Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi Stephen P. King Paul hoped to know only Christ and Him crucified. I'm headed that way. All of this stuff, all I trained for, is totally useless in the long run. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/15/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 12:48:22 Subject: Re: victims of faith On 9/14/2012 9:04 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona That's why I stick to orthodoxy and the creeds. Hard to go wrong that way. Hi Roger, But you do so at the real risk of ossification. You stop asking questions, thinking that I know all that can be known. This becomes fear of the unknown. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 07:27:26 Subject: Re: Re: victims of faith Roger: right But there are two types of people: the ones that know that believe, that know that they are unfounded and the others that believe that known, who don? know that they are unfounded 2012/9/14 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net: Hi Alberto G. Corona All religious beliefs are at the bottom unfounded. So is the fact that you are real unfounded. All scientific theories moreover are founded on assumptions, which by definition are unfounded. Need I go on ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-13, 14:45:42 Subject: Re: victims of faith 2012/9/13 Stathis Papaioannou : On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted. religion is a label that appears when the mith is old enough it has enough believers and the object of mitification is far away in time. People are reluctant to admit that they have unfounded beliefs. Specially if they have been educated in the belief that any belief is bad and into the belied that they have no beliefs. But to have a commong ground of beliefs is a prerequisite for individual and social life. I think that my theory of social capital, mytopoesis and belief and the assimilaion of good and truth is sound in evolutuionary terms, and provides a factual/operation definition of Truth in the world of the mind, which is the only world accesible to us. If I tell you that a spirit appeared to me last night and told me that you should give me all your money or else the world will be destroyed, what will you say to me? That it's as true as any other myth, understandable in evolutionary terms, on a par with scientific fact? Or will you just say, without thinking too hard, that it's bullshit? I suppose that you mean that there are histories that everyone would identify as bullshit. Well, this changes nothing. A myth by definition is something believed by a group of people in the past. Most of them as intelligent or more that you and me . You and me believe in things that will be myths tomorrow. Most of them created by scientists. The mith of antropogenic global warming, the myth of cultural determinism for example.. There are many things that were scientific in the past race studies for example. Now there are gender studies... they were, and they are scientific and bullshit at the same time. I hope that this is clarifying. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
On 14 Sep 2012, at 19:10, meekerdb wrote: On 9/14/2012 6:10 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: The evidence has strong indications of being manipulated for the purpose of a political agenda. It is certainly cherry-picked by minions of the fossil fuel industry. The way that the sensors are distributed and their data is weighed is the subject of a lot of controversy Which has been addressed by direct comparison of different sensors. Of course the fossil fuel industry doesn't have to prove anything, they just create fake controversy and take advantage of the provisional nature of all science. We do not have models that are accurate enough to even accurately retrodict the variation in temperatures so why are we trusting them in their predictions?. Because whatever other factors there are it is straightforward to predict that increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase temperatures, something already calculated by Arrhenius in 1890. Burning fossil fuel releases CO2 into the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 is increasing proportionately. Measured temperatures are increasing. And for all practical purpose we have access to only one planet, (even with the MWI), so a caution principle makes sense. Henry Ford (who I do not appreciate as he was quasi-nazy) already defended doing car with hemp to avoid the risk of making too much CO_2. Prohibition is responsible, in part, of the climate change, if there is one. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
There are different kinds of beliefs. The believer that has no strong evidences, know that he believe. He know that he believe. The second kind of believer does not know that he believe, because he live in a environment where the evidences are uncontested in the environment where he lives. For example a islamic comunity may find unthinkable that the Koran is not truth word by word. In the same way, positivists 100 years ago could find unthinkable to question the law of newtonian gravitation or the superiority of the white race according with the anthropological scientists of his time. These second kind of believers are the true believers. Science is a doxastic concept. it is too imprecise to be used in a serious talk about philosophical concepts, such is the concept of truth. If you mean science as the scientific method by the criteria of falsabilty, then science is not a criterium of truth, but a criterium of non-truth. Not even that, because it does not states what is non-truth now. Simply, is a method to decide it in the future if we follow that method, and this is not guaranteed, because it is simply a method. It is not a criteria. Therefore, true science is perpetual scepticism. A follower of the scientific method can not even discard that the myth of the virgin Mary is true. On the contrary, positivism, or scientism, is a perversion around the institution of science. It is a belief system of the second kind. Its founder, Auguste Compte wanted it to be a state-promoted religion. And it is. 2012/9/14 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com: On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose that you mean that there are histories that everyone would identify as bullshit. Well, this changes nothing. A myth by definition is something believed by a group of people in the past. Most of them as intelligent or more that you and me . You and me believe in things that will be myths tomorrow. Most of them created by scientists. The mith of antropogenic global warming, the myth of cultural determinism for example.. There are many things that were scientific in the past race studies for example. Now there are gender studies... they were, and they are scientific and bullshit at the same time. I hope that this is clarifying. Global warming may turn out to be wrong, but it is not a myth. It is based on evidence and the evidence is debated. The virgin birth of Jesus, however, is completely different. It is not based on any evidence, because it is a matter of faith. Believers are actually proud of the fact that they have no evidence for it, will not change their mind (even in principle) if evidence against it arises, and there is hence no point arguing with them. Even worse, believers are inconsistent: they will dismiss other peoples' equivalent evidence-free beliefs as bullshit without a second thought. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi Alberto G. Corona All religious beliefs are at the bottom unfounded. So is the fact that you are real unfounded. All scientific theories moreover are founded on assumptions, which by definition are unfounded. Need I go on ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-13, 14:45:42 Subject: Re: victims of faith 2012/9/13 Stathis Papaioannou : On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted. religion is a label that appears when the mith is old enough it has enough believers and the object of mitification is far away in time. People are reluctant to admit that they have unfounded beliefs. Specially if they have been educated in the belief that any belief is bad and into the belied that they have no beliefs. But to have a commong ground of beliefs is a prerequisite for individual and social life. I think that my theory of social capital, mytopoesis and belief and the assimilaion of good and truth is sound in evolutuionary terms, and provides a factual/operation definition of Truth in the world of the mind, which is the only world accesible to us. If I tell you that a spirit appeared to me last night and told me that you should give me all your money or else the world will be destroyed, what will you say to me? That it's as true as any other myth, understandable in evolutionary terms, on a par with scientific fact? Or will you just say, without thinking too hard, that it's bullshit? I suppose that you mean that there are histories that everyone would identify as bullshit. Well, this changes nothing. A myth by definition is something believed by a group of people in the past. Most of them as intelligent or more that you and me . You and me believe in things that will be myths tomorrow. Most of them created by scientists. The mith of antropogenic global warming, the myth of cultural determinism for example.. There are many things that were scientific in the past race studies for example. Now there are gender studies... they were, and they are scientific and bullshit at the same time. I hope that this is clarifying. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
Roger: right But there are two types of people: the ones that know that believe, that know that they are unfounded and the others that believe that known, who don´t know that they are unfounded 2012/9/14 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net: Hi Alberto G. Corona All religious beliefs are at the bottom unfounded. So is the fact that you are real unfounded. All scientific theories moreover are founded on assumptions, which by definition are unfounded. Need I go on ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-13, 14:45:42 Subject: Re: victims of faith 2012/9/13 Stathis Papaioannou : On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted. religion is a label that appears when the mith is old enough it has enough believers and the object of mitification is far away in time. People are reluctant to admit that they have unfounded beliefs. Specially if they have been educated in the belief that any belief is bad and into the belied that they have no beliefs. But to have a commong ground of beliefs is a prerequisite for individual and social life. I think that my theory of social capital, mytopoesis and belief and the assimilaion of good and truth is sound in evolutuionary terms, and provides a factual/operation definition of Truth in the world of the mind, which is the only world accesible to us. If I tell you that a spirit appeared to me last night and told me that you should give me all your money or else the world will be destroyed, what will you say to me? That it's as true as any other myth, understandable in evolutionary terms, on a par with scientific fact? Or will you just say, without thinking too hard, that it's bullshit? I suppose that you mean that there are histories that everyone would identify as bullshit. Well, this changes nothing. A myth by definition is something believed by a group of people in the past. Most of them as intelligent or more that you and me . You and me believe in things that will be myths tomorrow. Most of them created by scientists. The mith of antropogenic global warming, the myth of cultural determinism for example.. There are many things that were scientific in the past race studies for example. Now there are gender studies... they were, and they are scientific and bullshit at the same time. I hope that this is clarifying. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi Alberto G. Corona That's why I stick to orthodoxy and the creeds. Hard to go wrong that way. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 07:27:26 Subject: Re: Re: victims of faith Roger: right But there are two types of people: the ones that know that believe, that know that they are unfounded and the others that believe that known, who don? know that they are unfounded 2012/9/14 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net: Hi Alberto G. Corona All religious beliefs are at the bottom unfounded. So is the fact that you are real unfounded. All scientific theories moreover are founded on assumptions, which by definition are unfounded. Need I go on ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-13, 14:45:42 Subject: Re: victims of faith 2012/9/13 Stathis Papaioannou : On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted. religion is a label that appears when the mith is old enough it has enough believers and the object of mitification is far away in time. People are reluctant to admit that they have unfounded beliefs. Specially if they have been educated in the belief that any belief is bad and into the belied that they have no beliefs. But to have a commong ground of beliefs is a prerequisite for individual and social life. I think that my theory of social capital, mytopoesis and belief and the assimilaion of good and truth is sound in evolutuionary terms, and provides a factual/operation definition of Truth in the world of the mind, which is the only world accesible to us. If I tell you that a spirit appeared to me last night and told me that you should give me all your money or else the world will be destroyed, what will you say to me? That it's as true as any other myth, understandable in evolutionary terms, on a par with scientific fact? Or will you just say, without thinking too hard, that it's bullshit? I suppose that you mean that there are histories that everyone would identify as bullshit. Well, this changes nothing. A myth by definition is something believed by a group of people in the past. Most of them as intelligent or more that you and me . You and me believe in things that will be myths tomorrow. Most of them created by scientists. The mith of antropogenic global warming, the myth of cultural determinism for example.. There are many things that were scientific in the past race studies for example. Now there are gender studies... they were, and they are scientific and bullshit at the same time. I hope that this is clarifying. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
On 9/14/2012 4:02 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: There are different kinds of beliefs. The believer that has no strong evidences, know that he believe. He know that he believe. The second kind of believer does not know that he believe, because he live in a environment where the evidences are uncontested in the environment where he lives. For example a islamic comunity may find unthinkable that the Koran is not truth word by word. In the same way, positivists 100 years ago could find unthinkable to question the law of newtonian gravitation or the superiority of the white race according with the anthropological scientists of his time. These second kind of believers are the true believers. Hi Alberto, These true believers seem to hav a filtering system such that they never notice data that would contradict what which they hold to be true. This is like a nocebo effect http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/beware-the-nocebo-effect.html. Science is a doxastic concept. it is too imprecise to be used in a serious talk about philosophical concepts, such is the concept of truth. Umm, I would say that you are considering scientism the true belief in science as having explanations of everything such that if science does not (currently!) have an explanation some some phenomena, then the phenomena is not real. If you mean science as the scientific method by the criteria of falsabilty, then science is not a criterium of truth, but a criterium of non-truth. Agreed! if you cannot be wrong then you cannot be correct either. Not even that, because it does not states what is non-truth now. Simply, is a method to decide it in the future if we follow that method, and this is not guaranteed, because it is simply a method. It is not a criteria. Therefore, true science is perpetual scepticism. Umm, this is too much like Hume's methodology. One must allow for speculation and conjecture as possibly true until refuted for oneself. The burden of proof is always on the proposer of a conjecture. A follower of the scientific method can not even discard that the myth of the virgin Mary is true. On the contrary, positivism, or scientism, is a perversion around the institution of science. It is a belief system of the second kind. Its founder, Auguste Compte wanted it to be a state-promoted religion. And it is. Indeed! 2012/9/14 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com: On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose that you mean that there are histories that everyone would identify as bullshit. Well, this changes nothing. A myth by definition is something believed by a group of people in the past. Most of them as intelligent or more that you and me . You and me believe in things that will be myths tomorrow. Most of them created by scientists. The mith of antropogenic global warming, the myth of cultural determinism for example.. There are many things that were scientific in the past race studies for example. Now there are gender studies... they were, and they are scientific and bullshit at the same time. I hope that this is clarifying. Global warming may turn out to be wrong, but it is not a myth. It is based on evidence and the evidence is debated. The evidence has strong indications of being manipulated for the purpose of a political agenda. The way that the sensors are distributed and their data is weighed is the subject of a lot of controversy We do not have models that are accurate enough to even accurately retrodict the variation in temperatures so why are we trusting them in their predictions?. The virgin birth of Jesus, however, is completely different. It is not based on any evidence, because it is a matter of faith. Believers are actually proud of the fact that they have no evidence for it, will not change their mind (even in principle) if evidence against it arises, and there is hence no point arguing with them. Even worse, believers are inconsistent: they will dismiss other peoples' equivalent evidence-free beliefs as bullshit without a second thought. I agree with Stathis here. Faith, it is has any meaning can only be forward looking in the sense that it is a belief that some theory will not be falsified in the future. To have faith in some theory that considers something in the past that contradicts facts in the present is an invocation of special circumstances that are somehow unique. I argue strongly against such as this idea is a form of White Rabbit. It is, if true, an local inconsistency that somehow is not pathological. -- Stathis Papaioannou - -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Re: victims of faith
