitarian Universalist"; that's what my friends are. The article seems to clear up the question of doctrine. You might infer that people interested in spiritual growth must believe in the spirit, and therefore in God (in some form), but I suppose some of them would say that's not how they define the word "spirit".
Mike Lyle - 10 Jan 2010 22:27 GMT [...]
>>>>> Once I figured out that the Unitarians were not the same as the >>>>> United Church of Canada, I didn't really understand them at all. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > suppose some of them would say that's not how they define the word > "spirit". You can be a Quaker (of the basic British kind: some American Friends' Meetings are different) of any known religion or near-religion, though there are those who are very uncomfortable indeed with the idea of straying too far from the Christian heritage. I get the impression that quite a few people (not just Quakers) perform impressive mental acrobatics to avoid admitting to themselves that actually they're atheists.
 Signature Mike.
Chuck Riggs - 11 Jan 2010 11:52 GMT >[...] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >acrobatics to avoid admitting to themselves that actually they're >atheists. The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim agnosticism.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Cheryl - 11 Jan 2010 12:15 GMT >> You can be a Quaker (of the basic British kind: some American Friends' >> Meetings are different) of any known religion or near-religion, though [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim agnosticism. I don't see why agnosticism is a cop-out; it seems perfectly valid to me to believe it is impossible to attain certainty on a number of issues, including that of the existence of God, and of course, presumably the agnostic group would also include those who think it is possible to be certain one way or another, even though they personally aren't, at least at this time.
I'm not sure of the mental acrobatics to avoid admitting atheism. Lots of people go through mental acrobatics trying to understand the nature of God, but deciding that God doesn't exist is far simpler. Lots of people do it; in many circles it's the default position; no thought, much less mental acrobatics, required.
 Signature Cheryl
HVS - 11 Jan 2010 14:40 GMT On 11 Jan 2010, Cheryl wrote
>> The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim >> agnosticism. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > who think it is possible to be certain one way or another, even > though they personally aren't, at least at this time. I agree, particularly with the first of those groups.
I fail to see any cop-out in concluding that if a question is inherently unanswerable, there is no point in asking it; on the contrary, it seems an entirely reasoned and rational response to such questions.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Peter Moylan - 11 Jan 2010 13:38 GMT > The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim agnosticism. Just recently, in the context of internet dating, someone wrote to me "I know that you're an agnostic". Well, wrong. I had clearly indicated on that dating site that I was an atheist. It seems, though, that some people consider "atheist" to be too strong a word, and use "agnostic" to indicate a half-hearted atheist.
There is a strong existing tradition that agnostics are atheists who don't have the strength of their convictions. The agnostics deny that, as indeed they should. Still, it seems that there are a great many people who consider "religious" to be the respectable position, "agnostic" to be the domain of the intellectuals, and "atheist" as indicating some sort of pact with the devil.
In a recent Australian poll, it was reported that 68% of respondents believed in some sort of god. That didn't surprise me. What did surprise, and frighten, me, was the fact that 25% of respondents believed in the literal truth of the Christian Bible. That's scary. That 25% matched the 25% who identified themselves as atheists.
 Signature Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 11 Jan 2010 15:43 GMT >> The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim agnosticism. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > though, that some people consider "atheist" to be too strong a word, > and use "agnostic" to indicate a half-hearted atheist. Which is more than a bit strange, considering the origin, as a true agnostic, having decided that it was impossible to know from evidence whether or not there were gods, might well choose that the correct course is to believe "on faith" anyway and so might be a stronger believer than one who isn't sure.
> There is a strong existing tradition that agnostics are atheists who > don't have the strength of their convictions. The agnostics deny > that, as indeed they should. Still, it seems that there are a great > many people who consider "religious" to be the respectable position, > "agnostic" to be the domain of the intellectuals, and "atheist" as > indicating some sort of pact with the devil. Which brings up its own interesting images.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Those who study history are doomed 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to watch others repeat it. Palo Alto, CA 94304
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
CDB - 11 Jan 2010 17:12 GMT >> The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim agnosticism. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "agnostic" to be the domain of the intellectuals, and "atheist" as > indicating some sort of pact with the devil. My mother claimed to be an agnostic but, as far as I could tell, was an atheist; my father claimed to be an atheist but was an agnostic. They were unwavering in their respective positions all the way into the foxhole. No whimpering palinodes under pressure.
> In a recent Australian poll, it was reported that 68% of respondents > believed in some sort of god. That didn't surprise me. What did > surprise, and frighten, me, was the fact that 25% of respondents > believed in the literal truth of the Christian Bible. That's scary. > That 25% matched the 25% who identified themselves as atheists. Very useful, those idiots. We really need two words for "agnostic": one for those who can't decide if God exists, and one for those, like me, who think God exists but is unknowable.
Mike Barnes - 11 Jan 2010 17:31 GMT CDB <bellemarec@sympatico.ca>:
>We really need two words for "agnostic": >one for those who can't decide if God exists, and one for those, like >me, who think God exists but is unknowable. Better, in my view, is to avoid the word altogether. If I want to know what someone believes, I ask them what they believe, not what they "are". If they tell me what they "are" (agnostic, atheist, Christian, etc) I use that as a prompt for questions about their beliefs and practices.
 Signature Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
Nick - 11 Jan 2010 18:19 GMT > CDB <bellemarec@sympatico.ca>: >>We really need two words for "agnostic": [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > etc) I use that as a prompt for questions about their beliefs and > practices. Is "I don't" an acceptable response? There seems to be a gap in the thinking of a significant number of religious people who cannot see that to many people the situation isn't one of "believing there isn't a God".
 Signature Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Mike Barnes - 11 Jan 2010 19:07 GMT Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk>:
>> CDB <bellemarec@sympatico.ca>: >>>We really need two words for "agnostic": [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Is "I don't" an acceptable response? Yes, but not one I'd give myself. I believe in (as in, I base my behaviour on) rational thought.
 Signature Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2010 14:18 GMT >Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk>: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Yes, but not one I'd give myself. I believe in (as in, I base my >behaviour on) rational thought. That, plus I believe in logic, the Scientific Method and the evidence at hand. Ergo, the odds against there being a supreme being that created the universe appear, to me, to be astronomical.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Garrett Wollman - 11 Jan 2010 19:11 GMT >> Better, in my view, is to avoid the word altogether. If I want to know >> what someone believes, I ask them what they believe, not what they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Is "I don't" an acceptable response? No, that would actually be a cop-out. There is no person alive who entirely lacks philosophical commitments. The most common sort of atheist in the U.S. (and probably the UK too) are Western Humanistic Materialists, but that's not the only kind. (Some Buddhists, for example.)
-GAWollman
 Signature Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
the Omrud - 11 Jan 2010 19:14 GMT >>> Better, in my view, is to avoid the word altogether. If I want to know >>> what someone believes, I ask them what they believe, not what they [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Materialists, but that's not the only kind. (Some Buddhists, for > example.) I don't follow that at all. I have philosophical committments, rules by which I live, codes which inform my interactions with the world around me, but I don't "believe".
It's my view that life is an accident of chemistry.
 Signature David
Garrett Wollman - 11 Jan 2010 19:24 GMT >I don't follow that at all. I have philosophical committments, rules by >which I live, codes which inform my interactions with the world around >me, but I don't "believe". > >It's my view that life is an accident of chemistry. You contradict yourself. (I suppose, then, that you must therefore contain multitudes.)
-GAWollman
 Signature Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Steve Hayes - 11 Jan 2010 22:13 GMT >> No, that would actually be a cop-out. There is no person alive who >> entirely lacks philosophical commitments. The most common sort of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >It's my view that life is an accident of chemistry. So you believe that your philosophical commitments (and presumably those of everyone else) are accidents of chemistry?
Or is it your view that "It's my view" and "I believe" mean totally different things?
 Signature Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Robert Bannister - 12 Jan 2010 00:44 GMT >>> No, that would actually be a cop-out. There is no person alive who >>> entirely lacks philosophical commitments. The most common sort of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Or is it your view that "It's my view" and "I believe" mean totally different > things? I would defend "It's my view" as being less strong than "I believe", but the difference is not as great as that between "I believe" and "I believe in".
 Signature Rob Bannister
Steve Hayes - 12 Jan 2010 05:03 GMT >>>> No, that would actually be a cop-out. There is no person alive who >>>> entirely lacks philosophical commitments. The most common sort of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >the difference is not as great as that between "I believe" and "I >believe in". In my view "I believe", "I think" and "It is my view that" are near synonyms, all of which mean that one believes something to be the case, but doesn't have conclusive proof. For example, I believe that Tony Blair was a war criminal,. I think that Tony Blair was a war criminal, it is my view that Tony Blair was a war criminal. But until he appears as accused before a competent tribunal charged with war crimes and is found guilty as charged there isn't conclusive proof.
"I believe in" is somewhat different. It means more than simply believing something to be the case. It means putting one's trust in a person, group, or institution. So one could, conceivably, believe in Tony Blair as saviour, if one believed that he had saved the world from Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons. of mass destruction.
I use Tony Blair as an example here so that it can be discussed by atheists, agnostics and theists on an equal footing, without confusing the issue with other issues, such as the existence of God, so that we can discuss it as a question of English usage rather than one of philosophy, religion, worldview or metaphysics.
Of course it is quite possible for a solipsist not to believe in the existence of Tony Blair, but in that case all bets are off.
 Signature Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
R H Draney - 12 Jan 2010 06:09 GMT Steve Hayes filted:
>"I believe in" is somewhat different. It means more than simply believing >something to be the case. It means putting one's trust in a person, group, or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Of course it is quite possible for a solipsist not to believe in the existence >of Tony Blair, but in that case all bets are off. Hey, I can be just as solipsistic as the next guy!...r
 Signature A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this?
Jerry Friedman - 12 Jan 2010 06:29 GMT > Steve Hayes filted: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Hey, I can be just as solipsistic as the next guy!...r I'm an Aristotelian, but at the same time kind of not.
-- Jerry Friedman
the Omrud - 12 Jan 2010 09:10 GMT >>> No, that would actually be a cop-out. There is no person alive who >>> entirely lacks philosophical commitments. The most common sort of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Or is it your view that "It's my view" and "I believe" mean totally different > things? Yes. Different things.
 Signature David
annily - 12 Jan 2010 09:14 GMT >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:14:16 GMT, the >> Omrud<usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Yes. Different things. So it's your view that life is an accident of chemistry, but do you believe it?
 Signature Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
the Omrud - 12 Jan 2010 10:20 GMT >>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:14:16 GMT, the >>> Omrud<usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > So it's your view that life is an accident of chemistry, but do you > believe it? I don't know how to answer that. I don't really understand the question. In this form, "I believe" is not about real-world facts.
 Signature David
annily - 12 Jan 2010 11:38 GMT >>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:14:16 GMT, the >>>> Omrud<usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > I don't know how to answer that. I don't really understand the > question. In this form, "I believe" is not about real-world facts. Well, to me (and apparently to others here) "it's my view that life is an accident of chemistry", "I believe that life is an accident of chemistry", and "I think that life is an accident of chemistry", all mean the same thing. I guess I don't understand your different interpretation of "believe" in this context.
 Signature Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
LFS - 12 Jan 2010 11:59 GMT >>>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:14:16 GMT, the >>>>> Omrud<usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > mean the same thing. I guess I don't understand your different > interpretation of "believe" in this context. I think that David's interpretation of "belief" implies some act of faith that is possibly not supported by readily observable evidence.
I originally went on to discuss my own use of "I think" in that sentence but this seemed tangential so I checked the OED definition of belief which is interesting (I have only reproduced the first three definitions):
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The mental action, condition, or habit, of trusting to or confiding in a person or thing; trust, dependence, reliance, confidence, faith. Const. in (to, of obs.) a person. (Belief was the earlier word for what is now commonly called faith. The latter originally meant in Eng. (as in OFrench) ‘loyalty to a person to whom one is bound by promise or duty, or to one's promise or duty itself,’ as in ‘to keep faith, to break faith,’ and the derivatives faithful, faithless, in which there is no reference to ‘belief’; i.e. ‘faith’ was = fidelity, fealty. But the word faith being, through OF. fei, feith, the etymological representative of the L. fides, it began in the 14th c. to be used to translate the latter, and in course of time almost superseded ‘belief,’ esp. in theological language, leaving ‘belief’ in great measure to the merely intellectual process or state in sense 2. Thus ‘belief in God’ no longer means as much as ‘faith in God’ (cf. quot. 1814 in 2). See BELIEVE 1, and 1b.)
b. absol. Trust in God; the Christian virtue of faith. arch. or Obs.
{dag}c. out of belief: unbelieving, outside the pale of the faith. Obs.
2. Mental acceptance of a proposition, statement, or fact, as true, on the ground of authority or evidence; assent of the mind to a statement, or to the truth of a fact beyond observation, on the testimony of another, or to a fact or truth on the evidence of consciousness; the mental condition involved in this assent. Constr. of a statement, or (obs.) a speaker; that...; belief in (a thing); persuasion of its existence.
3. The thing believed; the proposition or set of propositions held true; in early usage, esp. the doctrines believed by the professors of a religious system, a religion. In modern use often simply = opinion, persuasion.
b. The term is applied by some philosophers to the primary or ultimate principles of knowledge received on the evidence of consciousness; intuition, natural judgement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
James Hogg - 12 Jan 2010 12:18 GMT > I think that David's interpretation of "belief" implies some act of > faith that is possibly not supported by readily observable evidence. That might rule out this:
"I believe for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows. I believe that somewhere in the darkest night, a candle glows."
 Signature James
Chuck Riggs - 13 Jan 2010 14:39 GMT >> I think that David's interpretation of "belief" implies some act of >> faith that is possibly not supported by readily observable evidence. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"I believe for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows. >I believe that somewhere in the darkest night, a candle glows." I BELIEVE.
(No fair, you got me fired up.)
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
the Omrud - 12 Jan 2010 12:17 GMT >>>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:14:16 GMT, the >>>>> Omrud<usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > chemistry", and "I think that life is an accident of chemistry", all > mean the same thing. They do to me as well, in normal speech. But this discussion started with the following exchange:
On 11/01/2010 19:11, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article<87skacjyhn.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk>, > Nick<3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Materialists, but that's not the only kind. (Some Buddhists, for > example.) I was discussing the meaning of "I believe" in the context of religion and faith and whether an person can say he has no "beliefs".
 Signature David
Mike Barnes - 12 Jan 2010 12:30 GMT the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com>:
>But this discussion started with the following exchange: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >I was discussing the meaning of "I believe" in the context of religion >and faith and whether an person can say he has no "beliefs". Good, so was I.
I could say I believe it's going to snow again this afternoon. But it's not a belief in the sense I was talking about, and I wouldn't expect to get that kind of answer.
 Signature Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
Steve Hayes - 12 Jan 2010 16:23 GMT >I was discussing the meaning of "I believe" in the context of religion >and faith and whether an person can say he has no "beliefs". It might then be clearer to say that you have no religious beliefs (or thoughts, or views).
 Signature Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Robin Bignall - 12 Jan 2010 22:39 GMT >>I was discussing the meaning of "I believe" in the context of religion >>and faith and whether an person can say he has no "beliefs". > >It might then be clearer to say that you have no religious beliefs (or >thoughts, or views). Stop that sentence before the "(" and that's nearer the mark. Of course people who have no religious beliefs (I call them "unbelievers"*) have thoughts or views about religion. Religion does actually exist in the world, some people are exulted by it and a lot of others have died because of it. Unbelievers simply do not believe that there is or was a God so its existence or not, and all that stems from it, is irrelevant.
That does not mean that unbelievers have no philosophy of life. Like David's, my parents brought me up to behave fairly properly according to most Western people's view of "proper", to believe in law and order, and respect others. One does not have the need of God, Hell and damnation to behave responsibly.
As to life itself: the existence of life is a result of chemistry given the right conditions. Whether it is an accident, and therefore rare, or pretty much a forgone conclusion in the right circumstances, we do not yet know, because we do not know those "right" conditions and even if we did we probably cannot yet duplicate them on earth.
* I distinguish between unbelievers and those atheists who spend a lot of their time trying to prove that God does not exist. In my view these latter spend as much time thinking about religion as do religious fundamentalists.
 Signature Robin (BrE) Herts, England
Garrett Wollman - 13 Jan 2010 02:28 GMT >Stop that sentence before the "(" and that's nearer the mark. Of >course people who have no religious beliefs (I call them >"unbelievers"*) have thoughts or views about religion. There are no "people who have no religious beliefs".
>Religion does actually exist in the world, some people are exulted by >it and a lot of others have died because of it. Unbelievers simply >do not believe that there is or was a God so its existence or not, >and all that stems from it, is irrelevant. And that is a religious belief equal in stature to all the rest of 'em. Indeed, there is more than one religion which holds to that belief. Atheism is a category of religions, not the absence of one.
-GAWollman
 Signature Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
annily - 13 Jan 2010 03:06 GMT >> Stop that sentence before the "(" and that's nearer the mark. Of >> course people who have no religious beliefs (I call them >> "unbelievers"*) have thoughts or views about religion. > > There are no "people who have no religious beliefs". That's a bold statement, and on reading the various meanings of religion in OED and Macquarie, I would find it difficult to support. What meaning do you apply to "religion", and do you have an authoritative source for that meaning?
 Signature Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
Steve Hayes - 13 Jan 2010 04:37 GMT >>Stop that sentence before the "(" and that's nearer the mark. Of >>course people who have no religious beliefs (I call them [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >'em. Indeed, there is more than one religion which holds to that >belief. Atheism is a category of religions, not the absence of one. I beg to differ.
While I agree that militant atheism falls into the category of religions, in the case of non-militant atheists the cliche that "if atheism is a religion the bals is a hair colour" happens to be true (in my view, of course).
 Signature Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Mike Barnes - 13 Jan 2010 05:42 GMT Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org>:
>Atheism is a category of religions, not the absence of one. That's not my understanding of the word "religion". Nor is it NSOED's (truncated definitions below):
1 A state of life bound by religious vows; [...] 2 A particular monastic or religious order or rule. 3 Belief in or sensing of some superhuman controlling power or powers, entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship, or in a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means to achieve spiritual or material improvement; [...] 4 A particular system of such belief. 5 Devotion, fidelity; conscientiousness; pious attachment.
It's hard to see where atheism qualifies as a religion in any of those senses. So I assume you're using the word "religion" in some specialised sense, rather than sense 3 above which is what most people understand by the word.
 Signature Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
Garrett Wollman - 13 Jan 2010 06:22 GMT >Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org>: >>Atheism is a category of religions, not the absence of one. > >That's not my understanding of the word "religion". Nor is it NSOED's >(truncated definitions below):
>It's hard to see where atheism qualifies as a religion in any of those >senses. I didn't say it was. It is a category to which some religions (e.g., Western Humanistic Materialism) belong, and which some religions partially overlap (e.g., some Unitarian-Universalists are atheists, but not all).
-GAWollman
 Signature Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Mike Barnes - 13 Jan 2010 14:33 GMT Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org>:
>>Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org>: >>>Atheism is a category of religions, not the absence of one. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >partially overlap (e.g., some Unitarian-Universalists are atheists, >but not all). I understand that now, thanks. I'll respond to the words in question in their fuller context, in another posting.
 Signature Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
Peter Moylan - 13 Jan 2010 09:34 GMT >> Religion does actually exist in the world, some people are exulted by >> it and a lot of others have died because of it. Unbelievers simply [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 'em. Indeed, there is more than one religion which holds to that > belief. Atheism is a category of religions, not the absence of one. What would you call people who can't decide which god they don't believe in?
 Signature Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
the Omrud - 13 Jan 2010 09:44 GMT >> Stop that sentence before the "(" and that's nearer the mark. Of >> course people who have no religious beliefs (I call them [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 'em. Indeed, there is more than one religion which holds to that > belief. Atheism is a category of religions, not the absence of one. And there we will disagree. It's my view that you are wrong.
 Signature David
Nick - 14 Jan 2010 08:14 GMT >>> Stop that sentence before the "(" and that's nearer the mark. Of >>> course people who have no religious beliefs (I call them [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > And there we will disagree. It's my view that you are wrong. I'm with David. I view the preceding statement as just as barking as the idea that because I don't follow any Rugby team I'm a supporter of "no team".
I cannot see why the fact I have no religion needs a word that you define as a religion, any more than the fact that I have no interest in several sports, or knitting for that matter. We don't have an apyrographer for those people who don't spend their time burning words in wood, why do we need a word for those who don't spend their time in religious activity?
 Signature Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Garrett Wollman - 14 Jan 2010 17:05 GMT >I cannot see why the fact I have no religion needs a word that you >define as a religion, Because, I claim, "I have no religion" is a completely meaningless statement.
>We don't have an apyrographer for those people who don't spend their >time burning words in wood, why do we need a word for those who don't >spend their time in religious activity? Who said anything about activity? I never mentioned anything about activity.
-GAWollman
 Signature Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
annily - 15 Jan 2010 04:17 GMT >> I cannot see why the fact I have no religion needs a word that you >> define as a religion, > > Because, I claim, "I have no religion" is a completely meaningless > statement. And I (and most others here apparently) don't understand the rationale behind that claim.
 Signature Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
Garrett Wollman - 15 Jan 2010 05:20 GMT >>> I cannot see why the fact I have no religion needs a word that you >>> define as a religion, >> >> Because, I claim, "I have no religion" is a completely meaningless >> statement.
>And I (and most others here apparently) don't understand the rationale >behind that claim. Every person has some set -- possibly unarticulated or even completely unexplored -- of fundamental beliefs which determine how they interact with the society in which they live and the world at large. These are called "beliefs" because they are not decidable propositions; in formal-logic terms you could call them "axioms" (although I don't claim that most people actually apply formal logic to their everyday lives -- for one thing, most people's belief systems are so inconsistent as to render this impossible).
For many people here, their most strongly-felt core belief appears to be[0] materialism: the idea that there is nothing that exists but yet is not in some way observable and measurable, "stuff"[1]. (They may think that this is simply "logic" or "rationality" but it is not; ask a Jesuit for a counterexample, if you happen have a day to waste.) Of course, most of the world's religions explicitly reject materialism, but I see no principled argument by which it is any different in nature from them, and I therefore claim that it is rightly called a religion.
Most atheists, particularly in the West, are materialists, but it need not necessarily be so.[2] You cannot *prove* materialism; it is not the logical consequence of any simpler and universally-accepted truth; it is simply one way of looking at (and thinking about) the universe in which one lives. (On the other hand, it is sometimes convenient, or even necessary, for those of us who are not materialists to assume it as an axiom when working in some larger system, such as science, where it has proved helpful.)
-GAWollman
[0] Based on public responses to this thread.
[1] In modern scientific language, mass-energy.
[2] Obvious example: there are people who do not believe in gods (and are therefore atheists) but do believe in immaterial spirits or souls or "planes of existence" (and thus are not materialists).
 Signature Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
annily - 15 Jan 2010 08:26 GMT >>>> I cannot see why the fact I have no religion needs a word that you >>>> define as a religion, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > nature from them, and I therefore claim that it is rightly called a > religion. I don't believe that many people call materialism a religion. I cannot find any dictionary reference to support this view.
This is what I (and I think most people) mean by religion, from the OED:
5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life.
 Signature Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
Garrett Wollman - 15 Jan 2010 17:18 GMT >5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as >having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, >reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting >from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or >the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a >standard of spiritual and practical life. That is a much more restrictive definition of "religion" than I would accept, and I don't think I'm alone in that.
-GAWollman
 Signature Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Skitt - 15 Jan 2010 18:36 GMT >> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as >> having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That is a much more restrictive definition of "religion" than I would > accept, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Maybe not alone, but certainly in a small minority. Whet you seem to be including in your "religion" is "philosophy" -- a horse of another color entirely.
While I have no religion, I do try to adhere to a personal code of fairness. Not believing in some supernatural being who can forgive or overlook my failures, I have to be careful about what I do, so as not to suffer great pangs of conscience. Such is life ...
 Signature Skitt (AmE)
Cheryl - 15 Jan 2010 19:18 GMT >>> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as >>> having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > overlook my failures, I have to be careful about what I do, so as not to > suffer great pangs of conscience. Such is life ... Maybe if I become more religious, I won't have pangs of conscience if I fail to behave properly. I haven't actually noticed that people are less likely to feel guilty about their failings if they are more religious - in fact, plenty of people have claimed the opposite, that they're plagued by guilt because of the are religious - but it's worth a try.
 Signature Cheryl
Skitt - 15 Jan 2010 19:23 GMT >>>> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as >>>> having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > they're plagued by guilt because of the are religious - but it's > worth a try. When I have attended Lutheran services, I have always been told that all is forgiven. I believe that the same holds for Catholics. Repentance is required, of course, but the slate is clean again. Whew!
 Signature Skitt (AmE)
Chuck Riggs - 16 Jan 2010 11:37 GMT >>>>> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as >>>>> having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >forgiven. I believe that the same holds for Catholics. Repentance is >required, of course, but the slate is clean again. Whew! Which allows Catholics and others to go out and commit nasty deeds all over again. Psychologically helpful to the individual, I am sure, but I've never understood what advantage forgiveness has for society at large.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Cheryl - 16 Jan 2010 13:21 GMT >>>>>> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as >>>>>> having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I've never understood what advantage forgiveness has for society at > large. I think the standard response to that - and Skitt's comment - is that if you haven't amended your life in the proper direction, some question might be raised as to the honesty of your repentance and confession. It's a delicate issue in the various Christian denominations - none of them restrict the power of God to forgive, time and time again, and none of them teach that all is needed is for the priest or pastor or you personally to say the right words and you're just fine again. Some of them go to considerable lengths to try to instill in the sinner a full understanding of the scope of the sin - which is why I alluded some time back in this discussion to the fact that some branches of Christianity, at least, are accused of generating guilt in members, not releasing it.
Forgiveness is a fascinating topic, and it's incredibly important to society at large. There are actually numerous takes on it. But as generally used, it helps society immensely. It reduces violence and division within a society by reducing (or removing) the likelihood that the wronged person will skip the other big method of social control, the legal system, and go after the other party directly. It enables every human group from the family up to the nation state continue in existence by providing a mechanism to resolve disputes. It enables wrongdoers to be re-incorporated into the family, neighbourhood etc. If we had more forgiveness around, we wouldn't be re-fighting battles that go back centuries. I don't, myself, hold with offering forgiveness for things I haven't done to people who haven't suffered the harm. That seems totatlly meaningless. But for everyday functioning of society, it's essential.
And it's really good for the wronged person psychologically, too.
 Signature Cheryl
Chuck Riggs - 17 Jan 2010 11:34 GMT <snip>
>...some branches of Christianity, >at least, are accused of generating guilt in members, not releasing it. That was one of the reasons I quit attending even Episcopalian services, where that tendency is usually not as pronounced as it is in many other Protestant branches, from what I have heard.
<snip>
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Robert Bannister - 18 Jan 2010 01:08 GMT > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > <snip> Now I just had to re-read what Cheryl said - I thought it was "quilt".
 Signature Rob Bannister
Cheryl - 18 Jan 2010 09:52 GMT >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Now I just had to re-read what Cheryl said - I thought it was "quilt". Sometimes they make quilts, too, to sell or raffle off to make money for charity---of course, so do non-religious groups.
And I just realized that religious groups don't have the monopoly on guilt-induction either - it's often (but not always) non-religious ones that work on making me feel guilty because I don't use the right light bulbs or I eat meat.
Anyway, guilt, when appropriate, is a very useful (if unpleasant) emotion. It's only a problem when people who haven't done anything wrong start obsessing about how guilty they are.
 Signature Cheryl
sjdevnull@yahoo.com - 15 Jan 2010 20:05 GMT > > annily wrote: > >> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > including in your "religion" is "philosophy" -- a horse of another color > entirely. I'm not sure about that; depending on how you read it, the definition above seems as though it may reject religions that have non- interventionist deities (who may have created the universe but no longer exercise control over man's destiny). It also seems possible that it rejects certain polytheistic religions where no god is necessarily entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship, but whether and who to worship in a given situation is done more on a quid pro quo basis.
