[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Sorry, Salyavin, but that's such a crappy and ignorant argument, a whopping category error. The theist doesn't believe in one god among "other possible gods." It's akin to the difference between Brahma the Creator and Brahman, the Absolute. The theist isn't narrowing the field to Brahma alone or Shiva alone or Vishnu alone. And the issue isn't whether Brahman exists; Brahman is existence itself, Beingness, the necessary condition for anything to exist in the first place (including Brahma and Shiva and Vishnu, if any of them take one's fancy). That's not an argument in favor of believing in Brahman, it's just to point out what a shoddy argument Roberts is posing to the theist. "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
In posting this quotation, where did Salyavin say or even imply this was 'an argument in favor of believing in Brahman'? There may be a category error in this quotation, but there is a significant context shift in the point you are making and the point Salyavin was making. Roberts' argument seems to apply to the way the typical believer thinks of the concept of god. You are making a different argument here, off topic. No Hindu concepts of reality were stated in the quotation. My guess it was aimed at the Judeo-Christian-Islamic conceptions of god, but even those are not specified. One example of a Christian response (which does not hit the nail on the head) to this very quotation is: 'I understand perfectly why Stephen F Roberts and Christopher Hitchens reject all the other gods. It is because they reject polytheism. But I don’t understand how this parallels to the rejection of the Christian God. It is a slight of hand to make such a comparison (effective as it may be). People believe in these two completely different things for completely different reasons and, therefore, must reject the two differently. The same arguments used against these gods cannot be used effectively against the Christian God. Once polytheism as a worldview is rejected, all the millions of gods go with it. I don’t have to argue against each, one at a time.' —C Michael Patton The idea that the Christian concept god is exempt because it is special in some way, is not a good argument, but that does not somehow make Roberts' argument shine any better. Isaac Asimov's argument for atheism, as an example of another way to handle this, is not a logical one, but one of practicality: 'Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.'
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
My caveat wasn't addressed to Salyavin. And Xeno missed the point of my post because he's more interested in trolling than in understanding. The theistic concept of God is not peculiar to the Judeo-Christian religions. << In posting this quotation, where did Salyavin say or even imply this was 'an argument in favor of believing in Brahman'? There may be a category error in this quotation, but there is a significant context shift in the point you are making and the point Salyavin was making. Roberts' argument seems to apply to the way the typical believer thinks of the concept of god. You are making a different argument here, off topic. No Hindu concepts of reality were stated in the quotation. My guess it was aimed at the Judeo-Christian-Islamic conceptions of god, but even those are not specified. >> One example of a Christian response (which does not hit the nail on the head) to this very quotation is: 'I understand perfectly why Stephen F Roberts and Christopher Hitchens reject all the other gods. It is because they reject polytheism. But I don’t understand how this parallels to the rejection of the Christian God. It is a slight of hand to make such a comparison (effective as it may be). People believe in these two completely different things for completely different reasons and, therefore, must reject the two differently. The same arguments used against these gods cannot be used effectively against the Christian God. Once polytheism as a worldview is rejected, all the millions of gods go with it. I don’t have to argue against each, one at a time.' —C Michael Patton The idea that the Christian concept god is exempt because it is special in some way, is not a good argument, but that does not somehow make Roberts' argument shine any better. Isaac Asimov's argument for atheism, as an example of another way to handle this, is not a logical one, but one of practicality: 'Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.'
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Yeah, it is a funny word, 'God'. Though I am comfortable with the experience of Gods (sort of like the four star generals, of vibration X, or Y), when I use the term, 'God', it feels like an impersonal, all pervasive immense Infinity, with no thought of gender. Even when I declare, 'dammit!', it is with the same sense of universal Being, though not really personal. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Exactly. Just as Brahman is not a proper name, but Brahma is (or Zeus, or Wotan, etc.). For theists, these named gods are, strictly speaking, demiurges, deities subordinate to the Ultimate Reality, the Ground of Being. The Tao is another term for the latter (which, according to Laotze, is "eternally nameless"). Nothing wrong with not being a believer, but if they're going to argue with theists, these new atheist dudes need to read, at the very least, David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss so they have some idea of what they're talking about. He really blasts them for their willful, arrogant ignorance, but they deserve it. Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Re "He really blasts them for their willful, arrogant ignorance, but they deserve it.": Precisely. These new atheists are so smug. The problem, of course, is that their opponents in debate are usually those lowbrow, fundamentalist types that are just as tiresome and even more misguided!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Salyavin posted to the quote, and Judy responded 'Sorry Salyavin...' if that is not addressing someone, I do not know what is. It is true the atheists do not tend to deal with the more abstract conception of god that theists use, but they also tend to address the way the average person thinks of the subject, and for them 'god' is like a name for a thing or person. Y[a]HW[e]H is a name. Most people think of god as a creator, but Brahman is not a creator, and most people, off hand, would probably interpret that word as some kind of name, as it is usually in English capitalised, like a name. It is a token for a concept, a name for a concept. Vashistha, in discussing Brahman wrote,'..all this talk about who created this world and how it was created is intended only for the purpose of composing scriptures and expounding them: it is not based on truth'. Most people in the West do not think of god in the rarefied, abstract atmosphere of modern theistic discourse, and often are not familiar with Indian concepts, but think of god in very concrete terms, and probably not very clearly consider how their sense of it would play out logically. And the atheists tend to do the same, think of god as a name for a dictatorial entity or process that governs the world, both sides having a somewhat anthropomorphic colouration to the idea. After all in Genesis, we find god walking in the garden. So first of all one has to find out just how a person is interpreting that word, god. My own choice is not to use it because it has such an incredible historical and cultural baggage attached to it, that it is nearly impossible to discuss without stumbling into equivocation. Thought of abstractly enough, diluting the historical way the word god has been delineated, you could come to a conception that could have very little difference from the vision atheistic science has produced for the existence and transformation of the universe, but then what is the point of using the word god, as it then is denuded from everything that has been culturally and personally meaningful to people? Roberts does not really appear to be much of anyone. He said he coined the phrase about 1995 on one of the alt discussion groups and it caught on. That seems to be his claim to fame. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Exactly. Just as Brahman is not a proper name, but Brahma is (or Zeus, or Wotan, etc.). For theists, these named gods are, strictly speaking, demiurges, deities subordinate to the Ultimate Reality, the Ground of Being. The Tao is another term for the latter (which, according to Laotze, is "eternally nameless"). Nothing wrong with not being a believer, but if they're going to argue with theists, these new atheist dudes need to read, at the very least, David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss so they have some idea of what they're talking about. He really blasts them for their willful, arrogant ignorance, but they deserve it. Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Get away, that's a great argument! Your riposte is a bit of sophistry that would get you chased up a tree in the bible belt. Sure, some eastern theologians might agree with you but yer average god fearing tub thumper DOES NOT believe that all gods are some sort of manifestation of Brahma. That's who the quote is aimed at, anyone who thinks theirs is the only god. Plenty of those around ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Sorry, Salyavin, but that's such a crappy and ignorant argument, a whopping category error. The theist doesn't believe in one god among "other possible gods." It's akin to the difference between Brahma the Creator and Brahman, the Absolute. The theist isn't narrowing the field to Brahma alone or Shiva alone or Vishnu alone. And the issue isn't whether Brahman exists; Brahman is existence itself, Beingness, the necessary condition for anything to exist in the first place (including Brahma and Shiva and Vishnu, if any of them take one's fancy). That's not an argument in favor of believing in Brahman, it's just to point out what a shoddy argument Roberts is posing to the theist. "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
If you think Xeno is trolling you must be up past your bedtime. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: My caveat wasn't addressed to Salyavin. And Xeno missed the point of my post because he's more interested in trolling than in understanding. The theistic concept of God is not peculiar to the Judeo-Christian religions. << In posting this quotation, where did Salyavin say or even imply this was 'an argument in favor of believing in Brahman'? There may be a category error in this quotation, but there is a significant context shift in the point you are making and the point Salyavin was making. Roberts' argument seems to apply to the way the typical believer thinks of the concept of god. You are making a different argument here, off topic. No Hindu concepts of reality were stated in the quotation. My guess it was aimed at the Judeo-Christian-Islamic conceptions of god, but even those are not specified. >> One example of a Christian response (which does not hit the nail on the head) to this very quotation is: 'I understand perfectly why Stephen F Roberts and Christopher Hitchens reject all the other gods. It is because they reject polytheism. But I don’t understand how this parallels to the rejection of the Christian God. It is a slight of hand to make such a comparison (effective as it may be). People believe in these two completely different things for completely different reasons and, therefore, must reject the two differently. The same arguments used against these gods cannot be used effectively against the Christian God. Once polytheism as a worldview is rejected, all the millions of gods go with it. I don’t have to argue against each, one at a time.' —C Michael Patton The idea that the Christian concept god is exempt because it is special in some way, is not a good argument, but that does not somehow make Roberts' argument shine any better. Isaac Asimov's argument for atheism, as an example of another way to handle this, is not a logical one, but one of practicality: 'Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.'
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Judy is not correct because most religious types would not agree that her definition of their beliefs is accurate. How would you know Roberts is a "new" athiest if you don't know who he is? "Thou shalt have no other god but me" Sound familiar? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
comments below ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Exactly. Just as Brahman is not a proper name, but Brahma is (or Zeus, or Wotan, etc.). For theists, these named gods are, strictly speaking, demiurges, deities subordinate to the Ultimate Reality, the Ground of Being. The Tao is another term for the latter (which, according to Laotze, is "eternally nameless"). In some religious systems perhaps, but not the ones the quote is aimed at. Nothing wrong with not being a believer, but if they're going to argue with theists, these new atheist dudes need to read, at the very least, David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss so they have some idea of what they're talking about. He really blasts them for their willful, arrogant ignorance, but they deserve it. As might have been mentioned, this experience of god is most likely a different state of consciousness and the neural functions and the hormonal, chemical systems that support it. I say "most likely" because it isn't like the new religious have got anywhere nearer to proving that there is "something else", some brahma or whatever you want to call it today. How many ways of saying "We want there to be more" can there possibly be? All you have here is a new way of saying the same old thing. An involving argument is no substitute for evidence. It's a security blanket. Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
"sympathy for theology" Interesting choice of words. I would say that these "new" atheists are scientists, so why would a scientist have sympathy for something that refuses to demonstrate any actual evidence in favour of its position? And I don't agree with the idea that Dawkins etc are smug or arrogant, they are coming from a position that is so well sussed there is simply no room for the old ways of believing to be necessary. And they are deliberately starting a fight in the hope of making people think about what they decide is real, it's a post 9/11 thing to try and shake people out of the religious stupor they walk around in without questioning it. Why would they want to do that? This the funny bit, Dawkin's thinks people will be happier with a more accurate description of reality than the superstitious ones that people still get brought up into. LOL, he obviously didn't read Xeno's security blanket list. If atheism promised a life after death he might have more takers. If you want a scientist to take a theory seriously you have to show that what it explains is a superior explanation to the current one. And here's your problem, the cornerstones of scientific thought are so sussed that trying to lever in a supernatural being or creator (or whatever this brahma does) is really going to take some doing as it's been shown to be unnecessary. We have a couple of good theories as to how the universe got here without any help. We know about stellar evolution and the creation of dense matter from supernovae. Evolution from simple forms to more complex. Not finished but there is an undeniable drift away from biblical explanations for creation. This is where the apparent smugness comes from I think. God has been forced into such a small corner by our understanding that you have to wonder if all that is left over as his domain is actually an insult to the old dude. So you have to get all "god is a manifestation of all things" to still keep the concept alive. A far cry from his glory days. Progress happens when someone spots that a theory is contradicted by the evidence. To get any concept of god taken seriously you'll have to show how any current explanation of our experience is inadequate without some sort of supernatural being. Good luck with it but blissful states of consciousness aren't going to do it, I had all of them and it didn't convince me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
You're such a smart guy, Salyavin, but you simply turn your brain off when it comes to theism vs. atheism.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
"Experiential truth is the continuity of the doorway to joy" - Deepak Chopra (sort of) http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/ http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Salyavin says: "An involving argument is no substitute for evidence. It's a security blanket." So many feel that believing in a God or Gods or a Creator is somehow lesser than not believing. It seems to be put out there that those who believe are insecure, are scared or are sheepish and muddle-headed. This makes me wonder. I think that it could be the opposite, not always, but for some. Because to believe or to know (in their own hearts and minds) that some vaster, larger, more powerful entity might or, indeed, does exist can take great courage and strength. Just to be able to hold that possibility within their hearts and minds takes a degree of intelligence and courage that non believers simply might not possess. Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
"No sympathy for theology" is perhaps not the best phrase here. More to the point would be "lack of curiosity as to what theologians are actually saying." Classical theists do not claim there is any scientific evidence for God--could not be, by definition. The demand for such by the New Atheists is a function of the category error that pervades their arguments. "sympathy for theology" Interesting choice of words. I would say that these "new" atheists are scientists, so why would a scientist have sympathy for something that refuses to demonstrate any actual evidence in favour of its position? And I don't agree with the idea that Dawkins etc are smug or arrogant, they are coming from a position that is so well sussed there is simply no room for the old ways of believing to be necessary. They're smug and arrogant because they are ignorant of "the old ways of believing" and are not inclined to educate themselves. And they are deliberately starting a fight in the hope of making people think about what they decide is real, it's a post 9/11 thing to try and shake people out of the religious stupor they walk around in without questioning it. Why would they want to do that? This the funny bit, Dawkin's thinks people will be happier with a more accurate description of reality than the superstitious ones that people still get brought up into. Classical theism involves no "superstition." LOL, he obviously didn't read Xeno's security blanket list. If atheism promised a life after death he might have more takers. If you want a scientist to take a theory seriously you have to show that what it explains is a superior explanation to the current one. And here's your problem, the cornerstones of scientific thought are so sussed that trying to lever in a supernatural being or creator (or whatever this brahma does) is really going to take some doing as it's been shown to be unnecessary. We have a couple of good theories as to how the universe got here without any help. We know about stellar evolution and the creation of dense matter from supernovae. Evolution from simple forms to more complex. Not finished but there is an undeniable drift away from biblical explanations for creation. Classical theism is not based on biblical explanations for creation (not literalist ones, at any rate). And classical theism has no argument with scientific theories of creation; they don't conflict at all with the Ground of Being concept. This is where the apparent smugness comes from I think. God has been forced into such a small corner by our understanding that you have to wonder if all that is left over as his domain is actually an insult to the old dude. So you have to get all "god is a manifestation of all things" to still keep the concept alive. A far cry from his glory days. Um, no. First of all, what you mean is "All things are a manifestation of God." That's an idea that goes back to Plato and Aristotle and continued to be the mainstream idea held by theologians until quite recently, when it began to get some competition from "personalist" theologians, among others. Progress happens when someone spots that a theory is contradicted by the evidence. To get any concept of god taken seriously you'll have to show how any current explanation of our experience is inadequate without some sort of supernatural being. "Some sort of supernatural being" is not a concept of classical theism. And there is no evidence against classical theism--could not be, again by definition. Category error. The classical theists' Ground of Being is not a being, it is Beingness Itself. I keep prefacing "theism" with "classical" because if you want to eliminate all belief in God, you have to deal with the God of classical theism, even if your arguments have trumped all other forms of theism. As I've said, there are arguments against classical theism, but the New Atheists--at least the ones who are in the public eye--don't make them because they don't know what classical theism involves (and don't care to learn). Their arguments leave classical theism untouched. Good luck with it but blissful states of consciousness aren't going to do it, I had all of them and it didn't convince me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
You're such a smart guy, Salyavin, but you simply turn your brain off when it comes to theism vs. atheism. Again, not trying to convert you to theism, simply to show that Roberts's argument is bogus where classical theism is concerned. You need an argument that actually addresses classical theism. It can be done, but only when you understand what classical theists believe. Get away, that's a great argument! Your riposte is a bit of sophistry that would get you chased up a tree in the bible belt. Sure, some eastern theologians might agree with you but yer average god fearing tub thumper DOES NOT believe that all gods are some sort of manifestation of Brahma. Not Brahma, Brahman. Brahma is a being; Brahman is the Ground of Being, Beingness Itself. The theist's God is the Ground of Being, not a being. That distinction was my point. I assumed you would be familiar with it from your TM days. Obviously not, so forget it. But it isn't just Eastern theologians by any means. That's who the quote is aimed at, anyone who thinks theirs is the only god. Plenty of those around. If so, it's very poorly aimed, because tub-thumpers don't believe in the demiurge-type god it's dismissing in the first place, any more than they believe in Zeus. << Sorry, Salyavin, but that's such a crappy and ignorant argument, a whopping category error. The theist doesn't believe in one god among "other possible gods." It's akin to the difference between Brahma the Creator and Brahman, the Absolute. The theist isn't narrowing the field to Brahma alone or Shiva alone or Vishnu alone. And the issue isn't whether Brahman exists; Brahman is existence itself, Beingness, the necessary condition for anything to exist in the first place (including Brahma and Shiva and Vishnu, if any of them take one's fancy). That's not an argument in favor of believing in Brahman, it's just to point out what a shoddy argument Roberts is posing to the theist. "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts >>
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
You don't understand my definition, sorry. I keep being misled by how smart you are about other things, but you are so far behind and so resistant to learning anything about classical theism that I really don't know where to start explaining things to you. One assumes Roberts is a New Atheist because they use his argument all the time, mistakenly thinking it's a real killer. "Thou shalt have no other god but me" means, essentially, Thou shalt not believe in demiurges. Judy is not correct because most religious types would not agree that her definition of their beliefs is accurate. How would you know Roberts is a "new" athiest if you don't know who he is? "Thou shalt have no other god but me" Sound familiar? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
I wrote: Exactly. Just as Brahman is not a proper name, but Brahma is (or Zeus, or Wotan, etc.). For theists, these named gods are, strictly speaking, demiurges, deities subordinate to the Ultimate Reality, the Ground of Being. The Tao is another term for the latter (which, according to Laotze, is "eternally nameless"). << In some religious systems perhaps, but not the ones the quote is aimed at. Nothing wrong with not being a believer, but if they're going to argue with classical theists, these new atheist dudes need to read, at the very least, David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss so they have some idea of what they're talking about. He really blasts them for their willful, arrogant ignorance, but they deserve it. As might have been mentioned, this experience of god is most likely a different state of consciousness and the neural functions and the hormonal, chemical systems that support it. Hart explains classical theism with great clarity. The explanation doesn't depend on experience; that's a different issue. I say "most likely" because it isn't like the new religious have got anywhere nearer to proving that there is "something else", some brahma or whatever you want to call it today. How many ways of saying "We want there to be more" can there possibly be? All you have here is a new way of saying the same old thing. In fact, classical theism's argument for God isn't new; it's one of the oldest. An involving argument is no substitute for evidence. It's a security blanket. Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me. http://www.askatheists.com/7316"; Al Pacino (apparently)
