Atheist and Labels in General
Gary Eickmeier
can't prove a negative, so you can't prove God does not exist, so you have
to just believe that. My response, of course, is that I don't have to prove
anything, it is up to him to prove theism.
So my thought is that no one is authorized to call anyone an "atheist,"
because without a "theist" there is nothing to "a." In other words, if I do
not believe in Harvey the invisible rabbit, does anyone have a right to
label me an aharveyist? Unless and until Harvey has been proven, there is
nothing to not believe in.
Talk amongst yourselves.....
Gary Eickmeier
Patok
> A friend Emailed me with his message that atheism is a faith, because you
> can't prove a negative, so you can't prove God does not exist, so you have
> to just believe that. My response, of course, is that I don't have to prove
> anything, it is up to him to prove theism.
Actually, it doesn't work exactly like that. If we're talking about
scientific proof here, the procedure is:
- Propose a theory that matches the observable facts
= if a fact can be found to contradict (falsify) the theory, that theory is
withdrawn, and a new one is proposed, that matches all facts. This is the
accepted truth for the time being, but is not "proven" in the strict sense,
because it can be superseded and improved as new facts come in.
- If a theory cannot be falsified in principle, it is not scientific
Thus, theories of existence are not scientific, because they cannot be
falsified. "God exists" is such a theory - if God decides to behave as usual,
and act as if it didn't exist, there's no way to falsify that statement. On the
other hand, "God does not exist" is a scientific theory, because it is very easy
to disprove, should God decide to appear.
> So my thought is that no one is authorized to call anyone an "atheist,"
> because without a "theist" there is nothing to "a." In other words, if I do
> not believe in Harvey the invisible rabbit, does anyone have a right to
> label me an aharveyist? Unless and until Harvey has been proven, there is
> nothing to not believe in.
Isn't the definition a little different? I think that "atheists" are those
who believe that God does not exist. Those that do not believe that God exists,
are called agnostics, I think. In that sense, those who claim that atheism is a
faith, have a minor point.
--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
*
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.
Gary Eickmeier
"Patok" <crazy.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ijp8qi$cvn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Some great points Patok. But using the Harvey example, just because some
poor drunk bastard declares that his companion, Harvey the invisible rabbit,
exists, and he has a personal relationship with him - does that then entitle
him to call everyone else an aharveyist? Or should we in fairness become
agnostics, because some day Harvey the invisible rabbit might appear? But he
is invisible and inaudible, so he can't appear, by definition.
Prattling on here. I suppose if you define God as omnipotent, then he could
appear in some form and talk to us. But I am not going to believe in stories
that he has done so; we can see these stories happening right now in real
time, and that they are springing from the fertile imagination.
As for the labeling, as I grew up there were just two kinds of people,
Catholics and non Catholics. Now I ask you, what right did they have to
label people for not believing their religion? Am I a non Muslim? Screw
that. They can be what they want, and if I am not one yet, that doesn't
label me as their apostate.
Getting back to your theory discussion, I agree on your definitions. So God
cannot be proposed as a scientific theory, because it is only a
philosophical concept, not based on any observable facts or events. So to
label some people as non believers is a non-starter. Language wise, which is
the basis of this group, the term should not exist. Don't let them define
the argument.
A similar situation is found in the abortion rights battle. Some want to
define it as pro abortion vs pro life. I submit that no one has argued that
everyone has to have an abortion, nor is anyone against life. So those are
not the two sides of the argument. It is about whether or not women have the
choice of an abortion. Therefore, the two sides are pro choice and anti
choice.
There are no atheists unless we let them define the argument.
So how am I doing?
Gary Eickmeier
graham
"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:96U7p.96789$mV4....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
demons etc.
Graham
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
From my point of view as an agnostic some atheists appear to have a very
firm belief that there is no god, etc.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
Gary Eickmeier
"Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:4op0m61j9ac1hhufk...@4ax.com...
> From my point of view as an agnostic some atheists appear to have a very
> firm belief that there is no god, etc.
>
I always joke that I am an agnostic - haven't got enough faith to be an
atheist.
Patok makes a great distinction. He says believing that there is no God is
atheism; not believing that there is a God is agnosticism.
Gary Eickmeier
Steve Hayes
Theist is a back formation from atheist.
An Atheist is someone who is without god(s). You don't have to do anything or
have faith in anyhing to be atheist, just ignore God or gods. It's an entirely
passibe thing.
There are militant atheists, which is a somewhat different thing. They think
everyone should be atheist, and so actively proselytise for the atheist cause
(and thus turn it into a cause). They are active as opposed to passive.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
GFH
> A friend Emailed me with his message that atheism is a faith, because you
> can't prove a negative, so you can't prove God does not exist, so you have
> to just believe that. My response, of course, is that I don't have to prove
> anything, it is up to him to prove theism.
I cannot prove that God exists, but you cannot prove that God does
exist. God seem to me to be one of the least likely of the possible
explanations.
Keep in mind that the God myth is the source of income for the
leaders of that God.
Global warming is the new religion; Al Gore is its "St. Peter". He
has made hundreds of millions from this scam.
GFH
Lord, please protect me from your people.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
Al Gore does not control the climate. Whether or not he is scamming will
have no effect on climate change.
Gary Eickmeier
> Al Gore does not control the climate. Whether or not he is scamming will
> have no effect on climate change.
>
Granted. Nothing will have much effect on climate change. But the "Carbon
Credits Exchange" and what they want to do will have a great effect on the
economies of the world, if they buy into the scam. Which is, of course, the
scammers' goal.
And yes, GFH is correct, human-caused global warming has become received
truth by repetition, to the point of political correctness and children's
folklore. Like faith.
Gary Eickmeier
GFH
wrote:
> >Lord, please protect me from your people.
>
> Al Gore does not control the climate. Whether or not he is scamming will
> have no effect on climate change.
No, not the climate, but your lifestyle. He wants you to sacrifice to
his
god. He has gotten governments to enforce this sacrifice.
Review of recent climate:
Roman Warm Period
Dark Ages
Medieval Warm Period
Little Ice Age
Modern Warm Period
If past trends hold, we are about half way through the
Modern Warm Period.
Warm periods are eras of steadily improving prosperity.
Cold periods are eras of hardship, famine, plague.
God wants you to suffer and sacrifice, so you will
praise him.
Give me a break.
GFH
Damaeus
Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:22:09 -0500 the following:
> Thus, theories of existence are not scientific, because they cannot be
> falsified. "God exists" is such a theory - if God decides to behave as
> usual, and act as if it didn't exist, there's no way to falsify that
> statement. On the other hand, "God does not exist" is a scientific
> theory, because it is very easy to disprove, should God decide to
> appear.
There is another explanation. Everything that has happened in the
universe only happened because God exists. Since we are 100% immersed in
all the evidence for the existence of God, and since all evidence against
the existence of God is impossible, there is no observable contrast to
differentiate between a universe with God and a universe without God. So
it becomes a matter of simple disbelief on the part of atheists. They
disbelieve God because what believers see as evidence for God, atheists
see as natural processes, even if those natural processes could not even
take place without the mere existence of God.
To quote Albert Einstein:
“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the
orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns
himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
Albert Einstein, upon being asked if he believed in God by
Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New
York, April 24, 1921, published in the New York Times, April
25, 1929; from Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W.
Clark, New York: World Publishing Co., 1971, p. 413; also
cited as a telegram to a Jewish newspaper, 1929, Einstein
Archive 33-272, from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded
Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 2000, p. 204.
Damaeus
Damaeus
posted on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:07:58 -0500 the following:
I don't see what the distinction actually is. Both of them conclude that
there is ultimately no God. Whether you believe there is no God, or you
don't believe there is a God, the result is the same.
Besides, agnostics believe that one cannot actually know whether or not
there is a God. Agnostics, then, take on a wait-and-see approach.
Atheists seem to have their minds made up: there is no God. While I do
believe there is a God, I appreciate the flexibility that comes with
agnosticism. Agnosticism is a more intelligent approach because it allows
for open-minded flexibility when analyzing new data. Atheists reject God
first, and then analyze data from that perspective. An agnostic, then,
can have God proven to him more easily. It would take a more
extraordinary event to prove God to an atheist.