Hatunen - 15 Jan 2010 21:52 GMT >> > annily wrote: >> >> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >interventionist deities (who may have created the universe but no >longer exercise control over man's destiny). In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Evan Kirshenbaum - 15 Jan 2010 22:47 GMT >>> > annily wrote: >>> >> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life. In much the same way that, say, Einstein or Darwin or Mozart or Shakespeare are irrelevant to modern life. Since such deities would be presumed to have left behind something that still exists (i.e., the universe), I can certainly see a relevance to studying it in an attempt to discern its maker's design principles and, perhaps, intentions in doing so. (Note that I'm not describing my own religion, but I don't necessarily see any reason to disparage such a religion.) In much the same way that someone non-religious might strive to make something of their life in order to live up to what they see as the ideals of their now-dead parents (e.g., someone irrelevant to their current life) and to justify their parents' sacrifice for them, I can certainly see people saying "This is what the gods who created us intended for us to do and we owe it to them to do it, even though they're no longer around."
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |I like giving talks to industry, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |because one of the things that I've Palo Alto, CA 94304 |found is that you really can't |learn anything at the Harvard kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |Business School. (650)857-7572 | Clayton Christensen | Harvard Business School http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Hatunen - 16 Jan 2010 00:55 GMT >>>> > annily wrote: >>>> >> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >the gods who created us intended for us to do and we owe it to them to >do it, even though they're no longer around." Why do we owe it to them? What will they do about it if we're not grateful?
Besides, what have they done for us lately?
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2010 01:17 GMT >>>>> > annily wrote: >>>>> >> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Besides, what have they done for us lately? The deities or the no-longer-around people who put us through college?
For the former, the answer will typically be something like: They set up the world (intentionally or not) so that there's a way to behave in it that will tend to lead to relative happiness and prosperity and a way that will tend to result in collapse and misery. If global warming *was* due to "You broke rule 47", they'd argue, you'd have as much incentive to stop breaking rule 47 as you have to stop doing things that scientists say are responsible for it. Clearly, we don't *owe* anybody a particular sea level.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The whole idea of our government is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this: if enough people get together Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and act in concert, they can take |something and not pay for it. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Hatunen - 16 Jan 2010 01:40 GMT >>>> In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life. >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >The deities or the no-longer-around people who put us through college? I put myself through college.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2010 03:05 GMT >>>>> In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I put myself through college. Are you proffering that as an explanation for an inability to empathize with those who feel that people who feel an obligation to those who they see as having sacrificed for them?
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Bullwinkle: You sure that's the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | only way? Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Rocky: Well, if you're going to be | a hero, you've got to do kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | stupid things every once in (650)857-7572 | a while.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:11 GMT >>>>>> In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >empathize with those who feel that people who feel an obligation to >those who they see as having sacrificed for them? No.
By the way, "What have you done for me lately?" is the punch line to a very old joke.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 16 Jan 2010 11:04 GMT >>>>> In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >I put myself through college. It was no-longer-around people who created the college and, more importantly, gathered together together the knowledge and skills that were imparted to you at college.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 16 Jan 2010 11:51 GMT >gathered together together the Altogether one together too many.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Robert Bannister - 16 Jan 2010 23:19 GMT >>>>>> In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life. >>>>> In much the same way that, say, Einstein or Darwin or Mozart or [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > importantly, gathered together together the knowledge and skills that > were imparted to you at college. Are you seriously suggesting I should feel eternally grateful for the founder of my college(1) and the authors of my textbooks?
1. I actually know who it was (Jeremy Bentham) mainly because he used to be on display if you went in by the main entrance.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 17 Jan 2010 00:27 GMT >>>>>>> In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life. >>>>>> In much the same way that, say, Einstein or Darwin or Mozart or [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >1. I actually know who it was (Jeremy Bentham) mainly because he used to >be on display if you went in by the main entrance. I saw him there.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Robert Bannister - 18 Jan 2010 01:09 GMT >>>>>>>> In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life. >>>>>>> In much the same way that, say, Einstein or Darwin or Mozart or [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > I saw him there. Yeah, he didn't get about much except when Kings College were messing about.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 18 Jan 2010 01:27 GMT >>>>>>>>> In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life. >>>>>>>> In much the same way that, say, Einstein or Darwin or Mozart or [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >Yeah, he didn't get about much except when Kings College were messing about. The rivalry between King's and UCL meant that for I few days I was custodian of the King's College Students' Union mascot. I had some sort of official position in the UCL film society. We had a room or two allocated to to the society in the bowels of the UCL main building. It was a useful hiding place for a stray lion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_College_London_Students%27_Union#Mascot
"Mayhem in the Metropolis, Kings's College versus University College": http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/iss/archives/rag/rag04.htm
The College mascots: Phineas and Reggie
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Chuck Riggs - 17 Jan 2010 11:40 GMT <snip>
>> It was no-longer-around people who created the college and, more >> importantly, gathered together together the knowledge and skills that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >1. I actually know who it was (Jeremy Bentham) mainly because he used to >be on display if you went in by the main entrance. Thomas Jefferson in my case and, should anyone ask, I am grateful he founded the University of Virginia, aka, in his day, the Academical Village.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 17 Jan 2010 12:30 GMT ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >founded the University of Virginia, aka, in his day, the Academical >Village. I believe that Thomas Jefferson was buried. Jeremy Bentham was not. When Rob said JB "used to be on display if you went in by the main entrance" that referred to the actual physical presence JB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham#Auto-icon
As requested in his will, Bentham's body was dissected as part of a public anatomy lecture. Afterward, the skeleton and head were preserved and stored in a wooden cabinet called the "Auto-icon", with the skeleton stuffed out with hay and dressed in Bentham's clothes. Originally kept by his disciple Thomas Southwood Smith, it was acquired by University College London in 1850. It is normally kept on public display at the end of the South Cloisters in the main building of the college, but for the 100th and 150th anniversaries of the college, it was brought to the meeting of the College Council, where it was listed as "present but not voting". The Auto-icon has a wax head, as Bentham's head was badly damaged in the preservation process. The real head was displayed in the same case for many years, but became the target of repeated student pranks, including being stolen on more than one occasion. It is now locked away securely
Much more at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/Faqs/auto_icon.htm
His clothes have been attacked by wooly bears: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/Faqs/auto_not.htm
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Wood Avens - 17 Jan 2010 15:33 GMT > The Auto-icon has a wax head, as Bentham's head was badly damaged in > the preservation process. The real head was displayed in the same > case for many years, but became the target of repeated student > pranks, including being stolen on more than one occasion. It is now > locked away securely Didn't he hold his skull in a box on his lap, or am I thinking of someone else?
 Signature Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 17 Jan 2010 16:01 GMT >> The Auto-icon has a wax head, as Bentham's head was badly damaged in >> the preservation process. The real head was displayed in the same [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Didn't he hold his skull in a box on his lap, or am I thinking of >someone else? I have a vague recollection (late 1950s) of his skull being in a box. I can't exactly recall the location of the box. My first thought is of the box being the same width and depth as the cabinet and the chair being on to of it: in effect the box was a base for the display.
This shows what is said to be the original arrangement with the skull (not in a box) between his feet: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/graphics/statue_monumts/Bentham_Jeremy.jpg
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Wood Avens - 17 Jan 2010 16:38 GMT >>> The Auto-icon has a wax head, as Bentham's head was badly damaged in >>> the preservation process. The real head was displayed in the same [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >(not in a box) between his feet: >http://www.schillerinstitute.org/graphics/statue_monumts/Bentham_Jeremy.jpg Ah, yes, that looks familiar. I must have been misremembering. Or misdismembering.
 Signature Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 17 Jan 2010 17:15 GMT >>>> The Auto-icon has a wax head, as Bentham's head was badly damaged in >>>> the preservation process. The real head was displayed in the same [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Ah, yes, that looks familiar. I must have been misremembering. Or >misdismembering. I certainly didn't see the head. I recall reading an explanatory notice that said his head was in a box. I have the feeling that the box was somewhere in or near the cabinet, but I can't recall where. Underneath, as I theorised above, is one possibility, another would be on top of the inner cabinet.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:13 GMT >>>> Besides, what have they done for us lately? >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >importantly, gathered together together the knowledge and skills that >were imparted to you at college. Let's be honest here. They got paid for it. I don't see that they are due any more of my gratefullness than the people who built my car.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Cheryl - 18 Jan 2010 10:50 GMT >>>>> Besides, what have they done for us lately? >>>> The deities or the no-longer-around people who put us through college? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > are due any more of my gratefullness than the people who built my > car. I have gratitude to a lot of strangers who do their work well, including the ones who build reliable machinery I use.
It's a very mild form of gratitude, but it exists. It's so easy NOT to do well what you're paid for.
 Signature Cheryl
sjdevnull@yahoo.com - 15 Jan 2010 23:14 GMT > On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:05:56 -0800 (PST), "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life. Not at all, to followers of such religions. One example:
Some offshoots of Deism are thoroughly non-interventionist, in the sense that they do not believe that God interferes or judges for a future afterlife. They still believe that he created the universe according to a plan, that he imbued humanity with the ability to reason, and that by applying that reason we can slowly hope to discern his plan--in the process gaining knowledge that makes our lives happier and more fulfilled.
This religious approach is that whatever we learn about how the universe works is also knowledge learned about how things _should_ work in some moral sense, as designed by a good and benevolent deity (and by emulating whatever plan or pattern is discerned we can better our own lives). A purely scientific approach views such knowledge as merely descriptive of how things _do_ work. So while the creator does not directly interfere and doesn't control our destiny, he is also not irrelevant--through the exercise of deity-given reason, can learn his/ her plan and better our lives by living in accordance with that plan to the best of our ability.
Hatunen - 16 Jan 2010 00:56 GMT >> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:05:56 -0800 (PST), "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" >> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >her plan and better our lives by living in accordance with that plan >to the best of our ability. Very warm and fuzzy sounding, but so what?
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
sjdevnull@yahoo.com - 16 Jan 2010 16:57 GMT > On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:14:50 -0800 (PST), "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Very warm and fuzzy sounding, but so what? The "so what" should follow clearly from the line of quotes above:
I think most people would consider such forms of neo-Deism to be religions. Hence, I believe the definition of religion above is absolutely overly restrictive. Furthermore, I believe the assertion that people who think the definition is too restrictive are "certainly in a small minority" is completely wrong.
Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:10 GMT >> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:14:50 -0800 (PST), "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" >> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >I think most people would consider such forms of neo-Deism to be >religions. Many people would; many people wouldn't. I wouldn't.
>Hence, I believe the definition of religion above is >absolutely overly restrictive. Well, it's no longer above. I don't know who deleted it. Here it is again, though:
>>>> "Nevertheless, it [religion] is quite simple at bottom. There is >>>> nothing really secret or complex about it, no matter what its [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>>> or civilized, and they are the only common characters that all of >>>> them show. Nothing else is essential." I see "There is nothing really secret or complex about it, no matter what its professors may allege to the contrary.There is nothing really secret or complex about it, no matter what its professors may allege to the contrary" as simply saying that religionds may define themselves as more than that, but that definition is the core.
>Furthermore, I believe the assertion >that people who think the definition is too restrictive are "certainly >in a small minority" is completely wrong. Did I say that?
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
sjdevnull@yahoo.com - 18 Jan 2010 09:22 GMT > On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 08:57:54 -0800 (PST), "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > Well, it's no longer above. I don't know who deleted it. Here it > is again, though: It is still above, quoted as: "5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life."
That's the definition that involved me in this thread--you can see my entire line of reply to it quoted above, and it's the one I reference in my above post ending with "Hence, I believe the definition of religion above is absolutely overly restrictive."
If you want to argue some other definition, you're welcome to it, but I have no horse in that race--my sole objection was to that definition.
> >>>> "Nevertheless, it [religion] is quite simple at bottom. There is > >>>> nothing really secret or complex about it, no matter what its [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >>>> or civilized, and they are the only common characters that all of > >>>> them show. Nothing else is essential." This definition is not one I've seen or commented on before, and going back through the thread it's not one I've quoted or otherwise referenced in any way. I have no idea why you bring it into this discussion now--I see that it's a definition you posted in the thread, but you posted it long after my objection to the aforementioned definition of Skitt's. It has nothing to do with the ones I've objected to previously, and I have no idea why you bring it into this branch of the thread.
[SNIP]
> >Furthermore, I believe the assertion > > >that people who think the definition is too restrictive are "certainly > >in a small minority" is completely wrong. > > Did I say that? No, nor did I imply that you did AFAIK--the above line of quotes seems to properly attribute that remark to Skitt, followed by my objection-- it wasn't until after well after that that you inserted yourself into this branch of the discussion with the (IMO erroneous) statement: "In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life". As far as I can see, that's the first time any quote of yours was involved in this branch of the thread, and it's the main (only?) statement of yours that I've taken issue with.
Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 17:35 GMT >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 08:57:54 -0800 (PST), "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" >> [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] >general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and >practical life." That's not the definition I gave.
>That's the definition that involved me in this thread--you can see my >entire line of reply to it quoted above, and it's the one I reference >in my above post ending with "Hence, I believe the definition of >religion above is absolutely overly restrictive." Since you and I arre talkign about two different things, pleas ignore my response to you.
>If you want to argue some other definition, you're welcome to it, but >I have no horse in that race--my sole objection was to that >definition. OK. But that was a response to my posting of Mencken's definition.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Skitt - 18 Jan 2010 19:18 GMT >> "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" wrote: >>>> "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" wrote: >>>>>> "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen >>>>>>>>>> power as having control of his destiny, and as being [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > branch of the thread, and it's the main (only?) statement of yours > that I've taken issue with. To clarify:
My remark was
Maybe not alone, but certainly in a small minority. Whet [sic] you seem to be including in your "religion" is "philosophy" -- a horse of another color entirely.
I may have been in a completely confused state, but it is hard to tell without restoring several preceding messages to my post. I meant to support what was defined at 5.a.
My second sentence was meant to address something by someone that had a broader definition, but it has since been snipped.
So, for me, religions must include a higher power that merits worshiping and such, and exclude philosophies. I hope that clarifies what I meant but failed to convey before.
 Signature Skitt (AmE) not that it matters
sjdevnull@yahoo.com - 18 Jan 2010 23:51 GMT > sjdevn...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" wrote: [quoted text clipped - 131 lines] > such, and exclude philosophies. I hope that clarifies what I meant but > failed to convey before. I think we would agree on what we consider to be religions-- materialism or bare spirituality is not, to me, a religion. However, I might quibble over what "merits worshiping" means.
My objections upthread are to the definition at 5.a., which I believe excludes many religions that believe in and worship a higher power (mainly by dint of limiting the definition to particular kinds of higher powers, excluding things like noninterventionist deities or some polytheistic religions that may worship gods on a more expedient quid pro quo basis rather than only because of some intrinsic perceived value in such worship).
annily - 16 Jan 2010 03:32 GMT >>>> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as >>>> having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > and who to worship in a given situation is done more on a quid pro quo > basis. But it certainly doesn't include materialism, as Garrett does.
 Signature Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
annily - 16 Jan 2010 03:37 GMT >> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as >> having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That is a much more restrictive definition of "religion" than I would > accept, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Maybe not, but I would wager that you are in a very small minority.
 Signature Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
Steve Hayes - 16 Jan 2010 07:26 GMT >>5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as >>having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >That is a much more restrictive definition of "religion" than I would >accept, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Try this, then:
"Let us make a tentative definition of `religion'. Religion is an attempt by man to escape from his circumscription by making and maintaining an association with a presupposed superhuman or transcendent reality. I avoid the word `God' in the last phrase so that the definition will include not only theistic religions and animisms but also the yearnings of the Buddhist and the ethical humanist, and the group loyalty implied in African ancestor worship, and the pseudo-Christian nationalism that is so strong in the peoples of Western Europe and their offshoots (e.g. Land of hope and glory)."
Does that fit?
 Signature Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
annily - 16 Jan 2010 10:14 GMT >>> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as >>> having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Does that fit? Probably not wide enough for Garrett, since I don't see how materialism would fit into that.
 Signature Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
Nick - 15 Jan 2010 19:20 GMT >>>> I cannot see why the fact I have no religion needs a word that you >>>> define as a religion, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > nature from them, and I therefore claim that it is rightly called a > religion. Except I view materialism as a good working hypothesis. That's one of the problems I have with the great atheist/agnostic distinction. I don't /know/ any of this. I can't. But I can see no way of distinguishing between the innumerable groups who all claim that their way is the one true way, so operate as if this is all there is, and only things that can be in some way perceived can have an effect. Maybe I'll be delightfully proved wrong (though I find it hard to see how whether there is or is not something that is entirely undetectable a fairly pointless thing to worry about!).
I sometimes find myself arguing like a fundamentalist atheist, because dealing with extreme certainty tends to push you into a contrary position, but in fact I cannot tell in any way that there is nothing more than this. Quite the opposite in fact - a religion could prove itself to me, non-religion can't. Nevertheless, with no evidence to the contrary, I can't see any sense in picking an arbitrary set of unprovable beliefs, that are contrary to the other sets, and following them.
> Most atheists, particularly in the West, are materialists, but it need > not necessarily be so.[2] You cannot *prove* materialism; it is not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it as an axiom when working in some larger system, such as science, > where it has proved helpful.) ^ left in as relevant
 Signature Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Mike Barnes - 13 Jan 2010 15:42 GMT Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org>:
>>Stop that sentence before the "(" and that's nearer the mark. Of >>course people who have no religious beliefs (I call them [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >'em. Indeed, there is more than one religion which holds to that >belief. Atheism is a category of religions, not the absence of one. Yes, atheism is a feature of some religions, but that doesn't make it a "religious belief". That idea is incorrect, and somewhat offensive.
 Signature Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
the Omrud - 13 Jan 2010 16:33 GMT > Garrett Wollman<wollman@bimajority.org>: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Yes, atheism is a feature of some religions, but that doesn't make it a > "religious belief". That idea is incorrect, and somewhat offensive. If which case, perhaps we should declare an unholy war.
 Signature David
Chuck Riggs - 14 Jan 2010 14:09 GMT >Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org>: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Yes, atheism is a feature of some religions, but that doesn't make it a >"religious belief". That idea is incorrect, and somewhat offensive. Since a religion merely concerns itself with a belief in God, but does not necessarily require that belief, as I read the definition of "religious" in the COD10, no one should be offended.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Robert Bannister - 14 Jan 2010 01:03 GMT >> Stop that sentence before the "(" and that's nearer the mark. Of >> course people who have no religious beliefs (I call them [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 'em. Indeed, there is more than one religion which holds to that > belief. Atheism is a category of religions, not the absence of one. I totally fail to comprehend these statements. It's like saying not everyone loves or hates soccer, but everyone has an opinion about it, which is simply not true. How can not thinking about something that is completely irrelevant to one's lifestyle be a religion? I agree that there are probably some atheists for whom it is one, but they're probably like people who have recently given up smoking. Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have opinions about this.
 Signature
Rob Bannister
Garrett Wollman - 14 Jan 2010 02:34 GMT >How can not thinking about something that is completely irrelevant to >one's lifestyle be a religion? You beg the question. You have already defined "religion" as "something that is completely irrelevant to [your] lifestyle", so obviously whatever remains, including whatever your actual religious belief is, must not be "religion" in your idiolect. I think we are at an impasse.
-GAWollman
 Signature Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Robert Bannister - 15 Jan 2010 00:52 GMT >> How can not thinking about something that is completely irrelevant to >> one's lifestyle be a religion? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > belief is, must not be "religion" in your idiolect. I think we are at > an impasse. I read this three times, slowly and carefully, and I still don't understand it, apart from the impasse. It reminds of the lectures on sociology that I was forced to attend.
 Signature Rob Bannister
annily - 15 Jan 2010 04:15 GMT >>> How can not thinking about something that is completely irrelevant to >>> one's lifestyle be a religion? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I read this three times, slowly and carefully, and I still don't > understand it, apart from the impasse. Neither do I. Garrett appears to have a meaning for "religion" which differs from that of most of us here (and all the dictionaries I have consulted).
 Signature Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
Hatunen - 15 Jan 2010 21:49 GMT >>>> How can not thinking about something that is completely irrelevant to >>>> one's lifestyle be a religion? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >differs from that of most of us here (and all the dictionaries I have >consulted). I've always favored mencken's definition of religion:
"Nevertheless, it [religion] is quite simple at bottom. There is nothing really secret or complex about it, no matter what its professors may allege to the contrary. Whether it happens to show itself in the artless mumbo-jumbo of a Winnebago Indian or in the elaborately refined and metaphysical rites of a a Christian archbishop, its single function is to give man access to the powers which seem to control his destiny, and its single purpose is to induce those powers to be friendly to him. That function and that purpose are common to all relgions, ancient or modern, savage or civilized, and they are the only common characters that all of them show. Nothing else is essential."
It usually elicits a lot of vague handwaving about how it's more than that.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Evan Kirshenbaum - 15 Jan 2010 22:58 GMT > I've always favored mencken's definition of religion: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It usually elicits a lot of vague handwaving about how it's more > than that. Actually, I'd say rather that it's too specific and shows a decided Christian bias. The essence of modern Judaism, as I understand it, is that those powers have laid down a series of obligations on a group of people and when those obligations are not met by enough of them for long enough and in an exreme enough manner, the powers get royally pissed off and bad things happen to the world in general and that group in particular, but while the obligations are reasonably met, the powers look favorably on that group or at least will in the long run. There's not a lot of angling for personal favors.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The mystery of government is not how 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Washington works, but how to make it Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stop. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Hatunen - 16 Jan 2010 00:53 GMT >> I've always favored mencken's definition of religion: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >powers look favorably on that group or at least will in the long run. >There's not a lot of angling for personal favors. It's still a matter of keeping god friendly to them. The definition says nothing about personal favors.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2010 01:08 GMT >>> I've always favored mencken's definition of religion: >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > It's still a matter of keeping god friendly to them. The > definition says nothing about personal favors. It says "friendly to *him*". I took that as "personal".
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |You gotta know when to code, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Know when to log out, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Know when to single step, | Know when you're through. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |You don't write your program (650)857-7572 | When you're sittin' at the term'nal. |There'll be time enough for writin' http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | When you're in the queue.
Hatunen - 16 Jan 2010 01:19 GMT >>>> I've always favored mencken's definition of religion: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >It says "friendly to *him*". I took that as "personal". it says, "... its single function is to give man access ..."
If it said "... its single function is to give a man access ..." I might agree.
"That's one small step for a man ...."
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2010 02:28 GMT >>>>> I've always favored mencken's definition of religion: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > If it said "... its single function is to give a man access ..." > I might agree. I think that's how I read it. I don't think I can match "man" with "his" without thinking "a generic man" and "specifically the one in question". Is there evidence that Mencken would have meant "making things better for people in general"? It doesn't sound anywhere near cynical enough for him.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"Are you okay?" 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"I'm made of felt....Add by dose |cubs off." kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Hatunen - 17 Jan 2010 23:52 GMT >>>>>> I've always favored mencken's definition of religion: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >things better for people in general"? It doesn't sound anywhere near >cynical enough for him. That is cynical, and part of a rather cyncial definition of "religion".
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Peter Moylan - 14 Jan 2010 05:37 GMT >> And that is a religious belief equal in stature to all the rest of >> 'em. Indeed, there is more than one religion which holds to that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > which is simply not true. How can not thinking about something that is > completely irrelevant to one's lifestyle be a religion? It depends on the prevailing culture. When I lived in Melbourne it was socially unacceptable to have no opinion about football. In the end I had to join the anti-football league for the sake of having a "team" that was no team.
I now live in a city where it is not compulsory to have opinions about football or religion. Not everyone is so privileged. In places where a large proportion of the population has a religion, people with no interest in religion discover that society automatically labels them as members of the atheist "religion".
When you're surrounded by stamp collectors, you will discover yourself branded as someone who specialises in stampless stamp collections.
 Signature Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
R H Draney - 14 Jan 2010 06:12 GMT Peter Moylan filted:
>> I totally fail to comprehend these statements. It's like saying not >> everyone loves or hates soccer, but everyone has an opinion about it, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >When you're surrounded by stamp collectors, you will discover yourself >branded as someone who specialises in stampless stamp collections. And if you don't drink because you've never developed a taste for liquor, you're automatically assumed to be either a temperance reformer or a recovering alcoholic....r
 Signature A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this?
Nick Spalding - 14 Jan 2010 11:27 GMT R H Draney wrote, in <himcjn01608@drn.newsguy.com> on 13 Jan 2010 22:12:07 -0800:
> Peter Moylan filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > automatically assumed to be either a temperance reformer or a recovering > alcoholic....r In Ireland nobody ever refuses a drink for fear of being thought an alcoholic.
 Signature Nick Spalding BrE/IrE
Chuck Riggs - 14 Jan 2010 14:34 GMT >>> And that is a religious belief equal in stature to all the rest of >>> 'em. Indeed, there is more than one religion which holds to that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >When you're surrounded by stamp collectors, you will discover yourself >branded as someone who specialises in stampless stamp collections. You will agree, I think, that a person must decide what is most important. I was a drinker and an atheist when surrounded by baseball fans and Protestants and now I'm a teetotaler and an atheist, while surrounded by drinkers and Catholics. I've been consistent in my disbelief because it deserves consistency more than most things do, IMO.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Hatunen - 14 Jan 2010 18:45 GMT >Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have opinions >about this. A chance for me to slip in a caveat here. I smoked from about age 16 to age 51, when I finally quit for good. That was 21 years ago, and I suffer from emphysema.
Don't think that if you smoke to some age you consider reasonable and then quite you are going to escape the damages of smoking.
Quit now!
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Skitt - 14 Jan 2010 18:57 GMT >> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have >> opinions about this. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Quit now! I smoked from the age of about 21 to age 58 (19 years ago). So far, so good. When did your emphysema make itself noticed?
 Signature Skitt (AmE)
Hatunen - 14 Jan 2010 19:17 GMT >>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have >>> opinions about this. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I smoked from the age of about 21 to age 58 (19 years ago). So far, so >good. When did your emphysema make itself noticed? Pretty much in the aftermath of my quintuple cardiac artery bypass operation.
My stepfather was quit for some twenty years but died of lung cancer. At least I'm still good on that one.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Evan Kirshenbaum - 14 Jan 2010 19:28 GMT >>>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have >>>> opinions about this. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Pretty much in the aftermath of my quintuple cardiac artery > bypass operation. That's not very subtle.
 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/
Robert Bannister - 15 Jan 2010 00:57 GMT >>>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have >>>> opinions about this. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > My stepfather was quit for some twenty years but died of lung > cancer. At least I'm still good on that one. Of the four people I knew who died of lung cancer, three had never smoked in their lives and nor did their spouses.
 Signature Rob Bannister
LFS - 14 Jan 2010 19:00 GMT >> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have opinions >> about this. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Quit now! When my grandfather died in his eighties, we were told that he died of a smoking related disease. He had never smoked in my lifetime and my mother thought that he had stopped sometime in his early fifties.
I stopped smoking thirty years ago when diagnosed with a stomach ulcer.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
Cheryl - 14 Jan 2010 19:38 GMT >>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have >>> opinions about this. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I stopped smoking thirty years ago when diagnosed with a stomach ulcer. Not everyone who dies of a smoking-related disease got the disease because they smoked. Some people who die of lung cancer, like one of my grandmothers, never smoked or had one of the other common risk factors in her life.
 Signature Cheryl
Hatunen - 14 Jan 2010 20:21 GMT >>>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have >>>> opinions about this. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >grandmothers, never smoked or had one of the other common risk factors >in her life. Quite true. According to that paragon of reference. Wikipeida:
"Smoking, particularly of cigarettes, is by far the main contributor to lung cancer.[32] Across the developed world, almost 90% of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking.[33] In the United States, smoking is estimated to account for 87% of lung cancer cases (90% in men and 85% in women).[34] Among male smokers, the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is 17.2%; among female smokers, the risk is 11.6%. This risk is significantly lower in nonsmokers: 1.3% in men and 1.4% in women"
And...
"The most common cause of lung cancer is long-term exposure to tobacco smoke. The occurrence of lung cancer in nonsmokers, who account for as many as 15% of cases, is often attributed to a combination of genetic factors, radon gas, asbestos, and air pollution, including secondhand smoke"
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
the Omrud - 14 Jan 2010 22:38 GMT >>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have >>> opinions about this. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I stopped smoking thirty years ago when diagnosed with a stomach ulcer. Gosh, I never would have guessed. I move in circles where we were a non-smoking generation.
 Signature David in a Hilton
LFS - 15 Jan 2010 09:29 GMT >>>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have >>>> opinions about this. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Gosh, I never would have guessed. You never would have guessed that I'd stopped? Well, people have claimed to see smoke coming out of my ears when I'm very cross....
