[trs80]

There are some lower end receivers now saying THX certified?
what does that mean?
WIll that make any difference for the average hometheater?
I was looking at the vsxPionner 1016 which is THX certified or the 816 with
same features but not certified
thanks!

[MD]

trs80 wrote:

There are some lower end receivers now saying THX certified?
what does that mean?
WIll that make any difference for the average hometheater?
I was looking at the vsxPionner 1016 which is THX certified or the 816 with
same features but not certified
thanks!


THX was created to ensure products had enough amplifier power headroom
(instant loudness capability) to meet what they believed (Spielberg)
realistic movie sound. For most rooms it's not crucial because they are
not very large. If you listen very loud and are in a very large room
then it may be worthwhile

[Howard Ferstler]

trs80 wrote:
There are some lower end receivers now saying THX certified?
what does that mean?
WIll that make any difference for the average hometheater?
I was looking at the vsxPionner 1016 which is THX certified or the 816 with
same features but not certified
thanks!

For your purposes, THX is actually a Lucasfilm Corporation
performance certification program for A/V hardware and
software. Although the program began with movie theaters
(the first film shown in a THX-certified theater was Return
of the Jedi), it later spread to home-theater equipment and
even discs and tapes.

THX certification involves quality-control and compatibility
standards for hardware and software, but it also involves
special emendations to those standards for supposedly
enhanced performance, particularly if every component in a
home A/V system (players, speakers, processors, amplifiers,
and even wires) is so certified.

The latest versions of the parameters involve two levels:
THX Ultra and THX Select. The former is generally for
elaborate processors, standards for greater amplification,
and for more substantial speakers that would normally be
used in larger rooms. The Select version involves somewhat
less elaborate processing, smaller speakers and amps, and is
designed for installations that would be in more moderately
sized rooms.

Most processors and receivers that offer THX special
processing also allow you to bypass those, and in that case
the most important thing would be the part of the
certification process that insures that amps, players, and
speakers achieve certain minimum, but still basic,
standards. Surprisingly, there are some well-regarded
components that cannot do this. However, there are also
components that are not formally THX certified that could
easily achieve those performance requirements, and even go
well beyond them.

Lucasfilm requires that manufacturers who offer products
with the certification label pay a small kickback percentage
for the marketing honor.

Howard Ferstler

[Eeyore]

trs80 wrote:

There are some lower end receivers now saying THX certified?
what does that mean?
WIll that make any difference for the average hometheater?
I was looking at the vsxPionner 1016 which is THX certified or the 816 with
same features but not certified

It's a marketing thing.

Graham

[Howard Ferstler]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:
snip

For your purposes, THX is actually a Lucasfilm Corporation
performance certification program for A/V hardware and
software. Although the program began with movie theaters
(the first film shown in a THX-certified theater was Return
of the Jedi), it later spread to home-theater equipment and
even discs and tapes.

THX certification involves quality-control and compatibility
standards for hardware and software, but it also involves
special emendations to those standards for supposedly
enhanced performance, particularly if every component in a
home A/V system (players, speakers, processors, amplifiers,
and even wires) is so certified.

The performance requirements for THX certification of units are,
themselves, a trade secret. On principle I refuse to purchase any THX
certified product.

Suit yourself. I will point out that the manufacturers I
have contacted regarding the performance requirements have
told me that although they were contract bound to not reveal
them, those standards are decently rigorous. A few of these
manufacturers also passed on joining the parade, because
they either thought it was a waste of their money (they
could easily have made the grade but felt that their
customer base would not care) or because (as was the case
with a speaker manufacturer) they felt that the parameters
were not their cup of dispersion/radiation-pattern tea.

Look at it this way, whatever one might think of the THX
parameters, one will certainly not get a dud product
(particularly regarding electronics) if what they purchase
is so certified. However, I am not saying that non-certified
products (including electronics) would always be inferior.
Some certainly would be, though. For example, I rather doubt
that any tube-type component could make the grade, and
certainly no single-ended triode amp could.

THX is, IMO, a guarantee of mediocrity. Many superior products cannot
meet the secret standards.

Right, which is why it is not a bad idea to opt for
components that achieve those standards if one is looking
for a really safe purchase. It seems odd that one would care
to own a so-called superior product that could not meet the
kind of very basic standards that the Lucasfilm people have
come up with. If that product could not meet the minimum
performance standards (and here I am not talking about the
signal-manipulating standards, but just the basic
amp-performance or preamp-performance standards), one would
be foolish to purchase that product.

I prefer to judge for myself what is and is
not good.

Mediocrity is in the eye of the beholder. The THX people are
obviously aware, as am I, that proper amp performance is
really no big deal. They do require things like a
minimum-level output impedance and of course a minimum
power-output ability. However, they do not subscribe to some
of the weird and esoteric standards that certain high-end
operations feel are important. As noted before, many
so-called high-end amps would not be able to meet THX
standards, and I am talking about units that might be quite
expensive. Most DVD players would do well enough to satisfy
even discriminating viewers, but those products are often so
normally high in quality that most companies do not see the
point in joining the club. A few upscale models, do,
however, with the companies willing to pay for
certification, and one can be sure that those do manage to
deliver perhaps a slightly better picture than non-THX
versions. Sound quality (DD, DTS, and CD) should be pretty
much the same with just about all units, THX certified or not.

I would hazard the opinion that a THX Ultra certified
receiver would have superior amplifier and preamplifier
performance to a fair number of esoteric, non-certified
amp/preamp combinations that cost way, way more. Add to that
the fact that the THX versions would also have excellent
surround processing and additional channels, and anyone can
see that THX Ultra certification is not a bad thing at all
with high-end gear. As for cheaper stuff, it looks as if
those on a budget would do well to strongly consider THX
Select products if they do not want to take chances.

I will admit that when reviewing products for The Sensible
Sound and The Audiophile Voice in the past, many of those
that were not certified performed admirably, and were equal
to any of the THX stuff, or even a tad better. Of course,
many of the THX certified products exceeded minimum
standards by a wide margin, as well.

Howard Ferstler

[trs80]

ok. great input thanks. Sounds like its something i can live without.

