Bible-beater pilots

CoPilot.

Check out Handango.

W&B, E6B, other great stuff.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Sven wrote:

Heaven is Oshkosh!

Lessee here - your idea of heaven is a place where force 8 T-storms blow
through
without warning, it's 110 degrees one day and brass monkeys the next, and
you
need replacement feet every night? Yet another religion I'll pass up.

Oshkosh is then aviation's religion version of Hell or purgatory?

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 03:26:14 -0500, "Happy Dog"
wrote:

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message

http://www.ffrf.org/tm.php?tm=dawkins.html

It's nonsense, that is, fallacy in the form of the Genuine but
Insignificant Cause. If it were true, then people espousing atheist
belief systems would consistently behave much better than they've
proven to have behaved.

Nope. That isn't a conclusion of the preceding material. And, where did
you get that reference from?

The reference came from two posts up. As for your rejoinder, Dawkins
wrote:

"The human psyche has two great sicknesses: the urge to carry vendetta
across generations, and the tendency to fasten group labels on people
rather than see them as individuals. Abrahamic religion gives strong
sanction to both--and mixes explosively with both."

(In his sidebar, he ranted it.)

This opens up a serious hole in all his reasoning, because at the very
least the texts of *two* of the three Abrahamic religions he cites
deny its followers any excuse to answer the urges of vendetta and
racism or theism at all.

The Law of Moses' "Eye for eye" rule is one: it's a *retreat* from
multi generational vendetta, and a demand that the followers of the
Mosaic covenant consider individual wrongdoing to the exclusion of
group wrongdoing. [1]

The central Christian law is "Love God, Love Your Neighbor". "Bless
those that curse you. Do good to those who despitefully use you and
persecute you." "Don't take revenge, vengeance is God's" Long letters
about personal and institutional charity, without which the Christian
is nothing at all, and God cannot save him. Also individualistic. Also
a denial of the impulse to vendetta and racism.

I don't know much about Islamic doctrine, but *all* of the Muslims
I've ever met have been remarkably tolerant and peaceful people living
in a mixed culture of many religions. They live a denial of the
impulse to vendetta and racism. (And have historically, as a *whole*
done a relatively better job of it than Christians ever did.)

The centers of these belief systems direct individual behavior. It's
only to the extent that thugs and demagogues use sophistry within
those systems that we come out with the warped abuses which produce
"fundamentalists" (even that appellation is a lie; Judeochristian
fundamentals don't permit aggressive warmaking) of all stripes.

I agree with the author that religion is in the mix, but natural human
impulses, not religion, are at the root of the violent organized
murder of the last 100 years, almost all of which were undertaken
without "religion" as the root excuse. World Communism, as
implemented, murdered 100,000,000 people. No "religion" there! Since
other "non-religious" philosophies have mixed "explosively" with the
sicknesses of the human psyche, his case is not made.

Sky god indeed. He doesn't know what he's talking about, and could
probably benefit from a look at all the "Christian" nations which now
live nominally in *peace* with one another, having overthrown their
own thugs in favor of implementing the individualistic fundaments of
that Judeochristian ethical center. He could also benefit from an
objective look at Leviticus.

Rob
[1] And if you look closely at what Israel does to its enemy
neighbors, you'll see that its behavior is virtually always
retaliatory self-defense. Israelis target the badguys "eye for eye",
hitting innocents only when the thugs hide behind them or among them.

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:dGKvb.273791$HS4.2421772@attbi_s01...
Which is why we desperately need a third political party in the U.S..
IMHO,
"my" Republican Party -- the "Alex Keaton Conservtive Party" of the
1980s--
has withered and died under the acidic influence of the Religious Right.

Worse, Republicans are no longer fiscally conservative by any stretch of
the
imagination.

