[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" wrote in message


George,

I deleted AAPL-S from my list of subscribed newsgroups
because Arny, Phildo, and _you_ couldn't drop the
bull****.

That seems to me to be perfectly rational course of action.

If George and Phildo didn't crap all over my every post, I'd be very happy
to just post occasinally at AAPLS as I will.

As things stand, Geroge and Phildo spew far more against me than I ever
reply to of theirs.

If not me, then someone else. It's been that way at AAPLS for many, many
years.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 07:42:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aa0b4da.74375984@localhost
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:55:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Your problem is in the secular domain. You don't seem to
understand that we interpret everything we perceive, or
you're simply being obtuse.

No insult intended - that was literal fact. Faith is a
certainty based on no evidence while rationality is a
near-certainty based on as much evidence as possible.

Well in an exclude-middle sort of way.

Nobody does anything based on pure rationality and nobody does anything
based on pure faith. That's because humans are incapable of either. We're
not pure but rather we are composites, shades of grey, and kinda-sorta.

And you are mistaken about Atheism. This is how Atheism
works. I can't say whether there is a god or not, but
with absolutely no evidence for one I cannot simply
invent one to believe in.

If you say that you can't say whether there is a god or not, then you are an
agnostic. A true atheist *knows* that there is no God.

From a typical dictionary:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


If you say that agnosticism does not lead to a belief in god, then that
makes sense. I think that is in fact what you said.


No, I am not an agnostic. I have reviewed the evidence - or rather the
lack of it - and decided that the balance of probabilities comes down
powerfully on the side of there being no god, so that is my position.

You could also say that you believe that there is a god, but you don't agree
that there is any purpose to worshiping him. That's just not being
worshipful.


No, that is being Deist rather than Theist. It is perfectly possible
to hold a view that a god created the universe, but has not intervened
since - doesn't care what you do, who you sleep with etc. and doesn't
answer prayers. That is a Deist position.

I say that there is no scientific reason to believe in God. I believe in God
primarily due to my faith. I believe that it is good to worship God because
of my faith.


Really?


There are two types of Atheist. Those who do not believe
in a God, but wish there were one, and those who do not,
and are grateful that there is no evidence for one.

All fine and good, but irrelevant to the discussion that remains unresolved.



The discussion cannot be resolved for the very reason that prompted
this post. One side (that's me) is arguing from a position of
rationality. Were you arguing from that standpoint and simply mistaken
I could convince you by force of logic. You aren't doing that. You are
arguing from the irrational basis of faith, which is not susceptible
to a rational counter.

d

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 07:42:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

And you are mistaken about Atheism. This is how Atheism
works. I can't say whether there is a god or not, but
with absolutely no evidence for one I cannot simply
invent one to believe in.

If you say that you can't say whether there is a god or not, then you are an
agnostic. A true atheist *knows* that there is no God.

That's just a wriggle. When something is extremely unlikely and there
is no evidence it exists you don't need to invent an "-ism" in order
to not believe in it.

[Scott Dorsey]

TimR wrote:
On Sep 1, 9:41=A0am, Michael Dobony wrote:
out. This is off-topic, but like sound reinforcement, it is an issue not
considered by church architects, do you have RV hookup for evangelists wh=
o
live on the road? I know of many evangelists who live out of RV's and I
have not been to any churches that think ahead when building to accommoda=
te
these people. Just a thought to consider.

Thanks for the thought. That won't be necessary for this particular
location but I'll keep it in mind for the future.

You know, that's an interesting idea. And it would sure made life easier
for the recording truck too...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aa2ff31.93407453@localhost

No, I am not an agnostic.

Ummm.

I have reviewed the evidence -
or rather the lack of it - and decided that the balance
of probabilities comes down powerfully on the side of
there being no god, so that is my position.

Hmm, so you based a logical decision in a situation where the evidence is
lacking, purely on the basis of reason?

I'm too much of a skeptic to buy that. It may be just me, but this is me
speaking, and that is what I think.