"trs80" wrote in message
news:E_dPg.49451$ok5.13210@dukeread01...
There are some lower end receivers now saying THX certified?
what does that mean?
WIll that make any difference for the average hometheater?
I was looking at the vsxPionner 1016 which is THX certified or the 816
with same features but not certified
thanks!

[dizzy]

Howard Ferstler wrote:

I would hazard the opinion that a THX Ultra certified
receiver would have superior amplifier and preamplifier
performance to a fair number of esoteric, non-certified
amp/preamp combinations that cost way, way more. Add to that
the fact that the THX versions would also have excellent
surround processing and additional channels, and anyone can
see that THX Ultra certification is not a bad thing at all
with high-end gear. As for cheaper stuff, it looks as if
those on a budget would do well to strongly consider THX
Select products if they do not want to take chances.

Me too.

What I didn't see anyone mention, at least explicitly, is that there's
some real good reasons not to make speakers that comply with the THX
standard. However for a surround processor/reciever/amplifier, I
can't see it ever being a bad thing...

[Margaret von B]

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
news:450de4c9@kcnews01...

Suit yourself. I will point out that the manufacturers I have contacted

In english, this means that Numbnuts talked to Roy Allison.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Eeyore]

Bret Ludwig wrote:


Look at it this way, whatever one might think of the THX
parameters, one will certainly not get a dud product
(particularly regarding electronics) if what they purchase
is so certified. However, I am not saying that non-certified
products (including electronics) would always be inferior.
Some certainly would be, though. For example, I rather doubt
that any tube-type component could make the grade, and
certainly no single-ended triode amp could.

Without KNOWING those standards, how can we say? But since push-pull
tube amplifiers with feedback can do as well as most solid state amps
in practice actually do-albeit at much higher cost and weight-my guess
is that may not be so, unless they specify extremes of bandwidth or
damping factor.

A Marantz 8B and a pair of LaScalas, bone stock, from 1965, even with
all their known flaws, will still beat many High End systems bought for
much higher prices today than even those units command on the vintage
market.

You need to listen to some decent modern gear !

Since it's relatively trivial to make blameless s.s. electronics I'd suggest
focussing on the loudspeaker and suggest some of the kit from these guys.
http://www.badaweb.co.uk/pmc/news.html

Graham

[Howard Ferstler]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
Look at it this way, whatever one might think of the THX
parameters, one will certainly not get a dud product
(particularly regarding electronics) if what they purchase
is so certified. However, I am not saying that non-certified
products (including electronics) would always be inferior.
Some certainly would be, though. For example, I rather doubt
that any tube-type component could make the grade, and
certainly no single-ended triode amp could.

Without KNOWING those standards, how can we say? But since push-pull
tube amplifiers with feedback can do as well as most solid state amps
in practice actually do-albeit at much higher cost and weight-my guess
is that may not be so, unless they specify extremes of bandwidth or
damping factor.

I doubt if any reasonably priced and reasonably heavy tube
amp would be able to get up to the minimum power-output
requirements of the THX Ultra standard.

Damping is no big deal, but a lot of tube amps would have
trouble meeting even typical mid-priced receiver quality
standards, let alone the THX mandate.

A Marantz 8B and a pair of LaScalas, bone stock, from 1965, even with
all their known flaws, will still beat many High End systems bought for
much higher prices today than even those units command on the vintage
market.

Whatever.

Howard Ferstler

[Eeyore]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

A good rule of thumb is to find the power handling to weight ratio of
modulation transformers used in plate modulated AM transmitters

What has this got to do with audio ?

Graham

[Howard Ferstler]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:

I doubt if any reasonably priced and reasonably heavy tube
amp would be able to get up to the minimum power-output
requirements of the THX Ultra standard.

How much power is that?

I believe that it once was 100 audibly clean watts, on all
five channels, and probably also 100 watts on the
center-back channel. Current Select standards (which assume
smaller listening rooms) might be more lax. Current Ultra
standards might mandate more power.

The standards are decently clear when it comes to what kind
of environment (size) the stuff will occupy. I believe that
the standards mandate inaudible distortion up to amp
clipping levels. I know that some buffs believe that all
amps exhibit varying audible distortion characteristics, and
it is obvious that they might have problems with the THX
approach to amp sound.

Note that while the THX parameters regarding amp performance
are made purposely opaque to outsiders, the manufacturers
who produce certified components are still free to list a
full compendium of specifications.

FWIW several 300-400 watt units were and are commercially available,
including McIntosh's MC3500 and several ARC and VTL units.

Yes, but I think you will find that most high-end tube amps
available these days fall far short of both the units you
listed, as well as of the THX standards. I would be
suspicious of the "sound" of some esoteric amps (standard
tube jobs, as well as SET versions), whereas one can be
reasonably sure that a THX certified amp will both achieve
THX standards but also achieve the listed specifications
that come in the operator's manual.

Again, if they won't tell us the spec, how can we determine its
relevancy??

Obviously, THX is a faith-based system. (Feel free to
laugh.) All the amp parameters guarantee is clean output up
to the clipping point, when driving THX certified speakers,
which themselves are designed to not exhibit oddball load
characteristics. Given the ease with which amps can be built
to audibly clean standards, the THX parameters should be no
big deal, in my opinion. The primary focus of the standards
with electronic gear involves surround-sound emendations.
THX also certifies wire, which I find ridiculous on the
surface, but at least the certification guarantees that the
stuff will not fall apart.

I think that the amp, preamp, and surround-processor
standards work quite well for even serious audio buffs, as
well as for those who want to shop easily for gear that will
do a good job. I think that a typical enthusiast would get a
safer deal by obtaining THX certified gear than they would
if they listened to a typical high-end, sales-clerk guru.
His odds of getting clean sound are better.

Note that the only THX certified components I own are three
Rane equalizers. Everything else is non certified, and yet
with the amps I get all the power and performance I need. As
for speakers, I think that mine equal or surpass the THX
standards, which are more movie oriented than
music-reproduction oriented.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the Irreparably Hearing-Impaired chanted:

I believe that it once was 100 audibly clean watts

Everybody should bear in mind that Clerkie's hearing is substantially
subpar. What is "audibly clean" to Harold is noisy and dirty to 99% of
everybody else.

but I think you will find that most high-end tube amps
available these days fall far short of both the units you
listed, as well as of the THX standards.

