Re: The Mental Being

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Aug 2015, at 05:54, Samiya Illias wrote:


Bruno,
I'm reading R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz. In the Introduction to A Study  
of Numbers, they quote his last words. It reminds me of your salvia  
beings. Thought the attached might be of interest to you.

Regards,
Samiya


Nice quote Samya.

I love "He [Schwaller I guess] applied himself relentlessly to the  
apparently impossible task of using reason to surmount reason."


This is what Gödel illustrates: the use of reason to study the limit  
of reason, for example reason cannot produce a mean to decide if a  
diophantine (polynomial in integers) equation has or not some solution.


Mathematicians have shown the non solubility of many problems,  
accepting (as most does) Church's thesis or Church's definition of  
computable/algorithm.


But Gödel already saw that the machine or formal systems (which really  
means systems described by they local forms) can prove their own  
incompleteness theorem, so that machine reasoning about themselves can  
get the fact that if they are consistent, then they can't justify it  
rationally. Consistency is equivalent with the existence of a reality  
which satisfies my beliefs (in the sense that they render my beliefs  
true). So, machine looking inward (reasoning on themselves, but also  
trying to figure out their own semantic/reality can prove, infer and  
intuit (correctly or not) that "there is a reality", and can justify  
that if there is a reality then we cannot justify rationally the  
"existence" of that reality.


It is also the intuition of the Platonist and Neoplatonist: we can use  
reason to develop confidence in what extends necessarility reason,  
"The Reality",  which might be only the semantic of oneself, the  
reality which satisfies my beliefs, in the sense of the logiciens,  
where a reality (called Model) is what makes a belief true of false  
(to stay in classical logic).


The machines can already do the impossible task: use reason to  
surmount reason.


All self-referentially correct machine get mystical,  ... for good  
reason.


The "authorties" or simply those who want to control you cannot accept  
the mysticals as this one will take its order from something they  
cannot control. The self-referentically correct machine is Groucho- 
Marxiste, she refutes all categorzation made by others.


About the entity that Schwaller describes, I don't know what relation  
you see with salvia.


With any entheogen (psychotrope) it is the mental being which create  
the fears and the resistance. Dying, sleep and altered consciousness  
exploration requires the ability to "let it go". To accept losing  
control. That mental being is the little ego, but on earth, he *has*  
good reason to "create fear", if you agree that it is better to eat  
than being eaten. But the kind of technic to get "religious" state  
always involved a sort of acceotance of dying and let reason expands  
on the meaning of the possible "hallucination". Here salvia is the  
most cartesian teacher i could have dreamed of, as it offers the  
"dream argument on a plate".


I know that not all person are prepared, and for those who are  
concerned with the mundane life, cannabis is better as it open the  
appetite for life, and can ease the pain.


Salvia is for the theologian, i.e. those interested in the after life,  
the prelife, the parallel lives, or who haved lived situation to  
search a meaning of life.


Note that computationalism makes clear also the existence of the  
theological trap: to take for granted a statement belonging in G*  
minus G, that is a truth which cannot be justified. It maks a part of  
theology secret, or derivable partially by the "dangerous" meta- 
assumption of self-correctness: this comp explains that it is your  
free choice, at your risk and peril. You have local means for harm  
reduction.


Still about salvia, I explained yesterday to some friend asking about  
COMP, that a rough description of logical entailment would be


NUMBER = > CONSCIOUSNESS-FLUX => PHYSICAL REALITY => HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS

But then I dared to redescribe this by:

NUMBER = > DIVINE CONSCIOUSNESS => PHYSICAL REALITY => HUMAN  
CONSCIOUSNESS


Which makes sense with the Plotinian morphism. Then the salvia  
experience is like remembering the divine consciousness, which is the  
state of the "virgin" Löbian machine, the one described by the  
principal Plotinian hypostases. It produces this by a strong  
dissociation: like going not just out of the body, but out of the  
physical reality. (what mathematicians do already, somehow).


Of course, I might be biased, so I am the last one to ask how to  
interpret the salvia experience. The "lady salvia" is a fierce entity  
only for those who create their daemons. It is a fierce entity for  
what Schwaller 

Re: The Mental Being

[Samiya Illias]

> On 07-Aug-2015, at 9:46 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 07 Aug 2015, at 05:54, Samiya Illias wrote:
>> 
>> Bruno,
>> I'm reading R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz. In the Introduction to A Study of 
>> Numbers, they quote his last words. It reminds me of your salvia beings. 
>> Thought the attached might be of interest to you.
>> Regards,
>> Samiya
> 
> Nice quote Samya.
> 
> I love "He [Schwaller I guess] applied himself relentlessly to the apparently 
> impossible task of using reason to surmount reason."
> 
> This is what Gödel illustrates: the use of reason to study the limit of 
> reason, for example reason cannot produce a mean to decide if a diophantine 
> (polynomial in integers) equation has or not some solution.
> 
> Mathematicians have shown the non solubility of many problems, accepting (as 
> most does) Church's thesis or Church's definition of computable/algorithm.
> 
> But Gödel already saw that the machine or formal systems (which really means 
> systems described by they local forms) can prove their own incompleteness 
> theorem, so that machine reasoning about themselves can get the fact that if 
> they are consistent, then they can't justify it rationally. Consistency is 
> equivalent with the existence of a reality which satisfies my beliefs (in the 
> sense that they render my beliefs true). So, machine looking inward 
> (reasoning on themselves, but also trying to figure out their own 
> semantic/reality can prove, infer and intuit (correctly or not) that "there 
> is a reality", and can justify that if there is a reality then we cannot 
> justify rationally the "existence" of that reality.
> 
> It is also the intuition of the Platonist and Neoplatonist: we can use reason 
> to develop confidence in what extends necessarility reason, "The Reality",  
> which might be only the semantic of oneself, the reality which satisfies my 
> beliefs, in the sense of the logiciens, where a reality (called Model) is 
> what makes a belief true of false (to stay in classical logic).
> 
> The machines can already do the impossible task: use reason to surmount 
> reason.
> 
> All self-referentially correct machine get mystical,  ... for good reason.
> 
> The "authorties" or simply those who want to control you cannot accept the 
> mysticals as this one will take its order from something they cannot control. 
> The self-referentically correct machine is Groucho-Marxiste, she refutes all 
> categorzation made by others.
> 
> About the entity that Schwaller describes, I don't know what relation you see 
> with salvia. 

Earlier you once explained the salvia experience to me as: "Salvia is a logical 
drug, it provides counter-example to any certainty you might have in theology. 
It provides an epimenidian sort of super-dream argument: a sort of 
hallucination saying of itself that it is an hallucination." 
Similar to your 'counter-example to any certainty', Schwaller speaks of the 
mental being as the source of all doubt. That is why it reminded me of Salvia 
entity: perhaps both of you experience different manifestations of the same 
mental being? 

Samiya 
> 
> With any entheogen (psychotrope) it is the mental being which create the 
> fears and the resistance. Dying, sleep and altered consciousness exploration 
> requires the ability to "let it go". To accept losing control. That mental 
> being is the little ego, but on earth, he *has* good reason to "create fear", 
> if you agree that it is better to eat than being eaten. But the kind of 
> technic to get "religious" state always involved a sort of acceotance of 
> dying and let reason expands on the meaning of the possible "hallucination". 
> Here salvia is the most cartesian teacher i could have dreamed of, as it 
> offers the "dream argument on a plate".
> 
> I know that not all person are prepared, and for those who are concerned with 
> the mundane life, cannabis is better as it open the appetite for life, and 
> can ease the pain.
> 
> Salvia is for the theologian, i.e. those interested in the after life, the 
> prelife, the parallel lives, or who haved lived situation to search a meaning 
> of life.
> 
> Note that computationalism makes clear also the existence of the theological 
> trap: to take for granted a statement belonging in G* minus G, that is a 
> truth which cannot be justified. It maks a part of theology secret, or 
> derivable partially by the "dangerous" meta-assumption of self-correctness: 
> this comp explains that it is your free choice, at your risk and peril. You 
> have local means for harm reduction.
> 
> 

Re: The Mental Being

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Aug 2015, at 05:31, Samiya Illias wrote:





On 07-Aug-2015, at 9:46 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:



On 07 Aug 2015, at 05:54, Samiya Illias wrote:


Bruno,
I'm reading R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz. In the Introduction to A  
Study of Numbers, they quote his last words. It reminds me of your  
salvia beings. Thought the attached might be of interest to you.