Damaeus
Damaeus
Feb 2011 05:27:46 -0800 (PST) the following:
> On Feb 19, 1:38 pm, "Gary Eickmeier" <geick...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > A friend Emailed me with his message that atheism is a faith, because
> > you can't prove a negative, so you can't prove God does not exist, so
> > you have to just believe that. My response, of course, is that I don't
> > have to prove anything, it is up to him to prove theism.
>
> I cannot prove that God exists, but you cannot prove that God does
> exist. God seem to me to be one of the least likely of the possible
> explanations.
If there is a God, then everything that exists is proof of God's
existence. Without the contrast of knowing the nature of a Godless
universe, you're blind to a comparison between universes that would allow
you to say that God exists in universe B, but doesn't exist in universe A.
If this universe has a God or doesn't have one, the alternate universe
would be quite different. If there was no God, I don't believe "humans"
would have advanced so quickly technologically, culturally and socially
above all other animals. We would still be swinging through the jungle
like gorillas and chimpanzees, not flying space shuttles into Earth's
orbit. This acceleration of humans is known as The Quickening. No other
animals have been quickened or cockroaches and aardvarks would be cheering
football teams just like humans.
> Keep in mind that the God myth is the source of income for the leaders
> of that God.
Since people make money off the idea that God exists, that makes God a
myth? That's not a good disproof.
> Global warming is the new religion; Al Gore is its "St. Peter". He has
> made hundreds of millions from this scam.
That just proves that some people have no shame and will do anything for
money, no matter what they look like doing it.
Damaeus
Damaeus
Feb 2011 06:14:23 -0800 (PST) the following:
> God wants you to suffer and sacrifice, so you will
> praise him.
>
> Give me a break.
People's silly ideas about God, however, do not disprove the existence of
God. If God has never actually communicated directly with humans, but
instead allowed the energy potentials of reality itself to reflect toward
humans clues about the state of their own minds, then things like burning
bushes were not the will of God. They were hallucinations of man,
generated by man's own ability to affect nature, that resulted in devout
pronouncements of faith in God: "I saw a burning bush and it talked to
me! God is real!"
So the actual God may not actually want people to suffer and sacrifice so
he can get praise. God may have simply started a process that he,
himself, cannot actually intervene in. So God suffers seeing his people
wander around in blind ignorance, but knows that ultimately, this is the
best way for people to find their own way—not that it matters since God
set the universe up, himself, to prevent his own, direct interference.
Perhaps God knew that he actually did love the people so much that he
would want to come down and show them every little trick in the book. But
then God would end up a slave to his own people and he didn't want that,
either, nor did he want to rule them with an iron fist. He wanted
sovereignty for every individual, and sovereignty for himself, too. The
only way to achieve that was to temporarily separate humans from himself.
So the perception of some says that God is a mean, evil bastard who lets
all this crap happen because he has it in for us and wants us all to
suffer as a result of our own, ignorant actions. That might be how it
seems to some, but there's nothing anybody can do about it right now.
We're just riding out the time.
Damaeus
Patok
> In news:alt.english.usage, "Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com>
> posted on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:07:58 -0500 the following:
>
>> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
>> news:4op0m61j9ac1hhufk...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> From my point of view as an agnostic some atheists appear to have a very
>>> firm belief that there is no god, etc.
>> I always joke that I am an agnostic - haven't got enough faith to be an
>> atheist.
>>
>> Patok makes a great distinction. He says believing that there is no God is
>> atheism; not believing that there is a God is agnosticism.
>
> I don't see what the distinction actually is. Both of them conclude that
> there is ultimately no God. Whether you believe there is no God, or you
> don't believe there is a God, the result is the same.
No, you're wrong. When you believe there is no god, you're certain of it.
That's what is usually labeled "atheist".
When you don't believe there is a god, you're not certain about it. You allow
that there might be one after all; there is just no evidence about it so far.
The scientific approach I was mentioning earlier is essentially an "agnostic"
one. The scientific theory "God does not exist" allows for a change, should a
god manifest itself. In contrast, the atheist belief that there is no god,
allows no such change; it is firm. Can you understand the difference now?
> Besides, agnostics believe that one cannot actually know whether or not
> there is a God. Agnostics, then, take on a wait-and-see approach.
> Atheists seem to have their minds made up: there is no God. While I do
> believe there is a God, I appreciate the flexibility that comes with
> agnosticism. Agnosticism is a more intelligent approach because it allows
> for open-minded flexibility when analyzing new data. Atheists reject God
> first, and then analyze data from that perspective. An agnostic, then,
> can have God proven to him more easily. It would take a more
> extraordinary event to prove God to an atheist.
OK, so why did you write the first passage, when I see that you do understand
the difference after all? It is not insignificant, no matter what you may think.
Being religious, you may not appreciate it, the way someone thinking himself
alive would dismiss the difference between two people that have died of two
different causes. However, the analogy breaks down, because it is not true that
the religious are alive while the the others are dead.
My only objection is that the "cannot actually know" qualification applies to
the philosophical meaning of the term only. That is, only in philosophy is
"agnosticism" used to denote the inability to know. In practice, as applied to
religious beliefs, the common meaning of "agnosticism" is what I wrote.
I'll try to get back to the other points you make in your other posts if I
have time later. For now, I'm curious how you would label my personal beliefs. I
think of myself as agnostic, because I don't believe a god exists - I see no
evidence for such in what we know about the the history of the universe, Earth
and humankind. However, I think that one may exist; if so, it just chose to not
reveal itself. What I am certain of, is that if it exists, it has nothing to do
with the depictions in the holy books of the major religions. That is, I firmly
believe that the Bible, Koran etc., are just anthologies of fantasy and folk
tales - there's nothing even remotely true in them. God, if it exists, is in no
manner or form related to those tall tales. It might be an alien being that has
created our universe in a physics experiment. Or we may all be a simulation in
its supercomputer, where it runs a genetic algorithm to evolve the ultimate
intelligence. Or it might be a simulation of me only, while all of the rest of
you are just props to drive my thinking, and have no independent existence. :)
So am I agnostic, or atheist?
GordonD
news:8c39m652457sdqk1g...@4ax.com...
> So the perception of some says that God is a mean, evil bastard who lets
> all this crap happen because he has it in for us and wants us all to
> suffer as a result of our own, ignorant actions.
Looking at New Zealand at the moment, it's easy to see why some might think
that way.
So either god is a mean evil bastard or it doesn't exist.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>"Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
>news:8c39m652457sdqk1g...@4ax.com...
>
>> So the perception of some says that God is a mean, evil bastard who lets
>> all this crap happen because he has it in for us and wants us all to
>> suffer as a result of our own, ignorant actions.
>
>Looking at New Zealand at the moment, it's easy to see why some might think
>that way.
>
>So either god is a mean evil bastard or it doesn't exist.
Or we reject the notion that things that happen in the natural world are
deliberately directed at human by some sentient controlling being.
Of course, if we want to blame a sentient being, or beings, we need look
no further than those humans who continue to live in places where
natural disasters are particularly likely to occur.
CDB
> "Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> posted:
>> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>
>>> From my point of view as an agnostic some atheists appear to have
>>> a very firm belief that there is no god, etc.
>>
>> I always joke that I am an agnostic - haven't got enough faith to
>> be an atheist.
>>
>> Patok makes a great distinction. He says believing that there is
>> no God is atheism; not believing that there is a God is
>> agnosticism.
>
> I don't see what the distinction actually is. Both of them
> conclude that there is ultimately no God. Whether you believe
> there is no God, or you don't believe there is a God, the result is
> the same.
>>
like, want, etc.) that transfer the negative to their objects. "I
don't believe that there is any use in discussing this" is how we
usually say "I believe that there is no use in discussing this." If
you want to say that someone has no belief in the existence of God,
without having any belief in God's non-existence, you have to dance
around the idea the way I just did.