BTW much of my thinking, technical and otherwise is based on intuition.
Some would say that this is because I'm an ENTJ but then some very
well-experienced people who know me well say that I'm not really an ENTJ,
but rather I adopted the style of an ENTJ at some point in my life. My
response is yes, I probably did that to redefine myself around the age of 16
to resolve a situation caused by the mental illness of my mother.

Some would say, well you are also mentally ill because you are a Christian.
I say, well me and about a billion other people... ;-)

I think its good when Christians and non-Christians let it go and get on
with the areas where we have productive common interests.

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
TimR wrote:
On Sep 1, 9:41=A0am, Michael Dobony wrote:
out. This is off-topic, but like sound reinforcement, it is an issue not
considered by church architects, do you have RV hookup for evangelists
wh=
o
live on the road? I know of many evangelists who live out of RV's and I
have not been to any churches that think ahead when building to
accommoda=
te
these people. Just a thought to consider.

Thanks for the thought. That won't be necessary for this particular
location but I'll keep it in mind for the future.

You know, that's an interesting idea. And it would sure made life easier
for the recording truck too...

it is standard in a event rider that the venue has to provide "shore power"
for the RV's/tour busses seperate and at no charge from the stage/lights
distro
George

[Arny Krueger]

"TimR" wrote in message


On Sep 1, 9:41 am, Michael Dobony
wrote:

For some reason the OP's posts are not coming through my
server and the above address is not receiving mail. You
say the design is well thought out. This is off-topic,
but like sound reinforcement, it is an issue not
considered by church architects, do you have RV hookup
for evangelists who live on the road? I know of many
evangelists who live out of RV's and I have not been to
any churches that think ahead when building to
accommodate these people. Just a thought to consider.

What would you do to make a sophisticated venue more hospitable to traveling
road shows?

Thanks for the thought. That won't be necessary for this
particular location but I'll keep it in mind for the
future.

I've hosted a number of these people and they generally layer their
technology on top of the bare, pre-technology venue. They use their own
lights, sound, and video. In many places this is the way to go, but it
obviously runs out of gas in large, sophisticated venues.

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
TimR wrote:
Michael Dobony wrote:
out. This is off-topic, but like sound reinforcement, it is an issue not
considered by church architects, do you have RV hookup for evangelists
wh=
o
live on the road? I know of many evangelists who live out of RV's and I
have not been to any churches that think ahead when building to
accommoda=
te
these people. Just a thought to consider.

Thanks for the thought. That won't be necessary for this particular
location but I'll keep it in mind for the future.

You know, that's an interesting idea. And it would sure made life easier
for the recording truck too...

A mega-church here in PDX has rather nice docking facilities
for itenerant video production trucks (5-6 triax runs to all the
typical camera locations), and nice 5-pole cam-lock power
panels good for several hundred amps, etc. But limited audio
connections (half a dozen lines, mostly tie-lines to the FOH
system).

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

George Gleason writes:
considered by church architects, do you have RV hookup for evangelists
who live on the road? I know of many evangelists who
live out of RV's and I
have not been to any churches that think ahead when building to
accommodate
these people.

You know, that's an interesting idea. And it would sure made life easier
for the recording truck too...

YEp, and sooner or later there will be one probably. Wish
more places had rv hookup.

it is standard in a event rider that the venue has to provide
"shore power" for the RV's/tour busses seperate and at no charge
from the stage/lights distro
OF course, but a lot don't think about it. Much easier if
it's already thought of, though.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:35:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aa2ff31.93407453@localhost

No, I am not an agnostic.

Ummm.

I have reviewed the evidence -
or rather the lack of it - and decided that the balance
of probabilities comes down powerfully on the side of
there being no god, so that is my position.

Hmm, so you based a logical decision in a situation where the evidence is
lacking, purely on the basis of reason?

I'm too much of a skeptic to buy that. It may be just me, but this is me
speaking, and that is what I think.

BTW much of my thinking, technical and otherwise is based on intuition.
Some would say that this is because I'm an ENTJ but then some very
well-experienced people who know me well say that I'm not really an ENTJ,
but rather I adopted the style of an ENTJ at some point in my life. My
response is yes, I probably did that to redefine myself around the age of 16
to resolve a situation caused by the mental illness of my mother.

