| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Steve O" |
| Date: |
19 Nov 2004 06:31:32 AM |
| Object: |
Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
Read my lips, ms libby, one moment after you die, you too will stand
before God to answer
for what you did while in the flesh.
You don't want to believe me - fine. It's your funeral, not mine.
duke
*****
Duke...Is God all forgiving?
If he is, I'll be right behind you at the Pearly Gates.
And we'll both get in, right?
No answer, Duke???
Is God an all forgiving God or not?
Difficult conundrum isn't it?
While you reckon I'll be going straight to hell, it would appear, if God is
all forgiving, that I'll be just as forgiven as you expect to be.
God loves all sinners, Duke.
Perhaps he even loves you more than me?
Doesn't that ***** you off a little?
Still no answer, Duke?
....Duke???????
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
26 Nov 2004 07:39:26 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:34:21 GMT, GlennGlenn <dipthotdipthot@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote:
Me: win (hopefully)/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win comes into play
if there is no God.
...or if your "God®" is the wrong one.
Sorry, Pascal's Wager has been severely thrashed.
Of course it has, but only as a wager. The premise is rock solid.
Remember, the PW starts off by asking "how would a man bet.........".
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennGlenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
26 Nov 2004 10:20:47 AM |
|
|
In article <obceq0dnieqbni85ivpoekv9thjutami88@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:34:21 GMT, GlennGlenn
< > wrote:
Me: win (hopefully)/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win comes
into play if there is no God.
...or if your "God®" is the wrong one.
Sorry, Pascal's Wager has been severely thrashed.
Of course it has, but only as a wager. The premise is rock solid.
The wager has been thrashed *because* the premise is empty. Yet you
continue to use the Wager as an argument for worshipping one *specific*
god-construction. Your impotent threat, "It's your funeral," is
founded on the Wager.
--
GlennGlenn -- aa#825 --
I am not famous, I am notorious. And if I am rich, it is because I have taken
my wages in people.
‹ Quentin Crisp
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
26 Nov 2004 10:27:35 PM |
|
|
GlennGlenn wrote:
In article <obceq0dnieqbni85ivpoekv9thjutami88@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:34:21 GMT, GlennGlenn
<dipthotdipthot@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote:
Me: win (hopefully)/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win comes
into play if there is no God.
...or if your "God®" is the wrong one.
Sorry, Pascal's Wager has been severely thrashed.
Of course it has, but only as a wager. The premise is rock solid.
The wager has been thrashed *because* the premise is empty. Yet you
continue to use the Wager as an argument for worshipping one *specific*
god-construction. Your impotent threat, "It's your funeral," is
founded on the Wager.
His bible god is dead. Wagering on this is like wagering on a
dead horse in a race.
**************************************************
God Disproven - Part 2
There are several concepts of god that are meant
when that word is used. One is the philosophers'
god derived from ancient Greek concepts, the god
that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
But we also have the biblical god, the god of
the old testament, Yahweh, El, the god of Genesis
Exodus and the other books of the bible. This god
is a historical god, not a philosphical god.
His nature and existance are said to be found in
the Torah, the old testament.
At the turn of the 19th century archeology saw
the establishment of so called biblical archaeology,
archaeology mostly of an American origin dedicated
optimistically to showing that the bible was true.
Instead, over a century, it showed the opposite.
Biblical archaeology never really existed as a
seperate 'discipline', it was an aspect of Near
Eastern Archaeology.
It is now established that much of the bible is in
no way history nor true. There was no Egyptian
captivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering, no bloody
invasion of Canaan lead by Moses and Joshua. With
that faux history debunked, so goes the theological
concepts embedded in this this faux history.
God here is understood to have been an entity that
at certain specific times did certain specific things
at certain specific places involving certain specific
persons. But if these places and persons did not exist,
this god likewise does not exist, they are all just
characters in a novel masquerding as history.
Archaeology has found and excavated the cities
supposedly destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites
and found they were ruins long before any Israelite
could have been in the area.
Several excavations have looked for the 36 year
long encampments of the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea
and failed.
Egyptologists find names of numerous foreigners
and their gods attested to in Egyptian literture,
tombs and other sources, but no Israelite names,
no mention of Yahweh can be found. Odd for a people
that supposedly were in Egypt for 430 years starting
70 persons.
Despite that, Israel show little Egyptianisms,
not in language, architecture, pottery, writing systems,
literary traditions, clothing or other things you'd
expect from a people who starting with 70 people
spent 430 years in Egypt, growing to a massive presence
there from biblical accounts.
And these bible tall tales are replete with errors,
anachronisms and other signs it is not history.
Thus archaeology and historians and bible scholars
have concluded that from Genesis to Judges, the bible
is most certainly not history.
Rather in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered
the true facts about Israel. They were typical Canaanites
who peacefully spread throught the hill country as peaceful
farmers in unfortified hilltop farms. This population of
farmers later developed into Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon,
Edom andother similar states in that area of the world.
There was no invasion as per Joshua. No Moses on the mount,
no god leading the Israelites as a pillar of smoke or fire,
no plagues of Egypt, no genocides ordered by god.
This god and all these happenings are fantasies. The god
attached to these tall tales did not and does not exist
anymore than did Winnie the Pooh in his Hundred Acre Woods.
Both are mere characters in novels, the only difference is
most people don't realize the bible is just a bad novel
pieced together from ancient myths long ago. They have
no idea archaeologists and historians have abandoned
all of this as being in any way history or being true.
But this god, that did certain things in certain places
at certain times with certain people is in fact, dead
and gone. Disproven, debunked and gone.
Because these places and times and people have been
disproven as having never existed and god disappears with
these now debunked tales.
A few quotes from the experts:
"The Rise of Ancient Israel"
A Symposium at the Smithsonian Institute
October 26, 1991
Biblical Archaeology Society 1992
Herschel Schanks
"Well archaeology is no longer a crutch in
this classic sense of a conquest model. We
simply can no longer posit a series of destructions
in Canann that can be rationally identified as the
result of the Israelite conquest. Recently our
archaeological methodology has improved, we can date
levels more securely, and more sites have been excavated.
As a result we can no longer say that archeology
supports what we call the conquest model of Israel's
emergence in Canaan."
William G. Dever
"The conquest model is not subsribed to by most
biblical scholars today - certainly no one in the
mainstream of scholarship - and that's been true
for some time. Moreover, there isn't a single
reputable professional archaeologist in the world
whoespouses the conquest model in Israel, Europe,
or America. We don't need to say anymore about
the conquest model. That's that. (Laughter)
Not to be dogmatic about it or anything, but..
(Laughter)"
"From Nomadism to Monarchy
- Archaeological and Historical Aspects
of Early Israel"
Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman.
Biblical Archaeology Society 1994
Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman
Introduction Page 13
"Combination of archeological and historical
research demonstrates that the biblical account
of the conquest and occupation of Canaan is
entirely divorced from historical reality.