I move in circles where we were a
> non-smoking generation. Son tried it at about fifteen when he also tried alcohol and cannabis. None of these appealed. I don't know anyone in our children's generation who smokes. I have two colleagues at work in the 50-65 age range who smoke but none of our friends do, although several used to. But many of our students, in their twenties, smoke.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
sjdevnull@yahoo.com - 15 Jan 2010 19:47 GMT > >>>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have > >>>> opinions about this. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > smoke but none of our friends do, although several used to. But many of > our students, in their twenties, smoke. Some statistics, garnered from http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/smoking/index.htm
* "In Great Britain, the highest rates of smoking are in the 20-24 age- group, with 31% of people this age recorded as smokers. The prevalence of smoking then declines with age to 12% of people aged 60 and over smoking"
* In Britain in 1948, when surveys of smoking began, smoking was extremely prevalent among men: 82% smoked some form of tobacco and 65% were cigarette smokers. By 1970, the percentage of cigarette smokers had fallen to 55%. From the 1970s onwards, smoking prevalence fell rapidly until the mid-1990s. Since then the rate has continued to fall slowly and in 2007 around a fifth (22%) of men (aged 16 and over) were reported as smokers
* Smoking has never been a majority habit among women and the percentage of female smokers remained remarkably constant between 1948 and 1970 (41% in 1948 and 44% in 1970). Between 1972 and 2007 the percentage of women who smoke decreased to 20%
Default User - 15 Jan 2010 21:39 GMT > Son tried it at about fifteen when he also tried alcohol and > cannabis. None of these appealed. I don't know anyone in our > children's generation who smokes. I have two colleagues at work in > the 50-65 age range who smoke but none of our friends do, although > several used to. But many of our students, in their twenties, smoke. There was a recent Wall Street Journal article about smoking, which unfortunately I can't find online. An interesting bit in there was that the number of smokers in the US has been pretty steady since the 1960s, although the population increased. In spite of my own concerns, it doesn't really seem like there's a rise in the number of smokers. The article also mentioned that many more of the smokers these days are part-time, due to the restictions at workplaces and such.
When I was lad starting out at the cumpnee, people could smoke at their desks, and there was none of this cubicle nonsense in those days. We were in bullpens, in close proximity to our coworkers. I'd been away from my parents house, where there had been two heavy smokers, long enough that the second-hand smoke was fairly irritating.
Brian
 Signature Day 347 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Hatunen - 15 Jan 2010 22:07 GMT >> Son tried it at about fifteen when he also tried alcohol and >> cannabis. None of these appealed. I don't know anyone in our [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >from my parents house, where there had been two heavy smokers, long >enough that the second-hand smoke was fairly irritating. Ditto, and we even had a cigarette vending machine across the hall.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Skitt - 15 Jan 2010 23:40 GMT >>> Son tried it at about fifteen when he also tried alcohol and >>> cannabis. None of these appealed. I don't know anyone in our [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Ditto, and we even had a cigarette vending machine across the > hall. Right, but smoking was not allowed around the missiles I worked on. That was not for safety reasons, as the missiles did not have live motors, but they didn't want us to get ashes into the exposed innards of the works. Using a lit cigarette is the quickest way to test radiometers, though. For efficiency's sake, when it was time to test them, I lit a cigarette and took over from the techs, thus speeding things up. I was a systems test engineer then.
 Signature Skitt (AmE)
Robert Bannister - 15 Jan 2010 00:56 GMT >> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have opinions >> about this. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Quit now! My father died of emphysema after giving up smoking. Cause and effect? Doctoral thesis?
 Signature Rob Bannister
LFS - 15 Jan 2010 09:22 GMT >>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have >>> opinions about this. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > My father died of emphysema after giving up smoking. Cause and effect? > Doctoral thesis? And my aunt, who had smoked at least 40 a day since the age of 40, died at 94, having suffered no appreciable ill effects from the habit.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
R H Draney - 15 Jan 2010 17:27 GMT LFS filted:
>> My father died of emphysema after giving up smoking. Cause and effect? >> Doctoral thesis? > >And my aunt, who had smoked at least 40 a day since the age of 40, died >at 94, having suffered no appreciable ill effects from the habit. Recently the newspapers reported the death of Tsutomu Yamaguchi, survivor of both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes, of stomach cancer at the age of 93...just think how long he would have lived if he hadn't been a victim of both blasts!...r
 Signature A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this?
Robert Bannister - 16 Jan 2010 01:07 GMT > LFS filted: >>> My father died of emphysema after giving up smoking. Cause and effect? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > think how long he would have lived if he hadn't been a victim of both > blasts!...r I remember reading the report and I was only surprised that someone didn't try to blame his death on passive smoking.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Steve Hayes - 13 Jan 2010 04:31 GMT >>>I was discussing the meaning of "I believe" in the context of religion >>>and faith and whether an person can say he has no "beliefs". [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >that there is or was a God so its existence or not, and all that stems >from it, is irrelevant. I take your point about views and thoughts. But I was referring to what I had said earlier, that "I believe", "I think" and "In my view" are near synonyms.
>That does not mean that unbelievers have no philosophy of life. Like >David's, my parents brought me up to behave fairly properly according >to most Western people's view of "proper", to believe in law and >order, and respect others. One does not have the need of God, Hell >and damnation to behave responsibly. Well yes, that's what I was saying, only about "believe" and "beliefs" rather than "believe in". But since you yourself have added the "believe in" by saying that your parents brought you up to believe in law and order, it makes the point even more strongly -- that even "believe in" is not necessarily a religious statement.
>As to life itself: the existence of life is a result of chemistry >given the right conditions. Whether it is an accident, and therefore >rare, or pretty much a forgone conclusion in the right circumstances, >we do not yet know, because we do not know those "right" conditions >and even if we did we probably cannot yet duplicate them on earth. And that is therefore what you believe, or think, or what in your view is the case.
>* I distinguish between unbelievers and those atheists who spend a lot >of their time trying to prove that God does not exist. In my view >these latter spend as much time thinking about religion as do >religious fundamentalists. Quite possibly.
I call them all atheists, and if I want to distinguish them I call the latter militant atheists.
In my view an atheist is simply someone without God or gods.
"Unbeliever" doesn't work for me, because it may mean (as you say it does to you) someone who doesn't believe in God or gods. But to me it may also mean someone who doesn't believe in law and order, or climate change, or any number of other things. So for me, "unbeliever" is not enough. You need to specify what it is you don't believe in.
In my view, saying that you have no religious beliefs is meaningful. Saying you have no beliefs is not.
 Signature Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Garrett Wollman - 13 Jan 2010 06:26 GMT >"Unbeliever" doesn't work for me, because it may mean (as you say it does to >you) someone who doesn't believe in God or gods. But to me it may also mean >someone who doesn't believe in law and order, or climate change, or any number >of other things. So for me, "unbeliever" is not enough. You need to specify >what it is you don't believe in. I agree in the general case, but "unbeliever" for me has a default frame of reference to the dominant, official, or culturally-expected religion -- it's closer to "infidel" than to "unaligned".
-GAWollman
 Signature Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Chuck Riggs - 13 Jan 2010 14:57 GMT >>"Unbeliever" doesn't work for me, because it may mean (as you say it does to >>you) someone who doesn't believe in God or gods. But to me it may also mean [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >frame of reference to the dominant, official, or culturally-expected >religion -- it's closer to "infidel" than to "unaligned". As for me, I'm a happy infidel. "Unaligned" makes me sound like an automobile front end or, perhaps, the IF strip of a poorly tuned superheterodyne radio.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Robin Bignall - 13 Jan 2010 21:47 GMT >"Unbeliever" doesn't work for me, because it may mean (as you say it does to >you) someone who doesn't believe in God or gods. But to me it may also mean [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >In my view, saying that you have no religious beliefs is meaningful. Saying >you have no beliefs is not. Well, I did specifically start one of my other posts by stating that when we're discussing "belief" in this sort of fashion we're actually referring to religious belief. It never fails to surprise me that a large number of people assume that a person who does not believe in deities therefore must believe in nothing.
As to your militant or argumentative atheists, to my mind they're practising a religion called "God denial", some of them as strongly as the most militant and fundamentalist deists practise religion. I've never seen any point in that.
I think that the Omrud and I (and probably many others) have difficulty in explaining to those who have some sort of religious faith (including agnostics) that our brand of atheism is not some sort of religion; it's a total absence of religious faith, either as some sort of meaning for life or some explanation of why the universe is how it is.
 Signature Robin (BrE) Herts, England
Steve Hayes - 14 Jan 2010 04:11 GMT >>"Unbeliever" doesn't work for me, because it may mean (as you say it does to >>you) someone who doesn't believe in God or gods. But to me it may also mean [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >sort of meaning for life or some explanation of why the universe is >how it is. Well I have no difficulty in understanding your position, which I would describe as generic or basic atheism, as distinguished from what I call militant atheism, which we've already discussed.
I'm not sure what the problem is.
 Signature Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Chuck Riggs - 14 Jan 2010 14:44 GMT >>"Unbeliever" doesn't work for me, because it may mean (as you say it does to >>you) someone who doesn't believe in God or gods. But to me it may also mean [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >sort of meaning for life or some explanation of why the universe is >how it is. How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an atheist. Is it hypocritical for an atheist to try to live by the teachings of Christ?
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Cheryl - 14 Jan 2010 15:07 GMT > How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a belief > in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an atheist. > Is it hypocritical for an atheist to try to live by the teachings of > Christ? There's nothing particularly hypocritical about it, as long as the atheist sticks to claiming that he/she are following the moral teachings a good Christian should and isn't claiming that he/she is following the injunctions about prayer and obedience to God while privately convinced that there is no God.
There is the difficulty of combining the views that Jesus' moral teachings are just fine but his claim to be the Messiah are delusional. Some people manage to do so by pointing out that there are only a few such claims directly attributed to Christ himself, and all of those were written down after his death and might be inaccurate.
 Signature Cheryl
Robin Bignall - 14 Jan 2010 21:40 GMT >>>"Unbeliever" doesn't work for me, because it may mean (as you say it does to >>>you) someone who doesn't believe in God or gods. But to me it may also mean [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >Is it hypocritical for an atheist to try to live by the teachings of >Christ? I think a lot of the Catholics and Protestants in the country in which you live would assert that they are good Christians. Unfortunately they seem to have a penchant for killing each other. If they actually practised what they preached there would be a great deal less hypocrisy in the world.
You claim in previous posts to be an atheist. Does that mean that you do not follow the general principles of the Ten Commandments and other, similar suggestions for living in a society? Regardless of who is supposed to have originally suggested such ideas, it seems sensible to me not to go around killing people, stealing their possessions and so on, not just because we have police and punishments, but because I don't want my life or possessions to be taken. It seems to be common sense to me.
 Signature Robin (BrE) Herts, England
Peter Moylan - 14 Jan 2010 22:34 GMT > How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a belief > in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an atheist. > Is it hypocritical for an atheist to try to live by the teachings of > Christ? Not at all. His teachings weren't original with him. He picked up ideas that were already considered to be good rules for living.
I'm inclined to believe that principles like "treat other people fairly" are the result of natural selection. Societies where kindness and altruism flourish have good survival prospects. Societies where everyone was at everyone else's throat probably killed themselves off, with consequent pruning of the genetic factors that made people act nastily.
Our modern societies do, of course, contain some people who place more emphasis on their own benefit than on fitting in smoothly with their fellows, but by and large the sociopaths are in a minority. The precepts of the popular religions reflect what people have already discovered to be ways to live in harmony.
If you, as an atheist, picked up the Christian idea of frequently praying to the god of your choice, /that/ would be hypocritical. That issue hardly arises, though, because it's easy to distinguish the ritual rules of a religion from its "ethical behaviour" rules.
 Signature Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Chuck Riggs - 15 Jan 2010 12:16 GMT >> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a belief >> in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an atheist. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Not at all. His teachings weren't original with him. He picked up >ideas that were already considered to be good rules for living. Confucianism and Taoism are interesting, but my favourite of the religions that preceded Christianity, Buddhism, is far more attractive to me than the gospels of the Bible. Although I still find some of the stories in the Old Testament interesting, there are many sections of it that I can't take seriously.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Cheryl - 15 Jan 2010 12:42 GMT >>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a belief >>> in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an atheist. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > stories in the Old Testament interesting, there are many sections of > it that I can't take seriously. I could never get interested enough in any of the Eastern religions even to develop an informed opinion, although some of them, Buddhism in particular, were very popular when I was younger. Or westernized versions of them, anyway. These days, a lot of people seem to go for vaguely eastern, vaguely new-ageish ideas. And atheism and agnosticism, of course.
 Signature Cheryl
Skitt - 15 Jan 2010 18:46 GMT >>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a >>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > vaguely eastern, vaguely new-ageish ideas. And atheism and > agnosticism, of course. It seems that most people need something besides themselves to believe in. I don't seem to ever have had that need. I don't believe in concepts such as atheism or agnosticism, as you called those. I merely believe that there is no such thing as a god, and I have a low opinion of any sort of fundamentalists of any sort of religion. Oh, well ...
 Signature Skitt (AmE)
Cheryl - 15 Jan 2010 19:21 GMT >>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a >>>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > believe that there is no such thing as a god, and I have a low opinion > of any sort of fundamentalists of any sort of religion. Oh, well ... I tend to think of such things more as organized approaches to developing answers to 'why' questions - not just 'why are we here?' but 'why should I do X instead of Y in situation Z?' They function on a lot of other levels, too - perhaps believing in something besides themselves, belonging etc.
 Signature Cheryl
Skitt - 15 Jan 2010 19:36 GMT >>>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a >>>>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > a lot of other levels, too - perhaps believing in something besides > themselves, belonging etc. I have never felt a need for "belonging" for the sake of belonging. OK, I tend to be a loner, and that is by choice. Somehow, I have never found groups that pique my curiosity, this newsgroup excepted, of course, or I wouldn't be writing this.
 Signature Skitt (AmE)
Chuck Riggs - 16 Jan 2010 12:17 GMT >>>>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a >>>>>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >groups that pique my curiosity, this newsgroup excepted, of course, or I >wouldn't be writing this. Did belonging to the family of people at Boeing or Lockheed, I forget which, not give you pleasure? I'm a loner, but the Army family I belonged to as a dependent and the million-strong Navy family I belonged to as a worker gave me a great deal of pleasure.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Skitt - 16 Jan 2010 19:05 GMT >> I have never felt a need for "belonging" for the sake of belonging. >> OK, I tend to be a loner, and that is by choice. Somehow, I have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > belonged to as a dependent and the million-strong Navy family I > belonged to as a worker gave me a great deal of pleasure. Yes, I derived some pleasure associating with a few of my workmates while at work. Having frequent chats with them alleviated the stress of the concentration required for my programming and program design work. When I was concentrating on the tasks at hand, I was oblivious to my surroundings.
I did not associate with my workmates outside the work or lunchtime environments.
 Signature Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/main.html
Chuck Riggs - 17 Jan 2010 11:59 GMT >>> I have never felt a need for "belonging" for the sake of belonging. >>> OK, I tend to be a loner, and that is by choice. Somehow, I have [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I did not associate with my workmates outside the work or lunchtime >environments. Except for my canoeing partner, I didn't either, but I felt reasonably close to a number of the people who worked in my immediate office, in the Navy laboratories and in a few other Navy facilities. I enjoyed the company of some of our contractors, too, even if we weren't close. By law we weren't close.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Hatunen - 15 Jan 2010 21:40 GMT >>>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a >>>>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >of other levels, too - perhaps believing in something besides >themselves, belonging etc.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Hatunen - 15 Jan 2010 21:44 GMT >> It seems that most people need something besides themselves to believe >> in. I don't seem to ever have had that need. I don't believe in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >of other levels, too - perhaps believing in something besides >themselves, belonging etc. Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any commandments, to wit:
1. The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
2. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
3. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
4. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
5. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
6.The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Robert Bannister - 16 Jan 2010 01:12 GMT >>> It seems that most people need something besides themselves to believe >>> in. I don't seem to ever have had that need. I don't believe in [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > 7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which > we are a part. I could certainly live with that, although I find No. 4 odd - this continual search for "meaning" (whatever that is) seems to be one of the things that sets "religious" people apart. I think I understand No. 7, but the wording is a bit airy-fairy.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Hatunen - 16 Jan 2010 01:17 GMT >>>> It seems that most people need something besides themselves to believe >>>> in. I don't seem to ever have had that need. I don't believe in [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >things that sets "religious" people apart. I think I understand No. 7, >but the wording is a bit airy-fairy. UUs are kind of inclined that way....
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Cheryl - 16 Jan 2010 13:05 GMT >>>> It seems that most people need something besides themselves to >>>> believe in. I don't seem to ever have had that need. I don't [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > things that sets "religious" people apart. I think I understand No. 7, > but the wording is a bit airy-fairy. The list certainly would give me a lot to quibble about, which has some attraction. No. 7 is clearly referring to environmentalism, and although I think I could adhere to it as written, I'd be accused of not doing so because there are certain forms of environmentalism that practically give me hives, and the supporters of such views wouldn't consider me an enivronmentalist at all. After all, I eat meat even though cows contribute to global warming and are sentient creatures.
 Signature Cheryl
John Holmes - 21 Jan 2010 10:09 GMT > Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any > commandments, to wit: Ooo, look, there are conservation laws at work in the universe. I was reading earlier today about a school that had a Principle and a Vice-Principle. If I can find five more, it will all balance out.
 Signature Regards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au
Peter Moylan - 21 Jan 2010 12:41 GMT >> Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any >> commandments, to wit: > > Ooo, look, there are conservation laws at work in the universe. I was > reading earlier today about a school that had a Principle and a > Vice-Principle. If I can find five more, it will all balance out. Not quite. Vice-Principle is a term that seems to cancel itself out.
 Signature Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Cheryl - 21 Jan 2010 12:49 GMT >>> Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any >>> commandments, to wit: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > Not quite. Vice-Principle is a term that seems to cancel itself out. Well, there's always the solution proposed by Mr. Jed Clampett - add a line to the V and you have 'Nice' Principle.
 Signature Cheryl
R H Draney - 21 Jan 2010 17:32 GMT Cheryl filted:
>>>> Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any >>>> commandments, to wit: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Well, there's always the solution proposed by Mr. Jed Clampett - add a >line to the V and you have 'Nice' Principle. Billy Connolly as the new schoolteacher flirting with the administrator he's just been introduced to: "Vice Principal, eh? How'd you like to be one of my principal vices?"...r
 Signature A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this?
Pat Durkin - 21 Jan 2010 16:45 GMT >> Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any >> commandments, to wit: > > Ooo, look, there are conservation laws at work in the universe. I > was reading earlier today about a school that had a Principle and a > Vice-Principle. If I can find five more, it will all balance out. Oh, you meant to write "conversation laws" right?
Hatunen - 21 Jan 2010 21:35 GMT >> Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any >> commandments, to wit: > >Ooo, look, there are conservation laws at work in the universe. I was >reading earlier today about a school that had a Principle and a >Vice-Principle. If I can find five more, it will all balance out. In American the word is "principal", but you knew that didn't you?
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Skitt - 21 Jan 2010 21:59 GMT > "John Holmes" wrote:
>>> Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any >>> commandments, to wit: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > In American the word is "principal", but you knew that didn't > you? I think somebody is getting whooshed.
 Signature Skitt (AmE)
Robert Bannister - 22 Jan 2010 00:32 GMT >>> Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any >>> commandments, to wit: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In American the word is "principal", but you knew that didn't > you? I thought that referred to the capitol sum, but perhaps that's been superceded.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Hatunen - 23 Jan 2010 22:12 GMT >>>> Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any >>>> commandments, to wit: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I thought that referred to the capitol sum, but perhaps that's been >superceded. In the capitol, sums are always being superceded...
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
R H Draney - 23 Jan 2010 23:52 GMT Robert Bannister filted:
>>>> Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any >>>> commandments, to wit: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I thought that referred to the capitol sum, but perhaps that's been >superceded. You make spellchecker cry!...r
 Signature A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this?
Chuck Riggs - 16 Jan 2010 12:10 GMT >>>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a >>>>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >of other levels, too - perhaps believing in something besides >themselves, belonging etc. By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am probably using religious principles, both Christian and Buddhist, but my behaviour is not dependent on the existence of a god.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Wood Avens - 16 Jan 2010 12:22 GMT >By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X >has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am >probably using religious principles, both Christian and Buddhist, but >my behaviour is not dependent on the existence of a god. They're not "religious" principles, they're just principles. Religions aren't entitled to claim ownership of the practical gudelines for communal living just because they choose to incorporate them into their doctrines.
 Signature Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Skitt - 16 Jan 2010 19:06 GMT
>> By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X >> has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > gudelines for communal living just because they choose to incorporate > them into their doctrines. Right.
 Signature Skitt (AmE)
Robert Bannister - 16 Jan 2010 23:27 GMT >> By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X >> has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > gudelines for communal living just because they choose to incorporate > them into their doctrines. Exactly. If you listen to some of the more extreme religious types, you get the impression that but for their brand of religion, we'd all go round murdering each other willy-nilly.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Chuck Riggs - 17 Jan 2010 12:05 GMT >>By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X >>has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >gudelines for communal living just because they choose to incorporate >them into their doctrines. Since many of the principles Westerners hold, including atheists like myself, are based on the teachings of the Bible, they are correctly called "religious principles", IMO.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Robert Bannister - 18 Jan 2010 01:18 GMT >>> By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X >>> has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > myself, are based on the teachings of the Bible, they are correctly > called "religious principles", IMO. They are not based on the teachings of the Bible, which, despite the Commandments, is mainly about eye for an eye, revenge or plain conquest. Rather the Bible, like most religious texts, selects a few of the items common to nearly all human societies. Don't kill, don't steal are the main ones; the rest, which don't even seem to be strictly adhered to even by all Christians or Jews, vary according to geography and historical period.
Note: the Bible says nothing about having sex with children, and the Commandments don't mention incest.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Peter Moylan - 18 Jan 2010 06:03 GMT >> Since many of the principles Westerners hold, including atheists like >> myself, are based on the teachings of the Bible, they are correctly [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Note: the Bible says nothing about having sex with children, and the > Commandments don't mention incest. Not the commandments, no, but I got the impression that Lot's incestuous behaviour didn't stop him from being considered to be a virtuous man. The Lot story also carries the message that raping children is a desirable alternative to homosexual rape.
 Signature Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Cheryl - 18 Jan 2010 10:48 GMT >>>> By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X >>>> has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Note: the Bible says nothing about having sex with children, and the > Commandments don't mention incest. If you're talking about principles 'based on the Bible' instead of 'found in a literal reading of the Bible', you can hardly avoid the interpretations of the Bible (and Torah) teachings about what those principles are and how they should be applied by thousands of years of Jewish and Christian scholars. That includes just about everything modern Western thinking is based on, if you trace the antecedents back far enough. Now, I wouldn't therefore call the principles themselves "religious principles" since they are used by non-religious people as well, but they were certainly founded in and developed in religions and their theology.
That the people who developed and taught these principles often failed to live them means that the people were and are human and fallible. It doesn't mean they didn't hold the principles.
And at the risk of starting another long OT thread, both sex with children and incest have different meanings at different times and in different places. We - at least in Canada - include both sex with pre-pubescent children and sex with children from pubescence to legal age of majority as "sex with children". There's a wide difference between the first and the second cases, and some societies have recognized it - even our own does in the various exceptions it makes for adolescents, defining some sex involving adolescents as 'OK, sort of' and some as 'sex with children', usually depending on the age of the partner. And the idea that sex between first cousins is incestuous is so recent I can remember it - whatever the law says about it being OK. So - saying that the Bible doesn't say anything about those two issues ignores the varying definitions as well as the centuries of interpretation and application of Biblical teachings.
 Signature Cheryl
Chuck Riggs - 18 Jan 2010 11:34 GMT >>>> By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X >>>> has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >They are not based on the teachings of the Bible, which, despite the >Commandments, is mainly about eye for an eye, revenge or plain conquest. Try again. To set the record straight, here are the Big Ten:
http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/the-ten-commandments.html
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 17:43 GMT >>>>> By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X >>>>> has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/the-ten-commandments.html I'm not sure what you're getting at; he said "... despite the Commandments ..."
(I see that God admits he is not the only god, just the only god for the Hebrews.)
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Robert Bannister - 19 Jan 2010 01:31 GMT >>>>> By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X >>>>> has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/the-ten-commandments.html As I said: "despite the commandments". I have read the book, you know. The film was nothing like it.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Chuck Riggs - 19 Jan 2010 11:55 GMT >>>>>> By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X >>>>>> has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >As I said: "despite the commandments". I have read the book, you know. >The film was nothing like it. How can we discuss Biblical teachings about what principles we should follow without including the Ten Commandments?
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Evan Kirshenbaum - 19 Jan 2010 17:22 GMT > How can we discuss Biblical teachings about what principles we > should follow without including the Ten Commandments? Just make sure that you get the right ten (Ex 20:2-17, Deut. 5:6-18), not the other, probably earlier, set in (Ex: 34:14-26).
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"You can't prove it *isn't* so!" is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |as good as Q.E.D. in folk logic--as Palo Alto, CA 94304 |though it were necessary to submit |a piece of the moon to chemical kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |analysis before you could be sure (650)857-7572 |that it was not made of green |cheese. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Bergen Evans
Skitt - 19 Jan 2010 18:21 GMT >> How can we discuss Biblical teachings about what principles we >> should follow without including the Ten Commandments? > > Just make sure that you get the right ten (Ex 20:2-17, Deut. 5:6-18), > not the other, probably earlier, set in (Ex: 34:14-26). They had Service Packs already then?
 Signature Skitt (AmE)
James Hogg - 19 Jan 2010 19:16 GMT >>> How can we discuss Biblical teachings about what principles we >>> should follow without including the Ten Commandments? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > They had Service Packs already then? They had to have different sets of commandments, one for children and one for adults.
The version that isn't so well known starts with this commandment:
"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
They produced the other version when they got tired of children asking: "Daddy, what is whoring?"
 Signature James
CDB - 20 Jan 2010 15:14 GMT >>>> How can we discuss Biblical teachings about what principles we >>>> should follow without including the Ten Commandments? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > They produced the other version when they got tired of children > asking: "Daddy, what is whoring?" I'd be interested to hear the Dad explain that one, myself. My dictionary translates the word in question as "sacrificing".
Evan Kirshenbaum - 20 Jan 2010 16:25 GMT >>>>> How can we discuss Biblical teachings about what principles we >>>>> should follow without including the Ten Commandments? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I'd be interested to hear the Dad explain that one, myself. My > dictionary translates the word in question as "sacrificing". Both words are there in 34:15. NJPS says "lust after their gods". Friedman gives it as "prostitute themselves after their gods".
The words in question are /zanu/ (the first two times) and /hiznu/ (the last). The -/u/ is a grammatical ending, "they will". My trusty on-line Hebrew dictionary (which takes unpointed inflected forms), gives, for the first
/zan/ to nurture, to feed /zina/ to be promiscuous, to fornicate, to commit adultery.
while for the second
/hazin/ to enter data, to sustain, to supply, to feed /hizna/ to cause someone to engage in prostitution
The following words /axarei elohehEn/, "after their gods" appear to force one reading, although I wish that my Hebrew was better, since I would have expected the first to be pointed as /zinu/ rather than /zanu/ if that were the case.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It is one thing to be mistaken; it is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |quite another to be willfully Palo Alto, CA 94304 |ignorant | Cecil Adams kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Jerry Friedman - 20 Jan 2010 23:57 GMT ...
> My trusty > on-line Hebrew dictionary (which takes unpointed inflected forms), Which dictionary is that?
> gives, for the first > > /zan/ to nurture, to feed ...
I wonder whether just that one word will give Laura STS.
-- Jerry Friedman
Evan Kirshenbaum - 21 Jan 2010 08:44 GMT > ... > >> My trusty >> on-line Hebrew dictionary (which takes unpointed inflected forms), > > Which dictionary is that? http://morfix.mako.co.il/
or, on my iPhone (which is actually easier to use)
http://m.morfix.co.il
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The whole idea of our government is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this: if enough people get together Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and act in concert, they can take |something and not pay for it. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Jerry Friedman - 24 Jan 2010 06:21 GMT > > ... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://m.morfix.co.il Todah rabah.
-- Jerry Friedman
CDB - 23 Jan 2010 22:37 GMT >>>>>> How can we discuss Biblical teachings about what principles we >>>>>> should follow without including the Ten Commandments? [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > I would have expected the first to be pointed as /zinu/ rather than > /zanu/ if that were the case. Thank you for that. Wires crossed somewhere. As for the vowels, FWIW my modern Hebrew dictionary,which gives all lexical items with pointing or I couldn't use it, has "zânâh" (â for qametz), for "to go astray, to be a prostitute, to fornicate", but no "zina" that I can find. A possible misprint?
