| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
13 May 2004 05:06:05 AM |
| Object: |
Bertrand Russell |
Let's collaborate for peace
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1215082,00.html
Thursday May 13, 2004
The Guardian
It is easy, and indeed precedented, to view science as a tool for
hatred. Long before 5,000 commuters were injured on the Tokyo subway,
and before the word "anthrax" was whispered and feared, and even
before the first weapon of mass destruction was unleashed on
Hiroshima, Bertrand Russell foresaw the deadly potential of science.
In 1924 he concluded: "Science has not given men more self-control,
more kindliness, or more power of discounting their passions in
deciding upon a course of action ... Men's collective passions are
mainly evil; far the strongest of them are hatred and rivalry directed
towards other groups. Therefore at present all that gives men the
power to indulge their collective passions is bad. That is why science
threatens to cause the destruction of our civilisation ..."
Bertrand Russell
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20%22Bertrand%20Russell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bertrand+Russell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Bertrand%20Russell&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
.
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
13 May 2004 10:21:17 PM |
|
|
(maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0405130212.21ebe17c@posting.google.com>...
Let's collaborate for peace
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1215082,00.html
Thursday May 13, 2004
The Guardian
It is easy, and indeed precedented, to view science as a tool for
hatred. Long before 5,000 commuters were injured on the Tokyo subway,
and before the word "anthrax" was whispered and feared, and even
before the first weapon of mass destruction was unleashed on
Hiroshima, Bertrand Russell foresaw the deadly potential of science.
In 1924 he concluded: "Science has not given men more self-control,
more kindliness, or more power of discounting their passions in
deciding upon a course of action ... Men's collective passions are
mainly evil; far the strongest of them are hatred and rivalry directed
towards other groups. Therefore at present all that gives men the
power to indulge their collective passions is bad. That is why science
threatens to cause the destruction of our civilisation ..."
Bertrand Russell
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20%22Bertrand%20Russell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bertrand+Russell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Bertrand%20Russell&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
1957 Bertrand Russell: "no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=887u3v%24pe3%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack L. Turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
16 May 2004 01:41:30 AM |
|
|
And yet you seem to want to put forward an infinite omnipotent being. Is
your god bound by thermodynamics,
No.
and if not, can you give any reason why not that doesn't amount to
handwaving?
Since omnipotent beings aren't bound by anything then there is nothing that
doesn't amount to handwaving.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
17 May 2004 07:21:17 AM |
|
|
"Jack L. Turner" <jacklt@spam.org> wrote in message news:<xy47e341k0pqg6fi@shoefly.org>...
And yet you seem to want to put forward an infinite omnipotent being. Is
your god bound by thermodynamics,
No.
and if not, can you give any reason why not that doesn't amount to
handwaving?
Since omnipotent beings aren't bound by anything then there is nothing that
doesn't amount to handwaving.
God is omnipotent, or able to do anything that can be done and that is
consistent with His other attributes. God cannot make a square-triangle,
for a square-triangle is logically inconsistent and thus nonsense, and to
put a "God can make a" in front of "square-triangle" doesn't help matters
any-- you still have nonsense. God cannot be wrong, because that would go
against His attribute of being all-knowing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Courageous" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
17 May 2004 08:52:16 AM |
|
|
God is omnipotent, or able to do anything that can be done and that is
consistent with His other attributes. God cannot make a square-triangle,
Then this creator whatzit of yours is not "omnipotent" (sic!).
for a square-triangle is logically inconsistent and thus nonsense, and to
put a "God can make a" in front of "square-triangle" doesn't help matters
any-- you still have nonsense. God cannot be wrong, because that would go
against His attribute of being all-knowing.
You should consider whether or not the phrase "all-knowing" is likewise
nonsense, along with "omnipotent".
Out of curiosity... this particular creator whatzit of yours is described
as having a historical change of heart, where he transformed himself from
being a straight-up ***** into being a sort of multipersonality nice
guy. Did his "all-knowning" powers give him advance knowledge of all his
reasons for doing this? In which case, why did he remain a straight-up
***** for so long?
LOL.
