Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Big Bang totally unnecessary

[Share Long]

Love it, love it, love it. And here I thought it was just an idiotic TV show! 
Watch out for those subliminals, folks! They're everywhere (-:





On Thursday, December 12, 2013 9:38 PM, "anartax...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
Sherwood Schwartz, the creator of Gilligan's Island, said he patterned the 
'seven stranded castaways' after the seven deadly sins but he didn't admit it 
until years later in his book about the show. (There is that number '7' again, 
as in seven states of unconsciousness)

 The sins and their associated characters:

The Professor – Pride 
Thurston Howell III - Greed 
Ginger - Lust 
Mary Ann - Envy (of Ginger's looks) 
Mrs. Lovey Howell - Gluttony 
The Skipper - Anger
Gilligan – Sloth

Some have speculated that the castaways were in Hell and Gilligan, who always 
wore red, did all he could to ensure they stayed there by sabotaging their 
escape plots, thus Gilligan is Satan.

And everybody panned it as a dumb show.

Reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode where a man dies, goes to heaven and then 
gets totally bored by old folks talking about their vacation or something like 
that. Then he finds out this is not heaven, it's hell, and it lasts forever.


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:



>[Xeno]:
>It is really cold here, because I have the heat turned down to save $$. Maybe 
>I will make some hot cocoa and watch a totallyfrivolous TV show. 
>
>
>[Ann highlight and below]:
>Is that what one would term a redundant statement?
>
>There are occasionally TV shows with more depth, but you have to search around.


>
>
>
>
>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>>
>>
>>Barry,
>>
>>
>>It's logical to say that there is a Prime Mover if one reaches an infinite 
>>regression situation.  It isn't arbitrary.   Specifically, space and time are 
>>mental constructs.  They cannot exist without a Knower.  Without a Knower, 
>>there is NOTHING, NOWHERE, NOTIME.  How is it possible for the universe to 
>>start in the past and to exist as it is now?  As such, the Knower is the 
>>Prime Mover.
>>
>>
>>As a human being, you're supposed to find out and understand the world around 
>>us since you too are a knower.  You cannot force everyone to accept what you 
>>believe is true without making any inquiry-- scientific is the best--to get 
>>the right answer.  Otherwise, you become a dictator.
>>
>>
>>Although some church thinkers do not agree, there are some scientists who 
>>believe that it's possible to know what happened before the universe began.  
>>These include Roger Penrose, Michio Kaku and Leonard Susskind.  Are you 
>>criticizing these scientists for making an inquiry that you believe is 
>>unnecessary?
>>
>>
>>IMO, human beings are knowers and should use their full intelligence and 
>>reason to find out how the world works, including how the universe started, 
>>and if possible to know what happened before it started.  What is wrong with 
>>that?
>>
>>
>>There is no greater enjoyment and bliss than knowing the Truth.  If you enjoy 
>>your day today, there is nothing wrong with that.  But is it enough?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary

[doctordumbass]

I was thinking of it more in terms of say an 1823 sampler, on Antiques 
Roadshow. Cheers!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary

[Richard J. Williams]

Buddhists believe in many Buddhas and that in your essential nature you 
are a Buddha too.


On 12/11/2013 9:58 AM, Share Long wrote:

But Richard, do Buddhists believe in ONE supreme being?


On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 8:29 AM, Richard J. Williams 
 wrote:
It should be noted that Barry is the author of this thread, and that 
he sucks, when it comes to describing what Buddhists believe. Everyone 
knows that "Buddhas" are supernatural beings, not real people that can 
fly up in the air like Rama supposedly did.


All Buddhist believe in Buddhas - there's no denying this fact, 
otherwise they would not call themselves "Buddhists". Buddhists don't 
believe in a creation, but at the same time they don't believe that 
something can come out of nothing.


For an effect there has to be a cause. The Buddha taught Causation - 
everything that happens, happens for a reason - there are no chance 
events. Buddhists the world over believe in supernatural beings, but 
Buddhist don't believe these entities to be Buddhas - there are no 
enlightened beings in heaven, because the gods are not enlightened. Go 
figure.