Instead, it proves the correctness of the
literary-critical approach to the biblical text.
The biblical descriptions of the origin and early
history of the people of Israel are not disimilar
from narratives on the origins of other peoples,
which likewise do not withstand the test of
historical criticism."
Nadav Na'aman Page 249
"It is commonly accepted today that the majority
of conquest stories in the book of Joshua are devoid
of historical reality."
"What Did The Biblical Writers Know & When
Did They Know It?"
- William G. Dever
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
2001
Page 121
"Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look
at the biblical texts describing the the origins
of Israel, we see at once that the traditional
account contained from Genesis to Joshua cannot be
reconciled with the picture derived from
archaeological investigation.The whole
"Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set
aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense
of the word myth: perhaps "historical fiction"
but tales told primarily to validate religous
beliefs."
Page 282
"Here we must confront squarely the essential
dilemma of the modern reader of the Hebrew Bible.
a dilemma that nearly all writers of today acknowledge.
Does critical study of the bible undermine religous
faith, perhaps more importantly diminish the value
of the Bible as a basis for cultural and moral
values? For the fundamentalists, or for many
conservative Christians, Jews an others, the answer
is: Yes. These folk must then reject modern literary
other critical methods, although I have assumed here
that such methods are to be taken for granted by any
well-informed reader in the modern world. There is
irony here. In North America and in places in Europe
archaeology is accepted, even enthusiastically embraced,
because it is mistakenly thought it will after all,
"prove the Bible is true".
**************************************************
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
26 Nov 2004 03:22:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:20:47 GMT, GlennGlenn <dipthotdipthot@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote:
Of course it has, but only as a wager. The premise is rock solid.
The wager has been thrashed *because* the premise is empty.
One could wager whether you were born or hatched. A wager is a wager.
The premise is rock solid. The wager is flawed. Think french connection.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennGlenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
26 Nov 2004 05:51:50 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:20:47 GMT, GlennGlenn <dipthotdipthot@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote:
Of course it has, but only as a wager. The premise is rock solid.
The wager has been thrashed *because* the premise is empty.
One could wager whether you were born or hatched.
No, one could not, at least not properly. Such a wager is flawed, as
hatching is a *means* of being born.
A wager is a wager.
Yet certain criteria must be met before a wager is properly made.
The premise is rock solid. The wager is flawed. Think french connection.
The premise is empty, because the elements of the wager--particularly
the claimed odds--are severely misrepresented, to wit:
The wagered "property" has two parts. The first part is the practice of
worship and the time and/or physical, emotional, intellectual and
material expense laid out during the process of worship. I stipulate
that this element of the wager is not flawed. We all have time and
material resources available to expend worshipping, or not to.
The second part of the wagered "property" is one's fate in the
afterlife. This part is trickier, mostly because this afterlife is
merely *alleged*. No one knows for sure that there is one.
This second part is also tricky because, if there *is* an afterlife,
there is an infinitely-expansive range of possible afterlife scenarios
available, an untold number of which have already been presented in both
fiction and *alleged* nonfiction (aka scripture, liturgy).
The allegedly "nonfictional" afterlives often posit the existence of an
entity identified as a god, gods, or "God," as the suits each case, who
may or may not determine which afterlife each person gets; yet many do
not. These afterlives *might* reflect in some way the pre-death lives
of those who cross into them; yet some certainly do not.
So, to recap: Infinite number of possible afterlives:
Many written down in alleged "nonfictional" texts;
Many, many more not written down at all;
Many with gods;
Many with jealous, nasty gods who want you to worship
*them*, not others, and will punish you if you
don't (often calling their spitefulness "love");
Many afterlives with no gods at all;
Many where pre-death behavior matters;
Many of *these* in which *certain* pre-death
behavior is *rewarded*, whereas that same
behavior is *punished* in another
Many where pre-death behavior doesn't matter at all;
And of course:
No afterlife whatsoever.
This is the *central* flaw in the premise that the odds are in the favor
of the bettor who intends to satisfy *one* set of allegedly divine
criteria in order to pass into *one* particular afterlife.
And this is why, in the face of *no* evidence whatsoever of any kind of
afterlife, much less one claimed by Christians(for example), the
nonbeliever has no reason to lay any of the required "property" on the
"table."
GlennGlenn
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
27 Nov 2004 07:34:45 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 23:51:50 GMT, GlennGlenn <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
No, one could not, at least not properly. Such a wager is flawed, as
hatching is a *means* of being born.
So you were hatched?
A wager is a wager.
Yet certain criteria must be met before a wager is properly made.
Like what?
The premise is rock solid. The wager is flawed. Think french connection.
The premise is empty, because the elements of the wager--particularly
the claimed odds--are severely misrepresented, to wit:
To say it is empty is to admit that you don't even know what the wager is about.
The wagered "property" has two parts. The first part is the practice of
worship and the time and/or physical, emotional, intellectual and
material expense laid out during the process of worship. I stipulate
that this element of the wager is not flawed. We all have time and
material resources available to expend worshipping, or not to.
You're confusing yourself between the property and the premise. You don't reflect
knowledge of what the premise is.
The second part of the wagered "property" is one's fate in the
afterlife. This part is trickier, mostly because this afterlife is
merely *alleged*. No one knows for sure that there is one.
Again, you're confused between premise and property.
This second part is also tricky because, if there *is* an afterlife,
there is an infinitely-expansive range of possible afterlife scenarios
available, an untold number of which have already been presented in both
fiction and *alleged* nonfiction (aka scripture, liturgy).
Nope, sorry. What you say may be true, but it is not the premise.
The allegedly "nonfictional" afterlives often posit the existence of an
entity identified as a god, gods, or "God," as the suits each case, who
may or may not determine which afterlife each person gets; yet many do
not. These afterlives *might* reflect in some way the pre-death lives
of those who cross into them; yet some certainly do not.
So, to recap: Infinite number of possible afterlives:
Many written down in alleged "nonfictional" texts;
Many, many more not written down at all;
Many with gods;
Many with jealous, nasty gods who want you to worship
*them*, not others, and will punish you if you
don't (often calling their spitefulness "love");
Many afterlives with no gods at all;
Many where pre-death behavior matters;
Many of *these* in which *certain* pre-death
behavior is *rewarded*, whereas that same
behavior is *punished* in another
Many where pre-death behavior doesn't matter at all;
And of course:
No afterlife whatsoever.
This is the *central* flaw in the premise that the odds are in the favor
of the bettor who intends to satisfy *one* set of allegedly divine
criteria in order to pass into *one* particular afterlife.
You continue to discuss why the wager is flawed, which I agree with you. but you continue
to hide from the premise, which is rock solid.
And this is why, in the face of *no* evidence whatsoever of any kind of
afterlife, much less one claimed by Christians(for example), the
nonbeliever has no reason to lay any of the required "property" on the
"table."