On 9/14/2012 9:04 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona That's why I stick to orthodoxy and the creeds. Hard to go wrong that way. Hi Roger, But you do so at the real risk of ossification. You stop asking questions, thinking that I know all that can be known. This becomes fear of the unknown. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona mailto:agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-09-14, 07:27:26 *Subject:* Re: Re: victims of faith Roger: right But there are two types of people: the ones that know that believe, that know that they are unfounded and the others that believe that known, who don磘 know that they are unfounded 2012/9/14 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:%20rclo...@verizon.net: Hi Alberto G. Corona All religious beliefs are at the bottom unfounded. So is the fact that you are real unfounded. All scientific theories moreover are founded on assumptions, which by definition are unfounded. Need I go on ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:%20rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-13, 14:45:42 Subject: Re: victims of faith 2012/9/13 Stathis Papaioannou : On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted. religion is a label that appears when the mith is old enough it has enough believers and the object of mitification is far away in time. People are reluctant to admit that they have unfounded beliefs. Specially if they have been educated in the belief that any belief is bad and into the belied that they have no beliefs. But to have a commong ground of beliefs is a prerequisite for individual and social life. I think that my theory of social capital, mytopoesis and belief and the assimilaion of good and truth is sound in evolutuionary terms, and provides a factual/operation definition of Truth in the world of the mind, which is the only world accesible to us. If I tell you that a spirit appeared to me last night and told me that you should give me all your money or else the world will be destroyed, what will you say to me? That it's as true as any other myth, understandable in evolutionary terms, on a par with scientific fact? Or will you just say, without thinking too hard, that it's bullshit? I suppose that you mean that there are histories that everyone would identify as bullshit. Well, this changes nothing. A myth by definition is something believed by a group of people in the past. Most of them as intelligent or more that you and me . You and me believe in things that will be myths tomorrow. Most of them created by scientists. The mith of antropogenic global warming, the myth of cultural determinism for example.. There are many things that were scientific in the past race studies for example. Now there are gender studies... they were, and they are scientific and bullshit at the same time. I hope that this is clarifying. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
On 9/14/2012 6:10 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: The evidence has strong indications of being manipulated for the purpose of a political agenda. It is certainly cherry-picked by minions of the fossil fuel industry. The way that the sensors are distributed and their data is weighed is the subject of a lot of controversy Which has been addressed by direct comparison of different sensors. Of course the fossil fuel industry doesn't have to prove anything, they just create fake controversy and take advantage of the provisional nature of all science. We do not have models that are accurate enough to even accurately retrodict the variation in temperatures so why are we trusting them in their predictions?. Because whatever other factors there are it is straightforward to predict that increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase temperatures, something already calculated by Arrhenius in 1890. Burning fossil fuel releases CO2 into the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 is increasing proportionately. Measured temperatures are increasing. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
On 9/14/2012 1:10 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/14/2012 6:10 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: The evidence has strong indications of being manipulated for the purpose of a political agenda. It is certainly cherry-picked by minions of the fossil fuel industry. I would agree with you if the fossil fuel industry was the only party guilty of cherry picking! You can read for yourself in the Climate-gate email dump many examples of discussions of cherry-picking by climate alarmists. I like Richard Muller's ongoing commentaries http://muller.lbl.gov/ on the entire issue because I have a close personal friend that knows him personally. It is clear that there is global warming, but its cause is not completely clear. We can only offer conjectures and to jump to the comclusion that humans are causing it are premature. I think that we should keep science seperate from state policy unless there is clear and incontrovertible evidence. Too many do-gooders have influenced state policy and to the eventual harm of mass numbers of humans, example the banning of DDT because of the emotional appeal of a book. It can be proven that this ban has causes hundred of thousands of humans to die needlessly to malaria. The way that the sensors are distributed and their data is weighed is the subject of a lot of controversy Which has been addressed by direct comparison of different sensors. Of course the fossil fuel industry doesn't have to prove anything, they just create fake controversy and take advantage of the provisional nature of all science. I am no desire to be an apologist for any industry. I am interested in the purity of science. We do not have models that are accurate enough to even accurately retrodict the variation in temperatures so why are we trusting them in their predictions?. Because whatever other factors there are it is straightforward to predict that increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase temperatures, something already calculated by Arrhenius in 1890. Burning fossil fuel releases CO2 into the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 is increasing proportionately. Measured temperatures are increasing. All I will say is that our climate is not so simple that we can generate a faithful model based on what you wrote here alone. Complex systems cannot be expected to have simple models. Brent -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
On 9/14/2012 11:10 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/14/2012 1:10 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/14/2012 6:10 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: The evidence has strong indications of being manipulated for the purpose of a political agenda. It is certainly cherry-picked by minions of the fossil fuel industry. I would agree with you if the fossil fuel industry was the only party guilty of cherry picking! You can read for yourself in the Climate-gate email dump many examples of discussions of cherry-picking by climate alarmists. You've been misled by GW deniers. There's no evidence in the emails of cherry picking - as has been confirmed by several independent review committees. I like Richard Muller's ongoing commentaries http://muller.lbl.gov/ on the entire issue because I have a close personal friend that knows him personally. It is clear that there is global warming, but its cause is not completely clear. Cause is seldom a single thing; what's important is which factors are within our control. Muller is one of the founders of BerkleyEarth. He was critical of the data that showed global warming, but after leading an extensive re-evaluation of all the data using comprehensive statistics the group concluded: Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that global warming is real, and the best explanation of the temperature trend is a combination of volcanoes and CO2. And there's no real debate about where the CO2 comes from. It's easy to calculate how much is produced by burning fossil fuel. We can only offer conjectures and to jump to the comclusion that humans are causing it are premature. I think that we should keep science seperate from state policy unless there is clear and incontrovertible evidence. Too many do-gooders have influenced state policy and to the eventual harm of mass numbers of humans, example the banning of DDT because of the emotional appeal of a book. It can be proven that this ban has causes hundred of thousands of humans to die needlessly to malaria. The way that the sensors are distributed and their data is weighed is the subject of a lot of controversy Which has been addressed by direct comparison of different sensors. Of course the fossil fuel industry doesn't have to prove anything, they just create fake controversy and take advantage of the provisional nature of all science. I am no desire to be an apologist for any industry. I am interested in the purity of science. We do not have models that are accurate enough to even accurately retrodict the variation in temperatures so why are we trusting them in their predictions?. Because whatever other factors there are it is straightforward to predict that increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase temperatures, something already calculated by Arrhenius in 1890. Burning fossil fuel releases CO2 into the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 is increasing proportionately. Measured temperatures are increasing. All I will say is that our climate is not so simple that we can generate a faithful model based on what you wrote here alone. Complex systems cannot be expected to have simple models. Of course not. Just the CO2 added would produce only a 0.8C temperature rise. The problem is there are several positive feed backs: water vapor, methane emission, reduced albedo,... If you want to wait till we have a perfect model, you are essentially deciding it's not a problem. It's not a scientific problem. Science can always wait. Science never needs to make a decision and it's theories are always provisional. Life however requires decisions; which means decisions based on imperfect information. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi John Clark Your mind then must also be like a germ. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/13/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-12, 15:25:42 Subject: Re: Re: Re: victims of faith On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ? God, being inextended, If God is not extended then He must be very small and that could be the reason we don't see Him. God is like a germ. is invisible to the scientific method and logic I think you're correct about that, God makes no sense, none whatsoever.? As far as Hell goes, I believe that burning in exquisite torture forever is hyperbole (an overstatement to emphasize a point). Jesus was a rabbi and rabbis often taught by means of hyperbole So Jesus was lying like a rug and He was doing so for the exact same reason that you or I lie, it helps to convince other people to do what we want them to do. But such phony scare tactics is not what I'd expect from someone who was supposed to be? a moral paragon. With reference to 1) there is no logical reason to believe in God. Logic flies out of?he window. In 100% agreement with you there. ? God is All-powerful but he's also righteous Did God create righteousness? If he did then saying God is righteous means nothing and the only reason for us to be righteous is so we don't anger God and have Him torture us forever with the greatest skill He can muster; so we obey God for exactly the same reason the people in occupied France obeyed the Nazis, fear. On the other hand if God didn't? create righteousness then He has nothing to do with right and wrong except that He's supposed to do what's right just like everybody else. ?? So he would not tease you or wish you harm unless you do evil things. God is threatening to do one hell of a lot more than just tease you! God may be lying through His teeth but imagine if He is not and imagine if the Christian God really did exist, it would be worse than living in North Korea. Here we have an all powerful demon addicted to flattery who can read your every thought and will torture you, not for a long time, but for ETERNITY if you take even one small step out of line or break just one of his many, many, many, rules and they includes thought crimes. To make matters worse you're not even sure exactly what all his rules are, the experts violently (and I do mean violently) disagree, so you never know if you're going to be tortured or how to avoid it. This seems pretty depressing to me and not at all moral, I'll take an indifferent universe over a sadistic one any day. Charles Darwin had something to say on this subject: Disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but at last was complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine. ?? All of these questions and more are answered in any catechism. Why did God make me? God made me to know love and praise Him. Are you really satisfied with those sort of infantile answers?!? And how in hell can anybody love the invisible man in the sky when He's so damn unlovable? And how can one praise Him without being a hypocrite? And how did God develop such a huge inferiority complex that He needs constant flattery? Luther put his whole theology into his catechism, Martin or Lex? ? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted. religion is a label that appears when the mith is old enough it has enough believers and the object of mitification is far away in time. People are reluctant to admit that they have unfounded beliefs. Specially if they have been educated in the belief that any belief is bad and into the belied that they have no beliefs. But to have a commong ground of beliefs is a prerequisite for individual and social life. I think that my theory of social capital, mytopoesis and belief and the assimilaion of good and truth is sound in evolutuionary terms, and provides a factual/operation definition of Truth in the world of the mind, which is the only world accesible to us. If I tell you that a spirit appeared to me last night and told me that you should give me all your money or else the world will be destroyed, what will you say to me? That it's as true as any other myth, understandable in evolutionary terms, on a par with scientific fact? Or will you just say, without thinking too hard, that it's bullshit? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