C//
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
18 May 2004 03:23:21 PM |
|
|
Courageous <dontwant@spam.com> wrote in message news:<a1hha013ruvpqp7cpvd8e8c20ngeppb97g@4ax.com>...
God is omnipotent, or able to do anything that can be done and that is
consistent with His other attributes. God cannot make a square-triangle,
Then this creator whatzit of yours is not "omnipotent" (sic!).
"Omnipotent" is simply a word, and words can be given and therefore
have different meanings.
for a square-triangle is logically inconsistent and thus nonsense, and to
put a "God can make a" in front of "square-triangle" doesn't help matters
any-- you still have nonsense. God cannot be wrong, because that would go
against His attribute of being all-knowing.
You should consider whether or not the phrase "all-knowing" is likewise
nonsense, along with "omnipotent".
Before I do such a consideration, do you have any thoughts about what
I should think about?
Out of curiosity... this particular creator whatzit of yours is described
as having a historical change of heart, where he transformed himself from
being a straight-up ***** into being a sort of multipersonality nice
guy. Did his "all-knowning" powers give him advance knowledge of all his
reasons for doing this? In which case, why did he remain a straight-up
***** for so long?
LOL.
[C]"he transformed himself from being a straight-up *****"
I disagree with this characterization of the God of the Old Testament.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
18 May 2004 04:12:27 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, (david ford) wrote in
<b1c67abe.0405181230.503663c0@posting.google.com>:
Courageous <dontwant@spam.com> wrote in message news:<a1hha013ruvpqp7cpvd8e8c20ngeppb97g@4ax.com>...
God is omnipotent, or able to do anything that can be done and that is
consistent with His other attributes. God cannot make a square-triangle,
Then this creator whatzit of yours is not "omnipotent" (sic!).
"Omnipotent" is simply a word, and words can be given and therefore
have different meanings.
for a square-triangle is logically inconsistent and thus nonsense, and to
put a "God can make a" in front of "square-triangle" doesn't help matters
any-- you still have nonsense. God cannot be wrong, because that would go
against His attribute of being all-knowing.
You should consider whether or not the phrase "all-knowing" is likewise
nonsense, along with "omnipotent".
Before I do such a consideration, do you have any thoughts about what
I should think about?
Out of curiosity... this particular creator whatzit of yours is described
as having a historical change of heart, where he transformed himself from
being a straight-up ***** into being a sort of multipersonality nice
guy. Did his "all-knowning" powers give him advance knowledge of all his
reasons for doing this? In which case, why did he remain a straight-up
***** for so long?
LOL.
[C]"he transformed himself from being a straight-up *****"
I disagree with this characterization of the God of the Old Testament.
So what if you do. Read the descriptions of His behavior. He's just a
neighborhood thug.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
17 May 2004 12:27:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 May 2004 12:21:17 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
"Jack L. Turner" <jacklt@spam.org> wrote in message news:<xy47e341k0pqg6fi@shoefly.org>...
And yet you seem to want to put forward an infinite omnipotent being. Is
your god bound by thermodynamics,
No.
and if not, can you give any reason why not that doesn't amount to
handwaving?
Since omnipotent beings aren't bound by anything then there is nothing that
doesn't amount to handwaving.
God is omnipotent, or able to do anything that can be done and that is
consistent with His other attributes. God cannot make a square-triangle,
for a square-triangle is logically inconsistent and thus nonsense, and to
put a "God can make a" in front of "square-triangle" doesn't help matters
any-- you still have nonsense. God cannot be wrong, because that would go
against His attribute of being all-knowing.
Thanks for proving the point, David.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
18 May 2004 03:17:38 PM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncahtt5.3gk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 17 May 2004 12:21:17 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
"Jack L. Turner" <jacklt@spam.org> wrote in message news:<xy47e341k0pqg6fi@shoefly.org>...