Sorry, think French connection.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennGlenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
27 Nov 2004 01:00:03 PM |
|
|
In article <710hq01cdoduucm4g0tb9vlpsacfgmtk8o@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 23:51:50 GMT, GlennGlenn
<DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
No, one could not, at least not properly. Such a wager is flawed, as
hatching is a *means* of being born.
So you were hatched?
Pay attention, Earl. Hatching is but one means of being born, Earl. I
was born through other means than being hatched, Earl.
A wager is a wager.
Yet certain criteria must be met before a wager is properly made.
Like what?
Addressed below.
The premise is rock solid. The wager is flawed. Think french connection.
The premise is empty, because the elements of the wager--particularly
the claimed odds--are severely misrepresented, to wit:
To say it is empty is to admit that you don't even know what the wager is
about.
Sure I do. The wager is about the alleged afterlife.
The wagered "property" has two parts. The first part is the practice of
worship and the time and/or physical, emotional, intellectual and
material expense laid out during the process of worship. I stipulate
that this element of the wager is not flawed. We all have time and
material resources available to expend worshipping, or not to.
You're confusing yourself between the property and the premise. You
don't reflect knowledge of what the premise is.
My "property" is what I have to spend: energy, money, emotional and
intellectual capital. This is what I'd put on the table in a wager on
the afterlife.
On the other hand:
premise
n : a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a
conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has
been injured we can infer that he will not to play" [syn:
premiss, assumption]
Something entirely different.
The second part of the wagered "property" is one's fate in the
afterlife. This part is trickier, mostly because this afterlife is
merely *alleged*. No one knows for sure that there is one.
Again, you're confused between premise and property.
No, I'm not. Again:
premise
n : a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a
conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has
been injured we can infer that he will not to play" [syn:
premiss, assumption]
I cannot risk a premise. A wager involves acting at the risk of loss
of something I believe I *have*, based on an expected or hoped outcome
that will make things even better for me.
I do not already accept *your* premise that there even *is* an
afterlife, yet I understand that, in a way, I'm laying my fate on the
table by living as I do regardless of the many things I have heard
regarding the various kinds of afterlifes already described in
allegedly "nonfiction" texts: Hades, Valhalla, Hell, Tartarus, Heaven,
Limbo...
This second part is also tricky because, if there *is* an afterlife,
there is an infinitely-expansive range of possible afterlife scenarios
available, an untold number of which have already been presented in both
fiction and *alleged* nonfiction (aka scripture, liturgy).
Nope, sorry. What you say may be true, but it is not the premise.
I didn't say it was. This is the second part of the "property" risked
in the wager.
*Your* "premise," I think, is that the odds are in favor of one
specific kind of worship.
The allegedly "nonfictional" afterlives often posit the existence of an
entity identified as a god, gods, or "God," as the suits each case, who
may or may not determine which afterlife each person gets; yet many do
not. These afterlives *might* reflect in some way the pre-death lives
of those who cross into them; yet some certainly do not.
So, to recap: Infinite number of possible afterlives:
Many written down in alleged "nonfictional" texts;
Many, many more not written down at all;
Many with gods;
Many with jealous, nasty gods who want you to worship
*them*, not others, and will punish you if you
don't (often calling their spitefulness "love");
Many afterlives with no gods at all;
Many where pre-death behavior matters;
Many of *these* in which *certain* pre-death
behavior is *rewarded*, whereas that same
behavior is *punished* in another
Many where pre-death behavior doesn't matter at all;
And of course:
No afterlife whatsoever.
This is the *central* flaw in the premise that the odds are in the favor
of the bettor who intends to satisfy *one* set of allegedly divine
criteria in order to pass into *one* particular afterlife.
You continue to discuss why the wager is flawed, which I agree with
you. but you continue to hide from the premise, which is rock solid.
The wager is flawed in that it is impossible to *know* what's at risk.
The question of the "property" laid on the table is never
satisfactorily answered.
*You* live under the *premise* that a very specific "property" is at
risk, but as shown above, the odds against that being true are rather
small in light of the other possibilities listed, not to mention others
I've failed to add to the list.
This uncertainty about the property in question undercuts the wager...
and your premise.
*Your* certainty doesn't help *me* at all, for, see, you are an
unreliable source for information about much of anything, much less the
metaphysical.
And this is why, in the face of *no* evidence whatsoever of any kind of
afterlife, much less one claimed by Christians(for example), the
nonbeliever has no reason to lay any of the required "property" on the
"table."
Sorry, think French connection.
No, Earl. I won't even bother trying to make sense of that.
--
GlennGlenn -- aa#825 --
I am not famous, I am notorious. And if I am rich, it is because I have taken
my wages in people.
‹ Quentin Crisp
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
28 Nov 2004 09:01:28 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:00:03 GMT, GlennGlenn <dipthotdipthot@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote:
You're confusing yourself between the property and the premise. You
don't reflect knowledge of what the premise is.
My "property" is what I have to spend: energy, money, emotional and
intellectual capital. This is what I'd put on the table in a wager on
the afterlife.
Your property is not the premise. It is one of two ingredients required for a wager. The
other is the premise.
The second part of the wagered "property" is one's fate in the
afterlife. This part is trickier, mostly because this afterlife is
merely *alleged*. No one knows for sure that there is one.
Again, you're confused between premise and property.
No, I'm not. Again:
The property and the premise are two different things.
The property is gambled "for". The premise is gambled "why".
I cannot risk a premise. A wager involves acting at the risk of loss
of something I believe I *have*, based on an expected or hoped outcome
that will make things even better for me.
Nope. The property is what makes things better for you. The premise is the subject of
the bet. The premise of the PW is rock solid truth.
I do not already accept *your* premise that there even *is* an
afterlife,
You still don't demonstrate any knowledge of the premise.
This second part is also tricky because, if there *is* an afterlife,
there is an infinitely-expansive range of possible afterlife scenarios
available, an untold number of which have already been presented in both
fiction and *alleged* nonfiction (aka scripture, liturgy).
Nope, sorry. What you say may be true, but it is not the premise.
I didn't say it was. This is the second part of the "property" risked
in the wager.
Don't sweat the "property". It's not the discussion. The discussion is the premise,
which you haven't figured out what it is yet.
Think french connection.
*Your* "premise," I think, is that the odds are in favor of one
specific kind of worship.
You don't know? Tat's what I've been telling you.
The wager is flawed in that it is impossible to *know* what's at risk.
The question of the "property" laid on the table is never
satisfactorily answered.
Right, but that's not the premise.
*You* live under the *premise* that a very specific "property" is at
risk, but as shown above, the odds against that being true are rather
small in light of the other possibilities listed, not to mention others
I've failed to add to the list.
Why are you so dense that you keep coming back to the property, when it is clearly not the
premise.
Sorry, think French connection.
No, Earl. I won't even bother trying to make sense of that.
