I usually don't post as there are far more eloquent writers out there than
me. I would, however, like to throw my two cents in regarding this exchange
between LhyR of Chaos and rhinoceros and, as an aside, the exchanges
regarding the WSJ article on the "Brights". It seems that no matter what
"god" you happen to be discussing, your ability to understand this "god"
will always seem to fall short of the mark somehow and this will necessitate
going to either the person your are debating with for understanding or
his/her spiritual teacher/mentor/etc. In short, a belief in "god" always
results in some sort of intellectual sacrifice or tradeoff for the believer.
There also seems to be an underlying current of assumed certainty or a
promise of potential certainty of knowledge when you debate or read the
arguments presented by those who have a god-belief. This attitude was quite
noticeable in the "Brights" article. The assumption that the knowledge
obtained using the rational processes has a degree of uncertainty associated
to it because of the method by which it was obtained (in this case, through
our "fallible" senses). This, it is argued, makes that knowledge, at least
in the mind of a person who holds to a god-belief, somehow substandard. The
usual response, and Dinesh D'Souza doesn't disappoint us, is that the mind
that holds to a god-belief either has or will have some sort of certain
knowledge that is on a much higher level than can be obtained through mere
reason,
"The atheist foolishly presumes that reason is in principle capable of
figuring out all that there is, while the theist at least knows that there
is a reality greater than, and beyond, that which our senses and our minds
can ever apprehend."
I suppose, were I to be uncharitable, I could paraphrase the above sentiment
as; "Don't you worry! One day we will find out something that will finally
show you rationalists that we are not as stupid as we appear". But, I
wouldn't do such a thing.
While the statement of Kant and others regarding the fallibility of the
senses is true, it is interesting that by using the principles of
rationality we are about to identify these shortcomings and adjust
accordingly. Although, in the debate about the circularity of the earth way
back when, it is interesting to see who championed the correctness of the
sense information as a support for their case.
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-virus-digest@lucifer.com [mailto:
owner-virus-digest@lucifer.com]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 8:10 AM
To:
virus-digest@lucifer.comSubject: virus-digest V9 #272
virus-digest Friday, October 17 2003 Volume 09 : Number 272
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 06:26:51 -0600
From: "rhinoceros" <
rhinoceros@freemail.gr>
Subject: Re:virus: Atheism, Reasonables, Scientists
Back to god proofs and disproofs...
[LhyR of Chaos]
who says that the existance of god has to be attached to some reasonable
consequence? perhaps i am misinterpreting, but by reasonable consequence, i
infer that you mean, say, karma, or that when one "sins" there are
repercussions.
[rhinoceros]
Any particular god, personal or inanimate, is in fact a new definition of a
god. Apparently, proving that no gods at all exist would sound funny,
because we would try to argue against a whole class of definitions we
haven't even heard.
But... when someone brings up a claim for the existence of a particular
god, shouldn't he show that it matters in some way, empirical, explanatory,
anything at all? If no consequences at all can be shown for the existence of
a god, what would make it any different from any other story? On the other
hand, if there is a claim for consequences, these can be subjected to
scrutiny and evaluation.
[LhyR of Chaos]
well, that is only true if god cares to interfere with what is already going
on. i'm not argueing that the judeo-christian god exists, nor that god is
benevolent, nor that god is intelligent, nor omniscient, nor that god gives
a shit what we do....
[rhinoceros]
Which brings us to the next checkpoint. Definitions of gods who do not
interfere at all are safer from empirical scrutiny. (although they may be
still subject to rational scrutiny or semantic analysis). Even the
definition of the judeo-christian god has gone a long way to that direction,
although there is still a problem of utility which keeps the church from
going all the way to a god who does not interfere: If there are no
practical consequences at all, the concept will not be as compelling to the
"faithful".
About the issues with a non-intervening god, more below...
[LhyR of Chaos]
just that an entity beyond our comprehension, existing outside time and all
other dimensions we understand, exists.
something cannot come from nothing. this is fact. therefore, as we exist,
this proves that at one point in time (or feesably at the end of or before
time) a god existed. it might not have been a sentient entity, but there at
one time was a "god".
[rhinoceros]
I can read this in a different way. Let me play a little game of semantics.
You say that "something cannot come from nothing, this is fact". Yes, this
is an empirical fact so well established that we have made it a part of our
rationality. When we are faced with something that contradicts it in
physics, we immediately make up models which require a cause for that
something. By doing so, we make a prediction that a cause exists and will
be found. It has worked so far, barring some cases in the realm of quantum
physics which still resist to give us causes in terms of the usual physical
quantities we have been using. We still insist. Some researchers are even
willing to give up the concepts of position, momentum, energy, or time as we
understand them just to keep causality.
Now, the game of semantics I promised: If there always has to be a cause in
the material world we live in, we can assume an outside realm where it does
not have to be so. An entity without a cause can exist there. A god. This
entity is special because, although it does not need a cause itself, it did
constitute a cause for the material world. Essentially, what this model does
is addressing the probelem of the infinite causal chain of events by putting
a black box at the end, one which somehow is not subject to causality
itself.
Of course, there are simpler ways to do just that without talking about a
god. It is probably the mystery of this situation which conjures the word
"god". Another approach would be investigating the origins of causality
itself, either in the physical realm or in our brains.
[LhyR of Chaos]
if energy never goes away, that means that on a cosmic scale, nothing ever
truly dies, it just transmutes. our bodies and consciousnesses may fall away
and rot back to their original building blocks, but this doesn't mean it
goes away. just that it undergoes radical change.
next, envision what reality would be like outside of space and time. remove
all the empty space from between the nucleaus and the electron cloud, from
inbetween atoms, etc, and what is left is a matrix of energy. reinsert
space/time, and that same entity exists, but has come to experiance all of
its individual aspects subjectively for more perspective.
[rhinoceros]
That sounded interesting... Well... space, time, matter, energy, are all
interconnected. The energy of an "electron cloud" is a function of its
position... All these concepts come in a single framework, a single
package, or else they lose their meaning.... the energy and time pair can
be used as an alternative to the position and momentum pair for the
description of an elementary particle. The energy and time pair is even
subject to the same Heisenberg uncertainty relations as the position and
momentum pair... Err... did I digress? I am not that good at poetry....
