From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #263 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Friday, October 12 2001 Volume 01 : Number 263 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC [Max Germer ] [loud-fans] RE: released on CD ["Brett Milano" ] Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC [Vivebonpop@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC [jenny grover ] Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC [jenny grover ] Re: [loud-fans] Re: Faith in XTC [steve ] [loud-fans] still believe in that junkie stew [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] Re: Faith in XTC [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] [loud-fans] Re: btw gang [Vivebonpop@aol.com] [loud-fans] Released on cd ["Chris Murtland" ] Re: [loud-fans] Re: btw gang ["Chris Murtland" ] Re: [loud-fans] Re: Faith in XTC [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] Re: Faith in XTC [steve ] Re: [loud-fans] Released on cd [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Re: Faith in XTC [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC [Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com] Re: [loud-fans] Released on cd ["Chris Murtland" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 08:08:27 -0400 From: Max Germer Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC I'm a little late on the High School music thread, but *Dear God* was the song that woke me up my sophomore year. I was quite happy with my David Lee Roth and Ozzy records, thank you very much, and hearing XTC for the first time almost single-handedly knocked me out of the hair metal phase (well, I kept listening to Maiden through college). I love the song and I'm sure happy that the record label decided to use it as a single in the states. I think *Your Dictionary* could have had the same surprise appeal if it had been released as a single from Apple Venus Vol. 1 (another song Andy didn't want on the record). If anyone is in Western Mass, please come out to the Northampton Music Festival this weekend. My band Spanish For Hitchhiking will be at the Baystate in Northampton at 6 pm, and I'm also in Henning's School For The Dead at 10, also at the Baystate. Max, who is very happy this is Loudfans and not Chalkhills (my least favorite list). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 08:13:49 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC In a message dated 10/12/01 12:08:49 AM, literate@mindspring.com writes: >faith, schmaith. does the almighty have a big cock? then i'm all for bonking > >him/her/it. Well, um, yes! I thought you'd never ask. Let's set up a time ... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 08:50:51 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC On Friday, October 12, 2001, at 07:08 AM, Max Germer wrote: > Max, who is very happy this is Loudfans and not Chalkhills (my least > favorite list). Poor Chalkhills, I bet it has a higher lurker ratio than just about any other list. I wonder if the problem is that it is digest only? At least there are people on the list that get news strait from the source(s). - - Steve __________ Moynihan's malicious insinuations to the contrary, Social Security can default only if the nation has collapsed in utter ruin or if right-wing politics cancels everyone's insurance policy. - William Greider ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:26:14 -0400 From: "Brett Milano" Subject: [loud-fans] RE: released on CD I can confirm that the first Neats album was never released on CD. In fact the only early Ace of Hearts releases that ever were, were the Mission of Burma albums (licensed to Rykodisc some time ago) and the Lyres albums (licensed to Matador last year), and a couple of compilations. So there. Tieing this all together, if the upcoming Burma reunion as as good as the late-1999 Neats reunion, then we're in for a treat. It will be worth it just to see Peter Prescott behind the drums again. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:58:12 EDT From: Vivebonpop@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC In a message dated 10/12/01 2:18:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, steveschiavo@mac.com writes: > It is a mistake to think that atheism is based on faith. But Andy P. > didn't resolve anything in his 3 minute pop song Last night I was re-reading part of Victory Over the Darkness, a popular Christian self-help book by Neil Anderson, (over 2,000,000 copies in print) former charman of the Practical Theology Department at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in CA. And, low and behold, I came across this passage about faith. Now, keep in mind this book was written to a Christian audience, but regardless of what you believe, I think it has merit, and, even if you think it has no merit, it will at least make you think...especially the last bit which flies in the face of our era's adoption of spiritual relativism: How Much Faith You Have Is Dependent Upon How Well You Know the Object of Your Faith When people struggle with their faith in God, it is not because their faith object has failed or is insufficient. It is because they don't have a true knowledge of God and His ways. They expect Him to respond in a certain way or answer prayer a certain way--their way, not His--and when He doesn't comply they say, "Forget you, God." The problem is not with God. He is the perfect faith object. Faith in God fails only when people have a faulty understanding of Him. If you want your faith in God to increase, you must increase your knowledge of God. If you have little knowledge about God and His Word, you will have little faith. If you have great knowledge about God and His Word, you can