And yet you seem to want to put forward an infinite omnipotent being. Is
your god bound by thermodynamics,
No.
and if not, can you give any reason why not that doesn't amount to
handwaving?
Since omnipotent beings aren't bound by anything then there is nothing that
doesn't amount to handwaving.
God is omnipotent, or able to do anything that can be done and that is
consistent with His other attributes. God cannot make a square-triangle,
for a square-triangle is logically inconsistent and thus nonsense, and to
put a "God can make a" in front of "square-triangle" doesn't help matters
any-- you still have nonsense. God cannot be wrong, because that would go
against His attribute of being all-knowing.
Thanks for proving the point, David.
You are welcome, Aaron.
What are 2 of the better arguments for atheism that you have come across?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
18 May 2004 09:42:32 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405181224.2cbe5d04@posting.google.com>...
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncahtt5.3gk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 17 May 2004 12:21:17 +0000 (UTC),
david ford < > wrote:
"Jack L. Turner" <jacklt@spam.org> wrote in message news:<xy47e341k0pqg6fi@shoefly.org>...
And yet you seem to want to put forward an infinite omnipotent being. Is
your god bound by thermodynamics,
No.
and if not, can you give any reason why not that doesn't amount to
handwaving?
Since omnipotent beings aren't bound by anything then there is nothing that
doesn't amount to handwaving.
God is omnipotent, or able to do anything that can be done and that is
consistent with His other attributes. God cannot make a square-triangle,
for a square-triangle is logically inconsistent and thus nonsense, and to
put a "God can make a" in front of "square-triangle" doesn't help matters
any-- you still have nonsense. God cannot be wrong, because that would go
against His attribute of being all-knowing.
Thanks for proving the point, David.
You are welcome, Aaron.
What are 2 of the better arguments for atheism that you have come across?
One would be the complete and utter lack of evidence. This, of course,
only applies to gods that would be expected to leave evidence, such as
the literalist god of Abraham. Lack of evidence is not much argument
against the invisible god of the Deists, or any other flavor which
would be expected to be inconspicuous. But then, an invisible god is
identical to a non-existant one in appearance. There would be to
reason to believe, which is sufficient to be an atheist - as you
probably know.
I suppose one other argument which some might find persuasive is that
the god of Abraham, AKA Yahweh, behaves like a capricious and
murderous tyrant, and some might find the thought of the Creator of
the Universe behaving abominably, unacceptable. But this is an
emotional argument, and ultimately no more convincing to me than the
theists who argue that there must be a god because it would be so
pointless/sad/scary/[insert favorite negative emotion here] if there
weren't. After all, there is no logical necessity for the Creator of
the Universe to be Sane. <shrug> But no reason to think there is one,
either.
Some good arguments for Religion?
One might be to create a metaphorical argument that sublimates the
viscious stories and turns them into a sort of journey of the soul. A
Zen master, I think, could do something with the Garden of Eden story
which might guide a student along a path of self-discovery. Problem
is, the literalists, who cause most of the problems in school boards,
legislatures, etc., would have the hardest time with this.
Another might be to show that theists, or theists of a particular
stripe, really *are better people. That might persuade even some
atheists to follow that path. Problem with that one, of course, is
that I haven't seen any such evidence myself (despite CPT's attempts
to paint us all with the same brush as Stalin). All of the atheists I
know personally, and most of the ones who post here, are secular
humanists, who are quite civilized on the whole.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
18 May 2004 03:32:31 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
What are 2 of the better arguments for atheism that you have come across?
Religion A and Religion B.
(for "A" and "B", please substitute any religion which claims
to be the One True Religion)
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
18 May 2004 10:58:49 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in
<10akt4u6h821691@corp.supernews.com>:
In talk.origins david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
What are 2 of the better arguments for atheism that you have come across?
Religion A and Religion B.
Is that like Thing 1 and Thing 2?
....
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
18 May 2004 11:34:53 PM |
|
|
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in
<10akt4u6h821691@corp.supernews.com>:
In talk.origins david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> sanoi, hitaasti kuin
hämähäkki:
What are 2 of the better arguments for atheism that you have come across?