Of course, Harold hasn't been in the same room with a tube amp for 20
years, and all he knows of "high-end tube amps" is the pictures he clips
from magazines.

"THX standards" are, of course, wholly irrelevant to music reproduction.

Obviously, THX is a faith-based system.

That explains why you're so enthralled with it, Brother Horace. Would you
like to lead us in a "Hail Lucas" chant?

I think that the amp, preamp, and surround-processor
standards work quite well for even serious audio buffs

Once again, Clerkie departs from the reality known to real music lovers.
"Audio buffs" is his pet term for trend-sucking, gadget-happy bubbleheads
who, like Clerkie himself, strive to fill up every square foot of their
abodes with the latest whiz-bang electronic gimmickry. What the heck -- it
all sounds the same anyway, right?




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Brother Horace the Irreparably Hearing-Impaired chanted:

I believe that it once was 100 audibly clean watts

Everybody should bear in mind that Clerkie's hearing is substantially
subpar. What is "audibly clean" to Harold is noisy and dirty to 99% of
everybody else.

but I think you will find that most high-end tube amps
available these days fall far short of both the units you
listed, as well as of the THX standards.

Of course, Harold hasn't been in the same room with a tube amp for 20
years, and all he knows of "high-end tube amps" is the pictures he clips
from magazines.

"THX standards" are, of course, wholly irrelevant to music reproduction.

Obviously, THX is a faith-based system.

That explains why you're so enthralled with it, Brother Horace. Would you
like to lead us in a "Hail Lucas" chant?

I think that the amp, preamp, and surround-processor
standards work quite well for even serious audio buffs

Once again, Clerkie departs from the reality known to real music lovers.
"Audio buffs" is his pet term for trend-sucking, gadget-happy bubbleheads
who, like Clerkie himself, strive to fill up every square foot of their
abodes with the latest whiz-bang electronic gimmickry. What the heck -- it
all sounds the same anyway, right?

Gosh, if it sounds the same, the THX required "Cinema Re-eq" and
boundary compensations must not do anything at all.

Stephen

[Howard Ferstler]

dizzy wrote:

What I didn't see anyone mention, at least explicitly, is that there's
some real good reasons not to make speakers that comply with the THX
standard. However for a surround processor/reciever/amplifier, I
can't see it ever being a bad thing...

Apparently, there are standards regarding radiation pattern
that enhance clarity, but somewhat constrain the broad-band
radiation pattern. This is not to say that it is as rigidly
constrained as, say, the Dunlavy Cantatas that I use in my
"middle-sized" AV system. The Cantatas stress clarity and
focus over spacious, reverberant sound. However, it is
certainly narrower than the ultra-wide dispersion exhibited
by the Allison IC-20 systems I have in my bigger AV system.
Dispersion that wide can make large-scale musical recordings
deliver an enveloping effect that enhances realism. However,
it would tend to overdo things with some movie soundtracks.

Of course, both of my systems employ a center speaker (built
by me to dovetail with the spectral and dispersion
characteristics of the left and right mains), and so I get
focus from the center channel when I employ a derived and
steered center with two-channel recordings - thanks to the
on-board decoding of my surround processors. I also employ
front "effects" speakers (yes, the processors are Yamaha
built) to add spaciousness to both installations. This works
very well, indeed, with the Dunlavy mains.

There are also bass rolloff requirements with the satellites
that allow them to dovetail properly with the electronic
crossover network found in THX certified surround processors
and receivers.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Margaret von B wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message

Suit yourself. I will point out that the manufacturers I have contacted

In english, this means that Numbnuts talked to Roy Allison.

Among others.

PS: the word English should be capitalized.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the Punctiliously Pedantic prated:

PS: the word English should be capitalized.

Henceforth, the word ferstler shall be lowercase in recognition of the
owner's track record of plagiarism, dishonesty, and scuzziness.





--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Sander deWaal]

"Soundhaspriority" said:


Brother Horace the Punctiliously Pedantic prated:

PS: the word English should be capitalized.


Henceforth, the word ferstler shall be lowercase in recognition of the
owner's track record of plagiarism, dishonesty, and scuzziness.


Be careful in jibing the undead Ferstler. We all wish him a speedy return to
his tomb of unread books.


Speaking strictly for myself, I have found some new respect for
Howard.
He showed the capability of independent critical thinking wrt.
religion and its influence on human behaviour.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Howard Ferstler]

Sander deWaal wrote:

Speaking strictly for myself, I have found some new respect for
Howard.
He showed the capability of independent critical thinking wrt.
religion and its influence on human behaviour.

Many thanks.

I have already revised one of the posted questions: number
seven, dealing with social and personal ethics, needed some
intellectual upgrading with the second from last paragraph.
I had shortchanged both Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky:

Seventh question: is there a danger with having faith-based
ethical systems?

The seventeenth century philosopher Benedict Spinoza, like
the later philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and John S. Mill
(and even, shudder, Karl Marx), felt that religion helps to
keep confused and/or weak people in line. They saw it as a
necessary evil – well, admittedly, not Marx, who saw it as
an opiate. They would probably say that it would be nice if
people had the backbone to admit that the world and reality
are basically unjust, with no redemption (and with everybody
dying at the end), but most of them are just not up to the
task. They need religion (be it Christianity, Islam,
Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.) to offer up a simple
analysis of a complex world.

Believe it or not, if we are talking about society in
general, I tend to agree, and I believe that Spinoza would
be in agreement, too. I think that many individuals are just
not able to deal with reality – and they need a mythology of
some kind to stabilize their lives and give the whole
situation some kind of meaning. That the universe is just
outwardly random and amoral chaos (at least if we are
talking about everyday, common sense analysis) will not do
it for them.

On top of that, they also want to live forever, which may
actually be the bottom-line primary motive for having faith.
On the other hand, atheists are in the not altogether
enviable position of having nothing more than personal
integrity and courage to fall back upon in the long haul. No
afterlife rewards for them. It is scary being an atheist,
because philosophically you are all alone. However, being an
atheist also requires genuine courage, unlike what we have
with those who embrace an all-powerful deity.