Evan Kirshenbaum - 23 Jan 2010 23:33 GMT >> The words in question are /zanu/ (the first two times) and /hiznu/ >> (the last). The -/u/ is a grammatical ending, "they will". My [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > go astray, to be a prostitute, to fornicate", but no "zina" that I > can find. A possible misprint? No, just a misreading, although I don't know how I missed it. /zana/ (with qametz /a/[1]) is indeed there, glossed "to commit adultery". /zin-a/ (with a dagesh), the one I quoted, is also there, marked as "literary", so it may not be in your dictionaries. Neither of my printed dictionaries has it. So no mystery. /zanu/ it is and should be.
[1] /A/ for Ashkenazi speakers
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Those who would give up essential 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Liberty, to purchase a little Palo Alto, CA 94304 |temporary Safety, deserve neither |Liberty nor Safety. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Benjamin Franklin (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Evan Kirshenbaum - 24 Jan 2010 06:15 GMT > No, just a misreading, although I don't know how I missed it. /zana/ > (with qametz /a/[1]) is indeed there, glossed "to commit adultery". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > [1] /A/ for Ashkenazi speakers Or, rather, /O/.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |English grammar is not taught in 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |primary or secondary schools in the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |United States. Sometimes some |mythology is taught under that kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |rubric, but luckily it's usually (650)857-7572 |ignored, except by the credulous. | John Lawler http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Chuck Riggs - 20 Jan 2010 13:51 GMT >> How can we discuss Biblical teachings about what principles we >> should follow without including the Ten Commandments? > >Just make sure that you get the right ten (Ex 20:2-17, Deut. 5:6-18), >not the other, probably earlier, set in (Ex: 34:14-26). I quoted Ex 20:2-17 which, let us pray, included the latest Service Pack Skitt mentioned.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:27 GMT >>>By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X >>>has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >myself, are based on the teachings of the Bible, they are correctly >called "religious principles", IMO. I really don't think of my moral and ethical principles as being Biblically based. Those principles are found more widely in religions than just those of "the book".
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Chuck Riggs - 16 Jan 2010 12:04 GMT >>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a >>>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >is no such thing as a god, and I have a low opinion of any sort of >fundamentalists of any sort of religion. Oh, well ... You're a hard man, Alec. Even though I think Christianity, for example, is a lot of phooey, I respect people who are able to find answers for their daily lives, in the Bible. Life ain't easy.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Skitt - 16 Jan 2010 19:16 GMT >>>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a >>>>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > example, is a lot of phooey, I respect people who are able to find > answers for their daily lives, in the Bible. Life ain't easy. Well, mine, some early circumstances excepting (those were my parents' problem) has been quite tolerable, to my mind. Sure, there have been times not to my liking (divorce, death of wife), but I survived them nicely without relying on anything supernatural.
I am fully aware that for some people life would not seem tolerable without some religious purpose, and I'm not ever going to try to dissuade them from that belief. I just don't look on it as rational thinking, but that should not matter to the "believers". As it is, I'm the one that usually has to defend myself for not being one of them, but that doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother them.
 Signature Skitt (Follower of the FOTIPU) "The Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them." -- Steve Eley
tony cooper - 16 Jan 2010 21:52 GMT >>>>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a >>>>>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >defend myself for not being one of them, but that doesn't bother me as much >as it seems to bother them. I am currently feeling very favorable about religious people. Volunteers from many churches and religious organizations are pouring into Haiti to offer aid and assistance. Church groups are busy gathering everything from blankets to canned goods to send to Haiti.
I'm trying very, very hard to not think "About time you did something worthwhile."
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mike Lyle - 17 Jan 2010 20:13 GMT [...]
> I am currently feeling very favorable about religious people. > Volunteers from many churches and religious organizations are pouring [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm trying very, very hard to not think "About time you did something > worthwhile." You could try Non-Believers Giving Aid: <http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/>
Of course, there are plenty of international charities that have no confessional link, though I imagine this one is the only one to make a "selling" point of it. But let's be fair: religious organisations constantly do an awful lot around the world: Islamic Relief, Christian Aid, and the rest never stop.
 Signature Mike.
Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:25 GMT >[...] >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >"selling" point of it. But let's be fair: religious organisations >constantly do an awful lot around the world: And they have an awful lot to make up for.
>Islamic Relief, Christian Aid, and the rest never stop. Nor does constant enmity betwen the religions, to the point of killing each other. It would be nice if they actually thought of their current penchant for charity as a penance for the stuff their religions did in the past, or are still doing.
I wonder how it all works out on the eternal books, black or red ink?
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Chuck Riggs - 17 Jan 2010 12:19 GMT >>>>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a >>>>>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >defend myself for not being one of them, but that doesn't bother me as much >as it seems to bother them. As I recall from a poll taken by The Economist, a majority of Americans consider atheists more repugnant than terrorist suspects. We are hated. Many people desperately want others to believe what they believe, it seems to me.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:21 GMT >> You're a hard man, Alec. Even though I think Christianity, for >> example, is a lot of phooey, I respect people who are able to find [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >defend myself for not being one of them, but that doesn't bother me as much >as it seems to bother them. Mencken also said, "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Chuck Riggs - 16 Jan 2010 11:57 GMT >>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a belief >>>> in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an atheist. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >vaguely eastern, vaguely new-ageish ideas. And atheism and agnosticism, >of course. What I know about Buddhism is largely based on the fascinating translations by D.T. Suzuki of Japanese books about Buddhism that I have read, in some cases, several times over. More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._T._Suzuki#.22New_Buddhism.2C.22_Japanese_Nationa lism.2C_and_Buddhist_Modernism
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
the Omrud - 13 Jan 2010 09:40 GMT > * I distinguish between unbelievers and those atheists who spend a lot > of their time trying to prove that God does not exist. In my view > these latter spend as much time thinking about religion as do > religious fundamentalists. As a point of interest, if it weren't for these discussions in AUE, I would hardly ever think about religion at all. That, despite the fact that I sing in choirs which often take part in religious services, and that I like to listen to Choral Evensong on Radio 3. I just like the music.
 Signature David
Robin Bignall - 13 Jan 2010 21:48 GMT >> * I distinguish between unbelievers and those atheists who spend a lot >> of their time trying to prove that God does not exist. In my view [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >that I sing in choirs which often take part in religious services, and >that I like to listen to Choral Evensong on Radio 3. I just like the music. Couldn't have put it better myself.
 Signature Robin (BrE) Herts, England
Hatunen - 14 Jan 2010 00:35 GMT >>> * I distinguish between unbelievers and those atheists who spend a lot >>> of their time trying to prove that God does not exist. In my view [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Couldn't have put it better myself. And I'll second that.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Cheryl - 14 Jan 2010 14:23 GMT >>>> * I distinguish between unbelievers and those atheists who spend a lot >>>> of their time trying to prove that God does not exist. In my view [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > And I'll second that. It took me a while to understand why a friend had absolutely no interest in what she considered to be questions that can't be answered, by which she meant not only questions about the existence of God, but a good few philosophical issues as well. I, on the other hand, tend to find those topics far more interesting than ones with clear-cut answers.
Upon reflection, I realized that of course there are vast swathes of human knowledge and experience that interest me so little that I never even think about them unless someone else brings them up or I'm trying to find an example for a comment like this.
Our own personalities, backgrounds and interests; the types of minds we have and how it was educated and trained, have a LOT to do with which topics fascinate us, and which we almost never even think about.
 Signature Cheryl
Robin Bignall - 14 Jan 2010 21:51 GMT >>>>> * I distinguish between unbelievers and those atheists who spend a lot >>>>> of their time trying to prove that God does not exist. In my view [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >have and how it was educated and trained, have a LOT to do with which >topics fascinate us, and which we almost never even think about. Nicely put,and it's true, with regard to interests. But with most subjects other than a deist religion, one can start from first principles and, given patience and intelligence, work one's way through to understanding Quantum Theory or any other vastly complex subject. But with such a religion one has to start with faith and a totally unwarranted assumption that there is some sort of God.
 Signature Robin (BrE) Herts, England
Cheryl - 15 Jan 2010 11:47 GMT > Nicely put,and it's true, with regard to interests. But with most > subjects other than a deist religion, one can start from first > principles and, given patience and intelligence, work one's way > through to understanding Quantum Theory or any other vastly complex > subject. But with such a religion one has to start with faith and a > totally unwarranted assumption that there is some sort of God. Think of it as starting from a premise, not an unwarranted assumption! (I think 'premise' is the right word; my formal training in logic is minimal.)
I studied a bit of science years ago. I enjoyed it a lot, still do to a small extent, but rapidly reached a point where my mathematical illiteracy (which seemed to be incurable) prevented me from gaining any real understanding of quantum theory and other similar ideas.
I did get the impression that the more I learned about science, the more there was to learn, in a kind of never-ending spiral. The idea I'd left high school with, that science explained everything, got a severe shaking-up as I realized that each explanation was incomplete, and there was yet another theory explaining the weaknesses of the first; and THAT theory had its faults.... I felt particularly cheated that every time I figured I knew what an atom was, the teachers would come up with more information and another model!
Science is fascinating, but each model has it's unwarranted assumptions, which are fixed by the next most advanced model, which makes assumptions of its own, and so on and so forth.
 Signature Cheryl
Robin Bignall - 15 Jan 2010 21:41 GMT >> Nicely put,and it's true, with regard to interests. But with most >> subjects other than a deist religion, one can start from first [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >(I think 'premise' is the right word; my formal training in logic is >minimal.) Call it what you like, but an assumption that deities exist is unwarranted.
>I studied a bit of science years ago. I enjoyed it a lot, still do to a >small extent, but rapidly reached a point where my mathematical [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >which are fixed by the next most advanced model, which makes assumptions >of its own, and so on and so forth. No, each scientific model does NOT have unwarrantable assumptions. If it has, it's not science. It may well be that without formal training and possibly a specific sort of mind, the average man in the street can't follow all of the steps which take you from Ohm's Law to General Relativity, but each step is built on provable previous steps.
 Signature Robin (BrE) Herts, England
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 15 Jan 2010 23:44 GMT >>> Nicely put,and it's true, with regard to interests. But with most >>> subjects other than a deist religion, one can start from first [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Call it what you like, but an assumption that deities exist is >unwarranted. It might be unwarranted for those of us with scientific knowledge and understanding to assume that deities exist. It seems to me to be an eminently reasonable assumption for people in pre-scientific cultures to make.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism
Animism (from Latin anima "soul, life") is a philosophical, religious or spiritual idea that souls or spirits exist not only in humans but also in other animals, plants, rocks, natural phenomena such as thunder, geographic features such as mountains or rivers, or other entities of the natural environment."
I'd suggest that animism is a very reasonable "first guess" about how the world works. We humans act in accordance with our needs. We make decisions about how to treat other people based on how they treat us. We look at the natural world around us. It appears to "do things to us". Rivers flood catastrophically; volcanoes erupt; the weather becomes damagingly bad; our animals get sick; crops fail; and so on. There are also the good things that nature appears to "do to us".
It is reasonable, in pre-scientific cultures, to attempt to understand the behaviour of nature towards us as being analogous to interactions between people. "What have we done to deserve that? How can we make the rivers, volcanoes, weather, etc, happy so that they don't do bad things to us?"
The next step in sophistication is to recognise that it is a bit silly to believe that rocks, winds and rivers each has an inbuilt decision-making "mind". It is much more sensible to merge the spirits in each of these natural features and phenomena into one or more great spirits or gods.
It is only when we have developed some sort of scientific understanding that we can see that nature is not consciously responding to our behaviour in a way similar to that in which we humans consciously respond to one another, and that there is no need to assume the existence of decision-making spirits.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Robert Bannister - 16 Jan 2010 23:31 GMT >>>> Nicely put,and it's true, with regard to interests. But with most >>>> subjects other than a deist religion, one can start from first [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > respond to one another, and that there is no need to assume the > existence of decision-making spirits. There are plenty of people who fervently believe that a malevolent spirit resides in their car, computer, photocopier, washing machine... No amount of sacrifice will placate these evil demons.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 17 Jan 2010 00:34 GMT >There are plenty of people who fervently believe that a malevolent >spirit resides in their car, computer, photocopier, washing machine... >No amount of sacrifice will placate these evil demons. As someone who used to repair computers for a living I have considerable sympathy with the Evil Demons Hypothesis. There were occasions when the presence of a demon appeared to be the most logical diagnosis.
Somehow it seemed to be possible to find and replace the component in which the demon had taken up residence. Then, of course, the demon would somehow find its way back into the computer or some other item of equipment.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Nick Spalding - 17 Jan 2010 10:28 GMT Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in <udm4l55t5ub0tfdk88ogcrmuca0p7f79b1@4ax.com> on Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:34:33 +0000:
> >There are plenty of people who fervently believe that a malevolent > >spirit resides in their car, computer, photocopier, washing machine... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > somehow find its way back into the computer or some other item of > equipment. I was in that trade once. Sometimes the machine is carefully designed to include hiding places for demons. I remember an IBM 360/30 which developed the habit of stopping dead with red lights blazing at random intervals of a week or so. By that time the machine had taken a machine check interrupt and its state was nowhere near what it had been when the error occurred, though it did still signal a microprogram parity error. I was called in after others had failed and managed to trap it by wiring in a bit of extra circuitry to stop the clock dead when the initial error occurred, which left the address in the register. When the relevant card was pulled from the microprogram unit it was found to be just a tiny bit off punch and some of the holes had a whisker of metal down one side. Duplicating the card on to a new one in a keypunch fixed it. I still have that card, from 1967.
 Signature Nick Spalding BrE/IrE
Robert Bannister - 18 Jan 2010 01:20 GMT > Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in > <udm4l55t5ub0tfdk88ogcrmuca0p7f79b1@4ax.com> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > down one side. Duplicating the card on to a new one in a keypunch fixed > it. I still have that card, from 1967. Sounds like a Florida election.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Bob Martin - 18 Jan 2010 06:45 GMT >I was in that trade once. Sometimes the machine is carefully designed >to include hiding places for demons. I remember an IBM 360/30 which [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >down one side. Duplicating the card on to a new one in a keypunch fixed >it. I still have that card, from 1967. That was CROS, wasn't it? Was it unique to the Mod 30? I know the 40 had TROS.
Nick Spalding - 18 Jan 2010 11:33 GMT Bob Martin wrote, in <TrT4n.27829$Ym4.2913@text.news.virginmedia.com> on Mon, 18 Jan 2010 06:45:07 GMT:
> >I was in that trade once. Sometimes the machine is carefully designed > >to include hiding places for demons. I remember an IBM 360/30 which [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > That was CROS, wasn't it? Was it unique to the Mod 30? I know the 40 had TROS. It was CROS and that implementation of it using mylar cards in regular IBM card format was unique to the 30. I think the 360/50 used a different form of CROS. The 20 also used TROS as did the controllers for 2311s and 2314s.
 Signature Nick Spalding BrE/IrE
Richard Bollard - 19 Jan 2010 00:26 GMT >>There are plenty of people who fervently believe that a malevolent >>spirit resides in their car, computer, photocopier, washing machine... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >somehow find its way back into the computer or some other item of >equipment. Those demons can have a sense of humour. I was once using a scanner where mark-sense answer sheets were being scanned and I tried to tidy the stack of scanned forms with my fore-finger. I must have tripped a sensor because the machine stopped and the monitor readout ended with the word "Finger".
It turned out that the last sheet it read before my finger tripped the sensor was for a person named "Finger". Gave me paws, 'though.
 Signature Richard Bollard Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
Cheryl - 17 Jan 2010 10:54 GMT > There are plenty of people who fervently believe that a malevolent > spirit resides in their car, computer, photocopier, washing machine... > No amount of sacrifice will placate these evil demons. My father, who was not religious at all, claimed he believed in gremlins, which he learned about during his military training at the end of WW II. They are evil creatures which infest military aircraft, causing them to malfunction.
Of course, he also liked telling tall tales, and seeing which of them he could persuade his naive children to accept, but he could not have been inspired by the movie because that came much later, and in any case, he rarely watched movies.
 Signature Cheryl
Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:39 GMT >> There are plenty of people who fervently believe that a malevolent >> spirit resides in their car, computer, photocopier, washing machine... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >inspired by the movie because that came much later, and in any case, he >rarely watched movies. There were animated films during WW2 about gremlins infecting aircraft.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Chuck Riggs - 17 Jan 2010 12:25 GMT <snip>
>There are plenty of people who fervently believe that a malevolent >spirit resides in their car, computer, photocopier, washing machine... >No amount of sacrifice will placate these evil demons. I have never believed in them, but on the other hand it pays not to offend anything as complicated as an automobile or a computer. Their revenge can be fearsome.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Richard Bollard - 19 Jan 2010 00:21 GMT >>>> Nicely put,and it's true, with regard to interests. But with most >>>> subjects other than a deist religion, one can start from first [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >respond to one another, and that there is no need to assume the >existence of decision-making spirits. This was the fallacy that Spinoza pinned down nicely, the human belief in "final cause". The apple tree exists to provide me with apples. All things exist for a purpose and if we cannot detect that purpose, it must be (a) God's (mysterious) purpose.
If you accept that stuff just happens and take the will out of God, you end up with "God" becoming something close to our current concept of "nature".
 Signature Richard Bollard Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
Cheryl - 16 Jan 2010 00:28 GMT > No, each scientific model does NOT have unwarrantable assumptions. If > it has, it's not science. It may well be that without formal training > and possibly a specific sort of mind, the average man in the street > can't follow all of the steps which take you from Ohm's Law to General > Relativity, but each step is built on provable previous steps. I didn't say any scientific model was built on unwarrantable assumptions; or at least I wasn't trying to say it did. You discover after you test the model that some of your assumptions were wrong and need to be changed so you can construct a new and improved model which is bound to also be wrong in some way, so later scientists will come up with a newer one, and so on. Scientific models provide an approximate answer to the questions of how various things in our universe work. The explanations tend to increase in strength and accuracy over time, but they have their limitations.
I was tyring to say that science tries to answer 'how' questions, not the 'why' questions which are in the realm of theology and philosophy. If you're trying to describe the exact nature of an atom and the exact processes by which it combines, you need science. If you want to know why there are atoms in the first place, you need theology or philosophy or possibly the willingness to decide that the question is hardly important, unanswerable and/or not very interesting. Both science and philosophy/theology are necessarily imperfect approaches to the understanding the universe we live in, but they have different strengths and weaknesses and different focuses.
And there's no particular reason you need to start from the assumption that the material world is all there is if you're studying religion or philosophy, however essential that assumption is when you're studying science.
 Signature Cheryl
Robert Bannister - 16 Jan 2010 01:16 GMT >> Nicely put,and it's true, with regard to interests. But with most >> subjects other than a deist religion, one can start from first [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > which are fixed by the next most advanced model, which makes assumptions > of its own, and so on and so forth. Electricity going backwards was a shock. Waves and particles seemed to be moving into religious territory. Some of the stuff scientists take for granted today makes as much sense to me as some religious mumbo-jumbo.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2010 03:10 GMT > Electricity going backwards was a shock. Waves and particles seemed > to be moving into religious territory. Some of the stuff scientists > take for granted today makes as much sense to me as some religious > mumbo-jumbo. So have we hit "sufficiently advanced" or are we still sneaking up on it?
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Other computer companies have spent 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |15 years working on fault-tolerant Palo Alto, CA 94304 |computers. Microsoft has spent |its time more fruitfully, working kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |on fault-tolerant *users*. (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Robert Bannister - 16 Jan 2010 23:33 GMT >> Electricity going backwards was a shock. Waves and particles seemed >> to be moving into religious territory. Some of the stuff scientists [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So have we hit "sufficiently advanced" or are we still sneaking up on > it? Oh, a hit I think. I looks like magic to me.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:18 GMT >>> Electricity going backwards was a shock. Waves and particles seemed >>> to be moving into religious territory. Some of the stuff scientists [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Oh, a hit I think. I looks like magic to me. Damn. I should have read your post before I posted....
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Robert Bannister - 19 Jan 2010 01:34 GMT >>>> Electricity going backwards was a shock. Waves and particles seemed >>>> to be moving into religious territory. Some of the stuff scientists [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Damn. I should have read your post before I posted.... And I should have included a "t" in "It".
 Signature Rob Bannister
Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:17 GMT >> Electricity going backwards was a shock. Waves and particles seemed >> to be moving into religious territory. Some of the stuff scientists [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >So have we hit "sufficiently advanced" or are we still sneaking up on >it? What was it Arthur C Clark said about advanced technology? Ah: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Steve Hayes - 18 Jan 2010 07:37 GMT >What was it Arthur C Clark said about advanced technology? >Ah: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable >from magic." Didn't some other thread start off with that one?
Does that mean we've come full circle and this thread is dead?
I suppose it must be, since it was sort of OT to begin with.
 Signature Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Peter Moylan - 19 Jan 2010 11:07 GMT >> What was it Arthur C Clark said about advanced technology? Ah: "Any >> sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I suppose it must be, since it was sort of OT to begin with. And all of us have now forgotten why it was sort of OT.
Given the direction in which the discussion drifted, it might be to the point to quote something by Philip Dick: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Drug-induced delirium was a recurring theme in Dick's writing, so the above probably wasn't intended to be a comment on religion.
 Signature Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Chuck Riggs - 16 Jan 2010 12:59 GMT <snip>
>Waves and particles seemed to >be moving into religious territory. Except that what quantum mechanics predicts can be demonstrated. That is not the case with religious theory.
>Some of the stuff scientists take >for granted today makes as much sense to me as some religious mumbo-jumbo. OK, but it wouldn't if you belonged to the scientific priesthood, people who can prove the theories they espouse.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2010 18:50 GMT > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > OK, but it wouldn't if you belonged to the scientific priesthood, > people who can prove the theories they espouse. We cannot make the mystery go away by 'explaining' how it works. We will just *tell* you how it works.
Richard Feynman, _Lectures on Physics_
From quotes from Feynman[1], Bohr[2], and others, as well as from talking to physicists, the impression I get is that it never does stop seeming somewhat magical. It can be demonstrated, and it's predictable, but it's can't be made to make sense. Of course, science doesn't stop being science just because the human mind can't wrap its head around it, just as magic wouldn't stop being magic even if it were demonstrated to follow demonstrable (supernatural) rules.
[1] who is also supposed to have said that anybody who claims to understand quantum mechanics is either lying or crazy.
[2] "Anyone who can contemplate quantum mechanics without getting dizzy hasn't properly understood it."
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The reason that we don't have 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |"bear-proof" garbage cans in the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |park is that there is a significant |overlap in intelligence between the kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |smartest bears and the dumbest (650)857-7572 |humans. | Yosemite Park Ranger http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Robin Bignall - 16 Jan 2010 21:13 GMT >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >[2] "Anyone who can contemplate quantum mechanics without getting > dizzy hasn't properly understood it." It probably doesn't yet make sense because we don't yet have a complete understanding of how it (the universe) works. We have some equations both for big (galactic) and small (sub-atomic) events, and by applying those equations we can calculate the effects of changes in those two separate environments to within very close to the actual measurements we make. But trying to combine the results from those two areas leads to results that make no sense compared with what we can measure. So the equations in each field get close to measurements, but the actual theories themselves must be incomplete or completely wrong. The equations themselves allow us to use the results technologically, but they're not really answering "how?" completely. Hence string theory and other attempts to find a TOE. But we will get there, eventually.
 Signature Robin (BrE) Herts, England
Peter Moylan - 19 Jan 2010 11:20 GMT >>> <snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > It probably doesn't yet make sense because we don't yet have a > complete understanding of how it (the universe) works. We do, however, have some solidly proven results of the "you're never going to understand it" variety. Here are some of them, paraphrased for simplicity.
- The more accurately you measure one thing, the less accurate your other measurements will become. You can't ever eliminate that wrinkle, you can only shift it about.
- There is no algorithm that can predict whether a Turing machine will halt. More importantly, there never will be.
- The universe, like my desk, becomes more and more disordered with time.
- There are mathematical theorems which are true, but which cannot be proved to be true.
- The ways of God are sometimes difficult to understand.
That last one is from religion. The others are pure science.
 Signature Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Mark Brader - 19 Jan 2010 21:14 GMT Peter Moylan:
> We do, however, have some solidly proven results of the "you're never > going to understand it" variety. Here are some of them, paraphrased for [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > That last one is from religion. The others are pure science. I count one religion, two science, and two math.
 Signature Mark Brader, Toronto (require 'msb) msb@vex.net -- Lars Lindberg
sjdevnull@yahoo.com - 20 Jan 2010 04:29 GMT > Peter Moylan: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I count one religion, two science, and two math. I see one religious, two scientific, one math, and one logical. There are certainly completely decidable mathematical systems, where every theorem which is true is provable and every non-true theorem is disprovable--I believe Peano arithmetic is not complete, and I'm sure ZF isn't, but there are consistent, complete sets of mathematical axioms.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 20 Jan 2010 04:06 GMT > - There is no algorithm that can predict whether a Turing machine > will halt. More importantly, there never will be. That's for an arbitrary Turing machine. There are large (recognizable) classes of Turing machines for which the answer is easy. (Those without loops, for instance.)
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The look on our faces isn't confusion. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |It's disbelief. Palo Alto, CA 94304 | | Jon Stewart kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Nick - 21 Jan 2010 19:28 GMT > It [quantum mechanics] probably doesn't yet make sense because we > don't yet have a complete understanding of how it (the universe) > works. I think it doesn't "make sense" just because it is so utterly contrary to how the macroscopic world works.
We're hard wired to work in that world, and something that is counter to all our instincts will always feel weird.
 Signature Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Robert Bannister - 16 Jan 2010 23:36 GMT >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > dizzy hasn't properly understood it." > Some first-class quotes there. You have described the problem very well.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Chuck Riggs - 17 Jan 2010 12:39 GMT >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >talking to physicists, the impression I get is that it never does stop >seeming somewhat magical. <snip>
Without the magic I wouldn't love mathematics, relativity or what I understand of quantum mechanics, as I do.
>[1] who is also supposed to have said that anybody who claims to > understand quantum mechanics is either lying or crazy. > >[2] "Anyone who can contemplate quantum mechanics without getting > dizzy hasn't properly understood it."  Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:30 GMT >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >head around it, just as magic wouldn't stop being magic even if it >were demonstrated to follow demonstrable (supernatural) rules. The so-called "Copenhagen Interpretation" pretty much ruled out the search for the "why".
>[1] who is also supposed to have said that anybody who claims to > understand quantum mechanics is either lying or crazy. > >[2] "Anyone who can contemplate quantum mechanics without getting > dizzy hasn't properly understood it." You don't have to understand it, you just apply it.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Chuck Riggs - 13 Jan 2010 14:41 GMT >>I was discussing the meaning of "I believe" in the context of religion >>and faith and whether an person can say he has no "beliefs". > >It might then be clearer to say that you have no religious beliefs (or >thoughts, or views). Ouch.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
annily - 13 Jan 2010 01:20 GMT >>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:14:16 GMT, the >>>>>> Omrud<usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > I was discussing the meaning of "I believe" in the context of religion > and faith and whether an person can say he has no "beliefs". Fair enough. I forgot about the earlier part of the thread.
 Signature Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
Skitt - 11 Jan 2010 19:51 GMT >>> Better, in my view, is to avoid the word altogether. If I want to >>> know what someone believes, I ask them what they believe, not what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Materialists, but that's not the only kind. (Some Buddhists, for > example.) I took a test on line and was classified as 100% Secular Humanist. How nice.
 Signature Skitt (AmE) humanistic, even.
R H Draney - 11 Jan 2010 20:06 GMT Skitt filted:
>>>> Better, in my view, is to avoid the word altogether. If I want to >>>> know what someone believes, I ask them what they believe, not what [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I took a test on line and was classified as 100% Secular Humanist. How >nice. I took what I assume is the same test and was classified as 100% Neo-Pagan...(the test norms the results so you're always 100% of whatever your closest match is)....r
 Signature A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this?
Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2010 14:38 GMT >Skitt filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Neo-Pagan...(the test norms the results so you're always 100% of whatever your >closest match is)....r At least, in the good old days, we knew what each god was capable of, if not always what to expect from them.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
the Omrud - 11 Jan 2010 20:10 GMT >>> Better, in my view, is to avoid the word altogether. If I want to know >>> what someone believes, I ask them what they believe, not what they [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Materialists, but that's not the only kind. (Some Buddhists, for > example.) Reading your reponse again, I see that you view "I don't have a belief" as a cop-out because everybody has a philosophical commitment.