Regards,
Samiya


Nice quote Samya.

I love "He [Schwaller I guess] applied himself relentlessly to the  
apparently impossible task of using reason to surmount reason."


This is what Gödel illustrates: the use of reason to study the  
limit of reason, for example reason cannot produce a mean to decide  
if a diophantine (polynomial in integers) equation has or not some  
solution.


Mathematicians have shown the non solubility of many problems,  
accepting (as most does) Church's thesis or Church's definition of  
computable/algorithm.


But Gödel already saw that the machine or formal systems (which  
really means systems described by they local forms) can prove their  
own incompleteness theorem, so that machine reasoning about  
themselves can get the fact that if they are consistent, then they  
can't justify it rationally. Consistency is equivalent with the  
existence of a reality which satisfies my beliefs (in the sense  
that they render my beliefs true). So, machine looking inward  
(reasoning on themselves, but also trying to figure out their own  
semantic/reality can prove, infer and intuit (correctly or not)  
that "there is a reality", and can justify that if there is a  
reality then we cannot justify rationally the "existence" of that  
reality.


It is also the intuition of the Platonist and Neoplatonist: we can  
use reason to develop confidence in what extends necessarility  
reason, "The Reality",  which might be only the semantic of  
oneself, the reality which satisfies my beliefs, in the sense of  
the logiciens, where a reality (called Model) is what makes a  
belief true of false (to stay in classical logic).


The machines can already do the impossible task: use reason to  
surmount reason.


All self-referentially correct machine get mystical,  ... for good  
reason.


The "authorties" or simply those who want to control you cannot  
accept the mysticals as this one will take its order from something  
they cannot control. The self-referentically correct machine is  
Groucho-Marxiste, she refutes all categorzation made by others.


About the entity that Schwaller describes, I don't know what  
relation you see with salvia.


Earlier you once explained the salvia experience to me as: "Salvia  
is a logical drug, it provides counter-example to any certainty you  
might have in theology. It provides an epimenidian sort of super- 
dream argument: a sort of hallucination saying of itself that it is  
an hallucination."
Similar to your 'counter-example to any certainty', Schwaller speaks  
of the mental being as the source of all doubt. That is why it  
reminded me of Salvia entity: perhaps both of you experience  
different manifestations of the same mental being?


I doubt so because Schwaller seems to consider it like if it was an  
enemy to fight. But the salvia "entity" (the main one) rise doubt in  
the cartesian way, and so get the undoubtable fixed point (Descartes'  
self-existence). In fact, both the cartesian argument and salvia makes  
that fixed point much more solid, and this makes the admissible doubt  
spectrum much larger, which is good as all atoms of public certainty  
is an obstacle for freeing the mind spiritually.


When I have more time I will read more of Schwaller who seems  
interesting. I did not know him. Thanks.
I can appreciate some talk of some theosophists, but *they* do the  
"religious error" and seems to be unable to avoid some idolatry  
attitude toward their inspirators. Yet, they have some common  
doctrinal points with the neoplatonists.


Science is doubt, and allowing to study theology with the scientific  
method is just allowing and encouraging doubts in the field, and  
recognizing that all human texts are human theories or prose trying to  
capture with words something which, almost by definition in most  
tradition including Islam, is beyond humans' words and comprehension.  
That's why sacred text should never been taken literally.


Spiritual faith is not in opposition with doubting. It is the  
contrary: the more big is the inner faith, the more big will be the  
public doubt spectrum. The faith starts from the inner experience, the  
"heart", not the logical brain which, like anything finite, is  
logically forced to doubt (all Gods, all realities, except the  
undoubtable fixed point which is incorrigible, but is not public).


When pseudo-religious people attack the doubting attitude in religion,  
they show up their lack of faith. Only

Re: The Mental Being

[meekerdb]

On 8/8/2015 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
When pseudo-religious people attack the doubting attitude in religion, they show up 
their lack of faith. Only someone NOT believing in God can believe there is a need for 
humans to do something for the faith of others. Those who have faith trust God for the 
public relations, and let Him/It/She do the job. 


What about when they "attack" the behavior of other people.  All religions prescribe some 
kinds of behavior as good and others as bad and claim these prescriptions are 
supernatural.  They base laws and taxes and wars on them and trust God is on their side.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Mental Being

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Abe Lincoln during the US Civil War, said, "People are always talking about God 
being on Their side. But I want us to make sure that we are on God's side." On 
the other hand, during the film, A Bronx Tale displayed what happened to a 
young boy when he witnesses a mafia hit between two hoods. The young boy, 
during Sunday confession is urged by the priest to go to the police with what 
the boy saw. That it was what God wanted. The boy replies, Yeah, but God is far 
away, and "Sonny" is close by." The priest understands and blesses the boy. 

I am not sure that if one wants calm, the belief in God doesn't seem to help. 
Neither does militant atheism, as it ended up in great massacres during the 
20th century. "On, but those really weren't atheists!" I have heard this crap 
claim before, as if Mao and Stalin and Pot and the Kim's were all church-goers. 
As we say in the States, "My ass!" In any case, God doesn't seem to help 
either. I remember hearing about an anthropological study that wars or 
violence, mainly derived from whom we "affiliate" with? This was a fairly, 
recent study, and affiliation was the culprit. I will see if I can look it up. 
It made an impression on me, obviously.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Aug 8, 2015 1:08 pm
Subject: Re: The Mental Being


  
On 8/8/2015 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:  
  
  
When pseudo-religious people attack the doubting attitude in religion, they 
show up their lack of faith. Only someone NOT believing in God can believe 
there is a need for humans to do something for the faith of others. Those who 
have faith trust God for the public relations, and let Him/It/She do the job.  
  
  What about when they "attack" the behavior of other people.  All religions 
prescribe some kinds of behavior as good and others as bad and claim these 
prescriptions are supernatural.  They base laws and taxes and wars on them and 
trust God is on their side.
 
 Brent
   
 --  
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to  everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
 To post to this group, send email to  everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
 Visit this group at  http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
 For more options, visit  https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Mental Being

[meekerdb]

On 8/8/2015 11:32 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Abe Lincoln during the US Civil War, said, "People are always talking about God being on 
Their side. But I want us to make sure that we are on God's side." On the other hand, 
during the film, A Bronx Tale displayed what happened to a young boy when he witnesses a 
mafia hit between two hoods. The young boy, during Sunday confession is urged by the 
priest to go to the police with what the boy saw. That it was what God wanted. The boy 
replies, Yeah, but God is far away, and "Sonny" is close by." The priest understands and 
blesses the boy.


I am not sure that if one wants calm, the belief in God doesn't seem to help. Neither 
does militant atheism, as it ended up in great massacres during the 20th century. "On, 
but those really weren't atheists!" I have heard this crap claim before, as if Mao and 
Stalin and Pot and the Kim's were all church-goers. As we say in the States, "My ass!" 
In any case, 


Actually, those were totalitarian tyrants who believed in Marxism. They didn't kill people 
to support atheism, they killed people who opposed their regime.  As we say in the States, 
"You're full of it."


Brent

God doesn't seem to help either. I remember hearing about an anthropological study that 
wars or violence, mainly derived from whom we "affiliate" with? This was a fairly, 
recent study, and affiliation was the culprit. I will see if I can look it up. It made 
an impression on me, obviously.




-Original Message-----
From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Aug 8, 2015 1:08 pm
Subject: Re: The Mental Being

On 8/8/2015 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

When pseudo-religious people attack the doubting attitude in religion, they 
show up
their lack of faith. Only someone NOT believing in God can believe there is 
a need
for humans to do something for the faith of others. Those who have faith 
trust God
for the public relations, and let Him/It/She do the job. 



What about when they "attack" the behavior of other people.  All religions prescribe 
some kinds of behavior as good and others as bad and claim these prescriptions are 
supernatural.  They base laws and taxes and wars on them and trust God is on their side.


Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything 
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything 
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Mental Being

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Aug 2015, at 19:08, meekerdb wrote:


On 8/8/2015 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
When pseudo-religious people attack the doubting attitude in  
religion, they show up their lack of faith. Only someone NOT  
believing in God can believe there is a need for humans to do  
something for the faith of others. Those who have faith trust God  
for the public relations, and let Him/It/She do the job.


What about when they "attack" the behavior of other people.


No humans, nor group of humans can think at the place on another  
human, I would say. If some do that in the name of the non nameable,  
it is a "blasphemy", which is the summit of the invalid "argument-per- 
authority".