[LhyR of Chaos]
my actual theory is that god fractalized itself for the purpose of learning
greater understanding. that god as a localized phenomenon doesn't happen,
and if it ever should, would mean the end of reality as we comprehend it.
well, i understand that this is an anthropomorphised view, but as a human
entity i cannot conscieve of things in a fashion outside what i am capable
of comprehending.
[rhinoceros]
Good, but why god? A theory such as "the world is one" (out of space) and
"nothing never changes" (out of time) along the lines of what Parmenides was
teaching long ago (thanks Blunderov) would look like a simpler start. Yes, a
personal god equiped with a will, comprehension, and curiosity sounds
somehow anthropomorphic, but I understand that if you start from such a
"first cause without a cause" it should be self-motivated if anything at all
was to happen.
- ----
This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2003 board on Church of
Virus BBS.
<
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29519>
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:39:33 -0400
From: "Erik Aronesty" <
erik@zoneedit.com>
Subject: Re: virus: Programmer, devloper
As do I... Since you seem to be committed to it. And you have declared
itam. And you stick to it. Integrity is not being "predictable". It is
merely keeping your word...not just to others but also to yourself.
It is the foundation virtue of any rational, humanist religion that empowers
its adherents.
- -----Original Message-----
From: "Blunderov" <
squooker@mweb.co.za>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:44:08
To:<
virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: Programmer, devloper
Alexander Vavrek
> Sent: 16 October 2003 0927
> there is something to have a distinct lack of integrity though. don't
get
> me wrong, i strive to live by my word and my honor (my integrity), but
at
> the same time it is my total lack of stylistic integrity that gives me
> such
> a great versatility in my artwork and the music i appriciate and the
> different groups of people i can integrate with (metal heads, catholic
> priests, satanists, goths, red necks, etc.)
>
> integrity of a sort, yes. but to hold to a firm line is to deny the
> beauty
> of a curve.
[Blunderov]
The style of no style? I thoroughly approve!
Best Regards
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:18:46 -0600
From: "rhinoceros" <
rhinoceros@freemail.gr>
Subject: virus: The Cosmic Jerk
According to this report from New Scientist, gravity was deccelerating the
expansion of the Universe until 5 billion years ago. That decceleration was
important for the formation of galaxies.
At that point, "dark energy", the unknown repulsive force which is held
responsible for the accelerating expansion of the Universe we observe today,
broke even and then took the upper hand.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994264Also posted in the SciTech section of the BBS here:
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=29534- ----
This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2003 board on Church of
Virus BBS.
<
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29535>
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:54:20 -0600
From: "Kharin" <
kharin@kharin.com>
Subject: Re:virus: Atheism, Reasonables, Scientists
"who says that the existance of god has to be attached to some reasonable
consequence? ... that is only true if god cares to interfere with what is
already going on. "
Possibly. Though such conceptions of god tend to be rather rare for the
simple reason that the god they depict is at best an irrelevance. In
practice, modus tollens is applicable to most conceptions of god; for
example, consider how the theory of natural selection had 'reasonable
consequences' for the Biblical account of creation. That did not invalidate
the existence of god but it did invalidate a particular conception of god.
" What if god is merely primitive man's expression of a possible universal
law that makes cooperative distributed systems more powerful than
centralised ones? In other words...God is merely Love anthropomorphised?"
There are those who have made arguments similar to that; Tillich and Ehrlich
especially if I recall correctly. That said, such arguments tend not be too
convincing; people do not seem especially enthused by the prospect of a god
that has only metaphorical value.
- ----
This message was posted by Kharin to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus
BBS.
<
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29519>
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:30:13 -0600
From: "Kid-A" <
dave_is_brewing@hotmail.com>
Subject: virus: Re:The Cosmic Jerk
mmm WIMPS, one of my favourite things
- ----
This message was posted by Kid-A to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus
BBS.
<
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29535>
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:15:45 -0500
From: Walter Watts <
wlwatts@cox.net>
Subject: virus: reduce the risk of breast cancer by up to 40 percent
(BW) -- Women who perform the act of fellatio on a regular basis, one to
two times a week, may reduce their risk of breast cancer by up to 40
percent, a recent study found.
Doctors had never suspected a link between the act of fellatio and
breast cancer, but new research being performed is starting to suggest
that there could be an important link between the two.
In a study of over 15,000 women suspected of having performed regular
fellatio over the past ten years, the researchers found that those
actually having performed the act regularly, one to two times a week,
had a lower occurance of breast cancer than those who had not. There was
no increased risk, however, for those who did not regularly perform.
"I think it removes the last shade of doubt that fellatio is actually a
healthy act," said Dr. B.J. Sooner of the Hopkins School of Medicine,
who was not involved in the research. "I am surprised by these findings,
but am also excited that the researchers may have discovered a
relatively easy way to lower the occurance of breast cancer in women."
The University researchers stressed that, though breast cancer is
relatively uncommon, any steps taken to reduce the risk would be a wise
decision.
"Only with regular performance will your chances be reduced, so I
encourage all women out there to make fellatio an important part of
their daily routine," said Dr. Inserta Shafteer, one of the researchers.
"Since the emergence of the research, I try to fellate at least once
every other night to reduce my chances."
The study is reported in Friday's Journal of Medical Research.
In 1991, 43,582 women died of breast cancer, as reported by the National
Cancer Institute.
Dr. Len Lictepeen, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer
Group, said women should not overlook or "play down" these findings.
"This will hopefully change women's practice and patterns, resulting in
a severe drop in the future number of cases," Lictepeen said.
Sooner said the research shows no increase in the risk of breast cancer
in those who are, for whatever reason, not able to fellate regularly.
"There's definitely fertile ground for more research. Many have stepped
forward to volunteer for related research now in the planning stages,"
he said.
Almost every woman is, at some point, going to perform the act of
fellatio, but it is the frequency at which this event occurs that makes
the difference, say researchers.