If you can't even reason the premise, the french connection, which is real, is WAAAAAAAAAY
over your head.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennGlenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
28 Nov 2004 01:37:02 PM |
|
|
In article <qgpjq0lod6gk6u7sjvdtq2ofg7lvd66t9k@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:00:03 GMT, GlennGlenn
< > wrote:
You're confusing yourself between the property and the premise. You
don't reflect knowledge of what the premise is.
My "property" is what I have to spend: energy, money, emotional and
intellectual capital. This is what I'd put on the table in a wager on
the afterlife.
Your property is not the premise. It is one of two ingredients
required for a wager. The other is the premise.
There is a premise about the nature and value of the property, though.
As to time and energy, there's no question in my mind as to the value
of that.
As to the other element of the property (see immediately below), there
are many, many unanswered questions.
The second part of the wagered "property" is one's fate in the
afterlife. This part is trickier, mostly because this afterlife is
merely *alleged*. No one knows for sure that there is one.
Again, you're confused between premise and property.
No, I'm not. Again:
The property and the premise are two different things.
The property is gambled "for".
The property is gambled *with*. You lay it on the table at the risk of
losing it.
That which one is gambling *for* is not one's property... yet.
The premise is gambled "why".
No, the "why" is the outcome hoped for when the wager is made. One
makes a wager when one hopes to *win* something. That's not a premise.
Review the definition I provided.
I cannot risk a premise. A wager involves acting at the risk of loss
of something I believe I *have*, based on an expected or hoped outcome
that will make things even better for me.
Nope. The property is what makes things better for you.
The property is what I must risk.
The premise is the subject of the bet.
The subject of any wager is a *question*: Will my cards add up to a
number closer to 21 than the dealer's? Will that horse come in before
the other?
The hoped for answer is Yes. But that's only hoped for.
The premise of the PW is rock solid truth.
The subject of Pascal's Wager is the question of the existence of a
*specific*, detailed afterlife as it is laid out in a specific
liturgical body of work (and not just the Bible).
It lays out only *two* possible outcomes, one that is hoped for
(heaven) and one that is presumed reasonably acceptable (nothingness)
as a consolation prize.
The way the question is laid out, then, is *severely* flawed, as it
presents two sole possible outcomes when *uncountable* others are at
least *exactly* as possible as the desired outcome.
I do not already accept *your* premise that there even *is* an
afterlife,
You still don't demonstrate any knowledge of the premise.
You don't know what a premise *is*, though I've provided you with a
definition of the word.
This second part is also tricky because, if there *is* an afterlife,
there is an infinitely-expansive range of possible afterlife scenarios
available, an untold number of which have already been presented in both
fiction and *alleged* nonfiction (aka scripture, liturgy).
Nope, sorry. What you say may be true, but it is not the premise.
I didn't say it was. This is the second part of the "property" risked
in the wager.
Don't sweat the "property". It's not the discussion.
Actually, the property is certainly part of the discussion. Before
enterin into a wager, I *must* know what I'm putting on the table.
The discussion is the premise, which you haven't figured out what it
is yet.
No, *you* don't know what the word means.
Think french connection.
NO.
*Your* "premise," I think, is that the odds are in favor of one
specific kind of worship.
You don't know? Tat's what I've been telling you.
"Tat's" not what you've been saying at all.
The wager is flawed in that it is impossible to *know* what's at risk.
The question of the "property" laid on the table is never
satisfactorily answered.
Right, but that's not the premise.
You don't know what the word means. I gave you the definition. Want
it again? Okay:
From WordNet (r) 2.0:
premise
n : a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a
conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has
been injured we can infer that he will not to play" [syn:
premiss, assumption]
*You* live under the *premise* that a very specific "property" is at
risk, but as shown above, the odds against that being true are rather
small in light of the other possibilities listed, not to mention others
I've failed to add to the list.
Why are you so dense that you keep coming back to the property, when
it is clearly not the premise.
You have one *premise* about my *property*: That I have a "soul" with
one of two futures.
I don't see why I should accept this, given the *severely* flawed
nature of the *question* at the heart of Pascal's Wager.
Sorry, think French connection.
No, Earl. I won't even bother trying to make sense of that.
If you can't even reason the premise, the french connection, which is real, is WAAAAAAAAAY
over your head.
If you say so, Earl. I have no idea what you mean by "French
Connection," and I don't want to bother trying to figure it out. I
never saw the movie, and am unfamiliar with the phrase's use outside of
that title. And if you won't clarify, then so be it.
You are the one abusing the word "premise." Sounds like this is going
over *your* head... not to anyone's surprise.
--
GlennGlenn -- aa#825 --
I am not famous, I am notorious. And if I am rich, it is because I have taken
my wages in people.
‹ Quentin Crisp
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
26 Nov 2004 10:28:22 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
Your god is dead, a wager on that is stupid.
**************************************************
God Disproven - Part 2
There are several concepts of god that are meant
when that word is used. One is the philosophers'
god derived from ancient Greek concepts, the god
that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
But we also have the biblical god, the god of
the old testament, Yahweh, El, the god of Genesis
Exodus and the other books of the bible. This god
is a historical god, not a philosphical god.
His nature and existance are said to be found in
the Torah, the old testament.
At the turn of the 19th century archeology saw
the establishment of so called biblical archaeology,
archaeology mostly of an American origin dedicated
optimistically to showing that the bible was true.
Instead, over a century, it showed the opposite.
Biblical archaeology never really existed as a
seperate 'discipline', it was an aspect of Near
Eastern Archaeology.
It is now established that much of the bible is in
no way history nor true. There was no Egyptian
captivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering, no bloody
invasion of Canaan lead by Moses and Joshua. With
that faux history debunked, so goes the theological
concepts embedded in this this faux history.
God here is understood to have been an entity that
at certain specific times did certain specific things
at certain specific places involving certain specific
persons. But if these places and persons did not exist,
this god likewise does not exist, they are all just
characters in a novel masquerding as history.
Archaeology has found and excavated the cities
supposedly destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites
and found they were ruins long before any Israelite
could have been in the area.
Several excavations have looked for the 36 year
long encampments of the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea
and failed.
Egyptologists find names of numerous foreigners
and their gods attested to in Egyptian literture,
tombs and other sources, but no Israelite names,
no mention of Yahweh can be found. Odd for a people
that supposedly were in Egypt for 430 years starting
70 persons.
Despite that, Israel show little Egyptianisms,
not in language, architecture, pottery, writing systems,
literary traditions, clothing or other things you'd
expect from a people who starting with 70 people
spent 430 years in Egypt, growing to a massive presence
there from biblical accounts.
And these bible tall tales are replete with errors,
anachronisms and other signs it is not history.
Thus archaeology and historians and bible scholars
have concluded that from Genesis to Judges, the bible
is most certainly not history.
Rather in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered
the true facts about Israel. They were typical Canaanites
who peacefully spread throught the hill country as peaceful
farmers in unfortified hilltop farms. This population of
farmers later developed into Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon,
Edom andother similar states in that area of the world.