2012/9/13 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted. religion is a label that appears when the mith is old enough it has enough believers and the object of mitification is far away in time. People are reluctant to admit that they have unfounded beliefs. Specially if they have been educated in the belief that any belief is bad and into the belied that they have no beliefs. But to have a commong ground of beliefs is a prerequisite for individual and social life. I think that my theory of social capital, mytopoesis and belief and the assimilaion of good and truth is sound in evolutuionary terms, and provides a factual/operation definition of Truth in the world of the mind, which is the only world accesible to us. If I tell you that a spirit appeared to me last night and told me that you should give me all your money or else the world will be destroyed, what will you say to me? That it's as true as any other myth, understandable in evolutionary terms, on a par with scientific fact? Or will you just say, without thinking too hard, that it's bullshit? I suppose that you mean that there are histories that everyone would identify as bullshit. Well, this changes nothing. A myth by definition is something believed by a group of people in the past. Most of them as intelligent or more that you and me . You and me believe in things that will be myths tomorrow. Most of them created by scientists. The mith of antropogenic global warming, the myth of cultural determinism for example.. There are many things that were scientific in the past race studies for example. Now there are gender studies... they were, and they are scientific and bullshit at the same time. I hope that this is clarifying. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted. religion is a label that appears when the mith is old enough it has enough believers and the object of mitification is far away in time. People are reluctant to admit that they have unfounded beliefs. Specially if they have been educated in the belief that any belief is bad and into the belied that they have no beliefs. But to have a commong ground of beliefs is a prerequisite for individual and social life. I think that my theory of social capital, mytopoesis and belief and the assimilaion of good and truth is sound in evolutuionary terms, and provides a factual/operation definition of Truth in the world of the mind, which is the only world accesible to us. 2012/9/11 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: every statement about whatever, included reality is made with mental concepts . The definition of truth, reality , factual, religion, depend on axioms or unproved statements. I presented a computational-evolutionary, falsable, exposition of what religion is: a part of a wider class of phenomenons of reality construction and I demonstrated IHMO that no man is free from it. Aspects of religious belief such as mythopoesis, do occur in other facets of life, such as politics and even science. But what is unique about religion is that its proponents make factual statements which they proudly profess to believe in the absence of any supporting evidence, while disallowing such reasoning for bizarre beliefs different to their own without any apparent awareness of the inconsistency. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
I don´t know. Of course I don´t mean that my theory is all that can be said about it. What i say is that therese processes have a computable side, a phisical substrate, that has a underlyng logic and it is not a bunch of nonsensical neuronal firings that make 99.9 of humans, except a few chosen ones, to believe in teapots orbiting stars. 2012/9/11 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Religious communion with God and prayer are transcendental so not computable. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-09-11, 08:25:34 *Subject:* Re: victims of faith every statement about 爓hatever, included reality is made with mental concepts . 燭he definition of truth, reality , factual, religion, depend on axioms or unproved statements. I presented a computational-evolutionary, falsable, exposition of what religion is: 燼 part of a wider class of爌henomenons爋f reality construction and I demonstrated IHMO that no man is free from it. 2012/9/11 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: that is not fair. 99.99 believed in God or in gods They differ in the details. Atheists are a minority. In a deeper sense, atheists do believe in gods. problably modern atheism is one the most basic, new and thus, primitive religions, as I will show here: � Seeing 爐he development of religion where religion is repressed, unrepressed atheism develops into personality cult, which is probably the most basic religion. personality cult fanatics typically belive without any doubt that his leader, for example Stalin or Kim I Sung can write hundred of books per year about any scientific matter In industrialized countries this form of primitive religion appears in the rock star cult (bands of cult) in the ideologies, the political leadership cult, the cult to famous atheistic scientists or their precursors. 燭here are articles about the false mitifications, not by lay people but by scientist about the life of Darwin for example that moves to laugh http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.myths To summarize, religion is part of human nature. it involves the mitification or idealization of people that act as super-egos (in the psychoanalitical sense) or as models of behaviour for the believer. This is part of any healty socialization. 燭he process of sentimental attachment of a comunity ever involves the asumption of some myths. For sure a nation is a form of primitive religion where the life of the founders and their mytical history are part of the beliefs. such religion is mixed in a politeistic way with other attachment to football teams or rock groups that act as minor divinities, and usually there is a superior level of civilizational religion, above the nation, where the person identifies itself with a broader comunity, such is ecologism, christianism, socialism where Al Gore, Christ or Marx act as divinities. The fact that these myths are based on real, historical people or in too long dead people with no guaranteed 爃istoricity does not matter. The only difference is that new religions have new myths and due to the fact that they have no history, they conform to the most pure form of religion, where the psychological process of mythopoiesis is observable in action today. 營f the mytification goes from generation to generation (if the faith is sucessful) then the mytified historical figures become pure myths so they become gods. The most pure form of belief is the one where the believer does not know that he believe. The knowledge of belief is a sophisticated or civlized way of belief, that only exist where civilizatons are mixed. We all believe things that are idealizations, falsifications or mytifications. But not all myths are equal and not all myths have to be false. There is a social capital involved in every belief: A myth explains the reality in some way, but also is inherently good if it make people act in common for common goals that are good for all. This is independent from the objective truth. By intuition men can gasp how good a myth is for him and for his fellows (that may be explained by a social capital instinct, from which the mythopoiesis, the production of myths feed from). Good and Truthful become synonyms in the mind of the man that seek a menaning, a reason to live with others. And the man that don磘 seek meaning, either is in crisis or someone else has chosen his myhths to believe for him time ago. Let me be specific about what I dispute. I dispute the factual claims made by religions. For example
Re: Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi Craig Weinberg According to Paul, over 500 people witnessed the resurrected Jesus in the vicinity of Galilee. It was Jesus's one final miracle. The resurrection was necessary to prepare a mechanism, a way, for our bodies to be resurrected in the End Times. It was comparable to Moses' leading the Hebrews out of Egypt through the parting of the Red Sea. If you like, it was a dialectical response to death. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 12:21:57 Subject: Re: Re: victims of faith On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:49:31 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi meekerdb How can you demythify something that actually happened ? Jesus really died on the cross and was resurrected. You do know that there are many historians who question the existence of a historical Jesus. As far as I know, the evidence is spotty and suggests that he could easily have been a fictional composite of various teachers who lived in the wake of the Axial Age. I tend to give Jesus and crucifixion the benefit of the doubt, but I really have no evidence for that. Apparently there is no mention of his existence or crucifixion in Roman history from that time. Who knows? Personally I don't get the point of the resurrection. He walked around for a while - proving that he survived death..ok, cool. Then what? He disappears up to heaven, leaving humanity to its own horrendous devices indefinitely with a promise to return? I do like what Jesus is quoted as having said. As some point out, Jesus christ was a bleeding heart, long-haired, peace-loving, anti-establishment, liberal hippie freak with strange ideas. Craig Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 16:01:28 Subject: Re: victims of faith On 9/10/2012 12:50 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: This paper of an evolutionist scientific denounces the mytification of Darwin, the spread of false claims that enhance his figure and even the creation of a physical temple around these myths. http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep055269.pdf So when will be treated to papers by Christians de-mythifying Jesus and papers by Muslims de-mythifying Muhammed? Maybe science and religion really are different. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Onc9EZ7quwIJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
Note that the natural definition of Truth and reality that arises from a evolutionarily-informed theory of biology psichology and sociology (sociobiology) is very simple: True and existent is whatever that make individuals and groups to be successful. Men and women exist in reality as objects of perception because these objects and their behaviours have a big importance for our survival, so we have specialized circuits for perceiving and thinking about them. The more circuits for processing something, the more true and existent in reality is. My social capital psychology theory postulates that we have a way to assess, in advance, how good the consequences of an idea are for us and for our group. This instinctive evaluation determines if an idea is good and therefore, if it is true(given the above). This evaluation of an idea depend o its intrinsic explanatory power, but also in how this idea make our group strong and coordinated in relation with others. This applies to any kind of idea: scientific, religious or whatever. Both factors, explanatory power and social capital potential may collide, but by far the social capital component is the most important in human life. We do not spent much time discussing about the spin of the electron, because the explanatory power is easy to assess. But we make wars when there is a collision of ideas with social capital implied like all men are equal under the law, the individual has the right to seek happiness for himself and another world of equality and happiness is possible if we remove the social obstacles for human development Good and Truth is the same in many phylosophical systems. A group and its associated beliefs works as an insurance company. In essence the rational risk analysis of a client before signing a contract with an insurance company is similar to the evaluation of the beliefs of a group although in this case it is unconscious and produces sentiments of conversion, goodness and truthfulness. 2012/9/12 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted. religion is a label that appears when the mith is old enough it has enough believers and the object of mitification is far away in time. People are reluctant to admit that they have unfounded beliefs. Specially if they have been educated in the belief that any belief is bad and into the belied that they have no beliefs. But to have a commong ground of beliefs is a prerequisite for individual and social life. I think that my theory of social capital, mytopoesis and belief and the assimilaion of good and truth is sound in evolutuionary terms, and provides a factual/operation definition of Truth in the world of the mind, which is the only world accesible to us. 2012/9/11 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: every statement about whatever, included reality is made with mental concepts . The definition of truth, reality , factual, religion, depend on axioms or unproved statements. I presented a computational-evolutionary, falsable, exposition of what religion is: a part of a wider class of phenomenons of reality construction and I demonstrated IHMO that no man is free from it. Aspects of religious belief such as mythopoesis, do occur in other facets of life, such as politics and even science. But what is unique about religion is that its proponents make factual statements which they proudly profess to believe in the absence of any supporting evidence, while disallowing such reasoning for bizarre beliefs different to their own without any apparent awareness of the inconsistency. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi meekerdb Religion does not have the capacity to judge scientific statements. Science does not have the capacity to judge religious statements. So let science be science and religion be religion. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 12:47:05 Subject: Re: victims of faith On 9/11/2012 5:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb Science is science and religion is religion and never the two shall meet. I'm not sure about this Roger. The goal of a true science and true religion, in my opinion, is the search of truth. In the Bah?'? Faith, it is said that a true science and true religion can never be in conflict. The Pope says the same about Catholicism. But that didn't keep the Church from saying heliocentrism was false, evolution didn't happen, disease is caused by sin,... The problem with religion is that it doesn't test it's 'facts'. Brent To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. --- Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, letter to Paolo Frascioni The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment. ---Sheik Abdel-Aziz ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, 1993, quoted by Yousef M. Ibrahim, The New York Times, 12 February 1993 Yes, that's 1993 CE, not BCE. The son of the founder of the Bah?'? Faith said, If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. ... All religions of the present day have fallen into superstitious practices, out of harmony alike with the true principles of the teaching they represent and with the scientific discoveries of the time.? We see this same sentiment expressed by Einstein, when he said, ?cience without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi John Clark 1) God, being inextended, is invisible to the scientific method and logic, life, being inextgended, is also invisible to the scientific method and logic, as is the intelligence of nature. 2) As far as Hell goes, I believe that burning in exquisite torture forever is hyperbole (an overstatement to emphasize a point). Jesus was a rabbi and rabbis often taught by means of hyperbole (If you do not hate your mother and father you cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven). In many ways life as it is is Hell. Crap happens and then you die--- except for Christians, crap happens and then you live. 3) With reference to 1) there is no logical reason to believe in God. Logic flies out of the window. 4) God is All-powerful but he's also righteous, a word we seem to have lost the meaning of these days. So he would not tease you or wish you harm unless you do evil things. 5) All of these questions and more are answered in any catechism. Luther put his whole theology into his catechism, so never wrote a theological treatise. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 16:51:53 Subject: Re: Re: victims of faith On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Belief in God is a gift from God, you cannot achieve it on your own. OK but have you ever asked yourself why that should be? If God exists then that is the single most important fact about the universe, but why would the most powerful thing that there is be completely invisible to the scientific method? The only answer is that's the way God wants it. Well if God is all powerful then He's certainly capable of fooling us if He wants to, but such petty small minded behavior is not what I'd expect from a omnipotent omniscient being, somehow I just expect more than a boy teasing a puppy from such a glorious being. On the other hand I would very much expect that sort of thing from a human, I'd expect a human being who wanted to gain power over others with religion to push the idea that faith is a virtue, such a man would teach that the greatest most noble thing in the world is to believe deeply and passionately in something when there is not one damn reason for doing so. But I think far from being a virtue faith is just about the most horrible vice there is. ? The same is also true of salvation. And its hard to understand why a omnipotent omniscient being would torture His creations for all of eternity if His efforts to fool them were successful and they thought for even one second that He did not exist. But it's very easy to see why a human being seeking power would push the idea, it's really pretty clever, the witchdoctor turns a disadvantage (lack of proof) into a advantage (the more ridiculous the idea the more virtuous you are if you believe it); and anybody who doesn't believe faces a infinite amount of pain. ? John K Clark ? ? ? ? ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi Alberto G. Corona Scientific truth is truth about extended (physical) objects Religious or humanistic truth is truth about inextended (nonphysical) objects. Period. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-12, 07:22:14 Subject: Re: victims of faith Note that the natural definition of Truth and reality that arises from a evolutionarily-informed theory of biology psichology and sociology (sociobiology) is very simple: True and existent is whatever that make individuals and groups to be successful. Men and women exist in reality as objects of perception because these objects and their behaviours have a big importance for our survival, so we have specialized circuits for perceiving and thinking about them. The more circuits for processing something, the more true and existent in reality is. My social capital psychology theory postulates that we have a way to assess, in advance, how good the consequences of an idea are for us and for our group. ?his instinctive evaluation determines if an idea is good and therefore, if it is true(given the above). This evaluation of an idea depend o its intrinsic explanatory power, but also in how this idea make our ?roup strong and coordinated in relation with others. This applies to any kind of idea: scientific, religious or whatever. Both factors, explanatory power and social capital potential may collide, but by far the social capital component is the most important in human life. We do not spent much time discussing about the spin of the electron, because the explanatory power is easy to assess. But we make wars when there is a collision of ideas with social capital implied like all men are equal under the law, the individual has the right to seek happiness for himself and ?another world of equality and happiness is possible if we remove the social obstacles for human development ?ood and Truth is the same in many phylosophical systems.? A group and its associated beliefs works as an insurance company. In essence the rational risk analysis of a client before signing a contract with an insurance company is similar to the evaluation of the beliefs of a group?lthough in this case it is unconscious and produces sentiments of conversion, goodness and truthfulness. 2012/9/12 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted. religion is a label that appears when the?ith?s old enough it has enough believers and the object of mitification is far away in time. ? People are reluctant to admit that they have unfounded beliefs. Specially if they have been educated in the belief that any belief is bad and into the belied that they have no beliefs. But to have a commong ground of beliefs is a prerequisite for individual and social life. ? think that my theory of social capital, mytopoesis and belief and the assimilaion of good and truth is sound in evolutuionary terms, and provides a factual/operation definition of Truth in the world of the mind, which is the only world accesible to us. 2012/9/11 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: every statement about ?hatever, included reality is made with mental concepts . ?he definition of truth, reality , factual, religion, depend on axioms or unproved statements. I presented a computational-evolutionary, falsable, exposition of what religion is: ? part of a wider class of phenomenons of reality construction and I demonstrated IHMO that no man is free from it. Aspects of religious belief such as mythopoesis, do occur in other facets of life, such as politics and even science. But what is unique about religion is that its proponents make factual statements which they proudly profess to believe in the absence of any supporting evidence, while disallowing such reasoning for bizarre beliefs different to their own without any apparent awareness of the inconsistency. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http
Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi Bruno Marchal I don't think that a man with a robotic body would be very sexy to a lady, would he ? Love begins in the gonads. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 15:05:44 Subject: Re: victims of faith On 11 Sep 2012, at 15:56, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch What do we have that machines don't ? Intelligence, consciousnness, awareness. feelings-- in short, we have life, machines don't And what if your daughter did marry that man with an artificial body? How will you behave with him, and with your daughter? If this seems to you impossible, what in the brain is not Turing emulable (or Turing recoverable by 1-indeterminacy)? I feel unease with speculation leading to a restriction on the possible persons. Why not being agnostic at the least? Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 09:04:05 Subject: Re: Re: victims of faith On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Religious communion with God and prayer are transcendental so not computable. Even those of the past who looked down on the barbaric and uncivilized native people believed they could be converted and saved. You profess that androids (like Data in star trek) is at an even lower place (than those who looked down on foreigners). What do we have that machines don't? We are all quarks and electrons, so what magic are the machines missing? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
But unextended objects according with S. T. Aquinas exist in our mind and are reasonable, that is they are absent from contradictions, that is according with the facts of reality, which for Aquinas is part of the Revelation, which has two sides: the Natural Revelation ( The creation: Nature) and the Written Revelation: The bible Many facts of Natural Revelation suggest that the Creator proceed by evolution, by a complex process called popularly natural selection, and NS have rules that affect how behaviours and mental process work in humans and other animals (according with Aquinas, men and animals share the animal substance). NS assures that what we perceive is in relation a external physical reality, but it is NOT the external physical reality. In other words, the architecture of the mind, and the concepts that we manage are created to deal with the phisical reality trough our mental image of reality that the mind produces. We can not access the physical reality directly. Therefore every object is first and foremost, mental, included the extensional objects. The reality is therefore, mental. Therefore, any definition of Existence and Truth is in terms of mental categories. So both extensional and unextensional objects are subject of study of a science of the mind under the hypothesis that the mind and the external reality have such relation that I expressed, given the facts that Natural Revelation show to science, And the fact that according with Aquinas, God is perfect and because it is a perfect being could not falll in irrationalities nor in breakings of cause-effect. Therefore an evolutionary study of religion is a legitimate part of Natural Theology. 2012/9/12 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Scientific truth is truth about extended (physical) objects Religious or humanistic truth is truth about inextended (nonphysical) objects. Period. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-09-12, 07:22:14 *Subject:* Re: victims of faith Note that the natural definition of Truth and reality that arises from a evolutionarily-informed theory of biology psichology and sociology (sociobiology) is very simple: True and existent is whatever that make individuals and groups to be successful. Men and women exist in reality as objects of perception because these objects and their behaviours have a big importance for our survival, so we have specialized circuits for perceiving and thinking about them. The more circuits for processing something, the more true and existent in reality is. My social capital psychology theory postulates that we have a way to assess, in advance, how good the consequences of an idea are for us and for our group. 燭his instinctive evaluation determines if an idea is good and therefore, if it is true(given the above). This evaluation of an idea depend o its intrinsic explanatory power, but also in how this idea make our 爂roup strong and coordinated in relation with others. This applies to any kind of idea: scientific, religious or whatever. Both factors, explanatory power and social capital potential may collide, but by far the social capital component is the most important in human life. We do not spent much time discussing about the spin of the electron, because the explanatory power is easy to assess. But we make wars when there is a collision of ideas with social capital implied like all men are equal under the law, the individual has the right to seek happiness for himself and �another world of equality and happiness is possible if we remove the social obstacles for human development 燝ood and Truth is the same in many phylosophical systems.� A group and its associated beliefs works as an insurance company. In essence the rational risk analysis of a client before signing a contract with an insurance company is similar to the evaluation of the beliefs of a group燼lthough in this case it is unconscious and produces sentiments of conversion, goodness and truthfulness. 2012/9/12 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted. religion is a label that appears when the爉ith爄s old enough it has enough believers and the object of mitification is far away in time. � People are reluctant to admit that they have unfounded beliefs. Specially if they have been educated in the belief that any belief is bad and into the belied that they have no beliefs. But to have a commong ground of beliefs is a prerequisite for individual and social life. 營 think that my theory of social capital, mytopoesis and belief and the assimilaion
Re: Re: Re: victims of faith
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: God, being inextended, If God is not extended then He must be very small and that could be the reason we don't see Him. God is like a germ. is invisible to the scientific method and logic I think you're correct about that, God makes no sense, none whatsoever. As far as Hell goes, I believe that burning in exquisite torture forever is hyperbole (an overstatement to emphasize a point). Jesus was a rabbi and rabbis often taught by means of hyperbole So Jesus was lying like a rug and He was doing so for the exact same reason that you or I lie, it helps to convince other people to do what we want them to do. But such phony scare tactics is not what I'd expect from someone who was supposed to be a moral paragon. With reference to 1) there is no logical reason to believe in God. Logic flies out of the window. In 100% agreement with you there. God is All-powerful but he's also righteous Did God create righteousness? If he did then saying God is righteous means nothing and the only reason for us to be righteous is so we don't anger God and have Him torture us forever with the greatest skill He can muster; so we obey God for exactly the same reason the people in occupied France obeyed the Nazis, fear. On the other hand if God didn't create righteousness then He has nothing to do with right and wrong except that He's supposed to do what's right just like everybody else. So he would not tease you or wish you harm unless you do evil things. God is threatening to do one hell of a lot more than just tease you! God may be lying through His teeth but imagine if He is not and imagine if the Christian God really did exist, it would be worse than living in North Korea. Here we have an all powerful demon addicted to flattery who can read your every thought and will torture you, not for a long time, but for ETERNITY if you take even one small step out of line or break just one of his many, many, many, rules and they includes thought crimes. To make matters worse you're not even sure exactly what all his rules are, the experts violently (and I do mean violently) disagree, so you never know if you're going to be tortured or how to avoid it. This seems pretty depressing to me and not at all moral, I'll take an indifferent universe over a sadistic one any day. Charles Darwin had something to say on this subject: Disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but at last was complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine. All of these questions and more are answered in any catechism. Why did God make me? God made me to know love and praise Him. Are you really satisfied with those sort of infantile answers?! And how in hell can anybody love the invisible man in the sky when He's so damn unlovable? And how can one praise Him without being a hypocrite? And how did God develop such a huge inferiority complex that He needs constant flattery? Luther put his whole theology into his catechism, Martin or Lex? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
On 12 Sep 2012, at 14:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I don't think that a man with a robotic body would be very sexy to a lady, would he ? Love begins in the gonads. By definition of comp, the lady can't see the difference. Apparently your daughter did not complain,did she?, as they still want to mary him. For her, it is just him. Applesoft's artificial gonads have a 150 years warranty. If you have a problem call an Applesoft center close by. (in some few centuries near futures). The difference between artificial and natural is artificial. And thus natural. It is natural for entities developing (big) egos relatively to their probable environments. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 15:05:44 Subject: Re: victims of faith On 11 Sep 2012, at 15:56, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch What do we have that machines don't ? Intelligence, consciousnness, awareness. feelings-- in short, we have life, machines don't And what if your daughter did marry that man with an artificial body? How will you behave with him, and with your daughter? If this seems to you impossible, what in the brain is not Turing emulable (or Turing recoverable by 1-indeterminacy)? I feel unease with speculation leading to a restriction on the possible persons. Why not being agnostic at the least? Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 09:04:05 Subject: Re: Re: victims of faith On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Religious communion with God and prayer are transcendental so not computable. Even those of the past who looked down on the barbaric and uncivilized native people believed they could be converted and saved. You profess that androids (like Data in star trek) is at an even lower place (than those who looked down on foreigners). What do we have that machines don't? We are all quarks and electrons, so what magic are the machines missing? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi Alberto G. Corona Thge atheist's god is himself. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 15:17:21 Subject: Re: victims of faith that is not fair. 99.99 believed in God or in gods They differ in the details. Atheists are a minority. In a deeper sense, atheists do believe in gods. problably modern atheism is one the most basic, new and thus, primitive religions, as I will show here: Seeing the development of religion where religion is repressed, unrepressed atheism develops into personality cult, which is probably the most basic religion. personality cult fanatics typically belive without any doubt that his leader, for example Stalin or Kim I Sung can write hundred of books per year about any scientific matter In industrialized countries this form of primitive religion appears in the rock star cult (bands of cult) in the ideologies, the political leadership cult, the cult to famous atheistic scientists or their precursors. There are articles about the false mitifications, not by lay people but by scientist about the life of Darwin for example that moves to laugh http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.myths To summarize, religion is part of human nature. it involves the mitification or idealization of people that act as super-egos (in the psychoanalitical sense) or as models of behaviour for the believer. This is part of any healty socialization. The process of sentimental attachment of a comunity ever involves the asumption of some myths. For sure a nation is a form of primitive religion where the life of the founders and their mytical history are part of the beliefs. such religion is mixed in a politeistic way with other attachment to football teams or rock groups that act as minor divinities, and usually there is a superior level of civilizational religion, above the nation, where the person identifies itself with a broader comunity, such is ecologism, christianism, socialism where Al Gore, Christ or Marx act as divinities. The fact that these myths are based on real, historical people or in too long dead people with no guaranteed historicity does not matter. The only difference is that new religions have new myths and due to the fact that they have no history, they conform to the most pure form of religion, where the psychological process of mythopoiesis is observable in action today. If the mytification goes from generation to generation (if the faith is sucessful) then the mytified historical figures become pure myths so they become gods. The most pure form of belief is the one where the believer does not know that he believe. The knowledge of belief is a sophisticated or civlized way of belief, that only exist where civilizatons are mixed. We all believe things that are idealizations, falsifications or mytifications. But not all myths are equal and not all myths have to be false. There is a social capital involved in every belief: A myth explains the reality in some way, but also is inherently good if it make people act in common for common goals that are good for all. This is independent from the objective truth. By intuition men can gasp how good a myth is for him and for his fellows (that may be explained by a social capital instinct, from which the mythopoiesis, the production of myths feed from). Good and Truthful become synonyms in the mind of the man that seek a menaning, a reason to live with others. And the man that don? seek meaning, either is in crisis or someone else has chosen his myhths to believe for him time ago. 2012/9/10 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: So you have a very strong belief: That almost all but a few enlightened people like you in the History of humanity are a bunch of silly idiots. Actually, almost everyone in the history of humanity has thought that 99.99% of all religions are silly, and that they were fortuitously born into the 0.01% that wasn't. Atheists take it a bit further and think that 100% of all religions are silly. Agnostics, if they are consistent, say that it is possible that the archangel gabriel dictated the Quran to Muhammad just as it is possible that Santa Claus and his helpers construct toys for the world's children at the North Pole. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi meekerdb Belief in God is a gift from God, you cannot achieve it on your own. The same is also true of salvation. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 15:49:44 Subject: Re: victims of faith Having obfuscated the meaning of God as much as possible, let's see if we can also fuzz-up the meaning of believe in - because, above all, we really really want to be able to say We believe in God. and we want to be able to say You really believe in God. and if you think you don't it is just because you don't know the real secret meaning of believe in and God. Brent On 9/10/2012 12:17 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: that is not fair. 99.99 believed in God or in gods They differ in the details. Atheists are a minority. In a deeper sense, atheists do believe in gods. problably modern atheism is one the most basic, new and thus, primitive religions, as I will show here: Seeing the development of religion where religion is repressed, unrepressed atheism develops into personality cult, which is probably the most basic religion. personality cult fanatics typically belive without any doubt that his leader, for example Stalin or Kim I Sung can write hundred of books per year about any scientific matter In industrialized countries this form of primitive religion appears in the rock star cult (bands of cult) in the ideologies, the political leadership cult, the cult to famous atheistic scientists or their precursors. There are articles about the false mitifications, not by lay people but by scientist about the life of Darwin for example that moves to laugh http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.myths To summarize, religion is part of human nature. it involves the mitification or idealization of people that act as super-egos (in the psychoanalitical sense) or as models of behaviour for the believer. This is part of any healty socialization. The process of sentimental attachment of a comunity ever involves the asumption of some myths. For sure a nation is a form of primitive religion where the life of the founders and their mytical history are part of the beliefs. such religion is mixed in a politeistic way with other attachment to football teams or rock groups that act as minor divinities, and usually there is a superior level of civilizational religion, above the nation, where the person identifies itself with a broader comunity, such is ecologism, christianism, socialism where Al Gore, Christ or Marx act as divinities. The fact that these myths are based on real, historical people or in too long dead people with no guaranteed historicity does not matter. The only difference is that new religions have new myths and due to the fact that they have no history, they conform to the most pure form of religion, where the psychological process of mythopoiesis is observable in action today. If the mytification goes from generation to generation (if the faith is sucessful) then the mytified historical figures become pure myths so they become gods. The most pure form of belief is the one where the believer does not know that he believe. The knowledge of belief is a sophisticated or civlized way of belief, that only exist where civilizatons are mixed. We all believe things that are idealizations, falsifications or mytifications. But not all myths are equal and not all myths have to be false. There is a social capital involved in every belief: A myth explains the reality in some way, but also is inherently good if it make people act in common for common goals that are good for all. This is independent from the objective truth. By intuition men can gasp how good a myth is for him and for his fellows (that may be explained by a social capital instinct, from which the mythopoiesis, the production of myths feed from). Good and Truthful become synonyms in the mind of the man that seek a menaning, a reason to live with others. And the man that don? seek meaning, either is in crisis or someone else has chosen his myhths to believe for him time ago. 2012/9/10 Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Alberto G. Coronaagocor...@gmail.com wrote: So you have a very strong belief: That almost all but a few enlightened people like you in the History of humanity are a bunch of silly idiots. Actually, almost everyone in the history of humanity has thought that 99.99% of all religions are silly, and that they were fortuitously born into the 0.01% that wasn't. Atheists take it a bit further and think that 100% of all religions are silly. Agnostics, if they are consistent, say that it is possible that the archangel gabriel dictated the Quran to Muhammad just as it is possible that Santa Claus and his helpers
Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi meekerdb Science is science and religion is religion and never the two shall meet. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 16:02:09 Subject: Re: victims of faith On 9/10/2012 12:50 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: This paper of an evolutionist scientific denounces the mytification of Darwin, the spread of false claims that enhance his figure and even the creation of a physical temple around these myths. http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep055269.pdf So when will be treated to papers by Christians de-mythifying Jesus and papers by Muslims de-mythifying Muhammed? Maybe science and religion really are different. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
2012/9/10 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 9/10/2012 12:50 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: This paper of an evolutionist scientific denounces the mytification of Darwin, the spread of false claims that enhance his figure and even the creation of a physical temple around these myths. http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep055269.pdf So when will be treated to papers by Christians de-mythifying Jesus and papers by Muslims de-mythifying Muhammed? Maybe science and religion really are different. There are a lot of naturalistic studies christianism. In particular, from churchmen, well before Darwin. You can find examples of this in the same link. Some christian branches since Saint thomas take nature and science as a kind of revelation, the natural revelation, above the written revelation when studying the natural world. Science is different from religion. You maybe did´nt understood me. But like any human activity, science can be used by the mytopoeic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythopoeicinstict of every human to create idealized archetipes of behavior in support of a homegeneous life style in a comunity. This mytopesis as part of a wider social capital instinct where the myth creators and the receptors accept and refine their own myths by an agonic identification of utility and truth, individually perceived as Truth and Goodness, in a shared, comunitary feeling, where conversion, expressions of faith, expontaneous expression of disdain and aggresivity against opposed myths is part of the normal development of the comunity. We see this social capital + mytopoeic instinct working today, as for example, in the idealization of scientific figures such is Darwin, as shown in this paper, but also in the case of Hitler, Stalin, Mic Jagger, ... or your company chairman or even your kids. Myths are everywhere and beliefs will be forever as long as men live in society. I wrote something about the social capital instinct and the mytopoeic instinct but it is unfinished https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C2eynaOgz-C8SzU1qNZdTks2BAIoAZ1QuUB_IEDVXvk/edit Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
every statement about whatever, included reality is made with mental concepts . The definition of truth, reality , factual, religion, depend on axioms or unproved statements. I presented a computational-evolutionary, falsable, exposition of what religion is: a part of a wider class of phenomenons of reality construction and I demonstrated IHMO that no man is free from it. 2012/9/11 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: that is not fair. 99.99 believed in God or in gods They differ in the details. Atheists are a minority. In a deeper sense, atheists do believe in gods. problably modern atheism is one the most basic, new and thus, primitive religions, as I will show here: Seeing the development of religion where religion is repressed, unrepressed atheism develops into personality cult, which is probably the most basic religion. personality cult fanatics typically belive without any doubt that his leader, for example Stalin or Kim I Sung can write hundred of books per year about any scientific matter In industrialized countries this form of primitive religion appears in the rock star cult (bands of cult) in the ideologies, the political leadership cult, the cult to famous atheistic scientists or their precursors. There are articles about the false mitifications, not by lay people but by scientist about the life of Darwin for example that moves to laugh http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.myths To summarize, religion is part of human nature. it involves the mitification or idealization of people that act as super-egos (in the psychoanalitical sense) or as models of behaviour for the believer. This is part of any healty socialization. The process of sentimental attachment of a comunity ever involves the asumption of some myths. For sure a nation is a form of primitive religion where the life of the founders and their mytical history are part of the beliefs. such religion is mixed in a politeistic way with other attachment to football teams or rock groups that act as minor divinities, and usually there is a superior level of civilizational religion, above the nation, where the person identifies itself with a broader comunity, such is ecologism, christianism, socialism where Al Gore, Christ or Marx act as divinities. The fact that these myths are based on real, historical people or in too long dead people with no guaranteed historicity does not matter. The only difference is that new religions have new myths and due to the fact that they have no history, they conform to the most pure form of religion, where the psychological process of mythopoiesis is observable in action today. If the mytification goes from generation to generation (if the faith is sucessful) then the mytified historical figures become pure myths so they become gods. The most pure form of belief is the one where the believer does not know that he believe. The knowledge of belief is a sophisticated or civlized way of belief, that only exist where civilizatons are mixed. We all believe things that are idealizations, falsifications or mytifications. But not all myths are equal and not all myths have to be false. There is a social capital involved in every belief: A myth explains the reality in some way, but also is inherently good if it make people act in common for common goals that are good for all. This is independent from the objective truth. By intuition men can gasp how good a myth is for him and for his fellows (that may be explained by a social capital instinct, from which the mythopoiesis, the production of myths feed from). Good and Truthful become synonyms in the mind of the man that seek a menaning, a reason to live with others. And the man that don´t seek meaning, either is in crisis or someone else has chosen his myhths to believe for him time ago. Let me be specific about what I dispute. I dispute the factual claims made by religions. For example: - Athena sprang fully formed from the head of Zeus when Hephaestus struck it with an ax to relieve a headache; - Yahweh dictated the ten commandments to Moses; - Ganesha is an elephant headed god who promotes good luck; - You go to Heaven when you die if you accept that Jesus is God and repent your sins. If you remove the factual claims then you are left with statements that may be inspiring, poetic, vacuous or nonsensical, but not true or false. For example: - Athena sprang from Zeus' head because in mythology she represents wisdom; - The ten commandments are a good basis for morality; - Worshiping Ganesha gives Hindus comfort and hope; - Jesus taught the importance of forgiveness. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group,
Re: victims of faith