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Behind with classical theism? Boy, that's a weird concept. I would say that all one needs to know about it is that it concerns a speculative set of theories about man and the universes origin. You don't have to get into the actual nitty gritty to know what they amount to - a way of looking at the world unencumbered by the need to provide evidence. To say they have been superceded by superior explanatory ideas is an understatement. You won't convince anyone who doesn't already want to believe it these days. Yet still they persist. Which is maybe just as well, it would be a boring sort of world if Richard Dawkins had his way but there are stronger human forces than logic. Unless someone would care to enlighten me about something I missed? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: You don't understand my definition, sorry. I keep being misled by how smart you are about other things, but you are so far behind and so resistant to learning anything about classical theism that I really don't know where to start explaining things to you. One assumes Roberts is a New Atheist because they use his argument all the time, mistakenly thinking it's a real killer. "Thou shalt have no other god but me" means, essentially, Thou shalt not believe in demiurges. Judy is not correct because most religious types would not agree that her definition of their beliefs is accurate. How would you know Roberts is a "new" athiest if you don't know who he is? "Thou shalt have no other god but me" Sound familiar? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
You have to get into the actual nitty-gritty of classical theism if you want to make a coherent argument against it. And that's what's required if you aim to eliminate or negate all belief in God. Oh, and classical theism isn't an "explanatory idea" that competes with scientific explanatory ideas (just one of the many mistakes you make about classical theism because you haven't gotten into the nitty-gritty). Plus which, again, I'm not trying to convince you of the truth of classical theism, merely to point out what an ignorant argument Roberts makes. As to enlightening you, I can't do that if you don't make an effort to understand what I'm saying instead of immediately dismissing it by fiat grounded in your own ignorance. << Behind with classical theism? Boy, that's a weird concept. I would say that all one needs to know about it is that it concerns a speculative set of theories about man and the universes origin. You don't have to get into the actual nitty gritty to know what they amount to - a way of looking at the world unencumbered by the need to provide evidence. To say they have been superceded by superior explanatory ideas is an understatement. You won't convince anyone who doesn't already want to believe it these days. Yet still they persist. Which is maybe just as well, it would be a boring sort of world if Richard Dawkins had his way but there are stronger human forces than logic. Unless someone would care to enlighten me about something I missed? >> ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: You don't understand my definition, sorry. I keep being misled by how smart you are about other things, but you are so far behind and so resistant to learning anything about classical theism that I really don't know where to start explaining things to you. One assumes Roberts is a New Atheist because they use his argument all the time, mistakenly thinking it's a real killer. "Thou shalt have no other god but me" means, essentially, Thou shalt not believe in demiurges. Judy is not correct because most religious types would not agree that her definition of their beliefs is accurate. How would you know Roberts is a "new" athiest if you don't know who he is? "Thou shalt have no other god but me" Sound familiar? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
It's hardly an error to ask people to prove things if they are making such big claims - if you are in the business of providing explanations that is. If the ambition of theology really is to provide arguments for the existence of god without ever resorting to science then it's even more pointless than I thought. For a start they should lop the suffix "ology" off the end. It must be like painting yourself into a corner "No we can't claim that, it could be tested, be more oblique" Doesn't sound very satisfying to me, give me a decent particle accelerator any day ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: "No sympathy for theology" is perhaps not the best phrase here. More to the point would be "lack of curiosity as to what theologians are actually saying." Classical theists do not claim there is any scientific evidence for God--could not be, by definition. The demand for such by the New Atheists is a function of the category error that pervades their arguments. stand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Which "big claims" are the classical theists making? You don't know what they are well enough to state them accurately. Come to think of it, do you even know what a "category error" is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake It's hardly an error to ask people to prove things if they are making such big claims - if you are in the business of providing explanations that is. If the ambition of theology really is to provide arguments for the existence of god without ever resorting to science then it's even more pointless than I thought. For a start they should lop the suffix "ology" off the end. It must be like painting yourself into a corner "No we can't claim that, it could be tested, be more oblique" Doesn't sound very satisfying to me, give me a decent particle accelerator any day ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: "No sympathy for theology" is perhaps not the best phrase here. More to the point would be "lack of curiosity as to what theologians are actually saying." Classical theists do not claim there is any scientific evidence for God--could not be, by definition. The demand for such by the New Atheists is a function of the category error that pervades their arguments. stand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Comments interspersed in the usual fashion ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: You have to get into the actual nitty-gritty of classical theism if you want to make a coherent argument against it. And that's what's required if you aim to eliminate or negate all belief in God. Again, I disagree. I have made a coherent argument against it, the argument is that they want me to believe something without offering any evidence. I say no dice. People can believe what they like, I even read their books if they make claims that are testable, but the point of it has to be that any casual observer happening across a theological text can read it and conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there is some sort of supreme being. Oh, and classical theism isn't an "explanatory idea" that competes with scientific explanatory ideas (just one of the many mistakes you make about classical theism because you haven't gotten into the nitty-gritty). Well, you seem to be the expert so why not at least explain how an idea could be superior to one with supporting evidence. By "superior" I mean like the above; one that a casual observer could read and reach the same conclusion as that intended by the writer. All I get when I read the ripostes by modern philosophers is quotes by long dead guys who did their thinking in the absence of modern research methods. I seriously doubt any of them would reach the conclusions they did if they had access to a decent telescope or particle accelerator. Thomas Aquinas would slap his head and shout "Far out!" just like everyone else does when the read a decent cosmological text. And if theologians are making claims about origins and purpose then they are competing with science whether they like it or not. Plus which, again, I'm not trying to convince you of the truth of classical theism, merely to point out what an ignorant argument Roberts makes. I still think it's a great argument, but not one to try at the local mosque perhaps. They only have the one god and won't want to hear any of your demiurges... As to enlightening you, I can't do that if you don't make an effort to understand what I'm saying instead of immediately dismissing it by fiat grounded in your own ignorance. I only have ignorance because no one ever tells me what it is we nontheists are missing out on! << Behind with classical theism? Boy, that's a weird concept. I would say that all one needs to know about it is that it concerns a speculative set of theories about man and the universes origin. You don't have to get into the actual nitty gritty to know what they amount to - a way of looking at the world unencumbered by the need to provide evidence. To say they have been superceded by superior explanatory ideas is an understatement. You won't convince anyone who doesn't already want to believe it these days. Yet still they persist. Which is maybe just as well, it would be a boring sort of world if Richard Dawkins had his way but there are stronger human forces than logic. Unless someone would care to enlighten me about something I missed? >> ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: You don't understand my definition, sorry. I keep being misled by how smart you are about other things, but you are so far behind and so resistant to learning anything about classical theism that I really don't know where to start explaining things to you. One assumes Roberts is a New Atheist because they use his argument all the time, mistakenly thinking it's a real killer. "Thou shalt have no other god but me" means, essentially, Thou shalt not believe in demiurges. Judy is not correct because most religious types would not agree that her definition of their beliefs is accurate. How would you know Roberts is a "new" athiest if you don't know who he is? "Thou shalt have no other god but me" Sound familiar? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: It's hardly an error to ask people to prove things if they are making such big claims - if you are in the business of providing explanations that is. If the ambition of theology really is to provide arguments for the existence of god without ever resorting to science then it's even more pointless than I thought. For a start they should lop the suffix "ology" off the end. It must be like painting yourself into a corner "No we can't claim that, it could be tested, be more oblique" Doesn't sound very satisfying to me, give me a decent particle accelerator any day I am wondering what examples of "evidence" you would consider proof of God. Certainly not an MRI showing how someone's brain is working. And certainly not anyone's vocalization of an experience of God. So how do you envision irrefutable evidence of God, other than some Being actually appearing before you? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: "No sympathy for theology" is perhaps not the best phrase here. More to the point would be "lack of curiosity as to what theologians are actually saying." Classical theists do not claim there is any scientific evidence for God--could not be, by definition. The demand for such by the New Atheists is a function of the category error that pervades their arguments. stand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Why does it have to be other than some sort of being appearing before me? He used to do that all the time, why not now. Would solve a lot of problems if he did. But if he can't manage that I'll settle forhow about the universe we live in giving the impression that it was designed in some way? Not unreasonable given this guy is the creator in whatever form he's supposed to take. The universe gives us no reason to suspect it isn't a completely random happenstance and we have come a long way to get that knowledge. Great minds have toiled to unravel the mysteries of the cosmos from the first second when it was all hydrogen to it's current state of vast complexity and variety and it's all so much more amazing that it seems to have got here without any outside (or inside) help. Understanding the simple laws that underpin physics and therefore everything else, are surely mankind's masterstroke. Isn't quite finished yet of course because whenever someone builds a new measuring device they realise there is plenty still to learn, but don't go sliding any gods into those gaps, it's most unbecoming for him to be reduced to the level of quarks. Or maybe life could give the old fella away, but even here we have seen that complexity can arise quite easily out of chemical components that form naturally inside stars and then into dust clouds in space where they settle somewhere nice and warm like Earth and spend the next few billion years living blameless lives as bacteria, until one of them goes and gets mixed up with another type and we have the cell that all living things are descended from. We know this to be true - no god required - all life carries a descendent of the same DNA. We, as in all life on Earth, are interrelated. Aint that better than any bible story? No it isn't fully understood but neither is there any reason to suspect life needed help to get going, it is firmly in the category of a chemistry experiment we are trying to work out but don't know what chemicals were used or in what amount or what temperature to conduct the experiment. But the Earth took a few million years to work it out so don't write us off yet. I guess all that's left is consciousness. How did we come by it? is it common to all living things and does it need god as an explanation? I would say, yes it's common to all things with any type of sense apparatus, it's not hard to see how it would evolve because of the advantages of being able to react to dangers or food in your environment. From tiny seeds do mighty acorns grow...just keep scaling it up until you get to us. I put us at the top because our abstract language and technology is so incredibly much more advanced than our nearest relatives, but it's a continuum. We think we are a big screaming deal for a reason but how much better could we be? We are still evolving. One thing is for sure the idea of us being made in gods image whether it's biblical or TM Nader is wrong. All over our bodies are the scars of evolution. How our consciousness works is a mystery but it seems obvious that it's going on solely in our heads, all those billions of neurons buzzing away non-stop. Great work has been done in finding out which parts of the brain do what, down to the seat of emotions and the where we dream. The "hard problem" is a goody though, I often think that we'll get all the way through the brain and explain everything except how know that I feel like myself. But we'll know where those bits are and when they are working they'll give themselves away. It's an interesting time to be interested in brain science because it's in it's infancy and new and better measuring devices are being built all the time. The final frontier. So is there need of a god there? No, consciousness is also a continuum that didn't have to end up with us so let's not get all spacey like some people do about the fact a part of the universe can understand the rest of it and conclude it's part of some latent purpose of god. It's a mistake because our type of consciousness needn't have happened here. And something better might have come along instead or we might have stayed like the rest of the apes, clever but not philosophical or building particle accelerators. There are plenty of good ideas about how we got here but nothing definite yet. So all we are really left with is a god that makes a universe to give the impression that it got here by chance and that any life forms in it are also self propelled from simpler forms. Why would we want to believe in such a thing? Surely that means that, if real, the concept is unknowable and therefore pointless. And where would god be if he wasn't in thee universe? It has no outside and if he;s inside he has to be made out of the same stuff because there isn't anything else. The dude would stick out like a sore thumb, but i suppose you could say that evading that sort of probing is the preserv
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Love it. Here are 21 favorites of mine (and, apologizing, in advance, for #17 and #21, but they're still funny as hell): 1. Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'... till you can find a rock. 2. Why step on the same rake twice? 3. Shin: A device for finding furniture in the dark. 4. The cows are merely waiting to strike until we all are thick and doughy from their deliciousness! 5. Why do the lazy people get up to bother me? 6. Most of my ideas never takeoff. In fact, they explode in the hangar... 7. There's no such thing as "leftover cocaine." 8. Jumping out a window is more like a math test then a life or death decision. 9. Life is treating me like it caught me sleeping with it's wife. 10. Suicide is the most sincere form of self-criticism. 11. If you think that there is good in everybody, you haven't met everybody. 12. If you can smile when things go wrong, you have someone in mind to blame. 13. For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small stain. 14. Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines 15. I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met 16. Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy. 17. After you cook the vegetables, what do you do with the wheelchairs? 18. A hard-on doesn't count as personal growth. 19. All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand. 20. If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried. 21. Kurt Cobain Beer: it's extremely bitter and it has no head.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
I wrote: You have to get into the actual nitty-gritty of classical theism if you want to make a coherent argument against it. And that's what's required if you aim to eliminate or negate all belief in God. Again, I disagree. I have made a coherent argument against it, the argument is that they want me to believe something without offering any evidence. That's a category error, which makes for an incoherent, straw-man argument. I say no dice. People can believe what they like, I even read their books if they make claims that are testable, but the point of it has to be that any casual observer happening across a theological text can read it and conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there is some sort of supreme being. Classical theism doesn't claim that there is "some sort of supreme being." Another category error/straw man. Do you really not get the distinction between a being and Beingness Itself? Because that's critical to an understanding of classical theism (and it's what a good text on classical theism would explain to you, the book I mentioned by Hart being an example). Oh, and classical theism isn't an "explanatory idea" that competes with scientific explanatory ideas (just one of the many mistakes you make about classical theism because you haven't gotten into the nitty-gritty). Well, you seem to be the expert so why not at least explain how an idea could be superior to one with supporting evidence. I didn't say classical theism was a superior idea. What I'm arguing is that Roberts's argument against theism is inferior (understatement). By "superior" I mean like the above; one that a casual observer could read and reach the same conclusion as that intended by the writer. With classical theism, that's possible but by no means guaranteed. It appeals to some and not to others. But even those to whom it does not appeal should come out with a better understanding of what the arguments are for that conclusion, so they'll know what it is about the conclusion that doesn't appeal (and they should also be able to see the absurdity of Roberts's argument). All I get when I read the ripostes by modern philosophers is quotes by long dead guys who did their thinking in the absence of modern research methods. Well, I don't know what you've been reading, but "modern research methods" are irrelevant even to the most modern classical theistic philosophers. I seriously doubt any of them would reach the conclusions they did if they had access to a decent telescope or particle accelerator. Some of them are well versed in physics and cosmology, as it happens. Thomas Aquinas would slap his head and shout "Far out!" just like everyone else does when the read a decent cosmological text. He probably would, but it wouldn't--couldn't, by definition--do anything to change his mind about classical theism. It would take a solid argument against classical theism to do that. And if theologians are making claims about origins and purpose then they are competing with science whether they like it or not. Nope. Classical theists' claims about origins and purpose ontologically precede those of science. IOW, science begins where classical theism's claims leave off. Even if science's claims for origins are absolutely 100 percent true, it wouldn't bother classical theism a bit. (Purpose is a bit dicey given that science maintains there is no purpose to the universe--but of course there's no more scientific evidence for the absence of purpose than there is for classical theism.) Plus which, again, I'm not trying to convince you of the truth of classical theism, merely to point out what an ignorant argument Roberts makes. I still think it's a great argument, but not one to try at the local mosque perhaps. They only have the one god and won't want to hear any of your demiurges... Classical theism doesn't have any demiurges. Demiurges are what the New Atheists argue against, all the time ignorantly believing they're disposing of the God of classical theism. Remember: demiurge = a being; God of classical theism = Ground of all Being, Beingness Itself. As to enlightening you, I can't do that if you don't make an effort to understand what I'm saying instead of immediately dismissing it by fiat grounded in your own ignorance. I only have ignorance because no one ever tells me what it is we nontheists are missing out on! Sorry, not my job. All I'm doing is telling you what you're missing concerning what classical theism maintains that leads you to think Roberts's argument is a ripsnorter rather than recognizing it as a flaccid, ignorant flapping of the gums. << Behind with classical theism? Boy, that's a weird concept. I would say that all one needs to know about it is that it concerns a speculative set of theories about man and the universes origin. You don't have to get into the actual nitty gritty
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Comments in pink this time. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I wrote: You have to get into the actual nitty-gritty of classical theism if you want to make a coherent argument against it. And that's what's required if you aim to eliminate or negate all belief in God. Again, I disagree. I have made a coherent argument against it, the argument is that they want me to believe something without offering any evidence. That's a category error, which makes for an incoherent, straw-man argument. " Ground of all Being, Beingness Itself." Oh, is that it? I was expecting something impressive after all that. Sounds like a simple neuronal thing then. Case dismissed, no wonder it's classical and not current. And it's not a category error because it's still something that could be explained to me as something I don't know that theists apparently believe in. That's the category I want an answer in I don't care whether it's a god or a unified field thing (same actually) or a state of awareness or whatever. As to enlightening you, I can't do that if you don't make an effort to understand what I'm saying instead of immediately dismissing it by fiat grounded in your own ignorance. I only have ignorance because no one ever tells me what it is we nontheists are missing out on! Sorry, not my job. Actually it is, you are the other person in this discussion. I always try and explain what I think, you seem to have found something that you can say "You have to refute this first" but without giving me the impression that you know anything about it yourself. << Behind with classical theism? Boy, that's a weird concept. I would say that all one needs to know about it is that it concerns a speculative set of theories about man and the universes origin. You don't have to get into the actual nitty gritty to know what they amount to - a way of looking at the world unencumbered by the need to provide evidence. To say they have been superceded by superior explanatory ideas is an understatement. You won't convince anyone who doesn't already want to believe it these days. Yet still they persist. Which is maybe just as well, it would be a boring sort of world if Richard Dawkins had his way but there are stronger human forces than logic. Unless someone would care to enlighten me about something I missed? >> ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: You don't understand my definition, sorry. I keep being misled by how smart you are about other things, but you are so far behind and so resistant to learning anything about classical theism that I really don't know where to start explaining things to you. One assumes Roberts is a New Atheist because they use his argument all the time, mistakenly thinking it's a real killer. "Thou shalt have no other god but me" means, essentially, Thou shalt not believe in demiurges. Judy is not correct because most religious types would not agree that her definition of their beliefs is accurate. How would you know Roberts is a "new" athiest if you don't know who he is? "Thou shalt have no other god but me" Sound familiar? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Science of Creative Intelligence Tape 8: When Consciousness becomes Consciousness and Intelligence becomes Intelligent That is the Expression of Creative Intelligence.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Buck's favored quote today. . Science of Creative Intelligence Tape 8 When Consciousness becomes Consciousness and Intelligence becomes Intelligent That is the Expression of Creative Intelligence. That is just how it is! -Buck in the Dome
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Beautiful, Buck !