I won't argue with the suggestion that everybody has a philosophical commitment, but I have no idea what that's got to do with belief.
 Signature David
Garrett Wollman - 12 Jan 2010 00:06 GMT >Reading your reponse again, I see that you view "I don't have a belief" >as a cop-out because everybody has a philosophical commitment. > >I won't argue with the suggestion that everybody has a philosophical >commitment, but I have no idea what that's got to do with belief. Those commitments aren't random noise: they are consequences of a system of belief. Your system of belief may well be Materialism -- you suggest as much, without explicitly admitting to it -- but you cannot deny that you have one.
Perhaps you are conflating belief and faith?
-GAWollman
 Signature Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
the Omrud - 12 Jan 2010 09:19 GMT >> Reading your reponse again, I see that you view "I don't have a belief" >> as a cop-out because everybody has a philosophical commitment. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you suggest as much, without explicitly admitting to it -- but you > cannot deny that you have one. I have an uncountable number of views or opinions, which you may be calling beliefs. It's my view that if I behave well towards others, they will mostly behave well towards me. Do you call that a belief? If so, then I have a system based on a large number of opinions. I don't call that a "belief system", which would seem to require some sort of orthodoxy.
> Perhaps you are conflating belief and faith? In this discussion, yes. I have avoided using the word "believe". I would use it in normal discussion, e.g. "I believe the train is running 20 minutes late", but that's not any sort of adherance to a world view. It's just a way of saying "It's my understanding ....".
 Signature David
R H Draney - 12 Jan 2010 09:38 GMT the Omrud filted:
>> Perhaps you are conflating belief and faith? > >In this discussion, yes. I have avoided using the word "believe". I >would use it in normal discussion, e.g. "I believe the train is running >20 minutes late", but that's not any sort of adherance to a world view. > It's just a way of saying "It's my understanding ....". Taking it out of the realm of philosophy, I believed long before Andrew Wiles gave his two-day presentation that there were no integer solutions to a^n+b^n=z^n for n>2, simply because Fermat believed it and I figured he knew what he was doing...turns out that my belief was justified...twenty years before that, I believed that four colors sufficed to fill in a simply-connected planar map, and Haaken and Appel bore me out....
I'm now possessed of a belief that every even number greater than two can be expressed as the sum of two primes, and if the current rate of progress in these matters keeps up, I suspect that my belief shall be vindicated before the twenty-teens is out (and we can put yet another conjecture into a gold box)....r
 Signature A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this?
Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2010 14:48 GMT >the Omrud filted: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >a^n+b^n=z^n for n>2, simply because Fermat believed it and I figured he knew >what he was doing...turns out that my belief was justified... AOL.
>twenty years before >that, I believed that four colors sufficed to fill in a simply-connected planar >map, and Haaken and Appel bore me out.... AOL, further born out by my scribbles on dozens of paper napkins while waiting for a meal, over the years.
>I'm now possessed of a belief that every even number greater than two can be >expressed as the sum of two primes, and if the current rate of progress in these >matters keeps up, I suspect that my belief shall be vindicated before the >twenty-teens is out (and we can put yet another conjecture into a gold box)....r Don't hold your breath on that one, Ron. Infinity is a big number.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Evan Kirshenbaum - 12 Jan 2010 16:29 GMT >>Taking it out of the realm of philosophy, I believed long before >>Andrew Wiles gave his two-day presentation that there were no [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Don't hold your breath on that one, Ron. Infinity is a big number. Is it bigger for that one than for the other two?
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It is error alone which needs the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |support of government. Truth can Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stand by itself. | Thomas Jefferson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
annily - 13 Jan 2010 01:23 GMT >>> Taking it out of the realm of philosophy, I believed long before >>> Andrew Wiles gave his two-day presentation that there were no [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Is it bigger for that one than for the other two? It it really a number at all?
 Signature Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 13 Jan 2010 01:43 GMT >>>> Taking it out of the realm of philosophy, I believed long before >>>> Andrew Wiles gave his two-day presentation that there were no [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > It it really a number at all? Not according to my calculus professor at Stanford, Prof. Chung. "Infinity is not a number!" (in a thick Chinese accent) was one of his frequent pronouncements. Of course, it depends on your definition of "number". In IEEE floating point, it is. TeX has three orders of infinities, each of which can be usefully multiplied by constants (though not by other infinities) and which can be added to other numbers. And in some systems, the garden variety "cardinality of the set of integers" infinity is a relatively small number.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Whatever it is that the government 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |does, sensible Americans would prefer Palo Alto, CA 94304 |that the government do it to somebody |else. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Chuck Riggs - 13 Jan 2010 15:02 GMT >>>>> Taking it out of the realm of philosophy, I believed long before >>>>> Andrew Wiles gave his two-day presentation that there were no [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >numbers. And in some systems, the garden variety "cardinality of the >set of integers" infinity is a relatively small number. Big enough for most practical purposes, though.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
R H Draney - 13 Jan 2010 17:53 GMT Evan Kirshenbaum filted:
>>>> Don't hold your breath on that one, Ron. Infinity is a big number. >>> Is it bigger for that one than for the other two? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >numbers. And in some systems, the garden variety "cardinality of the >set of integers" infinity is a relatively small number. In Conway's system, some infinities are numbers and others are merely games:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Numbers_and_Games
....r
 Signature A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this?
Nick - 12 Jan 2010 20:16 GMT >>> Better, in my view, is to avoid the word altogether. If I want to know >>> what someone believes, I ask them what they believe, not what they [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Materialists, but that's not the only kind. (Some Buddhists, for > example.) I don't "believe" in a code of ethics. I follow it. I may "believe" it's a useful way to live, but that's not belief the way a belief in a deity is - it's an entirely different sort of meaning of the word and one can't be replaced by the other.
"Do you believe we should have another drink". "That's blasphemy, you should believe in no other god". That's as meaningless exchange as me giving you my system of ethics in exchange for a question about my creation myths.
 Signature Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2010 14:11 GMT >CDB <bellemarec@sympatico.ca>: >>We really need two words for "agnostic": [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >etc) I use that as a prompt for questions about their beliefs and >practices. Good point, Mike, but labels save so much time.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2010 14:10 GMT <snip>
>We really need two words for "agnostic": >one for those who can't decide if God exists, and one for those, like >me, who think God exists but is unknowable. I suggest fiddle-f.ckers and mystics, respectively.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2010 14:04 GMT >> The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim agnosticism. <snip>
>In a recent Australian poll, it was reported that 68% of respondents >believed in some sort of god. That didn't surprise me. What did >surprise, and frighten, me, was the fact that 25% of respondents >believed in the literal truth of the Christian Bible. That's scary. That >25% matched the 25% who identified themselves as atheists. That 68% of the respondents don't seem to understand the implications of the Origin of Species vis-à-vis the Creator expounded by the Bible, disappoints me.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Evan Kirshenbaum - 13 Jan 2010 18:39 GMT >>> The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim agnosticism. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > implications of the Origin of Species vis-à-vis the Creator > expounded by the Bible, disappoints me. Although I'm an atheist I have to ask what implications you see besides the notion that some sort of creator deity was no longer logically the simplest solution to explain the manifest complexity of life. And even at that (I have to confess that I've never read the whole work) it would seem to have been reasonable to ask "Yeah, but where did the first plants and animals come from?" and posit some sort of creator. And some of that 68% were probably of the mind that "Yeah, you can get to hominids by purely natural means, but it takes a god to turn them into people."
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |I value writers such as Fiske. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |They serve as valuable object Palo Alto, CA 94304 |lessons by showing that the most |punctilious compliance with the kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |rules of usage has so little to do (650)857-7572 |with either writing or thinking |well. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | --Richard Hershberger
Mike Barnes - 13 Jan 2010 22:39 GMT Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com>:
>>>In a recent Australian poll, it was reported that 68% of respondents >>>believed in some sort of god. That didn't surprise me. What did [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >where did the first plants and animals come from?" and posit some sort >of creator. But there's a big difference between "some sort of creator" and the literal truth of the bible.
 Signature Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
HVS - 13 Jan 2010 23:04 GMT On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote
> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com>: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > But there's a big difference between "some sort of creator" and > the literal truth of the bible. But that's not the point Evan was questioning; the challenge (as I read it) was about the 68% who believed in a god, not the 25% that believed literal biblical truth.
Chuck (again as I read it) seems to be saying that OOS effectively negates "the Creator expounded by the Bible". But there are clearly many interpretations of the biblical Creator as expounded therein; the literal is just one of them.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Mike Barnes - 14 Jan 2010 01:10 GMT HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>:
>On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >read it) was about the 68% who believed in a god, not the 25% that >believed literal biblical truth. You're right. I was distracted by the "68%" in the immediately preceding paragraph. I wonder if Chuck meant to write "25%". But I'm thinking less clearly than usual due to jet lag, so perhaps not.
>Chuck (again as I read it) seems to be saying that OOS effectively >negates "the Creator expounded by the Bible". But there are clearly >many interpretations of the biblical Creator as expounded therein; >the literal is just one of them. To my mind, if you take away the literal, it doesn't leave anything of any substance.
 Signature Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
Chuck Riggs - 14 Jan 2010 15:01 GMT >HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>: >>On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >paragraph. I wonder if Chuck meant to write "25%". But I'm thinking less >clearly than usual due to jet lag, so perhaps not. Two thirds of the respondents didn't understand the implications of Origin. That is roughly 68 per cent.
>>Chuck (again as I read it) seems to be saying that OOS effectively >>negates "the Creator expounded by the Bible". But there are clearly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >To my mind, if you take away the literal, it doesn't leave anything of >any substance. We agree, I'd say. Nothing is left, I might add, but science and the scientific method, a thought I think Darwin would have supported.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Cheryl - 14 Jan 2010 19:42 GMT >> HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>: >>> On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote <snip - I think without messing up the attributions>
>>> Chuck (again as I read it) seems to be saying that OOS effectively >>> negates "the Creator expounded by the Bible". But there are clearly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > We agree, I'd say. Nothing is left, I might add, but science and the > scientific method, a thought I think Darwin would have supported. I gather then that most of you do not support the use of metaphor (presumably in literature as well as religious writings) to convey very complicated ideas in a non-literal fashion? And you certainly don't agree with the theologian who claimed (I'm paraphrasing here) that myth expresses greater truth than any other form of writing?
I tend to be a bit literal-minded myself, but there are a lot of people who argue for the power of metaphor and myth, and they aren't all religious believers either.
 Signature Cheryl
Nick - 15 Jan 2010 18:59 GMT >>HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>: >>>On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > We agree, I'd say. Nothing is left, I might add, but science and the > scientific method, a thought I think Darwin would have supported. You disagree with the Catholic Church (a fairly large body in this field!) who have, for example, said that there is no conflict between Catholicism and evolution (I summarise from memory).
 Signature Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Chuck Riggs - 16 Jan 2010 13:22 GMT >>>HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>: >>>>On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >field!) who have, for example, said that there is no conflict between >Catholicism and evolution (I summarise from memory). I wonder if the Church representative who said that has read Origin of Species.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Cheryl - 16 Jan 2010 13:28 GMT > On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:59:34 +0000, Nick
>> You disagree with the Catholic Church (a fairly large body in this >> field!) who have, for example, said that there is no conflict between >> Catholicism and evolution (I summarise from memory). > > I wonder if the Church representative who said that has read Origin of > Species. I expect whoever wrote the statement did. The Catholic church doesn't move quickly, but they're usually thorough.
 Signature Cheryl
Chuck Riggs - 17 Jan 2010 14:00 GMT >> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:59:34 +0000, Nick > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I expect whoever wrote the statement did. The Catholic church doesn't >move quickly, but they're usually thorough. Be careful what you say. NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Pat Durkin - 16 Jan 2010 15:17 GMT >>>>HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>: >>>>>On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >>> of >>> Origin. That is roughly 68 per cent.
>>>>To my mind, if you take away the literal, it doesn't leave >>>>anything of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of > Species. From my teens (in the 1950s) I have understood that the Church has no dispute with the theory of evolution. There may be people who have replaced religious belief with worship of the theory of evolution, but the theory in itself does not demand such obeisance.
Wood Avens - 14 Jan 2010 15:15 GMT >HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>: >>On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >To my mind, if you take away the literal, it doesn't leave anything of >any substance. It's interesting (or at least, it interests me) that as recently as 1997 the radical theologian Don Cupitt could write
"We may be able to develop an account of religious faith in God that is independent of philosophical monotheism. We would learn to separate the poetical and religious use of the idea of God from the philosophical doctrine that there does in fact exist an infinite and eternal super Being [...]
"Can we in fact separate the God of religion from the god of the philosophers? Most people seem to think not. We live at a time when the god of the philosophers, the really existing, all-powerful Being out there, is rapidly fading away, and people are tending to assume that when he dies, religion dies too. That is a pity: we can do better than that."
Note that Cupitt sees the idea of a literal, factual god as a philosophical statement rather than a religious one. Yet less than 15 years later most people find it hard to conceive of a religion which doesn't entail belief in a literal, factual deity. The theologian Karen Armstrong shows that what almost all religions were about, until fairly recently, was not belief at all but practice. The sense of "belief" in which virtue is ascribed to the ability to accept an implausible proposition seems to be a very recent development.
From where I sit, this has been the result of the wholesale hijacking of "religion", "belief" and "God" (both the words and the concepts) by the mainly-American literalist fundamentalists, again only within the past 15 years or so. And this in turn seems to be the consequence of, reaction to, the rise of disbelief.
It's now widely assumed that if someone professes a religious faith they must therefore believe in the literal truth of all sorts of anti-scientific fairy-tales. Which is a bummer for all the people whose faith admits nothing of the kind.
 Signature Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Robin Bignall - 14 Jan 2010 22:19 GMT >>HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>: >>>On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >"belief" in which virtue is ascribed to the ability to accept an >implausible proposition seems to be a very recent development. I hope I've understood the above. To my mind, if you separate religion from the fantastic or supernatural, you are left with a set of "rules for living" which have either been adopted by a society, or imposed on them by priests or leaders, to help them understand the world and hopefully make it a more friendly place for them. In that sense, capitalism, communism, socialism etc. are forms of religious practice.
>From where I sit, this has been the result of the wholesale hijacking >of "religion", "belief" and "God" (both the words and the concepts) by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >anti-scientific fairy-tales. Which is a bummer for all the people >whose faith admits nothing of the kind.  Signature Robin (BrE) Herts, England
HVS - 14 Jan 2010 22:34 GMT On 14 Jan 2010, Robin Bignall wrote
>> Note that Cupitt sees the idea of a literal, factual god as a >> philosophical statement rather than a religious one. Yet less [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > for them. In that sense, capitalism, communism, socialism etc. > are forms of religious practice. (Undoubtedly in over my depth here.)
Am I right in assuming that some philosopher, somewhere, has premised the independent existence of a set of non-relative, right/wrong ethics or morals, without accepting as inevitable the existence of a supreme entity/guiding intelligence that generated those principles?
 Signature Cheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Cheryl - 15 Jan 2010 11:52 GMT > On 14 Jan 2010, Robin Bignall wrote > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > existence of a supreme entity/guiding intelligence that generated > those principles? I don't know about a philosopher, but I do know someone who argues exactly that - the mystery novelist who writes under Jane Haddam, in her blog. I believe her argument is that given the basic realities of human nature, it is possible to derive certain rules - and which 'rules' (both rules and cultural beliefs about such things as human nature) you choose determines the kind of society you will get.
 Signature Cheryl
LFS - 15 Jan 2010 12:54 GMT > I don't know about a philosopher, but I do know someone who argues > exactly that - the mystery novelist who writes under Jane Haddam, in her > blog. I believe her argument is that given the basic realities of human > nature, it is possible to derive certain rules - and which 'rules' (both > rules and cultural beliefs about such things as human nature) you choose > determines the kind of society you will get. I've never heard of her before. Are her books good?
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
Cheryl - 15 Jan 2010 13:09 GMT >> I don't know about a philosopher, but I do know someone who argues >> exactly that - the mystery novelist who writes under Jane Haddam, in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I've never heard of her before. Are her books good? I like them.
She's an American. Her best-known and current series features an Armenian-American retired FBI agent who is called in to consult on various situations. They can be read in order - Gregor's relationship with the best-selling fantasy author Bennis develops slowly over the series. If I had to classify them, I'd say they're sort-of cosy, but the more recent ones particularly tend to focus on real contemporary situations - conspiracy theorists, pop tarts (er, the young women who are famous for being famous), etc., so they aren't 'cozy' in the 'tea with the vicar and Miss Marple' sense. Some of her earlier ones under other names are darker.
Some people find the 'issue' aspect make them a bit dogmatic, perhaps, but I think they're well-written and always interesting.
http://www.janehaddam.com/
 Signature Cheryl
Chuck Riggs - 15 Jan 2010 13:02 GMT >On 14 Jan 2010, Robin Bignall wrote > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >existence of a supreme entity/guiding intelligence that generated >those principles? Buddhas, among others, do that.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Nick - 15 Jan 2010 19:07 GMT > (Undoubtedly in over my depth here.) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > existence of a supreme entity/guiding intelligence that generated > those principles? I'm pretty well certain that I've read a reference to some work that says that there are some universals of morals (even in societies that don't necessarily exhibit them).
Here's a book that seems to say something about it: http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0060780703
 Signature Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
James Silverton - 14 Jan 2010 22:37 GMT Robin wrote on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:19:14 +0000:
>>> HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>: >> It's interesting (or at least, it interests me) that as >> recently as 1997 the radical theologian Don Cupitt could >> write Was there really a theologian called Dan Cupitt? The nearest I can come to his name is the enigmatic reference in "Love's Labors Lost" to "Don Cupid".
 Signature James Silverton Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Wood Avens - 14 Jan 2010 22:46 GMT > Robin wrote on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:19:14 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >to his name is the enigmatic reference in "Love's Labors Lost" to "Don >Cupid". Don, not Dan. Yes, indeed, there still is. See eg www.doncupitt.com, or Google for him.
(He's in Oxford for a Sea of Faith* meeting next Wednesday afternoon, whcih is why I was re-reading one of his books.)
* An organisation which regards religious faith as a purely human creation.
 Signature Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Chuck Riggs - 15 Jan 2010 12:28 GMT <snip>
>To my mind, if you separate >religion from the fantastic or supernatural, you are left with a set >of "rules for living" which have either been adopted by a society, or >imposed on them by priests or leaders, to help them understand the >world and hopefully make it a more friendly place for them. That is the truth in a nutshell, IMO.
<snip>
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Chuck Riggs - 14 Jan 2010 14:59 GMT >On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >many interpretations of the biblical Creator as expounded therein; >the literal is just one of them. That was not the impression I was left with after reading "The Origin of Species": Darwin did not address many interpretations of the Creator, if that is what you are saying.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Hatunen - 14 Jan 2010 18:39 GMT >Chuck (again as I read it) seems to be saying that OOS effectively >negates "the Creator expounded by the Bible". But there are clearly >many interpretations of the biblical Creator as expounded therein; >the literal is just one of them. That raises the question of just why the Bible should be taken metaphorically or allegorically or whatever, rahter than literally? Where does that leave the religious status of the Bible? And where does the "interpretation" end?
Not to mention that such re-interpretation would seem to put the examination of other cultures' creation myths on an equal footing. If the Bible is the Word of God, how come God doesn't seem to be able to say what he/she/it means? If it is not the Word of God, what makes the Bible special?
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Garrett Wollman - 14 Jan 2010 18:52 GMT >That raises the question of just why the Bible should be taken >metaphorically or allegorically or whatever, rahter than >literally? Where does that leave the religious status of the >Bible? In the same place as it was before.
>And where does the "interpretation" end? That's a matter of dispute among those communities for whom the (presumably you mean Christian) Bible is a sacred text. Some believe that each individual has the right and duty to interpret the text on his own. Others have a more historical tradition. (There's a word for this that I'm not bringing to mind.)
>Not to mention that such re-interpretation would seem to put the >examination of other cultures' creation myths on an equal >footing. If the Bible is the Word of God, how come God doesn't >seem to be able to say what he/she/it means? If it is not the >Word of God, what makes the Bible special? Well, of course, not everybody believes that the Bible is the Word of God, even among those who worship that particular God. But those who do generally take the Bible for what it is: a historical document, created for the benefit of a particular community in a particular place at a particular historical moment. They still assume that it was somehow divinely inspired, but they approach it with the understanding that (a) it was intended to be used by people who lived more than two thousand years ago, and (b) the people who wrote it, even if they were divinely inspired, were embedded in a culture that understood the world in a particular way. Or so that is my understanding (I don't believe in divine inspiration, at least not at the level of gods dictating scripture to their followers).
-GAWollman
 Signature Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Hatunen - 14 Jan 2010 19:15 GMT >>That raises the question of just why the Bible should be taken >>metaphorically or allegorically or whatever, rahter than [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >created for the benefit of a particular community in a particular >place at a particular historical moment. The Bible's historicity is rather dubious through much of the Old Testament, much of it having been swiped and re-edited from more ancient myths fromm the area of mesopotamia.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Evan Kirshenbaum - 14 Jan 2010 19:27 GMT > The Bible's historicity is rather dubious through much of the Old > Testament, much of it having been swiped and re-edited from more > ancient myths fromm the area of mesopotamia. That really only applies to the first eleven chapters of Genesis, doesn't it? Up until Abraham, the first of "our" guys comes on the scene. Everything before that is "just so" explanation for how the world came to be the way it is, and you'd want it to be roughly the same as everybody else's explanations, allowing for the fact that "they" got the details wrong and didn't account for how important your god was.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A burro is an a.s. A burrow is a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |hole in the ground. As a Palo Alto, CA 94304 |journalist, you are expected to |know the difference. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | UPI Stylebook (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Hatunen - 14 Jan 2010 20:15 GMT >> The Bible's historicity is rather dubious through much of the Old >> Testament, much of it having been swiped and re-edited from more [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >"they" got the details wrong and didn't account for how important your >god was. There isn't any real evidence to support the Exodus story, either.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Evan Kirshenbaum - 15 Jan 2010 00:34 GMT >>> The Bible's historicity is rather dubious through much of the Old >>> Testament, much of it having been swiped and re-edited from more [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > There isn't any real evidence to support the Exodus story, > either. Sure, but it doesn't appear to be borrowed from the surrounding groups, as far as I know. It's their own myth. And it's meant to be just theirs, so it would be embarassing if others had similar stories. But everybody can have a flood.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |English grammar is not taught in 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |primary or secondary schools in the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |United States. Sometimes some |mythology is taught under that kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |rubric, but luckily it's usually (650)857-7572 |ignored, except by the credulous. | John Lawler http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Hatunen - 15 Jan 2010 21:33 GMT >>>> The Bible's historicity is rather dubious through much of the Old >>>> Testament, much of it having been swiped and re-edited from more [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >just theirs, so it would be embarassing if others had similar >stories. But everybody can have a flood. I reckon the exodus myth was needed to justify all the killing and genocide that the wandering Hebrews engaged in.
The story of Moses being placed in a basket and floated downstream comes from similar regional myths, such as the myth around Sargon. Marduk can be linked to the parting of the waters of the Red Sea. A lot of other aspects of Exodus can be found in older regional myths.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Evan Kirshenbaum - 15 Jan 2010 22:28 GMT >>>>> The Bible's historicity is rather dubious through much of the >>>>> Old Testament, much of it having been swiped and re-edited from [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I reckon the exodus myth was needed to justify all the killing > and genocide that the wandering Hebrews engaged in. I doubt it. For one thing, there's about as much evidence for the killing and genocide as there is for the rest of the story. This was all written down after the establishment of the kingdoms. For another, I'm not sure that even if the stories are true (as opposed to post hoc justifications for why this is our land) I'm not sure that people back then would have felt the need to justify it any more than they felt the need to justify slavery. It was just a fact of life. What needed justification was the refusal to worship other gods.
> The story of Moses being placed in a basket and floated > downstream comes from similar regional myths, such as the myth > around Sargon. I had forgotten about that. Is there evidence that that Sargon story is actually older than eighth or ninth century BC? Clearly, the stories can flow in both directions.
> Marduk can be linked to the parting of the waters of the Red Sea. That one I'm not familiar with.
> A lot of other aspects of Exodus can be found in older regional > myths.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |I value writers such as Fiske. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |They serve as valuable object Palo Alto, CA 94304 |lessons by showing that the most |punctilious compliance with the kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |rules of usage has so little to do (650)857-7572 |with either writing or thinking |well. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | --Richard Hershberger
Hatunen - 16 Jan 2010 00:51 GMT >>>>>> The Bible's historicity is rather dubious through much of the >>>>>> Old Testament, much of it having been swiped and re-edited from [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >they felt the need to justify slavery. It was just a fact of life. >What needed justification was the refusal to worship other gods. Of course the killing and geocide has turned out to be fictitious, but if you're going to write a story that includes such actions by your protagonists, you should probably have a justification. Even if "God gave us your land" is a pretty poor justification.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2010 01:07 GMT >>> I reckon the exodus myth was needed to justify all the killing >>> and genocide that the wandering Hebrews engaged in. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > your protagonists, you should probably have a justification. Even if > "God gave us your land" is a pretty poor justification. I think that's a relatively modern view that was unlikely to have been the motivation back then. Rather, the (likely fictitious) killing has probably been exaggerated under the notion that "since we could do it, clearly we were supposed to."
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The reason that we don't have 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |"bear-proof" garbage cans in the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |park is that there is a significant |overlap in intelligence between the kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |smartest bears and the dumbest (650)857-7572 |humans. | Yosemite Park Ranger http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Steve Hayes - 16 Jan 2010 07:39 GMT >> Marduk can be linked to the parting of the waters of the Red Sea. > >That one I'm not familiar with. Marduk hacked Tiamat in pieces, making the sky ("firmament") with one half, and the earth with the other.
Rather as YHWH hacked Rahab in pieces (Isaiah 51:9-11) -- certainly allusions to the exodus there.
 Signature Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2010 17:26 GMT >>> Marduk can be linked to the parting of the waters of the Red Sea. >> >>That one I'm not familiar with. > > Marduk hacked Tiamat in pieces, making the sky ("firmament") with > one half, and the earth with the other. That seems to be stretching things for an allusion in Exodus. In Genesis 1, it would be a better fit, but even that would be pushing it.
> Rather as YHWH hacked Rahab in pieces (Isaiah 51:9-11) -- certainly > allusions to the exodus there. Okay, *that's* a Marduk/Tiamat allusion, but again for Genesis, tying in to Exodus. And it's written much later, probably near the end of the Babylonian exile at the beginning of the sixth century BC.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Bullwinkle: You sure that's the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | only way? Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Rocky: Well, if you're going to be | a hero, you've got to do kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | stupid things every once in (650)857-7572 | a while.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Steve Hayes - 16 Jan 2010 19:07 GMT >>>> Marduk can be linked to the parting of the waters of the Red Sea. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >That seems to be stretching things for an allusion in Exodus. In >Genesis 1, it would be a better fit, but even that would be pushing it. True. Genesis takes some of the elements, but gives a different theological interpretation. I wasn't pushing for you to accept it, just saying who Marduk was.
>> Rather as YHWH hacked Rahab in pieces (Isaiah 51:9-11) -- certainly >> allusions to the exodus there. > >Okay, *that's* a Marduk/Tiamat allusion, but again for Genesis, tying >in to Exodus. And it's written much later, probably near the end of >the Babylonian exile at the beginning of the sixth century BC. Yes, but it does give an idea of how people interpreted these things in different periods.
 Signature Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Robert Bannister - 14 Jan 2010 01:09 GMT >>>> The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim agnosticism. >> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > "Yeah, you can get to hominids by purely natural means, but it takes a > god to turn them into people." So when's He going to start?
 Signature Rob Bannister
Chuck Riggs - 14 Jan 2010 15:10 GMT >>>>> The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim agnosticism. >>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >So when's He going to start? Man evolved the way he did because that is the way he evolved. An infinite number of possibilities existed, but it is hardly strange that, no matter how complex, life is the way it is because that is how it evolved. That is one of the points Richard Dawkins makes in his series of books that explain the complexity of life and of man far better than I just did.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Skitt - 09 Jan 2010 18:27 GMT
> Real-world power is certainly a challenge to Christians (or anyone > else, for that matter). My interests tend to be quite broad, and > religion, being a very broad and ancient phenomena, is one of them. A phenomena? Oy!