potentially have great faith. Faith cannot be pumped up by coaxing yourself, If only I can believe! If only I can believe! You can believe because belief is a choice we all have to make. Any attempt to push yourself beyond what you know is to be true about God and His ways is to move from faith to presumption. You choose to believe God according to what you know to be true from His Word. The only way to increase your faith is to increase your knowledge of God, who is the believer's only legitimate faith object. That is why Paul wrote that "faith comes by hearing and, hearing by the word of Christ (Rom. 10:17)." Also, this later in the chapter: "It is important to know that God is under no obligation to humankind. We can't maneuver or manipulate God through prayer. He is under obligation to Himself and to remain faithful to His covenant promises and His Word. We have a covenant relationship with God that we can count on being true. If God declares something to be true, you simply believe Him and live according to what is true. If God didn't say it, no amount of faith in the world will make it so. Believing doesn't make God's Word true. His word is true; therefore we believe it." np My next door neighbor in the backyard practicing his bagpipes...I'm not kidding (my dog finally stopped howling)...and my mother listening to Rush Limbaugh, which we both listen to for shock value. How that man can turn a time like this in our country, and turn it around to find fault with Democrats is amazing to me. No wonder the man went deaf. HE DOESN'T LISTEN!!! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:23:12 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC Vivebonpop@aol.com wrote: > > "It is important to know that God is under no obligation to humankind. > We can't maneuver or manipulate God through prayer. He is under obligation > to Himself and to remain faithful to His covenant promises and His Word. We > have a covenant relationship with God that we can count on being true. Then isn't his covenant an obligation to humankind? (I don't like the swirly writing style this guy uses). > np My next door neighbor in the backyard practicing his bagpipes. Wow, your neighbors appear to be more interesting than mine! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:44:30 -0700 From: Matthew Weber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC At 02:58 PM 10/12/01 -0400, Vivebonpop@aol.com wrote: >Last night I was re-reading part of Victory Over the Darkness, a popular >Christian self-help book by Neil Anderson, (over 2,000,000 copies in print) >former charman of the Practical Theology Department at Talbot School of >Theology at Biola University in CA. And, low and behold, I came across this >passage about faith. Now, keep in mind this book was written to a Christian >audience, but regardless of what you believe, I think it has merit, and, even >if you think it has no merit, it will at least make you think...especially >the last bit which flies in the face of our era's adoption of spiritual >relativism: > >How Much Faith You Have Is Dependent Upon How Well You Know the Object of >Your Faith > >When people struggle with their faith in God, it is not because their faith >object has failed or is insufficient. It is because they don't have a true >knowledge of God and His ways. They expect Him to respond in a certain way >or answer prayer a certain way--their way, not His--and when He doesn't >comply they say, "Forget you, God." The problem is not with God. He is the >perfect faith object. Faith in God fails only when people have a faulty >understanding of Him. > The thing is, Mark, this passage you quote is one long appeal to faith disguised as an appeal to reason. That's what I've never been able to swallow about evangelical apologetics--I wouldn't say it's intellectual dishonesty so much as naivete. If this approach works for you, then I'm happy for you, and in a certain sense I envy you your faith; but I don't find his argument at all convincing. In the end, faith requires a conscious decision to believe something that cannot be demonstrated to be true. I would have much more respect for religious belief if it would just come out and admit that this is a pretty large pill to swallow. Matthew Weber Curatorial Assistant Music Library University of California, Berkeley And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. _The Holy Bible: The Old Testament_, The First Book of Moses, Called Genesis, chapter 7, verse 12 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:29:05 EDT From: Vivebonpop@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] btw gang I shared that stuff with you all from that book because I thought it was relevant to the topic being discussed (atheism vs. belief) I wasn't trying to step on any toes. I thought it was fodder for discussion. Someone will bring up religious stuff, then we go with it, and I think it's okay, then someone says, "stop," and I'm like, huh? Three chords and a four-track can change the world, Mark ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:32:36 -0500 From: steve Subject: [loud-fans] Re: Faith in XTC On Friday, October 12, 2001, at 01:58 PM, Vivebonpop@aol.com wrote: > How Much Faith You Have Is Dependent Upon How Well You Know the Object > of > Your Faith Every religious community has faith in its own belief system. Atheists don't have faith in *any* of those belief systems. To an atheist, arguments based on faith are not only wrong, but completely without meaning. That's why, in this context, quoting Christian scripture or commentary is a waste of time. I'm not trying to be mean, because people should be allowed their own worldview. But Christians need to grok that they might as well