There was no invasion as per Joshua. No Moses on the mount,
no god leading the Israelites as a pillar of smoke or fire,
no plagues of Egypt, no genocides ordered by god.
This god and all these happenings are fantasies. The god
attached to these tall tales did not and does not exist
anymore than did Winnie the Pooh in his Hundred Acre Woods.
Both are mere characters in novels, the only difference is
most people don't realize the bible is just a bad novel
pieced together from ancient myths long ago. They have
no idea archaeologists and historians have abandoned
all of this as being in any way history or being true.
But this god, that did certain things in certain places
at certain times with certain people is in fact, dead
and gone. Disproven, debunked and gone.
Because these places and times and people have been
disproven as having never existed and god disappears with
these now debunked tales.
A few quotes from the experts:
"The Rise of Ancient Israel"
A Symposium at the Smithsonian Institute
October 26, 1991
Biblical Archaeology Society 1992
Herschel Schanks
"Well archaeology is no longer a crutch in
this classic sense of a conquest model. We
simply can no longer posit a series of destructions
in Canann that can be rationally identified as the
result of the Israelite conquest. Recently our
archaeological methodology has improved, we can date
levels more securely, and more sites have been excavated.
As a result we can no longer say that archeology
supports what we call the conquest model of Israel's
emergence in Canaan."
William G. Dever
"The conquest model is not subsribed to by most
biblical scholars today - certainly no one in the
mainstream of scholarship - and that's been true
for some time. Moreover, there isn't a single
reputable professional archaeologist in the world
whoespouses the conquest model in Israel, Europe,
or America. We don't need to say anymore about
the conquest model. That's that. (Laughter)
Not to be dogmatic about it or anything, but..
(Laughter)"
"From Nomadism to Monarchy
- Archaeological and Historical Aspects
of Early Israel"
Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman.
Biblical Archaeology Society 1994
Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman
Introduction Page 13
"Combination of archeological and historical
research demonstrates that the biblical account
of the conquest and occupation of Canaan is
entirely divorced from historical reality.
Instead, it proves the correctness of the
literary-critical approach to the biblical text.
The biblical descriptions of the origin and early
history of the people of Israel are not disimilar
from narratives on the origins of other peoples,
which likewise do not withstand the test of
historical criticism."
Nadav Na'aman Page 249
"It is commonly accepted today that the majority
of conquest stories in the book of Joshua are devoid
of historical reality."
"What Did The Biblical Writers Know & When
Did They Know It?"
- William G. Dever
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
2001
Page 121
"Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look
at the biblical texts describing the the origins
of Israel, we see at once that the traditional
account contained from Genesis to Joshua cannot be
reconciled with the picture derived from
archaeological investigation.The whole
"Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set
aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense
of the word myth: perhaps "historical fiction"
but tales told primarily to validate religous
beliefs."
Page 282
"Here we must confront squarely the essential
dilemma of the modern reader of the Hebrew Bible.
a dilemma that nearly all writers of today acknowledge.
Does critical study of the bible undermine religous
faith, perhaps more importantly diminish the value
of the Bible as a basis for cultural and moral
values? For the fundamentalists, or for many
conservative Christians, Jews an others, the answer
is: Yes. These folk must then reject modern literary
other critical methods, although I have assumed here
that such methods are to be taken for granted by any
well-informed reader in the modern world. There is
irony here. In North America and in places in Europe
archaeology is accepted, even enthusiastically embraced,
because it is mistakenly thought it will after all,
"prove the Bible is true".
**************************************************
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
27 Nov 2004 07:36:45 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 23:28:22 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
Your god is dead, a wager on that is stupid.
When you are dead, or better yet, at the moment you die, you will be met by my God to
receive your just reward for the things you did while in the flesh.
You have up until the moment you die to rethink your position.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennGlenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
27 Nov 2004 01:01:39 PM |
|
|
In article <0k0hq096ok9t533kt4f7jqmhnijfbd6uki@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 23:28:22 -0500, wbarwell
<wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
Your god is dead, a wager on that is stupid.
When you are dead, or better yet, at the moment you die, you will be
met by my God to receive your just reward for the things you did
while in the flesh.
Your premise is empty; your threats are empty.
You have up until the moment you die to rethink your position.
Blah, blah, blah...
Rave on, Earl. The odds of the above being true are somewhere near
zero.
--
GlennGlenn -- aa#825 --
I am not famous, I am notorious. And if I am rich, it is because I have taken
my wages in people.
‹ Quentin Crisp
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
28 Nov 2004 09:03:06 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:01:39 GMT, GlennGlenn <dipthotdipthot@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote:
When you are dead, or better yet, at the moment you die, you will be
met by my God to receive your just reward for the things you did
while in the flesh.
Your premise is empty; your threats are empty.
The eternal future of your soul remains in serious question.
You have up until the moment you die to rethink your position.
Blah, blah, blah...
Rave on, Earl. The odds of the above being true are somewhere near
zero.
You will clearly find out for sure one moment after you die.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennGlenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
28 Nov 2004 01:37:50 PM |
|
|
In article <k2qjq0tvmjov0fjs0obclj0tor1t0vbmao@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:01:39 GMT, GlennGlenn
< > wrote:
When you are dead, or better yet, at the moment you die, you will be
met by my God to receive your just reward for the things you did
while in the flesh.
Your premise is empty; your threats are empty.
The eternal future of your soul remains in serious question.
You have up until the moment you die to rethink your position.
Blah, blah, blah...
Rave on, Earl. The odds of the above being true are somewhere near
zero.
You will clearly find out for sure one moment after you die.
Empty threats from an unreliable source are even more empty... if
that's possible.
--
GlennGlenn -- aa#825 --
I am not famous, I am notorious. And if I am rich, it is because I have taken
my wages in people.
‹ Quentin Crisp
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
27 Nov 2004 06:34:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:36:45 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 23:28:22 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
Your god is dead, a wager on that is stupid.
When you are dead, or better yet, at the moment you die, you will be met by my God to
receive your just reward for the things you did while in the flesh.
You have up until the moment you die to rethink your position.
You are WRONG Duke.... at that moment that an atheist meets YOUR
version of God (tm), your God will instantly understand that it is
"christians" such as yourself who kept atheists from finding Him and
forgive them.... hense, allowing them into heaven.
Of course, your version of God doesn't exist, but if he Did... that
would be the result.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
28 Nov 2004 09:05:23 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:34:20 -0800, RainLover <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
You are WRONG Duke.... at that moment that an atheist meets YOUR
version of God (tm), your God will instantly understand that it is
"christians" such as yourself who kept atheists from finding Him and
forgive them.... hense, allowing them into heaven.
I'm not hindering you. I'm trying to help you find him.
Of course, your version of God doesn't exist, but if he Did... that
would be the result.