Religion A and Religion B.
Is that like Thing 1 and Thing 2?
...
More like B1 and B2
http://members.aol.com/BananasN/Pajamas.html
http://www.abc.net.au/children/bananas/default.htm
--
Dr John S. Wilkins, www.wilkins.id.au
"I never meet anyone who is not perplexed what to do with their
children" --Charles Darwin to Syms Covington, February 22, 1857
.
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
19 May 2004 12:48:44 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins John Wilkins <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in
<10akt4u6h821691@corp.supernews.com>:
In talk.origins david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> sanoi, hitaasti kuin
hämähäkki:
What are 2 of the better arguments for atheism that you have come across?
Religion A and Religion B.
Is that like Thing 1 and Thing 2?
...
More like B1 and B2
http://members.aol.com/BananasN/Pajamas.html
http://www.abc.net.au/children/bananas/default.htm
There is no limit to the evil of "cute."
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
18 May 2004 09:30:31 PM |
|
|
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message news:<10akt4u6h821691@corp.supernews.com>...
In talk.origins david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
What are 2 of the better arguments for atheism that you have come across?
Religion A and Religion B.
(for "A" and "B", please substitute any religion which claims
to be the One True Religion)
Hinduism and atheism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
18 May 2004 11:00:13 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, (david ford) wrote in
<b1c67abe.0405181837.49b138c7@posting.google.com>:
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message news:<10akt4u6h821691@corp.supernews.com>...
In talk.origins david ford < > sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
What are 2 of the better arguments for atheism that you have come across?
Religion A and Religion B.
(for "A" and "B", please substitute any religion which claims
to be the One True Religion)
Hinduism and atheism.
As I recall, Hinduism has a strain of tolerance, though there are
fundamentalists who are Indian nationalist as well. Atheism is not a
religion, so you have only offered one.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
18 May 2004 10:10:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 May 2004 02:30:31 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message news:<10akt4u6h821691@corp.supernews.com>...
In talk.origins david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
What are 2 of the better arguments for atheism that you have come across?
Religion A and Religion B.
(for "A" and "B", please substitute any religion which claims
to be the One True Religion)
Hinduism and atheism.
And what definition of religion do you use to claim atheism is a religion,
David?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
19 May 2004 12:05:05 AM |
|
|
On 2004-05-18, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
[SNIP]
What are 2 of the better arguments for atheism that you have come across?
I'm not an atheist, but since you seem to avoid answering any questions
by proposing more questions, humor me by responding to this question:
what are 2 of the better reasons for not accepting my theism (Mahayana
Buddhism)?
P.S. You never bothered to address either of these replies:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrnc9297o.qi.postmaster%40wweb.owens-ill.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrnc926oh.qi.postmaster%40wweb.owens-ill.com
--
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
SIUE Dept. of Biological Sciences
whoxsie@siue.edu
PGP Key ID 138BCEE1
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Siemon" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
19 May 2004 12:17:39 AM |
|
|
In article <slrncalr60.463.postmaster@wweb.owens-ill.com>,
"Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr." <postmaster@hoxnet.com> wrote:
On 2004-05-18, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
[SNIP]
What are 2 of the better arguments for atheism that you have come across?
I'm not an atheist, but since you seem to avoid answering any questions
by proposing more questions, humor me by responding to this question:
what are 2 of the better reasons for not accepting my theism (Mahayana
Buddhism)?
.....
(1) It's a religion of Asian wimps; we can nuke 'em any time they
give us any trouble...
(2) It has funny mythology which no red-blooded 'Merkin (except
maybe those suspicious Catherlick types) would believe.
I will observe that you did not ask for _good_ reasons, just two
of the "better" ones...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
18 May 2004 03:32:37 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 May 2004 20:17:38 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncahtt5.3gk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 17 May 2004 12:21:17 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
"Jack L. Turner" <jacklt@spam.org> wrote in message news:<xy47e341k0pqg6fi@shoefly.org>...