>>
On the basis of your other posts, I think your idea of God is far too
human. IMH*O, we are not the centre of anything. Would you permit a
personal question? I've been wondering if you remember the 'sixties.
>>
*True, for once. I was watching NCIS:LA, or some such title, last
night -- the one with LL Cool J and Linda Hunt -- where they made a
running joke of the "humble brag". Not a new thing, of course
(Groucho always told me I was a terrible name-dropper), but apparently
new and big in the twitterverse.
>>
"A friend of mine who's an editor at The Onion emailed me about humble
brag the other day. I had to admit I'd never encountered it before
(well, he hadn't either)-perhaps because my exposure to social
networking media has been fairly limited and, as Todd said, "it's used
a lot in Twitter/Facebook/texting/smart phone culture." Humble brag-it
sounded rather endearing, perhaps a strategy for dealing with that
position most of us have found ourselves in at least occasionally,
when we've done something we're proud of and want the world to know
about, but don't want to seem immodest or crass."
>>
http://wwword.com/1602/words/new-word-expression/humble-brag/
>>
> [soft underbelly of atheism]
Jack Campin
>> lets all this crap happen because he has it in for us and wants us
>> all to suffer as a result of our own, ignorant actions.
> Looking at New Zealand at the moment, it's easy to see why some might
> think that way.
It looks from the damage photos that God is most interested in smiting
his own worshippers. Churches got hit the worst in the September quake
too.
Looks as if it would please Him better if you bashed yourself on the
head with a brick when praying.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
GordonD
news:bogus-805F18....@albasani.net...
>>> So the perception of some says that God is a mean, evil bastard who
>>> lets all this crap happen because he has it in for us and wants us
>>> all to suffer as a result of our own, ignorant actions.
>> Looking at New Zealand at the moment, it's easy to see why some might
>> think that way.
>
> It looks from the damage photos that God is most interested in smiting
> his own worshippers. Churches got hit the worst in the September quake
> too.
Isaac Asimov pointed out in one of his science essays that when the
lightning conductor was invented, many churches refused to have one
installed, because it would be against the will of God. Since the church
spire was often the highest point in town, it would continue to be struck
when the local brothel (which had fitted a conductor) survived unscathed.
Gary Eickmeier
"Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> Everything that has happened in the
> universe only happened because God exists.
Where did this come from?
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
"Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> If there is a God, then everything that exists is proof of God's
> existence.
WTF?
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
"GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ik3qb5$jov$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Isaac Asimov pointed out in one of his science essays that when the
> lightning conductor was invented, many churches refused to have one
> installed, because it would be against the will of God. Since the church
> spire was often the highest point in town, it would continue to be struck
> when the local brothel (which had fitted a conductor) survived unscathed.
I'm still waiting to learn which mountain has been moved by faith. They
never say.
Gary Eickmeier
Damaeus
Well, if atheists can assume and conclude that there is no God, I figured
it's only fair that I assume and conclude the opposite. Atheists seem to
be claiming that all this happened and God wasn't necessary. But if God
actually was necessary, then this all happened under God's watch, and
atheists simply see no evidence for it. That would mean that atheists are
wrong, but they have yet to realize that.
The atheist is like a chimpanzee sitting on a rock, looking into space. To
the chimp, without sufficient perception of depth, the sky is just up
there and it's got dots of light on it. The chimp has no idea that he
could travel through all that space and find that a constellation is
actually a three-dimensional arrangement of stars. But the chimp can't
get evidence for that because he's stuck on Earth and can't gain a
perception of depth that would indicate that it's even possible to travel
in space. Yet we, as humas, know that space is three-dimensional because
we have satisfying evidence. If we could have a conversation with the
chimp, we could tell him what we've seen in space, but like an atheist, he
would not believe us, because to him, our stories are anecdotal and he
does not accept anecdotes as evidence. So the chimp goes on disbelieving
something that is very true, and all the humans can do is just let him
have his way and revel in his ignorance.
That said, some believers in God do seem to believe on faith, and some
even believe out of fear of going to Hell. But there are those who
believe after years of atheism and/or agnosticism. Those are the types
who didn't believe because they were scared not to, or because it just
sounded good to them. Something happened in their lives that proved the
existence of God to them, and they now believe God is real, while their
old atheist friends have said about them, "Well, one day his mind just
snapped and he became delusional."
At least my view leaves a space opened in my mind to include things that
might actually turn out to be true, while atheists seem to have made their
minds up before all the cards have been dealt. They assume certain cards
don't exist, so the boundaries of their realm of thought are finite. If
you include God and infinite possibilities, your boundaries of thought
become infinite.
So what it boils down to is that atheists have a fear of self-delusion.
They are afraid to believe anything that's false, so they steadfastly
remain glued to the ideas and theories that have the heaviest physical
evidence. Since the atheist first believes that there is no God, any
evidence for God that is accepted by someone who believes God exists is
immediately rejected by the atheist simply because it appears that the
believer is accepting as evidence something that doesn't qualify as
evidence under the rules of science. One who has come to believe in God
has looser standards for evidence because believers in a God of infinite
or beyond-infinite power realize that divine communication can come in
forms that are not acceptable to atheists or scientists as evidence. If a
believer in God has a vision, it's evidence. If an atheist hears about
it, he calls it a hallucination leading to delusion. If a chimpanzee
believes the starry night sky contains dots of light of different sizes
that are all equidistant from Earth, he is the one who is mistaken, which
is why it looks rather sad to the people who have actually seen enough of
the cosmos to realize that the chimp is wrong.
Damaeus
GordonD
> In news:alt.english.usage, "Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com>
> posted on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 07:52:11 -0500 the following:
>
>> "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:pp19m6p3mknkcdq5u...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > Everything that has happened in the universe only happened because God
>> > exists.
>>
>> Where did this come from?
>
> Well, if atheists can assume and conclude that there is no God, I figured
> it's only fair that I assume and conclude the opposite. Atheists seem to
> be claiming that all this happened and God wasn't necessary. But if God
> actually was necessary, then this all happened under God's watch, and
> atheists simply see no evidence for it. That would mean that atheists are
> wrong, but they have yet to realize that.
You claim a god was necessary.
Prove it.
Damaeus
> Damaeus wrote:
> > In news:alt.english.usage, "Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com>
> > posted on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:07:58 -0500 the following:
> >
> > > "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
> > > news:4op0m61j9ac1hhufk...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > > From my point of view as an agnostic some atheists appear to have
> > > > a very firm belief that there is no god, etc.
> > > I always joke that I am an agnostic - haven't got enough faith to be
> > > an atheist.
> > >
> > > Patok makes a great distinction. He says believing that there is no
> > > God is atheism; not believing that there is a God is agnosticism.
> >
> > I don't see what the distinction actually is. Both of them conclude that
> > there is ultimately no God. Whether you believe there is no God, or you
> > don't believe there is a God, the result is the same.
>
> No, you're wrong.
[separation from the next paragraph mine]
> When you believe there is no god, you're certain of it. That's what is
> usually labeled "atheist".
I agree with that.
> When you don't believe there is a god, you're not certain about it.
It sounds pretty certain to me: "I don't believe there is a God." That
means just what it says. I don't believe there is a God. I believe not
that there is a God. What you're describing is agnostic atheism, not
plain old agnosticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
If I say "I believe there is a god", it means just what it says: I believe
there's a God. It doesn't mean that I think there might be one. To
believe something means to accept that it is true.
I believe there is no God.
I do not believe God exists.
Both of those statements have a negative: "no" in the first, "not" in the
second.
I believe there is not a God.
I do not believe there is a God.
> You allow that there might be one after all; there is just no evidence
> about it so far.
If you're agnostic, why not say "I believe there might be a God", "I
believe there might not be a God", "I don't believe God is necessary", "I
don't think there's a God", or "I think there might be a God"? Those
convey uncertainty and a wait-and-see attitude much better than "I don't
believe there is a God". "I don't believe there is a God" sounds
downright atheistic to me.
Doesn't it sound theistic to say "I believe there is a God"? Why wouldn't
that statement be made opposite (atheistic) by adding "do not" to it?