be speaking in tongues. - - Steve __________ In May, after fighting ferociously to keep it secret, the Pentagon reluctantly released its own internal study reporting that despite an investment of more than $70 billion, Star Wars technology remains so elementary that "a rigorous assessment of potential system performance cannot be made." - Eric Alterman ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:45:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 Vivebonpop@aol.com wrote: > If you have little knowledge about God and His Word, you will have > little faith. If you have great knowledge about God and His Word, you > can potentially have great faith. Faith cannot be pumped up by > coaxing yourself, If only I can believe! If only I can believe! On the one hand, I appreciate that this writer takes a tack which, I think, contradicts the views of certain loud voices in our society on this topic. On the other hand, what the heck? Don't we all already know this argument, and don't we know it's not worth paying attention to in other areas? "You don't like Godspeed You Black Emperor? Oh, you must never have *really* listened to them..." Also, what Matt said. The other interesting thing about this approach is the way it meshes with the argument -- was it Anselm? -- which 'proves' God's existence by saying that God, by definitition, has every good quality, and existence is a good quality, so God exists, because a non-existent God would be less perfect than an existent one. When I first heard that I thought it was just wacky, but now I can see how it resembles other perspectives on the Christian God. You might sometimes think that God is not entirely just, but that is wrong; you might sometimes think that God is not entirely real, but that's wrong too. It turns the difference between atheism and Christianity into only a difference of degree -- intellectually dishonest, but very clever. aaron - -- to raise your intake of aaron, consider -- - -- fiction on demand -- free fast figments -- - -- read/request @ www.bantha.org/~trap/ltd -- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:49:39 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: Faith in XTC steve wrote: > > Every religious community has faith in its own belief system. Atheists > don't have faith in *any* of those belief systems. To an atheist, > arguments based on faith are not only wrong, but completely without > meaning. I understand that an atheist has no faith in any of the standard god-based belief systems, but is that to say that an antheist doesn't have his own belief system (secular humanism, social evolutionary basis for morality, or what have you), or that if he does have a belief system he has no "faith" in it? Jen ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:52:47 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC Matthew Weber wrote: > The thing is, Mark, this passage you quote is one long appeal to faith > disguised as an appeal to reason. That's what I've never been able to > swallow about evangelical apologetics--I wouldn't say it's intellectual > dishonesty so much as naivete. If this approach works for you, then I'm > happy for you, and in a certain sense I envy you your faith; but I don't > find his argument at all convincing. I'm not sure I would even class a lot of it as naivete as much as "just because I said so" type argument. I don't find it convincing either and, in fact, as a Christian, I find it a bit condescending and irritating. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:12:59 -0700 From: Matthew Weber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC At 04:52 PM 10/12/01 -0400, jenny grover wrote: >I'm not sure I would even class a lot of it as naivete as much as "just >because I said so" type argument. I don't find it convincing either >and, in fact, as a Christian, I find it a bit condescending and >irritating. Which is a type of argument I find very naive. I am being asked to accept the existence of God and His knowability through the Bible based on someone else's experience and not my own. I'll wait for my own road-to-Damascus experience, thanks. The author's belief rests upon a tower of assumptions that he fails to fully expose: the existence of God; God's knowability; the reliability of the Bible as an exposition of historical fact and God's actions; the inerrancy of the Bible; the unassailable authenticity of the author's own experience; the reliability of the author as a narrator of those experiences; etc. In the end, you're still left with Pascal's wager and your willingness to believe, or not. Matthew Weber Curatorial Assistant Music Library University of California, Berkeley And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. _The Holy Bible: The Old Testament_, The First Book of Moses, Called Genesis, chapter 7, verse 12 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:57:06 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: Faith in XTC On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, steve wrote: > Every religious community has faith in its own belief system. Atheists > don't have faith in *any* of those belief systems. To an atheist, > arguments based on faith are not only wrong, but completely without > meaning. actually, i don't agree with that (surprise). as the word atheism is commonly used, it implies an argument based on faith: the faith that there is no god. people can argue that the position -- and its counterpart -- are or aren't adequately supported by the available evidence. until they're blue in the face, apparently. but i don't see how any one can deny that they are both faith-based propositions, if you accept that there isn't really intcontrovertible evidence one way or the