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Logician Kurt Gödel's ontological proof for the existence of God. (This should keep salyavin808 busy for a while.) Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence B Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive Axiom 2: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property From these axioms and definitions and a few other axioms from modal logic, the following theorems can be proved: Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified. Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent. Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing. Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. Symbolically:
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
OK, now you're just being flip and not engaging with anything I say. There's no point in continuing the discussion. Enjoy the fruits of your continued ignorance. Comments in pink this time. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I wrote: You have to get into the actual nitty-gritty of classical theism if you want to make a coherent argument against it. And that's what's required if you aim to eliminate or negate all belief in God. Again, I disagree. I have made a coherent argument against it, the argument is that they want me to believe something without offering any evidence. That's a category error, which makes for an incoherent, straw-man argument. " Ground of all Being, Beingness Itself." Oh, is that it? I was expecting something impressive after all that. Sounds like a simple neuronal thing then. Case dismissed, no wonder it's classical and not current. And it's not a category error because it's still something that could be explained to me as something I don't know that theists apparently believe in. That's the category I want an answer in I don't care whether it's a god or a unified field thing (same actually) or a state of awareness or whatever. As to enlightening you, I can't do that if you don't make an effort to understand what I'm saying instead of immediately dismissing it by fiat grounded in your own ignorance. I only have ignorance because no one ever tells me what it is we nontheists are missing out on! Sorry, not my job. Actually it is, you are the other person in this discussion. I always try and explain what I think, you seem to have found something that you can say "You have to refute this first" but without giving me the impression that you know anything about it yourself. << Behind with classical theism? Boy, that's a weird concept. I would say that all one needs to know about it is that it concerns a speculative set of theories about man and the universes origin. You don't have to get into the actual nitty gritty to know what they amount to - a way of looking at the world unencumbered by the need to provide evidence. To say they have been superceded by superior explanatory ideas is an understatement. You won't convince anyone who doesn't already want to believe it these days. Yet still they persist. Which is maybe just as well, it would be a boring sort of world if Richard Dawkins had his way but there are stronger human forces than logic. Unless someone would care to enlighten me about something I missed? >> ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: You don't understand my definition, sorry. I keep being misled by how smart you are about other things, but you are so far behind and so resistant to learning anything about classical theism that I really don't know where to start explaining things to you. One assumes Roberts is a New Atheist because they use his argument all the time, mistakenly thinking it's a real killer. "Thou shalt have no other god but me" means, essentially, Thou shalt not believe in demiurges. Judy is not correct because most religious types would not agree that her definition of their beliefs is accurate. How would you know Roberts is a "new" athiest if you don't know who he is? "Thou shalt have no other god but me" Sound familiar? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Not as long as you'd think, it's an old one. It originated here: "God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist." I don't get the final "therefore..." I can conceive of fabulous things but nature is under no obligation to create them to satisfy a dubious logical progression. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Logician Kurt Gödel's ontological proof for the existence of God. (This should keep salyavin808 busy for a while.) Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence B Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive Axiom 2: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property From these axioms and definitions and a few other axioms from modal logic, the following theorems can be proved: Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified. Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent. Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing. Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. Symbolically:
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Yep, I was being flip, simply because you would obviously rather adopt an arch superior tone instead of explaining what you mean. Do it now instead of blaming me. Seize the moment! OK, now you're just being flip and not engaging with anything I say. There's no point in continuing the discussion. Enjoy the fruits of your continued ignorance. Comments in pink this time. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I wrote: You have to get into the actual nitty-gritty of classical theism if you want to make a coherent argument against it. And that's what's required if you aim to eliminate or negate all belief in God. Again, I disagree. I have made a coherent argument against it, the argument is that they want me to believe something without offering any evidence. That's a category error, which makes for an incoherent, straw-man argument. " Ground of all Being, Beingness Itself." Oh, is that it? I was expecting something impressive after all that. Sounds like a simple neuronal thing then. Case dismissed, no wonder it's classical and not current. And it's not a category error because it's still something that could be explained to me as something I don't know that theists apparently believe in. That's the category I want an answer in I don't care whether it's a god or a unified field thing (same actually) or a state of awareness or whatever. As to enlightening you, I can't do that if you don't make an effort to understand what I'm saying instead of immediately dismissing it by fiat grounded in your own ignorance. I only have ignorance because no one ever tells me what it is we nontheists are missing out on! Sorry, not my job. Actually it is, you are the other person in this discussion. I always try and explain what I think, you seem to have found something that you can say "You have to refute this first" but without giving me the impression that you know anything about it yourself. << Behind with classical theism? Boy, that's a weird concept. I would say that all one needs to know about it is that it concerns a speculative set of theories about man and the universes origin. You don't have to get into the actual nitty gritty to know what they amount to - a way of looking at the world unencumbered by the need to provide evidence. To say they have been superceded by superior explanatory ideas is an understatement. You won't convince anyone who doesn't already want to believe it these days. Yet still they persist. Which is maybe just as well, it would be a boring sort of world if Richard Dawkins had his way but there are stronger human forces than logic. Unless someone would care to enlighten me about something I missed? >> ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: You don't understand my definition, sorry. I keep being misled by how smart you are about other things, but you are so far behind and so resistant to learning anything about classical theism that I really don't know where to start explaining things to you. One assumes Roberts is a New Atheist because they use his argument all the time, mistakenly thinking it's a real killer. "Thou shalt have no other god but me" means, essentially, Thou shalt not believe in demiurges. Judy is not correct because most religious types would not agree that her definition of their beliefs is accurate. How would you know Roberts is a "new" athiest if you don't know who he is? "Thou shalt have no other god but me" Sound familiar? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Yep, I was being flip, simply because you would obviously rather adopt an arch superior tone instead of explaining what you mean. Do it now instead of blaming me. Seize the moment! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: OK, now you're just being flip and not engaging with anything I say. There's no point in continuing the discussion. Enjoy the fruits of your continued ignorance.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Re "I don't get the final "therefore..." I can conceive of fabulous things but nature is under no obligation to create them.": Because only "that than which no greater can be conceived" has *necessary* existence. Everything else has accidental existence (you, for example). The "necessary existence" is God's unique selling point. An atheist is claiming that it's possible that God doesn't exist. Therefore, said atheist is claiming God doesn't necessarily exist. Therefore, said atheist is claiming God doesn't exist necessarily. But "necessary existence" is part of our definition of God so said atheist is caught in a logical contradiction. Ouch!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
I found this just now; it's from a blog post by a professional philosopher who is a classical theist, explaining why Roberts's "one god further" objection is an ignorant crock. (I was pleased to note that I covered most of his points briefly in my responses to you, but he goes into a bit greater detail. You won't read it because it's longish, but it's now on the record here.) CAVEAT: This is NOT an argument in favor of classical theism. The author isn't a proselytizer but rather an educator. telling readers "Classical theism says...," not "What classical theism says is true." ...The “Common Sense Atheist” or “one god further” objection supposes that the God of classical theism is merely one further superhuman being alongside others who have found worshippers – Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, and so forth – only a superhuman being of even greater power, knowledge, and goodness than these other deities have. But of course, that is not what God is at all. He is not “a being” alongside other beings, not even an especially impressive one, but rather Being Itself or Pure Actuality, that from which all mere “beings” (including Thor, Zeus, and Quetzalcoatl, if they existed) derive the limited actuality or existence they possess. Neither does He “have” power, knowledge, goodness, and the like; rather, He is power, knowledge, and goodness [Excuse the gender pronouns. Gender does not apply to the God of classical theism, nor does the writer intend to imply it does, as should be obvious from his definition at the top. IMHO, it's a lazy convention and he shouldn't use it.--JS] ...The “Common Sense Atheist” or “one god further” objection would be a silly objection even if one had other grounds for rejecting classical theismThe [objection represents] a failure to understand even the fundamentals of the position one is attacking. It is no good replying that lots of ordinary religious people conceive of God in all sorts of crude ways at odds with the sophisticated philosophical theology developed by classical theists – ways that make of God something like a glorified Thor or Zeus. The “man on the street” also believes all sorts of silly things about science – that Darwinism claims that monkeys gave birth to human beings, say, or that molecules are made up of little balls and sticks. But it would be preposterous for someone to pretend he had landed a blow against Darwinism or modern chemistry by attacking these silly straw men. Similarly, what matters in evaluating classical theism is not what your Grandpa or your Pastor Bob have to say about it, but rather what serious thinkers like Aristotle, Plotinus, Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Avicenna, Averroes, Maimonides, and countless others have to say. Nor would it be any good to insist that the “one god further” objection is significant at least as a reply to the more anthropomorphic “theistic personalist” conception of God that has replaced the classical theist conception in the thinking of many modern theologians and philosophers of religion. For one thing, most theistic personalists, though they depart in significant (and in my view disastrous) ways from classical theism, are still committed to a far more sophisticated conception of God than purveyors of the “one god further” objection take as their preferred target. (Comparing God to the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a serious reply to a theistic personalist like Plantinga or Swinburne.) More importantly, purveyors of this objection take themselves to be presenting a serious criticism of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and philosophical theism as such – not merely of this or that modern representative of these views – and the historically mainstream tradition in these religions and in philosophical theology is classical theist, not theistic personalist. Hence to fail to address the classical theist conception of God is ipso facto to fail seriously to address the claims of these traditions. In particular, unless one has made a serious study of philosophical theology as it has been developed within the Neo-Platonic, Aristotelian, Thomistic and other Scholastic traditions, one’s understanding of traditional Christian, Jewish, and Islamic theology, not to mention philosophical theism, is simply infantile. Needless to say, your typical “Internet Infidel” or “New Atheist” is entirely innocent of knowledge of these traditions. Nor is he much interested in finding out what they really have to say – he prefers to spend his time coming up with ever more elaborate rationalizations for refusing to find out. But...the “one god further” objection has this much going for it: It is an infallible indicator that one is not dealing with a serious or well-informed skeptic. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/04/one-god-further-objection.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/04/one-god-further-objection.html Here's a
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Re ";It is no good replying that lots of ordinary religious people conceive of God in all sorts of crude ways at odds with the sophisticated philosophical theology developed by classical theists . . . ": Precisely. Also your post makes it clear that the ideas we're talking about go back to Neoplatonic thinkers like Plotinus who was very hostile to Christianity. But Plotinus's "One" is completely transcendent - and so beyond thought - as is "Brahman", the "Tao"; or Eckhart's "Godhead". Dawkins and co are arguing with the "ordinary religious people" and not the pioneering thinkers. (Also Dawkins' science is essentially 19th-century science - he's scared of quantum physics as it takes him outside his comfort zone and he's aware of how weird it is.)
