alt.atheism	mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>	Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.	Alt.Atheism FAQ: Atheist Resources	 Atheist Resources Addresses of Atheist Organizations USA FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION Darwin fish bumper stickers and assorted other atheist paraphernalia are available from the Freedom From Religion Foundation in the US. EVOLUTION DESIGNS Evolution Designs sell the "Darwin fish". It's a fish symbol, like the ones Christians stick on their cars, but with feet and the word "Darwin" written inside. The deluxe moulded 3D plastic fish is $4.95 postpaid in the US. CA 91605. People in the San Francisco Bay area can get Darwin Fish from Lynn Gold -- try mailing <figmo@netcom.com>. For net people who go to Lynn directly, the price is $4.95 per fish. AMERICAN ATHEIST PRESS AAP publish various atheist books -- critiques of the Bible, lists of "The Bible Handbook" by W.P. Ball and G.W. Foote. American Atheist Press. 372 pp. ISBN 0-910309-26-4, 2nd edition, 1986. Bible contradictions, Contradicts Itself", AAP. Based on the King James version of the Bible. PROMETHEUS BOOKS Sell books including Haught's "Holy Horrors" (see below). Prometheus Books, 59 Glenn Drive, Buffalo, NY 14228-2197. AFRICAN-AMERICANS FOR HUMANISM An organization promoting black secular humanism and uncovering the history of black freethought. They publish a quarterly newsletter, AAH EXAMINER. Buffalo, NY 14226. United Kingdom Rationalist Press Association National Secular Society 88 Islington High Street 702 Holloway Road London N1 8EW London N19 3NL 071 226 7251 071 272 1266 British Humanist Association South Place Ethical Society 14 Lamb's Conduit Passage Conway Hall London WC1R 4RH Red Lion Square 071 430 0908 London WC1R 4RL fax 071 430 1271 071 831 7723 The National Secular Society publish "The Freethinker", a monthly magazine founded in 1881. Germany IBKA e.V. Internationaler Bund der Konfessionslosen und Atheisten Postfach 880, D-1000 Berlin 41. Germany. MIZ. (Materialien und Informationen zur Zeit. Politisches Journal der Konfessionslosesn und Atheisten. Hrsg. IBKA e.V.) MIZ-Vertrieb, Postfach 880, D-1000 Berlin 41. Germany. IBDK, Internationaler B"ucherdienst der Konfessionslosen Postfach 3005, D-3000 Hannover 1. Germany. Books -- Fiction THOMAS M. DISCH "The Santa Claus Compromise" Short story. The ultimate proof that Santa exists. All characters and events are fictitious. Any similarity to living or dead gods -- uh, well... WALTER M. MILLER, JR "A Canticle for Leibowitz" One gem in this post atomic doomsday novel is the monks who spent their lives copying blueprints from "Saint Leibowitz", filling the sheets of paper with ink and leaving white lines and letters. EDGAR PANGBORN "Davy" Post atomic doomsday novel set in clerical states. The church, for example, forbids that anyone "produce, describe or use any substance containing... atoms". PHILIP K. DICK Philip K. Dick Dick wrote many philosophical and thought-provoking short stories and novels. His stories are bizarre at times, but very approachable. He wrote mainly SF, but he wrote about people, truth and religion rather than technology. Although he often believed that he had met some sort of God, he "Galactic Pot-Healer" A fallible alien deity summons a group of Earth craftsmen and women to a remote planet to raise a giant cathedral from beneath the oceans. When the deity begins to demand faith from the earthers, pot-healer Joe Fernwright is unable to comply. A polished, ironic and amusing novel. "A Maze of Death" Noteworthy for its description of a technology-based religion. "VALIS" The schizophrenic hero searches for the hidden mysteries of Gnostic Christianity after reality is fired into his brain by a pink laser beam of unknown but possibly divine origin. He is accompanied by his dogmatic and dismissively atheist friend and assorted other odd characters. "The Divine Invasion" God invades Earth by making a young woman pregnant as she returns from another star system. Unfortunately she is terminally ill, and must be assisted by a dead man whose brain is wired to 24-hour easy listening music. MARGARET ATWOOD "The Handmaid's Tale" A story based on the premise that the US Congress is mysteriously assassinated, and fundamentalists quickly take charge of the nation to set it "right" again. The book is the diary of a woman's life as she tries to live under the new Christian theocracy. Women's right to own property is revoked, and their bank accounts are closed; sinful luxuries are outlawed, and the radio is only used for readings from the Bible. Crimes are punished hunted down and hanged. Atwood's writing style is difficult to get used to at first, but the tale grows more and more chilling as it goes on. VARIOUS AUTHORS "The Bible" This somewhat dull and rambling work has often been criticized. However, it is probably worth reading, if only so that you'll know what all the fuss is about. It exists in many different versions, so make sure you get the one true version. Books -- Non-fiction PETER DE ROSA "Vicars of Christ", Bantam Press, 1988 Although de Rosa seems to be Christian or even Catholic this is a very enlighting history of papal immoralities, adulteries, fallacies etc. Droemer-Knaur, 1989) MICHAEL MARTIN Philadelphia, USA. A detailed and scholarly justification of atheism. Contains an outstanding appendix defining terminology and usage in this (necessarily) tendentious area. Argues both for "negative atheism" (i.e. the "non-belief in the existence of god(s)") and also for "positive atheism" ("the belief in the non-existence of god(s)"). Includes great refutations of the most challenging arguments for god; particular attention is paid to refuting contempory theists such as Platinga and Swinburne. 541 pages. ISBN 0-87722-642-3 (hardcover; paperback also available) "The Case Against Christianity", Temple University Press A comprehensive critique of Christianity, in which he considers the best contemporary defences of Christianity and (ultimately) demonstrates that they are unsupportable and/or incoherent. 273 pages. ISBN 0-87722-767-5 JAMES TURNER "Without God, Without Creed", The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA Subtitled "The Origins of Unbelief in America". Examines the way in which unbelief (whether agnostic or atheistic) became a mainstream alternative world-view. Focusses on the period 1770-1900, and while considering France and Britain the emphasis is on American, and particularly New England developments. "Neither a religious history of secularization or atheism, Without God, Without Creed is, rather, the intellectual history of the fate of a single idea, the belief that God exists." 316 pages. ISBN (hardcover) 0-8018-2494-X (paper) 0-8018-3407-4 GEORGE SELDES (Editor) "The great thoughts", Ballantine Books, New York, USA A "dictionary of quotations" of a different kind, concentrating on statements and writings which, explicitly or implicitly, present the person's philosophy and world-view. Includes obscure (and often suppressed) opinions from many people. For some popular observations, traces the way in which various people expressed and twisted the idea over the centuries. Quite a number of the quotations are derived from Cardiff's "What Great Men Think of Religion" and Noyes' "Views of Religion". 490 pages. ISBN (paper) 0-345-29887-X. RICHARD SWINBURNE "The Existence of God (Revised Edition)", Clarendon Paperbacks, Oxford This book is the second volume in a trilogy that began with "The Coherence of Theism" (1977) and was concluded with "Faith and Reason" (1981). In this work, Swinburne attempts to construct a series of inductive arguments for the existence of God. His arguments, which are somewhat tendentious and rely upon the imputation of late 20th century western Christian values and aesthetics to a God which is supposedly as simple as can be conceived, were decisively rejected in Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism". In the revised edition of "The Existence of God", Swinburne includes an Appendix in which he makes a somewhat incoherent attempt to rebut Mackie. J. L. MACKIE "The Miracle of Theism", Oxford This (posthumous) volume contains a comprehensive review of the principal arguments for and against the existence of God. It ranges from the classical philosophical positions of Descartes, Anselm, Berkeley, Hume et al, through the moral arguments of Newman, Kant and Sidgwick, to the recent restatements of the classical theses by Plantinga and Swinburne. It also addresses those positions which push the concept of God beyond the realm of the rational, such as those of Kierkegaard, Kung and Philips, as well as "replacements for God" such as Lelie's axiarchism. The book is a delight to read - less formalistic and better written than Martin's works, and refreshingly direct when compared with the hand-waving of Swinburne. JAMES A. HAUGHT Prometheus Books Looks at religious persecution from ancient times to the present day -- and not only by Christians. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 89-64079. 1990. NORM R. ALLEN, JR. See the listing for African Americans for Humanism above. GORDON STEIN "An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism", Prometheus Books An anthology covering a wide range of subjects, including 'The Devil, Evil and Morality' and 'The History of Freethought'. Comprehensive bibliography. EDMUND D. COHEN "The Mind of The Bible-Believer", Prometheus Books A study of why people become Christian fundamentalists, and what effect it has on them. Net Resources There's a small mail-based archive server at mantis.co.uk which carries archives of old alt.atheism.moderated articles and assorted other files. For more information, send mail to archive-server@mantis.co.uk saying help send atheism/index and it will mail back a reply. mathew ÿ 