On 12/11/2013 7:57 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
, "Richard J. Williams" wrote:

>
> This statement of Barry's is somewhat misleading - Buddhists are not
> atheists.

/*I won't get sucked into a debate with either Richard or Empty on 
this. I will only point out that trying to claim anything about "What 
Buddhists believe" is ludicrous.


Buddhism probably has more sects than Christianity. Each of them drew 
from local religions and traditions in the areas in which they sprung 
up, and some of them can be as different as night and day. Even 
though the historical Buddha would be as horrified by this as Jesus 
would be at some of the things taught "in his name," some sects even 
revere *him* as almost a God. He went out of his way to keep this 
from happening, but it happened anyway. Go figure.


The same is true with issues such as whether Buddhists believe in a 
God or not. Many do not believe in one sentient entity who "runs" 
things, although some sects seem to believe in sorta "demi-gods" who 
might exist on subtle planes and "run" limited aspects of creation. 
Few Buddhists I've ever met believe in a Creation, because they tend 
to believe that the universe was never created. Thus they have no 
need to posit a "Creator."


That's all. Now you can go back to arguing about things you'd like to 
believe can be "defined" well enough that someone could actually 
"win" an argument about them.  :-)



*/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary

[Share Long]

I mean, turq, maybe this is what God is really, the combined sentience, etc. 
BTW, yahoo is being wonky today so if I take to long to write a reply, it 
refreshes all by itself!





On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:41 AM, Share Long  
wrote:
 
  
Wow, turq, what the heck do you mean by: a form of chaotic controlled folly, 
"reality" being determined by nothing more (or less) than the combined 
sentience of all sentient beings in the universe. 



On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:11 AM, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
 
  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  s3raphita wrote:
>
> > Re I stayed out of the latest tempest-in-a-pisspot discussions of the Big 
> > Bang, and how REEEAAALLY  STOOOPID some people here think those who don't 
> > believe in it are,: 
> 
> 
>  I think it was the other way around. Ie, me saying how credulous people are 
> in *believing* in the Big Bang ie,  in believing the mass of 
> 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars could be squashed into a point when 
> there are other speculations like Fred Hoyle's steady-state theory which 
> don't require that Bang hypothesis. As cosmology is now having to get to 
> grips with dark energy (about which it hasn't a clue) it's all up for grabs 
> again. I'd love it if the Big Bang theory got overthrown just to see the 
> sheepish looks on the faces of those who've solemnly told us it was gospel 
> truth.

I think I was riffing more off of jr-esq's kneejerk putdowns of Stephen Hawking 
and anyone who doesn't believe in 1) a Big Bang and 2) that God was the banger. 
:-)

I'm just always amused at the kneejerk reactions to anyone (often moi, 
admittedly) who suggests
 that no such concept as "God" is necessary to explain the universe, or even 
the fairly simple belief that the universe has no beginning or end. I honestly 
think that many of the knee-jerkers can't get past their indoctrination early 
in life that there IS a God, damnit, and there WAS a Creation, damnit, becuz 
God said so, in one of those books He wrote. :-)

Me, I find the notion of an infinite, eternal universe with no "God" or 
intelligence behind it FAR more interesting and inspiring than I find the silly 
notion that it was all created by a "God." But then again, I have no need to 
believe that there is a "Plan" or a "Reason" for all of this -- for the 
universe, for the earth, or for each of us. I am completely comfortable with it 
all being a form of chaotic controlled folly, "reality" being determined by 
nothing more (or less) than the combined sentience of all sentient beings in 
the universe. 

But go figure. Some people get REALLY bent out of shape (like Ann just did) 
when someone believes something different than they believe. And when they get 
their panties in a twist over this, they tend to lash out. 

It happens. I tend to ignore it, because in my experience it tends to happen to 
people whose opinions I really couldn't give a shit about.  :-)

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary

[Share Long]

Wow, turq, what the heck do you mean by: a form of chaotic controlled folly, 
"reality" being determined by nothing more (or less) than the combined 
sentience of all sentient beings in the universe. 