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Does it advance the discussion in anyway to ask what "you" believe, say in regards to what happens when you die, or when "anyone" dies? Is it the atheist position that it's "lights out". Options - "expire worthless" Now, I know one might say, "I have no evidence that, that's not the case", but I'd like to know what "you" believe. My analysis compels me to believe that there is an element of karma, and that karma carries over from one existence to the next, and the next. To use a oft cited example, the person who is a mass murderer, just merges back into nothingness upon death? No consequences? So people get away with murder? Or no kudos for a generous life? No second chance for a life cut down after one or two years? Step away from the theory for a moment and tell us, if you care to, what you believe in this regard. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Not as long as you'd think, it's an old one. It originated here: "God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist." I don't get the final "therefore..." I can conceive of fabulous things but nature is under no obligation to create them to satisfy a dubious logical progression. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Logician Kurt Gödel's ontological proof for the existence of God. (This should keep salyavin808 busy for a while.) Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence B Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive Axiom 2: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property From these axioms and definitions and a few other axioms from modal logic, the following theorems can be proved: Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified. Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent. Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing. Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. Symbolically:
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
But the "necessary" existence is another "therefore..." that doesn't follow from the previous statement. The best way to kill the argument I think is to decide on moral interventionism. Seems reasonable to me that god would have a strong moral sense, stronger than mine even, and that he wouldn't like to see people suffer. If I see two yobs attacking an old lady I will intervene. Therefore (proper one this time) our perfect god who is bound to exist will not be able to help himself if he sees suffering. As he clearly does not intervene in his creation in this way we can conclude on of two things: That this logic is flawed and he doesn't exist or that he doesn't care, in which case he isn't the perfect being the logic claims he must be. There is of course a third option and it seems to me that it's as correct as my first one: Theology is a bunch of true believers sitting around trying to think up long winded arguments to defend something that patently doesn't exist in the way that all the old scriptures claim it does. It clearly takes a lot of work to wind your way to the conclusion you have decided upon. It's an odd way to go about things and this is why science has proved such a vastly superior explanatory system, there's no way a scientist would let the first assumption (or axiom) go past without it being tested against the evidence. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Re "I don't get the final "therefore..." I can conceive of fabulous things but nature is under no obligation to create them.": Because only "that than which no greater can be conceived" has *necessary* existence. Everything else has accidental existence (you, for example). The "necessary existence" is God's unique selling point. An atheist is claiming that it's possible that God doesn't exist. Therefore, said atheist is claiming God doesn't necessarily exist. Therefore, said atheist is claiming God doesn't exist necessarily. But "necessary existence" is part of our definition of God so said atheist is caught in a logical contradiction. Ouch!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Personally, I think it would be cool if there was an afterlife of some description but it's the last thing I'm expecting. For there to be anything it would either have to have evolved (most likely impossible) or there is something fundamental we don't know about the universe which is possible but unlikely in a case like this because the potential for us to escape to another realm would have to have been waiting for us to evolve into it and it didn't happen like that, there was no goal for life to aim for. Unless that's the evidence for god that everyone seems to be looking for, but it's a bit of a hit and miss kind of god and he might have had a very long wait indeed as we needn't have survived this far. This is what makes Hameroff's theory about quantum consciousness being a detachable soul such an attractive proposition, but it isn't one that I thought more than twice about. As far as I know (and it isn't much) quantum stuff couldn't survive either in the brain (too hot) or outside (too much interference) it would need some sort of motive force to hold it together and it's hard to see what that might be as quanta are supposed to be the ultimately small thing, there isn't anything else as far as we know. It sounds like desperate new age thinking to me. Other physicists dismiss it utterly, except people with books or prayers to sell like John Hagelin who talk vast amounts of shit of their own. Someone should draw a chart of unlikely claims made by quantum physicists so we can see just how relatively impossible each thing is. Research into NDEs could give us a clue, people report being outside of their bodies in operating rooms and claim to have heard conversations between doctors that they shouldn't have been able to hear due to being unconscious. To see if it's a real phenomena instead of a shift in consciousness in some way hospitals in England have things placed on high shelves out of the sight of people in the room. So if someone actually leaves their body they should be able to tell us what they saw which would qualify as objective proof of out of the body experiences. And, if it was repeated consistently it would cause a scientific revolution. So far nothing, but NDE's are rare and you just might have other things on your mind than searching shelves for weird stuff. And then, I remember reading a book about it and of the people who meet relatives on the "other" side, a third meet relatives who are still alive! That leaves it dead in the water as a theory about life after death but it's still interesting and one of the few paranormal things we can check. Or maybe when we die we have an NDE because of lack of oxygen or changes in the brain that makes us think we are heading towards an afterlife. That'd be a nice touch. Richard Dawkins is exasperated that people don't leave religions in flocks to join his intellectually superior atheist position. But certain annihilation of the soul at death is rather cold comfort and a bit of a tough call to rally round! So I live in hope, but not expectation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Does it advance the discussion in anyway to ask what "you" believe, say in regards to what happens when you die, or when "anyone" dies? Is it the atheist position that it's "lights out". Options - "expire worthless" Now, I know one might say, "I have no evidence that, that's not the case", but I'd like to know what "you" believe. My analysis compels me to believe that there is an element of karma, and that karma carries over from one existence to the next, and the next. To use a oft cited example, the person who is a mass murderer, just merges back into nothingness upon death? No consequences? So people get away with murder? Or no kudos for a generous life? No second chance for a life cut down after one or two years? Step away from the theory for a moment and tell us, if you care to, what you believe in this regard. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Not as long as you'd think, it's an old one. It originated here: "God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist." I don't get the final "therefore..." I can conceive of fabulous things but nature is under no obligation to create them to satisfy a dubious logical progression. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Logician Kurt Gödel's ontological proof for the existence of God. (This should keep salyavin808 busy for a while.) Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_co
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Karma, in the sense of some sort of payback scheme from the universe, I don't believe in. I believe positively in the principle of shit happens. The idea that something bad or good that happens to me is because of something I did in the past just doesn't work. I remember the TMO trying to convince me about karma, probably as away of getting donations or selling yagyas, they had a cartoon of a stone dropping into a pond and the waves bouncing back from the sides to interfere with them. Karma is just like that they claimed. But what do the karma waves of my life bounce off of? How do they find me and not someone else? Why don't they dissipate when interfering with another persons karma? You can spot a poor theory when it raises more questions than it answers. Ditto for reincarnation and life after death. It's not to say it's impossible but that it's so far out of the way we normally think and experience things that these very human ideas have an awful lot of explaining to do if we are to look at them as discoveries rather than mere hopefulness. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Personally, I think it would be cool if there was an afterlife of some description but it's the last thing I'm expecting. For there to be anything it would either have to have evolved (most likely impossible) or there is something fundamental we don't know about the universe which is possible but unlikely in a case like this because the potential for us to escape to another realm would have to have been waiting for us to evolve into it and it didn't happen like that, there was no goal for life to aim for. Unless that's the evidence for god that everyone seems to be looking for, but it's a bit of a hit and miss kind of god and he might have had a very long wait indeed as we needn't have survived this far. This is what makes Hameroff's theory about quantum consciousness being a detachable soul such an attractive proposition, but it isn't one that I thought more than twice about. As far as I know (and it isn't much) quantum stuff couldn't survive either in the brain (too hot) or outside (too much interference) it would need some sort of motive force to hold it together and it's hard to see what that might be as quanta are supposed to be the ultimately small thing, there isn't anything else as far as we know. It sounds like desperate new age thinking to me. Other physicists dismiss it utterly, except people with books or prayers to sell like John Hagelin who talk vast amounts of shit of their own. Someone should draw a chart of unlikely claims made by quantum physicists so we can see just how relatively impossible each thing is. Research into NDEs could give us a clue, people report being outside of their bodies in operating rooms and claim to have heard conversations between doctors that they shouldn't have been able to hear due to being unconscious. To see if it's a real phenomena instead of a shift in consciousness in some way hospitals in England have things placed on high shelves out of the sight of people in the room. So if someone actually leaves their body they should be able to tell us what they saw which would qualify as objective proof of out of the body experiences. And, if it was repeated consistently it would cause a scientific revolution. So far nothing, but NDE's are rare and you just might have other things on your mind than searching shelves for weird stuff. And then, I remember reading a book about it and of the people who meet relatives on the "other" side, a third meet relatives who are still alive! That leaves it dead in the water as a theory about life after death but it's still interesting and one of the few paranormal things we can check. Or maybe when we die we have an NDE because of lack of oxygen or changes in the brain that makes us think we are heading towards an afterlife. That'd be a nice touch. Richard Dawkins is exasperated that people don't leave religions in flocks to join his intellectually superior atheist position. But certain annihilation of the soul at death is rather cold comfort and a bit of a tough call to rally round! So I live in hope, but not expectation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Does it advance the discussion in anyway to ask what "you" believe, say in regards to what happens when you die, or when "anyone" dies? Is it the atheist position that it's "lights out". Options - "expire worthless" Now, I know one might say, "I have no evidence that, that's not the case", but I'd like to know what "you" believe. My analysis compels me to believe that there is an element of karma, and that karma carries over from one existence to the next, and the next. To use a oft cited example, the person who is a mass murderer, just merges back into nothingness upon death? No consequences? So people get away with murder? Or no kudos for a generous life? No s
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the day...
There is a difference between what the ill-informed layman apprehends about Science, and what scientists apprehend about science. There is a difference between what the ill-informed layman apprehends about God, and what the serious Theist philosophers apprehend about God. Creationist Theists - how many of them are there? Deistic Theists- how many of them are there? Naturalist Theists - how many of them are there? Similarly, Mysterianist Atheists - how many of them are there? Naturalist Atheists - how many of them are there? > --- authfriend wrote: > > I found this just now; it's from a blog post by a professional philosopher > who is a classical theist, explaining why Roberts's "one god further" > objection is an ignorant crock. (I was pleased to note that I covered most > of his points briefly in my responses to you, but he goes into a bit greater > detail. You won't read it because it's longish, but it's now on the record > here.) > > CAVEAT: This is NOT an argument in favor of classical theism. The author > isn't a proselytizer but rather an educator. telling readers "Classical > theism says...," not "What classical theism says is true." > > ...The “Common Sense Atheist” or “one god further” objection supposes that > the God of classical theism is merely one further superhuman being alongside > others who have found worshippers – Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, and so forth – > only a superhuman being of even greater power, knowledge, and goodness than > these other deities have. But of course, that is not what God is at all. > He is not “a being” alongside other beings, not even an especially > impressive one, but rather Being Itself or Pure Actuality, that from which > all mere “beings” (including Thor, Zeus, and Quetzalcoatl, if they existed) > derive the limited actuality or existence they possess. Neither does He > “have” power, knowledge, goodness, and the like; rather, He is power, > knowledge, and goodness [Excuse the gender pronouns. Gender does not > apply to the God of classical theism, nor does the writer intend to imply it > does, as should be obvious from his definition at the top. IMHO, it's a lazy > convention and he shouldn't use it.--JS] > > ...The “Common Sense Atheist” or “one god further” objection would be a > silly objection even if one had other grounds for rejecting classical > theismThe [objection represents] a failure to understand even the > fundamentals of the position one is attacking. > > It is no good replying that lots of ordinary religious people conceive of > God in all sorts of crude ways at odds with the sophisticated philosophical > theology developed by classical theists – ways that make of God something > like a glorified Thor or Zeus. The “man on the street” also believes all > sorts of silly things about science – that Darwinism claims that monkeys > gave birth to human beings, say, or that molecules are made up of little > balls and sticks. But it would be preposterous for someone to pretend he > had landed a blow against Darwinism or modern chemistry by attacking these > silly straw men. Similarly, what matters in evaluating classical theism is > not what your Grandpa or your Pastor Bob have to say about it, but rather > what serious thinkers like Aristotle, Plotinus, Athanasius, Augustine, > Anselm, Aquinas, Avicenna, Averroes, Maimonides, and countless others have > to say. > > Nor would it be any good to insist that the “one god further” objection is > significant at least as a reply to the more anthropomorphic “theistic > personalist” conception of God that has replaced the classical theist > conception in the thinking of many modern theologians and philosophers of > religion. > > For one thing, most theistic personalists, though they depart in significant > (and in my view disastrous) ways from classical theism, are still committed > to a far more sophisticated conception of God than purveyors of the “one god > further” objection take as their preferred target. (Comparing God to the > Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a serious reply to a theistic personalist > like Plantinga or Swinburne.) More importantly, purveyors of this objection > take themselves to be presenting a serious criticism of Christianity, > Judaism, Islam, and philosophical theism as such – not merely of this or > that modern representative of these views – and the historically mainstream > tradition in these religions and in philosophical theology is classical > theist, not theistic personalist. Hence to fail to address the classical > theist conception of God is ipso facto to fail seriously to address the > claims of these traditions. > > In particular, unless one has made a serious study of philosophical theology > as it has been developed within the Neo-Platonic, Aristotelian, Thomistic > and other
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Thanks for that reply. I rushing a little here, but one take away I get is that for that to happen, (existence after death), there'd have to be something we are presently unaware of. And yes, I don't care to speculate too much about things, but in my opinion, in our western dominated notions of medicine and the body, there are things, many things, that have escaped our ability to detect. So, I would speculate that there are a so called causal body, or a subtle body that would be the body that does the crossing over. Now, whether or not some evidence will come to the fore to support this, and other heretofore unexplored (at least by western medicine) such as different pranas, I have no idea. But yes, causal bodies, subtle bodies would be part of my belief system. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Personally, I think it would be cool if there was an afterlife of some description but it's the last thing I'm expecting. For there to be anything it would either have to have evolved (most likely impossible) or there is something fundamental we don't know about the universe which is possible but unlikely in a case like this because the potential for us to escape to another realm would have to have been waiting for us to evolve into it and it didn't happen like that, there was no goal for life to aim for. Unless that's the evidence for god that everyone seems to be looking for, but it's a bit of a hit and miss kind of god and he might have had a very long wait indeed as we needn't have survived this far. This is what makes Hameroff's theory about quantum consciousness being a detachable soul such an attractive proposition, but it isn't one that I thought more than twice about. As far as I know (and it isn't much) quantum stuff couldn't survive either in the brain (too hot) or outside (too much interference) it would need some sort of motive force to hold it together and it's hard to see what that might be as quanta are supposed to be the ultimately small thing, there isn't anything else as far as we know. It sounds like desperate new age thinking to me. Other physicists dismiss it utterly, except people with books or prayers to sell like John Hagelin who talk vast amounts of shit of their own. Someone should draw a chart of unlikely claims made by quantum physicists so we can see just how relatively impossible each thing is. Research into NDEs could give us a clue, people report being outside of their bodies in operating rooms and claim to have heard conversations between doctors that they shouldn't have been able to hear due to being unconscious. To see if it's a real phenomena instead of a shift in consciousness in some way hospitals in England have things placed on high shelves out of the sight of people in the room. So if someone actually leaves their body they should be able to tell us what they saw which would qualify as objective proof of out of the body experiences. And, if it was repeated consistently it would cause a scientific revolution. So far nothing, but NDE's are rare and you just might have other things on your mind than searching shelves for weird stuff. And then, I remember reading a book about it and of the people who meet relatives on the "other" side, a third meet relatives who are still alive! That leaves it dead in the water as a theory about life after death but it's still interesting and one of the few paranormal things we can check. Or maybe when we die we have an NDE because of lack of oxygen or changes in the brain that makes us think we are heading towards an afterlife. That'd be a nice touch. Richard Dawkins is exasperated that people don't leave religions in flocks to join his intellectually superior atheist position. But certain annihilation of the soul at death is rather cold comfort and a bit of a tough call to rally round! So I live in hope, but not expectation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Does it advance the discussion in anyway to ask what "you" believe, say in regards to what happens when you die, or when "anyone" dies? Is it the atheist position that it's "lights out". Options - "expire worthless" Now, I know one might say, "I have no evidence that, that's not the case", but I'd like to know what "you" believe. My analysis compels me to believe that there is an element of karma, and that karma carries over from one existence to the next, and the next. To use a oft cited example, the person who is a mass murderer, just merges back into nothingness upon death? No consequences? So people get away with murder? Or no kudos for a generous life? No second chance for a life cut down after one or two years? Step away from the theory for a moment and tell us, if you care to, what you believe in this regard. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Not as long as you'd think, it's an old one. It originated here: "God, by
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Re "But the "necessary" existence is another "therefore..." that doesn't follow from the previous statement.": The ontological argument re-phrased. Definition: God = that than which nothing greater can be conceived. Claim: a Being that *cannot* be conceived not to exist is greater than a Being that *can* be conceived not to exist. Muse over that definition and claim and they both sound appropriate to our idea of God, no? An atheist or agnostic is therefore saying: "Well, yes, IF God exists He would be a Being that cannot be conceived not to exist, but as we don't know whether or not He exists we're not getting anywhere." Let's unpack this sentence by our atheist: it comes down to this: "God is a Being that *cannot* be conceived not to exist, but I *can* conceive of Him not existing." That is a flat contradiction. The issue boils down to what Judy calls a "category error". To imagine that God's existence could be doubted is to put God's existence in the same category as the existence of salted popcorn, unicorns or quarks. It's to imagine that if God does exist He just *happens* to exist (like you) and so might *happen* not to exist, but God's existence is super-essential.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: But the "necessary" existence is another "therefore..." that doesn't follow from the previous statement. The best way to kill the argument I think is to decide on moral interventionism. Seems reasonable to me that god would have a strong moral sense, stronger than mine even, and that he wouldn't like to see people suffer. If I see two yobs attacking an old lady I will intervene. Therefore (proper one this time) our perfect god who is bound to exist will not be able to help himself if he sees suffering. As he clearly does not intervene in his creation in this way we can conclude on of two things: That this logic is flawed and he doesn't exist or that he doesn't care, in which case he isn't the perfect being the logic claims he must be. Oh, this idea of God is a very limited one. Even if I did believe in God (which I happen to) God is not nearly so simplistic in either his/her/its methods and also I don't feel that most of us are given the depth of insight necessary to understand or conceive of how and why life is like it is. This last is proven if you simply look at how everyone flounders around trying to make sense of it all! So, we know one thing for sure, people can't really explain to the satisfaction of all or even comprehend for themselves the reasons for the complexity of their lives. This leads to all sorts of theories on the existence of God and being the limited creatures we are we try and place human traits and characteristics in a God or no God of our choice and making. There is an incomprehensible aspect to God and rightly so. Just because we can't justify or understand how God is operating hardly negates his/her/its existence. I don't know how or why the weather does what it does but that doesn't mean weather doesn't exist or that weather doesn't follow laws of physics and nature. I don't think anything is random. One thing leads to the next - energy shifts, changes form, moves stuff, creates other stuff and all the while the complexity and dynamic of it all is beyond anyone to comprehend and understand the nuances of it all. Similarly with this creator. But the creator is not necessarily some Being and I find it improbable we would recognize the creator as a person-like entity - either physically or in the characteristics he/she/it embodies. Not that the creator couldn't appear to us as such, I think it can and has - many times. There is of course a third option and it seems to me that it's as correct as my first one: Theology is a bunch of true believers sitting around trying to think up long winded arguments to defend something that patently doesn't exist in the way that all the old scriptures claim it does. It clearly takes a lot of work to wind your way to the conclusion you have decided upon. It's an odd way to go about things and this is why science has proved such a vastly superior explanatory system, there's no way a scientist would let the first assumption (or axiom) go past without it being tested against the evidence. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Re "I don't get the final "therefore..." I can conceive of fabulous things but nature is under no obligation to create them.": Because only "that than which no greater can be conceived" has *necessary* existence. Everything else has accidental existence (you, for example). The "necessary existence" is God's unique selling point. An atheist is claiming that it's possible that God doesn't exist. Therefore, said atheist is claiming God doesn't necessarily exist. Therefore, said atheist is claiming God doesn't exist necessarily. But "necessary existence" is part of our definition of God so said atheist is caught in a logical contradiction. Ouch!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
But god's existence isn't super essential. That's the point. It's all the wrong way round, I can conceive of a universe without god, I appear to be living in one. So the argument must be falling down somewhere, probably because I can conceive of him not existing - bit of a spanner in the philosophical works there. How did you get on with the moral interventionism argument? God really is a git if he exists isn't he! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Re "But the "necessary" existence is another "therefore..." that doesn't follow from the previous statement.": The ontological argument re-phrased. Definition: God = that than which nothing greater can be conceived. Claim: a Being that *cannot* be conceived not to exist is greater than a Being that *can* be conceived not to exist. Muse over that definition and claim and they both sound appropriate to our idea of God, no? An atheist or agnostic is therefore saying: "Well, yes, IF God exists He would be a Being that cannot be conceived not to exist, but as we don't know whether or not He exists we're not getting anywhere." Let's unpack this sentence by our atheist: it comes down to this: "God is a Being that *cannot* be conceived not to exist, but I *can* conceive of Him not existing." That is a flat contradiction. The issue boils down to what Judy calls a "category error". To imagine that God's existence could be doubted is to put God's existence in the same category as the existence of salted popcorn, unicorns or quarks. It's to imagine that if God does exist He just *happens* to exist (like you) and so might *happen* not to exist, but God's existence is super-essential.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
So basically what you are saying is that the early gods that man invented turned out to be too easily disposed of intellectually, so everyone is going out of their minds to make him as oblique and impenetrable as possible yet still keep him existing in some way. I'm a lot more interested in why the god meme stays relevant. What does it do for you? Or perhaps, what does the universe lack without whatever powers you are giving this supreme being?