The reasearch consisted of two groups, 6,246 women ages 25 to 45 who had
performed fellatio on a regular basis over the past five to ten years,
and 9,728 women who had not. The group of women who had performed
fellatio had a breast cancer rate of
1.9 percent and the group who had not had a breast cancer rate of 10.4
percent.
"The findings do suggest that there are other causes for breast cancer
besides the absence of regular fellatio," Shafteer said. "It's a cause,
not THE cause."
- --
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual
partner spayed or neutered."
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:27:22 -0500
From: Walter Watts <
wlwatts@cox.net>
Subject: Re: virus: The Cosmic Jerk
I hold forth the COMPLETELY undisciplined theory that this repulsive force
that is accelerating the expansion in OUR little pinched-off section of the
balloon is Hawking radiation from multiple
other multiverses.
Tear it up.
Walter
rhinoceros wrote:
> According to this report from New Scientist, gravity was deccelerating the
expansion of the Universe until 5 billion years ago. That decceleration was
important for the formation of galaxies.
>
> At that point, "dark energy", the unknown repulsive force which is held
responsible for the accelerating expansion of the Universe we observe today,
broke even and then took the upper hand.
>
>
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994264>
> Also posted in the SciTech section of the BBS here:
>
>
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=29534>
> ----
> This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2003 board on Church of
Virus BBS.
>
<
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29535>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
- --
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual
partner spayed or neutered."
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:30:04 -0500
From: Walter Watts <
wlwatts@cox.net>
Subject: Re: virus: Atheism, Reasonables, Scientists
and don't forget this little ditty from David Hill:
On 25 Jan 2002 at 8:16, David Hill wrote:
The classical attributes of a deity are singularity ("there can only be
one") omnicience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), omnipresence
('(S)He's everywhere!"), omnibeneficence (all-good), and omnisoothience
(all-true). One can immediately see that the attributes of omniscience and
omnipotence cannot simultaneously inhere in a single universe. If a deity
were omniscient (knew everything), then it would know the future and thus be
powerless to change it, but if it were omnipotent (all-powerful), then it
could change the future, and therefore could not know it for certain. It's
like the simultaneous impossibility of an irresistable force and an
immoveable object; if one of these two deific properties exists (and they
are considered to be the most important two),
then the other logically cannot. Furthermore, If deity were everywhere, it
could perceive nothing, for perception requires a point of view, that is, a
spatiotemporal perspective other than that of the perceived object from
which to perceive that object. Deity being omnipresent (everywhere), there
is nowhere that deity would not be, thus nothing it could perceive. It gets
even worse. Deity must be perfect; in fact, perfection is what is broken
down into all those 'omni' subcategories. thus, a perfect deity could not
even think. Thought is dynamic, that is, to think, one's thought must move
between conceptions. Now, thought could conceiveably move in three
directions; from perfect to imperfect, from imperfect to perfect, and from
imperfect to imperfect (from perfect to
perfect is not an alternative, perfection being singular and movement
requiring distinguishable prior and posterior). But all of the three
possible alternatives contain either prior or posterior imperfection or
both, which are not allowably entertained in the mind of a perfect deity.
There's much, much more that I could add, but this should more than suffice
to demonstrate that asserting the existence of a deity possessing the
attributes that most consider essential to it deserving the deific
appelation mires one in a miasmic quagmire of irretrieveable contradiction,
once one journeys beyond emotion-driven faith and uses one's noggin to
divine (Luvzda pun!) the nonsensical and absurd consequences necessarily
entailed.
Show the proposition to be false or accept its possibility.
rhinoceros wrote:
> Back to god proofs and disproofs...
>
> [LhyR of Chaos]
> who says that the existance of god has to be attached to some reasonable
consequence? perhaps i am misinterpreting, but by reasonable consequence, i
infer that you mean, say, karma, or that when one "sins" there are
repercussions.
>
> [rhinoceros]
> Any particular god, personal or inanimate, is in fact a new definition of
a god. Apparently, proving that no gods at all exist would sound funny,
because we would try to argue against a whole class of definitions we
haven't even heard.
>
> But... when someone brings up a claim for the existence of a particular
god, shouldn't he show that it matters in some way, empirical, explanatory,
anything at all? If no consequences at all can be shown for the existence of
a god, what would make it any different from any other story? On the other
hand, if there is a claim for consequences, these can be subjected to
scrutiny and evaluation.
>
> [LhyR of Chaos]
> well, that is only true if god cares to interfere with what is already
going on. i'm not argueing that the judeo-christian god exists, nor that god
is benevolent, nor that god is intelligent, nor omniscient, nor that god
gives a shit what we do....
>
> [rhinoceros]
> Which brings us to the next checkpoint. Definitions of gods who do not
interfere at all are safer from empirical scrutiny. (although they may be
still subject to rational scrutiny or semantic analysis). Even the
definition of the judeo-christian god has gone a long way to that direction,
although there is still a problem of utility which keeps the church from
going all the way to a god who does not interfere: If there are no
practical consequences at all, the concept will not be as compelling to the
"faithful".
>
> About the issues with a non-intervening god, more below...
>
> [LhyR of Chaos]
> just that an entity beyond our comprehension, existing outside time and
all other dimensions we understand, exists.
>
> something cannot come from nothing. this is fact. therefore, as we exist,
this proves that at one point in time (or feesably at the end of or before
time) a god existed. it might not have been a sentient entity, but there at
one time was a "god".
>
> [rhinoceros]
> I can read this in a different way. Let me play a little game of
semantics. You say that "something cannot come from nothing, this is fact".
Yes, this is an empirical fact so well established that we have made it a
part of our rationality. When we are faced with something that contradicts
it in physics, we immediately make up models which require a cause for that
something. By doing so, we make a prediction that a cause exists and will
be found. It has worked so far, barring some cases in the realm of quantum
physics which still resist to give us causes in terms of the usual physical
quantities we have been using. We still insist. Some researchers are even
willing to give up the concepts of position, momentum, energy, or time as we
understand them just to keep causality.