And yet you seem to want to put forward an infinite omnipotent being. Is
your god bound by thermodynamics,
No.
and if not, can you give any reason why not that doesn't amount to
handwaving?
Since omnipotent beings aren't bound by anything then there is nothing that
doesn't amount to handwaving.
God is omnipotent, or able to do anything that can be done and that is
consistent with His other attributes. God cannot make a square-triangle,
for a square-triangle is logically inconsistent and thus nonsense, and to
put a "God can make a" in front of "square-triangle" doesn't help matters
any-- you still have nonsense. God cannot be wrong, because that would go
against His attribute of being all-knowing.
Thanks for proving the point, David.
You are welcome, Aaron.
What are 2 of the better arguments for atheism that you have come across?
1. I see no evidence for gods, and no reason that gods should exist.
2. Theists spend an awful lot of time waving their hands when the issue of
what gods are and how gods do what they do comes up.
And before you bubble up too much David, I make no claim that my atheism is
scientific, nor do I pretend that it can answer questions like where did the
Universe come from. Unlike certain individuals, I am willing (if not
entirely content) to say "I don't know", rather than inventing explanations
about gods who can't make square triangles and don't require creators, etc.
etc. etc.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
17 May 2004 07:31:38 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
"Jack L. Turner" <jacklt@spam.org> wrote in message news:<xy47e341k0pqg6fi@shoefly.org>...
And yet you seem to want to put forward an infinite omnipotent being. Is
your god bound by thermodynamics,
No.
and if not, can you give any reason why not that doesn't amount to
handwaving?
Since omnipotent beings aren't bound by anything then there is nothing that
doesn't amount to handwaving.
God is omnipotent, or able to do anything that can be done and that is
consistent with His other attributes. God cannot make a square-triangle,
for a square-triangle is logically inconsistent and thus nonsense, and to
put a "God can make a" in front of "square-triangle" doesn't help matters
any-- you still have nonsense. God cannot be wrong, because that would go
against His attribute of being all-knowing.
And why is God bound by logic?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pithecanthropus Erectus" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
20 May 2004 08:39:02 AM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
david ford wrote:
"Jack L. Turner" <jacklt@spam.org> wrote in message news:<xy47e341k0pqg6fi@shoefly.org>...
And yet you seem to want to put forward an infinite omnipotent being. Is
your god bound by thermodynamics,
No.
and if not, can you give any reason why not that doesn't amount to
handwaving?
Since omnipotent beings aren't bound by anything then there is nothing that
doesn't amount to handwaving.
God is omnipotent, or able to do anything that can be done and that is
consistent with His other attributes. God cannot make a square-triangle,
for a square-triangle is logically inconsistent and thus nonsense, and to
put a "God can make a" in front of "square-triangle" doesn't help matters
any-- you still have nonsense. God cannot be wrong, because that would go
against His attribute of being all-knowing.
And why is God bound by logic?
Colin Day aa #1500
The same reason that God is bound by a higher power which required him
to become human and die in order to atone for my sins. Which I hadn't
committed yet.
There is no real reason.
--
"The countries the most famous and the most respected of antiquity are
those which distinguished themselves by promoting and patronizing
science, and on the contrary those which neglected or discouraged it are
universally denominated rude and barbarous. The patronage which Britain
has shown to Arts, Science and Literature has given her a better
established and lasting rank in the world than she ever acquired by her
arms."
Thomas Paine
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
14 May 2004 04:34:15 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0405130212.21ebe17c@posting.google.com>...
Let's collaborate for peace
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1215082,00.html
Thursday May 13, 2004
The Guardian
It is easy, and indeed precedented, to view science as a tool for
hatred. Long before 5,000 commuters were injured on the Tokyo subway,
and before the word "anthrax" was whispered and feared, and even
before the first weapon of mass destruction was unleashed on
Hiroshima, Bertrand Russell foresaw the deadly potential of science.