> The scientific approach I was mentioning earlier is essentially an
> "agnostic" one. The scientific theory "God does not exist" allows for a
> change, should a god manifest itself. In contrast, the atheist belief
> that there is no god, allows no such change; it is firm. Can you
> understand the difference now?
I understand something, but I don't think it's something you'd want me to
understand. I'm not trying to be rude, you see. I just don't think
you're using English very effectively in your distinguisment between
atheism and agnosticism. In the dictionary I use, agnosticism says that
the existence of God is unknowable.
agnostic
a person who believes that the human mind cannot know
whether there is a God or an ultimate cause, or
anything beyond material phenomena
It would be strange for an agnostic to say he doesn't believe there is a
God when he also believes that is unknowable. It would make more sense
for him to say, I think there might be a God [but since I can't know, I
can't make a definite statement one way or the other].
> > Besides, agnostics believe that one cannot actually know whether or
> > not there is a God. Agnostics, then, take on a wait-and-see approach.
> > Atheists seem to have their minds made up: there is no God. While I do
> > believe there is a God, I appreciate the flexibility that comes with
> > agnosticism. Agnosticism is a more intelligent approach because it
> > allows for open-minded flexibility when analyzing new data. Atheists
> > reject God first, and then analyze data from that perspective. An
> > agnostic, then, can have God proven to him more easily. It would take
> > a more extraordinary event to prove God to an atheist.
>
> OK, so why did you write the first passage, when I see that you do
> understand the difference after all?
Because I was pointing out that I don't see why you think there's a
difference between "I believe there is no God" and "I don't believe there
is a God". Whether one is agnostic or atheistic, if sufficient evidence
surfaces, belief in God can come about. An agnostic, however, would be
more easily pulled to the side of belief, while it would take more to
satisfy an atheist.
> It is not insignificant, no matter what you may think. Being religious,
What makes you think I'm religious? I may believe there is a God, but
that doesn't make me religious. One can believe in God without following
a religion of any kind.
There's an atheist guy I chat with a lot over instant messaging. He
believes that both belief in God and adherence to religion are marks of
the lowest forms of human intelligence. He knows I believe there's a God,
and when I inform him that belief in God does not make a person religious,
he angrily tells me, "Yes, religion indeed. No getting around that, sorry.
God belief = religion, didn't you know that?"
How odd it is that one who thinks belief in God is stupid claims to know
more about the topic than I do. He even claims to know more about the
meaning of scripture than I. Of course, he claims to know more than I do
about almost everything, so since I don't like arguing with him, I usually
just let him have his way while I sit and wait for him to get through
venting.
> you may not appreciate it, the way someone thinking himself alive would
> dismiss the difference between two people that have died of two
> different causes. However, the analogy breaks down, because it is not
> true that the religious are alive while the the others are dead.
>
> My only objection is that the "cannot actually know" qualification
> applies to the philosophical meaning of the term only. That is, only in
> philosophy is "agnosticism" used to denote the inability to know. In
> practice, as applied to religious beliefs, the common meaning of
> "agnosticism" is what I wrote.
Well the meaning you conveyed certainly exists nowhere in my dictionary.
Again, what you wrote is the meaning of agnostic atheism.
What classification a person falls under depends on his degree of
confidence in the existence of God:
Atheists: No God, period.
Agnostic Atheists: Doesn't believe in God, but can't know for sure.
Agnostics: There might be a God, but can't really know.
Agnostic Theists: Believes there's a God, but can't know what it's like.
Theists: Believes there's a God.
> I'll try to get back to the other points you make in your other posts if
> I have time later. For now, I'm curious how you would label my personal
> beliefs. I think of myself as agnostic, because I don't believe a god
> exists - I see no evidence for such in what we know about the the
> history of the universe, Earth and humankind. However, I think that one
> may exist; if so, it just chose to not reveal itself.
Then you're not agnostic. You're an agnostic atheist.
> What I am certain of, is that if it exists, it has nothing to do with
> the depictions in the holy books of the major religions. That is, I
> firmly believe that the Bible, Koran etc., are just anthologies of
> fantasy and folk tales - there's nothing even remotely true in them.
So then you believe that even if there is a God, we will never see eternal
life? Eternal life is a Biblical principle.
1 Corinthians 15: [52] In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,
at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead
shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. [53] For
this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must
put on immortality. [54] So when this corruptible shall have put
on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality,
then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death
is swallowed up in victory. [55] O death, where is thy sting? O
grave, where is thy victory?
I believe I have discovered how it can actually happen via the exponential
acceleration of the expansion of the universe to a point where, in the
twinkling of an eye, it fills all of infinity.
> God, if it exists, is in no manner or form related to those tall tales.
> It might be an alien being that has created our universe in a physics
> experiment.
In my way of seeing things, the existence of God is more likely than the
existence of aliens. The way I see the universe, we live in the area very
close to where the "big bang" (how inelegant) began. So in all of the
universe, the one place where life is most likely to be found is right
here. One could assume I mean the Milky Way, given the size of this
galaxy compared to the rest of the universe, but I actually believe this
planet is the only planet in the entire universe with life on it.
> Or we may all be a simulation in its supercomputer, where it runs a
> genetic algorithm to evolve the ultimate intelligence. Or it might be a
> simulation of me only, while all of the rest of you are just props to
> drive my thinking, and have no independent existence. :)
>
> So am I agnostic, or atheist?
Agnostic atheist with a science-fiction slant.
I figure this thread might continue for a while, so instead of spilling
all my beans at once, I figured I'd let this post float as it is. I'll
reply again if there's more interest. I do love thread drift.
Damaeus
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Believing is less than knowing.
"There might be a God" = the existence of a God is compatible with the
available evidence, but there might not be a God.
"I believe there is a God" = the available evidence convinces me that
there is very likely to be a God. I choose to accept that there is a
God.
"I know that there is a God" = the available evidence is incompatible
with the non-existence of a God.
In everday life as well as in science we use the phrase "I believe <such
and such>" to indicate probability rather that complete certainty.
Damaeus
23 Feb 2011 08:39:57 -0500 the following:
> Damaeus wrote:
> > "Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> posted:
> >> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> From my point of view as an agnostic some atheists appear to have
> >>> a very firm belief that there is no god, etc.
> >>
> >> I always joke that I am an agnostic - haven't got enough faith to
> >> be an atheist.
> >>
> >> Patok makes a great distinction. He says believing that there is
> >> no God is atheism; not believing that there is a God is
> >> agnosticism.
> >
> > I don't see what the distinction actually is. Both of them
> > conclude that there is ultimately no God. Whether you believe
> > there is no God, or you don't believe there is a God, the result is
> > the same.
> >>
> That is an actual ObAEU point:
ObAEU?
> "believe"is one of those verbs (think, like, want, etc.) that transfer
> the negative to their objects. "I don't believe that there is any use in
> discussing this" is how we usually say "I believe that there is no use
> in discussing this." If you want to say that someone has no belief in
> the existence of God, without having any belief in God's non-existence,
> you have to dance around the idea the way I just did.
If someone has no belief in the existence of God without having belief in
God's non-existence, he would be believing two opposing things at the same
time: both belief, and non-belief in the existence of God.
> On the basis of your other posts, I think your idea of God is far too
> human.
Really? I believe God wants you to live forever in perfect sovereignty,
to explore the infinite universe at your leisure and do what you want to
do, when you want to do it, and how you want to do it. Why? Well, why
not? If God created us to live forever, he certainly wouldn't have
created us to be an annoyance to him—people he would have to admonish and
correct for all eternity. He would create us to be a pleasure to him, to
each other, and to ourselves. That we're not quite there yet as a whole
species reveals why we're not immortal yet. So people want others to die.
In a universe destined to fulfill wishes, no wonder it's a good idea for
people to relax, be nice, and patiently wait while the universe continues
expanding and relieving the molecular vibration that distorts thoughts.
Our brains are made of molecules, you see, which only vibrate because the
fabric of space is being compressed by an infinite universe that's been
crushed in to a finite space. Fortunately that finite space is expanding,
not contracting, so we're on the way home. And the universe's expansion
is accelerating. All we have to do is wait.