 Signature Skitt (Follower of the FOTIPU) "The Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them." -- Steve Eley
Cheryl - 09 Jan 2010 23:33 GMT >> Real-world power is certainly a challenge to Christians (or anyone >> else, for that matter). My interests tend to be quite broad, and >> religion, being a very broad and ancient phenomena, is one of them. > > A phenomena? Oy! Sorry - I do know better.
a phenomenon
 Signature Cheryl
R H Draney - 10 Jan 2010 03:58 GMT Cheryl filted:
>>> Real-world power is certainly a challenge to Christians (or anyone >>> else, for that matter). My interests tend to be quite broad, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >a phenomenon Just know that you brought this on yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5Mc55P1i9g
....r
 Signature A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this?
Evan Kirshenbaum - 10 Jan 2010 16:47 GMT > Cheryl filted: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5Mc55P1i9g I have the same problem every time I see signs leading to Mt. Umunhum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Umunhum
But usually I'm the only one who can see them.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Ye knowe ek, that in forme of speche 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | is chaunge Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Withinne a thousand yer, and wordes | tho kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |That hadden prys now wonder nyce and (650)857-7572 | straunge |Us thenketh hem, and yet they spake http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | hem so | Chaucer
Pat Durkin - 10 Jan 2010 18:43 GMT >> Cheryl filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > But usually I'm the only one who can see them. Well, it does sound like something from Gulliver's Travels. (and sound suspiciously like "no see-ums". But it is wonderfully onomatopoeic.
For my part, I found myself at one point unable to name a place properly, and instead called it Rount Mushmore, repeatedly.
Skitt - 10 Jan 2010 19:24 GMT >> Cheryl filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > But usually I'm the only one who can see them. Ah, yes -- back in the early 'fifties I used a road that crossed Mt. Umunhum. It was quite the trip, but fun.
 Signature Skitt Seen it all, done it all. Can't remember most of it.
Redshade - 10 Jan 2010 00:11 GMT > > Real-world power is certainly a challenge to Christians (or anyone > > else, for that matter). My interests tend to be quite broad, and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know > that they are invisible because we can't see them." -- Steve Eley And so it came to pass that the Pink Unicorn was the prophet of the Purple Spaghetti Monster.
R H Draney - 08 Jan 2010 17:39 GMT Cheryl filted:
>Then again, Anglicans in my experience (and probably Episcopalians as >well) can and do disagree among themselves on a wide range of topics. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >right when the Roman Catholics and Protestants didn't' sense, but >actually Roman Catholic. I wonder when he's going to realize that Christianity in general is a Jewish splinter group....r
 Signature A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this?
Peter Moylan - 09 Jan 2010 13:04 GMT > I even knew of one - a convert, yet, who I'd have thought would have > made a study of the subject when converting - who tried to tell me that > Episcopalians/Anglicans were Roman Catholic. Not 'catholic' in the > broader sense, not 'Catholic' or 'Anglo-Catholic' in the 'we got it > right when the Roman Catholics and Protestants didn't' sense, but > actually Roman Catholic. Henry, when he created the Anglican Catholic Church, was quite clear about the fact that his church was still a branch of the Roman Catholic Church. The only change was that he rejected the authority of the Pope. He wasn't creating a new religion.
In later years the Anglican Church split into "high church" and "low church" factions. The high church part was, for all practical purposes, identical to the Catholic Church. There was a dispute over the Pope's ability to issue "ex cathedra" pronouncements, but that was the only important doctrinal difference.
 Signature Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Cheryl - 09 Jan 2010 23:29 GMT >> I even knew of one - a convert, yet, who I'd have thought would have >> made a study of the subject when converting - who tried to tell me that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ability to issue "ex cathedra" pronouncements, but that was the only > important doctrinal difference. Well, yes, but I was always under the assumption that if you didn't recognize the Pope's authority as head of the Church, you weren't a Roman Catholic - and even the most ardent high church people wouldn't have gone so far as to do that, even though theologically a lot of them were probably extremely close to Roman Catholicism.
I knew about Henry - he always seems to have been a man who wanted to have his cake and eat it too, and he certainly appeared to consider himself a devout Roman Catholic who didn't obey the Pope. But I thought that by the time the church in England had struggled through the reigns of Edward, Mary and finally Elizabeth, it most definitely wasn't Roman Catholic. Not even the high church bits, when they eventually developed.
Of course, you also get those who trace the history of the church in England right past the 'angels not Angles' saint who sent out the missionaries to the period before the Roman Empire, sometimes adding on the very early Irish Christians as well. This rather neatly disposes of Henry's approach to the issue by having a church that pre-dated the expansion of Roman influence.
 Signature Cheryl
Chuck Riggs - 10 Jan 2010 13:56 GMT >>> I even knew of one - a convert, yet, who I'd have thought would have >>> made a study of the subject when converting - who tried to tell me that [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >I knew about Henry - he always seems to have been a man who wanted to >have his cake and eat it too,... Anne Boleyn's a cake?
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
John Varela - 10 Jan 2010 03:17 GMT > Henry, when he created the Anglican Catholic Church, was quite clear > about the fact that his church was still a branch of the Roman Catholic > Church. The only change was that he rejected the authority of the Pope. > He wasn't creating a new religion. I don't think that's accurate: Catholic, yes, Roman, no.
> In later years the Anglican Church split into "high church" and "low > church" factions. The high church part was, for all practical purposes, > identical to the Catholic Church. There was a dispute over the Pope's > ability to issue "ex cathedra" pronouncements, but that was the only > important doctrinal difference. I attended an extremely high church Episcopal boarding school, graduating in 1953. We literally attended church every day and twice on Sunday, with Sunday morning service a solemn high sung mass. The mass was, except for being in English and a few parts in different sequence, the same as the RC mass. In addition to rejecting the primacy of the Pope, we were taught that there were doctrinal differences. Immaculate conception, for one. If I think about it I can probably come up with others. No account was given to post-Reformation RC saints or councils. We did not pray to saints for intercessions.
 Signature John Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Chuck Riggs - 09 Jan 2010 14:12 GMT <snip>
>> The Episcopalian sermons and Sunday school sessions I attended fifty >> years ago taught me that church services are held on Sunday to >> coincide with the metaphorical day of the week God rested, after >> creating the universe. <snip>
>I got the other explanation, >involving the resurrection. > >Then again, Anglicans in my experience (and probably Episcopalians as >well) can and do disagree among themselves on a wide range of topics. <snip>
You're certainly right, there. It was, and is, what I most admire about the Episcopalian Church. They are probably the most open-minded, and liberal, of the Protestant sects in America.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Chuck Riggs - 07 Jan 2010 14:15 GMT <snip>
>I'm curious, though, do Christians (Seventh-Day Adventists excepted) >really think of Sunday as the sabbath described in the Genesis story? Strict ones do, I believe, but even as an Episcopalian, a liberal Christian sect, I was taught this.
>That would be hard to reconcile with the gospels, which had Jesus >crucified on Friday because it had to be finished before the sabbath >and the women finding him missing on Sunday morning, after the sabbath >was over. I think most Christians take the gospels for gospel without worrying about the details.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Nick - 10 Jan 2010 11:40 GMT > I'm curious, though, do Christians (Seventh-Day Adventists excepted) > really think of Sunday as the sabbath described in the Genesis story? > That would be hard to reconcile with the gospels, which had Jesus > crucified on Friday because it had to be finished before the sabbath > and the women finding him missing on Sunday morning, after the sabbath > was over. Being brought up in a wet-and-wooly CofE tradition I certainly mentally conflated "on the seventh day he rested" and "Sunday, the day of rest". I'm not saying I was taught this.
 Signature Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Cheryl - 10 Jan 2010 12:06 GMT >> I'm curious, though, do Christians (Seventh-Day Adventists excepted) >> really think of Sunday as the sabbath described in the Genesis story? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > conflated "on the seventh day he rested" and "Sunday, the day of rest". > I'm not saying I was taught this. People pick up all kinds of weird ideas in childhood. In the church I was taken to as a child (Anglican, sort of middle-of-the-road for the time and place), there was a very large and elaborate chair near the altar that no one ever sat in, and for a time I was convinced that God sat there (invisibly, of course).
We only had a visit from the Bishop when we had enough people wanting to be confirmed to make the trip worthwhile, about once every three years, and I don't think I ever attended a confirmation service until my own, so it's not as though I had any evidence to the contrary about the purpose of the chair.
Some people say that they were encouraged not to question things during their youthful experiences with religion. Given the kinds of ideas I came up with on my own, it's fortunate that my own parents encouraged questions.
 Signature Cheryl
Robin Bignall - 10 Jan 2010 21:34 GMT >>> I'm curious, though, do Christians (Seventh-Day Adventists excepted) >>> really think of Sunday as the sabbath described in the Genesis story? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >came up with on my own, it's fortunate that my own parents encouraged >questions. Isn't it a theory of most aggressive religions that if you catch 'em young enough you've got 'em for life.
 Signature Robin (BrE) Herts, England
Cheryl - 10 Jan 2010 21:49 GMT > Isn't it a theory of most aggressive religions that if you catch 'em > young enough you've got 'em for life. Religions, education theories, even political movements with their youth branches ... almost anyone who wants to teach something that will stay with the student, or make the most of the best period for learning a particular skill, or to see their party program continue to the next generation wants to start with children or youth.
But I think the most common application of the idea to religion is attributed to the Jesuits, something about giving them a child for the first seven years.
That's about right to teach the child the basics of family and social life and a great period to teach new languages, if not to start them envelope-stuffing or carrying rifles for the Cause. I think they need to be a bit more physically mature for ballet and sport, but if they're a prodigy, they can certainly start their musical education at 0-7. Some people start pre-natally - wasn't there a fad for playing Bach to the child in the uterus or something?
 Signature Cheryl
Robert Bannister - 11 Jan 2010 01:43 GMT > People pick up all kinds of weird ideas in childhood. In the church I > was taken to as a child (Anglican, sort of middle-of-the-road for the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > so it's not as though I had any evidence to the contrary about the > purpose of the chair. I had been told it was "the bishop's chair", but on the two or three occasions the bishop visited, he didn't sit down, so I wasn't convinced.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Peter Moylan - 11 Jan 2010 14:02 GMT > We only had a visit from the Bishop when we had enough people wanting to > be confirmed to make the trip worthwhile, about once every three years, > and I don't think I ever attended a confirmation service until my own, > so it's not as though I had any evidence to the contrary about the > purpose of the chair. When I went through my (Catholic) confirmation I kept my fingers firmly crossed, and I kept repeating to myself "Promises made under duress are not legally binding."
There have been no studies, to the best of my knowledge, of the proportion of children who were confirmed but who were opposed to the confirmation ceremony. To my mind, that's just as important as a study of how many votes in the Zimbabwean elections were freely cast. An important factor, I suppose, is the age of the voters. Most likely the 12-year-olds didn't even get a vote in Zimbabwe.
 Signature Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Cheryl - 11 Jan 2010 14:18 GMT >> We only had a visit from the Bishop when we had enough people wanting to >> be confirmed to make the trip worthwhile, about once every three years, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > An important factor, I suppose, is the age of the voters. Most likely > the 12-year-olds didn't even get a vote in Zimbabwe. My parents gave me a choice. I don't think anyone in my group was opposed to being confirmed, although I suspect for a lot of them the process was merely Something You Did at a particular age, rather than anything particularly religious - something like getting a drivers' license, or for that matter, having a church wedding when neither they nor the prospective bride or groom has set foot in a church since their confirmation. If then.
Actually, the one social obligation I was forced to undergo was our high school prom. I swore I'd never go to another, but eventually work responsibilities led me to put in at least a token appearance at others. And my ardent hatred of the prom may have influenced my later puzzlement that people with no apparent religious affiliation wanting not merely a religious wedding ceremony, but one that comes with all the associated dresses and parties. Really, when people of my generation were getting married, they did so with far less fuss. I must be becoming an old fogey.
(Of course, I'm not including things I was forced to do that I later thought were either trivial or even a good idea, like going to school, doing my homework before watching TV, not watching TV late at night or if a program my parents thought was too violent was on and so on and so forth.)
 Signature Cheryl
Skitt - 11 Jan 2010 19:45 GMT >> There have been no studies, to the best of my knowledge, of the >> proportion of children who were confirmed but who were opposed to the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > nor the prospective bride or groom has set foot in a church since > their confirmation. If then. For me, in my early childhood, there was no choice to be made. My parents did not attend church, nor did they conduct any religious rituals (like prayer or saying grace at meals) in our home. When my grandmother came to visit us from for a month or so, she took me for show-and-tell drop-ins during church services of the major denominations present in Latvia. I liked the Russian Orthodox services for their music (singing). Any involvement with religion in my later life has been purely for the pleasure of others.
 Signature Skitt There's nothing wrong with religion until you start taking it seriously.
Robert Bannister - 12 Jan 2010 00:49 GMT > Actu > And my ardent hatred of the prom may have influenced my later puzzlement > that people with no apparent religious affiliation wanting not merely a > religious wedding ceremony, but one that comes with all the associated > dresses and parties. Really, when people of my generation were getting > married, they did so with far less fuss. I must be becoming an old fogey. I can understand people wanting to get married in an attractive, historic building and that the bride should wear a pretty frock. What I don't get is why, at a time when a couple are entering into an expensive partnership, they want to blow anything up to $100 000 on the show.
 Signature Rob Bannister
tony cooper - 12 Jan 2010 03:04 GMT >> Actu >> And my ardent hatred of the prom may have influenced my later puzzlement [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >don't get is why, at a time when a couple are entering into an expensive >partnership, they want to blow anything up to $100 000 on the show. They are often blowing up to $100,000 of their *parent's* money.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Evan Kirshenbaum - 12 Jan 2010 06:32 GMT >>I can understand people wanting to get married in an attractive, >>historic building and that the bride should wear a pretty [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > They are often blowing up to $100,000 of their *parent's* money. Are there many marrying couples that have a single (joint) parent?
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If the human brain were so simple 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |That we could understand it, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |We would be so simple |That we couldn't. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
tony cooper - 12 Jan 2010 06:49 GMT >>>I can understand people wanting to get married in an attractive, >>>historic building and that the bride should wear a pretty [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Are there many marrying couples that have a single (joint) parent? Sure. You've heard of divorce and one or the other ponying up?
That's a weasel, though. I misplaced the apostrophe.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Evan Kirshenbaum - 12 Jan 2010 07:07 GMT >>>>I can understand people wanting to get married in an attractive, >>>>historic building and that the bride should wear a pretty [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That's a weasel, though. I misplaced the apostrophe. I figured. But taking it at face value, I couldn't get a plausible reading for "their parent" other than a person who's a parent of both the bride and groom[1]. If "they" refers to one of the people marrying (as opposed to "a couple"), it's fine, of course.
[1] Or bride and bride or groom and groom.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"Are you okay?" 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"I'm made of felt....Add by dose |cubs off." kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Cheryl - 12 Jan 2010 12:42 GMT >>> Actu >>> And my ardent hatred of the prom may have influenced my later puzzlement [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > They are often blowing up to $100,000 of their *parent's* money. I've known of couples who spent the money of parents who were also doing home renovations, and who went to parents B saying parents A are giving us $x,000; what will you give us? (Parents B said 'no cash'.) And this isn't among people whose cultural customs require children to be provided with houses and vast sums of money upon marriage.
To be fair, I do know young couples, well, at least one, who budgeted and paid for their formal wedding themselves.
 Signature Cheryl
tony cooper - 12 Jan 2010 13:56 GMT >>>> Actu >>>> And my ardent hatred of the prom may have influenced my later puzzlement [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >To be fair, I do know young couples, well, at least one, who budgeted >and paid for their formal wedding themselves. When my daughter announced that she was getting married, I gave the couple a sum of money to do with as they saw fit. The money could all go to the wedding, or they could spend part of it on the wedding and use the rest towards buying a house.
They had a formal wedding and a large reception, but not a lavish do. Overall, I thought they budgeted quite wisely.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Robert Bannister - 13 Jan 2010 01:21 GMT >>>> Actu >>>> And my ardent hatred of the prom may have influenced my later [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > To be fair, I do know young couples, well, at least one, who budgeted > and paid for their formal wedding themselves. That's why I left it open as to who was doing the paying. With people not marrying until they're well into their 30s and have well-paid jobs, many are paying themselves, although I suppose the really lavish weddings are still put on by one or both sets of parents - sometimes against the wishes of the couple - more in an act of outdoing the Joneses than for any practical reason.
 Signature Rob Bannister
John Varela - 13 Jan 2010 20:36 GMT > That's why I left it open as to who was doing the paying. With people > not marrying until they're well into their 30s and have well-paid jobs, > many are paying themselves, although I suppose the really lavish > weddings are still put on by one or both sets of parents - sometimes > against the wishes of the couple - more in an act of outdoing the > Joneses than for any practical reason. And a way of entertaining clients and getting names into the papers for free.
 Signature John Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Robert Bannister - 13 Jan 2010 01:17 GMT >>> Actu >>> And my ardent hatred of the prom may have influenced my later puzzlement [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > They are often blowing up to $100,000 of their *parent's* money. If only young people could realise early on that they need to keep their parents happy enough to part with the dosh.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Cheryl - 12 Jan 2010 12:38 GMT >> Actu >> And my ardent hatred of the prom may have influenced my later [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > don't get is why, at a time when a couple are entering into an expensive > partnership, they want to blow anything up to $100 000 on the show. An attractive historic building *with parking*, which was the reason for one young couple's considering one old church!
I'd pay $100,000 (if I had it) to avoid being the central character in a big formal do, and stare in bafflement at the social customs of young people today. They live together, buy a home together, maybe have children together, and then decide to not only get married, but to do so in a style Liz Taylor would probably find slightly excessive. Some of them are still paying off student loans. Until I had friends whose children started marrying, I had no idea how much money you can spend on dresses, catered dinners, chocolate fountains, photography, etc.
 Signature Cheryl
Steve Hayes - 12 Jan 2010 16:29 GMT >I'd pay $100,000 (if I had it) to avoid being the central character in a >big formal do, and stare in bafflement at the social customs of young [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >children started marrying, I had no idea how much money you can spend on >dresses, catered dinners, chocolate fountains, photography, etc. We got married on the cheap. My wife (then to be) made a cake. We bought a few bottles of wine (which my father-in-law insisted on reimbursing us for) and that was about it. My wife made her own dress, and a sort of matching shirt for me. I think it's in the wardrobe somewhere, but it doesn't fit me any more.
 Signature Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Skitt - 12 Jan 2010 19:15 GMT >> I'd pay $100,000 (if I had it) to avoid being the central character >> in a big formal do, and stare in bafflement at the social customs of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > dress, and a sort of matching shirt for me. I think it's in the > wardrobe somewhere, but it doesn't fit me any more. My first marriage took place in the Carson City courthouse, my second in the Reno courthouse, and the third and present one (I finally got it right) in a tiny chapel in Stateline, on the Nevada side. That last one was the only one that had some guests, and they were treated to a dinner reception that cost us less than 500 dollars. Cheap? You bet.
 Signature Skitt (AmE) hates big to-dos.
Hatunen - 12 Jan 2010 19:34 GMT >My first marriage took place in the Carson City courthouse, my second in the >Reno courthouse, and the third and present one (I finally got it right) in a >tiny chapel in Stateline, on the Nevada side. That last one was the only >one that had some guests, and they were treated to a dinner reception that >cost us less than 500 dollars. Cheap? You bet. My wife and I are both in theater, or were, anyway. We were living together and held a closing night BYOB cast and crew party at our townhouse for a play she had been stage managing. About midnight I announced that the entertainment would now begin and that she and I wer getting married. We had the local Unitarian minister at the party (he and I happened to be old schoolmates although we hadn't known each other well), we shanghaied a coupld of gue2sts to be best man and matron of honor, and got married. We had bought a sheet cake and served it as the party coninued.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
LFS - 12 Jan 2010 21:12 GMT >> My first marriage took place in the Carson City courthouse, my second in the >> Reno courthouse, and the third and present one (I finally got it right) in a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of gue2sts to be best man and matron of honor, and got married. > We had bought a sheet cake and served it as the party coninued. What is a sheet cake? The mind boggles...
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 12 Jan 2010 21:35 GMT >>> My first marriage took place in the Carson City courthouse, my second in the >>> Reno courthouse, and the third and present one (I finally got it right) in a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >What is a sheet cake? The mind boggles... Sadly it may not be what your mind is cooking up. A sheet cake seems to be similar to a slab cake, rectangular and fairly shallow: http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=sheet+cakes&gbv=2&aq=0&oq=sh eet+cake
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=slab+cake&btnG=Search+Images &gbv=2&aq=f&oq=
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
John Varela - 13 Jan 2010 20:41 GMT > >What is a sheet cake? The mind boggles... > > Sadly it may not be what your mind is cooking up. > A sheet cake seems to be similar to a slab cake, rectangular and fairly > shallow: Typically bought at a supermarket bakery and serves 40 or 50. It's the sort of thing that's brought into the office for someone's birthday.
 Signature John Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Garrett Wollman - 13 Jan 2010 23:45 GMT >>What is a sheet cake? The mind boggles... > >Sadly it may not be what your mind is cooking up. >A sheet cake seems to be similar to a slab cake, rectangular and fairly >shallow: A sheet cake is a cake baked on a sheet pan (which, despite the generic name, refers to a specific size and shape of pan). Most home ovens are too small to fit a sheet pan, so most home bakers would use a half-sheet pan. There are also quarter-sheet pans, but unless you need to bake something rectangular of exactly that size, there's no reason to buy them. (Quarter-sheet pans, for some reason, are actually *more expensive* than half-sheet pans, despite having less than half the aluminum. Must be economies of scale or something.)
-GAWollman
 Signature Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Cheryl - 12 Jan 2010 21:37 GMT >>> My first marriage took place in the Carson City courthouse, my second >>> in the Reno courthouse, and the third and present one (I finally got [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > What is a sheet cake? The mind boggles... A flat cake - one layer.
Those weddings are at about the level of formality observed in my family in my generation, and also for my parents'.
 Signature Cheryl
R H Draney - 12 Jan 2010 21:45 GMT Cheryl filted:
>>> We had bought a sheet cake and served it as the party coninued. >> >> What is a sheet cake? The mind boggles... > >A flat cake - one layer. An episode of "A Way With Words" last October featured a caller who wanted to know why a dessert she grew up with in Texas was called a "sheath cake"....r
 Signature A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this?
franzi - 13 Jan 2010 00:51 GMT > Cheryl filted: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > An episode of "A Way With Words" last October featured a caller who wanted to > know why a dessert she grew up with in Texas was called a "sheath cake"....r Too many preservatives in the recipe, perhaps? -- franzi
Robin Bignall - 13 Jan 2010 22:33 GMT >>> I'd pay $100,000 (if I had it) to avoid being the central character >>> in a big formal do, and stare in bafflement at the social customs of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >one that had some guests, and they were treated to a dinner reception that >cost us less than 500 dollars. Cheap? You bet. Five hundred dollars? A veritable fortune. My first marriage took place in the Chelsea Register Ooffice, with our parents and half a dozen friends. A couple of drinks in a pub after. My second was in the Ealing Register Office. Just the best man and his wife attended, lunch in a Greek restaurant after.
Total cost of both was probably less than $500. My first wife, a fashion student at the Royal College of Art, made her own dress.
 Signature Robin (BrE) Herts, England
tony cooper - 14 Jan 2010 17:20 GMT >Five hundred dollars? A veritable fortune. My first marriage took >place in the Chelsea Register Ooffice, with our parents and half a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Total cost of both was probably less than $500. My first wife, a >fashion student at the Royal College of Art, made her own dress. Our 1964 wedding expenditures were around $300 plus something under $100 for the wedding dress. The veil was a family heirloom. Formal Catholic church wedding and reception in a hall. Most of the food served at the reception was purchased, but some family members brought some things. Beer and wine was furnished at the reception, but - again - some family members brought in some extra beer. Irish/Catholic, you know.
The flowers and the wedding cake were purchased at substantial discount from KofC drinking buddies of my wife's brothers.
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/1964-10-018.jpg
My wife had originally ordered a wedding dress similar to what was worn by Princess Margaret in 1960, but changed her mind. Her deposit was non-refundable, so she told the shop that the wedding had been called off because the groom backed out. You have to know my wife to understand how bothered she was by this kind of deceit. You have to know our finances at the time to know why she was willing to be deceitful.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Skitt - 14 Jan 2010 18:37 GMT
>> Five hundred dollars? A veritable fortune. My first marriage took >> place in the Chelsea Register Ooffice, with our parents and half a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/1964-10-018.jpg You've changed!
<snip>
 Signature Skitt (AmE)
tony cooper - 14 Jan 2010 22:44 GMT >>> Five hundred dollars? A veritable fortune. My first marriage took >>> place in the Chelsea Register Ooffice, with our parents and half a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >You've changed! Our appearance is hair today and gone tomorrow.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Garrett Wollman - 12 Jan 2010 17:07 GMT >I'd pay $100,000 (if I had it) to avoid being the central character in a >big formal do, and stare in bafflement at the social customs of young >people today. They live together, buy a home together, maybe have >children together, and then decide to not only get married, but to do so >in a style Liz Taylor would probably find slightly excessive. "A timely marriage": one made before your children start nagging you about it. - Diane Duane
None of the people I know who've gotten married recently (i.e., in the last decade) did anything remotely lavish. Traditional, yes, but not the sort of thing that would get them a write-up in the /Times/.
-GAWollman
 Signature Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Skitt - 11 Jan 2010 19:28 GMT > When I went through my (Catholic) confirmation I kept my fingers > firmly crossed, and I kept repeating to myself "Promises made under [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > An important factor, I suppose, is the age of the voters. Most likely > the 12-year-olds didn't even get a vote in Zimbabwe. I was confirmed in the Lutheran church a short time after my arrival in the USA. I was sixteen at the time. Being a non-believer, I saw no harm in participating in the ceremony. I did it to not dissapoint the people (YMCA officials) who made our family's entry in the USA possible. There have been times when I have joined my wife for church services in order to please her. No harm done, just time wasted on repetitious proceedings that have absolutely no effect on me.
 Signature Skitt (Follower of the FOTIPU) "The Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them." -- Steve Eley
Jonathan Morton - 06 Jan 2010 15:05 GMT >>Yes, I was confused above. Almost every calendar I have ever seen >>starts the week on a Sunday. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > exceptions, usually designed for other markets and thoughtlessly > imported. I see both. But, as the OP observed, the advantage of Sunday first is that the middle of the working week is the middle of the calendar also.
Outlook 2003 and earlier had Sat/Sun as (in effect) one day. I rather liked that. Outlook 2007 has been improved so that Thursday appears to be way before the weekend.
Regards
Jonathan
Mike Barnes - 06 Jan 2010 16:17 GMT Jonathan Morton <jonathan.mortonbutignorethispart@btinternet.com>:
>>>Yes, I was confused above. Almost every calendar I have ever seen >>>starts the week on a Sunday. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I see both. But, as the OP observed, the advantage of Sunday first is that >the middle of the working week is the middle of the calendar also. I think she used that as an example without claiming any particular advantage. It's hardly an advantage over the start of the working week being at the start of the calendar week. And both pale into insignificance compared with advantage of the calendar days being where you expect them to be.
 Signature Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
Cheryl - 06 Jan 2010 16:30 GMT > Jonathan Morton <jonathan.mortonbutignorethispart@btinternet.com>: >>>> Yes, I was confused above. Almost every calendar I have ever seen [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > insignificance compared with advantage of the calendar days being where > you expect them to be. I wasn't thinking that it was an advantage to everyone to have Wednesday in the middle and Sunday on the left where it belongs. That's an advantage to me personally, because I expect to find Wednesday in the middle, and as I have discovered, don't actually read the word on the top of the column to see if it says 'Wednesday'. I can quite see that a calendar with my preferred arrangement would cause a disadvantage to someone used to both weekend days at one end, instead of one at each end; or days of the week at the side. I looked at that one, and decided it looked really odd to me.
It's mildly interesting to discover how much habit affects the use of one of the commonest time-telling objects, like a calendar, and how many versions there are that *don't* use the 'obvious' arrangement. Clocks, in spite of the 12/24 options and the digital/analogue issue don't seem to provide as varied options.