>
> Now, the game of semantics I promised: If there always has to be a cause
in the material world we live in, we can assume an outside realm where it
does not have to be so. An entity without a cause can exist there. A god.
This entity is special because, although it does not need a cause itself, it
did constitute a cause for the material world. Essentially, what this model
does is addressing the probelem of the infinite causal chain of events by
putting a black box at the end, one which somehow is not subject to
causality itself.
>
> Of course, there are simpler ways to do just that without talking about a
god. It is probably the mystery of this situation which conjures the word
"god". Another approach would be investigating the origins of causality
itself, either in the physical realm or in our brains.
>
> [LhyR of Chaos]
> if energy never goes away, that means that on a cosmic scale, nothing ever
truly dies, it just transmutes. our bodies and consciousnesses may fall away
and rot back to their original building blocks, but this doesn't mean it
goes away. just that it undergoes radical change.
>
> next, envision what reality would be like outside of space and time.
remove all the empty space from between the nucleaus and the electron cloud,
from inbetween atoms, etc, and what is left is a matrix of energy. reinsert
space/time, and that same entity exists, but has come to experiance all of
its individual aspects subjectively for more perspective.
>
> [rhinoceros]
> That sounded interesting... Well... space, time, matter, energy, are all
interconnected. The energy of an "electron cloud" is a function of its
position... All these concepts come in a single framework, a single
package, or else they lose their meaning.... the energy and time pair can
be used as an alternative to the position and momentum pair for the
description of an elementary particle. The energy and time pair is even
subject to the same Heisenberg uncertainty relations as the position and
momentum pair... Err... did I digress? I am not that good at poetry....
>
> [LhyR of Chaos]
> my actual theory is that god fractalized itself for the purpose of
learning greater understanding. that god as a localized phenomenon doesn't
happen, and if it ever should, would mean the end of reality as we
comprehend it.
>
> well, i understand that this is an anthropomorphised view, but as a human
entity i cannot conscieve of things in a fashion outside what i am capable
of comprehending.
>
> [rhinoceros]
> Good, but why god? A theory such as "the world is one" (out of space) and
"nothing never changes" (out of time) along the lines of what Parmenides was
teaching long ago (thanks Blunderov) would look like a simpler start. Yes, a
personal god equiped with a will, comprehension, and curiosity sounds
somehow anthropomorphic, but I understand that if you start from such a
"first cause without a cause" it should be self-motivated if anything at all
was to happen.
>
> ----
> This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2003 board on Church of
Virus BBS.
>
<
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29519>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
- --
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual
partner spayed or neutered."
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:47:45 -0400
From: "Erik Aronesty" <
erik@zoneedit.com>
Subject: Re: virus: Atheism, Reasonables, Scientists
I like it. I imagined that as my God and I am enthused by it. And I'm a
person.
- -----Original Message-----
From: "Kharin" <
kharin@kharin.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:54:20
To:
virus@lucifer.comSubject: Re:virus: Atheism, Reasonables, Scientists
"who says that the existance of god has to be attached to some reasonable
consequence? ... that is only true if god cares to interfere with what is
already going on. "
Possibly. Though such conceptions of god tend to be rather rare for the
simple reason that the god they depict is at best an irrelevance. In
practice, modus tollens is applicable to most conceptions of god; for
example, consider how the theory of natural selection had 'reasonable
consequences' for the Biblical account of creation. That did not invalidate
the existence of god but it did invalidate a particular conception of god.
" What if god is merely primitive man's expression of a possible universal
law that makes cooperative distributed systems more powerful than
centralised ones? In other words...God is merely Love anthropomorphised?"
There are those who have made arguments similar to that; Tillich and Ehrlich
especially if I recall correctly. That said, such arguments tend not be too
convincing; people do not seem especially enthused by the prospect of a god
that has only metaphorical value.
- ----
This message was posted by Kharin to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus
BBS.
<
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29519>
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:44:01 -0400
From: "Erik Aronesty" <
erik@zoneedit.com>
Subject: Re: virus: The Cosmic Jerk
Pehaps it's just trying to keep the universe from collapsing?
- -----Original Message-----
From: Walter Watts <
wlwatts@cox.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:27:22
To:
virus@lucifer.comSubject: Re: virus: The Cosmic Jerk
I hold forth the COMPLETELY undisciplined theory that this repulsive force
that is accelerating the expansion in OUR little pinched-off section of the
balloon is Hawking radiation from multiple
other multiverses.
Tear it up.
Walter
rhinoceros wrote:
> According to this report from New Scientist, gravity was deccelerating the
expansion of the Universe until 5 billion years ago. That decceleration was
important for the formation of galaxies.
>
> At that point, "dark energy", the unknown repulsive force which is held
responsible for the accelerating expansion of the Universe we observe today,
broke even and then took the upper hand.
>
>
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994264>
> Also posted in the SciTech section of the BBS here:
>
>
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=29534>
> ----
> This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2003 board on Church of
Virus BBS.
>
<
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29535>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
- --
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual
partner spayed or neutered."
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:58:52 -0600
From: "Kharin" <
kharin@kharin.com>
Subject: Re:virus: Atheism, Reasonables, Scientists
"I like it. I imagined that as my God and I am enthused by it. And I'm a
person."
As you like. The fact does remain that such conceptions have been around for
a century or so and the prospect of worshipping metaphors is yet to take
off.
- ----
This message was posted by Kharin to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus
BBS.
<
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29519>
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:29:13 -0700
From:
aperick@centurytel.netSubject: virus: 'reasonables'
The thing wrong with Godless sorts calling themselves 'reasonables' is that
most all the God fearers see their beliefs as most reasonable. We need a
truly new term. Then people will have to ask exactly what this new term
means.
- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (
http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:52:39 -0700
From: "Alexander Vavrek" <
nimbustheme@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re:virus: Atheism, Reasonables, Scientists
>From: "Kharin" <
kharin@kharin.com>
>Reply-To:
virus@lucifer.com>To:
virus@lucifer.com>Subject: Re:virus: Atheism, Reasonables, Scientists
>Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:58:52 -0600
>
>"I like it. I imagined that as my God and I am enthused by it. And I'm a
>person."