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the Day,
“Today, with the discovery that within every brain physiology are tremendous powers, the world today is different than the world of yesterday. All those powers that are administering the individual life are those powers which together are administering the whole universe. That higher power can be enlivened in the brains of people in every nation, and this will free the life of every country from suffering, problems, and failures. Just free it and free it and free it. For this, we have Maharishi Open University. It will open the treasures of bliss, happiness, and energy that are there inside of everyone.” -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, July 9, 1998, Guru Purnima Nablusoss1008 writes: "“The important thing is this: to be able, at any moment, to sacrifice what we are for what we could become” - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - "we" as individuals and we the peoples, humanity. When humanity collectively (more or less) are willing to sacrifice our past for what we can become, then we stand at an important threshold; The Rising Sun of The Age of Enlightenment. This is what Masters are urging and inspiring us to become; a true humanity, brothers. All the Saints, the messengers of Godhead throughout recorded history gave voice to the same thing. Buddha, Maharishi, Jesus, Mohammad - same thing, same message.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Re "So the argument must be falling down somewhere, probably because I can
conceive of Him not existing.":
So the "Him" you can conceive as not existing is clearly NOT the Him whose
non-existence is inconceivable! The God you conceive might not exist is an
image that you've constructed in your imagination based on your Sunday School
lessons, so is essentially an *idol* - a false god. It is good news that you
see that idols can't exist. The more idols you dismiss the closer you come to
the real God that lies beyond your or anyone else's conceptions.
The 14th-century theologian Meister Eckhart made the same point: "The more
they curse God the more they praise Him!"
Re "Seems reasonable to me that God would have a strong moral sense, stronger
than mine even, and that he wouldn't like to see people suffer.":
The Godhead doesn't have a strong moral sense. It is the crassest
anthropomorphism to imagine otherwise. (It's another category error!) But we
humans have a moral sense ("The soul is naturally Christian" - Tertullian,
third century) so we should encourage that moral sense to flourish in the same
way that a gardener encourages a flower to bloom and emit its fragrance.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
I love the people have shifted the idea of what god is when earlier
interpretations turn out to be too easily disposed of. I can see why theology
never satisfactorily answered any questions! But I am impressed with the energy
people put in to weaving their way past the need for evidence into some sort of
logical cul de sac of him being unfathomable. God has always been
anthropomorphism, mankind's vanity and paranoia writ large.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
Re "So the argument must be falling down somewhere, probably because I can
conceive of Him not existing.":
So the "Him" you can conceive as not existing is clearly NOT the Him whose
non-existence is inconceivable! The God you conceive might not exist is an
image that you've constructed in your imagination based on your Sunday School
lessons, so is essentially an *idol* - a false god. It is good news that you
see that idols can't exist. The more idols you dismiss the closer you come to
the real God that lies beyond your or anyone else's conceptions.
The 14th-century theologian Meister Eckhart made the same point: "The more
they curse God the more they praise Him!"
Re "Seems reasonable to me that God would have a strong moral sense, stronger
than mine even, and that he wouldn't like to see people suffer.":
The Godhead doesn't have a strong moral sense. It is the crassest
anthropomorphism to imagine otherwise. (It's another category error!) But we
humans have a moral sense ("The soul is naturally Christian" - Tertullian,
third century) so we should encourage that moral sense to flourish in the same
way that a gardener encourages a flower to bloom and emit its fragrance.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Salyavin, have you always had this much trouble retaining factual information?
The "unfathomable" concept of God dates back to before Aristotle and has
remained the mainstream concept of Western philosophical theism ever since. I
told you that; Seraphita did too. So did philosopher of religion Edward Feser
in that quote I posted.
It's only very recently that more anthropomorphic concepts like "theistic
personalism" have emerged. IOW, you have it precisely backward. (Of course, you
can go WAY back to pagan antiquity, pre-500 BCE or so, to find anthropomorphic
concepts--Zeus and so on. But that isn't when the "shift" you're claiming to
"unfathomable" took place, is it?)
I love the people have shifted the idea of what god is when earlier
interpretations turn out to be too easily disposed of. I can see why theology
never satisfactorily answered any questions! But I am impressed with the energy
people put in to weaving their way past the need for evidence into some sort of
logical cul de sac of him being unfathomable. God has always been
anthropomorphism, mankind's vanity and paranoia writ large.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
Re "So the argument must be falling down somewhere, probably because I can
conceive of Him not existing.":
So the "Him" you can conceive as not existing is clearly NOT the Him whose
non-existence is inconceivable! The God you conceive might not exist is an
image that you've constructed in your imagination based on your Sunday School
lessons, so is essentially an *idol* - a false god. It is good news that you
see that idols can't exist. The more idols you dismiss the closer you come to
the real God that lies beyond your or anyone else's conceptions.
The 14th-century theologian Meister Eckhart made the same point: "The more
they curse God the more they praise Him!"
Re "Seems reasonable to me that God would have a strong moral sense, stronger
than mine even, and that he wouldn't like to see people suffer.":
The Godhead doesn't have a strong moral sense. It is the crassest
anthropomorphism to imagine otherwise. (It's another category error!) But we
humans have a moral sense ("The soul is naturally Christian" - Tertullian,
third century) so we should encourage that moral sense to flourish in the same
way that a gardener encourages a flower to bloom and emit its fragrance.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the Day,
There is a principle which is pure, placed in the human mind, which in different places and ages hath had different names. It is, however, pure and proceeds from God (the Unified Field). It is deep and inward, confined to no forms of religion nor excluded from any, where the heart stands in perfect sincerity. In whomsoever this takes root and grows, of what nation soever, they become brethren. -John Woolman, Quaker “Today, with the discovery that within every brain physiology are tremendous powers, the world today is different than the world of yesterday. All those powers that are administering the individual life are those powers which together are administering the whole universe. That higher power can be enlivened in the brains of people in every nation, and this will free the life of every country from suffering, problems, and failures. Just free it and free it and free it. For this, we have Maharishi Open University. It will open the treasures of bliss, happiness, and energy that are there inside of everyone.” -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, July 9, 1998, Guru Purnima Nablusoss1008 writes: "“The important thing is this: to be able, at any moment, to sacrifice what we are for what we could become” - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - "we" as individuals and we the peoples, humanity. When humanity collectively (more or less) are willing to sacrifice our past for what we can become, then we stand at an important threshold; The Rising Sun of The Age of Enlightenment. This is what Masters are urging and inspiring us to become; a true humanity, brothers. All the Saints, the messengers of Godhead throughout recorded history gave voice to the same thing. Buddha, Maharishi, Jesus, Mohammad - same thing, same message.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the Day,
Today, as we stand here repeating the same ideas over and over and over again for the solution to problems, and even though these ideas have miscarried in the advance of the goal of solving all problems, we continue nonetheless repeating these ideas over and over and over in the knowledge that if we keep repeating them over and over and over we will absent ourselves from the experience that they have run aground and the desired solutions to the problems we are still faced with have not manifested. That brings a welcome fulfillment to our dreams of a better world, for not noticing that the world has not changed in any significant way, we can in all honesty bask in the sunshine of that dream by never waking from that dream, that it may continue to fulfill us forever and forever. For that dream which never changes is indeed our salvation. Let us never disturb our deep and profound sleep, secure in that wisdom that cannot be touched by time, by reason, by disconfirmation, by refutation, even unto eternity. This is the principled life, for when we close our eyes, all remains bliss.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the Day,
“Expansion of happiness is the purpose of life, and evolution is the process by which it is fulfilled. Life begins in a natural way, it evolves, and happiness expands. The expansion of happiness carries with it the growth of intelligence, power, creativity and everything that may be said to be of significance in life.” -The Science of Being and Art of Living -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi [1963] There is a principle which is pure, placed in the human mind, which in different places and ages hath had different names. It is, however, pure and proceeds from God (the Unified Field). It is deep and inward, confined to no forms of religion nor excluded from any, where the heart stands in perfect sincerity. In whomsoever this takes root and grows, of what nation soever, they become brethren. -John Woolman, Quaker “Today, with the discovery that within every brain physiology are tremendous powers, the world today is different than the world of yesterday. All those powers that are administering the individual life are those powers which together are administering the whole universe. That higher power can be enlivened in the brains of people in every nation, and this will free the life of every country from suffering, problems, and failures. Just free it and free it and free it. For this, we have Maharishi Open University. It will open the treasures of bliss, happiness, and energy that are there inside of everyone.” -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, July 9, 1998, Guru Purnima Nablusoss1008 writes: "“The important thing is this: to be able, at any moment, to sacrifice what we are for what we could become” - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - "we" as individuals and we the peoples, humanity. When humanity collectively (more or less) are willing to sacrifice our past for what we can become, then we stand at an important threshold; The Rising Sun of The Age of Enlightenment. This is what Masters are urging and inspiring us to become; a true humanity, brothers. All the Saints, the messengers of Godhead throughout recorded history gave voice to the same thing. Buddha, Maharishi, Jesus, Mohammad - same thing, same message. .