other. (aside: if you've got it, by all means bring it on!) the only non-faith-based position, as far as i can see, is that a decision can't be made without involving a "leap of faith" one way or the other. me, i believe i like music. - -- d. ps public apology to MStaples for griping offlist. i thought the point at which people started quoting self-help books was the point at which pretense was abandoned that the discussion was purportedly rational(ist). apparently i was wrong. happens a lot. np julie doiron _desormais_ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:27:01 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: Faith in XTC On Friday, October 12, 2001, at 03:49 PM, jenny grover wrote: > I understand that an atheist has no faith in any of the standard > god-based belief systems, but is that to say that an antheist doesn't > have his own belief system (secular humanism, social evolutionary basis > for morality, or what have you), or that if he does have a belief system > he has no "faith" in it? I would say that non-theistic belief systems rely on reason rather than faith. - - Steve __________ Last week the International Monetary Fund, which has no political stake in the debate over Social Security, told the prosaic truth: "the long-term financing problems of Social Security are not large" and "could be addressed through relatively small adjustments in the program's parameters." - Paul Krugman ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:30:05 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] still believe in that junkie stew Re Mark and "Dear God": I deleted the post in an attempt to shut myself up, but it didn't work. At any rate, I think Matt hit it on the head in noting that reason and faith are different and incommensurate ways of looking at the world...so arguing about religion is somewhat fruitless. Somewhat...since as humans, we seem to persist in wanting our reason to support what we believe. So to get back to Mark's original post (re remission of cancer and miraculous predictions): the phenomenon there stems from a misunderstanding of probability (among other things). How many people with cancer - including very devout people who prayed vigorously about it - did *not* undergo remission? How many predictions of future events, whether catastrophic or otherwise, did *not* come true? One time, I flipped a coin and, rather than coming up heads or tails, it actually landed on its edge, spun around, and stayed upright on that edge while leaning up against a set of keys on my desk. Let's imagine the odds against that occurring are 1 in 1,000. So if I toss a coin once, those are the odds of its landing on edge. But if I toss a coin one thousand times, there being no influence of any one toss on any other, it's very likely that one of those times will see the coin land on its edge. (Aaron Mandel can do the math here - but the principle is that rare events become likelier - collectively, not at any given iteration - with iteration of the circumstances in which they're rare.) So at some point, it's likely that someone prayed to their god that some miraculous, unlikely event would occur - and it did. What pisses me off, actually, are the people who say things like, "Oh, I was going to be on that flight that crashed - and then, for some reason, at the last minute I changed my mind. God must be watching over me." Yeah - - and apparently ignoring everyone else on the flight. I can countenance prayer - and for that matter, the flying of a million flags - only as psychological comfort...since objectively, flags flying will do nothing to prevent the next terrorist attack. (God, as we've seen, has decided to sit this one out.) Okay - to soften the critical tone here, I should note taht there are plenty of things in life that rational analysis offers no support for - and yet we proceed, and it's a good thing too. Say, falling in love, deciding it's a good time to have a baby, etc. But for me, in existential and cosmic issues, I cannot, in good conscience, let go of reason to the extent that faith requires - and so, I remain an atheist, despite some very good and close examples of the positive effects religious belief can have for some people. But then: that should sway me toward religious belief no more than the negative effects some people's religion has (obvious example readily to hand) should sway me away from it. As to your statement that you can't imagine how anyone could be an atheist, Mark: that's unfortunate - since the ability to imagine yourself in another position can help strengthen your own. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey, imagining that I dig Kenny G. J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::"In two thousand years, they'll still be looking for Elvis - :: this is nothing new," said the priest. np: The Stratford 4 _The Revolt Against Tired Noises_ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:43:26 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: Faith in XTC On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, dmw wrote: > On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, steve wrote: > > > Every religious community has faith in its own belief system. Atheists > > don't have faith in *any* of those belief systems. To an atheist, > > arguments based on faith are not only wrong, but completely without > > meaning. > > actually, i don't agree with that (surprise). as the word atheism is > commonly used, it implies an argument based on faith: the faith that there > is no god. people can argue that the position -- and its counterpart -- > are or aren't adequately supported by the available evidence. until > they're blue in the face, apparently. but i don't see