Could parents think at the place of their kids? It is more difficult,  
but ideally, they should do that the most rarely as possible, and  
again, without invoking transcendence, and use explanation instead  
(but I know what it is, and how hard that can be  especially when both  
parents works).



  All religions prescribe some kinds of behavior as good and others  
as bad


That made sense before democracy. "The laws" have a religious origin,  
but such mixing if maintained will kill the religion and the politics.






and claim these prescriptions are supernatural.



It is fraud, but we should not judge this, just understand that it  
should not be done, and democracies should find ways to prevent that.  
If you know the religion of the philosophy of a politics, never vote  
for him/her.





They base laws and taxes and wars on them and trust God is on their  
side.



Vanity sin. Like spudboy and Lincoln says, to say that you are on the  
side of God might be less grave, but I am not sure. People can have  
that feeling, that God is on their side, privately, but to say this  
publicly is fraud, both in science and politics.


People can do experience, and report of experiences, but we cannot  
invoke any particular first person experience publicly, unless it  
follows from some theory when it is properly invoked as an hypothesis  
and not claimed as being true.


But we are still a long way from that. Our "wolves gene" makes us  
prone to the theory that "the boss is right, even when wrong". It  
works in the short run, but it leads to unnecessary suffering and  
catastrophes in the long run. Now, if a politics want privately  
consult his shaman or any experts in some field, before taking a  
decision, as long as this is not made public, there is no problem.


Bruno



Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Mental Being

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Brent, false! They killed to suppress religious belief, and exterminate 
believers, and yes they were totalitarian and many atheists claim not to be. 
They killed to support atheism, which is indisputable, and out of loyalty to 
Mao, Stalin, and your pal Bamers, Oops! Did I say that? The bigger question is 
why doesn't religious belief or atheism reduce violence? 
 


Actually, those were totalitarian tyrants who believed in Marxism. They didn't 
kill people to support atheism, they killed people who opposed their regime.  
As we say in the States, "You're full of it." 
  
 Brent 

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Aug 8, 2015 3:34 pm
Subject: Re: The Mental Being


  
On 8/8/2015 11:32 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:  
  
  
  Abe Lincoln during the US Civil War, said, "People are always talking about 
God being on Their side. But I want us to make sure that we are on God's side." 
On the other hand, during the film, A Bronx Tale displayed what happened to a 
young boy when he witnesses a mafia hit between two hoods. The young boy, 
during Sunday confession is urged by the priest to go to the police with what 
the boy saw. That it was what God wanted. The boy replies, Yeah, but God is far 
away, and "Sonny" is close by." The priest understands and blesses the boy. 
 
 I am not sure that if one wants calm, the belief in God doesn't seem to help. 
Neither does militant atheism, as it ended up in great massacres during the 
20th century. "On, but those really weren't atheists!" I have heard this crap 
claim before, as if Mao and Stalin and Pot and the Kim's were all church-goers. 
As we say in the States, "My ass!" In any case,  
  
 Actually, those were totalitarian tyrants who believed in Marxism. They didn't 
kill people to support atheism, they killed people who opposed their regime.  
As we say in the States, "You're full of it." 
  
 Brent 
  
  
  God doesn't seem to help either. I remember hearing about an anthropological 
study that wars or violence, mainly derived from whom we "affiliate" with? This 
was a fairly, recent study, and affiliation was the culprit. I will see if I 
can look it up. It made an impression on me, obviously.
 
 


 


 


-Original Message-    
 From: meekerdb 
 To: everything-list 
 Sent: Sat, Aug 8, 2015 1:08 pm
 Subject: Re: The Mental Being
 
 
  
   
 On 8/8/2015 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
   
   
 When pseudo-religious people attack the doubting attitude in religion, they 
show up their lack of faith. Only someone NOT believing in God can believe 
there is a need for humans to do something for the faith of others. Those who 
have faith trust God for the public relations, and let Him/It/She do the job.   
 
   
   What about when they "attack" the behavior of other people.  All 
religions prescribe some kinds of behavior as good and others as bad and claim 
these prescriptions are supernatural.  They base laws and taxes and wars on 
them and trust God is on their side.
 
 Brent
  --   
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.   
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to   everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.   
 To post to this group, send email to 
everything-list@googlegroups.com.   
 Visit this group at   http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.  
 
 For more options, visit   https://groups.google.com/d/optout.   
  
 

  --   
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.  
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to   everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.  
 To post to this group, send email to   everything-list@googlegroups.com.  
 Visit this group at   http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.  
 For more options, visit   https://groups.google.com/d/optout.  
  
  
  
 --  
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to  everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
 To post to this group, send email to  everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
 Visit this group at  http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
 For more options, visit  https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googl

Re: The Mental Being

[meekerdb]

On 8/9/2015 6:33 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Brent, false! They killed to suppress religious belief, and exterminate believers, 


Nonsense.  You've swallowed the religious propaganda.  The killings were purely punishment 
for opposing the regime or not working hard enough for it.


and yes they were totalitarian and many atheists claim not to be. They killed to support 
atheism, which is indisputable, 


It's not only disputable, it's unevidenced.  They didn't care what people believed about 
the supernatural, just so they didn't oppose the regime.



and out of loyalty to Mao, Stalin, and your pal Bamers, Oops! Did I say that?


You mean President Obama, the guy passed universal health insurance and ended U.S. 
occupation of Iraq and has avoided getting us into a war in Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Syria, 
Ukraine and all those other places you'd like send your fellow citizens to attack?



The bigger question is why doesn't religious belief or atheism reduce violence?


Atheism is just and absence of belief, so it's not surprising that it has little bearing 
on violence.  It's only effect would be to reduce religiously motivated violence, e.g. 
ISIS or the IRA. Religious beliefs are all over the place, from,"Love everyone as your 
brother." to "If they don't want to worship God kill them."


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Mental Being

[Telmo Menezes]

>
> and yes they were totalitarian and many atheists claim not to be. They
> killed to support atheism, which is indisputable,
>
>
> It's not only disputable, it's unevidenced.  They didn't care what people
> believed about the supernatural, just so they didn't oppose the regime.
>

Brent, I am not expert in these matters, but as everyone I heard frequent
allusions to the famous Marxist motto: "religion is the opium of the
people".

Wikipedia seems to disagree with you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

"Soviet policy, based on the ideology
 of Marxism–Leninism
, made atheism
 the official doctrine of the Soviet
Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control,
suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs
.[1]

"

Is this wrong? Can you point us to any credible historical sources that
contradict these claims?


>
> and out of loyalty to Mao, Stalin, and your pal Bamers, Oops! Did I say
> that?
>
>
> You mean President Obama, the guy passed universal health insurance
>

Perhaps a step in the right direction. I agree that universal access to
health care should be a low bar requirement for civilized countries in
2015. I do have the impression that what he did was to make the slightly
less poor pay for the health care of the poor, while the interests of the
super-rich are left untouched. Why is medical care one order of magnitude
more expensive in the US than in most other advanced economies? That's the
root of the problem!

Let's also not forget that Obama signed-off on the greatest transfer of
wealth from the poor to the rich in the history of humanity, through the
bailouts of 2007-09.


> and ended U.S. occupation of Iraq
>

Bush's decision to invade Iraq was both absurd and criminal. Obama's
decision to abandon the Iraqi people to their own fate after the US
destabilized such a delicate region is perhaps also absurd and criminal.
Now they have ISIS and other lunatics.


> and has avoided getting us into a war in Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Syria,
>

I must be really confused, but what I seam to remember is that he wanted to
go to war in Syria but was eventually dissuaded by massive popular
opposition to that idea.


> Ukraine
>

Nobody in the US would possibly consider going to war in Ukraine. That
would mean a direct confrontation with Russia, which is out of the
question. Instead there was an indirect confrontation. The western powers
wanted Ukraine to join the EU and possibly NATO, and they covertly funded
anti-russian groups in Ukraine. Putin won that conflict and ended up
expanding to Crimea. Putin is a murderous psychopath, but he his also much
smarter than this current generation of mediocre western leaders.


> and all those other places you'd like send your fellow citizens to attack?
>

I am on your side in being against war (unless for real defensive purposes
-- no preemptive strike bullshit). This is why I don't understand why you
approve of Obama. He is exactly like the others: he authorizes drone
strikes that cause horrible collateral damage to civilians. He's an
accomplice to two horrible treasons on his own people: total surveillance
and the NDAA. He has been the most aggressive President so far in going
after whistle blowers, and he is an accomplice to the torture of
Bradley/Chelsea Manning as well as countless Guantanamo prisoners.