alt.atheism	mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>	Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.	Alt.Atheism FAQ: Introduction to Atheism	 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- An Introduction to Atheism by mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> This article attempts to provide a general introduction to atheism. Whilst I have tried to be as neutral as possible regarding contentious issues, you should always remember that this document represents only one viewpoint. I would encourage you to read widely and draw your own conclusions; some relevant books are listed in a companion article. To provide a sense of cohesion and progression, I have presented this article as an imaginary conversation between an atheist and a theist. All the questions asked by the imaginary theist are questions which have been cropped up repeatedly on alt.atheism since the newsgroup was created. Some other frequently asked questions are answered in a companion article. Please note that this article is arguably slanted towards answering questions posed from a Christian viewpoint. This is because the FAQ files reflect questions which have actually been asked, and it is predominantly Christians who proselytize on alt.atheism. So when I talk of religion, I am talking primarily about religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which involve some sort of superhuman divine being. Much of the discussion will apply to other religions, but some of it may not. "What is atheism?" Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of God. Some atheists go further, and believe that God does not exist. The former is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position, and the latter as "strong atheism". It is important to note the difference between these two positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is a positive belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials. "But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?" Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not. Which brings us to agnosticism. "What is agnosticism then?" The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed ("strong") atheism and believed that the ultimate origin of things must be some cause unknown and unknowable. Thus an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not and cannot know for sure whether God exists. Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism". Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out about the universe. "So what is the philosophical justification or basis for atheism?" There are many philosophical justifications for atheism. To find out why a particular person chooses to be an atheist, it's best to ask her. Many atheists feel that the idea of God as presented by the major religions is essentially self-contradictory, and that it is logically impossible that such a God could exist. Others are atheists through scepticism, because they see no evidence that God exists. "But isn't it impossible to prove the non-existence of something?" There are many counter-examples to such a statement. For example, it is quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number larger than all other prime numbers. Of course, this deals with well-defined objects obeying well-defined rules. Whether Gods or universes are similarly well-defined is a matter for debate. However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a God is not provably impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the non-existence of God. If we assume that something does not exist, it is always possible to show that this assumption is invalid by finding a single counter-example. If on the other hand we assume that something does exist, and if the thing in question is not provably impossible, showing that the assumption is invalid may require an exhaustive search of all possible places where such a thing might be found, to show that it isn't there. Such an exhaustive search is often impractical or impossible. There is no such problem with largest primes, because we can prove that they don't exist. Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do. Even theists follow this rule most of the time; they don't believe in unicorns, even though they can't conclusively prove that no unicorns exist anywhere. To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which probably cannot be tested. We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere God might be to prove that he doesn't exist anywhere. So the sceptical atheist assumes by default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test. Those who profess strong atheism usually do not claim that no sort of God exists; instead, they generally restrict their claims so as to cover varieties of God described by followers of various religions. So whilst it may be impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists, it may be possible to prove that (say) a God as described by a particular religious book does not exist. It may even be possible to prove that no God described by any present-day religion exists. In practice, believing that no God described by any religion exists is very close to believing that no God exists. However, it is sufficiently different that counter-arguments based on the impossibility of disproving every kind of God are not really applicable. "But what if God is essentially non-detectable?" If God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his interaction must be measurable. Hence his interaction with our universe must be detectable. If God is essentially non-detectable, it must therefore be the case that he does not interact with our universe in any way. Many atheists would argue that if God does not interact with our universe at all, it is of no importance whether he exists or not. If the Bible is to be believed, God was easily detectable by the Israelites. Surely he should still be detectable today? Note that I am not demanding that God interact in a scientifically verifiable, physical way. It must surely be possible to perceive some effect caused by his presence, though; otherwise, how can I distinguish him from all the other things that don't exist? "OK, you may think there's a philosophical justification for atheism, but isn't it still a religious belief?" One of the most common pastimes in philosophical discussion is "the Person A begins by making a contentious statement. When person B points out that it can't be true, person A gradually re-defines the words he used in the statement until he arrives at something person B is prepared to accept. He then records the statement, along with the fact that person B has agreed to it, and continues. Eventually A uses the statement as an "agreed fact", but uses his original definitions of all the words in it rather than the obscure redefinitions originally needed to get B to agree to it. Rather than be seen to be apparently inconsistent, B will tend to play along. The point of this digression is that the answer to the question "Isn't atheism a religious belief?" depends crucially upon what is meant by "religious". "Religion" is generally characterized by belief in a superhuman controlling power -- especially in some sort of God -- and by faith and worship. [ It's worth pointing out in passing that some varieties of Buddhism are not "religion" according to such a definition. ] Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it categorized by worship in any meaningful sense. Widening the definition of "religious" to encompass atheism tends to result in many other aspects of human behaviour suddenly becoming classed as "religious" as well -- such as science, politics, and watching TV. "OK, so it's not a religion. But surely belief in atheism (or science) is still just an act of faith, like religion is?" Firstly, it's not entirely clear that sceptical atheism is something one actually believes in. Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or assumptions to make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience. Most atheists try to adopt as few core beliefs as possible; and even those are subject to questioning if experience throws them into doubt. Science has a number of core assumptions. For example, it is generally assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers. These are the sort of core assumptions atheists make. If such basic ideas are called "acts of faith", then almost everything we know must be said to be based on acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning. Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in something. According to such a definition, atheism and science are certainly not acts of faith. Of course, individual atheists or scientists can be as dogmatic as religious followers when claiming that something is "certain". This is not a general tendency, however; there are many atheists who would be reluctant to state with certainty that the universe exists. Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or proof. Sceptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as sceptical atheism has no beliefs. Strong atheism is closer, but still doesn't really match, as even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to refer to experimental data (or the lack of it) when asserting that God does not exist. "If atheism is not religious, surely it's anti-religious?" It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for" or "against", "friend" or "enemy". The truth is not so clear-cut. Atheism is the position that runs logically counter to theism; in that sense, it can be said to be "anti-religion". However, when religious believers speak of atheists being "anti-religious" they usually mean that the atheists have some sort of antipathy or hatred towards theists. This categorization of atheists as hostile towards religion is quite unfair. Atheist attitudes towards theists in fact cover a broad spectrum. Most atheists take a "live and let live" attitude. Unless questioned, they will not usually mention their atheism, except perhaps to close friends. Of course, this may be in part because atheism is not "socially acceptable" in many countries. A few atheists are quite anti-religious, and may even try to "convert" others when possible. Historically, such anti-religious atheists have made little impact on society outside the Eastern Bloc countries. of church and state, just like the USA. Soviet citizens were legally free to worship as they wished. The institution of "state atheism" came about when Stalin took control of the Soviet Union and tried to destroy the churches in order to gain complete power over the population.) Some atheists are quite vocal about their beliefs, but only where they see religion encroaching on matters which are not its business -- for example, the government of the USA. Such individuals are usually concerned that church and state should remain separate. "But if you don't allow religion to have a say in the running of the state, surely that's the same as state atheism?" The principle of the separation of church and state is that the state shall not legislate concerning matters of religious belief. In particular, it means not only that the state cannot promote one religion at the expense of another, but also that it cannot promote any belief which is religious in nature. Religions can still have a say in discussion of purely secular matters. For example, religious believers have historically been responsible for encouraging many political reforms. Even today, many organizations campaigning for an increase in spending on foreign aid are founded as religious campaigns. So long as they campaign concerning secular matters, and so long as they do not discriminate on religious grounds, most atheists are quite happy to see them have their say. "What about prayer in schools? If there's no God, why do you care if people pray?" Because people who do pray are voters and lawmakers, and tend to do things that those who don't pray can't just ignore. Also, Christian prayer in schools is intimidating to non-Christians, even if they are told that they need not join in. The diversity of religious and non-religious belief means that it is impossible to formulate a meaningful prayer that will be acceptable to all those present at any public event. Also, non-prayers tend to have friends and family who pray. It is reasonable to care about friends and family wasting their time, even without other motives. "You mentioned Christians who campaign for increased foreign aid. What about atheists? Why aren't there any atheist charities or hospitals? Don't atheists object to the religious charities?" There are many charities without religious purpose that atheists can contribute to. Some atheists contribute to religious charities as well, for the sake of the practical good they do. Some atheists even do voluntary work for charities founded on a theistic basis. Most atheists seem to feel that atheism isn't worth shouting about in connection with charity. To them, atheism is just a simple, obvious everyday matter, and so is charity. Many feel that it's somewhat cheap, not to say self-righteous, to use simple charity as an excuse to plug a particular set of religious beliefs. To "weak" atheists, building a hospital to say "I do not believe in God" is a rather strange idea; it's rather like holding a party to say "Today is not my birthday". Why the fuss? Atheism is rarely evangelical. "You said atheism isn't anti-religious. But is it perhaps a backlash against one's upbringing, a way of rebelling?" Perhaps it is, for some. But many people have parents who do not attempt to force any religious (or atheist) ideas upon them, and many of those people choose to call themselves atheists. It's also doubtless the case that some religious people chose religion as a backlash against an atheist upbringing, as a way of being different. On the other hand, many people choose religion as a way of conforming to the expectations of others. On the whole, we can't conclude much about whether atheism or religion are backlash or conformism; although in general, people have a tendency to go along with a group rather than act or think independently. "How do atheists differ from religious people?" They don't believe in God. That's all there is to it. Atheists may listen to heavy metal -- backwards, even -- or they may prefer a Verdi Requiem, even if they know the words. They may wear Hawaiian shirts, they may dress all in black, they may even wear orange robes. (Many Buddhists lack a belief in any sort of God.) Some atheists even carry a copy of the Bible around -- for arguing against, of course! Whoever you are, the chances are you have met several atheists without realising it. Atheists are usually unexceptional in behaviour and appearance. "Unexceptional? But aren't atheists less moral than religious people?" That depends. If you define morality as obedience to God, then of course atheists are less moral as they don't obey any God. But usually when one talks of morality, one talks of what is acceptable ("right") and unacceptable ("wrong") behaviour within society. Humans are social animals, and to be maximally successful they must co-operate with each other. This is a good enough reason to discourage most atheists from "anti-social" or "immoral" behaviour, purely for the purposes of self-preservation. Many atheists behave in a "moral" or "compassionate" way simply because they feel a natural tendency to empathize with other humans. So why do they care what happens to others? They don't know, they simply are that way. Naturally, there are some people who behave "immorally" and try to use atheism to justify their actions. However, there are equally many people who behave "immorally" and then try to use religious beliefs to justify their came into the world to save sinners... But for that very reason, I was shown mercy so that in me... Jesus Christ might display His unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever." The above quote is from a statement made to the court on February 17th 1992 by Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious cannibal serial killer of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It seems that for every atheist mass-murderer, there is a religious mass-murderer. But what of more trivial morality? A survey conducted by the Roper Organization found that behavior deteriorated after "born again" experiences. While only 4% of respondents said they had driven intoxicated before being "born again," 12% had done so after conversion. Similarly, 5% had used illegal drugs before conversion, 9% after. Two percent admitted to engaging in illicit sex before salvation; 5% after. ["Freethought Today", September 1991, p. 12.] So it seems that at best, religion does not have a monopoly on moral behaviour. "Is there such a thing as atheist morality?" If you mean "Is there such a thing as morality for atheists?", then the answer is yes, as explained above. Many atheists have ideas about morality which are at least as strong as those held by religious people. If you mean "Does atheism have a characteristic moral code?", then the answer is no. Atheism by itself does not imply anything much about how a person will behave. Most atheists follow many of the same "moral rules" as theists, but for different reasons. Atheists view morality as something created by humans, according to the way humans feel the world 'ought' to work, rather than seeing it as a set of rules decreed by a supernatural being. "Then aren't atheists just theists who are denying God?" A study by the Freedom From Religion Foundation found that over 90% of the atheists who responded became atheists because religion did not work for them. They had found that religious beliefs were fundamentally incompatible with what they observed around them. Atheists are not unbelievers through ignorance or denial; they are unbelievers through choice. The vast majority of them have spent time studying one or more religions, sometimes in very great depth. They have made a careful and considered decision to reject religious beliefs. This decision may, of course, be an inevitable consequence of that individual's personality. For a naturally sceptical person, the choice of atheism is often the only one that makes sense, and hence the only choice that person can honestly make. "But don't atheists want