If my idea of God were too human, he'd be a mean, old authoritarian
asshole who wants to run your life for you and tell you where to live, how
to live, how long you should work, and whether your life is important
enough to give you the right to the best medical care. But not only does
God not want to treat you like that, humans have taken it upon themselves
to speak on God's behalf and tell everybody what he expects. I guess
maybe they are not too certain it's the correct way, so they avoid
admitting that they're really the mean and authoritarian ones by just
telling you it's what God wants, and that by "helping you life your life
correctly", they're helping you avoid going to Hell.
In my view, if humans are going to be immortal, they would fit the
description of the first paragraph below the last quote. If immortals are
going to be called "Human", that means that the people who fit the
description of the last paragraph are subhuman. But since the universe is
still expanding, it's not yet complete. It's a work in progress, and so
are we. Once our thoughts are no longer distorted by the vibrations of
the molecules of our bodies, including our brains, we will become what we
were originally designed to be: beautiful, immortal people who live
forever in a universe designed to be enjoyed immensely.
> IMH*O, we are not the centre of anything.
Have you made your mind up on that firmly? I know that from the view of
science, even though it has not found life on any other planet or natural
satellite, they like to be optimistic and speculate that, mathematically,
there should be life out there somewhere. Some say there just has to be,
as if they're hopeful of finding it one day. They even seem excited about
it, like they're just sure they'll find it if they just keep looking. But,
being scientists, of course, they don't say that there actually is
extra-terrestrial life because it hasn't been found yet.
So for the time being, the most up-to-date thing that people could say
about humans is that we're the greatest thing in the universe, even if do
seem physically imperfect to each other right now. Without current
evidence for life elsewhere, to assume and act like it's out there
somewhere, in any form, is a further departure from reality than thinking
we're the center of the universe. After all, from what I've understood,
the objects far away from us are all red-shifted. If we were not in the
center of the universe, one side of the universe would appear to be empty
because none of the light from it would have ever been able to reach us.
Why? Because objects at the expanding edge are moving away from us more
quickly than objects that are close to us. If we were riding the tidal
wave of cosmic inflation, nothing on the opposite side of the expanding
area would be visible. If we were somewhere other than the center of the
universe, we would see a deeper red-shift coming from the side of the
universe we're farthest from because the farthest edge of the universe
would be moving away from us more quickly than the closest edge of the
universe since we would be partially caught in the cosmic tide moving the
closest edge away from us.
> Would you permit a personal question? I've been wondering if you
> remember the 'sixties.
I wasn't born until 1970.
> *True, for once. I was watching NCIS:LA, or some such title, last night
> -- the one with LL Cool J and Linda Hunt -- where they made a running
> joke of the "humble brag". Not a new thing, of course (Groucho always
> told me I was a terrible name-dropper), but apparently new and big in
> the twitterverse.
>
> http://wwword.com/1602/words/new-word-expression/humble-brag/
Well, I read the article at that site, but I don't really know why it came
up.
Damaeus
Damaeus
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> posted on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:32:06 +0000 the
following:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:53:37 -0600, Damaeus
> <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>
> > If I say "I believe there is a god", it means just what it says: I
> > believe there's a God. It doesn't mean that I think there might be
> > one.
>
> Believing is less than knowing.
Yes, I know. Well, I "know" there is a God, but I get the impression that
people think it's rude to be so definitive. So I often say that I just
believe it because it still separates me from those who don't believe
there's a God. I have no doubts about it. God is real. I imagine that
to an atheist, that's more ridiculous than just believing, and I think
even agnostic atheists might not like that too much, but they wouldn't be
as hostile as atheists about it.
> "There might be a God" = the existence of a God is compatible with the
> available evidence, but there might not be a God.
>
> "I believe there is a God" = the available evidence convinces me that
> there is very likely to be a God. I choose to accept that there is a
> God.
>
> "I know that there is a God" = the available evidence is incompatible
> with the non-existence of a God.
>
> In everday life as well as in science we use the phrase "I believe <such
> and such>" to indicate probability rather that complete certainty.
I thought about simply going all out and being more definitive by just
saying "God is real", but I thought that if I came on that strong, I'd
lose credibility immediately since I was't acting like I'm not sure.
I ran into that on a few e-mail discussion lists I used to be on. The
moderator kept getting on to me for writing too definitively. She told me
I should use more phrases like "In my opinion..." and "I think...",
etc.... If I'm 100% certain of my views, why would I want to make myself
sound like a fog-brained wanderer who doesn't really know what to believe?
So you're right. While I know God is real, I didn't realize I had fallen
into sounding uncertain by using "believe" too much. Then again, when I
was saying "believe", it was my expression of certainty. Nevertheless, I
will monitor my output and adjust it toward definitiveness in the future.
Damaeus
Damaeus
Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:03:34 -0000 the following:
> "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> news:8c39m652457sdqk1g...@4ax.com...
>
> > So the perception of some says that God is a mean, evil bastard who
> > lets all this crap happen because he has it in for us and wants us all
> > to suffer as a result of our own, ignorant actions.
>
> Looking at New Zealand at the moment, it's easy to see why some might
> think that way.
>
> So either god is a mean evil bastard or it doesn't exist.
Or God lets the universe progress as it will without interfering, knowing
that even if some die on Earth, all will be fine in the end.
Funny how some atheists, especially one I know who has said that he knows
he's more intelligent than most people, will use the silliest reasons to
try to disprove God. We were having an extended discussion about the
problems we're having with our teeth. He suddenly says, "It all proves
there's no god."
What a surprising statement from one who mostly acts like a know-it-all.
He doesn't seem to consider that there actually *IS* a god, but we've been
cut off from a portion of God by the contraction of the universe! So for
now, our teeth have a tendency to decay over time, as does the rest of our
bodies. But as the universe continues to expand, more of God can fit
through the folds in the fabric of space. When the universe becomes
infinite, it'll all be there and not only will we have wonderful teeth,
they won't decay, either.
Damaeus
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>In news:alt.english.usage, "GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com> posted on
>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:03:34 -0000 the following:
>
>> "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:8c39m652457sdqk1g...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > So the perception of some says that God is a mean, evil bastard who
>> > lets all this crap happen because he has it in for us and wants us all
>> > to suffer as a result of our own, ignorant actions.
>>
>> Looking at New Zealand at the moment, it's easy to see why some might
>> think that way.
>>
>> So either god is a mean evil bastard or it doesn't exist.
>
>Or God lets the universe progress as it will without interfering, knowing
>that even if some die on Earth, all will be fine in the end.
>
>Funny how some atheists, especially one I know who has said that he knows
>he's more intelligent than most people, will use the silliest reasons to
>try to disprove God. We were having an extended discussion about the
>problems we're having with our teeth. He suddenly says, "It all proves
>there's no god."
>
I'd understand that to refer to a particular kind of God.
C. S. Lewis wrote a book, The Problem of Pain, in which he addressed the
question of "Why does a loving God allow people to suffer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Pain
Many Christians seems to suffer a crisis of faith when confronted with
great suffering in their own or other people's lives. Their concept of
God is a being who "should not allow such suffering to happen".
The fact that you and the rest of us, including pious and faithful
Christians, have painful trouble with our teeth may "disprove" the
existence of a God who can be relied upon to prevent such suffering.
What it does seem to disprove is the human description of God as a
loving being who intervenes to prevent suffering.
>What a surprising statement from one who mostly acts like a know-it-all.
>He doesn't seem to consider that there actually *IS* a god, but we've been
>cut off from a portion of God by the contraction of the universe! So for
>now, our teeth have a tendency to decay over time, as does the rest of our
>bodies. But as the universe continues to expand, more of God can fit
>through the folds in the fabric of space. When the universe becomes
>infinite, it'll all be there and not only will we have wonderful teeth,
>they won't decay, either.