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens
[FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
My life has been filled with terrible misfortunes – most of which never happened. - Mark Twain
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/9/06 5:51:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > "It's amazing. Six years of a Republican majority in > the White House, the House and the Senate, and all you've got is fear." > Ill. Rep. Rahm Emanuel > > > > I liked his quote from This Week with Georgie Stephanopolous. When Asked if > he was aware the E-mails of Foley's before the story broke, he said " I > never saw them". When pressed again by Stephie if he had been aware of them > he > repeated " I never saw them". He would not deny that he knew about them, > only > that he had not seen them. I guess he learned that from his boss. I guess > that > depends on what the meaning of "is" is. > An interesting thought. How many congresscritters are licensed to practice law in DC? If any of THEM knew about this, then they're _de facto_ conspirators because officers of the court (i.e. licensed to practice law in the local system) are mandated to report crimes unlike private citizens... To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I liked his quote from This Week with Georgie Stephanopolous. When > Asked if he was aware the E-mails of Foley's before the story broke, > he said " I never saw them". When pressed again by Stephie if he had > been aware of them he repeated " I never saw them". He would not > deny that he knew about them, only that he had not seen them. I > guess he learned that from his boss. I guess that depends on what > the meaning of "is" is. You do know that the emails and IMs came from Republicans, right? And that the FBI is lying about CREW? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/9/06 5:51:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > "It's amazing. Six years of a Republican majority in > the White House, the House and the Senate, and all you've got is fear." > Ill. Rep. Rahm Emanuel > > > > I liked his quote from This Week with Georgie Stephanopolous. When Asked if > he was aware the E-mails of Foley's before the story broke, he said " I > never saw them". When pressed again by Stephie if he had been aware of them he > repeated " I never saw them". He would not deny that he knew about them, only > that he had not seen them. I guess he learned that from his boss. I guess that > depends on what the meaning of "is" is. > A very tiresome argument. If there were no emails to pass on and no attempted seduction of pages, there would be no need for useless finger pointing. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/9/06 5:51:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > "It's amazing. Six years of a Republican majority in > the White House, the House and the Senate, and all you've got is fear." > Ill. Rep. Rahm Emanuel > > > > I liked his quote from This Week with Georgie Stephanopolous. > When Asked if he was aware the E-mails of Foley's before the > story broke, he said " I never saw them". When pressed again > by Stephie if he had been aware of them he repeated " I never > saw them". He would not deny that he knew about them, only > that he had not seen them. I guess he learned that from his > boss. I guess that depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Man, I have to hope you're just the innocent dupe here. Stephanopoulos works at ABC. Right before Ross broke the story of the emails, it's highly unlikely such a blockbuster story hadn't gotten around to Ross's colleagues who cover politics. But Stephanopoulos knew that if he said, "Yes, I'd heard about them, but I hadn't read them," the Republicans would be screaming bloody murder, trying to make it appear that Stephanopoulos was part of a Democratic plot to release the story when it would be most damaging to the Republicans. Of course, you're attempting to do that here anyway because you've been taken in, as usual, by the Republicans' lies. They've been lying up one side and down the other. Ken Mehlman, head of the Republican National Committee, for instance, has been praising Hastert, saying he gave Foley an ultimatum to resign as soon as he learned of the sexually explicit IMs. That's false, and Mehlman knows it's false. Foley resigned on his own hook; Hastert himself has admitted on the record that he had nothing to do with Foley's resignation. And Mehlman is far from the only Republican who's been peddling that lie. They're also lying when they suggest Democrats knew about all this and kept it quiet until it would cause the most damage, then turned it over to ABC. It was *Republicans* who turned over the emails, and pages who sent ABC the IMs after Ross's story about the emails broke. Plus which, as Jim suggests, we *know* that the Republican leadership has known about the emails for almost a year, and evidence is now coming out that they knew about other sexually explicit IMs *for over five years*. Even if Democrats *had* known about them--which there is zero evidence they did--that doesn't somehow exonerate the Republican leadership from having kept the whole thing covered up for years, while Foley continued to prey on the pages. The Republicans' behavior has been utterly reprehensible, not only in covering up the Foley problem to begin with, but in trying to cover up the coverup after the story broke by trying to blame the Democrats. These disgusting slimeballs are the people who have been running the country for six years. Anyone who tries to excuse their behavior is as much of a slimeball as they are. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 10/9/06 5:51:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > > salsunshine@ writes: > > > > "It's amazing. Six years of a Republican majority in > > the White House, the House and the Senate, and all you've got is > fear." > > Ill. Rep. Rahm Emanuel Just for your info: Melhman I've heard is a Satanist. As far as Foley, it was obvious for me, even seeing him for a few minutes on TV; that something was definitely wrong with him. If the people around him, were in denial that something was off with him; This shows that these people who are running things: Are basically 'sleep-walking'. Trouble is, while we have sleep-walking idiots running things; Meantime our adversary's are having a good time, Watching our Empire fall. R.G. > > > > > > > > I liked his quote from This Week with Georgie Stephanopolous. > > When Asked if he was aware the E-mails of Foley's before the > > story broke, he said " I never saw them". When pressed again > > by Stephie if he had been aware of them he repeated " I never > > saw them". He would not deny that he knew about them, only > > that he had not seen them. I guess he learned that from his > > boss. I guess that depends on what the meaning of "is" is. > > Man, I have to hope you're just the innocent > dupe here. > > Stephanopoulos works at ABC. Right before Ross broke > the story of the emails, it's highly unlikely such a > blockbuster story hadn't gotten around to Ross's > colleagues who cover politics. But Stephanopoulos > knew that if he said, "Yes, I'd heard about them, > but I hadn't read them," the Republicans would be > screaming bloody murder, trying to make it appear > that Stephanopoulos was part of a Democratic plot to > release the story when it would be most damaging to > the Republicans. > > Of course, you're attempting to do that here anyway > because you've been taken in, as usual, by the > Republicans' lies. They've been lying up one side > and down the other. Ken Mehlman, head of the > Republican National Committee, for instance, has > been praising Hastert, saying he gave Foley an > ultimatum to resign as soon as he learned of the > sexually explicit IMs. > > That's false, and Mehlman knows it's false. > Foley resigned on his own hook; Hastert himself > has admitted on the record that he had nothing to > do with Foley's resignation. And Mehlman is far > from the only Republican who's been peddling that > lie. > > They're also lying when they suggest Democrats > knew about all this and kept it quiet until it > would cause the most damage, then turned it over > to ABC. It was *Republicans* who turned over the > emails, and pages who sent ABC the IMs after Ross's > story about the emails broke. > > Plus which, as Jim suggests, we *know* that the > Republican leadership has known about the emails > for almost a year, and evidence is now coming out > that they knew about other sexually explicit IMs > *for over five years*. > > Even if Democrats *had* known about them--which > there is zero evidence they did--that doesn't > somehow exonerate the Republican leadership from > having kept the whole thing covered up for years, > while Foley continued to prey on the pages. > > The Republicans' behavior has been utterly > reprehensible, not only in covering up the Foley > problem to begin with, but in trying to cover up > the coverup after the story broke by trying to > blame the Democrats. > > These disgusting slimeballs are the people who have > been running the country for six years. Anyone > who tries to excuse their behavior is as much of a > slimeball as they are. > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just for your info: Melhman I've heard is a Satanist. All I've heard is that he's another closet case. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" > wrote: > > > > Just for your info: Melhman I've heard is a Satanist. > > All I've heard is that he's another closet case. > Closet gay satanic child molesting christian whale, er, congresscritter? Where's North Korea's nukes when you need them? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 9, 2006, at 10:49 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > The Republicans' behavior has been utterly > > reprehensible, not only in covering up the Foley > > problem to begin with, but in trying to cover up > > the coverup after the story broke by trying to > > blame the Democrats. > > You know, it seems that, at least since the story broke, > about the only Republican acting with even a shred of > decency has been Foley. As for the rest of them--have > they no shame? I guess not. Nope, no shame, only fear that they're going to lose power. It's hard to know where Foley's at. One hopes he's had a genuine Moment of Truth, but considering the depths he'd been happily plumbing for many years, that kind of instant turnaround seems unlikely on its face. The whole rehab bit has become such a cliche for scandal-plagued public figures that it doesn't have a lot of credibility. It may be nothing more than getting himself out of the public eye until at least after the elections, as well as a way to scrape up whatever potential sympathy may be out there. And it would have been Really, Really Stupid for him to have tried to hang onto his job in the face of all the revelations (and more he must have known would be coming out). He didn't have a whole lot of choice about resigning. Of course, if it weren't for society's--and especially the right's--twisted view of homosexuality, quite possibly he wouldn't have felt the need to sneak around to do his thing, whatever it was. "Whatever it was" = it's not entirely clear to me that he's fixated on much younger men, as opposed to the availability of pages being a relatively safe opportunity to cat around that he couldn't indulge in public (excuse the tortured syntax there!). All very complicated. Apparently he has a life partner back in Florida. They've reportedly been together for nearly 20 years. That guy must be going through a lot as well. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 10, 2006, at 9:28 AM, authfriend wrote: > > And it would have been Really, Really Stupid for him to > > have tried to hang onto his job in the face of all the > > revelations (and more he must have known would be coming > > out). He didn't have a whole lot of choice about > > resigning. > > I agree, I wasn't thinking so much about resigning as about > what he hasn't been doing: blaming others, calling the pages > ugly names, etc. True, good point. He (or at least his lawyer) has been not just explicit but insistent that he takes all the responsibility himself. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 10, 2006, at 9:28 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > And it would have been Really, Really Stupid for him to > > > have tried to hang onto his job in the face of all the > > > revelations (and more he must have known would be coming > > > out). He didn't have a whole lot of choice about > > > resigning. > > > > I agree, I wasn't thinking so much about resigning as about > > what he hasn't been doing: blaming others, calling the pages > > ugly names, etc. > > True, good point. He (or at least his lawyer) has been > not just explicit but insistent that he takes all the > responsibility himself. > I agree that he has stayed out of the spotlight, however regarding taking personal responsibility, what I have heard from him was that he wrote these IMs because: 1) He is gay, 2)He is an alcoholic 3)He was abused by a priest when younger, which all sound like excuses to me. In all seriousness, maybe this is what passes for taking responsibility among our public officials these days. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/10/06 7:28:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Just for your info: Melhman I've heard is a Satanist. > > > > All I've heard is that he's another closet case. > > > > Closet gay satanic child molesting christian whale, er, congresscritter? > > Where's North Korea's nukes when you need them? > > > > > Does he drink the blood of dead babies? > Doh. Can't forget that news factoid... To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 2006, at 9:28 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > And it would have been Really, Really Stupid for him to > > > > have tried to hang onto his job in the face of all the > > > > revelations (and more he must have known would be coming > > > > out). He didn't have a whole lot of choice about > > > > resigning. > > > > > > I agree, I wasn't thinking so much about resigning as about > > > what he hasn't been doing: blaming others, calling the pages > > > ugly names, etc. > > > > True, good point. He (or at least his lawyer) has been > > not just explicit but insistent that he takes all the > > responsibility himself. > > > I agree that he has stayed out of the spotlight, however regarding > taking personal responsibility, what I have heard from him was that > he wrote these IMs because: 1) He is gay, 2)He is an alcoholic 3)He > was abused by a priest when younger, which all sound like excuses > to me. In all seriousness, maybe this is what passes for taking > responsibility among our public officials these days. Actually, I think that's what you've read or heard that he said. In fact, Foley himself hasn't said anything. His lawyer gave a press conference and said *explicitly and insistently* (as I wrote above) that Foley does NOT blame his behavior on his alcoholism or his earlier molestation, and certainly not on his homosexuality. The media has chosen to ignore this and claim instead that he *did* blame his alcoholism and abuse. (I don't think anybody has said he blames it on his homosexuality.) You can decide for yourself whether he had his lawyer mention his alcoholism, abuse, and homosexuality as excuses or as explanations (two different things), but the media should have made it clear what he actually had his lawyer say, just in simple fairness. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 10/9/06 5:51:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > > salsunshine@ writes: > > > > "It's amazing. Six years of a Republican majority in > > the White House, the House and the Senate, and all you've got is > fear." > > Ill. Rep. Rahm Emanuel > > > > > > > > I liked his quote from This Week with Georgie Stephanopolous. > > When Asked if he was aware the E-mails of Foley's before the > > story broke, he said " I never saw them". When pressed again > > by Stephie if he had been aware of them he repeated " I never > > saw them". He would not deny that he knew about them, only > > that he had not seen them. I guess he learned that from his > > boss. I guess that depends on what the meaning of "is" is. > > Man, I have to hope you're just the innocent > dupe here. > > Stephanopoulos works at ABC. I misread. It wasn't Stephanopoulos but Rahm Emanuel who said he hadn't read the emails. Again, though, it's not at all unlikely that word started getting around D.C. just as Ross was preparing his story for ABC, and if Emanuel had admitted he'd heard about them, the Republicans would have tried to smear him with the nitwit "Democratic plot" accusation. It's too bad that you have to worry about being forthright because you know the Republicans will try to turn the truth against you, but that's the way it is these days. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 2006, at 9:28 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > > And it would have been Really, Really Stupid for him to > > > > > have tried to hang onto his job in the face of all the > > > > > revelations (and more he must have known would be coming > > > > > out). He didn't have a whole lot of choice about > > > > > resigning. > > > > > > > > I agree, I wasn't thinking so much about resigning as about > > > > what he hasn't been doing: blaming others, calling the pages > > > > ugly names, etc. > > > > > > True, good point. He (or at least his lawyer) has been > > > not just explicit but insistent that he takes all the > > > responsibility himself. > > > > > I agree that he has stayed out of the spotlight, however regarding > > taking personal responsibility, what I have heard from him was that > > he wrote these IMs because: 1) He is gay, 2)He is an alcoholic 3) He > > was abused by a priest when younger, which all sound like excuses > > to me. In all seriousness, maybe this is what passes for taking > > responsibility among our public officials these days. > > Actually, I think that's what you've read > or heard that he said. In fact, Foley himself > hasn't said anything. His lawyer gave a press > conference and said *explicitly and insistently* > (as I wrote above) that Foley does NOT blame > his behavior on his alcoholism or his earlier > molestation, and certainly not on his > homosexuality. The media has chosen to ignore > this and claim instead that he *did* blame his > alcoholism and abuse. (I don't think anybody > has said he blames it on his homosexuality.) > > You can decide for yourself whether he had his > lawyer mention his alcoholism, abuse, and > homosexuality as excuses or as explanations > (two different things), but the media should have > made it clear what he actually had his lawyer > say, just in simple fairness. > Yep, you are right- I haven't heard Foley say anything... To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the day.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : “We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on.” Richard Feynman. "We are not at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is reasonable for us to learn from the discoveries that our predecessors have made. But there are tens of thousands of years in the past. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on." Daniel Friedman (who has read lots of Feynman's work, but he, unfortunately, didn't have access to Fairfieldlife, where he could have been exposed to The Science of Yoga. His was limited to the laboratory.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
On 2/16/2014 4:45 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: The theist doesn't believe in one god among "other possible gods." > Polytheists believe there is more than one deity, for example the Smarta Avaita Vedanta.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: On 2/16/2014 4:45 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Polytheists believe there is more than one deity, for example the Smarta Avaita Vedanta. “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3956.Christopher_Hitchens
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded "believers" trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. Same thing with theists. From: salyavin808 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... "sympathy for theology" Interesting choice of words. I would say that these "new" atheists are scientists, so why would a scientist have sympathy for something that refuses to demonstrate any actual evidence in favour of its position? And I don't agree with the idea that Dawkins etc are smug or arrogant, they are coming from a position that is so well sussed there is simply no room for the old ways of believing to be necessary. And they are deliberately starting a fight in the hope of making people think about what they decide is real, it's a post 9/11 thing to try and shake people out of the religious stupor they walk around in without questioning it. Why would they want to do that? This the funny bit, Dawkin's thinks people will be happier with a more accurate description of reality than the superstitious ones that people still get brought up into. LOL, he obviously didn't read Xeno's security blanket list. If atheism promised a life after death he might have more takers. If you want a scientist to take a theory seriously you have to show that what it explains is a superior explanation to the current one. And here's your problem, the cornerstones of scientific thought are so sussed that trying to lever in a supernatural being or creator (or whatever this brahma does) is really going to take some doing as it's been shown to be unnecessary. We have a couple of good theories as to how the universe got here without any help. We know about stellar evolution and the creation of dense matter from supernovae. Evolution from simple forms to more complex. Not finished but there is an undeniable drift away from biblical explanations for creation. This is where the apparent smugness comes from I think. God has been forced into such a small corner by our understanding that you have to wonder if all that is left over as his domain is actually an insult to the old dude. So you have to get all "god is a manifestation of all things" to still keep the concept alive. A far cry from his glory days. Progress happens when someone spots that a theory is contradicted by the evidence. To get any concept of god taken seriously you'll have to show how any current explanation of our experience is inadequate without some sort of supernatural being. Good luck with it but blissful states of consciousness aren't going to do it, I had all of them and it didn't convince me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Oh, I think it's a great argument. Nothing like an apparently cast iron certainty to make the other side sharpen up it's debate. Human ingenuity is boundless. And who knows, one of us might actually be right ;-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded "believers" trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. Same thing with theists. From: salyavin808 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... "sympathy for theology" Interesting choice of words. I would say that these "new" atheists are scientists, so why would a scientist have sympathy for something that refuses to demonstrate any actual evidence in favour of its position? And I don't agree with the idea that Dawkins etc are smug or arrogant, they are coming from a position that is so well sussed there is simply no room for the old ways of believing to be necessary. And they are deliberately starting a fight in the hope of making people think about what they decide is real, it's a post 9/11 thing to try and shake people out of the religious stupor they walk around in without questioning it. Why would they want to do that? This the funny bit, Dawkin's thinks people will be happier with a more accurate description of reality than the superstitious ones that people still get brought up into. LOL, he obviously didn't read Xeno's security blanket list. If atheism promised a life after death he might have more takers. If you want a scientist to take a theory seriously you have to show that what it explains is a superior explanation to the current one. And here's your problem, the cornerstones of scientific thought are so sussed that trying to lever in a supernatural being or creator (or whatever this brahma does) is really going to take some doing as it's been shown to be unnecessary. We have a couple of good theories as to how the universe got here without any help. We know about stellar evolution and the creation of dense matter from supernovae. Evolution from simple forms to more complex. Not finished but there is an undeniable drift away from biblical explanations for creation. This is where the apparent smugness comes from I think. God has been forced into such a small corner by our understanding that you have to