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: every statement about whatever, included reality is made with mental concepts . The definition of truth, reality , factual, religion, depend on axioms or unproved statements. I presented a computational-evolutionary, falsable, exposition of what religion is: a part of a wider class of phenomenons of reality construction and I demonstrated IHMO that no man is free from it. Aspects of religious belief such as mythopoesis, do occur in other facets of life, such as politics and even science. But what is unique about religion is that its proponents make factual statements which they proudly profess to believe in the absence of any supporting evidence, while disallowing such reasoning for bizarre beliefs different to their own without any apparent awareness of the inconsistency. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi Alberto G. Corona Religious communion with God and prayer are transcendental so not computable. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 08:25:34 Subject: Re: victims of faith every statement about ?hatever, included reality is made with mental concepts . ?he definition of truth, reality , factual, religion, depend on axioms or unproved statements. I presented a computational-evolutionary, falsable, exposition of what religion is: ? part of a wider class of?henomenons?f reality construction and I demonstrated IHMO that no man is free from it. 2012/9/11 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: that is not fair. 99.99 believed in God or in gods They differ in the details. Atheists are a minority. In a deeper sense, atheists do believe in gods. problably modern atheism is one the most basic, new and thus, primitive religions, as I will show here: ? Seeing ?he development of religion where religion is repressed, unrepressed atheism develops into personality cult, which is probably the most basic religion. personality cult fanatics typically belive without any doubt that his leader, for example Stalin or Kim I Sung can write hundred of books per year about any scientific matter In industrialized countries this form of primitive religion appears in the rock star cult (bands of cult) in the ideologies, the political leadership cult, the cult to famous atheistic scientists or their precursors. ?here are articles about the false mitifications, not by lay people but by scientist about the life of Darwin for example that moves to laugh http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.myths To summarize, religion is part of human nature. it involves the mitification or idealization of people that act as super-egos (in the psychoanalitical sense) or as models of behaviour for the believer. This is part of any healty socialization. ?he process of sentimental attachment of a comunity ever involves the asumption of some myths. For sure a nation is a form of primitive religion where the life of the founders and their mytical history are part of the beliefs. such religion is mixed in a politeistic way with other attachment to football teams or rock groups that act as minor divinities, and usually there is a superior level of civilizational religion, above the nation, where the person identifies itself with a broader comunity, such is ecologism, christianism, socialism where Al Gore, Christ or Marx act as divinities. The fact that these myths are based on real, historical people or in too long dead people with no guaranteed ?istoricity does not matter. The only difference is that new religions have new myths and due to the fact that they have no history, they conform to the most pure form of religion, where the psychological process of mythopoiesis is observable in action today. ?f the mytification goes from generation to generation (if the faith is sucessful) then the mytified historical figures become pure myths so they become gods. The most pure form of belief is the one where the believer does not know that he believe. The knowledge of belief is a sophisticated or civlized way of belief, that only exist where civilizatons are mixed. We all believe things that are idealizations, falsifications or mytifications. But not all myths are equal and not all myths have to be false. There is a social capital involved in every belief: A myth explains the reality in some way, but also is inherently good if it make people act in common for common goals that are good for all. This is independent from the objective truth. By intuition men can gasp how good a myth is for him and for his fellows (that may be explained by a social capital instinct, from which the mythopoiesis, the production of myths feed from). Good and Truthful become synonyms in the mind of the man that seek a menaning, a reason to live with others. And the man that don? seek meaning, either is in crisis or someone else has chosen his myhths to believe for him time ago. Let me be specific about what I dispute. I dispute the factual claims made by religions. For example: - Athena sprang fully formed from the head of Zeus when Hephaestus struck it with an ax to relieve a headache; - Yahweh dictated the ten commandments to Moses; - Ganesha is an elephant headed god who promotes good luck; - You go to Heaven when you die if you accept that Jesus is God and repent your sins. If you remove the factual claims then you are left with statements that may be inspiring, poetic, vacuous or nonsensical, but not true or false. For example: - Athena sprang from Zeus' head because in mythology she represents
Re: victims of faith
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: But what is unique about religion is that its proponents make factual statements which they proudly profess to believe in the absence of any supporting evidence, while disallowing such reasoning for bizarre beliefs different to their own without any apparent awareness of the inconsistency. Some believers and some religions do, others not. But this is not limited to religion. You saw John Clark admit he was proud to reject ideas (even those with some evidence), in a effect, making a factual statement (implied idea X is not true) in the absence of supporting evidence. As an example showing that such certainty is a trait of all religion, see this quote concerning creation from the Rig Veda: “Who knows truly? Who here will declare whence it arose, whence this creation? The gods are subsequent to the creation of this. Who, then, knows whence it has come into being? Whence this creation has come into being; whether it was made or not; he in the highest heaven is its surveyor. Surely he knows, or perhaps he knows not.” Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb Science is science and religion is religion and never the two shall meet. I'm not sure about this Roger. The goal of a true science and true religion, in my opinion, is the search of truth. In the Bahá'í Faith, it is said that a true science and true religion can never be in conflict. The son of the founder of the Bahá'í Faith said, If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. ... All religions of the present day have fallen into superstitious practices, out of harmony alike with the true principles of the teaching they represent and with the scientific discoveries of the time.” We see this same sentiment expressed by Einstein, when he said, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Religious communion with God and prayer are transcendental so not computable. Even those of the past who looked down on the barbaric and uncivilized native people believed they could be converted and saved. You profess that androids (like Data in star trek) is at an even lower place (than those who looked down on foreigners). What do we have that machines don't? We are all quarks and electrons, so what magic are the machines missing? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi Jason Resch There are some factual errors in the Bible but IMHO the Bible is inerrant with regard to faith and moral practice. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 08:53:41 Subject: Re: victims of faith On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: But what is unique about religion is that its proponents make factual statements which they proudly profess to believe in the absence of any supporting evidence, while disallowing such reasoning for bizarre beliefs different to their own without any apparent awareness of the inconsistency. Some believers and some religions do, others not.? But this is not limited to religion.? You saw John Clark admit he was proud to reject ideas (even those with some evidence), in a effect, making a factual statement (implied idea X is not true) in the absence of supporting evidence. As an example showing that such certainty is a trait of all religion, see this quote concerning creation from the Rig Veda: ?ho knows truly?? Who here will declare whence it arose, whence this creation?? The gods are subsequent to the creation of this.? Who, then, knows whence it has come into being?? Whence this creation has come into being; whether it was made or not; he in the highest heaven is its surveyor.? Surely he knows, or perhaps he knows not.? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi Jason Resch What do we have that machines don't ? Intelligence, consciousnness, awareness. feelings-- in short, we have life, machines don't Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 09:04:05 Subject: Re: Re: victims of faith On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Religious communion with God and prayer are transcendental so not computable. Even those of the past who looked down on the barbaric and uncivilized native people believed they could be converted and saved. You profess that androids (like Data in star trek) is at an even lower place (than those who looked down on foreigners). What do we have that machines don't? We are all quarks and electrons, so what magic are the machines missing? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi Stathis Papaioannou All of your instances of the falsity of religion below do not pertain to the Christian relgion except that the Ten Commandments were dictated by God to Moses. Not so, they were carved into two stone tablets. So no mistakes. For a God who create this marvellous universe, that was child's play, a day at the beach. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 19:43:38 Subject: Re: victims of faith On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: that is not fair. 99.99 believed in God or in gods They differ in the details. Atheists are a minority. In a deeper sense, atheists do believe in gods. problably modern atheism is one the most basic, new and thus, primitive religions, as I will show here: Seeing the development of religion where religion is repressed, unrepressed atheism develops into personality cult, which is probably the most basic religion. personality cult fanatics typically belive without any doubt that his leader, for example Stalin or Kim I Sung can write hundred of books per year about any scientific matter In industrialized countries this form of primitive religion appears in the rock star cult (bands of cult) in the ideologies, the political leadership cult, the cult to famous atheistic scientists or their precursors. There are articles about the false mitifications, not by lay people but by scientist about the life of Darwin for example that moves to laugh http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.myths To summarize, religion is part of human nature. it involves the mitification or idealization of people that act as super-egos (in the psychoanalitical sense) or as models of behaviour for the believer. This is part of any healty socialization. The process of sentimental attachment of a comunity ever involves the asumption of some myths. For sure a nation is a form of primitive religion where the life of the founders and their mytical history are part of the beliefs. such religion is mixed in a politeistic way with other attachment to football teams or rock groups that act as minor divinities, and usually there is a superior level of civilizational religion, above the nation, where the person identifies itself with a broader comunity, such is ecologism, christianism, socialism where Al Gore, Christ or Marx act as divinities. The fact that these myths are based on real, historical people or in too long dead people with no guaranteed historicity does not matter. The only difference is that new religions have new myths and due to the fact that they have no history, they conform to the most pure form of religion, where the psychological process of mythopoiesis is observable in action today. If the mytification goes from generation to generation (if the faith is sucessful) then the mytified historical figures become pure myths so they become gods. The most pure form of belief is the one where the believer does not know that he believe. The knowledge of belief is a sophisticated or civlized way of belief, that only exist where civilizatons are mixed. We all believe things that are idealizations, falsifications or mytifications. But not all myths are equal and not all myths have to be false. There is a social capital involved in every belief: A myth explains the reality in some way, but also is inherently good if it make people act in common for common goals that are good for all. This is independent from the objective truth. By intuition men can gasp how good a myth is for him and for his fellows (that may be explained by a social capital instinct, from which the mythopoiesis, the production of myths feed from). Good and Truthful become synonyms in the mind of the man that seek a menaning, a reason to live with others. And the man that don? seek meaning, either is in crisis or someone else has chosen his myhths to believe for him time ago. Let me be specific about what I dispute. I dispute the factual claims made by religions. For example: - Athena sprang fully formed from the head of Zeus when Hephaestus struck it with an ax to relieve a headache; - Yahweh dictated the ten commandments to Moses; - Ganesha is an elephant headed god who promotes good luck; - You go to Heaven when you die if you accept that Jesus is God and repent your sins. If you remove the factual claims then you are left with statements that may be inspiring, poetic, vacuous or nonsensical, but not true or false. For example: - Athena sprang from Zeus' head because in mythology she represents wisdom; - The ten commandments are a good basis for morality; - Worshiping Ganesha gives Hindus comfort and hope; - Jesus taught the importance of forgiveness. -- Stathis Papaioannou
Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi Stathis Papaioannou OK I missed the statement about going to heaven if you accept... That is a matter of faith, which not infrequently defies common sense. Is the Big Bang common sensicalk ? Is life ? I don't understand the criterion of your other list. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 19:43:38 Subject: Re: victims of faith On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: that is not fair. 99.99 believed in God or in gods They differ in the details. Atheists are a minority. In a deeper sense, atheists do believe in gods. problably modern atheism is one the most basic, new and thus, primitive religions, as I will show here: Seeing the development of religion where religion is repressed, unrepressed atheism develops into personality cult, which is probably the most basic religion. personality cult fanatics typically belive without any doubt that his leader, for example Stalin or Kim I Sung can write hundred of books per year about any scientific matter In industrialized countries this form of primitive religion appears in the rock star cult (bands of cult) in the ideologies, the political leadership cult, the cult to famous atheistic scientists or their precursors. There are articles about the false mitifications, not by lay people but by scientist about the life of Darwin for example that moves to laugh http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.myths To summarize, religion is part of human nature. it involves the mitification or idealization of people that act as super-egos (in the psychoanalitical sense) or as models of behaviour for the believer. This is part of any healty socialization. The process of sentimental attachment of a comunity ever involves the asumption of some myths. For sure a nation is a form of primitive religion where the life of the founders and their mytical history are part of the beliefs. such religion is mixed in a politeistic way with other attachment to football teams or rock groups that act as minor divinities, and usually there is a superior level of civilizational religion, above the nation, where the person identifies itself with a broader comunity, such is ecologism, christianism, socialism where Al Gore, Christ or Marx act as divinities. The fact that these myths are based on real, historical people or in too long dead people with no guaranteed historicity does not matter. The only difference is that new religions have new myths and due to the fact that they have no history, they conform to the most pure form of religion, where the psychological process of mythopoiesis is observable in action today. If the mytification goes from generation to generation (if the faith is sucessful) then the mytified historical figures become pure myths so they become gods. The most pure form of belief is the one where the believer does not know that he believe. The knowledge of belief is a sophisticated or civlized way of belief, that only exist where civilizatons are mixed. We all believe things that are idealizations, falsifications or mytifications. But not all myths are equal and not all myths have to be false. There is a social capital involved in every belief: A myth explains the reality in some way, but also is inherently good if it make people act in common for common goals that are good for all. This is independent from the objective truth. By intuition men can gasp how good a myth is for him and for his fellows (that may be explained by a social capital instinct, from which the mythopoiesis, the production of myths feed from). Good and Truthful become synonyms in the mind of the man that seek a menaning, a reason to live with others. And the man that don? seek meaning, either is in crisis or someone else has chosen his myhths to believe for him time ago. Let me be specific about what I dispute. I dispute the factual claims made by religions. For example: - Athena sprang fully formed from the head of Zeus when Hephaestus struck it with an ax to relieve a headache; - Yahweh dictated the ten commandments to Moses; - Ganesha is an elephant headed god who promotes good luck; - You go to Heaven when you die if you accept that Jesus is God and repent your sins. If you remove the factual claims then you are left with statements that may be inspiring, poetic, vacuous or nonsensical, but not true or false. For example: - Athena sprang from Zeus' head because in mythology she represents wisdom; - The ten commandments are a good basis for morality; - Worshiping Ganesha gives Hindus comfort and hope; - Jesus taught the importance of forgiveness. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi Stathis Papaioannou You're comparing apples and oranges. Science and religion are two completely different spheres of being. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 08:45:03 Subject: Re: victims of faith On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: every statement about whatever, included reality is made with mental concepts . The definition of truth, reality , factual, religion, depend on axioms or unproved statements. I presented a computational-evolutionary, falsable, exposition of what religion is: a part of a wider class of phenomenons of reality construction and I demonstrated IHMO that no man is free from it. Aspects of religious belief such as mythopoesis, do occur in other facets of life, such as politics and even science. But what is unique about religion is that its proponents make factual statements which they proudly profess to believe in the absence of any supporting evidence, while disallowing such reasoning for bizarre beliefs different to their own without any apparent awareness of the inconsistency. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:56 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Jason Resch What do we have that machines don't ? Intelligence, consciousnness, awareness. feelings-- in short, we have life, machines don't Why do you belive no machine can have these properties? Jason Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 09:04:05 Subject: Re: Re: victims of faith On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Religious communion with God and prayer are transcendental so not computable. Even those of the past who looked down on the barbaric and uncivilized native people believed they could be converted and saved. You profess that androids (like Data in star trek) is at an even lower place (than those who looked down on foreigners). What do we have that machines don't? We are all quarks and electrons, so what magic are the machines missing? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi meekerdb How can you demythify something that actually happened ? Jesus really died on the cross and was resurrected. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 16:01:28 Subject: Re: victims of faith On 9/10/2012 12:50 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: This paper of an evolutionist scientific denounces the mytification of Darwin, the spread of false claims that enhance his figure and even the creation of a physical temple around these myths. http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep055269.pdf So when will be treated to papers by Christians de-mythifying Jesus and papers by Muslims de-mythifying Muhammed? Maybe science and religion really are different. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