On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:11 AM, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
 
  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  s3raphita wrote:
>
> > Re I stayed out of the latest tempest-in-a-pisspot discussions of the Big 
> > Bang, and how REEEAAALLY  STOOOPID some people here think those who don't 
> > believe in it are,: 
> 
> 
>  I think it was the other way around. Ie, me saying how credulous people are 
> in *believing* in the Big Bang ie,  in believing the mass of 
> 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars could be squashed into a point when 
> there are other speculations like Fred Hoyle's steady-state theory which 
> don't require that Bang hypothesis. As cosmology is now having to get to 
> grips with dark energy (about which it hasn't a clue) it's all up for grabs 
> again. I'd love it if the Big Bang theory got overthrown just to see the 
> sheepish looks on the faces of those who've solemnly told us it was gospel 
> truth.

I think I was riffing more off of jr-esq's kneejerk putdowns of Stephen Hawking 
and anyone who doesn't believe in 1) a Big Bang and 2) that God was the banger. 
:-)

I'm just always amused at the kneejerk reactions to anyone (often moi, 
admittedly) who suggests
 that no such concept as "God" is necessary to explain the universe, or even 
the fairly simple belief that the universe has no beginning or end. I honestly 
think that many of the knee-jerkers can't get past their indoctrination early 
in life that there IS a God, damnit, and there WAS a Creation, damnit, becuz 
God said so, in one of those books He wrote. :-)

Me, I find the notion of an infinite, eternal universe with no "God" or 
intelligence behind it FAR more interesting and inspiring than I find the silly 
notion that it was all created by a "God." But then again, I have no need to 
believe that there is a "Plan" or a "Reason" for all of this -- for the 
universe, for the earth, or for each of us. I am completely comfortable with it 
all being a form of chaotic controlled folly, "reality" being determined by 
nothing more (or less) than the combined sentience of all sentient beings in 
the universe. 

But go figure. Some people get REALLY bent out of shape (like Ann just did) 
when someone believes something different than they believe. And when they get 
their panties in a twist over this, they tend to lash out. 

It happens. I tend to ignore it, because in my experience it tends to happen to 
people whose opinions I really couldn't give a shit about.  :-)

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary

[Share Long]

Well, I thought it was a very tantric comment so I'd probably use the yin yang 
symbol rather than roses! And it kind of made turq the father of God!





On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:25 AM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
Maybe Share would make him one. ;-)

DoctorDumbass opined:

(I wrote:)


"God is widely conceived to be eternal, you dumb fuck."

Love it! This would be awesome, stitched into a sampler, with a border of roses 
around it - excellent!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary

[Share Long]

But Richard, do Buddhists believe in ONE supreme being?





On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 8:29 AM, Richard J. Williams 
 wrote:
 
  
It should be noted that Barry is the author of this thread, and that he sucks, 
when it comes to describing what Buddhists believe. Everyone knows that 
"Buddhas" are supernatural beings, not real people that can fly up in the air 
like Rama supposedly did. 

All Buddhist believe in Buddhas - there's no denying this fact,
  otherwise they would not call themselves "Buddhists". Buddhists
  don't believe in a creation, but at the same time they don't
  believe that something can come out of nothing. 

For an effect there has to be a cause. The Buddha taught Causation
  - everything that happens, happens for a reason - there are no
  chance events. Buddhists the world over believe in supernatural
  beings, but Buddhist don't believe these entities to be Buddhas -
  there are no enlightened beings in heaven, because the gods are
  not enlightened. Go figure.

On 12/11/2013 7:57 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:

  
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" wrote:
>>
>> This statement of Barry's is somewhat misleading -
  Buddhists are not 
>> atheists.
>
>I won't get sucked into a debate with either Richard or Empty on this. I will 
>only point out that trying to claim anything about "What Buddhists believe" is 
>ludicrous. 
>
>Buddhism probably has more sects than Christianity.
Each of them drew from local religions and
traditions in the areas in which they sprung up, and
some of them can be as different as night and day.
Even though the historical Buddha would be as
horrified by this as Jesus would be at some of the
things taught "in his name," some sects even revere
*him* as almost a God. He went out of his way to
keep this from happening, but it happened anyway. Go
figure. 
>
>The same is true with issues such as whether
Buddhists believe in a God or not. Many do not
believe in one sentient entity who "runs" things,
although some sects seem to believe in sorta
"demi-gods" who might exist on subtle planes and
"run" limited aspects of creation. Few Buddhists
I've ever met believe in a Creation, because they
tend to believe that the universe was never created.
Thus they have no need to posit a "Creator." 
>
>That's all. Now you can go back to arguing about
things you'd like to believe can be "defined" well
enough that someone could actually "win" an argument
about them.  :-)
>
>
> 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary

[Richard J. Williams]

Buddhists don't believe in "eternity", that would be considered an 
extreme view. Buddhists follow the Middle Way, believing neither in the 
extremes of eternalism or annihilationism. Buddhists ascribe to the view 
of dependent origination - everything happens for a reason - and that 
emptiness transcends opposite statements about existence.


On 12/11/2013 8:54 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


*/See what I mean about minds too small to conceive of eternity?

/*--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> Oh Barry, how you really hate the human race. You are constantly 
irritated and upset by how stupid everyone is and how different you 
are from the rest of the blathering, naive masses. The mere idea that 
you espouse of there having been no creation or creator and that those 
who believe in such silliness are simply too pathetic to live is 
giving me my first chuckle of the day. That is like saying the beer 
you buy at your local bar had no creator, was not created, always 
existed because by the time you get to your table and order it it just 
magically appears from some back room. You weren't there to witness 
the brewing, you didn't see who harvested the hops or who put it all 
in a big vat or who bottled it but you are drinking it nevertheless at 
that very moment just like you are living life at this very moment. 
You weren't there at the beginning of that either just like you 
weren't there for the brewing of the beer so what makes them 
different? It is like anyone who believes in some higher force or, 
horror of horrors, God makes them in some way simpletons. The 
inability to conceive of creation before it existed or to somehow be 
able to hold the possibility of a personal or even impersonal God in 
one's imagination or heart is the sign, IMO, of a very stunted, very 
poor man indeed. I don't need science or religion to tell me what is 
what. My experiences on this planet and, perhaps, elsewhere have 
allowed me glimpses of such a thing as a creator and what animates 
that force.

>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Big Bang totally unnecessary

[Richard J. Williams]

It should be noted that Barry is the author of this thread, and that he 
sucks, when it comes to describing what Buddhists believe. Everyone 
knows that "Buddhas" are supernatural beings, not real people that can 
fly up in the air like Rama supposedly did.


All Buddhist believe in Buddhas - there's no denying this fact, 
otherwise they would not call themselves "Buddhists". Buddhists don't 
believe in a creation, but at the same time they don't believe that 
something can come out of nothing.


For an effect there has to be a cause. The Buddha taught Causation - 
everything that happens, happens for a reason - there are no chance 
events. Buddhists the world over believe in supernatural beings, but 
Buddhist don't believe these entities to be Buddhas - there are no 
enlightened beings in heaven, because the gods are not enlightened. Go 
figure.


On 12/11/2013 7:57 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" wrote:
>
> This statement of Barry's is somewhat misleading - Buddhists are not
> atheists.

/*I won't get sucked into a debate with either Richard or Empty on 
this. I will only point out that trying to claim anything about "What 
Buddhists believe" is ludicrous.


Buddhism probably has more sects than Christianity. Each of them drew 
from local religions and traditions in the areas in which they sprung 
up, and some of them can be as different as night and day. Even though 
the historical Buddha would be as horrified by this as Jesus would be 
at some of the things taught "in his name," some sects even revere 
*him* as almost a God. He went out of his way to keep this from 
happening, but it happened anyway. Go figure.


The same is true with issues such as whether Buddhists believe in a 
God or not. Many do not believe in one sentient entity who "runs" 
things, although some sects seem to believe in sorta "demi-gods" who 
might exist on subtle planes and "run" limited aspects of creation. 
Few Buddhists I've ever met believe in a Creation, because they tend 
to believe that the universe was never created. Thus they have no need 
to posit a "Creator."


That's all. Now you can go back to arguing about things you'd like to 
believe can be "defined" well enough that someone could actually "win" 
an argument about them.  :-)



*/