wonder if all that is left over as his domain is actually an insult to the old dude. So you have to get all "god is a manifestation of all things" to still keep the concept alive. A far cry from his glory days. Progress happens when someone spots that a theory is contradicted by the evidence. To get any concept of god taken seriously you'll have to show how any current explanation of our experience is inadequate without some sort of supernatural being. Good luck with it but blissful states of consciousness aren't going to do it, I had all of them and it didn't convince me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Yep; Unified Field the God. I agree with Turqb here about the specious argument of the sophists here. Though both Science and atheists will catch up and make them believers as knowers as they all eventually come to the very scientific experience that the Unified Field is preeminent God of all, as the 'green-cheese' of all life and matter with its will to create and manifest infinitely with Love and Compassion for life. This is Large Nature that all of life evidently comes to. Make haste friends before it is too late in this very incarnation to experience the fullness of fullness of the Unified Field. Repent your unscientific non-believer ideological ways and Wake up. Come to meditation. The Dome doors open every morning at 7am for group meditation, -Buck in the Dome turquoiseb writes, This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded "believers" trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. Same thing with theists. From: salyavin808 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... "sympathy for theology" Interesting choice of words. I would say that these "new" atheists are scientists, so why would a scientist have sympathy for something that refuses to demonstrate any actual evidence in favour of its position? And I don't agree with the idea that Dawkins etc are smug or arrogant, they are coming from a position that is so well sussed there is simply no room for the old ways of believing to be necessary. And they are deliberately starting a fight in the hope of making people think about what they decide is real, it's a post 9/11 thing to try and shake people out of the religious stupor they walk around in without questioning it. Why would they want to do that? This the funny bit, Dawkin's thinks people will be happier with a more accurate description of reality than the superstitious ones that people still get brought up into. LOL, he obviously didn't read Xeno's security blanket list. If atheism promised a life after death he might have more takers. If you want a scientist to take a theory seriously you have to show that what it explains is a superior explanation to the current one. And here's your problem, the cornerstones of scientific thought are so sussed that trying to lever in a supernatural being or creator (or whatever this brahma does) is really going to take some doing as it's been shown to be unnecessary. We have a couple of good theories as to how the universe got here without any help. We know about stellar evolution and the creation of dense matter from supernovae. Evolution from simple forms to more complex. Not finished but there is an undeniable drift away from biblical explanations for creation. This is where the apparent smugness comes from I think. God has been forced into such a small corner by our understanding that you have to wonder if all that is left over as his domain is actually an insult to the old dude. So you have to get all "god is a manifestation of all things" to still keep the concept alive. A far cry from his glory days. Progress happens when someone spots that a theory is contradicted by the evidence. To get any concept of god taken seriously you'll have to show how any current explanation of our experience is inadequate without some sort of supernatural being. Good luck with it but blissful states of consciousness aren't going to do it, I had all of them and it didn't convince me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Salyavin, I've been wondering about this: what if "God" is simply what people call it when, let's say, 99% of their brain is functioning in a very, very healthy way? I do think there are some people, in all spiritual and or religious systems and even outside of them, who have 99% of their brain functioning in a very, very healthy way. I find it fascinating that they then speak about God or Brahman or Allah, etc. Is this not worthy of scientific exploration? I say let's hook some of these people up to an fMRI machine and see what's going on. Then let's continue the discussions on that basis. Otherwise, not even the scientists are being very scientific! As for me, I suspect that this is what's going on with such individuals. I think they have a whole lot more of their brain functioning healthily than I do. So I'm willing to pay attention to what they say. Because I'd love to get to that same point, have a brain that's optimally functioning. On Monday, February 17, 2014 1:12 AM, salyavin808 wrote: comments below ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Exactly. Just as Brahman is not a proper name, but Brahma is (or Zeus, or Wotan, etc.). For theists, these named gods are, strictly speaking, demiurges, deities subordinate to the Ultimate Reality, the Ground of Being. The Tao is another term for the latter (which, according to Laotze, is "eternally nameless"). In some religious systems perhaps, but not the ones the quote is aimed at. Nothing wrong with not being a believer, but if they're going to argue with theists, these new atheist dudes need to read, at the very least, David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss so they have some idea of what they're talking about. He really blasts them for their willful, arrogant ignorance, but they deserve it. As might have been mentioned, this experience of god is most likely a different state of consciousness and the neural functions and the hormonal, chemical systems that support it. I say "most likely" because it isn't like the new religious have got anywhere nearer to proving that there is "something else", some brahma or whatever you want to call it today. How many ways of saying "We want there to be more" can there possibly be? All you have here is a new way of saying the same old thing. An involving argument is no substitute for evidence. It's a security blanket. Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Um, Buck, which sophists are you referring to here, the ones making the argument for God-as-Beingness, the source of all existence, the argument Barry and Salyavin are ridiculing? Or do you think you might have misread what Barry was saying? Or perhaps you were being ironic in pretending you agree with Barry...? << Yep; Unified Field the God. I agree with Turqb here about the specious argument of the sophists here. Though both Science and atheists will catch up and make them believers as knowers as they all eventually come to the very scientific experience that the Unified Field is preeminent God of all, as the 'green-cheese' of all life and matter with its will to create and manifest infinitely with Love and Compassion for life. This is Large Nature that all of life evidently comes to. Make haste friends before it is too late in this very incarnation to experience the fullness of fullness of the Unified Field. Repent your unscientific non-believer ideological ways and Wake up. Come to meditation. >> The Dome doors open every morning at 7am for group meditation, -Buck in the Dome turquoiseb writes, This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded "believers" trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. Same thing with theists. From: salyavin808 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... "sympathy for theology" Interesting choice of words. I would say that these "new" atheists are scientists, so why would a scientist have sympathy for something that refuses to demonstrate any actual evidence in favour of its position? And I don't agree with the idea that Dawkins etc are smug or arrogant, they are coming from a position that is so well sussed there is simply no room for the old ways of believing to be necessary. And they are deliberately starting a fight in the hope of making people think about what they decide is real, it's a post 9/11 thing to try and shake people out of the religious stupor they walk around in without questioning it. Why would they want to do that? This the funny bit, Dawkin's thinks people will be happier with a more accurate description of reality than the superstitious ones that people still get brought up into. LOL, he obviously didn't read Xeno's security blanket list. If atheism promised a life after death he might have more takers. If you want a scientist to take a theory seriously you have to show that what it explains is a superior explanation to the current one. And here's your problem, the cornerstones of scientific thought are so sussed that trying to lever in a supernatural being or creator (or whatever this brahma does) is really going to take some doing as it's been shown to be unnecessary. We have a couple of good theories as to how the universe got here without any help. We know about stellar evolution and the creation of dense matter from supernovae. Evolution from simple forms to more complex. Not finished but there is an undeniable drift away from biblical explanations for creation. This is where the apparent smugness comes from I think. God has been forced into such a small corner by our understanding that you have to wonder if all that is left over as his domain is actually an insult to the old dude. So you have to get all "god is a manifestation of all things" to still keep the concept alive. A far cry from his glory days. Progress happens when someone spots that a theory is contradicted by the evidence. To get any concept of god taken seriously you'll have to show how any current explanation of our experience is inadequate without some sort of supernatural being. Good luck with it but blissful states of consciousness aren't going to do it, I had all of them and it didn't convince me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
I agree that "god" is what people call a brain in some sort of different, enhanced, state and that must have something to do with our own sense of feeling and powers of explanation. I think it was Aldous Huxley who theorised that people who have god experiences have more mescalin occurring naturally in their brains than the rest of the population. I think the way our brains create a world for us to live in that we think is reality gets changed during meds/trips so different bits are emphasised, we have a part of our brain that handles spacial dimension so if that gets altered it might forget where to put our boundaries and leave us thinking we are in an infinite space. If you ever had a mushroom or LSD trip you'll know that all sorts of profound revelations pop up. The trick is to not take them too seriously. If our consciousness and sense of place in the world and reactions to it are all chemicals and neuronal activity, as I would argue, then the wild feelings of joy and wisdom you get must be coming from alterations or additions to those chemicals. Some people are maybe more prone to god experiences through meditation or fasting etc. A god gene perhaps. I think it would be fascinating to get an enlightened head into an MRI scanner and see how it compares to a tripping head. I know there are differences in the subjective experience but are there enough similarities to categorise them the same way? The main similarity for us is the feeling of "holiness" or special knowledge you get from both states. In my first mushroom trip I saw loads of Greek gods floating about in the sky like perfect statues. I wasn't so out of it that I wondered why I saw gods. The only thing I could come up with was the Freudian notion that the unconsciousness mind has a rather fantastic opinion of itself so if you put it in charge it will give you these delusions of grandeur. I know someone who works at Imperial college in London which is one of the main teaching hospitals, and I asked him if I could stick my head inside his MRI machine when I was meditating (he writes the software for them) but he couldn't see the scientific value. Or at least not enough to cancel all the researchers who are queueing round the block to do potentially life saving work! Like Buck I say we get scientific about it, the better the machine the better the results. I'm sure we'll get a proper decent map of where consciousness occurs in the brain and how it works. But unlike Buck I think it will all be chemicals and neurons, unless Penrose is right and there is a quantum element. In a field where nothing has been definitively explained you have to keep your options open. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Salyavin, I've been wondering about this: what if "God" is simply what people call it when, let's say, 99% of their brain is functioning in a very, very healthy way? I do think there are some people, in all spiritual and or religious systems and even outside of them, who have 99% of their brain functioning in a very, very healthy way. I find it fascinating that they then speak about God or Brahman or Allah, etc. Is this not worthy of scientific exploration? I say let's hook some of these people up to an fMRI machine and see what's going on. Then let's continue the discussions on that basis. Otherwise, not even the scientists are being very scientific! As for me, I suspect that this is what's going on with such individuals. I think they have a whole lot more of their brain functioning healthily than I do. So I'm willing to pay attention to what they say. Because I'd love to get to that same point, have a brain that's optimally functioning. On Monday, February 17, 2014 1:12 AM, salyavin808 wrote: comments below ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Exactly. Just as Brahman is not a proper name, but Brahma is (or Zeus, or Wotan, etc.). For theists, these named gods are, strictly speaking, demiurges, deities subordinate to the Ultimate Reality, the Ground of Being. The Tao is another term for the latter (which, according to Laotze, is "eternally nameless"). In some religious systems perhaps, but not the ones the quote is aimed at. Nothing wrong with not being a believer, but if they're going to argue with theists, these new atheist dudes need to read, at the very least, David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss so they have some idea of what they're talking about. He really blasts them for their willful, arrogant ignorance, but they deserve it. As might have been mentioned, this experience of god is most likely a different state of consciousness and the neural functions and the hormonal, chemical systems that support it. I say "most likely" because it isn't like the new religious have got anywhere nearer to proving that there is "something else", some brahma or whatever you want to call it today. H
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
There is no cheese greener than Barry's. Not only is he an utter ignoramus with regard to theism, he holds the specious belief that those who present an argument for theism must be theists themselves. Yet more evidence for his inability to make a distinction between "X says..." and "What X says is true." << This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded "believers" trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. Same thing with theists. >>
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Share is on to something. As you said, Sal, it is all chemicals and neuronal activity. Yes, it is. However, it must be stabilized through meditation and activity. Then, unbounded awareness has a *choice*, to operate locally, while established in Being, whether enjoying any flashy experience of the subtle senses, or filled with joy, or doing the dishes. The point being, that the flashy experiences only point to unbounded awareness, 24x7, but it is a mistake to assume enlightenment is an unbroken string of them. It certainly could be, if one so chooses, but it leaves precious little time for the rest of life. Unbounded awareness means having the ability, and evenness, to experience anything, from the Heavens, to the deepest pit of Hell, and continue to live a normal, productive and evolving life. 100% inside, 100& outside. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I agree that "god" is what people call a brain in some sort of different, enhanced, state and that must have something to do with our own sense of feeling and powers of explanation. I think it was Aldous Huxley who theorised that people who have god experiences have more mescalin occurring naturally in their brains than the rest of the population. I think the way our brains create a world for us to live in that we think is reality gets changed during meds/trips so different bits are emphasised, we have a part of our brain that handles spacial dimension so if that gets altered it might forget where to put our boundaries and leave us thinking we are in an infinite space. If you ever had a mushroom or LSD trip you'll know that all sorts of profound revelations pop up. The trick is to not take them too seriously. If our consciousness and sense of place in the world and reactions to it are all chemicals and neuronal activity, as I would argue, then the wild feelings of joy and wisdom you get must be coming from alterations or additions to those chemicals. Some people are maybe more prone to god experiences through meditation or fasting etc. A god gene perhaps. I think it would be fascinating to get an enlightened head into an MRI scanner and see how it compares to a tripping head. I know there are differences in the subjective experience but are there enough similarities to categorise them the same way? The main similarity for us is the feeling of "holiness" or special knowledge you get from both states. In my first mushroom trip I saw loads of Greek gods floating about in the sky like perfect statues. I wasn't so out of it that I wondered why I saw gods. The only thing I could come up with was the Freudian notion that the unconsciousness mind has a rather fantastic opinion of itself so if you put it in charge it will give you these delusions of grandeur. I know someone who works at Imperial college in London which is one of the main teaching hospitals, and I asked him if I could stick my head inside his MRI machine when I was meditating (he writes the software for them) but he couldn't see the scientific value. Or at least not enough to cancel all the researchers who are queueing round the block to do potentially life saving work! Like Buck I say we get scientific about it, the better the machine the better the results. I'm sure we'll get a proper decent map of where consciousness occurs in the brain and how it works. But unlike Buck I think it will all be chemicals and neurons, unless Penrose is right and there is a quantum element. In a field where nothing has been definitively explained you have to keep your options open. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Salyavin, I've been wondering about this: what if "God" is simply what people call it when, let's say, 99% of their brain is functioning in a very, very healthy way? I do think there are some people, in all spiritual and or religious systems and even outside of them, who have 99% of their brain functioning in a very, very healthy way. I find it fascinating that they then speak about God or Brahman or Allah, etc. Is this not worthy of scientific exploration? I say let's hook some of these people up to an fMRI machine and see what's going on. Then let's continue the discussions on that basis. Otherwise, not even the scientists are being very scientific! As for me, I suspect that this is what's going on with such individuals. I think they have a whole lot more of their brain functioning healthily than I do. So I'm willing to pay attention to what they say. Because I'd love to get to that same point, have a brain that's optimally functioning. On Monday, February 17, 2014 1:12 AM, salyavin808 wrote: comments below ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Exactly. Just as Brahman is not a proper name, but Brahma is (or Zeus, or Wotan, etc.). For theists, these named gods are, strictly speaking, demiurges, deities subordinate to the Ultimate Reality, the Ground of Being. The Tao is
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
On 2/16/2014 8:39 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: On 2/16/2014 4:45 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: The theist doesn't believe in one god among "other possible gods." > Polytheists believe there is more than one deity, for example the Smarta Avaita Vedanta. > The Advaita Vedanta is idealistic polytheist monism - Brahman is the ultimate, both transcendent and immanent, the absolute infinite existence, the sum total of all that ever is, was, or shall be. In the Smarta Advaita there are five Gods. The word Atman means the immortal perfect Spirit of any living thing - Atman and Brahman are One.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded "believers" trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. No, you couldn't read those "treatises", your intellect certainly couldn't handle them so you simply poo poo it all. Now run along and write about something really important like some movie or actor or something. Oh, you already did...I sort of skipped that post after glancing at the first couple of sentences. Same thing with theists. Yeah why not lump everyone in there together, makes the whole thing so much simpler. Simple is good, Bawwy. Got any good Saturday morning cartoons you could recommend? From: salyavin808 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... "sympathy for theology" Interesting choice of words. I would say that these "new" atheists are scientists, so why would a scientist have sympathy for something that refuses to demonstrate any actual evidence in favour of its position? And I don't agree with the idea that Dawkins etc are smug or arrogant, they are coming from a position that is so well sussed there is simply no room for the old ways of believing to be necessary. And they are deliberately starting a fight in the hope of making people think about what they decide is real, it's a post 9/11 thing to try and shake people out of the religious stupor they walk around in without questioning it. Why would they want to do that? This the funny bit, Dawkin's thinks people will be happier with a more accurate description of reality than the superstitious ones that people still get brought up into. LOL, he obviously didn't read Xeno's security blanket list. If atheism promised a life after death he might have more takers. If you want a scientist to take a theory seriously you have to show that what it explains is a superior explanation to the current one. And here's your problem, the cornerstones of scientific thought are so sussed that trying to lever in a supernatural being or creator (or whatever this brahma does) is really going to take some doing as it's been shown to be unnecessary. We have a couple of good theories as to how the universe got here without any help. We know about stellar evolution and the creation of dense matter from supernovae. Evolution from simple forms to more complex. Not finished but there is an undeniable drift away from biblical explanations for creation. This is where the apparent smugness comes from I think. God has been forced into such a small corner by our understanding that you have to wonder if all that is left over as his domain is actually an insult to the old dude. So you have to get all "god is a manifestation of all things" to still keep the concept alive. A far cry from his glory days. Progress happens when someone spots that a theory is contradicted by the evidence. To get any concept of god taken seriously you'll have to show how any current explanation of our experience is inadequate without some sort of supernatural being. Good luck with it but blissful states of consciousness aren't going to do it, I had all of them and it didn't convince me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
No, he does not hold that specious belief, he has already, long ago, classified you with those he calls idiots, it's completely direct without erudition. The main thing is, he just does not like you. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: There is no cheese greener than Barry's. Not only is he an utter ignoramus with regard to theism, he holds the specious belief that those who present an argument for theism must be theists themselves. Yet more evidence for his inability to make a distinction between "X says..." and "What X says is true." << This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded "believers" trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. Same thing with theists. >>