>
>As you like. The fact does remain that such conceptions have been around
>for a century or so and the prospect of worshipping metaphors is yet to
>take off.
>
>who ever said that god should be worshipped? haven't pagans been
>worshipping what they acknowledge to be metaphors since before the roman
>empire?
and i certainly wasn't suggestion any kind of worship of said god.
one of my favorite notions is that to worship god i(or any religious
practice) s a blasphamous act, that god wants NO acknowledgement, and really
does just want to kick back and watch the great tv show of the universe
unfold with the same kind of glazed look most people get when they've been
in front of the boob tube for hours.
>This message was posted by Kharin to the Virus 2003 board on Church of
>Virus BBS.
><
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29519>
>---
>To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
><
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
_________________________________________________________________
Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account has exceeded
its 2MB storage limit? Get Hotmail Extra Storage!
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 21:35:04 +0200
From: "Blunderov" <
squooker@mweb.co.za>
Subject: RE: virus: reduce the risk of breast cancer by up to 40 percent
[Blunderov]
Dr. B.J. Sooner? Dr. Inserta Shafteer? Dr. Len Lictepeen? Sounds like my
kind of people. Really Walter, you should be more careful - you know how
these memes can rage out of control infecting the planet with their
terrible...then again perhaps one shouldn't rush to judgment. Perhaps we
should be careful not to dismiss these findings prematurely. A good,
solid 30 yr study should resolve the matter to everyone's satisfaction.
Objection withdrawn. (In the interests of science.)
Best Regards
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:
owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
Behalf
> Of Walter Watts
> Sent: 16 October 2003 1816
> To: virus
> Subject: virus: reduce the risk of breast cancer by up to 40 percent
>
> (BW) -- Women who perform the act of fellatio on a regular basis, one
to
> two times a week, may reduce their risk of breast cancer by up to 40
> percent, a recent study found.
>
> Doctors had never suspected a link between the act of fellatio and
> breast cancer, but new research being performed is starting to suggest
> that there could be an important link between the two.
>
> In a study of over 15,000 women suspected of having performed regular
> fellatio over the past ten years, the researchers found that those
> actually having performed the act regularly, one to two times a week,
> had a lower occurance of breast cancer than those who had not. There
was
> no increased risk, however, for those who did not regularly perform.
>
> "I think it removes the last shade of doubt that fellatio is actually
a
> healthy act," said Dr. B.J. Sooner of the Hopkins School of Medicine,
> who was not involved in the research. "I am surprised by these
findings,
> but am also excited that the researchers may have discovered a
> relatively easy way to lower the occurance of breast cancer in women."
>
> The University researchers stressed that, though breast cancer is
> relatively uncommon, any steps taken to reduce the risk would be a
wise
> decision.
>
> "Only with regular performance will your chances be reduced, so I
> encourage all women out there to make fellatio an important part of
> their daily routine," said Dr. Inserta Shafteer, one of the
researchers.
> "Since the emergence of the research, I try to fellate at least once
> every other night to reduce my chances."
>
> The study is reported in Friday's Journal of Medical Research.
>
> In 1991, 43,582 women died of breast cancer, as reported by the
National
> Cancer Institute.
>
> Dr. Len Lictepeen, deputy chief medical officer for the American
Cancer
> Group, said women should not overlook or "play down" these findings.
>
> "This will hopefully change women's practice and patterns, resulting
in
> a severe drop in the future number of cases," Lictepeen said.
>
> Sooner said the research shows no increase in the risk of breast
cancer
> in those who are, for whatever reason, not able to fellate regularly.
>
> "There's definitely fertile ground for more research. Many have
stepped
> forward to volunteer for related research now in the planning stages,"
> he said.
>
> Almost every woman is, at some point, going to perform the act of
> fellatio, but it is the frequency at which this event occurs that
makes
> the difference, say researchers.
>
> The reasearch consisted of two groups, 6,246 women ages 25 to 45 who
had
> performed fellatio on a regular basis over the past five to ten years,
> and 9,728 women who had not. The group of women who had performed
> fellatio had a breast cancer rate of
> 1.9 percent and the group who had not had a breast cancer rate of 10.4
> percent.
>
> "The findings do suggest that there are other causes for breast cancer
> besides the absence of regular fellatio," Shafteer said. "It's a
cause,
> not THE cause."
>
> --
>
> Walter Watts
> Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
>
> "Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual
> partner spayed or neutered."
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-> bin/virus-l>
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 21:44:10 +0200
From: "Blunderov" <
squooker@mweb.co.za>
Subject: RE: virus: General Casts War in Religious Terms
[Blunderov]
Crusade? What crusade?
Best Regards
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-general16oct16.story
By Richard T. Cooper, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has assigned the task of tracking down and
eliminating Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other high-profile
targets to an Army general who sees the war on terrorism as a clash
between Judeo-Christian values and Satan.
Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, the new deputy undersecretary of
Defense for intelligence, is a much-decorated and twice-wounded veteran
of covert military operations. From the bloody 1993 clash with Muslim
warlords in Somalia chronicled in "Black Hawk Down" and the hunt for
Colombian drug czar Pablo Escobar to the ill-fated attempt to rescue
American hostages in Iran in 1980, Boykin was in the thick of things.
Yet the former commander and 13-year veteran of the Army's top-secret
Delta Force is also an outspoken evangelical Christian who appeared in
dress uniform and polished jump boots before a religious group in Oregon
in June to declare that radical Islamists hated the United States
"because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots
are Judeo-Christian ... and the enemy is a guy named Satan."
Discussing the battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia, Boykin told
another audience, "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God
was a real God and his was an idol."
"We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been
raised for such a time as this," Boykin said last year.
On at least one occasion, in Sandy, Ore., in June, Boykin said of
President Bush: "He's in the White House because God put him there."
Boykin's penchant for casting the war on terrorism in religious terms
appears to be at odds with Bush and an administration that have labored
to insist that the war on terrorism is not a religious conflict.