Walter Kaufmann, a philosopher who taught at Princeton years
ago, said that while there may be no external god to keep us
in line and offer rewards (or punishments), a nonbeliever
could still live an ethical and courageous life. I think he
was correct, as evidenced by the fact that many nonbelievers
do indeed live ethical and courageous lives. (The
philosopher Aristotle even wrote a book dealing with ethics
that showed that people could be noble and moral, based upon
practical and socially related considerations.) However, on
the macro (as opposed to the micro) level, Nietzsche noted
that if God were eliminated from existing societies all hell
(pun intended) would break loose. The great Russian novelist
Feodor Dostoyevsky also was aware of this. On the micro
level, most people need a belief in God to keep things
personally stabilized, and on the macro level society itself
needs such beliefs to prevent chaos. Kill god, which
Nietzsche said we had already done, and everything is
permitted. Morals go out the window. Some people think this
is responsible for the growth of atheistic fascism in the
20th century.

Of course, some individuals believe that religious systems
have created this situation, and then must remain dominant
to keep the created situation from getting out of control.
If religion had never existed it would be possible to have
ethical societies that based their social behaviors on
feelings for the value of man and the need for order and
justice. (This reflects Aristotle’s approach, for example.)
However, because religion was created and expanded upon by
theologians for hundreds and hundreds of years, societies
have built behavior systems based upon a sense of coercion.
That is, one behaves sanely and correctly because God
desires such behavior. Consequently, take away that belief
in God and all bets are off; anything goes. Theologians have
essentially built a system that depends upon afterlife
rewards (Heaven) and punishment (Hell) to function, and
without those qualities people would go off the deep end.

Interestingly, while Nietzsche, who thought the situation
was untenable and spent quite a bit of time dealing with
this problem and how to solve it in his book-length essays,
Dostoyevsky, who was fully in favor of the religious status
quo, wrote several novels that illustrated just what would
go wrong if people started believing that God was a myth.
Both men were fully aware of the social impact of a belief
in God (independent of any discussion of whether or not he
actually exists), but both came up with different approaches
about what should or should not be done. Nietzsche wanted a
re-evaluation of values and proclaimed the “death of God” in
order to free man, whereas Dostoyevsky wanted society to
renew its faith in God, which he felt would be the only way
to make man truly free.

My take on this is that it is preposterous to believe that
the main reason people are good is because they want to suck
up to God. Being “good” is far more complex than that, and
does not require a belief in God at all. There have been
plenty of good Atheists throughout history, just like there
have been many religious zealots who have been anything but
good.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

Be careful in jibing the undead Ferstler. We all wish him a speedy return to
his tomb of unread books.

Hundreds left to go. Currently reading a comprehensive
history of colonial America.

Howard Ferstler

[Mr Fox]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:41:59 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Be careful in jibing the undead Ferstler. We all wish him a speedy return to
his tomb of unread books.

Hundreds left to go. Currently reading a comprehensive
history of colonial America.

Thanks for sharing. I am reading a book on fish.

Now what?

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...

Speaking strictly for myself, I have found some new respect for
Howard.
He showed the capability of independent critical thinking wrt.
religion and its influence on human behaviour.

If irony killed.

I'm still waiting for you to show the first sign of effective critical
thinking, Sander.

[Arny Krueger]

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
news:45184d00@kcnews01...


Seventh question: is there a danger with having faith-based ethical
systems?

The seventeenth century philosopher Benedict Spinoza, like the later
philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and John S. Mill (and even, shudder, Karl
Marx), felt that religion helps to keep confused and/or weak people in
line.

A critical logical flaw - Ferstler can't distinguish between faith and
religion.

I tried to explain it to you Howard, but it obviously flew right over your
head.

Try starting out with a dictionary Howard - faith and religion get different
entries and have different definitions. If you think about it long enough,
you might figure out that they are different things.

I'll get you started on your much-needed education in this matter Howard, by
posting the M-W defintions for the two words:

Main Entry: faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin
fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's
promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the
traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for
which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially
: a system of religious beliefs the Protestant faith
synonym see BELIEF
- on faith : without question took everything he said on faith

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin
religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice,
perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion b (1) :
the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or
devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" said:


Speaking strictly for myself, I have found some new respect for
Howard.
He showed the capability of independent critical thinking wrt.
religion and its influence on human behaviour.


If irony killed.........


I'd be glad to play Faure's "Requiem" in that case.


I'm still waiting for you to show the first sign of effective critical
thinking, Sander.


For that to happen, you must first realize what effective, critical
thinking actually *is*, Arny ;-)

Sorry, BTW, for being the cause of a pie fight between you and Howard.
Wasn't the intention, but it's fun watching you wriggling ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" said:


Speaking strictly for myself, I have found some new respect for
Howard.
He showed the capability of independent critical thinking wrt.
religion and its influence on human behaviour.


If irony killed.........


I'd be glad to play Faure's "Requiem" in that case.


I'm still waiting for you to show the first sign of effective critical
thinking, Sander.


For that to happen, you must first realize what effective, critical
thinking actually *is*, Arny ;-)

Lame IKWYABWAI.

Sorry, BTW, for being the cause of a pie fight between you and Howard.

Its a very unfair fight. Howard's ignorance of Christitanity is similar to
his ignorance about audio.

Wasn't the intention, but it's fun watching you wriggling ;-)

Joke, right.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" said:


Sorry, BTW, for being the cause of a pie fight between you and Howard.


Its a very unfair fight. Howard's ignorance of Christitanity is similar to
his ignorance about audio.


Ouch!


Wasn't the intention, but it's fun watching you wriggling ;-)


Joke, right.


"Agreed".

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" said:

Its a very unfair fight. Howard's ignorance of Christianity is similar to
his ignorance about audio.

Ouch!

To clarify - he knows enough to be dangerous to himself.

However, he did correctly suss out the DBT thing, more or less.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:11:25 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:



Sorry, BTW, for being the cause of a pie fight between you and Howard.