In 1924 he concluded: "Science has not given men more self-control,
more kindliness, or more power of discounting their passions in
deciding upon a course of action ... Men's collective passions are
mainly evil; far the strongest of them are hatred and rivalry directed
towards other groups. Therefore at present all that gives men the
power to indulge their collective passions is bad. That is why science
threatens to cause the destruction of our civilisation ..."
Bertrand Russell
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20%22Bertrand%20Russell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bertrand+Russell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Bertrand%20Russell&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
1957 Bertrand Russell: "no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=887u3v%24pe3%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
Russell, Bertrand. 1957. _Why I Am Not a Christian: And other
Essays on Religion and Related Subjects_ (NY: Simon and
Schuster), 266pp. On 7, in the chapter "Why I Am Not a
Christian":
There is no reason why the world could not have come into
being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any
reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.
The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to
the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need
not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause.
Russell's preface is dated 1957. When he allowed "There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all" to be
reprinted, perhaps he inconveniently forgot about the big bang
model.
There is no reason to suppose that the last big bang was the beginning
of things than there is to suppose that the last big crunch was the end
of things, is there? 8^)
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
14 May 2004 10:40:42 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<G1bpc.12461$6f5.981460@attbi_s54>...
david ford wrote:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0405130212.21ebe17c@posting.google.com>...
Let's collaborate for peace
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1215082,00.html
Thursday May 13, 2004
The Guardian
It is easy, and indeed precedented, to view science as a tool for
hatred. Long before 5,000 commuters were injured on the Tokyo subway,
and before the word "anthrax" was whispered and feared, and even
before the first weapon of mass destruction was unleashed on
Hiroshima, Bertrand Russell foresaw the deadly potential of science.
In 1924 he concluded: "Science has not given men more self-control,
more kindliness, or more power of discounting their passions in
deciding upon a course of action ... Men's collective passions are
mainly evil; far the strongest of them are hatred and rivalry directed
towards other groups. Therefore at present all that gives men the
power to indulge their collective passions is bad. That is why science
threatens to cause the destruction of our civilisation ..."
Bertrand Russell
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20%22Bertrand%20Russell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bertrand+Russell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Bertrand%20Russell&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
1957 Bertrand Russell: "no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=887u3v%24pe3%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
Russell, Bertrand. 1957. _Why I Am Not a Christian: And other
Essays on Religion and Related Subjects_ (NY: Simon and
Schuster), 266pp. On 7, in the chapter "Why I Am Not a
Christian":
There is no reason why the world could not have come into
being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any
reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.
The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to
the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need
not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause.
Russell's preface is dated 1957. When he allowed "There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all" to be
reprinted, perhaps he inconveniently forgot about the big bang
model.
There is no reason to suppose that the last big bang was the beginning
of things than there is to suppose that the last big crunch was the end
of things, is there? 8^)
The oscillating universe model is dead. See the appendix to
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
15 May 2004 12:51:35 AM |
|
|
In article <G1bpc.12461$6f5.981460@attbi_s54>, Dixit <dixit@nospam.net>
wrote:
david ford wrote:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
news:<18510aff.0405130212.21ebe17c@posting.google.com>...
Let's collaborate for peace
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1215082,00.html
Thursday May 13, 2004
The Guardian
It is easy, and indeed precedented, to view science as a tool for
hatred. Long before 5,000 commuters were injured on the Tokyo subway,
and before the word "anthrax" was whispered and feared, and even
before the first weapon of mass destruction was unleashed on
Hiroshima, Bertrand Russell foresaw the deadly potential of science.
In 1924 he concluded: "Science has not given men more self-control,
more kindliness, or more power of discounting their passions in
deciding upon a course of action ... Men's collective passions are
mainly evil; far the strongest of them are hatred and rivalry directed
towards other groups. Therefore at present all that gives men the
power to indulge their collective passions is bad. That is why science
threatens to cause the destruction of our civilisation ..."