>
>Damaeus
--
GordonD
> In news:alt.english.usage, "GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com> posted on
> Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:03:34 -0000 the following:
>
>> "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:8c39m652457sdqk1g...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > So the perception of some says that God is a mean, evil bastard who
>> > lets all this crap happen because he has it in for us and wants us all
>> > to suffer as a result of our own, ignorant actions.
>>
>> Looking at New Zealand at the moment, it's easy to see why some might
>> think that way.
>>
>> So either god is a mean evil bastard or it doesn't exist.
>
> Or God lets the universe progress as it will without interfering, knowing
> that even if some die on Earth, all will be fine in the end.
>
> Funny how some atheists, especially one I know who has said that he knows
> he's more intelligent than most people, will use the silliest reasons to
> try to disprove God.
You can't disprove god, any more than you can disprove Santa Claus or the
tooth fairy. And we don't have to. Yours is the positive viewpoint, so you
have to prove that god does exist.
Damaeus
Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:49:06 -0000 the following:
> "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> news:o9rcm6ho7153cpr9i...@4ax.com...
>
> > Well, if atheists can assume and conclude that there is no God, I figured
> > it's only fair that I assume and conclude the opposite. Atheists seem to
> > be claiming that all this happened and God wasn't necessary. But if God
> > actually was necessary, then this all happened under God's watch, and
> > atheists simply see no evidence for it. That would mean that atheists are
> > wrong, but they have yet to realize that.
>
> You claim a god was necessary.
>
> Prove it.
The way you ask that makes it sound like you're just smacking your lips as
you wait for a response that you think impossible to provide.
The problem here is that many science nuts and atheists think they have
figured out how everything that has happened so far could happen without a
God, and they then conclude that there is no evidence for God since most
everything has an explanation that can be provided without saying
something about God. They ignore the fact that God can still exist in a
form imperceptible to humans who simply don't want to believe he exists.
So the people on the science side, feeling like their friends and
colleagues have fulfilled their side with their research and peer-reviewed
papers, sit back, relax and use their rule that says the burden of proof
falls at the doorstep of the one making the contentious claim. But
science has actually hijacked all the evidence for the existence of God
and claimed it as their own, godless evidence, and the only thing the
believers have left to use is metaphysics, as if everything God does must
both happen magically and leave physical evidence. "God wasn't needed
because we know how all this stuff happened." So those trying to prove
God are left with nothing but their attempts to reason with scientists who
refuse to accept anything that's said because "this is what we know so
far, and we see no evidence that God was involved."
Science nuts seem to love to play a rather cruel game with those trying to
prove God, as if they have the rules of evidence so tightly wrapped up
that they can simply sit back and have a good time watching people try to
prove the existence of God with only reasoning and logic. The
God-believers often don't understand that it's not that scientists can't
believe in God; they just don't see any evidence for it. So we have long
chats and discussions in which God-believers think "prove God exists"
equates to "there is no God".
Consider human bodies. Scientists, perceiving no evidence for an eternal
spirit acting as a guiding catalyst for human evolution, will say that
natural selection is what caused humans to turn out the way they did.
Furthermore, atheistic scientists will say that there is no goal to human
evolution. Well, there indeed could be (and I know that there is). But
since they have human evolution wrapped in the package of natural
selection, and since they seem to believe human immortality through
consciousness is impossible, when I say humans turned out the way they did
because we're headed toward a design of individual, aesthetic perfection
(no more ugly people), they laugh or tell me to prove it. If I point out
that humans have evolved to have less hair, (or less density of hair for
those who like to point out that we have the same number of hair follicles
as chimpanzees) so we can see each other's muscle structure, they don't
accept that as proof even though to me, it *is* proof. Some will say that
"some people like hairy bodies" and expect me to accept that as proof that
not everybody thinks smooth is beautiful, so "want" has nothing to do with
evolution or immortality. They're wrong, they know they're right, they
know I'm wrong, and since I know how people will respond to statements
like I've made here, the process of proving with reasoning and logic
becomes extremely difficult. (That's why this paragraph is rather wordy,
even to me.) It simply becomes a matter of disbelief and a difference of
perception.
We currently have a universe with harmony and organization -- enough for
life to form. Would it be possible to have a universe with half the
harmony we have now? A fourth of it? While some of the universe might
look chaotic to people who don't understand what they're looking at,
actually, everything in the universe *is* harmonious and organized in some
way. A universe without harmony would be utterly chaotic and life would
not be possible.
In a universe with an overseeing "wishmaster", so to speak, the organizing
force of harmony becomes possible because an intelligent "something" out
there has a dream it wants to see fulfilled. The wishmaster actually
knows what's best for everyone, even if those people don't know what's
really good for them. So it's not that "God punishes disbelievers", it's
that disbelievers suffer the temporary intellectual pain of finding out
they were wrong about a few things. Everything that happens in the
universe is another step toward seeing the dream of God fulfilled. Humans
being bitch-slapped off the edge of a continent by a tidal wave isn't
God's will. It just happened because the process of finishing creation
involves a few mishaps.
Once the universe is finished (completely expanded), Earth won't have the
turbulent atmosphere it has now. It'll be motionless in space. I find it
likely it won't even be spinning, but by then, the Milky Way and all the
other galaxies will have disintegtrated and decompressed. The
distribution of stars and planets throughout the universe will be more
uniform. Earth will have a sky that is relatively dark because we'll be
further away from the sun, but we'll be closer to other stars and planets.
Overall, multiple stars will illuminate the Earth; we won't just have one
big, bright one trying to blind us half the time.
Damaeus
Gary Eickmeier
"Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
Blah blah BLAH!
I have said that God is still a philosophical concept. It is fascinating to
think about, but we simply do not know because he is the perfect invisible
and inaudible being. Can't prove him, can't disprove him, along with Harvey
the invisible rabbit, Santa, and EB (the Easter Bunny).
Faith tells us nothing factual, just feelings. You can have faith that your
wife loves you, or that you won't die tonight, or that your doctor knows
what he is talking about. But faith tells us nothing about the physical
universe. A lot of folks were punished for not believing the Earth was the
center of the universe. Copernicus and Galileo were locked up. So faith and
science should not be confused with each other.
Now, tell me, what do you know about God?
Gary Eickmeier
Damaeus
following:
> The fact that you and the rest of us, including pious and faithful
> Christians, have painful trouble with our teeth may "disprove" the
> existence of a God who can be relied upon to prevent such suffering.
>
> What it does seem to disprove is the human description of God as a
> loving being who intervenes to prevent suffering.
That would only be true if God could do something about the pain. But to
create a universe of matter, the universe of consciousness had to be
crushed infinitely. That contraction cut off people from God, but that
was the only way to bring materiality into being. It must be the only way
because that's how it happened. So the universe of consciousness wasn't
destroyed during the contraction of the universe. The consciousness still
exists and is constantly working on the matter that makes up our bodies to
reformat it into its own design, in addition to pulling all matter that
exists into a design that existed as an idea before the contraction of the
universe began approximately 27.4 billion years ago, assuming that 13.7
billion years is the amount of time that's actually passed since the big
bang.
So to say all that in a more succinct way, people assume that to be God,
he must have infinite power and be able to do anything at any time, and
that if anybody suffers, God must either not exist, or if he does exist,
he must be incompetent. But I tie in the expansion of the universe with
"access" to everything that God actually is. It's not that God lets
suffering happen. It's that suffering distracts us from experiencing the
amount of God we're able to sense at this time in the development of the
universe.
I consider Jesus. If Jesus really could perform miracles and create
objects out of thin air, raise the dead and whatnot, then the power of God
would have to be beyond infinite. It means it was possible for a few
people in history to tap into that beyond-infinite power and use it here
on Earth, though apparently that beyond-infinite power could not be used
immeasurably by Jesus or he would have remained and protected everyone on
the planet at the same time from all suffering for the rest of eternity.
He was obviously unable to do that. I don't think he even had constant
access to his "miraculous" abilities and that's why the people of that
time were able to crucify him. He wasn't obeying God by hanging on the
cross while he still had all his abilities intact. He simply was unable
to do anything to stop them. He was actually powerless!