to believe in God?" Atheists live their lives as though there is nobody watching over them. Many of them have no desire to be watched over, no matter how good-natured the "Big Brother" figure might be. Some atheists would like to be able to believe in God -- but so what? Should one believe things merely because one wants them to be true? The risks of such an approach should be obvious. Atheists often decide that wanting to believe something is not enough; there must be evidence for the belief. "But of course atheists see no evidence for the existence of God -- they are unwilling in their souls to see!" Many, if not most atheists were previously religious. As has been explained above, the vast majority have seriously considered the possibility that God exists. Many atheists have spent time in prayer trying to reach God. Of course, it is true that some atheists lack an open mind; but assuming that all atheists are biased and insincere is offensive and closed-minded. Comments such as "Of course God is there, you just aren't looking properly" are likely to be viewed as patronizing. Certainly, if you wish to engage in philosophical debate with atheists it is vital that you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are being sincere if they say that they have searched for God. If you are not willing to believe that they are basically telling the truth, debate is futile. "Isn't the whole of life completely pointless to an atheist?" Many atheists live a purposeful life. They decide what they think gives meaning to life, and they pursue those goals. They try to make their lives count, not by wishing for eternal life, but by having an influence on other people who will live on. For example, an atheist may dedicate his life to political reform, in the hope of leaving his mark on history. It is a natural human tendency to look for "meaning" or "purpose" in random events. However, it is by no means obvious that "life" is the sort of thing that has a "meaning". To put it another way, not everything which looks like a question is actually a sensible thing to ask. Some atheists believe that asking "What is the meaning of life?" is as silly as asking "What is the meaning of a cup of coffee?". They believe that life has no purpose or meaning, it just is. "So how do atheists find comfort in time of danger?" There are many ways of obtaining comfort; from family, friends, or even pets. Or on a less spiritual level, from food or drink or TV. That may sound rather an empty and vulnerable way to face danger, but so what? Should individuals believe in things because they are comforting, or should they face reality no matter how harsh it might be? In the end, it's a decision for the individual concerned. Most atheists are unable to believe something they would not otherwise believe merely because it makes them feel comfortable. They put truth before comfort, and consider that if searching for truth sometimes makes them feel unhappy, that's just hard luck. "Don't atheists worry that they might suddenly be shown to be wrong?" The short answer is "No, do you?" Many atheists have been atheists for years. They have encountered many arguments and much supposed evidence for the existence of God, but they have found all of it to be invalid or inconclusive. Thousands of years of religious belief haven't resulted in any good proof of the existence of God. Atheists therefore tend to feel that they are unlikely to be proved wrong in the immediate future, and they stop worrying about it. "So why should theists question their beliefs? Don't the same arguments apply?" No, because the beliefs being questioned are not similar. Weak atheism is the sceptical "default position" to take; it asserts nothing. Strong atheism is a negative belief. Theism is a very strong positive belief. Atheists sometimes also argue that theists should question their beliefs because of the very real harm they can cause -- not just to the believers, but to everyone else. "What sort of harm?" Religion represents a huge financial and work burden on mankind. It's not just a matter of religious believers wasting their money on church buildings; think of all the time and effort spent building churches, praying, and so on. Imagine how that effort could be better spent. Many theists believe in miracle healing. There have been plenty of instances of ill people being "healed" by a priest, ceasing to take the medicines prescribed to them by doctors, and dying as a result. Some theists have died because they have refused blood transfusions on religious grounds. It is arguable that the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control -- and condoms in particular -- is increasing the problem of overpopulation in many third-world countries and contributing to the spread of AIDS world-wide. Religious believers have been known to murder their children rather than allow their children to become atheists or marry someone of a different religion. "Those weren't REAL believers. They just claimed to be believers as some sort of excuse." What makes a real believer? There are so many One True Religions it's hard convinced that they are the only true Christians. Sometimes they even fight and kill each other. How is an atheist supposed to decide who's a REAL Christian and who isn't, when even the major Christian churches like the Catholic Church and the Church of England can't decide amongst themselves? In the end, most atheists take a pragmatic view, and decide that anyone who calls himself a Christian, and uses Christian belief or dogma to justify his actions, should be considered a Christian. Maybe some of those Christians are just perverting Christian teaching for their own ends -- but surely if the Bible can be so readily used to support un-Christian acts it can't be much of a moral code? If the Bible is the word of God, why couldn't he have made it less easy to misinterpret? And how do you know that your beliefs aren't a perversion of what your God intended? If there is no single unambiguous interpretation of the Bible, then why should an atheist take one interpretation over another just on your say-so? Sorry, but if someone claims that he believes in Jesus and that he murdered others because Jesus and the Bible told him to do so, we must call him a Christian. "Obviously those extreme sorts of beliefs should be questioned. But since nobody has ever proved that God does not exist, it must be very unlikely that more basic religious beliefs, shared by all faiths, are nonsense." That does not hold, because as was pointed out at the start of this dialogue, positive assertions concerning the existence of entities are inherently much harder to disprove than negative ones. Nobody has ever proved that unicorns don't exist, but that doesn't make it unlikely that they are myths. It is therefore much more valid to hold a negative assertion by default than it is to hold a positive assertion by default. Of course, "weak" atheists would argue that asserting nothing is better still. "Well, if atheism's so great, why are there so many theists?" Unfortunately, the popularity of a belief has little to do with how "correct" it is, or whether it "works"; consider how many people believe in astrology, graphology, and other pseudo-sciences. Many atheists feel that it is simply a human weakness to want to believe in gods. Certainly in many primitive human societies, religion allows the people to deal with phenomena that they do not adequately understand. Of course, there's more to religion than that. In the industrialized world, we find people believing in religious explanations of phenomena even when there are perfectly adequate natural explanations. Religion may have started as a means of attempting to explain the world, but nowadays it serves other purposes as well. "But so many cultures have developed religions. Surely that must say something?" Not really. Most religions are only superficially similar; for example, it's worth remembering that religions such as Buddhism and Taoism lack any sort of concept of God in the Christian sense. Of course, most religions are quick to denounce competing religions, so it's rather odd to use one religion to try and justify another. "What about all the famous scientists and philosophers who have concluded that God exists?" For every scientist or philosopher who believes in a god, there is one who does not. Besides, as has already been pointed out, the truth of a belief is not determined by how many people believe it. Also, it is important to realize that atheists do not view famous scientists or philosophers in the same way that theists view their religious leaders. A famous scientist is only human; she may be an expert in some fields, but when she talks about other matters her words carry no special weight. Many respected scientists have made themselves look foolish by speaking on subjects which lie outside their fields of expertise. "So are you really saying that widespread belief in religion indicates nothing?" Not entirely. It certainly indicates that the religion in question has properties which have helped it so spread so far. The theory of memetics talks of "memes" -- sets of ideas which can propagate themselves between human minds, by analogy with genes. Some atheists view religions as sets of particularly successful parasitic memes, which spread by encouraging their hosts to convert others. Some memes avoid destruction by discouraging