The J bit is notably absent in the matter of religion. When you simply
accept something as being right, you are denying yourself judgment.
That is not healthy.

Some would say, well you are also mentally ill because you are a Christian.
I say, well me and about a billion other people... ;-)


I really wouldn't push that argument too far if I were you...

I think its good when Christians and non-Christians let it go and get on
with the areas where we have productive common interests.


In this case I am quite content to say that absence of evidence can be
taken as evidence of absence, certainly for a theist god although
maybe not a deist one. I have read the bible and have never seen a
word that could not have been imagined and written by a bronze age
Palestinian. If it were the word of god rather than man there would
have been at least something extraordinary in there that could not
have been known. As it is every scientific "fact" presented is simply
wrong.

As to your belief - you hold it because you are an American. Had you
been born in India you would have been a fervent Hindu, just as
convinced you are right. Had you been born in Libya you would have
been a Muslim. And so it goes for many thousands of religions. H. L.
Mencken drew up a list of Gods; I think he gave up the search
somewhere over 10,000. So here's a little problem for you. You are an
Atheist to every one of those gods - why is that? There is no evidence
that the one you have picked is any more correct than Thor or Zeus.
What are you going to do when you die? Perhaps you had better accept
Pascal's Wager with respect to every god on that list - and as many
others you can think of. Still with no certainty that you have the
right one of course.

As to letting it go, well up to a few years ago I was content to do
just that, but no more. 9/11 was a huge wakeup call to the world that
the Parties of God were on the rampage. Add to that nihilistic
Christians who can't wait for the Rapture and Fundamental Zionist Jews
who believe that if they can just steal all of Palestine for
themselves, they will prove worthy of the second coming and
Armageddon. And of course the situation is imminent where some of
these whackos will find themselves armed with nuclear and biological
weapons. So it is my belief that the next huge conflict will be
between religion and civilization - I intend that civilization will
win, and I do what I can, where I can, to make that happen. And of
course when the time comes, you will have to stand up and be counted.
Will you be on humanity's side?

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:35:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aa2ff31.93407453@localhost

No, I am not an agnostic.

Ummm.

I have reviewed the evidence -
or rather the lack of it - and decided that the balance
of probabilities comes down powerfully on the side of
there being no god, so that is my position.

Hmm, so you based a logical decision in a situation where the evidence is
lacking, purely on the basis of reason?

I'm too much of a skeptic to buy that. It may be just me, but this is me
speaking, and that is what I think.

BTW much of my thinking, technical and otherwise is based on intuition.
Some would say that this is because I'm an ENTJ but then some very
well-experienced people who know me well say that I'm not really an ENTJ,
but rather I adopted the style of an ENTJ at some point in my life. My
response is yes, I probably did that to redefine myself around the age of
16
to resolve a situation caused by the mental illness of my mother.

The J bit is notably absent in the matter of religion. When you simply
accept something as being right, you are denying yourself judgment.
That is not healthy.

Some would say, well you are also mentally ill because you are a
Christian.
I say, well me and about a billion other people... ;-)


I really wouldn't push that argument too far if I were you...

I think its good when Christians and non-Christians let it go and get on
with the areas where we have productive common interests.


In this case I am quite content to say that absence of evidence can be
taken as evidence of absence, certainly for a theist god although
maybe not a deist one. I have read the bible and have never seen a
word that could not have been imagined and written by a bronze age
Palestinian. If it were the word of god rather than man there would
have been at least something extraordinary in there that could not
have been known. As it is every scientific "fact" presented is simply
wrong.

As to your belief - you hold it because you are an American. Had you
been born in India you would have been a fervent Hindu, just as
convinced you are right. Had you been born in Libya you would have
been a Muslim. And so it goes for many thousands of religions. H. L.
Mencken drew up a list of Gods; I think he gave up the search
somewhere over 10,000. So here's a little problem for you. You are an
Atheist to every one of those gods - why is that? There is no evidence
that the one you have picked is any more correct than Thor or Zeus.
What are you going to do when you die? Perhaps you had better accept
Pascal's Wager with respect to every god on that list - and as many
others you can think of. Still with no certainty that you have the
right one of course.