James, Seattle
Of course, my God does exist. But now is your chance to tell me how you know he doesn't
exist.
Are you up to it? I mean, you aren't just playing little boy with big mouth, are you?
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
29 Nov 2004 09:47:00 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 09:05:23 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:34:20 -0800, RainLover <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
You are WRONG Duke.... at that moment that an atheist meets YOUR
version of God (tm), your God will instantly understand that it is
"christians" such as yourself who kept atheists from finding Him and
forgive them.... hense, allowing them into heaven.
I'm not hindering you. I'm trying to help you find him.
This is where you are incorrect. Your attitude and holier-than-thou
attitude turns more people AWAY from your religion than you'll ever
know.
Of course, your version of God doesn't exist, but if he Did... that
would be the result.
James, Seattle
Of course, my God does exist. But now is your chance to tell me how you know he doesn't
exist.
Are you up to it? I mean, you aren't just playing little boy with big mouth, are you?
Why is there always an insult with you? One moment you're claiming to
being a guiding light to Christianity, and then you start accusing 40
year old men of 'playing little boy with big mouth'. Do you REALLY
thinking you're showing us atheists how good Christians act and are
convincing us that we should be more like YOU?
To answer your question:
You have told us all why NO GOD other than your god exists, and why
all the OTHER gods are 'false' and yours the only true god. You have
told us that you have FACTUAL EVIDENCE totally separate from your
bible to this 'true' god....
Even so, I'm not exactly clear on your evidence that proves your god
and disproves all other gods, but be that as it may...
My answer is YOUR ANSWER. The reasons you give for the NON-existance
of all the other gods is the same reason I believe that your god does
not exist. Your god is as false as the others.
In your heart of hearts, you KNOW that all the worshippers of all the
other gods are mortally mistaken in their faiths, as I know you are
mistaken in yours. You worship a Mythical Creature... a
conglomeration of Gods who existed before your god and all decended
from worship of the moon, and sun, and volcanos and the sea.
james, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
25 Nov 2004 10:30:08 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:45:00 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:36:19 +0000, Les Hellawell <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
Yet Christ as a man was experienced by men who walked and talked and ate and drank with
him.
If true
Christ died a man and was buried, and on the 3rd day, walked out of the tomb the risen
Lord.
If true
It started 2000 years ago and has grown to where 2 billion people alive and well on this
earth today believe. If it was nonsense then, it would have died out quickly.
If true,
Yes, if true, which is why I say:
Me: win (hopefully)/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win comes into play if there is
no God.
Yes no win because nothing to win. You die you are dead. No heaven no
hell nothing absolutely nothing. Don't like it but I cannot believe
enternity and heaven and hell into existence no matter how hard I try.
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
26 Nov 2004 07:36:47 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:30:08 +0000, Les Hellawell <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
Me: win (hopefully)/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win comes into play if there is
no God.
Yes no win because nothing to win. You die you are dead. No heaven no
hell nothing absolutely nothing. Don't like it but I cannot believe
enternity and heaven and hell into existence no matter how hard I try.
It's not a matter of "trying for heaven". It's a matter of understanding and practicing
man's humanity to man, rather than his inhumanity to man. "Heaven" is to share in the
glory and love of God for all eternity, as opposed to living the hatred for all eternity
you (one) imposed on his fellow man while in the flesh.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
26 Nov 2004 10:26:16 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:30:08 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
Me: win (hopefully)/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win comes into
play if there is no God.
Yes no win because nothing to win. You die you are dead. No heaven no
hell nothing absolutely nothing. Don't like it but I cannot believe
enternity and heaven and hell into existence no matter how hard I try.
It's not a matter of "trying for heaven". It's a matter of understanding
and practicing
man's humanity to man, rather than his inhumanity to man.
1900 years of xianity shows xians haven't a clue about humanity.
Even these days your oh so religious far right GOP leaders have been
commiting genocide.
An no xians care, not the average nose picker xian like you, not our xian
tub thumping politicians, not the supposed leaders of xian cults calling
themselves churches.
******************************
Xians in action...
http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html
The Secret Behind the Sanctions
How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply
by Thomas J. Nagy
Over the last two years, I've discovered documents of the
Defense Intelligence Agency proving beyond a doubt that,
contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government
intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the
country's water supply after the Gulf War. The United
States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children,
would pay, and it went ahead anyway.
The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,"
is dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how sanctions will
prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens.
"Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some
chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily
mineralized and frequently brackish to saline," the document
states. "With no domestic sources of both water treatment
replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will
continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions
to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure
supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water
for much of the population. This could lead to increased
incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."
The document goes into great technical detail about the sources
and quality of Iraq's water supply. The quality of untreated
water "generally is poor," and drinking such water "could
result in diarrhea," the document says. It notes that Iraq's
rivers "contain biological materials, pollutants, and are
laden with bacteria. Unless the water is purified with chlorine,
epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid
could occur."
The document notes that the importation of chlorine "has been
embargoed" by sanctions. "Recent reports indicate the chlorine
supply is critically low."
Food and medicine will also be affected, the document states.
"Food processing, electronic, and, particularly, pharmaceutical
plants require extremely pure water that is free from biological
contaminants," it says.
The document addresses possible Iraqi countermeasures to obtain
drinkable water despite sanctions.
"Iraq conceivably could truck water from the mountain reservoirs
to urban areas. But the capability to gain significant quantities
is extremely limited," the document states. "The amount of pipe on
hand and the lack of pumping stations would limit laying pipelines
to these reservoirs. Moreover, without chlorine purification, the
water still would contain biological pollutants. Some affluent
Iraqis could obtain their own minimally adequate supply of good
quality water from Northern Iraqi sources. If boiled, the water
could be safely consumed. Poorer Iraqis and industries requiring
large quantities of pure water would not be able to meet their needs."
The document also discounted the possibility of Iraqis using rainwater.
"Precipitation occurs in Iraq during the winter and spring, but
it falls primarily in the northern mountains," it says. "Sporadic
rains, sometimes heavy, fall over the lower plains. But Iraq could
not rely on rain to provide adequate pure water."
As an alternative, "Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or
individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions
for humanitarian reasons," the document says. "It probably also is
attempting to purchase supplies by using some sympathetic countries
as fronts. If such attempts fail, Iraqi alternatives are not adequate
for their national requirements."
In cold language, the document spells out what is in store: "Iraq
will suffer increasing shortages of purified water because of the
lack of required chemicals and desalination membranes. Incidences of
disease, including possible epidemics, will become probable unless
the population were careful to boil water."
The document gives a timetable for the destruction of Iraq's water
supplies. "Iraq's overall water treatment capability will suffer a
slow decline, rather than a precipitous halt," it says. "Although
Iraq is already experiencing a loss of water treatment capability,
it probably will take at least six months (to June 1991) before the
system is fully degraded."
This document, which was partially declassified but unpublicized in 1995,
can be found on the Pentagon's web site at www.gulflink.osd.mil.