Its a very unfair fight. Howard's ignorance of Christitanity is similar to
his ignorance about audio.

Not sure I know much about "Christitanity" myself. Are you starting a
new religion, Arny?

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

Its a very unfair fight. Howard's ignorance of Christitanity is similar to
his ignorance about audio.

Not sure I know much about "Christitanity" myself. Are you starting a
new religion, Arny?

If so, it involves already-deconstructing newly-old vacuumly-tube gear for
bigot's. LOt"S! ;-)

NoT! ;-(

LOl! ;-;-))




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Howard Ferstler]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
news:45184d00@kcnews01...

Seventh question: is there a danger with having faith-based ethical
systems?

The seventeenth century philosopher Benedict Spinoza, like the later
philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and John S. Mill (and even, shudder, Karl
Marx), felt that religion helps to keep confused and/or weak people in
line.

A critical logical flaw - Ferstler can't distinguish between faith and
religion.

I'd like to see any religion survive without faith.

Howard Ferstler

[Arny Krueger]

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
news:4519795b@kcnews01...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
news:45184d00@kcnews01...

Seventh question: is there a danger with having faith-based ethical
systems?

The seventeenth century philosopher Benedict Spinoza, like the later
philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and John S. Mill (and even, shudder,
Karl Marx), felt that religion helps to keep confused and/or weak people
in line.

A critical logical flaw - Ferstler can't distinguish between faith and
religion.

I'd like to see any religion survive without faith.

Non-responsive to the issue I raised.

No fish can survive without water, but water and fish are well-known to be
two vastly different things.

[Mr Fox]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:07:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
news:4519795b@kcnews01...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
news:45184d00@kcnews01...

Seventh question: is there a danger with having faith-based ethical
systems?

The seventeenth century philosopher Benedict Spinoza, like the later
philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and John S. Mill (and even, shudder,
Karl Marx), felt that religion helps to keep confused and/or weak people
in line.

A critical logical flaw - Ferstler can't distinguish between faith and
religion.

I'd like to see any religion survive without faith.

Non-responsive to the issue I raised.

No fish can survive without water, but water and fish are well-known to be
two vastly different things.


Nonsense. A typical fish has a water content of 70-80%

[Howard Ferstler]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Its a very unfair fight. Howard's ignorance of Christitanity is similar to
his ignorance about audio.

Sure. Now, let's see just how sharp you are when it comes to
applying Christian logic to the questions below. Remember,
the first sentence of each is only the start. You have to
face up to the elaborations that follow. Apply the same
logic to your Christian beliefs as you do to tweako
attitudes about audio. Pay particular attention to questions
nine and ten. Note that a number of sections have been
updated from my initial post.

First question: Is God a bully, and is he even good?
In terms of rational, stabilized behavior (and this is
clearly evident throughout scripture), the God of Abraham
(who is worshipped by Christians, Muslims, and Jews, but of
course in different ways) often appears to be behaving like
a heavy who lacks self esteem. At least it seems this way if
we apply human standards of decency, fairness, and probity –
standards that God has supposedly given over to us as part
of his creative work.

For example, why is God so obsessed with having people
worship him? Why does this supposedly all-powerful being
fixate upon having humans pay him homage? If he is indeed
all-powerful he certainly would not need to be worshipped to
be fulfilled. Many would say that this demand to be
worshipped is a sign of weakness, not strength. A genuine
god would be satisfied completely by just being what he is,
namely, God. The Bible also indicates that God is “jealous,”
meaning that his wrath will descend upon those who either
have other gods before him or simply ignore him. God appears
to be slighted if he is not the center of attention – which
would be character flaw in a human being. A god that needs
this kind of attention is a god who is anything but strong
in character.

Yes, I realize he is God, and, jealous or not, he obviously
he makes the rules. But why didn’t he just build a good,
trouble-free and just world in which people could live
happily and then give them a decent afterlife as a reward
for living well? Why create such an unfair situation? Why
allow people to be punished who are basically victims of a
flawed creation job?

If a human being had this approach we would declare him to
be a borderline sociopath and obsessed with power for its
own sake. For some reason, Christians (and Muslims and Jews)
actually celebrate this kind of behavior in their god, as if
it is somehow the way a god should behave. However, a real
just and good god would be more magnanimous and would cut
people some slack. The last thing he would want would be for
his intelligent, free-thinking, independent, and precious
creations to grovel at his feet, and then be punished
forever if they did not comply with his demands.

A proper god certainly would not see his creations punished
for simply ignoring him, any more than a human parent would
allow someone to punish their children for doing the same thing.

Second question: does God want people to be his slaves?
God has the power to allow people to go to either heaven or
hell – or, shall we say, he makes it possible for people to
opt out of hell by accepting his gift of grace. However, in
order for anyone to receiver his grace and escape the fires
of damnation they must first declare their love of him (love
based upon what? a fear of going to hell!!) and also declare
that they realize that without his allowing this option they
are headed to the fires of damnation after they die. In
other words, in order to get on the good side of God one
must become his servant and by definition his slave.
Assuming this is the case, is this approach proper behavior
for a god? I mean, a human mother or father would not allow
their children to receive such punishment for minor
infractions, and yet we see no problem with God doing that
sort of thing with his children. Again, why doesn’t he just
cut people some slack and let them be judged by their deeds?
Why is God so extreme?

Third question: why hasn’t God given us a level playing field?
Unfortunately, the situation with God’s grace is even worse
than what we have outlined with the previous observation. It
appears that God has also arranged to make it easy for some
people to obtain grace. For example, church goers who were
raised in the faith, those who attend Billy Graham crusades
or Pat Robertson rallies, or those who watch televangelists,
etc., have many opportunities to hear the word and become
saved.

On the other hand, God has made it nearly impossible, or
even fully impossible for others to obtain similar grace.
For example, all of the Chinese and Indian peoples, and
Sub-Sahara African peoples, and North and South American,
and even European peoples who lived prior to Jesus showing
up or even for centuries after he showed up are at a huge
disadvantage. Ditto (if we digress to the Muslim point of
few for a moment) for those who failed to get the message
prior to Muhammad showing up. They did not have radio or TV
in those days, so televangelists could not get the word out
over a large area, and the disciples could not possibly
reach all of them after Jesus was resurrected (or were out
of range of Muhammad’s horsemen). Millions of people have
gone to hell simply because they were either too far away
from assorted apostles and preachers after the resurrection
to get the news, or lived and died before Jesus showed up.
They are victims of their time and place.