If you are a pacifist and a liberal you should applaud Ed Snowden, not
Barack Obama.

George W. Bush, Barack Obama and all of the current candidates for the next
presidential election, from both parties, are all part of the sickness.
They are all clones of the same robotic, opportunistic douchebag
politician, except for Trump, who is an independent douchebag.

Telmo.


>
>
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Mental Being

[John Mikes]

Brent:
did it slip your mind that your friend, the prez started the Arab Awakening
by stabbing Mubarak in the back by his letter and supporting the US-enemy
Morsi ("The first DEMOCRATICALLY(?) elected Egyptian prez and his
Brotherhood!!!) together with his then Foreign Sec'y Hillary, giving
billions in weapons etc.
- then again  he stuffed the investors' etc. pockets with our health-care
billion dollars and
sent further hundredthousand Americans to their demise in the Middle East
(very few come home sane and safe)
and so on and on. But he is a religious(?) chap.

Atheism is more than just absence of belief IMO: it requires a supernatural
to disbelief in it. I look at a 'religiously motivated violence' with
suspicion since I still look for a fitting definition for 'religious'. I
asked Samiya where does 'Satan' come into the picture in vain. IMO every
thinking person starts out with SOME belief (e.g. the existence (reality?)
of an infinite complexity we like to call 'WORLD'' of which we only know a
small fraction.)

Telmo's 'douchebag' is a criminal: he lured character-weak persons into his
casinos to take their money (legitimately!) and added it to his billions.
Every gambling Bigboss is a criminal. I saw too much in my 93 years so far.

I am not an ''A"- THEIST, I am an ágnostic.

JM


On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 4:32 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 8/9/2015 6:33 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
>
> Brent, false! They killed to suppress religious belief, and exterminate
> believers,
>
>
> Nonsense.  You've swallowed the religious propaganda.  The killings were
> purely punishment for opposing the regime or not working hard enough for it.
>
> and yes they were totalitarian and many atheists claim not to be. They
> killed to support atheism, which is indisputable,
>
>
> It's not only disputable, it's unevidenced.  They didn't care what people
> believed about the supernatural, just so they didn't oppose the regime.
>
> and out of loyalty to Mao, Stalin, and your pal Bamers, Oops! Did I say
> that?
>
>
> You mean President Obama, the guy passed universal health insurance and
> ended U.S. occupation of Iraq and has avoided getting us into a war in
> Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and all those other places you'd like
> send your fellow citizens to attack?
>
> The bigger question is why doesn't religious belief or atheism reduce
> violence?
>
>
> Atheism is just and absence of belief, so it's not surprising that it has
> little bearing on violence.  It's only effect would be to reduce
> religiously motivated violence, e.g. ISIS or the IRA.  Religious beliefs
> are all over the place, from,"Love everyone as your brother." to "If they
> don't want to worship God kill them."
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Mental Being

[meekerdb]

On 8/16/2015 11:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:




and yes they were totalitarian and many atheists claim not to be. They 
killed to
support atheism, which is indisputable, 


It's not only disputable, it's unevidenced. They didn't care what people 
believed
about the supernatural, just so they didn't oppose the regime.


Brent, I am not expert in these matters, but as everyone I heard frequent allusions to 
the famous Marxist motto: "religion is the opium of the people".


The full quote is,/"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a 
heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of 
the people."/  He was not especially interested in denying people the comfort of religion 
except that he saw it as an instrument of pacifying the peasants and supporting oppressors.




Wikipedia seems to disagree with you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

"Soviet policy, based on the ideology  of 
Marxism–Leninism , made atheism 
 the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. 
Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the 
elimination of religious beliefs .^[1] 
 
"


Is this wrong? Can you point us to any credible historical sources that contradict these 
claims?


The source you cite also says:

//Joseph Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church to intensify patriotic support for the 
war effort and presented Russia as a defender of Christian civilization, because he saw 
the church had an ability to arouse the people in a way that the party could not and 
because he wanted western help.[5] On September 4, 1943, Metropolitans Sergius 
(Stragorodsky), Alexius (Simansky) and Nicholas (Yarushevich) were officially received by 
Soviet leader Joseph Stalin who proposed to create the Moscow Patriarchate. They received 
permission to convene a council on September 8, 1943, that elected Sergius Patriarch of 
Moscow and All Russia.[79] The church had a public presence once again and passed measures 
reaffirming their hierarchical structure that flatly contradicted the 1929 legislation and 
even Lenin's 1918 decree. The official legislation was never withdrawn, however, which is 
suggestive that the authorities did not consider that this tolerance would become 
permanent.[80] This is considered by some a violation of the XXX Apostolic canon, as no 
church hierarch could be consecrated by secular authorities.[81] A new patriarch was 
elected, theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. The 
Moscow Theological Academy Seminary, which had been closed since 1918, was re-opened.//


So Stalin, who had studied to be a priest himself, saw religion as just another tool of 
oppression.  If they were on his side they were fine.






and out of loyalty to Mao, Stalin, and your pal Bamers, Oops! Did I say 
that?


You mean President Obama, the guy passed universal health insurance


Perhaps a step in the right direction. I agree that universal access to health care 
should be a low bar requirement for civilized countries in 2015. I do have the 
impression that what he did was to make the slightly less poor pay for the health care 
of the poor, while the interests of the super-rich are left untouched. Why is medical 
care one order of magnitude more expensive in the US than in most other advanced 
economies? That's the root of the problem!


It's not an order of magnitude more expensive - except on a binary scale.  It's about 
twice as expensive as other OECD countries.  And remember that the numbers cited are just 
the total spent on health care, divided by the population. So it's not just doctors and 
medicine; the expentidure counts all kinds of administrative overhead.  A big part of the 
difference is the amount insurance companies spent trying to deny coverage by citing a 
pre-existing condition.  They hired staffs of doctors just to review medical records and 
claims. Obamacare eliminates that.  Another part is due to the complexity of the insurance 
system. Medicare operates on about 2% overhead.  Private insurance incurs about 20% 
overhead: every doctor's office has to hire an insurance billing specialist to deal with 
the complexity.  And no doubt there is some over-treatment, motivated by wanting to pay 
for expensive equipment, defensive treatment, or simple venality.




Let's also not forget that Obama signed-off on the greatest transfer of wealth from the 
poor to the rich in the history of humanity, through the bailouts of 2007-09.


and ended U.S. occupation of Iraq


Bush's decision to invade Iraq was both absurd and criminal. Obama's decision to abandon 
th

Re: The Mental Being

[meekerdb]

On 8/16/2015 12:52 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Brent:
did it slip your mind that your friend, the prez started the Arab Awakening by stabbing 
Mubarak in the back by his letter and supporting the US-enemy Morsi ("The first 
DEMOCRATICALLY(?) elected Egyptian prez and his Brotherhood!!!)


What's your point?...that we should have continued to support Mubarak the same way we did 
the Shah in Iran?  I don't think Morsi was a US enemy except in the sense that any 
despotic tyrant should not be regarded as a US friend.



together with his then Foreign Sec'y Hillary, giving billions in weapons etc.


Egypt has been a big recipient of U.S. foreign aid since WW2, but it only gets about half 
as much as Israel.



- then again  he stuffed the investors' etc. pockets with our health-care 
billion dollars


Sounds like you write sound-bites for Fox News.  Under Obama the rate of growth in per 
capita healthcare cost has been brought down closer to the overall inflation rate.  So 
there are no extra billions for investors in health care.



and
sent further hundredthousand Americans to their demise in the Middle East (very few come 
home sane and safe)


About 1700 US troops died in Afghanistan in six years under Obama. About 600 died under 
Bush.  In Iraq 256 died under Obama, and 4500 under Bush.  But a "further hundred 
thousand" is accurate enough for Fox News.



and so on and on. But he is a religious(?) chap.

Atheism is more than just absence of belief IMO: it requires a supernatural to disbelief 
in it.


So does disbelief in witches require that witches exist "to disbelief in"?  How about your 
disbelief in a competent Obama?  Does it require that a competent Obama exist?


I look at a 'religiously motivated violence' with suspicion since I still look for a 
fitting definition for 'religious'. I asked Samiya where does 'Satan' come into the 
picture in vain. IMO every thinking person starts out with SOME belief (e.g. the 
existence (reality?) of an infinite complexity we like to call 'WORLD'' of which we only 
know a small fraction.)