Although the Army has seldom if ever taken official action against
officers for outspoken expressions of religious opinion, outside experts
see remarks such as Boykin's as sending exactly the wrong message to the
Arab and Islamic world.
In his public remarks, Boykin has also said that radical Muslims who
resort to terrorism are not representative of the Islamic faith.
He has compared Islamic extremists to "hooded Christians" who terrorized
blacks, Catholics, Jews and others from beneath the robes of the Ku Klux
Klan.
Boykin was not available for comment and did not respond to written
questions from the Los Angeles Times submitted to him Wednesday.
"The first lesson is to recognize that whatever we say here is heard
there, particularly anything perceived to be hostile to their basic
religion, and they don't forget it," said Stephen P. Cohen, a member of
the special panel named to study policy in the Arab and Muslim world for
the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.
"The phrase 'Judeo-Christian' is a big mistake. It's basically the
language of Bin Laden and his supporters," said Cohen, president of the
Institute for Middle East Peace and Development in New York.
"They are constantly trying to create the impression that the Jews and
Christians are getting together to beat up on Islam.... We have to be
very careful that this doesn't become a clash between religions, a clash
of civilizations."
Boykin's religious activities were first documented in detail by William
N. Arkin, a former military intelligence analyst who writes on defense
issues for The Times Opinion section.
Audio and videotapes of Boykin's appearances before religious groups
over the last two years were obtained exclusively by NBC News, which
reported on them Wednesday night on the "Nightly News with Tom Brokaw."
Arkin writes in an article on the op-ed page of today's Times that
Boykin's appointment "is a frightening blunder at a time that there is
widespread acknowledgment that America's position in the Islamic world
has never been worse."
Boykin's promotion to lieutenant general and his appointment as deputy
undersecretary of Defense for intelligence were confirmed by the Senate
by voice vote in June.
An aide to the Senate Armed Services Committee said the appointment was
not examined in detail.
Yet Boykin's explicitly Christian-evangelical language in public forums
may become an issue now that he holds a high-level policy position in
the Pentagon.
Officials at his level are often called upon to testify before Congress
and appear in public forums.
Boykin's new job makes his role especially sensitive: He is charged with
speeding up the flow of intelligence on terrorist leaders to combat
teams in the field so that they can attack top-ranking terrorist
leaders.
Since virtually all these leaders are Muslim, Boykin's words and actions
are likely to draw special scrutiny in the Arab and Islamic world.
Bush, a born-again Christian, often uses religious language in his
speeches, but he keeps references to God nonsectarian.
At one point, immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks,
the president said he wanted to lead a "crusade" against terrorism.
But he quickly retracted the word when told that, to Muslim ears, it
recalled the medieval Christian crusaders' brutal invasions of Islamic
nations.
In that context, Boykin's reference to the God of Islam as "an idol" may
be perceived as particularly inflammatory.
The president has made a point of praising Islam as "a religion of
peace." He has invited Muslim clerics to the White House for Ramadan
dinners and has criticized evangelicals who called Islam a dangerous
faith.
The issue is still a sore spot in the Muslim world.
Pollster John Zogby says that public opinion surveys throughout the Arab
and Islamic world show strong negative reactions to any statement by a
U.S. official that suggests a conflict between religions or cultures.
"To frame things in terms of good and evil, with the United States as
good, is a nonstarter," Zogby said.
"It is exactly the wrong thing to do."
For the Army, the issue of officers expressing religious opinions
publicly has been a sensitive problem for many years, according to a
former head of the Army Judge Advocate General's office who is now
retired but continues to serve in government as a civilian.
"The Army has struggled with this issue over the years. It gets really,
really touchy because what you're talking about is freedom of
expression," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"What usually happens is that somebody has a quiet chat with the
person," the retired general said.
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:59:11 -0600
From: "rhinoceros" <
rhinoceros@freemail.gr>
Subject: Re:virus: 'reasonables'
[aperick]
The thing wrong with Godless sorts calling themselves 'reasonables' is that
most all the God fearers see their beliefs as most reasonable. We need a
truly new term. Then people will have to ask exactly what this new term
means.
[rhinoceros]
Did you see the names which have been suggested instead of 'Brights' in the
Skeptics link I posted yesterday? ("The Big 'Bright' Brouhaha")? No
suggestion for 'Reasonables', but there are 'Reasonalists' and 'Reasonists'.
There are also 'Enoughists', 'Frees', 'Mortals' (hey BJK!), 'Heathen',
'Nuffists', 'Opens', 'Sprites', 'Twains', and many more.
The responses to Skeptic magazine about the term 'Brights' were:
1. No Position, just commented on process: 3 (3%)
2. Offered alternative name without commenting on "Brights": 23 (26%)
3. Negative on Brights, offered alternative name: 37 (42%)
4. Negative on Brights, no alternative offered: 18 (20%)
5. Positive on Brights: 8 (9%)
Here is the full list of the suggested names:
Agnahumans
Agnamen
Agnascepts
Agnastics
Agnostics
Anaxagorians
Anti-theist
Apatheism
Apatheists
Asupernaturalists
Athiests
Athnasceps
Athnastics
Atomists
Atoms
B.R.I.G.H.T.s
Brites
Cleariats
Clears
Critical Thinkers
Enlightened Ones
Enoughists
Enrealders
Epicurian Naturalists
Epicurians
Evaluators
Evaluites
Evolvers
Fallibatheists
Forthrights
Freedoubters
Freedoubts
Frees
Freethinkers
Geians
Godless Bolshaviks
Gouldists
Heathen
Huhhers
Humanists
I am of a scientific mind
Illuminaries
Infidels
Inquirers
Inquisitors
Intellectual-liberal
Intellectuals
Life-long Learners
Lights
Lucids
Mortals
Nagnoscepts
Nagnoskepts
Natagnostics
Natanostics
Natnostics
Nats
Natural Philosopher
Naturalies
Naturalismists
Naturalists
Naturals
Naturies
Naturists
Neocleariats
Neo-gnostics
Neo-thinker
No label at all
No-Names
Non-believers
Nuffists
Open thinkers
Openminders
Opens
ORBs
Passionate Rationalists
Philosophical Naturalists
Phrontisteries
Pragmatic Realists
Probing Minds
QEDs
Questioneer
RASPs
Rationalists
Rational Materialists
RAVENs
Realders
Realists
Realitivists
Reasonalists
Reasonists
Reductionists
Rethinkers
Scepnastics
Scepnostics
Sceptmen
Sciencians
Scientific Secularists
Scientists
Secular Humanists
Secularists
Seculars
Seekers
Skepnastics
Skeptics
Skeptmen
Smart-people-unlike-you-dumb-people
Sprites
The Happies
Thinkers
Thinkstirrers
Truists
Truth Seekers
Twains
Unbelievers
Untheists
Wonder
Worlders
- ----
This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2003 board on Church of
Virus BBS.