I had a typo in my previous email. I meant to say that NOT all religions claim certainty. Some teach uncertainty or humbleness in the search for truth. On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Jason Resch There are some factual errors in the Bible but IMHO the Bible is inerrant with regard to faith and moral practice. Is it immoral to not marry your brother's widow, or to shave? Jason Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 08:53:41 Subject: Re: victims of faith On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: But what is unique about religion is that its proponents make factual statements which they proudly profess to believe in the absence of any supporting evidence, while disallowing such reasoning for bizarre beliefs different to their own without any apparent awareness of the inconsistency. Some believers and some religions do, others not.� But this is not l imited to religion.� You saw John Clark admit he was proud to reject ideas (even those with some evidence), in a effect, making a factua l statement (implied idea X is not true) in the absence of supportin g evidence. As an example showing that such certainty is a trait of all religion, see this quote concerning creation from the Rig Veda: 揥ho knows truly?� Who here will declare whence it arose, whence this creation?� The gods are subsequent to the creation of this.� Who, then, knows whence it has come into being?� Whence this creatio n has come into being; whether it was made or not; he in the highest heaven is its surveyor.� Surely he knows, or perhaps he knows not .� Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email toeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi Jason Resch I can't speak for the jewsw, but Jesus did away with the old jewish laws. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-09-11, 10:53:27 Subject: Re: victims of faith I had a typo in my previous email. I meant to say that NOT all religions claim certainty. Some teach uncertainty or humbleness in the search for truth. On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Jason Resch There are some factual errors in the Bible but IMHO the Bible is inerrant with regard to faith and moral practice. Is it immoral to not marry your brother's widow, or to shave? Jason Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 08:53:41 Subject: Re: victims of faith On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: But what is unique about religion is that its proponents make factual statements which they proudly profess to believe in the absence of any supporting evidence, while disallowing such reasoning for bizarre beliefs different to their own without any apparent awareness of the inconsistency. Some believers and some religions do, others not. But this is not limited to religion. You saw John Clark admit he was proud to reject ideas (even those with some evidence), in a effect, making a factual statement (implied idea X is not true) in the absence of supporting evidence. As an example showing that such certainty is a trait of all religion, see this quote concerning creation from the Rig Veda: ?ho knows truly? Who here will declare whence it arose, whence this creation? The gods are subsequent to the creation of this. Who, then, knows whence it has come into being? Whence this creation has come into being; whether it was made or not; he in the highest heaven is its surveyor. Surely he knows, or perhaps he knows not. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
On 10 Sep 2012, at 22:02, meekerdb wrote: On 9/10/2012 12:50 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: This paper of an evolutionist scientific denounces the mytification of Darwin, the spread of false claims that enhance his figure and even the creation of a physical temple around these myths. http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep055269.pdf So when will be treated to papers by Christians de-mythifying Jesus and papers by Muslims de-mythifying Muhammed? Maybe science and religion really are different. No, but they are made different by those who want keep religion (and health, also) as a tool for manipulating people. Atheists are their most prominent objective ally, unwillingly (I hope). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:49:31 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi meekerdb How can you demythify something that actually happened ? Jesus really died on the cross and was resurrected. You do know that there are many historians who question the existence of a historical Jesus. As far as I know, the evidence is spotty and suggests that he could easily have been a fictional composite of various teachers who lived in the wake of the Axial Age. I tend to give Jesus and crucifixion the benefit of the doubt, but I really have no evidence for that. Apparently there is no mention of his existence or crucifixion in Roman history from that time. Who knows? Personally I don't get the point of the resurrection. He walked around for a while - proving that he survived death..ok, cool. Then what? He disappears up to heaven, leaving humanity to its own horrendous devices indefinitely with a promise to return? I do like what Jesus is quoted as having said. As some point out, * Jesus* christ was a bleeding heart, *long*-*haired*, *peace*-*loving*, anti-establishment, liberal hippie freak with strange ideas. Craig Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* meekerdb javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-09-10, 16:01:28 *Subject:* Re: victims of faith On 9/10/2012 12:50 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: This paper of an evolutionist scientific denounces the mytification of Darwin, the spread of false claims that enhance his figure and even the creation of a physical temple around these myths. http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep055269.pdf So when will be treated to papers by Christians de-mythifying Jesus and papers by Muslims de-mythifying Muhammed? Maybe science and religion really are different. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Onc9EZ7quwIJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
On 9/11/2012 5:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb Science is science and religion is religion and never the two shall meet. I'm not sure about this Roger. The goal of a true science and true religion, in my opinion, is the search of truth. In the Bahá'í Faith, it is said that a true science and true religion can never be in conflict. The Pope says the same about Catholicism. But that didn't keep the Church from saying heliocentrism was false, evolution didn't happen, disease is caused by sin,... The problem with religion is that it doesn't test it's 'facts'. Brent To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. --- Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, letter to Paolo Frascioni The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment. ---Sheik Abdel-Aziz ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, 1993, quoted by Yousef M. Ibrahim, The New York Times, 12 February 1993 Yes, that's 1993 CE, not BCE. The son of the founder of the Bahá'í Faith said, If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. ... All religions of the present day have fallen into superstitious practices, out of harmony alike with the true principles of the teaching they represent and with the scientific discoveries of the time.” We see this same sentiment expressed by Einstein, when he said, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Science is science and religion is religion and never the two shall meet. Science is a tool. Religion is the goal. I would say. If you separate them, it is like cutting the corpus callosum between the analytical and intuitive hemisphere, it is like separating the soul from the body, it is like cutting the first person Bp p into Bp and p again, it is like separating the yin and the yang, 0 and 1, ... You will get unreligious and senseless technology for science, and insane human perspectives for religion. So, here, if you don't mind, I beg to differ. Science is just trying to figure out what is. You condemn religion to nonsense, if you disallow science to help in the spiritual inquiry. Only bad faith needs blind sciences. Science only ask question, really. It is because we have separated science from religion that some people become religious without knowing, and believe that science can answer fundamental question. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 16:02:09 Subject: Re: victims of faith On 9/10/2012 12:50 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: This paper of an evolutionist scientific denounces the mytification of Darwin, the spread of false claims that enhance his figure and even the creation of a physical temple around these myths. http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep055269.pdf So when will be treated to papers by Christians de-mythifying Jesus and papers by Muslims de-mythifying Muhammed? Maybe science and religion really are different. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
On 11 Sep 2012, at 15:56, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch What do we have that machines don't ? Intelligence, consciousnness, awareness. feelings-- in short, we have life, machines don't And what if your daughter did marry that man with an artificial body? How will you behave with him, and with your daughter? If this seems to you impossible, what in the brain is not Turing emulable (or Turing recoverable by 1-indeterminacy)? I feel unease with speculation leading to a restriction on the possible persons. Why not being agnostic at the least? Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 09:04:05 Subject: Re: Re: victims of faith On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Religious communion with God and prayer are transcendental so not computable. Even those of the past who looked down on the barbaric and uncivilized native people believed they could be converted and saved. You profess that androids (like Data in star trek) is at an even lower place (than those who looked down on foreigners). What do we have that machines don't? We are all quarks and electrons, so what magic are the machines missing? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Belief in God is a gift from God, you cannot achieve it on your own. OK but have you ever asked yourself why that should be? If God exists then that is the single most important fact about the universe, but why would the most powerful thing that there is be completely invisible to the scientific method? The only answer is that's the way God wants it. Well if God is all powerful then He's certainly capable of fooling us if He wants to, but such petty small minded behavior is not what I'd expect from a omnipotent omniscient being, somehow I just expect more than a boy teasing a puppy from such a glorious being. On the other hand I would very much expect that sort of thing from a human, I'd expect a human being who wanted to gain power over others with religion to push the idea that faith is a virtue, such a man would teach that the greatest most noble thing in the world is to believe deeply and passionately in something when there is not one damn reason for doing so. But I think far from being a virtue faith is just about the most horrible vice there is. The same is also true of salvation. And its hard to understand why a omnipotent omniscient being would torture His creations for all of eternity if His efforts to fool them were successful and they thought for even one second that He did not exist. But it's very easy to see why a human being seeking power would push the idea, it's really pretty clever, the witchdoctor turns a disadvantage (lack of proof) into a advantage (the more ridiculous the idea the more virtuous you are if you believe it); and anybody who doesn't believe faces a infinite amount of pain. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb How can you demythify something that actually happened ? Jesus really died on the cross and was resurrected. There's no point arguing with you if you believe things like that. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi Alberto G. Corona So you may have the blind faith that there is no God. And attack those that do. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/10/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-09, 15:50:53 Subject: Re: victims of faith So you have a very strong belief: That almost all but a few enlightened people like you in the History of humanity are a bunch of silly idiots. This sense of superiority, combined with a voluntary repression of doubt certainly can susbstitute any lack of absolute meaning of life at least for some years. 2012/9/9 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: What I find curious about atheists is that because one can prove neither that there is a god or not, both theism and atheism must rely on faith-- that their position is true. I can't prove God doesn't exist but I can prove He's silly. And I can neither prove nor disprove that a china teapot is in orbit around the planet Uranus, but I can prove the idea is dumb. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