(I disclosed this document last fall. But the news media showed little
interest in it. The only reporters I know of who wrote lengthy stories
on it were Felicity Arbuthnot in the Sunday Herald of Scotland, who broke
the story, and Charlie Reese of the Orlando Sentinel, who did a follow-up.)
Recently, I have come across other DIA documents that confirm the Pentagon's
monitoring of the degradation of Iraq's water supply. These documents have
not been publicized until now.
The first one in this batch is called "Disease Information," and is also
dated January 22, 1991. At the top, it says, "Subject: Effects of Bombing
on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad." The analysis is blunt: "Increased
incidence of diseases will be attributable to degradation of normal
preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/ distribution,
electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. Any
urban area in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have
similar problems."
The document proceeds to itemize the likely outbreaks. It mentions "acute
diarrhea" brought on by bacteria such as E. coli, shigella, and salmonella,
or by protozoa such as giardia, which will affect "particularly children,"
or by rotavirus, which will also affect "particularly children," a phrase
it puts in parentheses. And it cites the possibilities of typhoid and
cholera
outbreaks.
The document warns that the Iraqi government may "blame the United States
for public health problems created by the military conflict."
The second DIA document, "Disease Outbreaks in Iraq," is dated February 21,
1990, but the year is clearly a typo and should be 1991. It states:
"Conditions
are favorable for communicable disease outbreaks, particularly in major
urban areas affected by coalition bombing." It adds: "Infectious disease
prevalence in major Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing
(Baghdad,
Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since the beginning of Desert Storm. . . .
Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal
preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification and distribution,
electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease outbreaks."
This document lists the "most likely diseases during next sixty-ninety days
(descending order): diarrheal diseases (particularly children); acute
respiratory illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid; hepatitis A
(particularly
children); measles, diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly children);
meningitis, including meningococcal (particularly children); cholera
(possible,
but less likely)."
Like the previous document, this one warns that the Iraqi government might
"propagandize increases of endemic diseases."
The third document in this series, "Medical Problems in Iraq," is dated
March
15, 1991. It says: "Communicable diseases in Baghdad are more widespread
than
usually observed during this time of the year and are linked to the poor
sanitary conditions (contaminated water supplies and improper sewage
disposal)
resulting from the war. According to a United Nations Children's Fund
(UNICEF)/World Health Organization report, the quantity of potable water is
less than 5 percent of the original supply, there are no operational water
and
sewage treatment plants, and the reported incidence of diarrhea is four
times
above normal levels. Additionally, respiratory infections are on the rise.
Children particularly have been affected by these diseases."
Perhaps to put a gloss on things, the document states, "There are
indications
that the situation is improving and that the population is coping with the
degraded conditions." But it adds: "Conditions in Baghdad remain favorable
for
communicable disease outbreaks."
The fourth document, "Status of Disease at Refugee Camps," is dated May
1991.
The summary says, "Cholera and measles have emerged at refugee camps.
Further
infectious diseases will spread due to inadequate water treatment and poor
sanitation."
The reason for this outbreak is clearly stated again. "The main causes of
infectious diseases, particularly diarrhea, dysentery, and upper respiratory
problems, are poor sanitation and unclean water. These diseases primarily
afflict the old and young children."
The fifth document, "Health Conditions in Iraq, June 1991," is still heavily
censored. All I can make out is that the DIA sent a source "to assess health
conditions and determine the most critical medical needs of Iraq. Source
observed that Iraqi medical system was in considerable disarray, medical
facilities had been extensively looted, and almost all medicines were in
critically short supply."
In one refugee camp, the document says, "at least 80 percent of the
population"
has diarrhea. At this same camp, named Cukurca, "cholera, hepatitis type B,
and
measles have broken out."
The protein deficiency disease kwashiorkor was observed in Iraq "for the
first
time," the document adds. "Gastroenteritis was killing children. . . . In
the
south, 80 percent of the deaths were children (with the exception of Al
Amarah,
where 60 percent of deaths were children)."
The final document is "Iraq: Assessment of Current Health Threats and
Capabilities," and it is dated November 15, 1991. This one has a distinct
damage-control feel to it. Here is how it begins: "Restoration of Iraq's
public
health services and shortages of major medical materiel remain dominant
international concerns. Both issues apparently are being exploited by Saddam
Hussein in an effort to keep public opinion firmly against the U.S. and its
Coalition allies and to direct blame away from the Iraqi government."
It minimizes the extent of the damage. "Although current countrywide
infectious
disease incidence in Iraq is higher than it was before the Gulf War, it is
not
at the catastrophic levels that some groups predicted. The Iraqi regime will
continue to exploit disease incidence data for its own political purposes."
And it places the blame squarely on Saddam Hussein. "Iraq's medical supply
shortages are the result of the central government's stockpiling, selective
distribution, and exploitation of domestic and international relief medical
resources." It adds: "Resumption of public health programs . . . depends
completely on the Iraqi government."
As these documents illustrate, the United States knew sanctions had the
capacity
to devastate the water treatment system of Iraq. It knew what the
consequences
would be: increased outbreaks of disease and high rates of child mortality.
And
it was more concerned about the public relations nightmare for Washington
than
the actual nightmare that the sanctions created for innocent Iraqis.
The Geneva Convention is absolutely clear. In a 1979 protocol relating to
the
"protection of victims of international armed conflicts," Article 54, it
states: "It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless
objects
indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as
foodstuffs,
crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation
works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value
to
the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive,
whether
in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any
other
motive."
But that is precisely what the U.S. government did, with malice
aforethought. It
"destroyed, removed, or rendered useless" Iraq's "drinking water
installations
and supplies." The sanctions, imposed for a decade largely at the
insistence of
the United States, constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention. They
amount
to a systematic effort to, in the DIA's own words, "fully degrade" Iraq's
water
sources.
At a House hearing on June 7, Representative Cynthia McKinney, Democrat of
Georgia, referred to the document "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities" and
said: "Attacking the Iraqi public drinking water supply flagrantly targets
civilians and is a violation of the Geneva Convention and of the fundamental
laws of civilized nations."
Over the last decade, Washington extended the toll by continuing to withhold
approval for Iraq to import the few chemicals and items of equipment it
needed
in order to clean up its water supply.
Last summer, Representative Tony Hall, Democrat of Ohio, wrote to
then-Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright "about the profound effects of the increasing
deterioration of Iraq's water supply and sanitation systems on its
children's
health." Hall wrote, "The prime killer of children under five years of
age--diarrheal diseases--has reached epidemic proportions, and they now
strike
four times more often than they did in 1990. . . . Holds on contracts for
the
water and sanitation sector are a prime reason for the increases in sickness
and death. Of the eighteen contracts, all but one hold was placed by the
U.S.
government. The contracts are for purification chemicals, chlorinators,
chemical dosing pumps, water tankers, and other equipment. . . . I urge you
to
weigh your decision against the disease and death that are the unavoidable
result of not having safe drinking water and minimum levels of sanitation."