Yes, I realize that some people say that God has taken this
into account and that those people did indeed, in some way,
have a chance, but to the best of my knowledge there is no
mention of this in the Bible. (In the old days, Quakers had
a solution for this dilemma: God makes himself known to all
through an inner light. However, I still see this as wishful
thinking and not as a solution to the dilemma.) And even if
those in distant lands or who were living during the wrong
time period still had some way to hear the word, so to
speak, it is still obvious that many people have had better
chances to get right with God than others. The playing field
has been anything but level.

On top of that we have scads of people who were able to hear
the "word" during their lifetimes, but were in such dire
straits or had had so many bad things happen to them during
those lifetimes that they would be inclined to think that no
"good" god would allow something like this to happen to
decent people. While some Christians thank God for not
letting one thousand people die during some natural
catastrophe when, say, only five hundred actually did (or
for losing only one arm during an accident instead of both
arms), a more rational person would be inclined to think
that no "good" god would have something so terrible happen
in the first place. If God is good, why is the world in such
sad shape? Why did an all-powerful God allow the world to
devolve into such a mess and let people be put into such
outrageous situations? Is it possible that God really is not
all powerful? Yeah, I suppose we could blame Adam and Eve
for getting things off to a bad start, but why should
everyone who followed them be punished for their foolishness?

Yes, I realize that a typical Christian answer to why bad
things sometimes happen to good people is that in the long
haul, as long as faith is maintained, they will be rewarded
– in heaven – by God. OK, this says that we can tolerate the
torture of people in the meantime, because later on those
same people will be with God and glory. I find this to be
rather weird, actually, given that other people are never
tortured this way during their lifetimes, live happily, and
then go smoothly to heaven after they die. The excuse comes
across as an apology for a flawed theological construct.
Torture now for some of you; but glory later. Just hang in
there.

Fourth question: does God reward ignorance?
Why is it that God has made it possible for anti-faith ideas
to be discovered and embraced by intelligent, curious and
scientifically minded people, who would then be inclined to
doubt the existence of God?

Here I am talking about things such as Darwin’s theory of
evolution, assorted geological discoveries that peg the
earth as being billions of years old, the big-bang theory,
the existence of other worlds circling other stars, the
creation and extinction of animals and whole species before
man ever showed up on earth, etc. At the same time, God
rewards less curious types who think that scientific
evidence was put on earth by God (or perhaps Satan) to fool
intellectuals and scientists and put them on the path to hell.

Why does God make it so difficult for intelligent people to
gain the faith and so easy for naïve and less well educated
people to obtain his grace? It looks like God desires for
people to stay dumb and submissive. Intellectuals need not
apply, because their innate skepticism and scientific
curiosity acts as a barrier to faith. Ironically, this
almost makes the case for not letting one’s children go to
college, particularly if they would be inclined to take
science and/or philosophy courses. The experience could
corrupt them.

Fifth question: is God truly just?
Rather than simply cause people who were bad when they were
alive to cease to exist after death, in other words, die and
be genuinely dead, God appears to have arranged for sinners
to remain alive after death and go to hell and burn there
forever. Yes, I realize that Christians will note that God
does not send people to Hell; rather they send themselves to
Hell for not accepting his grace. However, if God is all
powerful why has he allowed this kind of situation to exist
in the first place? Why not sweep Satan aside and allow the
world to become a full-time paradise, with people living
happily forever right here on earth?

Instead, what we have is a situation where there is no
simple "no afterlife" or "you are dead" punishment for those
who thwart God. They continue to live on in the afterlife
but become theological pot roast forever. And remember, you
get this treatment even if you only sinned a little bit but
still rejected god's gift of grace. The big sin is not being
a monster; rather, the big sin is rejecting God’s grace.
Hitler and Stalin get the same after-death treatment as some
rather nice person who still rejected God’s gift. Talk about
a vindictive attitude and lop-sided justice!

Actually, as I see it, the real vindictiveness comes from
the theologians who, over the centuries, have dreamed up
this mythology. If one cannot become a great military leader
and conquer societies by force or become an enterprising
captain of industry they should consider becoming a
theologian and then gain power by preaching fire and
brimstone, in addition to love. After all, the best a
general can do is command an army and maybe conquer physical
land areas, and the best an industrialist can do is amass
great wealth. On the other hand, a theologian can gain
ultimate power by promising eternal punishment in hell for
disobedience. You cannot become more of a top dog than that.

Sixth question: what does it mean to know that God is real?
Regarding any evidence that God even exists, we have to
first realize that there is a philosophical discipline
called “epistemology” that deals with how we know. That is,
while a believer may claim to “know” that their redeemer
lives, that kind of knowing, while perhaps psychologically
satisfying, is not really “knowing” at all. At best, it is
wishful thinking.

Religious people, particularly those who practice “creation
science,” will claim that their scientific theories (for
example, countering the age of the earth or disproving the
theory of evolution) are as good as those put forth by
secular scientists. However, there is an important
characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis that
differentiates it from an act of faith: a genuine scientific
theory must be falsifiable.

That is, there must be some experiment or possible discovery
that could potentially prove the theory untrue. For example,
Einstein's Theory of Relativity made predictions about the
results of experiments done many decades later to prove it
valid. These experiments could have produced results that
contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and for that
matter still is) falsifiable.

In contrast, the theory that “the moon is populated by
little green men who can read our minds and will hide
whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into
deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near” is not
falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can
ever see them. Their status cannot be rationally validated,
which means that the green-man “theory” is not a scientific
theory at all. On the other hand, the theory that there are
no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can
disprove it by catching one.