believers from questioning doctrine, or by using peer pressure to keep one-time believers from admitting that they were mistaken. Some religious memes even encourage their hosts to destroy hosts controlled by other memes. Of course, in the memetic view there is no particular virtue associated with successful propagation of a meme. Religion is not a good thing because of the number of people who believe it, any more than a disease is a good thing because of the number of people who have caught it. "Even if religion is not entirely true, at least it puts across important messages. What are the fundamental messages of atheism?" There are many important ideas atheists promote. The following are just a few of them; don't be surprised to see ideas which are also present in some religions. There is more to moral behaviour than mindlessly following rules. Be especially sceptical of positive claims. If you want your life to have some sort of meaning, it's up to you to find it. Search for what is true, even if it makes you uncomfortable. Make the most of your life, as it's probably the only one you'll have. It's no good relying on some external power to change you; you must change yourself. Just because something's popular doesn't mean it's good. If you must assume something, assume something it's easy to test. Don't believe things just because you want them to be true. All beliefs should be open to question. Thanks for taking the time to read this article. mathew -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQCVAgUBK8AjRXzXN+VrOblFAQFSbwP+MHePY4g7ge8Mo5wpsivX+kHYYxMErFAO 7ltVtMVTu66Nz6sBbPw9QkbjArbY/S2sZ9NF5htdii0R6SsEyPl0R6/9bV9okE/q nihqnzXE8pGvLt7tlez4EoeHZjXLEFrdEyPVayT54yQqGb4HARbOEHDcrTe2atmP q0Z4hSSPpAU= =q2V5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- For information about PGP 2.2, send mail to pgpinfo@mantis.co.uk. ÿ 
alt.atheism	I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)	Technical University Braunschweig, Germany	Re: Gospel Dating	 In article <65974@mimsy.umd.edu> the almost codified way they were in Matthew or Luke. However, they are considered to be similar enough to point to knowledge of Q as such, and not an entirely different source. We are talking date of texts here, not the age of the authors. The usual explanation for the time order of Mark, Matthew and Luke does not consider their respective ages. It says Matthew has read the text of Mark, and Luke that of Matthew (and probably that of Mark). As it is assumed that John knew the content of Luke's text. The evidence for that is not overwhelming, admittedly. When they are from about 200, why do they shed doubt on the order on putting John after the rest of the three? Sure, an original together with Id card of sender and receiver would be fine. So what's that supposed to say? Am I missing something? That John was a disciple is not generally accepted. The style and language together with the theology are usually used as counterargument. The argument that John was a disciple relies on the claim in the gospel of John itself. Is there any other evidence for it? One step and one generation removed is bad even in our times. Compare that to reports of similar events in our century in almost illiterate societies. Not even to speak off that believers are not necessarily the best sources. In other words, one does not know what the original of Mark did look like and arguments based on Mark are pretty weak. But how is that connected to a redating of John? Benedikt 
alt.atheism	mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>	Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.	Re: university violating separation of church/state?	 It sounds to me like it's just SCREAMING OUT for parody. Give a copy to your friendly neighbourhood SubGenius preacher; with luck, he'll run it through the mental mincer and hand you back an outrageously offensive and gut-bustingly funny parody you can paste over the originals. The Stool Scroll Thoughts on Religion, Spirituality, and Matters of the Colon (You can use this text to wipe) mathew 
alt.atheism	strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)	IBM Research	Re: [soc.motss, et al.] "Princeton axes matching funds for Boy Scouts"	 |> [1] HOWEVER, I hate economic terrorism and political correctness |> worse than I hate this policy. |> [2] A more effective approach is to stop donating |> to ANY organizating that directly or indirectly supports gay rights issues |> until they end the boycott on funding of scouts. Can somebody reconcile the apparent contradiction between [1] and [2]? -- Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641 IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 
alt.atheism	I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)	Technical University Braunschweig, Germany	Re: A visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses	 In article <1993Apr5.091139.823@batman.bmd.trw.com> Define perfect then. Take your foot out of your mouth, I wondered about that already when I was a Catholic Christian. The fact that the contradiction is unresolvable is one of the reasons why I am an atheist. Believe me, I believed similar sentences for a long time. But that shows the power of religion and not anything about its claims. It follows from a definition of evil as ordinarily used. Letting evil happen or allowing evil to take place, in this place even causing evil, is another evil. The omniscient attribute of god will know what the creatures will do even before the omnipotent has created them. There is no choice left. All is known, the course of events is fixed. Not even for the omniscient itself, to extend an argument by James Tims. And when I am not omnipotent, how can I have free will? You have said something about choices and the scenario gives them. Therefore we have what you define as free will. Imagine the following. I can do good to other beings, but I cannot harm them. Easily implemented by making everyone appreciate being the object of good deeds, but don't make them long for them, so they can not feel the absence of good as evil. But whose case am I arguing? It is conceivable, so the omnipotent can do it. Or it would not be omnipotent. If you want logically consistent as well, you have to give up the pet idea of an omnipotent first. (Deletion) That the bible describes an omniscient and omnipotent god destroys the credibility of the bible, nothing less. And a lot of people would be interested in evidence for a god, unfortunately, there can't be any with these definitions. Benedikt 
alt.atheism	keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)	California Institute of Technology, Pasadena	Re: Political Atheists?	 No it didn't. The motto has been on various coins since the Civil War. It was just required to be on *all* currency in the 50's. keith 
alt.atheism	I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)	Technical University Braunschweig, Germany	Re: An Anecdote about Islam	 In article <114127@bu.edu> It was no criticism of Islam for a change, it was a criticism of the arguments used. Namely, whenever people you identify as Muslims are the victims of the attacks of others, they are used an argument for the bad situation of Muslims. But whenever deeds by Muslim that victimize others are named, they do not count as an argument because what these people did was not done as a true Muslims. No mention is made how Muslims are the cause of a bad situation of another party. Double standards. Benedikt 
alt.atheism	keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)	California Institute of Technology, Pasadena	Re: <Political Atheists?	 (reference line trimmed) [...] Yes. Well, for example, the goal of "natural" morality is the survival and propogation of the species. Another example of a moral system is presented within the Declaration of Independence, which states that we should be guaranteed life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You see, to have a moral system, we must define the purpose of the system. That is, we shall be moral unto what end? Well, murder violates the golen rule, which is certainly a pillar of most every moral system. However, I am not assuming that our current system and the manner of its implementation are objectively moral. I think that it is a very good approximation, but we can't be perfect. Well, "objective" would assume a system based on clear and fundamental concepts, while "arbitary" implies no clear line of reasoning. keith 
alt.atheism	keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)	California Institute of Technology, Pasadena	Re: >>>>>>Pompous ass	 Nope, I've answered each question posed, and most were answered multiple times. keith 
alt.atheism	keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)	California Institute of Technology, Pasadena	Re: >>>>>>Pompous ass	 Specifically, which changes are you talking about? Are you arguing that the motto is interpreted as offensive by a larger portion of the population now than 40 years ago? keith 
alt.atheism	keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)	California Institute of Technology, Pasadena	Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster?	 But, you wouldn't know what red *was*, and you certainly couldn't judge it subjectively. And, objectivity is not applicable, since you are wanting to discuss the merits of red. keith 