Bertrand Russell
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20%22Bertrand%20Russell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&
ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bertrand+Russell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=U
TF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Bertrand%20Russell&safe=images&ie=UTF
-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
1957 Bertrand Russell: "no reason to suppose that the world had a
beginning at all"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=887u3v%24pe3%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
Russell, Bertrand. 1957. _Why I Am Not a Christian: And other
Essays on Religion and Related Subjects_ (NY: Simon and
Schuster), 266pp. On 7, in the chapter "Why I Am Not a
Christian":
There is no reason why the world could not have come into
being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any
reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.
The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to
the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need
not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause.
Russell's preface is dated 1957. When he allowed "There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all" to be
reprinted, perhaps he inconveniently forgot about the big bang
model.
There is no reason to suppose that the last big bang was the beginning
of things than there is to suppose that the last big crunch was the end
of things, is there? 8^)
There is even less reason to think that, if there actually was something
like a big bang, there needs to have been anything preceding it.
Except, as Russell phrases it, the poverty of our imaginations.
And the latest word is that there isn't likely to be a big crunch.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
15 May 2004 01:00:47 AM |
|
|
In article <G1bpc.12461$6f5.981460@attbi_s54>, Dixit, AKA Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, <dixit@nospam.net>
wrote:
Bertrand Russell
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20%22Bertrand%20Russell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&
ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bertrand+Russell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=U
TF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Bertrand%20Russell&safe=images&ie=UTF
-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
1957 Bertrand Russell: "no reason to suppose that the world had a
beginning at all"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=887u3v%24pe3%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
Russell, Bertrand. 1957. _Why I Am Not a Christian: And other
Essays on Religion and Related Subjects_ (NY: Simon and
Schuster), 266pp. On 7, in the chapter "Why I Am Not a
Christian":
There is no reason why the world could not have come into
being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any
reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.
The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to
the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need
not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause.
Russell's preface is dated 1957. When he allowed "There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all" to be
reprinted, perhaps he inconveniently forgot about the big bang
model.
There is no reason to suppose that the last big bang was the beginning
of things than there is to suppose that the last big crunch was the end
of things, is there? 8^)
There is even less reason to suppose that anything preceding a big bang.
And the big crunch model is passe, as are most of Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple's notions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
15 May 2004 01:39:53 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <G1bpc.12461$6f5.981460@attbi_s54>, Dixit, AKA Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, <dixit@nospam.net>
wrote:
Bertrand Russell
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20%22Bertrand%20Russell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&
ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bertrand+Russell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=U
TF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Bertrand%20Russell&safe=images&ie=UTF
-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
1957 Bertrand Russell: "no reason to suppose that the world had a
beginning at all"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=887u3v%24pe3%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
Russell, Bertrand. 1957. _Why I Am Not a Christian: And other
Essays on Religion and Related Subjects_ (NY: Simon and
Schuster), 266pp. On 7, in the chapter "Why I Am Not a
Christian":
There is no reason why the world could not have come into
being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any
reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.
The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to
the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need
not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause.
Russell's preface is dated 1957. When he allowed "There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all" to be
reprinted, perhaps he inconveniently forgot about the big bang
model.
There is no reason to suppose that the last big bang was the beginning
of things than there is to suppose that the last big crunch was the end
of things, is there? 8^)
There is even less reason to suppose that anything preceding a big bang.
Nobody knows, do they? Why not a big crunch?
And the big crunch model is passe ...
Increasing rate of expansion does seem to be the picture coming out of
the Hubble data. The fact is that if anything can have always existed,
it might as well be the universe as your hypothetical first cause. That
alone rules out your hypothetical first cause.
1957 Bertrand Russell: "no reason to suppose that the world [universe]
had a beginning at all"
Now the Hubble data supports that statement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
15 May 2004 07:54:41 AM |
|
|
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<g1jpc.52399$iF6.4785687@attbi_s02>...