Telmo's 'douchebag' is a criminal: he lured character-weak persons into his casinos to 
take their money (legitimately!) and added it to his billions. Every gambling Bigboss is 
a criminal. I saw too much in my 93 years so far.


I am not an ''A"- THEIST, I am an ágnostic.


So you're uncertain as to whether there's an extremely powerful person who created the 
world and loves you and wants you to love him and if you don't he'll torture you forever 
in an afterlife.  Just how uncertain are you about this?  50:50?  40:60?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Mental Being

[Samiya Illias]

John M,
I'm not sure exactly what you had earlier asked about Satan and how I had
attempted to answer it.I will try to answer 'where does 'Satan' come into
the picture?' here.  However, my scripture informs me that we can only warn
with this Quran those who believe in the unseen, hence perhaps that is the
reason why our discussions have been in vain.

May I ask why you refuse to admit the existence of a supernatural when you
yourself admit that we know only a small fraction of the infinite
complexity? And what do you mean by 'supernatural'? Do you use this term to
refer to 'The Creator of Nature'?

So, coming back to your question:  'where does 'Satan' come into the
picture?' The following is as I understand it from the Quran. However, due
to gaps in my understanding, the sequence of the events may be different,
as I attempt to collect my thoughts:

God, Allah: The Creator, The Sustainer, The King and The Deity, created
everything for some purpose.
He created dJinns and Humans to serve Him. He created dJinns from Fire and
Humans from Clay.  The dJinns were created earlier, the humans later.
However, there was a period of time when humans were nothing worth
mentioning. Excerpts from my blogpost Human Evolution [
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/01/human-evolution.html]:
*Earthly Origins*
[Al-Qur’an 71:17, Translator: Sahih International] And Allah has *caused
you to grow from the earth* a [progressive] growth.
*Pre-historic Humans *
[Al-Qur’an 76:1, Translator: Sahih International] Has there [not] come upon
man *a period of time* *when he was not a thing [even] mentioned*?
*Perfection through Evolution *
[Al-Qur’an 32:7-9, Translator: Sahih International] *Who perfected
everything which He created* and *began* the creation of man from clay. *Then
He made his posterity* out of the extract of a liquid disdained. *Then He
proportioned him and breathed into him *from His [created] soul and made
for you hearing and vision and hearts; little are you grateful.
[unquote]

The Trust was offered to the Heavens, Earth and Mountains, all refused,
scared to undertake the responsibility. Human undertook it.
This act of being a Trustee necessitates that God judges humans, punishing
the idolaters and the hypocrites, while rewarding the believers.
Quran 33:72-73  Lo! *We offered the trust* unto
the heavens and the earth and the hills, but they shrank from bearing it
and were afraid of it. *And man assumed it. *Lo! he hath proved a tyrant
and a fool. *So Allah punisheth hypocritical men and hypocritical women,
and idolatrous men and idolatrous women. But Allah pardoneth believing men
and believing women, and Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful*.
However, the Compassionate and Just God is not going to punish anyone for
no fault of theirs. Hence, after creating Adam, God took out Adam's progeny
(all potential consciousnesses) and asked us all if He[God] is their god.
We all testified to it, and hence each one of us is a witness to our own
covenant with God.
Quran 7:172-174  And [mention] *when your Lord
took from the children of Adam* - from their loins - *their descendants and
made them testify of themselves,* [saying to them],*"Am I not your Lord?"
They said, "Yes, we have testified."* [This] - lest you should say on the
day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were of this unaware." Or [lest] you say,
"It was only that our fathers associated [others in worship] with Allah
before, and we were but descendants after them. Then would You destroy us
for what the falsifiers have done?" And thus do We [explain in] detail the
verses, and perhaps they will return.

To establish its eligibility to inherit the eternal Garden(s), each
consciousness also receives its own temporal life on Earth to prove its
worth as a Trustee, and each will be judged individually.

After God blew His Spirit in Adam, He asked all angels to prostrate/submit
to Adam. However, Iblis (Satan / The Chief Deceiver) refused. His refusal
to submit to Adam was based upon arrogance. He believes that his being
created from Fire makes him superior to Adam who is created from Clay. Not
all dJinns are evil, but Satan and his progeny are the sworn enemies of
mankind. They watch us from where we cannot see them (another dimension /
shadow biosphere / ??) and they are able to whisper suggestions to our
minds (desires / temptations / expectations / fears / doubts / ?? ).
Whether to act upon the suggestions or to resist them is in our control.
Satan and his progeny do not have any real power upon us. Our intellect and
our conscience are great blessings, and we must use them together to
overcome the challenges.

We are clearly and repeatedly warned that Satan is a determined, relentless
enemy and that humans should not worship him. The only being worthy of
worship is the One, True, Ever-Living God, and all other worship are
actually forms of Satan-worship, who deceives us in multiple ways.

Excerpts from my blogpost: Missio

Re: The Mental Being

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Aug 2015, at 21:52, John Mikes wrote:


Brent:
did it slip your mind that your friend, the prez started the Arab  
Awakening by stabbing Mubarak in the back by his letter and  
supporting the US-enemy Morsi ("The first DEMOCRATICALLY(?) elected  
Egyptian prez and his Brotherhood!!!) together with his then Foreign  
Sec'y Hillary, giving billions in weapons etc.



I agree, and he even threatened the Egyptians when they decide to put  
back the army into power once they grasped the dark antisecular (and  
anti-christian and anti-semite) motivation of the Muslim Brotherhood,  
which is also responsible for aborting the Oslo peace treatise in  
Palestine (Israel).


The politics of Obama in the Middle east consist almost in suppressing  
secular power for radical pseudo-religious fanatics. And some speech  
almost look like he is anti-zionist (which is for me squared anti- 
semitism).


Then he made discourse on Islam, defending the "moderate Muslim". But  
the expression "moderate Muslim" has been invented by the Brotherhood  
itself. Moderate just means non-salafiste, but remain still again  
secularism, christianism, jews, etc.


Then Obama signed the NDAA 2012. That was predicted by many, and I was  
pretty sure that it was just "paranoid conspiracy". But I follow that  
very closely, and during the night of the 31 december 2011, he signed,  
and countersigned it too (promising not to apply it). Yet, he will  
continue to use the patriot act, notably on Susan Lindauer  
(whistleblowers of the CIA, allegedly).



- then again  he stuffed the investors' etc. pockets with our health- 
care billion dollars and
sent further hundredthousand Americans to their demise in the Middle  
East (very few come home sane and safe)

and so on and on. But he is a religious(?) chap.


It is a puppet of the prohibitionists bandits, and the NDAA bill of  
2012 is literally a confession of terrorism. If the NDAA was literally  
applied, the top of the Obama and Bush administration should be the  
first to be detained for indefinite period as they are legitimate  
suspect of complicity of terrorism, given that the NDAA 2012 is a  
terrorist clause. Obama could have said more simply "the terrorist  
have won".


Since then I decided to study in detail the "official theory of 9/11.  
The evidences of some complicity on the ground, and of some long term  
preparation get much more numerous than the official doctrine.


Then, the subject became taboo (a sign of presence of lies to me) and  
when you ask how could two plane crashes can lead to apparent control- 
demolition, people categorize you in "defender of inside job" or  
"conspiracy theorist" without ever mentioning that it might just be  
the Islamist who could have done that planning in advance, may be with  
very few "inside" accomplices. That is straw man.


Of course the fact that in 2015 cannabis is still schedule 1 is enough  
to have few doubt in *some* conspiracy, and the book of Jack Herer is  
quite convincing and rigorous on this. We knew since 1974 that THC  
shrink tumor in mice brain cancer, and that the research has been  
prevented to be pursued. That is criminal enough for me (that was done  
at the time of Gerald Ford).


If 5 years of prohibition of alcohol give Al Capone, 70 years of  
prohibition of cannabis and opium/heroin might very well have given  
9/11 and ISIL. I have predicted more than 30 years ago that if  
prohibition last, the planet would become a big "Chicago", and the  
lies would develop in all directions, and I am afraid the facts  
corroborate this (despite I have denied it to myself for more than 10  
years: as it is only in 2011 that I realize that the war on terrorism  
get the same look as the war on drug).


The fact that we keep relation with the Saudi, despite they have  
prohibit atheism, or even any other religious opinion, in their  
countries is  striking.