that is not fair. 99.99 believed in God or in gods They differ in the details. Atheists are a minority. In a deeper sense, atheists do believe in gods. problably modern atheism is one the most basic, new and thus, primitive religions, as I will show here: Seeing the development of religion where religion is repressed, unrepressed atheism develops into personality cult, which is probably the most basic religion. personality cult fanatics typically belive without any doubt that his leader, for example Stalin or Kim I Sung can write hundred of books per year about any scientific matter In industrialized countries this form of primitive religion appears in the rock star cult (bands of cult) in the ideologies, the political leadership cult, the cult to famous atheistic scientists or their precursors. There are articles about the false mitifications, not by lay people but by scientist about the life of Darwin for example that moves to laugh http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.myths To summarize, religion is part of human nature. it involves the mitification or idealization of people that act as super-egos (in the psychoanalitical sense) or as models of behaviour for the believer. This is part of any healty socialization. The process of sentimental attachment of a comunity ever involves the asumption of some myths. For sure a nation is a form of primitive religion where the life of the founders and their mytical history are part of the beliefs. such religion is mixed in a politeistic way with other attachment to football teams or rock groups that act as minor divinities, and usually there is a superior level of civilizational religion, above the nation, where the person identifies itself with a broader comunity, such is ecologism, christianism, socialism where Al Gore, Christ or Marx act as divinities. The fact that these myths are based on real, historical people or in too long dead people with no guaranteed historicity does not matter. The only difference is that new religions have new myths and due to the fact that they have no history, they conform to the most pure form of religion, where the psychological process of mythopoiesis is observable in action today. If the mytification goes from generation to generation (if the faith is sucessful) then the mytified historical figures become pure myths so they become gods. The most pure form of belief is the one where the believer does not know that he believe. The knowledge of belief is a sophisticated or civlized way of belief, that only exist where civilizatons are mixed. We all believe things that are idealizations, falsifications or mytifications. But not all myths are equal and not all myths have to be false. There is a social capital involved in every belief: A myth explains the reality in some way, but also is inherently good if it make people act in common for common goals that are good for all. This is independent from the objective truth. By intuition men can gasp how good a myth is for him and for his fellows (that may be explained by a social capital instinct, from which the mythopoiesis, the production of myths feed from). Good and Truthful become synonyms in the mind of the man that seek a menaning, a reason to live with others. And the man that don´t seek meaning, either is in crisis or someone else has chosen his myhths to believe for him time ago. 2012/9/10 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: So you have a very strong belief: That almost all but a few enlightened people like you in the History of humanity are a bunch of silly idiots. Actually, almost everyone in the history of humanity has thought that 99.99% of all religions are silly, and that they were fortuitously born into the 0.01% that wasn't. Atheists take it a bit further and think that 100% of all religions are silly. Agnostics, if they are consistent, say that it is possible that the archangel gabriel dictated the Quran to Muhammad just as it is possible that Santa Claus and his helpers construct toys for the world's children at the North Pole. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
not at all. My answer is to the John's comment, not to yours 2012/9/10 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net: Hi Alberto G. Corona So you may have the blind faith that there is no God. And attack those that do. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/10/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-09, 15:50:53 Subject: Re: victims of faith So you have a very strong belief: That almost all but a few enlightened people like you in the History of humanity are a bunch of silly idiots. This sense of superiority, combined with a voluntary repression of doubt certainly can susbstitute any lack of absolute meaning of life at least for some years. 2012/9/9 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: What I find curious about atheists is that because one can prove neither that there is a god or not, both theism and atheism must rely on faith-- that their position is true. I can't prove God doesn't exist but I can prove He's silly. And I can neither prove nor disprove that a china teapot is in orbit around the planet Uranus, but I can prove the idea is dumb. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: victims of faith
This paper of an evolutionist scientific denounces the mytification of Darwin, the spread of false claims that enhance his figure and even the creation of a physical temple around these myths. http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep055269.pdf Victims of faith are we all, and also beneficiaries, because the need of myths to worship is part of our social nature. 2012/9/10 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: not at all. My answer is to the John's comment, not to yours 2012/9/10 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net: Hi Alberto G. Corona So you may have the blind faith that there is no God. And attack those that do. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/10/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-09, 15:50:53 Subject: Re: victims of faith So you have a very strong belief: That almost all but a few enlightened people like you in the History of humanity are a bunch of silly idiots. This sense of superiority, combined with a voluntary repression of doubt certainly can susbstitute any lack of absolute meaning of life at least for some years. 2012/9/9 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: What I find curious about atheists is that because one can prove neither that there is a god or not, both theism and atheism must rely on faith-- that their position is true. I can't prove God doesn't exist but I can prove He's silly. And I can neither prove nor disprove that a china teapot is in orbit around the planet Uranus, but I can prove the idea is dumb. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
On 9/10/2012 12:50 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: This paper of an evolutionist scientific denounces the mytification of Darwin, the spread of false claims that enhance his figure and even the creation of a physical temple around these myths. http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep055269.pdf So when will be treated to papers by Christians de-mythifying Jesus and papers by Muslims de-mythifying Muhammed? Maybe science and religion really are different. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
Having obfuscated the meaning of God as much as possible, let's see if we can also fuzz-up the meaning of believe in - because, above all, we really really want to be able to say We believe in God. and we want to be able to say You really believe in God. and if you think you don't it is just because you don't know the real secret meaning of believe in and God. Brent On 9/10/2012 12:17 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: that is not fair. 99.99 believed in God or in gods They differ in the details. Atheists are a minority. In a deeper sense, atheists do believe in gods. problably modern atheism is one the most basic, new and thus, primitive religions, as I will show here: Seeing the development of religion where religion is repressed, unrepressed atheism develops into personality cult, which is probably the most basic religion. personality cult fanatics typically belive without any doubt that his leader, for example Stalin or Kim I Sung can write hundred of books per year about any scientific matter In industrialized countries this form of primitive religion appears in the rock star cult (bands of cult) in the ideologies, the political leadership cult, the cult to famous atheistic scientists or their precursors. There are articles about the false mitifications, not by lay people but by scientist about the life of Darwin for example that moves to laugh http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.myths To summarize, religion is part of human nature. it involves the mitification or idealization of people that act as super-egos (in the psychoanalitical sense) or as models of behaviour for the believer. This is part of any healty socialization. The process of sentimental attachment of a comunity ever involves the asumption of some myths. For sure a nation is a form of primitive religion where the life of the founders and their mytical history are part of the beliefs. such religion is mixed in a politeistic way with other attachment to football teams or rock groups that act as minor divinities, and usually there is a superior level of civilizational religion, above the nation, where the person identifies itself with a broader comunity, such is ecologism, christianism, socialism where Al Gore, Christ or Marx act as divinities. The fact that these myths are based on real, historical people or in too long dead people with no guaranteed historicity does not matter. The only difference is that new religions have new myths and due to the fact that they have no history, they conform to the most pure form of religion, where the psychological process of mythopoiesis is observable in action today. If the mytification goes from generation to generation (if the faith is sucessful) then the mytified historical figures become pure myths so they become gods. The most pure form of belief is the one where the believer does not know that he believe. The knowledge of belief is a sophisticated or civlized way of belief, that only exist where civilizatons are mixed. We all believe things that are idealizations, falsifications or mytifications. But not all myths are equal and not all myths have to be false. There is a social capital involved in every belief: A myth explains the reality in some way, but also is inherently good if it make people act in common for common goals that are good for all. This is independent from the objective truth. By intuition men can gasp how good a myth is for him and for his fellows (that may be explained by a social capital instinct, from which the mythopoiesis, the production of myths feed from). Good and Truthful become synonyms in the mind of the man that seek a menaning, a reason to live with others. And the man that don´t seek meaning, either is in crisis or someone else has chosen his myhths to believe for him time ago. 2012/9/10 Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Alberto G. Coronaagocor...@gmail.com wrote: So you have a very strong belief: That almost all but a few enlightened people like you in the History of humanity are a bunch of silly idiots. Actually, almost everyone in the history of humanity has thought that 99.99% of all religions are silly, and that they were fortuitously born into the 0.01% that wasn't. Atheists take it a bit further and think that 100% of all religions are silly. Agnostics, if they are consistent, say that it is possible that the archangel gabriel dictated the Quran to Muhammad just as it is possible that Santa Claus and his helpers construct toys for the world's children at the North Pole. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message
Re: victims of faith
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: that is not fair. 99.99 believed in God or in gods They differ in the details. Atheists are a minority. In a deeper sense, atheists do believe in gods. problably modern atheism is one the most basic, new and thus, primitive religions, as I will show here: Seeing the development of religion where religion is repressed, unrepressed atheism develops into personality cult, which is probably the most basic religion. personality cult fanatics typically belive without any doubt that his leader, for example Stalin or Kim I Sung can write hundred of books per year about any scientific matter In industrialized countries this form of primitive religion appears in the rock star cult (bands of cult) in the ideologies, the political leadership cult, the cult to famous atheistic scientists or their precursors. There are articles about the false mitifications, not by lay people but by scientist about the life of Darwin for example that moves to laugh http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.myths To summarize, religion is part of human nature. it involves the mitification or idealization of people that act as super-egos (in the psychoanalitical sense) or as models of behaviour for the believer. This is part of any healty socialization. The process of sentimental attachment of a comunity ever involves the asumption of some myths. For sure a nation is a form of primitive religion where the life of the founders and their mytical history are part of the beliefs. such religion is mixed in a politeistic way with other attachment to football teams or rock groups that act as minor divinities, and usually there is a superior level of civilizational religion, above the nation, where the person identifies itself with a broader comunity, such is ecologism, christianism, socialism where Al Gore, Christ or Marx act as divinities. The fact that these myths are based on real, historical people or in too long dead people with no guaranteed historicity does not matter. The only difference is that new religions have new myths and due to the fact that they have no history, they conform to the most pure form of religion, where the psychological process of mythopoiesis is observable in action today. If the mytification goes from generation to generation (if the faith is sucessful) then the mytified historical figures become pure myths so they become gods. The most pure form of belief is the one where the believer does not know that he believe. The knowledge of belief is a sophisticated or civlized way of belief, that only exist where civilizatons are mixed. We all believe things that are idealizations, falsifications or mytifications. But not all myths are equal and not all myths have to be false. There is a social capital involved in every belief: A myth explains the reality in some way, but also is inherently good if it make people act in common for common goals that are good for all. This is independent from the objective truth. By intuition men can gasp how good a myth is for him and for his fellows (that may be explained by a social capital instinct, from which the mythopoiesis, the production of myths feed from). Good and Truthful become synonyms in the mind of the man that seek a menaning, a reason to live with others. And the man that don´t seek meaning, either is in crisis or someone else has chosen his myhths to believe for him time ago. Let me be specific about what I dispute. I dispute the factual claims made by religions. For example: - Athena sprang fully formed from the head of Zeus when Hephaestus struck it with an ax to relieve a headache; - Yahweh dictated the ten commandments to Moses; - Ganesha is an elephant headed god who promotes good luck; - You go to Heaven when you die if you accept that Jesus is God and repent your sins. If you remove the factual claims then you are left with statements that may be inspiring, poetic, vacuous or nonsensical, but not true or false. For example: - Athena sprang from Zeus' head because in mythology she represents wisdom; - The ten commandments are a good basis for morality; - Worshiping Ganesha gives Hindus comfort and hope; - Jesus taught the importance of forgiveness. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
On 9/10/2012 12:50 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: This paper of an evolutionist scientific denounces the mytification of Darwin, the spread of false claims that enhance his figure and even the creation of a physical temple around these myths. http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep055269.pdf So when will be treated to papers by Christians de-mythifying Jesus and papers by Muslims de-mythifying Muhammed? Maybe science and religion really are different. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: What I find curious about atheists is that because one can prove neither that there is a god or not, both theism and atheism must rely on faith-- that their position is true. I can't prove God doesn't exist but I can prove He's silly. And I can neither prove nor disprove that a china teapot is in orbit around the planet Uranus, but I can prove the idea is dumb. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
So you have a very strong belief: That almost all but a few enlightened people like you in the History of humanity are a bunch of silly idiots. This sense of superiority, combined with a voluntary repression of doubt certainly can susbstitute any lack of absolute meaning of life at least for some years. 2012/9/9 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: What I find curious about atheists is that because one can prove neither that there is a god or not, both theism and atheism must rely on faith-- that their position is true. I can't prove God doesn't exist but I can prove He's silly. And I can neither prove nor disprove that a china teapot is in orbit around the planet Uranus, but I can prove the idea is dumb. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: victims of faith
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: So you have a very strong belief: That almost all but a few enlightened people like you in the History of humanity are a bunch of silly idiots. Actually, almost everyone in the history of humanity has thought that 99.99% of all religions are silly, and that they were fortuitously born into the 0.01% that wasn't. Atheists take it a bit further and think that 100% of all religions are silly. Agnostics, if they are consistent, say that it is possible that the archangel gabriel dictated the Quran to Muhammad just as it is possible that Santa Claus and his helpers construct toys for the world's children at the North Pole. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