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Salyavin, I agree it would be great to compare some heads in the MRI machine (-: But for an enlightened person, I'd prefer someone who many people think is a very highly developed human on an ongoing basis. Not just one experience of God or bliss or the Void or whatever. Someone like Mother Meera who writes cogently imo about both the personal and impersonal aspects of God and lives a somewhat ordinary life as a married woman in Germany. Let's compare her MRI to someone on a drug trip. And to Dawkins. And to a religious fundie. And to... Here's my point: for me, it's all about excellent functioning of BOTH sides of the brain AND a great connection between the two. I speculate that that is what gives rise to God experiences that are integrated in daily life in an optimally healthy way. Not preachers using snakes! I like the idea of a god gene and I think there have been articles about a God portion of the brain. The strongest drug I've done is marijuana but even that was pretty amazing. I decided that I wanted that experience but in a natural way. A few weeks later I began TM (-: I know that for centuries, horrors have been perpetuated in the name of God and religion. But horrors have also been perpetuated in the name of science and material progress. I think that's just what TBers, and even scientists, are always doing: keeping their options open. In that sense, even TBers are scientists and scientists are TBers. Everybody is simply observing what others do and what results they get, making conclusions and then choosing to do the same or something different. Basically everybody wants to be happy. Some people are simply better observers and concluders! On Monday, February 17, 2014 8:05 AM, salyavin808 wrote: I agree that "god" is what people call a brain in some sort of different, enhanced, state and that must have something to do with our own sense of feeling and powers of explanation. I think it was Aldous Huxley who theorised that people who have god experiences have more mescalin occurring naturally in their brains than the rest of the population. I think the way our brains create a world for us to live in that we think is reality gets changed during meds/trips so different bits are emphasised, we have a part of our brain that handles spacial dimension so if that gets altered it might forget where to put our boundaries and leave us thinking we are in an infinite space. If you ever had a mushroom or LSD trip you'll know that all sorts of profound revelations pop up. The trick is to not take them too seriously. If our consciousness and sense of place in the world and reactions to it are all chemicals and neuronal activity, as I would argue, then the wild feelings of joy and wisdom you get must be coming from alterations or additions to those chemicals. Some people are maybe more prone to god experiences through meditation or fasting etc. A god gene perhaps. I think it would be fascinating to get an enlightened head into an MRI scanner and see how it compares to a tripping head. I know there are differences in the subjective experience but are there enough similarities to categorise them the same way? The main similarity for us is the feeling of "holiness" or special knowledge you get from both states. In my first mushroom trip I saw loads of Greek gods floating about in the sky like perfect statues. I wasn't so out of it that I wondered why I saw gods. The only thing I could come up with was the Freudian notion that the unconsciousness mind has a rather fantastic opinion of itself so if you put it in charge it will give you these delusions of grandeur. I know someone who works at Imperial college in London which is one of the main teaching hospitals, and I asked him if I could stick my head inside his MRI machine when I was meditating (he writes the software for them) but he couldn't see the scientific value. Or at least not enough to cancel all the researchers who are queueing round the block to do potentially life saving work! Like Buck I say we get scientific about it, the better the machine the better the results. I'm sure we'll get a proper decent map of where consciousness occurs in the brain and how it works. But unlike Buck I think it will all be chemicals and neurons, unless Penrose is right and there is a quantum element. In a field where nothing has been definitively explained you have to keep your options open. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Salyavin, I've been wondering about this: what if "God" is simply what people call it when, let's say, 99% of their brain is functioning in a very, very healthy way? I do think there are some people, in all spiritual and or religious systems and even outside of them, who have 99% of their brain functioning in a very, very healthy way. I find it fascinating that they then speak about God or Brahman or Allah, etc. Is this not worthy of scientific exploration?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
From: "anartax...@yahoo.com" To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... No, he does not hold that specious belief, he has already, long ago, classified you with those he calls idiots, it's completely direct without erudition. The main thing is, he just does not like you. Plus, she's an idiot. :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: There is no cheese greener than Barry's. Not only is he an utter ignoramus with regard to theism, he holds the specious belief that those who present an argument for theism must be theists themselves. Yet more evidence for his inability to make a distinction between "X says..." and "What X says is true." << This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded "believers" trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. Same thing with theists. >>
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Salyavin, continuing in my same vein, I would say that if we hooked Dawkins up to an MRI machine, we'd see a very well developed part of the brain associated with logic. So, what is the force stronger than logic? Again, I think it's the human drive to be fully developed. I mean really fully and not just one time but on an ongoing basis. I think this is what drives both science and religion and every thing else too! Everybody wants to be optimally happy which means optimally developed. As I said before, some people are simply better observers and concluders with regards to what actually produces these optimal results! On Monday, February 17, 2014 9:46 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Behind with classical theism? Boy, that's a weird concept. I would say that all one needs to know about it is that it concerns a speculative set of theories about man and the universes origin. You don't have to get into the actual nitty gritty to know what they amount to - a way of looking at the world unencumbered by the need to provide evidence. To say they have been superceded by superior explanatory ideas is an understatement. You won't convince anyone who doesn't already want to believe it these days. Yet still they persist. Which is maybe just as well, it would be a boring sort of world if Richard Dawkins had his way but there are stronger human forces than logic. Unless someone would care to enlighten me about something I missed? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: You don't understand my definition, sorry. I keep being misled by how smart you are about other things, but you are so far behind and so resistant to learning anything about classical theism that I really don't know where to start explaining things to you. One assumes Roberts is a New Atheist because they use his argument all the time, mistakenly thinking it's a real killer. "Thou shalt have no other god but me" means, essentially, Thou shalt not believe in demiurges. Judy is not correct because most religious types would not agree that her definition of their beliefs is accurate. How would you know Roberts is a "new" athiest if you don't know who he is? "Thou shalt have no other god but me" Sound familiar? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: >> >> >>Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is >>not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have >>no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that >>theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Regardless of how Barry regards me, he does indeed hold the specious belief that "X says..." means the same as "What X says is true." << No, he does not hold that specious belief, he has already, long ago, classified you with those he calls idiots, it's completely direct without erudition. The main thing is, he just does not like you. >> Plus, she's an idiot. :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: There is no cheese greener than Barry's. Not only is he an utter ignoramus with regard to theism, he holds the specious belief that those who present an argument for theism must be theists themselves. Yet more evidence for his inability to make a distinction between "X says..." and "What X says is true." << This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded "believers" trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. Same thing with theists. >>
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: No, he does not hold that specious belief, he has already, long ago, classified you with those he calls idiots, it's completely direct without erudition. The main thing is, he just does not like you. Actually, the main thing for me is in the 'not liking' of Judy, Barry lowers himself to acting and speaking in ways that simply label him an ignorant bore. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: There is no cheese greener than Barry's. Not only is he an utter ignoramus with regard to theism, he holds the specious belief that those who present an argument for theism must be theists themselves. Yet more evidence for his inability to make a distinction between "X says..." and "What X says is true." << This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded "believers" trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. Same thing with theists. >>
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Yes, I would say Dawkins is right at one end of the continuum of human thought processing, the other end would some sort of new age bliss freak. I'm about two thirds towards RD even with TM, but I was a bit closer before. Richard Dawkins learned TM once but he wasn't impressed, I wonder what would have happened if he'd had an experience like I did when I learned that left me wandering about with a flower clasped in my hands smiling blissfully inanely at everyone I came across? He did say that if he had any mystical experience it would obviously be neuronal so he wouldn't get all religious about it but I'm sure it would arouse his curiosity into how our brains evolved the latent ability to have such a cool and personally enriching time when merely repeating a sanskrit word. The force stronger than logic? I guess there are loads and it would depend on the person, family pressure will keep people in a particular belief system. The fact something "makes sense" will override an idea that is all abstract - to some people anyway. Maybe if it's felt with the heart to be true or even if you just don't like someone who is presenting the idea. We are generally illogical about a lot of things without realising it. We tend to act first and rationalise later. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Salyavin, continuing in my same vein, I would say that if we hooked Dawkins up to an MRI machine, we'd see a very well developed part of the brain associated with logic. So, what is the force stronger than logic? Again, I think it's the human drive to be fully developed. I mean really fully and not just one time but on an ongoing basis. I think this is what drives both science and religion and every thing else too! Everybody wants to be optimally happy which means optimally developed. As I said before, some people are simply better observers and concluders with regards to what actually produces these optimal results! On Monday, February 17, 2014 9:46 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Behind with classical theism? Boy, that's a weird concept. I would say that all one needs to know about it is that it concerns a speculative set of theories about man and the universes origin. You don't have to get into the actual nitty gritty to know what they amount to - a way of looking at the world unencumbered by the need to provide evidence. To say they have been superceded by superior explanatory ideas is an understatement. You won't convince anyone who doesn't already want to believe it these days. Yet still they persist. Which is maybe just as well, it would be a boring sort of world if Richard Dawkins had his way but there are stronger human forces than logic. Unless someone would care to enlighten me about something I missed? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: You don't understand my definition, sorry. I keep being misled by how smart you are about other things, but you are so far behind and so resistant to learning anything about classical theism that I really don't know where to start explaining things to you. One assumes Roberts is a New Atheist because they use his argument all the time, mistakenly thinking it's a real killer. "Thou shalt have no other god but me" means, essentially, Thou shalt not believe in demiurges. Judy is not correct because most religious types would not agree that her definition of their beliefs is accurate. How would you know Roberts is a "new" athiest if you don't know who he is? "Thou shalt have no other god but me" Sound familiar? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Ann, certainly ONE MRI is not going to prove anything! Replication is a big part of the scientific belief system (-: So let's hook up 100 people claiming to be united with God and see if their brains all fire up in the same area. Even then, we'd need other bunch of people to say yes, I think those 100 persons are united with God. I think we live like little scientists, according to probablity though we like to think that we have 100% proof. We never do. Welcome to Planet Earth! On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:56 AM, "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com" wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: It's hardly an error to ask people to prove things if they are making such big claims - if you are in the business of providing explanations that is. If the ambition of theology really is to provide arguments for the existence of god without ever resorting to science then it's even more pointless than I thought. For a start they should lop the suffix "ology" off the end. It must be like painting yourself into a corner "No we can't claim that, it could be tested, be more oblique" Doesn't sound very satisfying to me, give me a decent particle accelerator any day I am wondering what examples of "evidence" you would consider proof of God. Certainly not an MRI showing how someone's brain is working. And certainly not anyone's vocalization of an experience of God. So how do you envision irrefutable evidence of God, other than some Being actually appearing before you? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > >"No sympathy for theology" is perhaps not the best phrase here. More to the >point would be "lack of curiosity as to what theologians are actually saying." >Classical theists do not claim there is any scientific evidence for God--could >not be, by definition. The demand for such by the New Atheists is a function >of the category error that pervades their arguments. > >>>stand the language that theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
"I would say Dawkins is right at one end of the continuum of human thought processing..." True, but knowledge, *is* structured in consciousness, so any deft thinker can make a case that justifies his or her limited view of the world. So what? It is like standing in front of the Sun, with eyes closed, and arrogantly proclaiming that the Universe has turned out the lights. Better to attempt to dance with the inexplicable, ime, vs. reaching a momentarily satisfying, but limited, and bitter conclusion - God never lets anyone off that easily.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
But Salyavin, I'd say Dawkins is like the rest of us, heading towards optimal development. Who knows what that is or what it would entail or appear like in general? And who knows how it would be for Dawkins? He can speculate about how he'd react to a mystical experience but until it actually happens, he doesn't really know. On Monday, February 17, 2014 11:05 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Yes, I would say Dawkins is right at one end of the continuum of human thought processing, the other end would some sort of new age bliss freak. I'm about two thirds towards RD even with TM, but I was a bit closer before. Richard Dawkins learned TM once but he wasn't impressed, I wonder what would have happened if he'd had an experience like I did when I learned that left me wandering about with a flower clasped in my hands smiling blissfully inanely at everyone I came across? He did say that if he had any mystical experience it would obviously be neuronal so he wouldn't get all religious about it but I'm sure it would arouse his curiosity into how our brains evolved the latent ability to have such a cool and personally enriching time when merely repeating a sanskrit word. The force stronger than logic? I guess there are loads and it would depend on the person, family pressure will keep people in a particular belief system. The fact something "makes sense" will override an idea that is all abstract - to some people anyway. Maybe if it's felt with the heart to be true or even if you just don't like someone who is presenting the idea. We are generally illogical about a lot of things without realising it. We tend to act first and rationalise later. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Salyavin, continuing in my same vein, I would say that if we hooked Dawkins up to an MRI machine, we'd see a very well developed part of the brain associated with logic. So, what is the force stronger than logic? Again, I think it's the human drive to be fully developed. I mean really fully and not just one time but on an ongoing basis. I think this is what drives both science and religion and every thing else too! Everybody wants to be optimally happy which means optimally developed. As I said before, some people are simply better observers and concluders with regards to what actually produces these optimal results! On Monday, February 17, 2014 9:46 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Behind with classical theism? Boy, that's a weird concept. I would say that all one needs to know about it is that it concerns a speculative set of theories about man and the universes origin. You don't have to get into the actual nitty gritty to know what they amount to - a way of looking at the world unencumbered by the need to provide evidence. To say they have been superceded by superior explanatory ideas is an understatement. You won't convince anyone who doesn't already want to believe it these days. Yet still they persist. Which is maybe just as well, it would be a boring sort of world if Richard Dawkins had his way but there are stronger human forces than logic. Unless someone would care to enlighten me about something I missed? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: You don't understand my definition, sorry. I keep being misled by how smart you are about other things, but you are so far behind and so resistant to learning anything about classical theism that I really don't know where to start explaining things to you. One assumes Roberts is a New Atheist because they use his argument all the time, mistakenly thinking it's a real killer. "Thou shalt have no other god but me" means, essentially, Thou shalt not believe in demiurges. Judy is not correct because most religious types would not agree that her definition of their beliefs is accurate. How would you know Roberts is a "new" athiest if you don't know who he is? "Thou shalt have no other god but me" Sound familiar? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: >>> >>> >>>Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is >>>not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they >>>have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that >>>theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
All I know about RD is that he wouldn't attach any god sounding things to it or any unified quantum field stuff. Funny if he did though and became another movement spokesman sitting next to Hagelin, Lynch and Brand. That'd be a coup for them. Least likely option though ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: But Salyavin, I'd say Dawkins is like the rest of us, heading towards optimal development. Who knows what that is or what it would entail or appear like in general? And who knows how it would be for Dawkins? He can speculate about how he'd react to a mystical experience but until it actually happens, he doesn't really know. On Monday, February 17, 2014 11:05 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Yes, I would say Dawkins is right at one end of the continuum of human thought processing, the other end would some sort of new age bliss freak. I'm about two thirds towards RD even with TM, but I was a bit closer before. Richard Dawkins learned TM once but he wasn't impressed, I wonder what would have happened if he'd had an experience like I did when I learned that left me wandering about with a flower clasped in my hands smiling blissfully inanely at everyone I came across? He did say that if he had any mystical experience it would obviously be neuronal so he wouldn't get all religious about it but I'm sure it would arouse his curiosity into how our brains evolved the latent ability to have such a cool and personally enriching time when merely repeating a sanskrit word. The force stronger than logic? I guess there are loads and it would depend on the person, family pressure will keep people in a particular belief system. The fact something "makes sense" will override an idea that is all abstract - to some people anyway. Maybe if it's felt with the heart to be true or even if you just don't like someone who is presenting the idea. We are generally illogical about a lot of things without realising it. We tend to act first and rationalise later. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Salyavin, continuing in my same vein, I would say that if we hooked Dawkins up to an MRI machine, we'd see a very well developed part of the brain associated with logic. So, what is the force stronger than logic? Again, I think it's the human drive to be fully developed. I mean really fully and not just one time but on an ongoing basis. I think this is what drives both science and religion and every thing else too! Everybody wants to be optimally happy which means optimally developed. As I said before, some people are simply better observers and concluders with regards to what actually produces these optimal results! On Monday, February 17, 2014 9:46 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Behind with classical theism? Boy, that's a weird concept. I would say that all one needs to know about it is that it concerns a speculative set of theories about man and the universes origin. You don't have to get into the actual nitty gritty to know what they amount to - a way of looking at the world unencumbered by the need to provide evidence. To say they have been superceded by superior explanatory ideas is an understatement. You won't convince anyone who doesn't already want to believe it these days. Yet still they persist. Which is maybe just as well, it would be a boring sort of world if Richard Dawkins had his way but there are stronger human forces than logic. Unless someone would care to enlighten me about something I missed? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: You don't understand my definition, sorry. I keep being misled by how smart you are about other things, but you are so far behind and so resistant to learning anything about classical theism that I really don't know where to start explaining things to you. One assumes Roberts is a New Atheist because they use his argument all the time, mistakenly thinking it's a real killer. "Thou shalt have no other god but me" means, essentially, Thou shalt not believe in demiurges. Judy is not correct because most religious types would not agree that her definition of their beliefs is accurate. How would you know Roberts is a "new" athiest if you don't know who he is? "Thou shalt have no other god but me" Sound familiar? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that "God" is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