Now, I still trust more the Americans than anyone else to eventually  
bring all the light and put all the prohibitionists in jail, or  
amnesty them properly. It might take some times though, but there is  
no choice in the matter.


Note that I am not saying that 9/11 is an inside job. It can be an  
outside job with some help from inside. The fact that there is no  
inquest on this might be due to the will of hiding or protecting some  
accomplice at a high level, not that it was a decision made at a high  
level. Hiding scandal is a frequent human reaction.





Atheism is more than just absence of belief IMO: it requires a  
supernatural to disbelief in it.


I agree, although it would be more precise to say that it requires a  
*notion* of supernatural to disbelieve in it. (without that precision  
people will find (straw man) counter-examples).


Now, many atheist want to count the agnostic on their side, and they  
have enlarged the meaning of atheism to do that, but then the word  
obliterates the gigantic gap between believe (Not God), and Not  
Believe

Re: The Mental Being

[John Mikes]

Brent, I really hate to contrast you, I appreciate your mind and stances.
However:

*"About 1700 US troops died in Afghanistan in six years under Obama. About
600 died under Bush.  In Iraq 256 died under Obama, and 4500 under Bush.
But a "further hundred thousand" is accurate enough for Fox News."*

is official warmonger statistics, counting only select cadavers 'over
there' and discounting the victims of dying en-route or at home, later on
outside the official  statistical restraints. I wrote about 'victims'
(called heros?) forced into war and I also referred to other type victims,
like those who came home with injuries (bodily AND/OR mentally) plus those
whose lifes has been interrupted (marriage, careet, family etc.) why I
wrote *"sent to"* and not *"returned dead"*. It is not a Fox soundbite, I
am not supporting either of our political parties.
(Your supporting Sanders seems commendable, although not too hopeful.)

JM





On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 5:31 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 8/16/2015 12:52 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> Brent:
>> did it slip your mind that your friend, the prez started the Arab
>> Awakening by stabbing Mubarak in the back by his letter and supporting the
>> US-enemy Morsi ("The first DEMOCRATICALLY(?) elected Egyptian prez and his
>> Brotherhood!!!)
>>
>
> What's your point?...that we should have continued to support Mubarak the
> same way we did the Shah in Iran?  I don't think Morsi was a US enemy
> except in the sense that any despotic tyrant should not be regarded as a US
> friend.
>
> together with his then Foreign Sec'y Hillary, giving billions in weapons
>> etc.
>>
>
> Egypt has been a big recipient of U.S. foreign aid since WW2, but it only
> gets about half as much as Israel.
>
> - then again  he stuffed the investors' etc. pockets with our health-care
>> billion dollars
>>
>
> Sounds like you write sound-bites for Fox News.  Under Obama the rate of
> growth in per capita healthcare cost has been brought down closer to the
> overall inflation rate.  So there are no extra billions for investors in
> health care.
>
> and
>> sent further hundredthousand Americans to their demise in the Middle East
>> (very few come home sane and safe)
>>
>
> About 1700 US troops died in Afghanistan in six years under Obama. About
> 600 died under Bush.  In Iraq 256 died under Obama, and 4500 under Bush.
> But a "further hundred thousand" is accurate enough for Fox News.
>
> and so on and on. But he is a religious(?) chap.
>>
>> Atheism is more than just absence of belief IMO: it requires a
>> supernatural to disbelief in it.
>>
>
> So does disbelief in witches require that witches exist "to disbelief
> in"?  How about your disbelief in a competent Obama?  Does it require that
> a competent Obama exist?
>
> I look at a 'religiously motivated violence' with suspicion since I still
>> look for a fitting definition for 'religious'. I asked Samiya where does
>> 'Satan' come into the picture in vain. IMO every thinking person starts out
>> with SOME belief (e.g. the existence (reality?) of an infinite complexity
>> we like to call 'WORLD'' of which we only know a small fraction.)
>>
>> Telmo's 'douchebag' is a criminal: he lured character-weak persons into
>> his casinos to take their money (legitimately!) and added it to his
>> billions. Every gambling Bigboss is a criminal. I saw too much in my 93
>> years so far.
>>
>> I am not an ''A"- THEIST, I am an ágnostic.
>>
>
> So you're uncertain as to whether there's an extremely powerful person who
> created the world and loves you and wants you to love him and if you don't
> he'll torture you forever in an afterlife.  Just how uncertain are you
> about this?  50:50?  40:60?
>
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Mental Being

[John Mikes]

Samiya: thanks for your detailed reply. I do not play straw-man so I let it
go.
JM

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> John M,
> I'm not sure exactly what you had earlier asked about Satan and how I had
> attempted to answer it.I will try to answer 'where does 'Satan' come into
> the picture?' here.  However, my scripture informs me that we can only
> warn with this Quran those who believe in the unseen, hence perhaps that is
> the reason why our discussions have been in vain.
>
> May I ask why you refuse to admit the existence of a supernatural when you
> yourself admit that we know only a small fraction of the infinite
> complexity? And what do you mean by 'supernatural'? Do you use this term to
> refer to 'The Creator of Nature'?
>
> So, coming back to your question:  'where does 'Satan' come into the
> picture?' The following is as I understand it from the Quran.
> However, due to gaps in my understanding, the sequence of the events may be
> different, as I attempt to collect my thoughts:
>
> God, Allah: The Creator, The Sustainer, The King and The Deity, created
> everything for some purpose.
> He created dJinns and Humans to serve Him. He created dJinns from Fire and
> Humans from Clay.  The dJinns were created earlier, the humans later.
> However, there was a period of time when humans were nothing worth
> mentioning. Excerpts from my blogpost Human Evolution [
> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/01/human-evolution.html]:
> *Earthly Origins*
> [Al-Qur’an 71:17, Translator: Sahih International] And Allah has *caused
> you to grow from the earth* a [progressive] growth.
> *Pre-historic Humans *
> [Al-Qur’an 76:1, Translator: Sahih International] Has there [not] come
> upon man *a period of time* *when he was not a thing [even] mentioned*?
> *Perfection through Evolution *
> [Al-Qur’an 32:7-9, Translator: Sahih International] *Who perfected
> everything which He created* and *began* the creation of man from clay. *Then
> He made his posterity* out of the extract of a liquid disdained. *Then He
> proportioned him and breathed into him *from His [created] soul and made
> for you hearing and vision and hearts; little are you grateful.
> [unquote]
>
> The Trust was offered to the Heavens, Earth and Mountains, all refused,
> scared to undertake the responsibility. Human undertook it.
> This act of being a Trustee necessitates that God judges humans, punishing
> the idolaters and the hypocrites, while rewarding the believers.
> Quran 33:72-73  Lo! *We offered the trust* unto
> the heavens and the earth and the hills, but they shrank from bearing it
> and were afraid of it. *And man assumed it. *Lo! he hath proved a tyrant
> and a fool. *So Allah punisheth hypocritical men and hypocritical women,
> and idolatrous men and idolatrous women. But Allah pardoneth believing men
> and believing women, and Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful*.
> However, the Compassionate and Just God is not going to punish anyone for
> no fault of theirs. Hence, after creating Adam, God took out Adam's progeny
> (all potential consciousnesses) and asked us all if He[God] is their god.
> We all testified to it, and hence each one of us is a witness to our own
> covenant with God.
> Quran 7:172-174  And [mention] *when your
> Lord took from the children of Adam* - from their loins - *their
> descendants and made them testify of themselves,* [saying to them],*"Am I
> not your Lord?" They said, "Yes, we have testified."* [This] - lest you
> should say on the day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were of this
> unaware." Or [lest] you say, "It was only that our fathers associated
> [others in worship] with Allah before, and we were but descendants after
> them. Then would You destroy us for what the falsifiers have done?" And
> thus do We [explain in] detail the verses, and perhaps they will return.
>
> To establish its eligibility to inherit the eternal Garden(s), each
> consciousness also receives its own temporal life on Earth to prove its
> worth as a Trustee, and each will be judged individually.
>
> After God blew His Spirit in Adam, He asked all angels to prostrate/submit
> to Adam. However, Iblis (Satan / The Chief Deceiver) refused. His refusal
> to submit to Adam was based upon arrogance. He believes that his being
> created from Fire makes him superior to Adam who is created from Clay. Not
> all dJinns are evil, but Satan and his progeny are the sworn enemies of
> mankind. They watch us from where we cannot see them (another dimension /
> shadow biosphere / ??) and they are able to whisper suggestions to our
> minds (desires / temptations / expectations / fears / doubts / ?? ).
> Whether to act upon the suggestions or to resist them is in our control.
> Satan and his progeny do not have any real power upon us. Our intellect and
> our conscience are great blessings, and we must use them together to
> overcome the challenges.
>
> We are clearly and rep

Re: The Mental Being

[meekerdb]

On 8/17/2015 1:52 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Brent, I really hate to contrast you, I appreciate your mind and stances.
However:

/"About 1700 US troops died in Afghanistan in six years under Obama. About 600 died 
under Bush.  In Iraq 256 died under Obama, and 4500 under Bush.  But a "further hundred 
thousand" is accurate enough for Fox News."/

/
/
is official warmonger statistics, counting only select cadavers 'over there' and 
discounting the victims of dying en-route or at home, later on outside the official 
 statistical restraints. I wrote about 'victims' (called heros?) forced into war and I 
also referred to other type victims, like those who came home with injuries (bodily 
AND/OR mentally) plus those whose lifes has been interrupted (marriage, careet, family 
etc.) why I wrote *"sent to"* and not *"returned dead"*.