how any one can > deny that they are both faith-based propositions, if you accept that there > isn't really intcontrovertible evidence one way or the other. (aside: if > you've got it, by all means bring it on!) To see the absurdity of this position, substitute "purple flying unicorns" for "god." That is, the argument that atheism also rests on faith assumes that "God" is a likelier concept (albeit unproven) than, say, purple flying unicorns. But to do so is begging the question (right, aaron?): assuming that which you are trying to prove. The burden of prove lies with the theists, since they are asserting *existence*. No burden of proof lies with those who assert the non-existence of anything which does not present any obvious evidence of existence (like purple flying unicorns). And, as Steve pointed out, atheism isn't a "faith" (okay: for some it may be), it's generally an effect of using reason. Reason doesn't *disprove* the belief in the existence of God; it only says there's no *reason* to believe in the existence of God. (Agnosticism is a cop-out: it has the same question-begging problem I describe above. If you don't believe, you're an atheist. "Agnostic" just means you're unwilling to acknowledge that position. That is - and I believe the Bible backs me up on this - in matters of faith, you're either with us or against us - lukewarm spitting, etc. etc.) - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::crumple zones:::::harmful or fatal if swallowed:::::small-craft warning:: ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:53:59 -0400 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] still believe in that junkie stew (Apparently I am emerging from lurkdom). Here is where I get confused. To me, it seems that every human being looks at the world with faith and reason and some other factors all intermingled, albeit in different quantities and relationships among these concepts. I agree that arguing about religion may be fruitless (arguing at all may also be, communicating at all may also be). But it just seems like there are so many variables, known and unknown, that it is a struggle to even place oneself on the ideological landscape in this kind of debate. We haven't even defined our terms to my satisfaction (yes, it's all about me). Even if we start with the assumption that there is no spiritual plane, or that it in no way affects human life, isn't there still a good deal of faith we place in secular moralism (which I am assuming stems from the social contract, but I am not up-to-date). Can we prove in a laboratory that we should not kill, murder, steal, etc.? I'm sure there is a bio-chemical argument somewhere, so I'd like to hear a convincing one. My feeling is that if the universe truly is entirely mechanistic, I would have no motive (other than self-preservation) to refrain from any destructive, anti-social, etc. behavior I can imagine. As far as the lab, don't we place some degree of faith in the mechanisms, and the symbols we have derived to interpret these mechanisms (language, math, elements, genetic code, quarks, etc.), to assure us that these humanly created systems impart meaning about existence? I am not saying there is no hard reality, but it seems we must have some degree of faith, even in a rationalist belief system, to get us to the point where we believe our observance of the machinery has meaning to us. > Re Mark and "Dear God": I deleted the post in an attempt to shut myself > up, but it didn't work. At any rate, I think Matt hit it on the head in > noting that reason and faith are different and incommensurate ways of > looking at the world...so arguing about religion is somewhat fruitless. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:57:33 -0400 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: Faith in XTC Good point. I have always thought "agnostic" was the only term which might be applied if one is trying to avoid being tagged as having "faith." Plus, I think the very word faith has different meanings to different people. For me, it seems to mean belief in anything that can't be proven by the scientific method (and therefore including a lot of "science"). I am also hoping someone will define "intellectual honesty," as I'm not sure I've ever run across that trait in the real world. cm np Gang of Four "Anthrax" > On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, steve wrote: > > > Every religious community has faith in its own belief system. Atheists > > don't have faith in *any* of those belief systems. To an atheist, > > arguments based on faith are not only wrong, but completely without > > meaning. > > actually, i don't agree with that (surprise). as the word atheism is > commonly used, it implies an argument based on faith: the faith that there > is no god. people can argue that the position -- and its counterpart -- > are or aren't adequately supported by the available evidence. until > they're blue in the face, apparently. but i don't see how any one can > deny that they are both faith-based propositions, if you accept that there > isn't really intcontrovertible evidence one way or the other. (aside: if > you've got it, by all means bring it on!) > > the only non-faith-based position, as far as i can see, is that a decision > can't be made without involving a "leap of faith" one way or the other. > > me, i believe i like music. > > -- d. > > ps public apology to MStaples for griping offlist. i thought the point at > which people started quoting self-help books was the point at which > pretense was abandoned that the discussion was purportedly rational(ist). > apparently i was wrong. happens a lot. > > np julie doiron _desormais_ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:59:49 -0400 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: [loud-fans] frenzied Sorry, I really do know the difference between Reply and Reply To All. I stand chastised, with my pathetic faith that posting to this group will allow some miniscule grain of meaning to divert me from work deadlines. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:01:54 EDT From: Vivebonpop@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] Re: btw gang In a message dated 10/12/01 4:29:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Vivebonpop writes: > I wasn't trying to step on any toes Actually maybe this isn't completely honest. I wasn't trying to offend, but I WAS trying get you all a little "riled up" with that end quotation. I love it when the list gets going, and starts discussing things like now. Is something true because you believe it, or do you believe it because it's true? I'm not looking for attention, though for some reason I seem to generate a lot of it. This isn't about me. Have a good weekend, everyone. Mark np The Sundays "Reading, Writing and Arithmetic" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:03:08 -0400 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: [loud-fans] Released on cd Seeking absolution, Anyone know if these two compilations ever made it to disc? URGH! A Music War IRS Greatest Hits (I think I have 2 volumes in a double-LP set, but I don't remember which volumes) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:06:59 -0400 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: btw gang Let he who has no toes cast the first stone > > I wasn't trying to step on any toes ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:16:52 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: Faith in XTC On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > To see the absurdity of this position, substitute "purple flying unicorns" > for "god." That is, the argument that atheism also rests on faith assumes > that "God" is a likelier concept (albeit unproven) than, say, purple > flying unicorns. But to do so is begging the question (right, aaron?): > assuming that which you are trying to prove. i don't see any difference, which i suppose makes me absurd? no, i don't see any reason to think that purple flying unicorns are very likely, but if i got presented with compelling evidence in favor of purple flying unicorns i would consider it, and if i got presented with circumstantial evidence of purple flying unicorns (like a lot of people claiming to see them), then i might be inclined to assign the existence of purple flying unicorns than i do now (very low -- people certainly paint the danged things, but people paint a lot of tacky stuff). at the moment, i might get caught saying "there's no such thing as purple flying unicorns," but you wouldn't catch me saying "the universe does not admit the possibility of purple flying unicorns" ... in fact the more i think about it, the more i'm inclined to say that (in a large finite universe with longchain organic molecules well distributed) i'd almost be suprised if there weren't, or haven't been, purple flying unicorns *somewhere* certainly some folks do seem to think that they have compelling and/or circumstantial evidence of a deity, and i don't think all of the arguments are as ingenuous as the one that Mark Staples quoted at us. (Anybody out there read Updike's _Roger's Versions_? a repulsive hateful book in many ways, but some interesting thoughts about scientific evidence -- or lack thereof -- for a "god") we all know -- was it Clarke's law? Asimov's? -- anyway, the formula for the number of 'intelligent civilizations' in the universe, as fractions of the number of star systems, with planets, that can support life, where life evolves, etc. etc., right? The point being that even if you assign very low probabilities (1/1000 of star systems have planets) to each individual element of the formula, space is sufficiently big that you wind up with a fairly LARGE finite number of hypothetical civilizations. how many of those civilizations might eventually evolve into something that would look "god"-like from a terrestial perspective? one millionth? one billionth? you could still be looking at a non-zero number. i like to gather all the available evidence before i make a decision, especially an important one. I'm a big ol' "P" on ye olde meyers-briggs. if this is mere sophistry to you, fine. i'm going to retire from the discussion and go see a rock'n'roll band that i have irrational faith in. - -- d., from the fence ps. what about purple people eaters? surely you don't discount the existence of THOSE?? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:27:41 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: Faith in XTC On Friday, October 12, 2001, at 03:57 PM, dmw wrote: > the only non-faith-based position, as far as i can see, is that a > decision > can't be made without involving a "leap of faith" one way or the other. Yes, it is often stated that agnosticism is the one truly defensible position. But I would argue that the case for supernaturalism is weaker than the one against it. - - Steve __________ The Bush/Nixon bond is a most peculiar union, given the immense class gap between the Man from Whittier and the would-be dynasty in Kennebunkport. And yet there's an important similarity between them after all. Despite the Bush clan's vast advantage, that crew is, oddly, just as thin-skinned and resentful as the Trickster. Like him, they never forget a slight, and always feel themselves impaired; and so-like Nixon-they tend to favor The Attack. - Mark Crispin Miller ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:32:30 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Released on cd In a message dated 10/12/01 3:03:57 PM, chris@studiomoxie.com asks about: << URGH! A Music War IRS Greatest Hits (I think I have 2 volumes in a double-LP set, but I don't remember which volumes) >> I don't care who believes in God, but this is always a favorite topic. "URGH!" occasionally shows up on eBay, but that's the only reason I know it's been on CD. I've seen too many IRS comps on CD to keep track, but the one with the best obscure cuts remains "These People Are Nuts"--which I was recently surprised to find in traditional jewel-case packaging, as opposed to the all-paper format that I've always found before. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:33:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: Faith in XTC On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, dmw wrote: > we all know -- was it Clarke's law? Asimov's? -- anyway, the formula > for the number of 'intelligent civilizations' in the universe, as > fractions of the number of star systems, with planets, that can > support life, where life evolves, etc. etc., right? my astronomer roommate says it's the Drake Equation, developed not by a science-fiction writer but by a real live scientist (not that there aren't tons of people who were both, like Asimov). a ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:45:05 -0500 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC Steve, then Mark: > Andy has said many times that he's an atheist. That is such a difficult concept for me to understand, but I try. If I'm incorrect in my assumptions, it would not be the first time, but it seems to me it would take beaucoups more faith to NOT believe in God, than to believe in God.Like how many times have we heard stories on those supernatural phenomena tv programs of hospital cancer patients going through what physicians call "spontaneous remission" (disappearance of tumors off x-rays) when the patient and others have prayed for that person? Medical science has absolutely no explanation whatsoever. Or people who are quite respectable and sane and drug free who've testified to seeing angels in an emergency type situation? [...]It was also discussed during that evening's sermon (which was great, because this church was more interactive...he called on the congregation for their opinions and feedback) how ultimately the prize saught in this big battle is Israel, which ties in with the book of Revelation in the Bible, and events described therein. <><><><><><><><><><> I agree on the notion of atheisim requiring as much faith as theism. From this perspective, agnosticism, or alternately, gnosticism, both seem a lot more grounded in the basing-one's-beliefs-on-one's-firsthand-experience sense. Conversely, adamant belief based on, or despite, absence of evidence seems essentially arbitrary, more an act of willful desire than a valid method of metaphysical knowledge. From this perspective, the question of how many firsthand unmediated experiences one has had with angels, spontaneous remission of terminal illness in response to prayer, etc., seems a legitimate one to ask, prior to viewing these phenomena as "real". This is, of course, a limited perspective, and one prone to flat-earthiness if one, say, fails to grasp the physics behind Foucault's pendulum. As to Israel being the big prize, and that dovetailing with Revelation, I am inclined to think that there is no sensible reason in the context of twentieth century politics why a Jewish homeland should have been established in the middle east in response to a fundamentally European war and concurrent unprecedented atrocities, as opposed to establishing such a state somewhere in Europe. The vestiges of colonialism made the middle east soulution seem simple and unintrusive to Europeans, and the inclination to treat certain texts as divinely inspired made the location seem provident, but both of these considerations are, in my opinion, highly questionable. When the inevitable resentment over this decision by displaced people, themselves posessed of a creed which inclines to violence-based expansionism, leads to brutal conflict, of course there will be aspects which seem resonant to Judaeo-Christian apocalyptic prophesy; the location of state of Israel was in part chosen by regarding the text of which those prophesies are a part as providing political and historical justification. Had this not been done, we might now be no further from The End, but it would likely be a distinctly different End. Thus some of the apparent validation of the prophesies in question, as the road toward these prophesies' fulfillment opens before us, the inclination to say, "See? This proves the Bible really is right!" , is self-fulfilling; axiomatic. - --Dennis, thinking that seeing angels while on drugs is probably as valid as gaining access to celestial vision via fasting, sleep deprivation, or prolonged physical pain, voluntary or otherwise ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:39:56 -0400 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Released on cd Any idea if the video version of Urgh! is available anywhere? I might have turned into a real redneck if I hadn't seen that in 1984. > I don't care who believes in God, but this is always a favorite topic. > "URGH!" occasionally shows up on eBay, but that's the only reason I know it's > been on CD. I've seen too many IRS comps on CD to keep track, but the one > with the best obscure cuts remains "These People Are Nuts"--which I was > recently surprised to find in traditional jewel-case packaging, as opposed to > the all-paper format that I've always found before. ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #263 *******************************