So it seems. It is looking more and more that they are a single issue
(religion) party. I was reading recently how stock markets always do better
under DEMOCRATIC administrations. Weird, huh? If that is indeed true (and
not due to timing coincidences, etc) then maybe it has to do with
interference with the free marketplace by excessive catering to inefficient
special corporate interests (good for their friends but bad for the economy
in general). But, what are we to do now? Both the Democratic and the
Republican parties have serious shortcomings, yet there is no current viable
alternative. Maybe we should be allowed to vote for more than one party;
that way a new party could be nurtured into existence without unduly
influencing the current balance.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
Lessee here - your idea of heaven is a place where force 8 T-storms blow
through
without warning, it's 110 degrees one day and brass monkeys the next, and
you
need replacement feet every night? Yet another religion I'll pass up.

You mean it's like that all every year there?

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:41:20 GMT, "Richard Hertz"
wrote:

Hose****.

Starting with fallacy. Not a good sign...

I did not mix terms - I used the term that someone else used and asked for
elaboration. Not my confusion.

OK, Usenet attribution mea culpa.

Um, but the shortest distance between two points is STILL a stright line...
Unfortunately you can't travel through the earth.

....thus necessitating the use of non-Euclidean geometries. Don't
forget that the point of philosophy really is to come up with useful
stuff.

I asked for which basic tenet was unprovable. My point was that the
original poster of this math == religion thread was not making sense.
There is nothing similar about them.
[...]
I still don't see how that is anything like religion.

The single undeniable similarity between math and religion is that
they are both philosophical systems, based on unproved (and maybe
unprovable) axioms and definitions.

Math: "A 'point' is defined as..."
Math: "The set of 'Integers' is defined as..."

(Aristotlean) Religion: "'God' is defined as..."
(Aristotlean) Religion: "'Sin' is defined as..."

You're right, of course, if you want to say that the similarity ends
there. But IMO involving the Incompleteness Theorem when talking about
complex axiomatic[1] systems is perfectly valid. The systems are
axiomatic and complex, whether you use the language of religion or the
language of mathematics to describe them. *Especially* orthodox
Christianity, whose apologist Thomas Aquinas (I'm told), made enough
of a significant case for basing scriptural understanding on
Aristotlean philosophical underpinnings that the comparison is
unavoidable.

Mathematics is also based on Euclidean rules of reasoning, the same
rules Aristotle used to build his thoughts. Therefore comparing the
two is not invalid.

you have just tried to make the whole bit
sound more complicated than it is.

So I have. It's because I believe that it is a far more complicated
problem than a blanket dismissal of "religion" can solve.

And I am sure we are all impressed with
the disussion or Euclid, Theorems, incompleteness, etc.

I hope so! It was more than a little bit of work.

Rob
[1] In theology I suppose they'd call it "dogmatic"

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

Yes, an aviation newsgroup replete with newbies that haven't FREAKIN' LEARNED
HOW TO SNIP.


Jim




(Verbs Under My Gel)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-
-OK, I'll admit it...I'm confused. Who's trolling, Jay or Ian? For
-the love of the Golden Calf, this is an _aviation_ newsgroup!



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:33:39 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Judah,

Nah - you have nothing to worry about... I have it on good authority that
the Jews were right anyway.


Oh really? I thought it was Buddha.

He was right, too. Except where he wasn't.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:47:37 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:


Which is why we desperately need a third political party in the U.S.. IMHO,
"my" Republican Party -- the "Alex Keaton Conservtive Party" of the 1980s--
has withered and died under the acidic influence of the Religious Right.

Worse, Republicans are no longer fiscally conservative by any stretch of the
imagination.

Lost to them as they picked up Centrist notions. The Democrats lobbed
their disenchanted over the walls of the Republican fortress.

I'd be in favor of *four* major political parties. One each for the
hard lefties and righties, and two centrist parties who can focus more
or less on term-to-term tactical issues.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:58:05 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

That's not quite my point, though. Yes, there are various means whereby one
can oppress. But Rob had written that religion can be used "to break down
a person's natural inclination not to kill for the first time."

Can Marxist Communism be used that way?

Yes! It's still being used that way!

Still...that just means that the disarming needs to go beyond religions.

Yes! But what it *doesn't* mean is that there is any need to tear
apart the philosophical underpinnings of the billions of people who
*don't* abuse religious notions to foment tyranny.

It can be practiced as such, I expect.

Yes!

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card