"sent to their /*demise*/" is what you wrote.  demise = die.

Brent


It is not a Fox soundbite, I am not supporting either of our political parties.
(Your supporting Sanders seems commendable, although not too hopeful.)

JM


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Mental Being

[John Mikes]

Sorry for my inaccurate English (the 5th I learned) - I wanted to express
deterioration, not total annihilation.
John

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 5:16 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 8/17/2015 1:52 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Brent, I really hate to contrast you, I appreciate your mind and stances.
> However:
>
> *"About 1700 US troops died in Afghanistan in six years under Obama. About
> 600 died under Bush.  In Iraq 256 died under Obama, and 4500 under Bush.
> But a "further hundred thousand" is accurate enough for Fox News."*
>
> is official warmonger statistics, counting only select cadavers 'over
> there' and discounting the victims of dying en-route or at home, later on
> outside the official  statistical restraints. I wrote about 'victims'
> (called heros?) forced into war and I also referred to other type victims,
> like those who came home with injuries (bodily AND/OR mentally) plus those
> whose lifes has been interrupted (marriage, careet, family etc.) why I
> wrote *"sent to"* and not *"returned dead"*.
>
>
> "sent to their *demise*" is what you wrote.  demise = die.
>
> Brent
>
> It is not a Fox soundbite, I am not supporting either of our political
> parties.
> (Your supporting Sanders seems commendable, although not too hopeful.)
>
> JM
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Mental Being

[Samiya Illias]

I asked you what you meant by the term supernatural because you present 
conflicting views, or so they appear to me. I don't see how that becomes 
playing straw man. However, I understand if you feel we've exhausted the 
discussion. 
Regards, 
Samiya 

> On 18-Aug-2015, at 1:54 am, John Mikes  wrote:
> 
> Samiya: thanks for your detailed reply. I do not play straw-man so I let it 
> go. 
> JM
> 
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Samiya Illias  
>> wrote:
>> John M, 
>> I'm not sure exactly what you had earlier asked about Satan and how I had 
>> attempted to answer it.I will try to answer 'where does 'Satan' come into 
>> the picture?' here.  However, my scripture informs me that we can only warn 
>> with this Quran those who believe in the unseen, hence perhaps that is the 
>> reason why our discussions have been in vain. 
>> 
>> May I ask why you refuse to admit the existence of a supernatural when you 
>> yourself admit that we know only a small fraction of the infinite 
>> complexity? And what do you mean by 'supernatural'? Do you use this term to 
>> refer to 'The Creator of Nature'?  
>> 
>> So, coming back to your question:  'where does 'Satan' come into the 
>> picture?' The following is as I understand it from the Quran. However, due 
>> to gaps in my understanding, the sequence of the events may be different, as 
>> I attempt to collect my thoughts: 
>> 
>> God, Allah: The Creator, The Sustainer, The King and The Deity, created 
>> everything for some purpose. 
>> He created dJinns and Humans to serve Him. He created dJinns from Fire and 
>> Humans from Clay.  The dJinns were created earlier, the humans later. 
>> However, there was a period of time when humans were nothing worth 
>> mentioning. Excerpts from my blogpost Human Evolution 
>> [http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/01/human-evolution.html]:
>> Earthly Origins
>> [Al-Qur’an 71:17, Translator: Sahih International] And Allah has caused you 
>> to grow from the earth a [progressive] growth. 
>> Pre-historic Humans 
>> [Al-Qur’an 76:1, Translator: Sahih International] Has there [not] come upon 
>> man a period of time when he was not a thing [even] mentioned?   
>> Perfection through Evolution 
>> [Al-Qur’an 32:7-9, Translator: Sahih International] Who perfected everything 
>> which He created and began the creation of man from clay. Then He made his 
>> posterity out of the extract of a liquid disdained. Then He proportioned him 
>> and breathed into him from His [created] soul and made for you hearing and 
>> vision and hearts; little are you grateful. 
>> [unquote] 
>> 
>> The Trust was offered to the Heavens, Earth and Mountains, all refused, 
>> scared to undertake the responsibility. Human undertook it. 
>> This act of being a Trustee necessitates that God judges humans, punishing 
>> the idolaters and the hypocrites, while rewarding the believers. 
>> Quran 33:72-73 Lo! We offered the trust unto the heavens and the earth and 
>> the hills, but they shrank from bearing it and were afraid of it. And man 
>> assumed it. Lo! he hath proved a tyrant and a fool. So Allah punisheth 
>> hypocritical men and hypocritical women, and idolatrous men and idolatrous 
>> women. But Allah pardoneth believing men and believing women, and Allah is 
>> ever Forgiving, Merciful. 
>> However, the Compassionate and Just God is not going to punish anyone for no 
>> fault of theirs. Hence, after creating Adam, God took out Adam's progeny 
>> (all potential consciousnesses) and asked us all if He[God] is their god. We 
>> all testified to it, and hence each one of us is a witness to our own 
>> covenant with God.
>> Quran 7:172-174 And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam 
>> - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify of themselves, 
>> [saying to them],"Am I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes, we have testified." 
>> [This] - lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were of 
>> this unaware." Or [lest] you say, "It was only that our fathers associated 
>> [others in worship] with Allah before, and we were but descendants after 
>> them. Then would You destroy us for what the falsifiers have done?" And thus 
>> do We [explain in] detail the verses, and perhaps they will return.
>> 
>> To establish its eligibility to inherit the eternal Garden(s), each 
>> consciousness also receives its own temporal life on Earth to prove its 
>> worth as a Trustee, and each will be judged individually. 
>>  
>> After God blew His Spirit in Adam, He asked all angels to prostrate/submit 
>> to Adam. However, Iblis (Satan / The Chief Deceiver) refused. His refusal to 
>> submit to Adam was based upon arrogance. He believes that his being created 
>> from Fire makes him superior to Adam who is created from Clay. Not all 
>> dJinns are evil, but Satan and his progeny are the sworn enemies of mankind. 
>> They watch us from where we cannot see them (another dimension / shadow 
>> biosphere / ??) and they are able to whi

Re: The Mental Being

[John Mikes]

Dear Samiya, IMO 'supernatural' bounces back intu 'natural' what is
EVERYTHING in (and around?) the World, the Entirety, including all
you may add into "God". So NOTHING is Supernatural.
Regards
John