As to letting it go, well up to a few years ago I was content to do
just that, but no more. 9/11 was a huge wakeup call to the world that
the Parties of God were on the rampage. Add to that nihilistic
Christians who can't wait for the Rapture and Fundamental Zionist Jews
who believe that if they can just steal all of Palestine for
themselves, they will prove worthy of the second coming and
Armageddon. And of course the situation is imminent where some of
these whackos will find themselves armed with nuclear and biological
weapons. So it is my belief that the next huge conflict will be
between religion and civilization - I intend that civilization will
win, and I do what I can, where I can, to make that happen. And of
course when the time comes, you will have to stand up and be counted.
Will you be on humanity's side?

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Every "great" nation and military action claims to have "god on thier side"
so god protects us while we slaughter Muslims, and God protects Muslims as
they slaughter us,why so much slaughtering?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 05:20:46 -0400, "George's Pro Sound Co."
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:35:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aa2ff31.93407453@localhost

No, I am not an agnostic.

Ummm.

I have reviewed the evidence -
or rather the lack of it - and decided that the balance
of probabilities comes down powerfully on the side of
there being no god, so that is my position.

Hmm, so you based a logical decision in a situation where the evidence is
lacking, purely on the basis of reason?

I'm too much of a skeptic to buy that. It may be just me, but this is me
speaking, and that is what I think.

BTW much of my thinking, technical and otherwise is based on intuition.
Some would say that this is because I'm an ENTJ but then some very
well-experienced people who know me well say that I'm not really an ENTJ,
but rather I adopted the style of an ENTJ at some point in my life. My
response is yes, I probably did that to redefine myself around the age of
16
to resolve a situation caused by the mental illness of my mother.

The J bit is notably absent in the matter of religion. When you simply
accept something as being right, you are denying yourself judgment.
That is not healthy.

Some would say, well you are also mentally ill because you are a
Christian.
I say, well me and about a billion other people... ;-)


I really wouldn't push that argument too far if I were you...

I think its good when Christians and non-Christians let it go and get on
with the areas where we have productive common interests.


In this case I am quite content to say that absence of evidence can be
taken as evidence of absence, certainly for a theist god although
maybe not a deist one. I have read the bible and have never seen a
word that could not have been imagined and written by a bronze age
Palestinian. If it were the word of god rather than man there would
have been at least something extraordinary in there that could not
have been known. As it is every scientific "fact" presented is simply
wrong.

As to your belief - you hold it because you are an American. Had you
been born in India you would have been a fervent Hindu, just as
convinced you are right. Had you been born in Libya you would have
been a Muslim. And so it goes for many thousands of religions. H. L.
Mencken drew up a list of Gods; I think he gave up the search
somewhere over 10,000. So here's a little problem for you. You are an
Atheist to every one of those gods - why is that? There is no evidence
that the one you have picked is any more correct than Thor or Zeus.
What are you going to do when you die? Perhaps you had better accept
Pascal's Wager with respect to every god on that list - and as many
others you can think of. Still with no certainty that you have the
right one of course.

As to letting it go, well up to a few years ago I was content to do
just that, but no more. 9/11 was a huge wakeup call to the world that
the Parties of God were on the rampage. Add to that nihilistic
Christians who can't wait for the Rapture and Fundamental Zionist Jews
who believe that if they can just steal all of Palestine for
themselves, they will prove worthy of the second coming and
Armageddon. And of course the situation is imminent where some of
these whackos will find themselves armed with nuclear and biological
weapons. So it is my belief that the next huge conflict will be
between religion and civilization - I intend that civilization will
win, and I do what I can, where I can, to make that happen. And of
course when the time comes, you will have to stand up and be counted.
Will you be on humanity's side?

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Every "great" nation and military action claims to have "god on thier side"
so god protects us while we slaughter Muslims, and God protects Muslims as
they slaughter us,why so much slaughtering?


God really likes slaughtering. He says so in the Bible. It's a kind of
hobby for him, I guess.

d

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

God ...

Don, I'd rather not get used to skipping your posts.

d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 19:24:12 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

God ...

Don, I'd rather not get used to skipping your posts.

d


Don't worry, I'm bored with it all now. No more posts on the subject.

d

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:35:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aa2ff31.93407453@localhost

No, I am not an agnostic.

