On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/1/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote:
I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis
or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah,
Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite,
Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat,
Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona,
Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit,
Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue,
Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina
(Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus,
Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir,
Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga,
Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor,
Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera,
Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei,
Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris,
Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah,
Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu,
Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir,
Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia,
Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva,
Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna
(Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal,
Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin,
Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan,
Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon,
Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene,
Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva,
Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret,
Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou,
Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume,
Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi
Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-
huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any
of them exist.
Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods
can exist.
Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that
how you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in
whatever anyone conceives of or else provide a disproof?
Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist,
No, I said I see no reason to believe in them.
That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic =
~[]g (& ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g.
That's right, I'm agnostic with respect to the question of whether
there could be a god(s). But I'm still an atheist because I'm
pretty sure there's not theist god.
But you said yourself that "theist" is vague. I am pretty sure than
there is no guy with a beard sitting on a cloud, but that does not
make me feeling like an atheist. just a rationalist.
You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to
disbelieve in God.
Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical
universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. "God"
points on an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it
takes some Fairy tale into account. The God of comp is the God of
the Parmenides, which is the base of the neoplatonist theology
(Plotinus, Proclus). Such a conception is close to Augustin and the
christian mystics, the Soufis, the Kabbala, and the East
spirituallity.
I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can
say you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what
you are denying.
That's my exact point.
It's not what you wrote. You wrote:
"If you are able to conceive a god without afterlife, it means you
can conceive a non Christian God, which is nice, but contradicts the
main atheist statements you already did in preceding conversations."
The context was different. I said to John Clark that his argument
against the Christian God was no more an argument in favor of atheism
once he agree that the God might not be the Christian one.
...
"Also, if you can conceive a Non Christian God, it becomes more
difficult to *believe* in the non existence of God."
So you claimed that conceiving of a non-Christian God makes it more
difficult to believe in the non-existence of God (by which I think
you mean to fail to believe in the existence of God).
No, I mean to positively believe in the non existence of all Gods
possible.
And then you agree that one *must* concieve of a God (or anything
else) in order to fail to believe in its existence.
Exactly.
As one of my physics advisors, Jurgen Ehlers, used to say, "Before
we can know whether a thing exists we must first know its properties."
Exactly. That is my main criticism of atheism. They have to believe in
a rather precise notion of God to disbelieve in it. But the only God
in which it is easy to disbelieve in, are the Fairy Tale notion of
God. Atheism becomes equivalent with "I don't believe in fairy tales".
Now I have tuns of books in theology, and I have not yet seen one
defending fairy tales notion of Gods. (Except the free one given by
Jehovah witness, which I don't read, except to measure the credulity
exploited by their sects).
so you are the one pretending having a clear referent for each of
the name above, and you are the one acting like if you knew that
none exist.
Right. Of course I don't have clear referent of each one, but
someone did. They were worshiped and prayed to and sacrificed
for. But being able to conceive of them is what makes it possible
say I don't believe in them - otherwise I wouldn't know what I was
failing to believe. It doesn't make it harder to disbelieve; it
makes it *possible*.
We have been naive on thunder, sun, moon, and many things.
Obviously we have been naive on God too, but that is not a reason
to abandon the idea, which is basically the idea that the physical
universe has a non physical reason.
You refer to "the idea". What is "the idea". Common usage, which
is how we define words,
Not in science. In science we redefine the terms all the time.
holds that "God" refers to an immortal person who created the world,
No, that's a common legend. The "idea" is that the physical reality is
not the reason of reality, but an aspect of it.
wants to be worshiped, judges people and rewards and punishes them.
That's a legend used to put people in place so that they will be
worshiped, so that they can judged other people, reward and punish them.
Why do you credit such things. Why can you believe that we should
listen to them? You are the one giving them importance, and by arguing
against a scientific approach to "God, souls, afterlife, meaning,
etc." you will maintain the current fairy tale aspect in theology, and
you will contribute in maintaining them in power.
There are plenty of reason to abandon *THAT* idea.
So let us abandon it once and for all, and let us not credit thel that
thay even approach the notion of Gods or that they are doing theology.
They do business, like big pharam do business in lying on the non-
medicinal property of cannabis.
After 523, theology has been stolen by bandits. let us come back to
the theology of the greeks, which was done through mystics and
intellectual dialoguing freely around a table.
If you want to consider some other idea: Great! But you should use a
different word for it.
I I use a different word, that will credit them for doing the
theology, and they will exploit this.
Why atheists are so embarassed by re-appropriating a field. How to
compare the theology of the machine with the theology of the humans if
we change the vocabulary. And why taking the risk of abandoning the
real honest work done by serious theologian, which exists also, if we
abandon them altogether?
When pressed you admit that the idea you want to consider has
nothing in common with "God": It's reality or all true, but
unprovable formulae of arithmetic or the computations of a universal
dovetailer. None of which bear the slightest resemblance to the God
that is worshiped in Temples, Churches, and Mosques around the world.
Not at all. there are big resemblance. Also big differences, so let us
use the same term so that people can know what needs to be changed,
and what stay the same.
I will oversimplify but the advantage of using the same term is that
we can already compare them with the comp theology, and in that case
we can say that
- the atheist religion is 4/4 false
- the conventional abramanic religion is 3/4 false
- the kabbala, sufi, and christian mystics are 2/4 false
- the taoist, some buddhist and hinduist are 1/4 false
- the neoplatonists are 0/4 false
Don't take this too much seriously, but it gives the idea.
So when I say I'm and atheist I have a clear referent for what I
don't believe.
It means that you don't believe in fairy tales, but you act in a way
which perpetuate the fairy tales in the churches, and will prevent
theology to come back to science (by which I mean the modest
interrogation work with no pretension to truth).
When you say you don't want to abandon "the idea" you are not clear
what is the referent of "the idea".
That is why I cannot reject it indeed. It is in the nature of the
subject: Universe God or Ultimate Reality have no clear referent,
that is why we do research and experiences. That's the difficulty of
the subject (and that's why we must handle it cautiously and deter
those who are willing to steal the notion for manipulation control).
Why are drugs so easily made illegal in our culture? It is a false
secret that many of them can make you doubt on many things.
Why did the religious authorities hunt and burn the witches, the
village sorcerers, the Pagan cult, ... because they use religion to
enforce their inconsistent beliefs so that they can develop arbitrary
powers.
As I said to Quentin the only main difference between cannabis and god
is that we are brainwashed on cannabis since 70 years, but on God we
are brainwashed since 1500 years. But it is the same problem, the
first concerning the body health, the other concerning the spiritual
health.
Herbs and god(s) provides mind blowing liberating type of experience,
and those who make them becomes quickly trouble makers for those who
want enforce their mode of thinking by violence and authoritative means.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