alt.atheism	keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)	California Institute of Technology, Pasadena	Re: Keith Schneider - Stealth Poster?	 That's right, and this is pretty impossible, right? It would be ideal if we could believe for a while, just to try out religion, and only then determine which course of thought suits us best. But again, this is not possible. Not that religion warrants belief, but the belief carries with it some psychological benefits. There are also some psychological burdens, too. Well, if there were some psychological or other benefits gained from racism, they could only be fully understood or judged by persons actually "believing" in racism. Of course, the parallel happens to be a poor one, but you originated it. keith 
alt.atheism	keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)	California Institute of Technology, Pasadena	Re: <Political Atheists?	 Yes, and everyone thinks as you do. No one thinks that he is going to cause or be involved in a fatal accident, but the likelihood is surprisingly high. Just because you are the man on the firing squad whose gun is shooting blanks does not mean that you are less guilty. You mean that killing is wrong in all but one situtation? And, you should note that that situation will never occur. There are always other options thank killing. Why don't you just say that all killing is wrong. This is basically what you are saying. Are you attempting to be condescending? But, most people have found the risk to be acceptable. You are probably much more likely to die in a plane crash, or even using an electric blender, than you are to be executed as an innocent. I personally think that the risk is acceptable, but in an ideal moral system, no such risk is acceptable. "Acceptable" is the fudge factor necessary in such an approximation to the ideal. keith 
alt.atheism	keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)	California Institute of Technology, Pasadena	Re: <Political Atheists?	 Are we talking about me, or the majority of the people that support it? Anyway, I think that "revenge" or "fairness" is why most people are in favor of the punishment. If a murderer is going to be punished, people that think that he should "get what he deserves." Most people wouldn't think it would be fair for the murderer to live, while his victim died. Perhaps you think that it is petty and pathetic, but your views are in the minority. Where are we required to have compassion, forgiveness, and sympathy? If someone wrongs me, I will take great lengths to make sure that his advantage is removed, or a similar situation is forced upon him. If someone kills another, then we can apply the golden rule and kill this person in turn. Is not our entire moral system based on such a concept? Or, are you stating that human life is sacred, somehow, and that it should never be violated? This would sound like some sort of religious view. Once a criminal has committed a murder, his desires are irrelevant. And, you still have not answered my question. If you are concerned about the death penalty due to the possibility of the execution of an innocent, then why isn't this same concern shared with imprisonment. Shouldn't we, by your logic, administer as minimum as punishment as possible, to avoid violating the liberty or happiness of an innocent person? keith 
alt.atheism	keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)	California Institute of Technology, Pasadena	Re: Political Atheists?	 Why are only those people in favor of the system to blame. If society accepts such a system, then each member of society is to blame when an innocent person gets executed. Those that are not in favor should work to convince others. And, most members of our society have accepted the blame--they've considered the risk to be acceptable. Similarly, every person who drives must accept the blame for fatal traffic accidents. This is something that is surely going to happen when so many people are driving. It is all a question of what risk is acceptable. It is much more likely that an innocent person will be killed driving than it is that one will be executed. keith 
alt.atheism	bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)	Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.	Re: Don't more innocents die without the death penalty?	 I answer from the position that we would indeed place these people in prison for life. That depends not only on their predisposition towards murder, but also in their success rate at escape and therefore their ability to commit the same crimes again. In other words, if lifetime imprisonment doesn't work, perhaps it's not because we're not executing these people, but because we're not being careful enough about how we lock them up. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
alt.atheism	bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)	Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.	Re: Ancient islamic rituals	 Damn right you can't provide any evidence for it. Rarely are any widespread social phenomenon reducible to such a simple premise. If they were, psychology would be a hard science with roughly the same mathematical soundness as physics. Your premise may well be right. It is much more likely, however, that it reflects your socialization and religious background, as well as your need to validate your religious beliefs. Were I to pretend to have all the answers (and I don't), I would say that the xenophobia, guilt, and intolerance brought about by adherence to fundamentalist religions play just as large a role in depressing the members of our society. Your mileage obviously varies. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
alt.atheism	bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)	Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.	Re: <Political Atheists?	 Yes, I do. My argument is that the sole purpose of the death penalty is to kill people. That is it's primary (and I would argue only) purpose. To continue to kill people by a practice that has almost no utility, especially when you know you will be killing innocents, is unconscionable. At the very least, the existence of the prison system and our transportation system are based on their merits to society, not their detriments. We are willing to accept a few lost innocent lives because there is an overwhelming benefit to the continued existence of these systems. One has to stretch the evidence and the arguments to make the same claim for capital punishment. punsihment system that kills innocent people and provides us with no net positive gain. Why? Were you to pin me in a corner and ask, I would have to respond that I don't belief the state should have the right to take life at all. But I won't open that debate, as it seems others are tiring of this thread on a.a anyway. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
alt.atheism	halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)		Re: There must be a creator! (Maybe)	 [...stuff deleted...] Computers are an excellent example...of evolution without "a" creator. We did not "create" computers. We did not create the sand that goes into the silicon that goes into the integrated circuits that go into processor board. We took these things and put them together in an interesting way. Just like plants "create" oxygen using light through photosynthesis. It's a much bigger leap to talk about something that created "everything" from nothing. I find it unfathomable to resort simply are incapable of understanding our beginnings -- if there even were beginnings at all. And that's ok with me. The present keeps me perfectly busy. -jim halat 
comp.graphics	lipman@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Robert Lipman)	Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD	CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS: Navy SciViz/VR Seminar	 CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS NAVY SCIENTIFIC VISUALIZATION AND VIRTUAL REALITY SEMINAR Tuesday, June 22, 1993 Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (formerly the David Taylor Research Center) Bethesda, Maryland one-day Navy Scientific Visualization and Virtual Reality Seminar. The purpose of the seminar is to present and exchange information for Navy-related scientific visualization and virtual reality programs, research, developments, and applications. Navy-related scientific visualization and virtual reality. All current work, works-in-progress, and proposed work by Navy organizations will be considered. Four types of presentations are available. attend the seminar) 4. Scientific visualization or virtual reality demonstration (BYOH) Accepted presentations will not be published in any proceedings, however, viewgraphs and other materials will be reproduced for seminar attendees. Robert Lipman Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division Code 2042 Bethesda, Maryland 20084-5000 VOICE (301) 227-3618; FAX (301) 227-5753 E-MAIL lipman@oasys.dt.navy.mil Authors should include the type of presentation, their affiliations, addresses, telephone and FAX numbers, and addresses. Multi-author papers should designate one point of contact. Notification of acceptance will be sent by May 14, 1993. Materials for reproduction must be received by June 1, 1993. For further information, contact Robert Lipman at the above address. PLEASE DISTRIBUTE AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE, THANKS. The sixth sick shiek's sixth sheep's sick. 