Similar arguments apply to abominable snowmen, Bigfoot,
flying saucers, the Loch Ness Monster, and, shall I say it,
God. Tell a religious person that mixing together two
different flavors of ice cream and then eating them can make
them invisible and they will no doubt require the person
making that statement to come up with some solid proof.
However, tell them that the book they keep by their bed was
indirectly written by an invisible deity who will punish
them with fire and brimstone for eternity if they fail to
accept its every incredible claim about the universe and the
nature of God and they will probably require no proof
whatsoever.

A frequent criticism made of the scientific method by
seriously religious people is that it cannot accommodate
anything that has not been proved. The argument then points
out that many things thought to be impossible in the past
are now everyday realities. However, this criticism is based
on a misinterpretation of the scientific method. When a
hypothesis passes the test and is adopted as a theory it
correctly explains a range of phenomena it can, at any time,
be falsified by new experimental evidence. When exploring a
new set or phenomena scientists do use existing theories
but, since this is a new area of investigation, it is always
kept in mind that the old theories might fail to explain the
new experiments and observations. In this case new
hypotheses are devised and tested until a new theory emerges.

There are many types of “pseudo-scientific” theories which
wrap themselves in a mantle of apparent experimental
evidence but that, when examined closely, are nothing but
statements of faith. For example, the argument, cited by
some religious creationists, that science is “just another
kind of faith” is a philosophic stance that ignores the
trans-cultural nature of science. Science’s theory of
gravity explains why both creationists and scientists don't
float off the earth. All you have to do is jump to verify
this theory – no leap of faith required. On the other hand,
a belief in God involves faith, and while one might think
that this is somehow self-evident, there is no way to prove
that it is anything but wishful thinking.

Of course, for 19th century existential theologians like
Kierkegaard (as well as today’s evangelicals and
fundamentalists) the whole attraction of the Christian
religion was its seeming absurdity – its absolute separation
from the realm of rational analysis. It was the
self-mandated, anti-intellectual nature of the faith (yes,
Kierkegaard was indeed rebelling against the rational
theology of his day) that, for him, at least, made it
appealing. For him, any rational analysis of either
spiritual or material reality would always lead to an absurd
dead end. For him, what was required was a leap of faith
that both transcended any rational approach, and rejected
any application of logic. The problem with this path to
salvation is that it leaves the door open for all sorts of
other irrational leaps of faith, which we now see in various
forms in both Christianity and other faiths like Islam,
where becoming a suicide bomber gets one a fast-track ticket
to paradise. In the secular realm, the approach also
resulted in the Nazi monstrosity during the 1930s and 1940s.

Seventh question: is there a danger with having faith-based
ethical systems?
The seventeenth century philosopher Benedict Spinoza, like
the later philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and John S. Mill
(and even, shudder, Karl Marx), felt that religion helps to
keep confused and/or weak people in line. They saw it as a
necessary evil – well, admittedly, not Marx, who saw it as
an opiate. They would probably say that it would be nice if
people had the backbone to admit that the world and reality
are basically unjust, with no redemption (and with everybody
dying at the end), but most of them are just not up to the
task. They need religion (be it Christianity, Islam,
Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.) to offer up a simple
analysis of a complex world.

Believe it or not, if we are talking about society in
general, I tend to agree, and I believe that Spinoza would
be in agreement, too. I think that many individuals are just
not able to deal with reality – and they need a mythology of
some kind to stabilize their lives and give the whole
situation some kind of meaning. That the universe is just
outwardly random and amoral chaos (at least if we are
talking about everyday, common sense analysis) will not do
it for them.

On top of that, they also want to live forever, which may
actually be the bottom-line primary motive for having faith.
On the other hand, atheists are in the not altogether
enviable position of having nothing more than personal
integrity and courage to fall back upon in the long haul. No
afterlife rewards for them. It is scary being an atheist,
because philosophically you are all alone. However, being an
atheist also requires genuine courage, unlike what we have
with those who embrace an all-powerful deity.

Walter Kaufmann, a philosopher who taught at Princeton years
ago, said that while there may be no external god to keep us
in line and offer rewards (or punishments), a nonbeliever
could still live an ethical and courageous life. I think he
was correct, as evidenced by the fact that many nonbelievers
do indeed live ethical and courageous lives. (The
philosopher Aristotle even wrote a book dealing with ethics
that showed that people could be noble and moral, based upon
practical and socially related considerations.) However, on
the macro (as opposed to the micro) level, Nietzsche noted
that if God were eliminated from existing societies all hell
(pun intended) would break loose. The great Russian novelist
Feodor Dostoyevsky also was aware of this. On the micro
level, most people need a belief in God to keep things
personally stabilized, and on the macro level society itself
needs such beliefs to prevent chaos. Kill god, which
Nietzsche said we had already done, and everything is
permitted. Morals go out the window. Some people think this
is responsible for the growth of atheistic fascism in the
20th century.

Of course, some individuals believe that religious systems
have created this situation, and then must remain dominant
to keep the created situation from getting out of control.
If religion had never existed it would be possible to have
ethical societies that based their social behaviors on
feelings for the value of man and the need for order and
justice. (This reflects Aristotle’s approach, for example.)
However, because religion was created and expanded upon by
theologians for hundreds and hundreds of years, societies
have built behavior systems based upon a sense of coercion.
That is, one behaves sanely and correctly because God
desires such behavior. Consequently, take away that belief
in God and all bets are off; anything goes. Theologians have
essentially built a system that depends upon afterlife
rewards (Heaven) and punishment (Hell) to function, and
without those qualities people would go off the deep end.

Interestingly, while Nietzsche, who thought the situation
was untenable and spent quite a bit of time dealing with
this problem and how to solve it in his book-length essays,
Dostoyevsky, who was fully in favor of the religious status
quo, wrote several novels that illustrated just what would
go wrong if people started believing that God was a myth.
Both men were fully aware of the social impact of a belief
in God (independent of any discussion of whether or not he
actually exists), but both came up with different approaches
about what should or should not be done. Nietzsche wanted a
re-evaluation of values and proclaimed the “death of God” in
order to free man, whereas Dostoyevsky wanted society to
renew its faith in God, which he felt would be the only way
to make man truly free.

