On Godliness

Not that speculative fiction really influences my personal philosophy, but in reading Bank's Matter I am reminded why I doubt rather than I am assured that there are no gods. If you believe in some sort of technological singularity, its easy to imagine how an intelligent entity such as a human bei

On Godliness

So how would you define your atheism? You phrase it like it's a belief. It's not. I spent a long time exploring my Christianity, and in the end found it empty. So I stopped believing. I do not believe in gods, ghosts, telepathy, bigfoot, bunyips or the loch ness monster. I think it likely o

Re: On Godliness

Doug Pensinger wrote: > And to those of you that are atheist; would you consider the possibility > that there may be entities in the universe, evolved from lower life forms > that could for all intents and purposes be considered gods? Well, anything can be a "possibility". So yes, I consider it a

Re: On Godliness

At 05:14 PM Sunday 2/24/2008, Doug Pensinger wrote: >So that set me to wondering; would those of you among us that are religious >consider the possibility that their supreme being(s) was at one time >something similar to what we are today? You are well over a century late with that conjecture ;)

Re: On Godliness

Ronn! > > > You are well over a century late with that conjecture ;): > > > > I made no claim concerning originality. from the website: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be So why would there only be one? Or is the

Re: On Godliness

Max wrote: Hi Max, welcome to the list. > > Well, anything can be a "possibility". So yes, I consider it a > possibility. But on the other hand, have we any evidence of higher life > forms? No. So I still don't believe in them either, be they > man-become-god or your average spaghetti-dinner-

Re: On Godliness

Doug Pensinger wrote: > Hi Max, welcome to the list. I'm not that new, I just post extremely infrequently, leaving me most months as nothing but a lurker. > If you were to shrink the a solar system with one planet full of > (ostensibly) intelligent beings to the size of an atom and place it in

Re: On Godliness

On 25/02/2008, at 10:14 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > > And to those of you that are atheist; would you consider the > possibility > that there may be entities in the universe, evolved from lower life > forms > that could for all intents and purposes be considered gods? Of course I consider the

Re: On Godliness

On 25/02/2008, at 5:15 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > > And my point is that any conclusion that we are unique in the > unimaginable > vastness that is the universe for lack of evidence overestimates the > utility > of our perspective. Well, we are going to be unique in the universe. Evolution i

RE: On Godliness

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug Pensinger > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 5:15 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: On Godliness > > Not that speculative fiction reall

Re: On Godliness

On Feb 24, 2008, at 9:09 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > Ronn! >> You are well over a century late with that conjecture ;): >> >> >> > I made no claim concerning originality. > > from the website: > > "As man now is, God once was: As God now

Re: On Godliness

On Feb 24, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > So that set me to wondering; would those of you among us that are > religious > consider the possibility that their supreme being(s) was at one time > something similar to what we are today? When I was religious, that was the only possibility

Re: On Godliness

Charlie wrote: > > Well, we are going to be unique in the universe. Evolution isn't going > to follow the same path twice (if snowflakes are all unique, then > intelligent life, which is much rarer, will be unique to a greater > degree...) However, most atheists I know who have any sort of science

Re: On Godliness

Max wrote: > I wrote: > > Sheesh, we can't even remember lessons learned from a war a few > decades > > ago and we're going to perfect godhood? 8^) > > Certainly we don't seem quite up to the challenge at the moment, but if > Kurzweil's tracking for the upcoming singularity is correct we may ha

Re: On Godliness

Charlie wrote: > > Of course I consider the possibility. In fact, given the size of the > universe, I'd be surprised if there weren't some sort of > transcendental or sublimed beings of mind or something. > > But that's a fair cry from saying that there's a being above and > outside the universe

Re: On Godliness

Warren wrote: > > > There's one god for Earth. Other planets each have their own gods. > > (That's not facetious; it's LDS doctrine.) > Inhabited planets? Do they the gods get the planets when they're undeveloped and tend them like gardens? How are they dolled out? Doug Pluto! WTF am I suppos

Re: On Godliness

On Feb 25, 2008, at 8:03 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > Warren wrote: >> >> There's one god for Earth. Other planets each have their own gods. >> >> (That's not facetious; it's LDS doctrine.) > > Inhabited planets? Do they the gods get the planets when they're > undeveloped and tend them like garde

Re: On Godliness

On Feb 25, 2008, at 9:03 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > Warren wrote: >> There's one god for Earth. Other planets each have their own gods. >> >> (That's not facetious; it's LDS doctrine.) > > Inhabited planets? Do they the gods get the planets when they're > undeveloped and tend them like gardens?

Re: On Godliness

Dan wrote: > > > Well, I think that type of god would be a very poor excuse for God. It > reduces God to the mundane, and removes the transcendental nature of God. Only to those that reach God's level of knowledge, eh? > > I think the question and the comments made within this thread of whate

Re: On Godliness

Warren wrote: > > > Thus, under LDS doctrine, if you remain righteous and are > "sealed" (married in a temple) to a spouse, when you and your spouse > ascend to the highest plane of heaven, you will be given your own > world to populate with your own spirit children born into mortal bodies. > Yi

Re: On Godliness

On 26/02/2008, at 2:32 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > Charlie wrote: > >> >> Well, we are going to be unique in the universe. Evolution isn't >> going >> to follow the same path twice (if snowflakes are all unique, then >> intelligent life, which is much rarer, will be unique to a greater >> degre

Re: On Godliness

On 26/02/2008, at 2:54 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > > > So how would you define your atheism? You phrase it like it's a belief. It's not. I spent a long time exploring my Christianity, and in the end found it empty. So I stopped believing. I do not believe in gods, ghosts, telepathy, bigfoot,

Re: On Godliness

On 26 Feb 2008, at 01:10, Dan M wrote: > So, given this state of the mundane, I hope you can see why I do not > believe > in a God rooted in the mundane. Neither do I. And I also don't believe in a god rooted in the transcendent :-) Or potting compost Maru. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EM

Re: On Godliness

William wrote: > > Dan M wrote: > > So, given this state of the mundane, I hope you can see why I do not > > believe > > in a God rooted in the mundane. > > Neither do I. And I also don't believe in a god rooted in the > transcendent :-) > > Or potting compost Maru. > Oh, I _so_ believe in potti