comp.graphics	weston@ucssun1.sdsu.edu (weston t)	SDSU Computing Services	graphical representation of vector-valued functions	 gnuplot, etc. make it easy to plot real valued functions of 2 variables but I want to plot functions whose values are 2-vectors. I have been doing this by plotting arrays of arrows (complete with arrowheads) but before going further, I thought I would ask whether someone has already done the work. Any pointers?? thanx in advance Department of Philosophy | (619) 594-6218 (office) San Diego State Univ. | (619) 575-7477 (home) San Diego, CA 92182-0303 | 
comp.graphics	rap@coconut.cis.ufl.edu (Ryan Porter)	Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.	Re: DMORPH	 DMorf (Dave's Morph, I think is what it means) and DTax (Dave's TGA Assembler) are available in the MSDOS_UPLOADS directory on the wuarchive. They are arjed and bundled with their respective xmemory versions, dmorfx.exe and dtax.exe, you can also find a version of aaplay.exe there, with which you can view files you create with dta.exe or dtax.exe. I downloaded the whole bunch last week and have been morphing away the afternoons since. The programmes are all a bit buggy and definitely not-ready-to-spread-to-the-masses, but they are very well written. The interface is frustrating at first, but it gets easy once you figure out the tricks. I have noticed that dmorfx will crash horribly if you try to morph without using the splines option. Not sure why, since I don't have the source. I think it was written for TP 6.0. If anyone else comes up with any other hints on getting the thing to work right, tell me; it took me several hours the first time just to figure out that if I just used the durned splines then it would work... -Ryan rap@cis.ufl.edu 
comp.graphics	kph2q@onyx.cs.Virginia.EDU (Kenneth Hinckley)	University of Virginia	VOICE INPUT -- vendor information needed	 Hello, I am looking to add voice input capability to a user interface I am developing on an HP730 (UNIX) workstation. I would greatly appreciate information anyone would care to offer about voice input systems that are easily accessible from the UNIX environment. The names or adresses of applicable vendors, as well as any experiences you have had with specific systems, would be very helpful. Please respond via email; I will post a summary if there is sufficient interest. Thanks, Ken P.S. I have found several impressive systems for IBM PC's, but I would like to avoid the hassle of purchasing and maintaining a separate PC if at all possible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Hinckley (kph2q@virginia.edu) University of Virginia Neurosurgical Visualization Laboratory ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
comp.graphics	joth@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Joe Tham)	Edmonton Remote Systems #2, Edmonton, AB, Canada	Where can I find SIPP?	 I recently got a file describing a library of rendering routines called SIPP (SImple Polygon Processor). Could anyone tell me where I can FTP the source code and which is the newest version around? Also, I've never used Renderman so I was wondering if Renderman is like SIPP? ie. a library of rendering routines which one uses to make a program that creates the image... Thanks, Joe Tham -- Joe Tham joth@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca 
comp.graphics	andrey@cco.caltech.edu (Andre T. Yew)	California Institute of Technology, Pasadena	Re: 16 million vs 65 thousand colors	 While I don't mean to damn Henrik's attempt to be helpful here, he's using a common misconception that should be corrected. Mach banding will occur for any image. It is not the color quantization you see when you don't have enough bits. It is the human eye's response to transitions or edges between intensities. The result is that colors near the transistion look brighter on the brighter side and darker on the darker side. --Andre -- Andre Yew andrey@cco.caltech.edu (131.215.139.2) 
comp.graphics	oehler@picard.cs.wisc.edu (Eric Oehler)	University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.	Translating TTTDDD to DXF or Swiv3D.	 I am a Mac-user when it comes to graphics (that's what I own software and hardware for) and I've recently come across a large number of TTTDDD format modeling databases. Is there any software, mac or unix, for translating those to something I could use, like DXF? Please reply via email. Thanx. Eric Oehler oehler@picard.cs.wisc.edu 
comp.graphics	alex@talus.msk.su (Alex Kolesov)	unknown	Help on RenderMan language wanted!	 Hello everybody ! If you are using PIXAR'S RenderMan 3D scene description language for creating 3D worlds, please, help me. I'm using RenderMan library on my NeXT but there is no documentation about NeXTSTEP version of RenderMan available. I can create very complicated scenes and render them using surface shaders, but I can not bring them to life by applying shadows and reflections. As far as I understand I have to define environmental and shadows maps to produce reflections and shadows, but I do not know how to use them. Any advises or simple RIB or C examples will be appreciated. Thanks in advance... --- Alex Kolesov Moscow, Russia. Talus Imaging & Communications Corporation . 
comp.graphics	rowlands@pocomoco.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Jon Rowlands)	Texas Instruments, SPDC, DSP Technology Branch, Dallas	Re: More gray levels out of the screen	 In article <1pp991$t63@cc.tut.fi>, jk87377@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Kouhia Juhana) [ description of experiment deleted ] [ more deleted ] A few years ago a friend and I took some 256 grey-level photos from a 1 bit Mac Plus screen using this method. Displaying all 256 levels synchronized to the 60Hz display took about 10 seconds. After experimenting with different aperture settings and screen brightnesses we found a range that worked well, giving respectable contrast. The quality of the images was pretty good. There were no visible contrast bands. To minimize the exposure time the display program built 255 different 1 bit frames. The first contained a dot only for pixels that had value 255, the second only for pixels that had value 254, etc. These frames were stored using a sparse data structure that was very fast to 'or' onto the screen in sequence. Creating these frames sometimes took 5-10 minutes on that old Mac, but the camera shutter was closed during that time anyway. And yes, we wrote directly to the screen memory. Mea culpa. Our biggest problem was that small images were displayed in the top left corner of the screen instead of the center. It took an extra week to have the film developed and printed, because the processors took the trouble to manually move the all images into the center of the print. Who'd have guessed? regards, Jon Rowlands 
comp.graphics	sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)	CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham	Re: More gray levels out of the screen	 Why didn't you create 8 grey-level images, and display them for 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128... time slices? This requires the same total exposure time, and the same precision in timing, but drastically reduces the image-preparation time, no? -- Kenneth Sloan Computer and Information Sciences sloan@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham (205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station (205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 
comp.graphics	lex@optimla.aimla.com (Lex van Sonderen)	Philips Interactive Media of America	Re: Rumours about 3DO ???	 Of course, I do not agree. It does have more horsepower. Horsepower is not the only measurement for 'better'. It does not have full motion, full screen video yet. Does it have CD-ROM XA? Which other manufacturers? We shall see about the date. This is second hand, but it still hard to look to the future ;-). Lex van Sonderen lex@aimla.com Philips Interactive Media 
comp.os.ms-windows.misc	lipman@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Robert Lipman)	Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD	CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS: Navy SciViz/VR Seminar	 CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS NAVY SCIENTIFIC VISUALIZATION AND VIRTUAL REALITY SEMINAR Tuesday, June 22, 1993 Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (formerly the David Taylor Research Center) Bethesda, Maryland one-day Navy Scientific Visualization and Virtual Reality Seminar. The purpose of the seminar is to present and exchange information for Navy-related scientific visualization and virtual reality programs, research, developments, and applications. Navy-related scientific visualization and virtual reality. All current work, works-in-progress, and proposed work by Navy organizations will be considered. Four types of presentations are available. attend the seminar) 4. Scientific visualization or virtual reality demonstration (BYOH) Accepted presentations will not be published in any proceedings, however, viewgraphs and other materials will be reproduced for seminar attendees. Robert Lipman Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division Code 2042 Bethesda, Maryland 20084-5000 VOICE (301) 227-3618; FAX (301) 227-5753 E-MAIL lipman@oasys.dt.navy.mil Authors should include the type of presentation, their affiliations, addresses, telephone and FAX numbers, and addresses. Multi-author papers should designate one point of contact. Notification of acceptance will be sent by May 14, 1993. Materials for reproduction must be received by June 1, 1993. For further information, contact Robert Lipman at the above address. PLEASE DISTRIBUTE AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE, THANKS. The sixth sick shiek's sixth sheep's sick. 