For more than ten years, the United States has deliberately pursued a
policy of
destroying the water treatment system of Iraq, knowing full well the cost in
Iraqi lives. The United Nations has estimated that more than 500,000 Iraqi
children have died as a result of sanctions, and that 5,000 Iraqi children
continue to die every month for this reason.
No one can say that the United States didn't know what it was doing.
See for Yourself
All the DIA documents mentioned in this article were found at the
Department of
Defense's Gulflink site.
To read or print documents:
1.go to www.gulflink.osd.mil
2.click on "Declassified Documents" on the left side of the front page
3.the next page is entitled "Browse Recently Declassified Documents"
4.click on "search" under "Declassifed Documents" on the left side of that
page
5.the next page is entitled "Search Recently Declassified Documents"
6.enter search terms such as "disease information effects of bombing"
7.click on the search button
8.the next page is entitled "Data Sources"
9.click on DIA
10.click on one of the titles
Its not the best-organized site on the Internet, but I have found
the folks at Gulflink to be helpful and responsive.
Thomas J. Nagy
Thomas J. Nagy teaches at the School of Business and Public Management
at George Washington University.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
27 Nov 2004 07:40:29 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 23:26:16 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
It's not a matter of "trying for heaven". It's a matter of understanding
and practicing
man's humanity to man, rather than his inhumanity to man.
1900 years of xianity shows xians haven't a clue about humanity.
Even these days your oh so religious far right GOP leaders have been
commiting genocide.
I'm surprised you don't uses some youthful teen's propensity to use big words like
"christofacist". Now there's one that strictly high schoolish or collegiate freshman.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
27 Nov 2004 11:49:52 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 23:26:16 -0500, wbarwell
<wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
It's not a matter of "trying for heaven". It's a matter of
understanding and practicing
man's humanity to man, rather than his inhumanity to man.
1900 years of xianity shows xians haven't a clue about humanity.
Even these days your oh so religious far right GOP leaders have been
commiting genocide.
I'm surprised you don't uses some youthful teen's propensity to use
big words like "christofacist". Now there's one that strictly high
schoolish or collegiate freshman.
Earl has a chance to discuss something and refuses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennGlenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
27 Nov 2004 02:16:06 PM |
|
|
In article <473qd.50102$QJ3.33433@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, Mike
Painter <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 23:26:16 -0500, wbarwell
<wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
It's not a matter of "trying for heaven". It's a matter of
understanding and practicing
man's humanity to man, rather than his inhumanity to man.
1900 years of xianity shows xians haven't a clue about humanity.
Even these days your oh so religious far right GOP leaders have been
commiting genocide.
I'm surprised you don't uses some youthful teen's propensity to use
big words like "christofacist". Now there's one that strictly high
schoolish or collegiate freshman.
Earl has a chance to discuss something and refuses.
No surprise there.
--
GlennGlenn -- aa#825 --
I am not famous, I am notorious. And if I am rich, it is because I have taken
my wages in people.
‹ Quentin Crisp
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
23 Nov 2004 04:24:31 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:46:59 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
We asked for "Evidence of gods existence" and we got an article
entitled "Evidence of gods existence". Request fullfilled!
I wrote it.
Sorry, did not realise that. My fault.
What Duke and seemingly everybody else, including me, have
forgotten, is that we asked for HIS evidence to show how he knows for
certain there is a god.
I gave you what I had. Are you looking for a magic portion to make you believe whether
you want to or not.
No I am a seeker after truth. The more I search the more it seems
there isn't any and I have been looking for over 40 odd years.
When we began this dialogue you gave the impression that you
were certain 'god' existed for which I requested proof.
Now you say you only believe god exists and that your certainty
came from this belief. I think certainty from belief is illogical,
you must always have doubt, but will put that aside for another time.
But that's fine I can accept that, as belief does not require proof,
it stands in its own right.
To claim certainty comes from belief would be an honest
position to take and many Christians openly admit that including
archbishops of England. Such belief I respect but do not share.
I only ask in return that they respect my equally sincere absence
of belief, but I do not respect the dishonest who claim they have
knowledge 'god' exist but do not then present that knowledge to us.
That's our fault. You demand to define the evidence I must give you, rather than give you
the evidence I can.
If you couldn't understand it, I'm sorry.
I would suggest that to avoid challenges in future on this newsgroup,
that when you claim certainty of 'god', make it clear the certainty
comes from belief.
You may be scorned for that I am sure but thats their arrogance
from their certainty.
Nice to be able to come to an understanding Duke :-)
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
for what?
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Duke???...Where are yoooouuu???? |
23 Nov 2004 05:56:09 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:24:31 +0000, Les Hellawell <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
We asked for "Evidence of gods existence" and we got an article
entitled "Evidence of gods existence". Request fullfilled!
I wrote it.
Sorry, did not realise that. My fault.
What Duke and seemingly everybody else, including me, have
forgotten, is that we asked for HIS evidence to show how he knows for
certain there is a god.
I gave you what I had. Are you looking for a magic portion to make you believe whether
you want to or not.
No I am a seeker after truth. The more I search the more it seems
there isn't any and I have been looking for over 40 odd years.
What then is got you so confused? John 13:34 is Chrisitanity all rolled up into one
beautiful idea.
When we began this dialogue you gave the impression that you
were certain 'god' existed for which I requested proof.
I am certain, but that is based on my faith and what I see - my evidence.
Now you say you only believe god exists and that your certainty
came from this belief.
I have never said other. God cannot be proved. But all evidence "out there" clearly
demands the presence of some supreme authority as opposed to the non-presence of some
supreme authority. We can't see him. The best one can say is "I'm not convinced by the
evidence" (agnostic). Or one can go further and say "I fully reject the existence of
God regardless of the evidence" (atheist).
I think certainty from belief is illogical,
you must always have doubt, but will put that aside for another time.
There is nothing wrong with questioning oneself about what one believes and doesn't.
But that's fine I can accept that, as belief does not require proof,
it stands in its own right.
If you reread my "evidences", you see conclusions being drawn basis what we see, hear,
feel, experience. No one can simply provide proof for God. We can only reason his
presence.
And only man has that characteristic to look around at the evidence, from the beginnings
of the universe from nothing (big bang as best science can offer us), to the human body
being the blueprint for all mechanisms, to procreation being administered thru an act of
love, to the clear presence of a hierarchy in the animal kingdom to logic and reasoning
leaving little doubt that, although we can't touch God, that he is there as surely as
simple plant life cannot reason the presence of the cow eating it.
..
Because we can't make that final contact is no way prohibits the presence of the higher
life.
That's our fault. You demand to define the evidence I must give you, rather than give you
the evidence I can.
If you couldn't understand it, I'm sorry.
I would suggest that to a | | |