So another is expected to come. In a universe nearing its infinite size,
the one to come would get all the abilities and have full, unrestricted,
constant access to power beyond infinity. Nobody will be able to crucify
that one, but when I look at this:
1 John 3: [2] Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth
not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall
appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
...it makes me think that we won't see God as he really is until all our
bodies have changed. It means that, somewhere, God is riding along in the
universe as a mortal, suffering the same things people are suffering,
decaying teeth and all, and is currently powerless to do immediately do
anything to stop the suffering. He's waiting on the expansion of the
universe to complete itself, and when it does, if that verse is correct,
everybody will be changed into what they are going to be forever, and God,
currently in a mortal body, will experience the same changes in his body.
So...when we see him, we will see him as he is: immortal, and all people
will have been immortalized, too:
1 Corinthians 15: [52] In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,
at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead
shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. [53] For
this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must
put on immortality. [54] So when this corruptible shall have put
on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality,
then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death
is swallowed up in victory. [55] O death, where is thy sting? O
grave, where is thy victory?
I'm not quoting those verses the way some people do, as pastes of thing
that are believed solely because they're in the Bible. I paste them
because I see, scientifically, how those events can come about through the
continued expansion of the universe into an infinite size that relieves
all density of the fabric of space. Right now, we're living in a
compression chamber. No wonder we suffer! The molecules of our bodies
are vibrating all the time. That we don't disintegrate, ourselves, due to
the effects of an expanding universe is proof in itself that once the
expansion stops at infinity, we'll be immortal. Look at how we're able to
laugh, sing, dance, and entertain ourselves instead of screaming in
constant agony. How much better will our conditions of life be when the
universe no longer has to expand?
Damaeus
Damaeus
> You can't disprove god, any more than you can disprove Santa Claus or
> the tooth fairy. And we don't have to. Yours is the positive viewpoint,
> so you have to prove that god does exist.
Proving God to some might not be possible unless the ones demanding proof
are willing to change the way they think about things. I've noticed that
the atheistic science sticklers like to adhere to their pet theories
because they read them in a science magazine they like, even though the
information in a science magazine is just the best the scientists can come
up with at the time. And what they're saying is correct in some ways, but
the assumption that no God is provable is a little unfair when the
processes they're describing are the very proof that God exists, but they
aren't recognizing it as proof of God. So they're left looking around
saying, "Where's the proof? Where's the proof?" They're like the frog in
the heating pot of water. They're boiling in the evidence for God, but
they don't recognize it because they learned it in a science class, not in
church.
Damaeus
Damaeus
> "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> news:22vdm69dfc3ifllqm...@4ax.com...
>
> > Once the universe is finished (completely expanded), Earth won't have the
> > turbulent atmosphere it has now. It'll be motionless in space. I find it
> > likely it won't even be spinning, but by then, the Milky Way and all the
> > other galaxies will have disintegtrated and decompressed. The
> > distribution of stars and planets throughout the universe will be more
> > uniform. Earth will have a sky that is relatively dark because we'll be
> > further away from the sun, but we'll be closer to other stars and planets.
> > Overall, multiple stars will illuminate the Earth; we won't just have one
> > big, bright one trying to blind us half the time.
>
> Blah blah BLAH!
Would you mind translating that?
> I have said that God is still a philosophical concept. It is fascinating to
> think about, but we simply do not know because he is the perfect invisible
> and inaudible being. Can't prove him, can't disprove him,
And you therefore set up your own mental blocks that prevent your own
edification. Since you know that you can't know, anything that, given
enough thought, might develop into a satisfying proof, you reject based on
the idea that it's impossible to know.
[...]
> Faith tells us nothing factual,
I don't say what I say based on faith. I say what I say because it's what
I know. I don't believe it's impossible to know, therefore I've found
that there actually is a God.
> just feelings.
And feelings can reveal truth, too, and strengthen proof once you accept
that you *can* know things you currently believe you cannot know.
> You can have faith that your wife loves you, or that you won't die
> tonight, or that your doctor knows what he is talking about. But faith
> tells us nothing about the physical universe. A lot of folks were
> punished for not believing the Earth was the center of the universe.
> Copernicus and Galileo were locked up. So faith and science should not
> be confused with each other.
>
> Now, tell me, what do you know about God?
Right now he can't stop anybody's toothache.
Damaeus
Martin Ambuhl
A bunch of gibberish that, I hope, seems to make him feel better. For
example,
> That would only be true if God could do something about the pain. But to
> create a universe of matter, the universe of consciousness had to be
> crushed infinitely.
Neither "universe of consciousness" nor "crushed infinitely" have even
an iota of meaning. But it's not uncommon for religious folk to hide
behind meaningless claptrap. It helps, I suppose, in dealing with an
impotent "God" that is incapable of doing "something about the pain".
> That contraction cut off people from God, but that
> was the only way to bring materiality into being.
There were, of course, no people to be "cut off" from God before the
material world came into being. Being part of the material world "cut
off" from the impotent "God" they have no experience of that God, and
have no knowledge about it. Somehow the spewers of this supposedly
mystical nonsense have knowledge of the "God" from which they too are
cut off. Their supposed insight of "God", "universe of consciousness",
"crushed infinitely", and "contraction" is impossible. If they insist
on wallowing in the mire of absurdity, that's OK. Just stop trying to
tell others that the stories they make up should be taken seriously.
There is no need to deal with the rest of the rambling muck Damaeus
posts as some deep truth. It is too silly to bother with.
Damaeus
Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:15:40 -0500 the following:
> On 2/24/2011 9:13 PM, Damaeus wrote:
> A bunch of gibberish that, I hope, seems to make him feel better. For
> example,
>
> > That would only be true if God could do something about the pain. But
> > to create a universe of matter, the universe of consciousness had to
> > be crushed infinitely.
>
> Neither "universe of consciousness" nor "crushed infinitely" have even
> an iota of meaning.
Of course they do. If you don't understand, that's fine, but they do have
meaning. I'd like for you to understand, but for as long as you keep
insisting that there are some things we cannot know, you've created your
own mental blockages that prevent you from understanding.
In one of the "models" I have of both the post-big bang universe and the
pre-big bang universe, the pre-big bang universe was not material. It was
whispy, dream-like, and non-material. If the universe had been material
before the big bang, we wouldn't have needed a big bang to make
materiality possible. Therefore the universe was mainly consciousness
before the big bang. Everything was phantomic. Once those phantom
particles were contracted into infinite density, and expanded, solid,
material particles began to form, which is why we are made of relatively
stable matter now, and not just phantoms. Those phantom particles still
exist today and are being emitted from black holes as Hawking radiation.
> But it's not uncommon for religious folk to hide behind meaningless
> claptrap.
And it's not uncommon for atheists to label as "meaningless claptrap"
anything they don't understand.
> It helps, I suppose, in dealing with an impotent "God" that is incapable
> of doing "something about the pain".
Your intellect has to be trained to understand the way your body feels the
spirit. I'm actually finding that some of my pains are eliminated and
displaced by pleasure when I'm in the mode of believing it can happen that
way. But I couldn't always do this; I had to learn.
> > That contraction cut off people from God, but that was the only way to
> > bring materiality into being.
>
> There were, of course,
Of course? So you've laid out the rails in your mind and you've glued
your train to it permanently. Your thinking follows a course that
includes the idea that there were...
> no people to be "cut off" from God before the material world came into
> being.
...as if you're omnipotent, yourself, and know this so definitely that you
can make thinking like that a matter of course. How do you know that?
You'd have to know with certainty what existed before the big bang began
to say that there were no people to be cut off from God. I find it
interesting that you claim some things can't be known, yet you somehow
know for sure nothing existed before the universe as we know it now came
into being.
> Being part of the material world "cut off" from the impotent "God" they
> have no experience of that God, and have no knowledge about it. Somehow
> the spewers of this supposedly mystical nonsense have knowledge of the
> "God" from which they too are cut off. Their supposed insight of "God",
> "universe of consciousness", "crushed infinitely", and "contraction" is
> impossible.