<
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29538>
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:39:21 +0200
From: "Blunderov" <
squooker@mweb.co.za>
Subject: RE: virus: 'reasonables'
rhinoceros
> Sent: 16 October 2003 2159
> [rhinoceros]
<snip>
> Did you see the names which have been suggested instead of 'Brights'
in
> the Skeptics link I posted yesterday? ("The Big 'Bright' Brouhaha")?
No
> suggestion for 'Reasonables', but there are 'Reasonalists' and
> 'Reasonists'.
>
> There are also 'Enoughists', 'Frees', 'Mortals' (hey BJK!), 'Heathen',
> 'Nuffists', 'Opens', 'Sprites', 'Twains', and many more.
<snip>
[Blunderov]
How about 'Progressives'?
Best Regards
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:59:52 -0600
From: "David Lucifer" <
david@lucifer.com>
Subject: Re:virus: More than two choices in a poll
[simul] The technique is known as "approval voting" and it is proven to find
more pareto and condorcet results than plurality. It is powerful consensus
technology, and will result in a more powerful religion over time.
[Lucifer] We already use approval voting. See
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=;action=voteResults;idvote=5and
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=;action=voteResults;idvote=11for examples.
- ----
This message was posted by David Lucifer to the Virus 2003 board on Church
of Virus BBS.
<
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29526>
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:41:52 +0100
From: Ant <
antallan@mac.com>
Subject: Re: virus: 'reasonables'
Well, I was half-facetious suggesting 'reasonables', but if it's a new
coinage we're after, something like...
philo[a-z]* lovers of reason
Does anyone know enough classical Greek to complete this... ?
Ant
On Thursday, October 16, 2003, at 09:39 PM, Blunderov wrote:
>
>
> rhinoceros
>> Sent: 16 October 2003 2159
>> [rhinoceros]
> <snip>
>> Did you see the names which have been suggested instead of 'Brights'
> in
>> the Skeptics link I posted yesterday? ("The Big 'Bright' Brouhaha")?
> No
>> suggestion for 'Reasonables', but there are 'Reasonalists' and
>> 'Reasonists'.
>>
>> There are also 'Enoughists', 'Frees', 'Mortals' (hey BJK!), 'Heathen',
>> 'Nuffists', 'Opens', 'Sprites', 'Twains', and many more.
> <snip>
> [Blunderov]
> How about 'Progressives'?
> Best Regards
>
>
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:53:50 -0700
From: "Kalkor" <
kalkor@kalkor.com>
Subject: RE: virus: More than two choices in a poll
[Erik]
However, I should be able to express my preference for 3 OR 5 as acceptable
choices. There is only one, exclusive outcome, but that is no reason to
restrict the expression of preference.
The purpose of a poll is to find a consensus single winner - not to
determine the single choice within a given vector. I may feel that 3 or 5
is fine. (In fact that is exactly how I feel).
[Kalkor]
The purpose of a poll is to gather data about opinions, not find a consensus
single winner. The wording of this poll, by implication since you can only
chose one, is something along the lines of "if you had to chose ONE of
these, which would it be?" not "which of these do you prefer? chose as many
as you'd like."
[Erik2]
So the purpose of the poll is not to determine the best course of action?
Hmm. Then what's the real point?
[Kalkor2]
Now we're gonna have to get into a semantic argument. Shall we?
'the purpose of a poll'
'the purpose of the poll'
'the purpose of this poll'
Please discuss, class ;-}
Kalkor
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:05:46 -0400
From: "Erik Aronesty" <
erik@zoneedit.com>
Subject: Re: virus: General Casts War in Religious Terms
http://documentroot.com/moore-questions.html- -----Original Message-----
From: "Blunderov" <
squooker@mweb.co.za>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 21:44:10
To:<
virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: General Casts War in Religious Terms
[Blunderov]
Crusade? What crusade?
Best Regards
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-general16oct16.story
By Richard T. Cooper, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has assigned the task of tracking down and
eliminating Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other high-profile
targets to an Army general who sees the war on terrorism as a clash
between Judeo-Christian values and Satan.
Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, the new deputy undersecretary of
Defense for intelligence, is a much-decorated and twice-wounded veteran
of covert military operations. From the bloody 1993 clash with Muslim
warlords in Somalia chronicled in "Black Hawk Down" and the hunt for
Colombian drug czar Pablo Escobar to the ill-fated attempt to rescue
American hostages in Iran in 1980, Boykin was in the thick of things.
Yet the former commander and 13-year veteran of the Army's top-secret
Delta Force is also an outspoken evangelical Christian who appeared in
dress uniform and polished jump boots before a religious group in Oregon
in June to declare that radical Islamists hated the United States
"because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots
are Judeo-Christian ... and the enemy is a guy named Satan."
Discussing the battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia, Boykin told
another audience, "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God
was a real God and his was an idol."
"We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been
raised for such a time as this," Boykin said last year.
On at least one occasion, in Sandy, Ore., in June, Boykin said of
President Bush: "He's in the White House because God put him there."
Boykin's penchant for casting the war on terrorism in religious terms
appears to be at odds with Bush and an administration that have labored
to insist that the war on terrorism is not a religious conflict.