My take on this is that it is preposterous to believe that
the main reason people are good is because they want to suck
up to God. Being “good” is far more complex than that, and
does not require a belief in God at all. There have been
plenty of good Atheists throughout history, just like there
have been many religious zealots who have been anything but
good.

Eighth question: do religious people need courage?
Religious people often comment on how it requires courage to
be a member of their faith. However, being a Christian (or
Muslim, or Jew, or just about any other kind of religious
devotee) should not require courage at all, theological
arguments to the contrary. Why would anyone need courage
when they are backed up and supported by (and on the team
of) the most powerful force in the universe: namely God? If
a Christian exhibits fear of anything in this world it is
proof that their faith is not solid. A real Christian would
and should fear nothing – ever.

Ninth question: do religious people really believe in God
full time?
Ask any believer if they would do a "bad" thing while their
mother or father were watching them (assuming the parents
were still alive). Usually (and hopefully) they will say,
"no." OK, now ask them if they sometimes do "bad" things
when nobody is watching. They will almost certainly have to
admit that they do, even if those bad things are minor
league. At the very least, they will still have bad thoughts
at times.

Then point out to them that by the very definition of their
faith God is always watching them (and also knows their
thoughts) and so when they do bad things (or have bad
thoughts) God immediately sees it and is saddened. Heck, God
even knows the deed before it is done. The believer should
obviously know this is the case, and yet they still often,
or at least sometimes, do those bad things (and have those
bad thoughts). The upshot becomes evidence that they doubt
the existence of God when they do bad things and have bad
thoughts. Yep, their very faith in the existence of God is
not 100 percent, because if they really, really believed in
scripture they would behave correctly all of the time. If
they are so sure about their faith that God exists why do
they behave (or think) wrongly at times?

The philosopher Plato touched on this characteristic in his
writings (although he was not referring to religious belief,
but rather knowledge of good and evil), and pointed out that
if you really, really believed something you would not do
anything that would compromise that belief. If you believed
that doing bad things was bad you would not do bad things.
Renaissance and Reformation-era theologians often
capitalized on this approach when they were interpreting
proper Christian behavior. It justified inflicting terrible
punishments upon wrongdoers.

Tenth question: what if God were visible?
Actually, things are even more problematical for the
believer. Ask them about how, if God were actually visible
and watching them all the time (a great-big head looking
down on them from the sky or standing right beside them in
the form of Jesus) would they do those bad things that they
sometimes do (or think about doing)? They almost certainly
would say "no." (That big head looking down from the sky
would be both intimidating and terrifying, and if Jesus were
visibly standing nearby they would obviously behave.) Then
point out that this behavior of theirs that involves God
being invisible but still looking down from on high is an
indication that the really do not believe completely in God
at all, and basically use him in their daily lives as
convenience requires.

The usual theological excuse is that they are human and
weak, and will occasionally succumb to temptations.
Aristotle, writing a counterpoint argument against that of
Plato discussed above, even embraced this phenomenon in his
ethical writings. Sometimes, emotions get the better of us,
no matter what we believe. Aristotle was not writing about
religion, of course, and was instead outlining reasons why
it is necessary to have codified laws to keep people in line
when they let emotion get out of hand. In the seventeenth
century, Spinoza (who was born a Jew but was booted from the
synagogue at a young age and was also certainly no
Christian) also embraced this approach to social law.

The views of Aristotle and Spinoza notwithstanding, we can
at least admit that even the most profound believers are
weak at times. (Who isn’t? After all, an acknowledgement of
weakness is one of the foundations of the faith.) However,
this still does not explain just why they would behave
differently and not succumb to temptation if God were a
visible presence that was right there looking at them all
the time.

Not only do religious people have a problem dealing with the
first eight questions and observations listed above, they
have a problem even believing fully in God to begin with.

End of questions.

Howard Ferstler

[MiNe 109]

In article 451c69f8@kcnews01, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

End of questions.

If you really want discussion, shorten the topics.

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

End of questions.

If you really want discussion, shorten the topics.

This is Ferstler you're addressing. "Discussion" in Ferstlerland means an
opportunity for Harold to demonstrate his own personal perpetual motion
machine.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Harry Lavo]

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


MiNe 109 said:

End of questions.

If you really want discussion, shorten the topics.

This is Ferstler you're addressing. "Discussion" in Ferstlerland means an
opportunity for Harold to demonstrate his own personal perpetual motion
machine.


Yeah, like a looped piano roll.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net wrote in message
...


MiNe 109 said:

End of questions.

If you really want discussion, shorten the topics.

This is Ferstler you're addressing. "Discussion" in
Ferstlerland means an opportunity for Harold to
demonstrate his own personal perpetual motion machine.

Yeah, like a looped piano roll.

Interesting that you've never noticed the identical same situation with Mr.
Middius. The really scary part is that I made a good part of the piano roll
that Middius plays again and again and again.

[Howard Ferstler]

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article 451c69f8@kcnews01, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

(huge snip)

End of questions.

If you really want discussion, shorten the topics.

You obviously want short, easy messages. However, sometimes
discussing reality demands a bit more than usenet's version
of a sound bite.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

Have you ever read "God's Debris" by Scott Adams?

Not yet. However, I just picked up a copy of "The End of
Faith," by Sam Harris.

Looks interesting.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...


"Arny Krueger" said:


Its a very unfair fight. Howard's ignorance of Christianity is similar to
his ignorance about audio.


Ouch!


To clarify - he knows enough to be dangerous to himself.

I know more than you might think. Remember, you are starting
out with a Medieval approach to the faith: you must first
believe in order to understand. For a believer, any
inconsistencies that show up in the faith are dismissed as
evidence of God's mysterious plan. Faith conquers all.

On the other hand, I start out as a non believer and then,
rather than simply dismiss the claptrap as not worthy of my
attention, I analyze the faith as if God actually exists and
ask questions (ten of them in this situation) that I would
expect a true believer to be willing to deal with - point by
point.

This means not simply saying that the questioner does not
understand your faith. He does not have to understand it to
ask the questions. Indeed, by asking the questions he is
expecting YOU to explain the faith intelligently. It means
that you have to be able to answer those questions in the
light of your faith in a way that satisfies a skeptic like me.

Howard Ferstler