 Signature Cheryl
Mike Barnes - 06 Jan 2010 18:12 GMT Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>:
>It's mildly interesting to discover how much habit affects the use of >one of the commonest time-telling objects, like a calendar, and how >many versions there are that *don't* use the 'obvious' arrangement. >Clocks, in spite of the 12/24 options and the digital/analogue issue >don't seem to provide as varied options. http://www.designboom.com/contemporary/timepieces/09.jpg http://www.eatnineghost.com/wp-content/uploads/unusual-watch/watch02.jpg http://www.funis2cool.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/unusual-citizen-watches-01.jpg http://www.designboom.com/contemporary/timepieces/06.jpg http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/eleeno_cyber_lcd_watch.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7H17kbwrqqc/R0W125_mftI/AAAAAAAAAyI/5arutnaEafQ/s320/e quilibrium-watch-250-projects-us.JPG http://c0378172.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/11403_70409100519.jpg
 Signature Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
Cheryl - 07 Jan 2010 12:13 GMT > Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>: >> It's mildly interesting to discover how much habit affects the use of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7H17kbwrqqc/R0W125_mftI/AAAAAAAAAyI/5arutnaEafQ/s320/e quilibrium-watch-250-projects-us.JPG > http://c0378172.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/11403_70409100519.jpg I am sincerely glad I didn't have to learn to tell time using some of those.
 Signature Cheryl
HVS - 07 Jan 2010 12:15 GMT On 07 Jan 2010, Cheryl wrote
>> Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>: >>> It's mildly interesting to discover how much habit affects the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I am sincerely glad I didn't have to learn to tell time using > some of those. All of them are excellent examples of the triumph of form over function.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Evan Kirshenbaum - 07 Jan 2010 17:37 GMT > On 07 Jan 2010, Cheryl wrote > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > All of them are excellent examples of the triumph of form over > function. I've got a BCD clock on my desk at work (a present from my mother-in-law). I can read it right off, but it's amazing how many people with computer science PhDs who stop by have trouble figuring it out.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |And the wildest dreams of Kew 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | are the facts of Khatmandhu, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |And the crimes of Clapham | chaste in Martaban. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | (650)857-7572 | Rudyard Kipling
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 13:54 GMT >> On 07 Jan 2010, Cheryl wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >people with computer science PhDs who stop by have trouble figuring it >out. Show-off.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Peter Moylan - 09 Jan 2010 13:10 GMT > I've got a BCD clock on my desk at work (a present from my > mother-in-law). I can read it right off, but it's amazing how many > people with computer science PhDs who stop by have trouble figuring it > out. Because it's a 24hr clock? As this thread has demonstrated, most people have no difficulty in understanding that.
 Signature Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 09 Jan 2010 17:36 GMT >> I've got a BCD clock on my desk at work (a present from my >> mother-in-law). I can read it right off, but it's amazing how many [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Because it's a 24hr clock? As this thread has demonstrated, most > people have no difficulty in understanding that. No, I leave it in 12-hour mode. (There's a switch on the back.)
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The body was wrapped in duct tape, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weighted down with concrete blocks Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and a telephone cord was tied |around the neck. Police suspect kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |foul play... (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
annily - 09 Jan 2010 23:09 GMT >>> I've got a BCD clock on my desk at work (a present from my >>> mother-in-law). I can read it right off, but it's amazing how many [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No, I leave it in 12-hour mode. (There's a switch on the back.) That's probably why they have trouble figuring it out. They don't know which part of the day it is :)
 Signature Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
Jonathan Morton - 06 Jan 2010 19:25 GMT > It's mildly interesting to discover how much habit affects the use of one > of the commonest time-telling objects, like a calendar, and how many > versions there are that *don't* use the 'obvious' arrangement. Clocks, in > spite of the 12/24 options and the digital/analogue issue don't seem to > provide as varied options. No, but the analogue clock is a good example of the phenomenon you described. I have just glanced at my watch and noticed that it's sort of half-way between quarter-past and half-past something that's in the bottom left-hand quadrant of the dial. So in split second, I know exactly what time it is. You tried to do the same with the calendar.
Regards
Jonathan
Prai Jei - 06 Jan 2010 20:37 GMT Jonathan Morton set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:
> No, but the analogue clock is a good example of the phenomenon you > described. I have just glanced at my watch and noticed that it's sort of > half-way between quarter-past and half-past something that's in the bottom > left-hand quadrant of the dial. So in split second, I know exactly what > time it is. You tried to do the same with the calendar. I have encountered an extreme example of knowing things by position rather than name/number. I could not remember a customer's phone number despite having called them many times over the past few days. It turned out what I had remembered was not the sequence of digits, but the sequence of finger movements required to dial it. Only by tapping the number out on an imaginary keyboard could I translate the number into actual digits for somebody else to key in on a mobile.
 Signature ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Bertel Lund Hansen - 06 Jan 2010 23:24 GMT Prai Jei skrev:
> I have encountered an extreme example of knowing things by position rather > than name/number. I could not remember a customer's phone number despite [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > imaginary keyboard could I translate the number into actual digits for > somebody else to key in on a mobile. A type of Danish bike lock (not safe enough anymore - picture here):
http://www.fototime.com/photos/st/1ED5A22E52E84C6EA80967B6BA1791AC/Basta.jpg
has six pins that can be pushed, left untouched or pulled out. It happened all the time when somebody wanted to borrow a bike, that the owner had to physically unlock the bike because his fingers and not his brain remembered the combination.
 Signature Bertel, Denmark
tony cooper - 07 Jan 2010 00:29 GMT >Prai Jei skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >the owner had to physically unlock the bike because his fingers >and not his brain remembered the combination. My bank offers on-line bill paying. To get on-line, I have to enter my seven digit account number. At least once a week, I access my account on-line by entering these seven digits.
When I go to the bank to make a transaction, it's not uncommon for me to not remember this number. There's something automatic about my keystrokes that doesn't work when I have to write down the number.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Garrett Wollman - 07 Jan 2010 04:11 GMT >My bank offers on-line bill paying. To get on-line, I have to enter >my seven digit account number. At least once a week, I access my >account on-line by entering these seven digits. My bank ("Too Big To Fail, N.A.") requires the full sixteen-digit ATM card number. It takes me about half a dozen uses before I find I have the new number memorized (and probably a similar number of times after that before I stop thinking that I need to check the card to be certain).
-GAWollman
 Signature Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Nick - 10 Jan 2010 13:43 GMT >>My bank offers on-line bill paying. To get on-line, I have to enter >>my seven digit account number. At least once a week, I access my [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that before I stop thinking that I need to check the card to be > certain). I've found that within a couple of days of me finding that I can type my work computer password in without thinking about it, the "your password will expire in nnn days" message first pops up.
 Signature Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Robert Bannister - 11 Jan 2010 01:46 GMT >>> My bank offers on-line bill paying. To get on-line, I have to enter >>> my seven digit account number. At least once a week, I access my [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > work computer password in without thinking about it, the "your password > will expire in nnn days" message first pops up. AOL. I began using the most obvious passwords because of the monthly change and even then, I sometimes forgot them.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister - 07 Jan 2010 01:34 GMT > Jonathan Morton set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time > continuum: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > imaginary keyboard could I translate the number into actual digits for > somebody else to key in on a mobile. I'm sure the many people here who play musical instruments, or at least keyboard instruments, would be totally familiar with being only able to remember tunes with the hands rather than the memory.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Bertel Lund Hansen - 07 Jan 2010 09:25 GMT Robert Bannister skrev:
> I'm sure the many people here who play musical instruments, or at least > keyboard instruments, would be totally familiar with being only able to > remember tunes with the hands rather than the memory. I have experienced nothing of the sort. I have played since childhood, first piano but ehn mostly guitar as an adult, and lately keyboard. I cannot learn a tune that I would not be able to sing - in fact I am able to sing unisone to my improvisations on the guitar.
It would really surprise me if anyone could learn a tune without it first entering his mind independent of his hands. And how could one forget it afterwards?
 Signature Bertel, Denmark
Evan Kirshenbaum - 07 Jan 2010 16:36 GMT > Robert Bannister skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to sing - in fact I am able to sing unisone to my improvisations > on the guitar. That's "in unison with". Assuming that you mean that you sing the same thing (strictly speaking, in the same octave) as what you play on the guitar.
> It would really surprise me if anyone could learn a tune without > it first entering his mind independent of his hands. I don't think anybody's claiming that.
> And how could one forget it afterwards? Put me down in Rob's camp, but I suspect that he meant more by "tune". It's not a matter of not remembering the melody line, but rather not remembering the specific notes and chords that you play for the full arrangement. When I played took piano as a kid, the result of my practicing would be the ability to play the song without needing music, but if I had to write down the song or even tell you what chords I was playing (unless it was blues or something else very regular) I would have to actually play it on a keyboard or at least form the handshapes on the table in front of me. Thirty years later, there are still a few (parts of) pieces (e.g., Joplins "Maple Leaf Rag" and one of Haydn's sonatinas) that my hands remember how to play.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |This case--and I must be careful 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |not to fall into Spooner's trap Palo Alto, CA 94304 |here--concerns a group of warring |bankers. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Bertel Lund Hansen - 07 Jan 2010 17:24 GMT Evan Kirshenbaum skrev:
> Put me down in Rob's camp, but I suspect that he meant more by "tune". > It's not a matter of not remembering the melody line, but rather not > remembering the specific notes and chords that you play for the full > arrangement. That I can understand.
 Signature Bertel, Denmark
Robert Bannister - 08 Jan 2010 01:33 GMT > Robert Bannister skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > it first entering his mind independent of his hands. And how > could one forget it afterwards? I too find it difficult to learn a new tune if I can't sing/hum/whistle it, but when it comes to remembering a tune previously learnt, my hands are much better at than "I" am.
 Signature Rob Bannister
R H Draney - 08 Jan 2010 04:58 GMT Robert Bannister filted:
>> Robert Bannister skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >it, but when it comes to remembering a tune previously learnt, my hands >are much better at than "I" am. At least one of my guitar books suggested that musicians fall into three different classes when "internalizing" a piece: there's the motor-tactile group (yours, apparently), who remember the movements of the hands...then there's the auditory group (like my old songwriting partner), who can play anything, new or familiar, so long as they know how it's supposed to sound...and finally the visual group (that's me!); we picture the printed score in our eidetic memory and play from that....r
 Signature A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this?
Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 14:13 GMT <snip>
>At least one of my guitar books suggested that musicians fall into three >different classes when "internalizing" a piece: there's the motor-tactile group [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >visual group (that's me!); we picture the printed score in our eidetic memory >and play from that....r As a chorus and madrigal singer, the class I fell into had to practice, practice, practice, before I had the tune, timing and rhythm the way our conductor wanted it. I wouldn't have had the patience and endurance for such work if other people weren't suffering along with me, not that there were not rewards once we had a piece of music right.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Skitt - 08 Jan 2010 18:36 GMT > Robert Bannister filted: >>> Robert Bannister skrev:
>>>> I'm sure the many people here who play musical instruments, or at >>>> least keyboard instruments, would be totally familiar with being [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > group (that's me!); we picture the printed score in our eidetic > memory and play from that....r Hmm. I generally know what the music is supposed to sound like and where those sounds are on the keyboard.
 Signature Skitt (AmE)
Robert Bannister - 09 Jan 2010 00:10 GMT > Robert Bannister filted: >>> Robert Bannister skrev: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > visual group (that's me!); we picture the printed score in our eidetic memory > and play from that....r I use the visual method sometimes to remember how a piece starts - I "see" the first few bars. I also use the auditory method occasionally - this usually means recalling a particular line somewhere in the middle - frequently the bit that makes this piece (for me, at least) different from any other tune. When it comes to the whole thing - the bass, the twiddly bits, the bells and whistles - I let my hands take over. At my age, memory needs kick starting.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 13:59 GMT >> Robert Bannister skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >it, but when it comes to remembering a tune previously learnt, my hands >are much better at than "I" am. I know what you mean. Back when I played, my fingers knew tunes, once I got started, on the violin that I had forgotten.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Peter Moylan - 09 Jan 2010 13:19 GMT > I'm sure the many people here who play musical instruments, or at least > keyboard instruments, would be totally familiar with being only able to > remember tunes with the hands rather than the memory. I've just come back from a vacation with a fellow choir member. She remembers the notes. I remember the finger positions on a guitar. We had a lot of trouble working out what we should sing.
 Signature Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Cheryl - 07 Jan 2010 12:16 GMT > Jonathan Morton set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time > continuum: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > imaginary keyboard could I translate the number into actual digits for > somebody else to key in on a mobile. That happens to me a lot, too. I have to use a code on the office photocopier, and I'm sure that when students ask to photocopy something they think I am protecting our resources by refusing to trust them with the Secret Code. In fact, I can't remember it unless I'm standing at the machine typing it in.
And I have used it almost daily for over five years.
 Signature Cheryl
Skitt - 07 Jan 2010 19:16 GMT >> I have encountered an extreme example of knowing things by position >> rather than name/number. I could not remember a customer's phone [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > And I have used it almost daily for over five years. At my last place of employment I had to enter a numerical code to gain access to my work building. All I remembered was the pattern of the buttons to be pushed, not the numerical identities of them.
 Signature Skitt (AmE)
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 07 Jan 2010 19:27 GMT >>> I have encountered an extreme example of knowing things by position >>> rather than name/number. I could not remember a customer's phone [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >At my last place of employment I had to enter a numerical code to gain >access to my work building. Ditto.
>All I remembered was the pattern of the buttons >to be pushed, not the numerical identities of them. I had to remember my personal numerical code. For security reasons the digits associated with each key were allocated randomly on pressing a start key and then displayed so as to be visible only through a narrow angle. This made it impossible for someone nearby to see what number was being keyed in.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
tony cooper - 07 Jan 2010 20:31 GMT >>> I have encountered an extreme example of knowing things by position >>> rather than name/number. I could not remember a customer's phone [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >access to my work building. All I remembered was the pattern of the buttons >to be pushed, not the numerical identities of them. The "Time of Day" phone number in this area is 407 646 3131. Before using the area code on all calls in this area, the number could be dialed if you could remember to touch the opposites on a touch-tone phone. It was also a pattern dialing situation.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
James Silverton - 07 Jan 2010 20:50 GMT Skitt wrote on Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:16:51 -0800:
>>> I have encountered an extreme example of knowing things by >>> position rather than name/number. I could not remember a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> >> And I have used it almost daily for over five years.
> At my last place of employment I had to enter a numerical code > to gain access to my work building. All I remembered was the pattern > of the buttons to be pushed, not the numerical > identities of them. Given my visual decrepitude I have to do that too for the lock box that contains my emergency house keys.
 Signature James Silverton Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 14:28 GMT >>> I have encountered an extreme example of knowing things by position >>> rather than name/number. I could not remember a customer's phone [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >access to my work building. All I remembered was the pattern of the buttons >to be pushed, not the numerical identities of them. Since one or more guards waved us by before we gained access to a space, my bugbear was having to memorize the combinations for a series of filing cabinets. No writing them down, either.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Skitt - 08 Jan 2010 18:46 GMT >> At my last place of employment I had to enter a numerical code to >> gain access to my work building. All I remembered was the pattern [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > space, my bugbear was having to memorize the combinations for a series > of filing cabinets. No writing them down, either. About that -- aside frome the daily-used code, I had about four other access codes for some areas I had to visit now and then. I remembered some of them, but I wrote the codes (modified by a fixed number known only to me) in my address book as parts of phone numbers for some fictional persons with fictional but likely addresses. I had to consult that address book on several occasions, but yeah -- I never wrote down the actual codes.
 Signature Skitt (AmE)
Chuck Riggs - 09 Jan 2010 14:25 GMT >>> At my last place of employment I had to enter a numerical code to >>> gain access to my work building. All I remembered was the pattern [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >fictional but likely addresses. I had to consult that address book on >several occasions, but yeah -- I never wrote down the actual codes. My office mates and I concocted rhymes to make memorizing the numbers easier. With a dozen locked cabinets and without writing the combinations down, I don't know how else it could be done, at least not by the average person.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Skitt - 09 Jan 2010 18:31 GMT >>>> At my last place of employment I had to enter a numerical code to >>>> gain access to my work building. All I remembered was the pattern [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > combinations down, I don't know how else it could be done, at least > not by the average person. In my case, it wouldn't have been so bad if they didn't have to change the codes every time someone got removed from the authorized access list.
 Signature Skitt (AmE)
Chuck Riggs - 10 Jan 2010 14:01 GMT >>>>> At my last place of employment I had to enter a numerical code to >>>>> gain access to my work building. All I remembered was the pattern [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >In my case, it wouldn't have been so bad if they didn't have to change the >codes every time someone got removed from the authorized access list. You're right, there. We changed ours periodically and for the case you mentioned, which for civil servants was probably rarer than in most of private industry.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Robert Bannister - 08 Jan 2010 01:37 GMT >> Jonathan Morton set the following eddies spiralling through the >> space-time [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > And I have used it almost daily for over five years. For much of my life - previously as a teacher, and now as a sufferer at the gym - I wrote the date down at least once a day, and yet I had to think really hard to remember what the date was. It must have been an unconscious action: place a blackboard or workout chart in front of me, and the brain switches to "write next date" function; ask me "What's the date today?" and my brain goes into "Wha'?" mode.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 14:34 GMT >>> Jonathan Morton set the following eddies spiralling through the >>> space-time [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >and the brain switches to "write next date" function; ask me "What's the >date today?" and my brain goes into "Wha'?" mode. Mobile phones have finally solved the day and date problem for me, or my watch does.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Bertel Lund Hansen - 06 Jan 2010 23:16 GMT Jonathan Morton skrev:
> No, but the analogue clock is a good example of the phenomenon you > described. I have just glanced at my watch and noticed that it's sort of > half-way between quarter-past and half-past something that's in the bottom > left-hand quadrant of the dial. So in split second, I know exactly what time > it is. This is why I prefer an analog clock display. As a teacher I needed to look at the clock and know immediately how many minutes remained of the lesson.
 Signature Bertel, Denmark
annily - 07 Jan 2010 06:00 GMT > Jonathan Morton skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > needed to look at the clock and know immediately how many minutes > remained of the lesson. My brain is more attuned to text and numbers than images, so I prefer digital clocks.
 Signature Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
Chuck Riggs - 07 Jan 2010 14:26 GMT >> Jonathan Morton skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >My brain is more attuned to text and numbers than images, so I prefer >digital clocks. If they weren't so tacky I'd like them a lot more.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
annily - 07 Jan 2010 23:09 GMT >>> Jonathan Morton skrev: >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > If they weren't so tacky I'd like them a lot more. Why do you consider them "tacky"? They look fine to me.
 Signature Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 14:40 GMT >>>> Jonathan Morton skrev: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Why do you consider them "tacky"? They look fine to me. If not tacky, would you prefer that I called digital clocks and watches glitzy or glam?
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
annily - 09 Jan 2010 01:16 GMT >>>>> Jonathan Morton skrev: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > If not tacky, would you prefer that I called digital clocks and > watches glitzy or glam? Not really, although they could be designed that way. I just think of them as "normal", somewhere between tacky and glitzy.
 Signature Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
Chuck Riggs - 09 Jan 2010 14:41 GMT >>>>>> Jonathan Morton skrev: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Not really, although they could be designed that way. I just think of >them as "normal", somewhere between tacky and glitzy. The designers of the watch I'm wearing now compromised in a way I rather like. The watch has an analogue dial for the time, with a small area at the bottom where the day and date are inconspicuously displayed by an LCD readout. I'd have to wing it for the year were it not for my pocket diary or my mobile, which remind me it is 2010 when I forget.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
James Silverton - 09 Jan 2010 15:07 GMT Chuck wrote on Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:41:01 +0000:
>>>>>>> Jonathan Morton skrev: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> think of them as "normal", somewhere between tacky and >> glitzy.
> The designers of the watch I'm wearing now compromised in a > way I rather like. The watch has an analogue dial for the > time, with a small area at the bottom where the day and date > are inconspicuously displayed by an LCD readout. I'd have to > wing it for the year were it not for my pocket diary or my > mobile, which remind me it is 2010 when I forget. My analog watch has a liquid crystal backing to the lens. This can show, among other things, day and date, including year. The only real problem is that the dial is greyish instead of white.
 Signature
James Silverton Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Chuck Riggs - 10 Jan 2010 14:12 GMT > Chuck wrote on Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:41:01 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >among other things, day and date, including year. The only real problem >is that the dial is greyish instead of white. The hands and numbers on the dial of my el cheapo Casio are a highly readable white on black and the alphanumerics are an easily read black on light grey. That display shows the day and date, but not the year.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Robert Bannister - 07 Jan 2010 01:30 GMT >> Jonathan Morton <jonathan.mortonbutignorethispart@btinternet.com>: >>>>> Yes, I was confused above. Almost every calendar I have ever seen [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > end; or days of the week at the side. I looked at that one, and decided > it looked really odd to me. For family planning of weekends, having Saturday and Sunday together is pretty handy if you're one of those people who writes activities on the calendar. Reading the calendar is a different matter, but it does help if the weekend days are in a different colour from the workdays.
> It's mildly interesting to discover how much habit affects the use of > one of the commonest time-telling objects, like a calendar, and how many > versions there are that *don't* use the 'obvious' arrangement. "Obvious" and "habit" are obviously only what you are used to, and once you become exposed to other "obvious" methods, you will be surprised at how quickly you become adept at reading various formats including days going vertically instead of in the "proper" way.
Clocks,
> in spite of the 12/24 options and the digital/analogue issue don't seem > to provide as varied options. The main variation I find is that there an increasing number of watches that I can't read even with my glasses on.
 Signature
Rob Bannister
Nick - 11 Jan 2010 18:08 GMT > For family planning of weekends Something for the weekend sir?
 Signature Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Garrett Wollman - 06 Jan 2010 19:22 GMT >I think she used that as an example without claiming any particular >advantage. It's hardly an advantage over the start of the working week >being at the start of the calendar week. So what do they do in German-speaking countries, where Wednesday is Mittwoch ("mid-week"), or in Finland (keskiviikko, a calque of the German)?
-GAWollman
 Signature Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Mike Barnes - 06 Jan 2010 20:15 GMT Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org>:
>>I think she used that as an example without claiming any particular >>advantage. It's hardly an advantage over the start of the working week [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Mittwoch ("mid-week"), or in Finland (keskiviikko, a calque of the >German)? I expected German calendars to run Mo-So, and a quick web search provides some confirmation.
http://www.stop-in-esslingen.de/attachments/Image/KALENDAR.png http://enkler.tempw7.internet1.de/dasblog/dasblogce/content/binary/KAlendar.png
I don't imagine for one moment that Mittwoch not being the central column on a calendar is in any way troublesome.
 Signature Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
Ilpo - 07 Jan 2010 13:20 GMT > >I think she used that as an example without claiming any particular > >advantage. It's hardly an advantage over the start of the working week [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Mittwoch ("mid-week"), or in Finland (keskiviikko, a calque of the > German)? Presumably the Finnish calendar week did start on Sunday in the past, and hence the name for the day. I wasn't able to confirm that it is a calque of the German - it may be, but it could be endogenous as well. But the shift into Monday being the first day took place long enough ago that I'm not sure if there are many still alive who even remember a time when it was otherwise. For me the apparent illogicality has never been an issue; I've always taken it to be the middle of a workweek.
The biggest practical advantage for me in having the weekend days next to each other is that you may be travelling somewhere for the weekend or having visitors etc., and it's easier to read the calendar with the weekend as one unit. The week splits quite naturally into two parts, the workdays and the days off, and to me it makes sense to keep these parts undivided.
John Varela - 06 Jan 2010 20:19 GMT > >>Yes, I was confused above. Almost every calendar I have ever seen > >>starts the week on a Sunday. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I see both. But, as the OP observed, the advantage of Sunday first is that > the middle of the working week is the middle of the calendar also. In defiance of local custom I have my computer calendar set up with Sunday as the last day because I want to see the weekend days side by side.
 Signature John Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Nick - 10 Jan 2010 11:37 GMT > I think that's the North American tradition. In the UK, the weeks starts > on Monday and calendars generally reflect this. Of course there are > exceptions, usually designed for other markets and thoughtlessly > imported. My latest "Historic Wigan" calendar starts with Sunday - so splits the weekends. I doubt that's designed for other markets (although the software might be).
I've reached a new milestone - pictures taken when I was alive are now "historic".
On the "days vertical" idea which someone mentioned, my mother used to organise our family life with a calendar that had 4 weeks to a page, each week running vertically, and with perforations such that you could remove each week when it was past, so always having this week and the next 4 visible. I think they stopped making them, and she doesn't have quite the same need these days.
 Signature Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Prai Jei - 06 Jan 2010 20:33 GMT Cheryl set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:
> I knew that it is possible to get calendars that vary from Sunday to > Saturday across the top, but hadn't happened to use them. Some people are quibbling about "vary" here. No problem - it's like the "For" statement in computer language like Basic and C: For X = 1 To 10 means that X "varies" from 1 to 10 i.e. take each value in turn.
> This one, however, goes from Monday-Sunday, Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated in the Gospels, coming the day after Jewish Sabbath (the seventh day of the previous week).
Monday only begins the week in the world of Mammon, where Sunday is relegated to the end of the week, frequently scrunched into the same square as Saturday.
> I would never have thought such a minor change would confuse my reading > skills to that extent! It's not a minor change but a total paradigm shift. (Good expression that - what does it mean?) My advice: scrub that calendar and get a proper one. You may even be able to get one half price now the year has started.
Alternately if you have an old calendar from 1999 re-use it since the dates and days of the week will match, though Easter and dates relative to Easter, won't match.
 Signature ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
R H Draney - 06 Jan 2010 21:06 GMT Prai Jei filted:
>Alternately if you have an old calendar from 1999 re-use it since the dates >and days of the week will match, though Easter and dates relative to >Easter, won't match. And if that's a concern to you, put the calendar away and bring it back out in 2021....r
 Signature A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this?
Evan Kirshenbaum - 06 Jan 2010 23:00 GMT > Cheryl set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > For X = 1 To 10 > means that X "varies" from 1 to 10 i.e. take each value in turn. And that's the sense she *didn't* mean, right?
>> This one, however, goes from Monday-Sunday, It normally runs Sunday to Saturday, and this one "varies" by being different.
> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the > week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated in > the Gospels, coming the day after Jewish Sabbath (the seventh day of the > previous week). I don't recall anywhere in the Gospels that it's called "the most important day". It's designated as "the first day of the week" (Matt 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:19), presumably because that's the way it would likely have been designated in Aramaic by Jews (and is today in Hebrew (/jom riSon/)) due to it being the day after the Sabbath, which is the seventh day.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It's gotten to the point where the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |only place you can get work done is Palo Alto, CA 94304 |at home, because no one bugs you, |and the best place to entertain kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |yourself is at work, because the (650)857-7572 |Internet connections are faster. | Scott Adams http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Prai Jei - 07 Jan 2010 18:58 GMT Evan Kirshenbaum set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:
>> Cheryl set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >> continuum: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > today in Hebrew (/jom riSon/)) due to it being the day after the > Sabbath, which is the seventh day. It became the most important day of the week because it was the day of the week on which Christ rose from the dead.
 Signature ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Evan Kirshenbaum - 07 Jan 2010 19:20 GMT > Evan Kirshenbaum set the following eddies spiralling through the > space-time continuum: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > It became the most important day of the week because it was the day > of the week on which Christ rose from the dead. Oh, sure. But the claim was that
it's the most important day and is so designated in the Gospels
and that's what I didn't remember. I don't even recall it from the epistles. I figured it happened sometime after the canonical books were written.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |ActiveX is pretty harmless anyway. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |It can't affect you unless you Palo Alto, CA 94304 |install Windows, and who would be |foolish enough to do that? kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Peter Moylan (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Robert Bannister - 08 Jan 2010 01:42 GMT >> Evan Kirshenbaum set the following eddies spiralling through the >> space-time continuum: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > epistles. I figured it happened sometime after the canonical books > were written. Almost certainly at that dreadful meeting at Nokia - sorry, Nikea, when they made up a whole pile of rules like the date of Christmas.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 07 Jan 2010 19:31 GMT >Evan Kirshenbaum set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >continuum: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >It became the most important day of the week because it was the day of the >week on which Christ rose from the dead. You don't know that! <smile>
Jesus was found to be absent from the tomb on that day. There were no witnesses who saw him coming back to life and leaving the tomb. He could have come back to life soon after being entombed.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Skitt - 07 Jan 2010 19:46 GMT > Prai Jei wrote: >> Evan Kirshenbaum set the following: >>> Prai Jei writes:
>>>> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day >>>> of the week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > witnesses who saw him coming back to life and leaving the tomb. > He could have come back to life soon after being entombed. Don't ask me why, but it made me think of a dingo ...