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> I asked you what you meant by the term supernatural because you present
> conflicting views, or so they appear to me. I don't see how that becomes
> playing straw man. However, I understand if you feel we've exhausted the
> discussion.
> Regards,
> Samiya
>
> On 18-Aug-2015, at 1:54 am, John Mikes  wrote:
>
> Samiya: thanks for your detailed reply. I do not play straw-man so I let
> it go.
> JM
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Samiya Illias 
> wrote:
>
>> John M,
>> I'm not sure exactly what you had earlier asked about Satan and how I had
>> attempted to answer it.I will try to answer 'where does 'Satan' come
>> into the picture?' here.  However, my scripture informs me that we can
>> only warn with this Quran those who believe in the unseen, hence perhaps
>> that is the reason why our discussions have been in vain.
>>
>> May I ask why you refuse to admit the existence of a supernatural when
>> you yourself admit that we know only a small fraction of the infinite
>> complexity? And what do you mean by 'supernatural'? Do you use this term to
>> refer to 'The Creator of Nature'?
>>
>> So, coming back to your question:  'where does 'Satan' come into the
>> picture?' The following is as I understand it from the Quran.
>> However, due to gaps in my understanding, the sequence of the events may be
>> different, as I attempt to collect my thoughts:
>>
>> God, Allah: The Creator, The Sustainer, The King and The Deity, created
>> everything for some purpose.
>> He created dJinns and Humans to serve Him. He created dJinns from Fire
>> and Humans from Clay.  The dJinns were created earlier, the humans later.
>> However, there was a period of time when humans were nothing worth
>> mentioning. Excerpts from my blogpost Human Evolution [
>> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/01/human-evolution.html]:
>> *Earthly Origins*
>> [Al-Qur’an 71:17, Translator: Sahih International] And Allah has *caused
>> you to grow from the earth* a [progressive] growth.
>> *Pre-historic Humans *
>> [Al-Qur’an 76:1, Translator: Sahih International] Has there [not] come
>> upon man *a period of time* *when he was not a thing [even] mentioned*?
>>
>> *Perfection through Evolution *
>> [Al-Qur’an 32:7-9, Translator: Sahih International] *Who perfected
>> everything which He created* and *began* the creation of man from clay. *Then
>> He made his posterity* out of the extract of a liquid disdained. *Then
>> He proportioned him and breathed into him *from His [created] soul and
>> made for you hearing and vision and hearts; little are you grateful.
>> [unquote]
>>
>> The Trust was offered to the Heavens, Earth and Mountains, all refused,
>> scared to undertake the responsibility. Human undertook it.
>> This act of being a Trustee necessitates that God judges humans,
>> punishing the idolaters and the hypocrites, while rewarding the believers.
>> Quran 33:72-73  Lo! *We offered the trust* unto
>> the heavens and the earth and the hills, but they shrank from bearing it
>> and were afraid of it. *And man assumed it. *Lo! he hath proved a tyrant
>> and a fool. *So Allah punisheth hypocritical men and hypocritical women,
>> and idolatrous men and idolatrous women. But Allah pardoneth believing men
>> and believing women, and Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful*.
>> However, the Compassionate and Just God is not going to punish anyone for
>> no fault of theirs. Hence, after creating Adam, God took out Adam's progeny
>> (all potential consciousnesses) and asked us all if He[God] is their god.
>> We all testified to it, and hence each one of us is a witness to our own
>> covenant with God.
>> Quran 7:172-174  And [mention] *when your
>> Lord took from the children of Adam* - from their loins - *their
>> descendants and made them testify of themselves,* [saying to them],*"Am
>> I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes, we have testified."* [This] - lest
>> you should say on the day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were of this
>> unaware." Or [lest] you say, "It was only that our fathers associated
>> [others in worship] with Allah before, and we were but descendants after
>> them. Then would You destroy us for what the falsifiers have done?" And
>> thus do We [explain in] detail the verses, and perhaps they will return.
>>
>> To establish its eligibility to inherit the eternal Garden(s), each
>> consciousness also receives its own temporal life on Earth to prove its
>> worth as a Trustee, and each will be judged individually.
>>
>> After God blew His Spirit in Adam, He asked all angels to
>> prostrate/submit to Adam. However, Iblis (Satan / The Chief Deceiver)
>> refused. His refusal to submit to Adam was based upon arrogance. He
>> believes that hi

Re: The Mental Being

[meekerdb]

On 8/18/2015 12:52 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Dear Samiya, IMO 'supernatural' bounces back intu 'natural' what is
EVERYTHING in (and around?) the World, the Entirety, including all
you may add into "God". So NOTHING is Supernatural.
Regards
John


"Supernatural" really plays on the human/natural distinction. Things thought of as 
supernatural are those that are unpredictable yet meaningful - in other words like human 
behavior - but beyond human powers.  So if meteorite trails in night sky spelled out 
"Mohamed was a fraud." that would be considered supernatural - unless we could figure out 
how some people could have done it.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Mental Being

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 10:31 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 8/16/2015 11:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> and yes they were totalitarian and many atheists claim not to be. They
>> killed to support atheism, which is indisputable,
>>
>>
>> It's not only disputable, it's unevidenced.  They didn't care what people
>> believed about the supernatural, just so they didn't oppose the regime.
>>
>
> Brent, I am not expert in these matters, but as everyone I heard frequent
> allusions to the famous Marxist motto: "religion is the opium of the
> people".
>
>
> The full quote is,*"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the
> heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless
> situation. It is the opium of the people."*  He was not especially
> interested in denying people the comfort of religion except that he saw it
> as an instrument of pacifying the peasants and supporting oppressors.
>

I think he was right, and I also think that he would have been horrified by
Stalin. Also Christ, assuming he existed as described in the bible, would
have been horrified by the southern baptist church.

The inquisition didn't care about "love thy neighbor", and the communist
movements that followed Marx also didn't care about the rest of that
sentence.

But I'll come clean: I don't think that communists are atheists, nor do I
think that most people who claim to be atheists are atheists. I suspect
many true atheists claim to be devoutly religious, because that is
strategically convenient. Why wouldn't they? Why would a true atheist care
about proselytizing?


>
>
> Wikipedia seems to disagree with you:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
>
> "Soviet policy, based on the ideology
>  of Marxism–Leninism
> , made atheism
>  the official doctrine of the
> Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control,
> suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs
> .[1]
> 
> "
>
> Is this wrong? Can you point us to any credible historical sources that
> contradict these claims?
>
>
> The source you cite also says:
>
> *Joseph Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church to intensify patriotic
> support for the war effort and presented Russia as a defender of Christian
> civilization, because he saw the church had an ability to arouse the people
> in a way that the party could not and because he wanted western help.[5] On
> September 4, 1943, Metropolitans Sergius (Stragorodsky), Alexius (Simansky)
> and Nicholas (Yarushevich) were officially received by Soviet leader Joseph
> Stalin who proposed to create the Moscow Patriarchate. They received
> permission to convene a council on September 8, 1943, that elected Sergius
> Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.[79] The church had a public presence
> once again and passed measures reaffirming their hierarchical structure
> that flatly contradicted the 1929 legislation and even Lenin's 1918 decree.
> The official legislation was never withdrawn, however, which is suggestive
> that the authorities did not consider that this tolerance would become
> permanent.[80] This is considered by some a violation of the XXX Apostolic
> canon, as no church hierarch could be consecrated by secular
> authorities.[81] A new patriarch was elected, theological schools were
> opened, and thousands of churches began to function. The Moscow Theological
> Academy Seminary, which had been closed since 1918, was re-opened.*
>
> So Stalin, who had studied to be a priest himself, saw religion as just
> another tool of oppression.  If they were on his side they were fine.
>

Stalin was insane and went through various psychosis. There have been
periods in history were people were killed in the name of atheism. Some of
them were during Stalin's reign and some were in other periods and in other
countries.

I'm not saying this to argue that people should not be atheists. I am not
religious myself. My point is that atrocities are committed in the name of
absolute belief. I don't think they are ever committed in the name of
doubt. Atheism is absolute belief.


>
>
>
>
>>
>> and out of loyalty to Mao, Stalin, and your pal Bamers, Oops! Did I say
>> that?
>>
>>
>> You mean President Obama, the guy passed universal health insurance
>>
>
> Perhaps a step in the right direction. I agree that universal access to
> health care should be a low bar requirement for civilized countries in
> 2015. I do have the impression that what he did was to make the slightly
> less poor pay for the health care of the poor, while the interests of the
> super-rich are left untouched. Why is medical care one order of magnitude
> more expensive in the US than in most other advanced econom

Re: The Mental Being

[Bruno Marchal]

On 23 Aug 2015, at 10:08, Telmo Menezes wrote:

The point of the NSA and the TSA is to keep us all in line, not to  
fight terrorism. I don't feel completely safe in writing some of the  
things that I am writing you right now, and I am absolutely sure  
that a lot of people practice self-censorship. We are sliding  
towards dystopia.



Yes, a sort of unconscious dystopia. Political correctness is part of  
it.


Bandits have gain a lot of power, and the media are no more free. Our  
democracies are sick, and the middle class is taken into hostage by  
the corporated interest having unfounded monopolies based on lies  
(like with cannabis/cancer to point on the less controversial one).



"imposing democracy" is like "fighting for peace" is like "fucking  
for virginity".


Well said.

Bruno




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.