comp.os.ms-windows.misc	bjorndahl@augustana.ab.ca	Augustana University College, Camrose, Alberta	Re: document of .RTF	 I got one from Microsoft tech support. -- Sterling G. Bjorndahl, bjorndahl@Augustana.AB.CA or bjorndahl@camrose.uucp Augustana University College, Camrose, Alberta, Canada (403) 679-1100 
comp.os.ms-windows.misc	srg3sir@grv.grace.cri.nz	Industrial Research Ltd., New Zealand.	re: WINBENCH 3.11 help -- graphics comparison?!?	 On my 386dx 33Mhz 4Mb RAM Winbench 2.5 24x v2.02 16.7M 1,668,274 v2.03 16.7M 1,668,985 v2.03 16 4,602,428 v2.03 256 7,635,278 Richard Mayston maystonr@grace.cri.nz 
comp.os.ms-windows.misc	rhc52134@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Richard)	University of Illinois at Urbana	Re: does dos6 defragment??	 I found the MS defrag looks very much like Norton Speedisk. Is it just a strip-down version of the later? I have both Norton Speedisk and Backup, so I was wondering if I need to install MS Backup? Richard 
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware	bobmon@cs.indiana.edu (Bob Montante)	dyskaryotic	WANTED: bus card for Logitech Mouse	 I've acquired an old Logitech Series 7 (3-button) mouse, and I'm told that this is a bus mouse. Does anyone want to unload an old (pc-clone) bus-card for this mouse? thanks. 
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware	glang@slee01.srl.ford.com (Gordon Lang)	Ford Motor Company Research Laboratory	Flame Therapy	 comp.sys.ibm.pc.flame.therapy anybody agree? 
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware	kudla@acm.rpi.edu (Robert Kudla)		Re: Warning on Copy II PC Board + Help on Copying?	 You realize, of course, that inevitably some anal retentive moron is going to come along and wag his fingers and his jowls in outrage that 999pt.]The Law[smcap][bold][font]. But that's irrelevant to the problem here. Windows came with my system, but on 5.25" disks. I hate using 5.25" disks, so I copied them over to high density 3.5"'s using xcopy. It worked fine. In fact, for a while I was changing configurations and whatnot so much that I decided to try putting them on the hard disk. Not only can you copy them over with one disk per directory, but if you want to, you can simply copy them all into one directory. Makes it a lot nicer when you're switching printer emulations around. Norton 6.0 I don't have much experience with, but when a friend's system crashed, we restored from a backup rather than from the originals, and it worked fine. This would imply that arj a -r norton the first time, you've got the whole thing. Never played with WP for Windows; I'm not too big of a fan of anything from Utah. Good luck.... For The Wages Of Sin Is (sic) Death And A Hefty Legal Bill! DO YOU OFFEND? Rob -- Rob kudla@acm.rpi.edu Keywords - Oldfield Jane's Leather Yes Win3.1 Phish light blue right Bondage r.e.m. DTP Steely Dan DS9 FNM OWL Genesis In the spaceship, the silver spaceship, the lion takes control..... 
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware	pm860605@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Peter J. McKinney)	Colorado State University	Re: PC keyboard	 A program in the archive keymap00.zip on simtel and mirror sites in the msdos/keyboard directory will do this. It is written in assembler and it best if you have a compiler to create a new keyboard map. It is possible, however, to use a binary editor to edit the provided compiled keyboard driver if you do not have a compiler. I used hexed100.zip, also available on simtel. Simply serach for the codes 00 01 02 03 to locate the biginning of the "normal" keyboard map. Then swap the codes for the keys that you wish to swap. See the keyboard directory of simtel for programs that report the scancode for each key to you (some bios programs also have this info). Good luck, - Pete ____________________________________________________________________________ | Peter J. McKinney pm860605@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu | | Electrohydrodynamic Laboratory | | Fluid Mechanics and Wind Engineering Program | | Civil Engineering Department | | Colorado State University | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware	glang@slee01.srl.ford.com (Gordon Lang)	Ford Motor Company Research Laboratory	Please help identify video hardware	 I need a device (either an ISA board or a subsystem) which will take two RGB video signals and combine them according to a template. The template can be as simple as a rectangular window with signal one being used for the interior and signal two for the exterior. But I beleive fancier harware may also exist which I do not want to exclude from my search. I know this sort of hardware exists for NTSC, etc. but I need it for RGB. Please email and or post any leads.... Gordon Lang (glang@smail.srl.ford.com -or- glang@holo6.srl.ford.com) 
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware	ry01@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (ROBERT YUNG)	Lehigh University	How long do monitors last????	 Well, my 14inch VGA 1024x758-interlacing 2.5 year old no brand monitor just bit the bullet. I pressed the power switch and a few seconds later, the power light went out with a POP. Gawd, it's only been two and half years. How long would normal monitors last? I think the problem with my monitor is the power switch... but the image was getting pretty dim anyway (I needed to have my contrast all the way to the max...). And the screen did flicker from time to time. Is this normal (hehehe) or do I just have the worst of luck??? *really* good one and get by with a cheap EGA monitor for now? I rather save my money to upgrade my 386SX to 486-66 though... Thanks! -- =============================================================================== Extensive effort is being applied on a fresh approach to the problem. We just hired three new guys; we'll let them kick it around for a while. ==================(Robert) Bobby Yung_____RY01@Lehigh.Edu====================== 
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware	"Calvin D. Swartzentruber" <cs6t+@andrew.cmu.edu>	Freshman, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA	ATTN: Ken Smith	 It is model number #7033D, a 14" interlaced .28dp. BTW, if you have a number to contact the company, that would really be helpful to. Thanks for replying. I was beginning to believe that I was never going to get a reply. I posted this on the netnews bboard because the first message I sent to you was returned, and I didn't know if my second message would get to you. Calvin 
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware	rmm@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (richard.m.maniscalco)	AT&T	Re: Share your optimization tips	 I remember reading somewhere (QEMM manual, I think) that STACK=9,256 is needed only for the Windows SETUP program. Otherwise, use STACK=0,0. Rich 