Although the Army has seldom if ever taken official action against
officers for outspoken expressions of religious opinion, outside experts
see remarks such as Boykin's as sending exactly the wrong message to the
Arab and Islamic world.
In his public remarks, Boykin has also said that radical Muslims who
resort to terrorism are not representative of the Islamic faith.
He has compared Islamic extremists to "hooded Christians" who terrorized
blacks, Catholics, Jews and others from beneath the robes of the Ku Klux
Klan.
Boykin was not available for comment and did not respond to written
questions from the Los Angeles Times submitted to him Wednesday.
"The first lesson is to recognize that whatever we say here is heard
there, particularly anything perceived to be hostile to their basic
religion, and they don't forget it," said Stephen P. Cohen, a member of
the special panel named to study policy in the Arab and Muslim world for
the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.
"The phrase 'Judeo-Christian' is a big mistake. It's basically the
language of Bin Laden and his supporters," said Cohen, president of the
Institute for Middle East Peace and Development in New York.
"They are constantly trying to create the impression that the Jews and
Christians are getting together to beat up on Islam.... We have to be
very careful that this doesn't become a clash between religions, a clash
of civilizations."
Boykin's religious activities were first documented in detail by William
N. Arkin, a former military intelligence analyst who writes on defense
issues for The Times Opinion section.
Audio and videotapes of Boykin's appearances before religious groups
over the last two years were obtained exclusively by NBC News, which
reported on them Wednesday night on the "Nightly News with Tom Brokaw."
Arkin writes in an article on the op-ed page of today's Times that
Boykin's appointment "is a frightening blunder at a time that there is
widespread acknowledgment that America's position in the Islamic world
has never been worse."
Boykin's promotion to lieutenant general and his appointment as deputy
undersecretary of Defense for intelligence were confirmed by the Senate
by voice vote in June.
An aide to the Senate Armed Services Committee said the appointment was
not examined in detail.
Yet Boykin's explicitly Christian-evangelical language in public forums
may become an issue now that he holds a high-level policy position in
the Pentagon.
Officials at his level are often called upon to testify before Congress
and appear in public forums.
Boykin's new job makes his role especially sensitive: He is charged with
speeding up the flow of intelligence on terrorist leaders to combat
teams in the field so that they can attack top-ranking terrorist
leaders.
Since virtually all these leaders are Muslim, Boykin's words and actions
are likely to draw special scrutiny in the Arab and Islamic world.
Bush, a born-again Christian, often uses religious language in his
speeches, but he keeps references to God nonsectarian.
At one point, immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks,
the president said he wanted to lead a "crusade" against terrorism.
But he quickly retracted the word when told that, to Muslim ears, it
recalled the medieval Christian crusaders' brutal invasions of Islamic
nations.
In that context, Boykin's reference to the God of Islam as "an idol" may
be perceived as particularly inflammatory.
The president has made a point of praising Islam as "a religion of
peace." He has invited Muslim clerics to the White House for Ramadan
dinners and has criticized evangelicals who called Islam a dangerous
faith.
The issue is still a sore spot in the Muslim world.
Pollster John Zogby says that public opinion surveys throughout the Arab
and Islamic world show strong negative reactions to any statement by a
U.S. official that suggests a conflict between religions or cultures.
"To frame things in terms of good and evil, with the United States as
good, is a nonstarter," Zogby said.
"It is exactly the wrong thing to do."
For the Army, the issue of officers expressing religious opinions
publicly has been a sensitive problem for many years, according to a
former head of the Army Judge Advocate General's office who is now
retired but continues to serve in government as a civilian.
"The Army has struggled with this issue over the years. It gets really,
really touchy because what you're talking about is freedom of
expression," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"What usually happens is that somebody has a quiet chat with the
person," the retired general said.
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:11:20 -0400
From: "Erik Aronesty" <
erik@zoneedit.com>
Subject: Re: virus: Atheism, Reasonables, Scientists
Ther's actually a massive movement around it... Many, many groups are
seeking to construct a belief system for the next millenium. I like the
COV's internet style though. Very open/collaborative.
- -----Original Message-----
From: "Kharin" <
kharin@kharin.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:58:52
To:
virus@lucifer.comSubject: Re:virus: Atheism, Reasonables, Scientists
"I like it. I imagined that as my God and I am enthused by it. And I'm a
person."
As you like. The fact does remain that such conceptions have been around for
a century or so and the prospect of worshipping metaphors is yet to take
off.
- ----
This message was posted by Kharin to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus
BBS.
<
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29519>
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:15:49 -0700
From: "Kalkor" <
kalkor@kalkor.com>
Subject: RE: virus: 'reasonables'
[Ant]
Well, I was half-facetious suggesting 'reasonables', but if it's a new
coinage we're after, something like...
philo[a-z]* lovers of reason
Does anyone know enough classical Greek to complete this... ?
Ant
[Kalkor]
Maybe something like 'philotheist' (lovers of reason pertaining to theism?)
'philognostic' (lovers of reason pertaining to gnosticism?)
'philomemes' (lovers of reason pertaining to memes in general?)
I don't know if my grammar is correct or even useable in these examples,
just brainstorming here. Thanks for the suggestion Ant!
Kalkor
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:10:57 -0500
From: Walter Watts <
wlwatts@cox.net>
Subject: virus: DrSebby---Sebby, get your weiner dried off
I want to hear from Sebby, so Sebby, get your weiner dried off and speak
to us!!!!!!
Walter
- --
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual
partner spayed or neutered."
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:14:08 +0200
From: "Blunderov" <
squooker@mweb.co.za>
Subject: RE: virus: General Casts War in Religious Terms
Erik Aronesty
> Sent: 17 October 2003 0006
>
http://documentroot.com/moore-questions.html[Blunderov]
Thanks for an interesting link. (I hope Michael Moore's tax records are
squeaky clean.) A distinctly fishy smell seems to be emanating from
Denmark.
Best Regards
- ---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:14:08 +0200
From: "Blunderov" <
squooker@mweb.co.za>
Subject: RE: virus: Butt call
[Blunder
Author
Logged