Ummm.

I have reviewed the evidence -
or rather the lack of it - and decided that the balance
of probabilities comes down powerfully on the side of
there being no god, so that is my position.

Hmm, so you based a logical decision in a situation
where the evidence is lacking, purely on the basis of
reason?

I'm too much of a skeptic to buy that. It may be just
me, but this is me speaking, and that is what I think.

BTW much of my thinking, technical and otherwise is
based on intuition. Some would say that this is because
I'm an ENTJ but then some very well-experienced people
who know me well say that I'm not really an ENTJ, but
rather I adopted the style of an ENTJ at some point in
my life. My response is yes, I probably did that to
redefine myself around the age of 16 to resolve a
situation caused by the mental illness of my mother.

The J bit is notably absent in the matter of religion.

In your opinion. You don't know what I believe, how I beleive or why I
believe it.

When you simply accept something as being right,

Nothing simple about it.

you are denying yourself judgment. That is not healthy.

rejecting the faith of over a billion people to quote "out of hand" is not
exactly healthy either.

If someone says "I really looked at it", and their talk and walk supports
that, then it is what it is, However, "out of hand" is truely a no-brainer
and in the bad sense of that phase.


Some would say, well you are also mentally ill because
you are a Christian. I say, well me and about a billion
other people... ;-)

I really wouldn't push that argument too far if I were
you...

Yes another dismissal, and with a parting insult.

I think its good when Christians and non-Christians let
it go and get on with the areas where we have productive
common interests.

In this case I am quite content to say that absence of
evidence can be taken as evidence of absence, certainly
for a theist god although maybe not a deist one.

Your make the mistake of demaning absolute evidence for God while accepting
a great many other things on faith.

I have read the bible and have never seen a word that could not
have been imagined and written by a bronze age
Palestinian.

That's pretty sad given that much of the Bible was written by folks who were
clearly in the iron age, going back at least as far as David.

If it were the word of god rather than man
there would have been at least something extraordinary in
there that could not have been known. As it is every
scientific "fact" presented is simply wrong.

That's wrong. There is a great deal of scientific confirmation for much of
what the Bible says. But what to say to someone who does know know that
David had iron armor, but rather thinks it was all bronze or worse?

As to your belief - you hold it because you are an
American.

No, I hold it because of who I grew up with and the things that I have
experienced. There are tens of millions of Americans who don't believe in
God and I could easily be one of them. Many of schoolmates were.

Had you been born in India you would have been
a fervent Hindu,

Plenty of atheists and Christians there. 24 million Christians in India
according to Wikipedia.

just as convinced you are right.

But, I'm not all that convinced I am right. You are obviously far more
convinced that you are right than I.

[Arny Krueger]

"George's Pro Sound Co." wrote in message
m

Every "great" nation and military action claims to have
"god on thier side" so god protects us while we slaughter
Muslims, and God protects Muslims as they slaughter
us,why so much slaughtering?

George, everybody who sees your incessant hate-mongering on AAPLS should
understand why people slaughter each other. :-(

[DIANE KIRK]

Originally Posted by TimR

I'm a little embarassed to even ask this one, but maybe somebody can
point me in the right direction. The recent thread on lecture halls
was VERY instructive.

I'm building a church. Actually it's the first of three I'm funded
for.

My employer requires me to use a cookie cutter standard design. And,
wonder of wonders, it's actually quite well thought out. Even the
HVAC is not too bad - although as a mechanical engineer I could fix
that if it weren't.

Unfortunately there is no sound system design beyond "include a sound
system." Why that was missed I don't know, when every detail of
foundation, plumbing, electrical, etc., was included, but it was, and
I have to deal with it.

And while I'm a musician I'm not knowledgable about sound systems.
I'm sure you can't make me an expert, any more than I could teach HVAC
design in one post, but ....... are there any suggestions?

I can post dimensions, etc., if that helps; there are even layout
drawings available online, though I'm kind of going to give up
plausible deniability once I post that link.

Lighting, Sound and Ventilation Solutions for the House of Worship: An Exploration of Creative Design Alternatives