 Signature Skitt (AmE)
Peter Moylan - 09 Jan 2010 14:32 GMT >> Jesus was found to be absent from the tomb on that day. There were no >> witnesses who saw him coming back to life and leaving the tomb. >> He could have come back to life soon after being entombed. > > Don't ask me why, but it made me think of a dingo ... Let's dingo some more, let's dingo some more, Let's hit the floor like we did before ...
 Signature Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Chuck Riggs - 10 Jan 2010 14:14 GMT >>> Jesus was found to be absent from the tomb on that day. There were no >>> witnesses who saw him coming back to life and leaving the tomb. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Let's dingo some more, let's dingo some more, >Let's hit the floor like we did before ... What in the...world?
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
the Omrud - 06 Jan 2010 23:11 GMT > Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the > week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated in > the Gospels, coming the day after Jewish Sabbath (the seventh day of the > previous week). That's probably illegal talk in Ireland these days.
 Signature David
James Hogg - 06 Jan 2010 23:19 GMT >> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the >> week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated in >> the Gospels, coming the day after Jewish Sabbath (the seventh day of the >> previous week). > > That's probably illegal talk in Ireland these days. Some early Christians thought of Sunday as the eighth day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity
 Signature James
Chuck Riggs - 07 Jan 2010 14:44 GMT >> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the >> week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated in >> the Gospels, coming the day after Jewish Sabbath (the seventh day of the >> previous week). > >That's probably illegal talk in Ireland these days. Ah yes, that law. The content is bollocks, but even the length of the Defamation Act 2009 should make it repealable, IMO. If you're not easily bored, here it is:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2009/a3109.pdf
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Evan Kirshenbaum - 07 Jan 2010 17:34 GMT >>> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the >>> week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2009/a3109.pdf Well, that's all of "defamation", not merely blasphemy but mostly libel and slander. "Publishing or uttering blasphemous matter" is just sections 36 and 37 on pp. 26-7, reproduced below, and the bulk (section 37) only has to do with seizing material upon conviction. I note that to be actionable, there are two prongs that both need to be met.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if--
(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.
So it has to *intentionally* cause outrage among a substantial number of adherents to the religion. Merely having your words taken as offensive, or even intending to piss off a specific person or small group wouldn't seem to be covered.
Also,
(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.
although I note that this doesn't include the American obscenity notion of "the work *taken as a whole*".
The full sections:
36.--(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding EUR25,000.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if--
(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.
(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.
(4) In this section "religion" does not include an organisation or cult--
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation--
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.
37.--(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 36, the court may issue a warrant--
(a) authorising any member of the Garda Síochána to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the statement to which the offence related are to be found, and to search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the statement found therein,
(b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the Garda Síochána of all copies of the statement to which the offence related that are in the possession of any person,
(c) specifying the manner in which copies so seized and removed shall be detained and stored by the Garda Sý'ocha' na.
(2) A member of the Garda Síochána may--
(a) enter and search any premises,
(b) seize, remove and detain any copy of a statement to which an offence under section 36 relates found therein or in the possession of any person, in accordance with a warrant under subsection (1).
(3) Upon final judgment being given in proceedings for an offence under section 36, anything seized and removed under subsection (2) shall be disposed of in accordance with such directions as the court may give upon an application by a member of the Garda Síochána in that behalf.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If the human brain were so simple 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |That we could understand it, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |We would be so simple |That we couldn't. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Prai Jei - 07 Jan 2010 18:57 GMT Evan Kirshenbaum set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:
>>>> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the >>>> week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > of the adherents of that religion, and > [ & mucel mo vpon þis wyse, ysnoppen ] Er - um - sorry, where is the alleged defamation in what I wrote?
 Signature ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
James Hogg - 07 Jan 2010 19:04 GMT > Evan Kirshenbaum set the following eddies spiralling through the > space-time continuum: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Er - um - sorry, where is the alleged defamation in what I wrote? Probably the accusation of heresy. I don't remember who the alleged heretic was. You might escape legal action in Ireland if the following clause applies:
(4) There shall be no publication for the purposes of the tort of defamation if the defamatory statement concerned is published to the person to whom it relates and to a person other than the person to whom it relates in circumstances where— (a) it was not intended that the statement would be published to the second-mentioned person, and (b) it was not reasonably foreseeable that publication of the statement to the first-mentioned person would result in its being published to the second-mentioned person.
I hope that's sufficiently clear.
 Signature James
Prai Jei - 07 Jan 2010 19:06 GMT James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:
> (4) There shall be no publication for the purposes of the tort of > defamation if the defamatory statement concerned is published to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I hope that's sufficiently clear. As mud.
 Signature ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 15:05 GMT >James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >continuum: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> I hope that's sufficiently clear. >As mud. Once he arises, David The Omrud will need to answer your question.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
the Omrud - 08 Jan 2010 15:09 GMT >> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >> continuum: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Once he arises, David The Omrud will need to answer your question. What do you mean, "arises"? I've been up since 09:30, you know.
And, as Bart says, "It wasn't me".
 Signature David
Chuck Riggs - 09 Jan 2010 14:45 GMT >>> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >>> continuum: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >And, as Bart says, "It wasn't me". Arises to the bait, arises within the newsgroup and arises in the religious sense to offer us your wisdom. That's what I meant by arises, David.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
the Omrud - 09 Jan 2010 15:32 GMT >>>> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >>>> continuum: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > religious sense to offer us your wisdom. That's what I meant by > arises, David. Ah, I see, thanks. Unfortunately, I can't now be bothered to read back through the thread.
 Signature David
Robin Bignall - 09 Jan 2010 21:43 GMT >>>>> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >>>>> continuum: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >Ah, I see, thanks. Unfortunately, I can't now be bothered to read back >through the thread. So much for past wisdom, just to cross threads somewhat. Will someone really be enthralled by what we say 100 years from now?
 Signature Robin (BrE) Herts, England
Skitt - 09 Jan 2010 22:38 GMT
> So much for past wisdom, just to cross threads somewhat. Will someone > really be enthralled by what we say 100 years from now? I don't think I'll be able to say much a hundred years from now. ;-)
 Signature Skitt (AmE)
Robin Bignall - 10 Jan 2010 21:37 GMT >> So much for past wisdom, just to cross threads somewhat. Will someone >> really be enthralled by what we say 100 years from now? > >I don't think I'll be able to say much a hundred years from now. ;-) You never know, you know..... but I'm just quoting.
 Signature Robin (BrE) Herts, England
the Omrud - 10 Jan 2010 10:51 GMT >>>>>> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >>>>>> continuum: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > So much for past wisdom, just to cross threads somewhat. Will someone > really be enthralled by what we say 100 years from now? I believe that people who edit diaries or correspondence have to throw out most of what was written. Same for us, I suppose.
 Signature David
Ian Dalziel - 10 Jan 2010 11:26 GMT >>>>>> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >>>>>> continuum: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >So much for past wisdom, just to cross threads somewhat. Will someone >really be enthralled by what we say 100 years from now? If I'm saying anything at all 100 years from now it'll be quite enthralling.
 Signature Ian D
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 10 Jan 2010 11:45 GMT >>>>>>> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >>>>>>> continuum: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >If I'm saying anything at all 100 years from now it'll be quite >enthralling. I'm delighted to hear it. Many people's utterances become repetitive long before that age.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Chuck Riggs - 10 Jan 2010 14:17 GMT >>>>>> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >>>>>> continuum: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >So much for past wisdom, just to cross threads somewhat. Will someone >really be enthralled by what we say 100 years from now? In the year 2525, if Man is still alive...
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Robin Bignall - 10 Jan 2010 21:39 GMT >>>>>>> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >>>>>>> continuum: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >In the year 2525, if Man is still alive... Hey, I'm supposed to make these sorts of pessimistic remarks about mankind's future, now that Jan Sand is not posting.
 Signature Robin (BrE) Herts, England
Chuck Riggs - 11 Jan 2010 12:03 GMT >>>>>>>> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >>>>>>>> continuum: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >Hey, I'm supposed to make these sorts of pessimistic remarks about >mankind's future, now that Jan Sand is not posting. You can't pin the half-empty philosophy on me, Robin. You see, I never did believe the lyrics to the song. I simply like the tune.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Peter Moylan - 11 Jan 2010 13:48 GMT >> So much for past wisdom, just to cross threads somewhat. Will someone >> really be enthralled by what we say 100 years from now? > > In the year 2525, if Man is still alive... Chuck, you would probably qualify to join our choir. This evening, after choir practice, we were singing "Bus Stop", "Mrs Brown, you've got a lovely daughter", and a whole lot of others I've forgotten by now.
 Signature Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2010 15:01 GMT >>> So much for past wisdom, just to cross threads somewhat. Will someone >>> really be enthralled by what we say 100 years from now? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >choir practice, we were singing "Bus Stop", "Mrs Brown, you've got a >lovely daughter", and a whole lot of others I've forgotten by now. I'd qualify in spirit if not in voice, for years of smoking took their toll, but thank you for the thought, Peter.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Nick - 11 Jan 2010 07:44 GMT > Probably the accusation of heresy. I don't remember who the alleged > heretic was. You might escape legal action in Ireland if the following [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I hope that's sufficiently clear. I think it means that if I send you a letter accusing you of not being a gentleman, and it gets delivered to the wrong address and opened and read by the occupant, I haven't defamed you.
OTOH, that one hasn't actually been published to you as it's gone astray. I think I'd have to send you another copy and get it delivered successfully before I could claim this defence.
 Signature Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Jerry Friedman - 08 Jan 2010 16:56 GMT > Evan Kirshenbaum set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time > continuum: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Er - um - sorry, where is the alleged defamation in what I wrote? Saying "For Christians, it [Sunday] is the most important day" might in principle be considered "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by" Seventh Day Adventists.
-- Jerry Friedman
Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 15:00 GMT >>>> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the >>>> week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated in [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number > of the adherents of that religion, and <snip>
Since I am posting to a public forum, easily available to anyone in Ireland with a computer who knows how Google Groups works, if he or she knows no other way, to me the above means I have to be ultra careful not to grossly insult Catholics, for example, by something I post to alt.usage.english. The law must be repealed, IMO, if the Irish government is to maintain that we have freedom of speech in this country.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Evan Kirshenbaum - 08 Jan 2010 15:50 GMT >>>>> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day >>>>> of the week. For Christians it's the most important day and is [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > careful not to grossly insult Catholics, for example, by something I > post to alt.usage.english. But that's only one of the prongs. The "and" leads into
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.
I suspect that they'd have trouble proving that you "intended to cause outrage" by your remarks.
> The law must be repealed, IMO, if the Irish government is to maintain > that we have freedom of speech in this country.
 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
Chuck Riggs - 09 Jan 2010 14:51 GMT >>>>>> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day >>>>>> of the week. For Christians it's the most important day and is [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >> The law must be repealed, IMO, if the Irish government is to maintain >> that we have freedom of speech in this country. If the law is unenforceable, since intent is virtually impossible to prove, that is the second reason it should be repealed, the more important reason remaining that it has no place in a land where residents and visitors enjoy freedom of expression.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Peter Moylan - 09 Jan 2010 14:50 GMT > Since I am posting to a public forum, easily available to anyone in > Ireland with a computer who knows how Google Groups works, if he or > she knows no other way, to me the above means I have to be ultra > careful not to grossly insult Catholics, for example, by something I > post to alt.usage.english. I agree that that's a problem for you. This response, however, cannot be said to have been published in the republic of Eire unless you read it. Thus, my blasphemy is entirely dependent on your reading it. sh.t f.ck the Pope, in case you are still reading. And the Ayotallah, may his arsehole be forever forever reamed by the faithful.
I suppose I've just blown my latest application to enter Ireland.
 Signature Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Robin Bignall - 09 Jan 2010 21:45 GMT >> Since I am posting to a public forum, easily available to anyone in >> Ireland with a computer who knows how Google Groups works, if he or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I suppose I've just blown my latest application to enter Ireland. They'll probably let you enter, and reopen the Maze prison just for you.
 Signature Robin (BrE) Herts, England
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 09 Jan 2010 22:02 GMT >>> Since I am posting to a public forum, easily available to anyone in >>> Ireland with a computer who knows how Google Groups works, if he or [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >They'll probably let you enter, and reopen the Maze prison just for >you. Different part of Ireland.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Robin Bignall - 10 Jan 2010 21:41 GMT >>>> Since I am posting to a public forum, easily available to anyone in >>>> Ireland with a computer who knows how Google Groups works, if he or [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Different part of Ireland. Blaspheming the same deity, though, innit.
 Signature Robin (BrE) Herts, England
James Hogg - 09 Jan 2010 22:02 GMT >>> Since I am posting to a public forum, easily available to anyone in >>> Ireland with a computer who knows how Google Groups works, if he or [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > They'll probably let you enter, and reopen the Maze prison just for > you. Can the Eire government do that?
 Signature James
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 09 Jan 2010 22:09 GMT >>>> Since I am posting to a public forum, easily available to anyone in >>>> Ireland with a computer who knows how Google Groups works, if he or [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Can the Eire government do that? I suppose we could sell it to them. Cf. the sale of London Bridge to the American entrepreneur Robert P. McCulloch.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
HVS - 09 Jan 2010 22:15 GMT On 09 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote
>>>> I suppose I've just blown my latest application to enter >>>> Ireland. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I suppose we could sell it to them. Cf. the sale of London > Bridge to the American entrepreneur Robert P. McCulloch. "Ah -- you thought you were buying the *Maze* prison. Sorry: we were selling the *maize* prison -- where we incarcerate corn. Pity; too late to change the contract now, though."
(Yes, yes, I know -- but it's an irresistable UL, innit.)
 Signature Cheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
tony cooper - 09 Jan 2010 22:29 GMT >On 09 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >were selling the *maize* prison -- where we incarcerate corn. Pity; >too late to change the contract now, though." Was that where they imprisoned violators of the Corn Laws? Or was it up in Athenry where miscreants who stole Trevelyan's corn were indungeoned before their hols in Oz?
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
HVS - 09 Jan 2010 22:32 GMT On 09 Jan 2010, tony cooper wrote
>> On 09 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > was it up in Athenry where miscreants who stole Trevelyan's corn > were indungeoned before their hols in Oz? It was the Corn Law violators, I think -- people who kept telling mother-in-law jokes and bad puns after those were banned.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Chuck Riggs - 10 Jan 2010 14:26 GMT >On 09 Jan 2010, tony cooper wrote > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >It was the Corn Law violators, I think -- people who kept telling >mother-in-law jokes and bad puns after those were banned. I may be banned once They learn I read that as Corn Hole violators.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
James Hogg - 09 Jan 2010 22:54 GMT >> On 09 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >>>>>> I suppose I've just blown my latest application to enter [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> were selling the *maize* prison -- where we incarcerate corn. Pity; >> too late to change the contract now, though." Is that how maize is spelt?
> Was that where they imprisoned violators of the Corn Laws? Or was it > up in Athenry where miscreants who stole Trevelyan's corn were > indungeoned before their hols in Oz? Is it in the fields of Athenry that the wind shakes the barley?
 Signature James
tony cooper - 09 Jan 2010 23:08 GMT >>> On 09 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >>>>>>> I suppose I've just blown my latest application to enter [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Is it in the fields of Athenry that the wind shakes the barley? Right pants, wrong pocket.
The barley was in the fields of Wexford south of Galway.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
HVS - 09 Jan 2010 23:27 GMT On 09 Jan 2010, James Hogg wrote
>>> On 09 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote
>>>> I suppose we could sell it to them. Cf. the sale of London >>>> Bridge to the American entrepreneur Robert P. McCulloch.
>>> "Ah -- you thought you were buying the *Maze* prison. Sorry: >>> we were selling the *maize* prison -- where we incarcerate >>> corn. Pity; too late to change the contract now, though." > > Is that how maize is spelt? Only when it's used in oat cuisine.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
James Hogg - 09 Jan 2010 23:41 GMT > On 09 Jan 2010, James Hogg wrote >>>> On 09 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Only when it's used in oat cuisine. The time is ripe for a new crop of serial puns.
 Signature James
Redshade - 10 Jan 2010 02:32 GMT > > On 09 Jan 2010, James Hogg wrote > >>>> On 09 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -- > James In the beginning OGD said "let there be anagrams".
tony cooper - 10 Jan 2010 05:37 GMT >> On 09 Jan 2010, James Hogg wrote >>>>> On 09 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >The time is ripe for a new crop of serial puns. As an Englishman, you could have added "Cheerio" to that.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Chuck Riggs - 10 Jan 2010 14:22 GMT >> Since I am posting to a public forum, easily available to anyone in >> Ireland with a computer who knows how Google Groups works, if he or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >the Pope, in case you are still reading. And the Ayotallah, may his >arsehole be forever forever reamed by the faithful. Since I shut my eyes when I encountered sh.t, f.ck and Pope, I should be OK by the law.
>I suppose I've just blown my latest application to enter Ireland. There are plenty of ways to cross the border.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Redshade - 06 Jan 2010 23:36 GMT > Cheryl set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:
> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the > week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply I am a new poster to this site and have obviously missed a lot of ongoing debates so please excuse my bringing up a point that may well be an old chestnut.
The "Christian " calendar seems to be made up of days/months that are named after non-christian/pagan objects of deification.
Please discuss. And I have no objection whatsoever to being pilloried and poo-pooed.
Perhaps we could meet for lunch?
All the calendars/diaries/filofaxes (bit embarrassed about that latter admission-but then aren't we all?) that I ever had always started with Sunday.
Redshade (TFIC)
Ps.
TUT and PHOOEY if you don't know what "paradigm" means. It's that old Amen Corner hit innit: "If Paradigm was half as nice as Heaven that you sent me to/ who needs paradigm-I'd rather have you".
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 07 Jan 2010 00:38 GMT >I am a new poster to this site and have obviously missed a lot of >ongoing debates so please excuse my bringing up a point that may well [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Please discuss. And I have no objection whatsoever to being pilloried >and poo-pooed. The origins of names and the meanings of words do not necessarily have any connection with their meanings today. History happens -- things change.
Beware the Etymological fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy
The etymological fallacy holds, erroneously, that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning. This is a linguistic misconception, based on a mistaken idea concerning the etymology of words.
Words, like buildings and other physical objects, can be "repurposed".
>Perhaps we could meet for lunch? > >All the calendars/diaries/filofaxes (bit embarrassed about that latter >admission-but then aren't we all?) that I ever had always started with >Sunday. The wall calendars that I have start the week on Sunday.
My Filofax and Time/System personal organisers start the week on Monday.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Robert Bannister - 08 Jan 2010 01:44 GMT > The wall calendars that I have start the week on Sunday. I misread that for "start a week on Sunday".
 Signature Rob Bannister
Prai Jei - 07 Jan 2010 18:52 GMT Redshade set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:
> I am a new poster to this site and have obviously missed a lot of > ongoing debates so please excuse my bringing up a point that may well > be an old chestnut. Welcome, croeso, faílte, bienvenu, wilkommen, terve, etc.
> The "Christian " calendar seems to be made up of days/months that are > named after non-christian/pagan objects of deification. > > Please discuss. And I have no objection whatsoever to being pilloried > and poo-pooed. As hinted elsewhere, the names have hung about long after they were of any significance. Most Latin languages say "The Lord's Day" (Dimanche, Domenico, etc.) for Sunday but dedicate the next day to the moon and the rest to a selection of old Roman deities. German no longer names Wednesday after a Wagner character but (along with Finnish) calls it "Midweek" (Mittwoch, Keskiviikko). Portuguese is the only Latin language I'm aware of that has totally chucked pagan names for the days of the week.
Welsh doesn't say "The Lord's Day" but sticks with "Sunday" (Dydd sul) then follows Latin practice, so for a noted God-fearing nation we're as pagan as E*****h with our day names. Ach-y-fi!
I'm one of the nice guys here (yes there are a few) so don't panic, you won't get pilloried or pooh-poohed (or even tutted or phooied) by me.
> Perhaps we could meet for lunch? Somehow I get the feeling that here we're seeing the female POV. Am I right? (Date? Time? Place?)
> All the calendars/diaries/filofaxes (bit embarrassed about that latter > admission-but then aren't we all?) that I ever had always started with > Sunday. Don't worry about remembering the Filofax, I've still got one somewhere.
> TUT and PHOOEY if you don't know what "paradigm" means. It's that old > Amen Corner hit innit: "If Paradigm was half as nice as Heaven that > you sent me to/ who needs paradigm-I'd rather have you". I remember Amen Corner well (used to work at Bracknell, just down the road) but somehow I didn't connect the song with paradigms. I was of course using the word facetiously, all the while perfectly aware of its normal meaning.
 Signature ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Mike Barnes - 06 Jan 2010 23:43 GMT Prai Jei <pvstownsend.zyx.abc@ntlworld.com>:
>Cheryl set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: >> This one, however, goes from Monday-Sunday, >Heresy!!! There's nothing wrong with a bit of heresy AFAICS.
>Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the >week. For Christians it's the most important day That has nothing to do with me. I'll stick with the practical system, if you don't mind.
 Signature Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
Prai Jei - 07 Jan 2010 18:34 GMT Mike Barnes set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:
> Prai Jei <pvstownsend.zyx.abc@ntlworld.com>: >>Cheryl set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That has nothing to do with me. I'll stick with the practical system, if > you don't mind. For the believing Christian practical systems must take second place to the Truth.
 Signature ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
James Hogg - 07 Jan 2010 18:39 GMT > Mike Barnes set the following eddies spiralling through the > space-time continuum: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > For the believing Christian practical systems must take second place > to the Truth. This could lead to a discussion of when the day begins. It's rather practical to have our modern convention which rules that a day begins at midnight, but in the Bible it begins at sunset.
When do you start observing the Sabbath?
 Signature James
Evan Kirshenbaum - 07 Jan 2010 19:06 GMT > This could lead to a discussion of when the day begins. It's rather > practical to have our modern convention which rules that a day begins at > midnight, but in the Bible it begins at sunset. > > When do you start observing the Sabbath? Jews start theirs at sundown on Friday night, and all holidays also start at sundown "the night before". But in my experience even observent Jews think of the two main services as taking place "Friday evening" and "Saturday morning" in English.
Looking at schedules for TV in Israel, their broadcast days for a given date seem to run from morning to night.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Pious Jews have a category of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |questions that can harmlessly be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |allowed to go without an answer |until the Messiah comes. I suspect kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |that this is one of them. (650)857-7572 | Joseph C. Fineman
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Garrett Wollman - 07 Jan 2010 19:07 GMT >This could lead to a discussion of when the day begins. It's rather >practical to have our modern convention which rules that a day begins at >midnight, but in the Bible it begins at sunset. In broadcasting it begins at 5 AM. (4 AM Central and Mountain.)
-GAWollman
 Signature Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Paul Schmitz-Josten - 07 Jan 2010 07:18 GMT Prai Jei in <hi2s25$7jl$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>> I knew that it is possible to get calendars that vary from Sunday to >> Saturday across the top, but hadn't happened to use them. [...]
>> This one, however, goes from Monday-Sunday,
>Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the >week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated in >the Gospels, coming the day after Jewish Sabbath (the seventh day of the >previous week). Correct - if you accept wikipedia as a proof: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week-day_names#Weekdays_numbered_from_Sunday>
>Monday only begins the week in the world of Mammon, where Sunday is >relegated to the end of the week, frequently scrunched into the same square >as Saturday. Correct again - it's the satanic UNO which decided on this in 1978 (the Germans leading as a heresetic (sp?) spearhead in 1976), cemented by the diabolic norm ISO-8601 in 1988: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week-day_names#Weekdays_numbered_from_Monday>
Ciao,
Paul
Paul Schmitz-Josten - 12 Jan 2010 09:08 GMT Cheryl in <7qhjg6Ftq9U1@mid.individual.net>:
>I hadn't realized quite how much of my reading ability isn't so much in >interpreting printed words as in interpreting patterns. A toehry on wteritn lgagnaue settas taht you can mix up a wrod's lrtetes wohuitt tnikag mcuh of its libiiegtly if olny the frsit and lsat rmiean ucenganhd, and I've seen Gmrean emxaleps wchih wrok wlel! (see below)
(calender weeks starting form Sunday or Monday)
>I would never have thought such a minor change would confuse my reading >skills to that extent! That's why the discussion now inevitably covers the existance of God:: <hifm51$d2m$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Chuckling,
Paul
A theory on written language states that you can mix up a word's letters without taking much of its legibility if only the first and last remain unchanged, and I've seen German examples which work well!
(Did it work for you English speaking people? I'd have trouble if I had not written it myself)
R H Draney - 12 Jan 2010 09:40 GMT Paul Schmitz-Josten filted:
>A theory on written language states that you can mix up a word's letters >without taking much of its legibility if only the first and last remain >unchanged, and I've seen German examples which work well! > >(Did it work for you English speaking people? I'd have trouble if I had not >written it myself) Do the author of this theory and his wife suffer martial troubles?...r
 Signature A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this?
HVS - 12 Jan 2010 09:42 GMT On 12 Jan 2010, R H Draney wrote
> Paul Schmitz-Josten filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Do the author of this theory and his wife suffer martial > troubles?...r Would that be Cnut and his wife?
 Signature Cheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
James Hogg - 12 Jan 2010 09:47 GMT > Paul Schmitz-Josten filted: >> A theory on written language states that you can mix up a word's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Do the author of this theory and his wife suffer martial > troubles?...r Germans seem to like legibility tests of this kind. Even msuemus have texts where the letters of a word can be arranged in manrdo order. In the House at Checkpoint Charlie I read about how the East German authorities coped with unrest by introducing "marital law".
 Signature James
Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2010 15:05 GMT >Paul Schmitz-Josten filted: >> >>A theory on written language states that you can mix up a word's letters >>without taking much of its legibility if only the first and last remain >>unchanged, and I've seen German examples which work well! How long did the unshuffling take you?
>>(Did it work for you English speaking people? I'd have trouble if I had not >>written it myself) > >Do the author of this theory and his wife suffer martial troubles?...r  Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Evan Kirshenbaum - 12 Jan 2010 16:17 GMT > A toehry on wteritn lgagnaue settas taht you can mix up a wrod's > lrtetes wohuitt tnikag mcuh of its libiiegtly if olny the frsit and > lsat rmiean ucenganhd, and I've seen Gmrean emxaleps wchih wrok > wlel! [snip]
> A theory on written language states that you can mix up a word's > letters without taking much of its legibility if only the first and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (Did it work for you English speaking people? I'd have trouble if I > had not written it myself) Much of it was trivial. The one, two, and three letter words are unchanged, of course, and they give you a fair bit of the structure, and four letter words necessarily simply have the two middle letters swapped. There are 36 words in that sentence, and that covers 21 of them. (More if you considered "word's" and "I've" two wrods each.)
The words that I had to look at longer were "settas" (states) and "rmiean" (remain), the latter I could only get by working back from what it pretty much had to be.
I've heard that this absolutely doesn't work in Hebrew.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |_Bauplan_ is just the German word 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |for blueprint. Typically, one Palo Alto, CA 94304 |switches languages to indicate |profundity. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Richard Dawkins (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Paul Schmitz-Josten - 13 Jan 2010 07:59 GMT Evan Kirshenbaum in <4omrl2lu.fsf@hpl.hp.com>:
>> A toehry on wteritn lgagnaue settas taht you can mix up a wrod's >> lrtetes wohuitt tnikag mcuh of its libiiegtly if olny the frsit and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >swapped. There are 36 words in that sentence, and that covers 21 of >them. (More if you considered "word's" and "I've" two wrods each.) I noticed this, too, when I worked on it. Furtheron, I just proofed my first guess wrong that this might be different from German: An example gives 17 1-4 letter words out of 27 in total. Alas, I could read an example text in German almost as fluently as unspoilt text.
>The words that I had to look at longer were "settas" (states) and >"rmiean" (remain), the latter I could only get by working back from >what it pretty much had to be. I suppose that it depends how much you stir the letters. "ucnahgned" may be easier than "ucenganhd" for "unchanged"(?), and you can also sort the letters, thus making it appear like a letter puzzle: "uaceghnnd" or "lbegiiilty" ;->
Everyday examples include simple permutations of single letters wihch shuold not pose to much difficutlies to the redaer.
>I've heard that this absolutely doesn't work in Hebrew. AFAIR they don't write the vowels, do they? That would turn "nchngd" into "cnhgnd", possibly leaving more room for amibiguities and taking the sound away: The i's from legibility contribute to it's characteristics.
Ciao,
Paul
|
|
|