Virgil wrote:
In article <G1bpc.12461$6f5.981460@attbi_s54>, Dixit, AKA Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, <dixit@nospam.net> wrote:
df:
1957 Bertrand Russell: "no reason to suppose that the world had a
beginning at all"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=887u3v%24pe3%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
Russell, Bertrand. 1957. _Why I Am Not a Christian: And other
Essays on Religion and Related Subjects_ (NY: Simon and
Schuster), 266pp. On 7, in the chapter "Why I Am Not a
Christian":
There is no reason why the world could not have come into
being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any
reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.
The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to
the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need
not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause.
Russell's preface is dated 1957. When he allowed "There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all" to be
reprinted, perhaps he inconveniently forgot about the big bang
model.
There is no reason to suppose that the last big bang was the beginning
of things than there is to suppose that the last big crunch was the end
of things, is there? 8^)
There is even less reason to suppose that anything preceding a big bang.
Nobody knows, do they? Why not a big crunch?
And the big crunch model is passe ...
Increasing rate of expansion does seem to be the picture coming out of
the Hubble data. The fact is that if anything can have always existed,
it might as well be the universe as your hypothetical first cause. That
alone rules out your hypothetical first cause.
1957 Bertrand Russell: "no reason to suppose that the world [universe]
had a beginning at all"
Now the Hubble data supports that statement.
There is of course the possibility that ours is merely one out of
numerous universes, the whole collection of which conceivably could
have never begun to exist. However, I would suggest to you that the
second law of thermodynamics could be reasonably expected to exist in
any other universes, and would preclude the possibility of a
never-beginning-to-exist-yet-existing collection of universes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Tyler" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
16 May 2004 09:45:59 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote or quoted:
There is of course the possibility that ours is merely one out of
numerous universes, the whole collection of which conceivably could
have never begun to exist. However, I would suggest to you that the
second law of thermodynamics could be reasonably expected to exist in
any other universes, and would preclude the possibility of a
never-beginning-to-exist-yet-existing collection of universes.
The second law represents a statistcal phenomenon - and can be violated on
any scale you care to mention - so the conclusion above does not follow
logically.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter van Velzen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
16 May 2004 02:41:01 PM |
|
|
Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:<HxtAo7.no@bath.ac.uk>...
In talk.origins david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote or quoted:
There is of course the possibility that ours is merely one out of
numerous universes, the whole collection of which conceivably could
have never begun to exist. However, I would suggest to you that the
second law of thermodynamics could be reasonably expected to exist in
any other universes, and would preclude the possibility of a
never-beginning-to-exist-yet-existing collection of universes.
The second law represents a statistcal phenomenon - and can be violated on
any scale you care to mention - so the conclusion above does not follow
logically.
Violating aa statistical phenomena on a universal scale would be a bit
improbable, unless there is some counteracting force.
on the other hand I do not see why the second law of thermodynamics
would requiry a universe to have a beginnig. A universe with no
beginning seem to me just as probably as a universe without end. And
the Big bang theory thus far would need our universe to be
inifinitally expanding.
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen, May 2004
Atheist#1107
Amstelveen (just South of Amsterdam)
The Netherlands (Aug 5, 1950)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Tyler" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
19 May 2004 12:40:44 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Peter van Velzen <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote or quoted:
Tim Tyler < > wrote in message news:<HxtAo7.no@bath.ac.uk>...
In talk.origins david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote or quoted:
There is of course the possibility that ours is merely one out of
numerous universes, the whole collection of which conceivably could
have never begun to exist. However, I would suggest to you that the
second law of thermodynamics could be reasonably expected to exist in
any other universes, and would preclude the possibility of a
never-beginning-to-exist-yet-existing collection of universes.
The second law represents a statistcal phenomenon - and can be violated on
any scale you care to mention - so the conclusion above does not follow
logically.
Violating aa statistical phenomena on a universal scale would be a bit
improbable [...]
*Highly* improbable - but if we are talking about an eternal universe
then there are no temporal constraints - so even highly unlikely
events can happen once in a while.
The argument that the second law prevents an eternal universe
is consequently not a logical one.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