If contraction is impossible, how do you think the big bang became
possible? You can't expand something that's infinite until you first
contract it. Furthermore, while we were cut off from God, we're also
headed back toward it/him. It only makes sense that some people would
begin putting together the pieces of the puzzle as events continue
unfolding.
Damaeus
Martin Ambuhl
> In news:alt.english.usage, Martin Ambuhl<mam...@earthlink.net> posted on
> Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:15:40 -0500 the following:
>
>> On 2/24/2011 9:13 PM, Damaeus wrote:
>> A bunch of gibberish that, I hope, seems to make him feel better. For
>> example,
>>
>>> That would only be true if God could do something about the pain. But
>>> to create a universe of matter, the universe of consciousness had to
>>> be crushed infinitely.
>>
>> Neither "universe of consciousness" nor "crushed infinitely" have even
>> an iota of meaning.
>
> Of course they do. If you don't understand, that's fine, but they do have
> meaning. I'd like for you to understand, but for as long as you keep
> insisting that there are some things we cannot know, you've created your
> own mental blockages that prevent you from understanding.
Idiot, I understand fully what's going on. Any Christian who knows the
history of his faith will see in your garbage a half-digested form of
the old gnostic heresies. Any Jew should see a garbled version of
Qabalah. In either case, putting it in a new-age pseudo-intellectual
dress will not make it meaningful. Nor will pop-science big bang talk
using silly words like "phantomic" make it a bit better. Try dropping
your obfuscating jargon and see what you have left.
>> But it's not uncommon for religious folk to hide behind meaningless
>> claptrap.
>
> And it's not uncommon for atheists to label as "meaningless claptrap"
> anything they don't understand.
You haven't a clue what my religious convictions may be. I can
recognize meaningless claptrap from religious and from anti-religious
people. Claiming that people who recognize the vacuity of your writing
are lacking in understanding is common for cranks. For every person who
can justly claim a parallel to Galileo or Jesus, there are thousands
who, like you, are just full of it.
>
>> It helps, I suppose, in dealing with an impotent "God" that is incapable
>> of doing "something about the pain".
>
> Your intellect has to be trained to understand the way your body feels the
> spirit.
You haven't a clue how my "intellect has been trained." It certainly
hasn't been trained "to understand the way [my] body feels the spirit."
_My_ intellect avoids such vacuous phrases.
> I'm actually finding that some of my pains are eliminated and
> displaced by pleasure when I'm in the mode of believing it can happen that
> way. But I couldn't always do this; I had to learn.
>
>>> That contraction cut off people from God, but that was the only way to
>>> bring materiality into being.
>>
>> There were, of course,
>
> Of course? So you've laid out the rails in your mind and you've glued
> your train to it permanently. Your thinking follows a course that
> includes the idea that there were...
>
>> no people to be "cut off" from God before the material world came into
>> being.
>
> ...as if you're omnipotent, yourself, and know this so definitely that you
> can make thinking like that a matter of course.
Only a complete idiot would hallucinate that I made any claims to
omnipotence.
> If contraction is impossible, how do you think the big bang became
> possible?
Only a complete idiot would hallucinate that I made any claim about the
possibility or impossibility of "contraction".
Get a clue.
Gary Eickmeier
"Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> In one of the "models" I have of both the post-big bang universe and the
> pre-big bang universe, the pre-big bang universe was not material. It was
> whispy, dream-like, and non-material. If the universe had been material
> before the big bang, we wouldn't have needed a big bang to make
> materiality possible. Therefore the universe was mainly consciousness
> before the big bang. Everything was phantomic. Once those phantom
> particles were contracted into infinite density, and expanded, solid,
> material particles began to form, which is why we are made of relatively
> stable matter now, and not just phantoms. Those phantom particles still
> exist today and are being emitted from black holes as Hawking radiation.
Now we know he is joking with us.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
"Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> I consider Jesus. If Jesus really could perform miracles and create
> objects out of thin air, raise the dead and whatnot, then the power of God
> would have to be beyond infinite. It means it was possible for a few
> people in history to tap into that beyond-infinite power and use it here
> on Earth, though apparently that beyond-infinite power could not be used
> immeasurably by Jesus or he would have remained and protected everyone on
> the planet at the same time from all suffering for the rest of eternity.
> He was obviously unable to do that. I don't think he even had constant
> access to his "miraculous" abilities and that's why the people of that
> time were able to crucify him. He wasn't obeying God by hanging on the
> cross while he still had all his abilities intact. He simply was unable
> to do anything to stop them. He was actually powerless!
>
> So another is expected to come. In a universe nearing its infinite size,
> the one to come would get all the abilities and have full, unrestricted,
> constant access to power beyond infinity. Nobody will be able to crucify
> that one, but when I look at this:
Damaeus, sweetheart, Jesus was a fictional character, the last in a long
line of godmen who walked the Earth, born of a virgin, who died to save us
all from our sins and rose again on the third day. His tale grew in the
telling, until by the 4th century when the favorite stories were canonized
into the New Testament, he became a historical character. All other versions
of the Christ cult were persecuted and burned out of existence, along with
most pagan literature - leading to the dark ages.
Gary Eickmeier
Martin Ambuhl
> "Damaeus"<no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> news:l62em61cddjhiq1sg...@4ax.com...
>
>> I consider Jesus. If Jesus really could perform miracles and create
>> objects out of thin air, raise the dead and whatnot, then the power of God
>> would have to be beyond infinite.
Gary didn't remark, but I will:
"Beyond infinite" is without meaning (and if you think the "power of
God" is a transfinite number, you are beyond hope). Nor is the "logic"
in any way correct; the ability to convince others of miracles and
"create objects out of thin air" (where is the scriptural basis for
this?) might require only a finite power, and not much of it.
The rest of this paragraph depends on the above stupidity, so can safely
be ignored, except to note that "Damaeus" has insisted that his Jesus is
just as impotent as his God. Why does Damaeus think it important to
have beliefs about God and Jesus when they, according to his story,
haven't the ability to do anything?
Now, for Gary:
> Damaeus, sweetheart, Jesus was a fictional character, the last in a long
> line of godmen who walked the Earth, born of a virgin, who died to save us
> all from our sins and rose again on the third day.
I believe you have overstated your case. The behavior of people who
later became known as the early church suggests that there was an actual
person of great charisma who inspired a good number of people.
> His tale grew in the
> telling, until by the 4th century when the favorite stories were canonized
> into the New Testament, he became a historical character.
The stories have a number of possible sources. For example,
a) some may relate things done or said by a real person, as understood
by those relating the stories.
b) some may reflect what people were sure _must_ have been done or said
by a person with the characteristics they remember or had been told about.
c) some may reflect people's trying to understand their own reactions to
that person.
d) some _were_ created solely to insure that someone's interpretation of
Hebrew sacred writings as prophecy were fulfilled.
There is no doubt that the legends grew over time.
> All other versions
> of the Christ cult were persecuted and burned out of existence, along with
> most pagan literature - leading to the dark ages.
The dark ages weren't so dark, if you actually read the history. We can
be glad that many of these versions disappeared. Many of the apocryphal
gospels reveal a mean-spirited, selfish Jesus, indulging in frankly evil
acts simply so the writers could point to his "miraculous" power (beyond
infinite?).
Damaeus
> On 2/25/2011 12:07 AM, Damaeus wrote:
> > In news:alt.english.usage, Martin Ambuhl<mam...@earthlink.net> posted on
> > Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:15:40 -0500 the following:
> >
> > > Neither "universe of consciousness" nor "crushed infinitely" have
> > > even an iota of meaning.
> >
> > Of course they do. If you don't understand, that's fine, but they do
> > have meaning. I'd like for you to understand, but for as long as you
> > keep insisting that there are some things we cannot know, you've
> > created your own mental blockages that prevent you from understanding.
>
> Idiot,
Is this where I get to claim victory? Usually when one side resorts to
name-calling, people say that person no longer has sufficient logic or
reasoning left to defend himself. I've always thought that was a rather
weak way of looking at it, but lots of people seem to like to use
name-calling as a sign of frustration and defeat.
> I understand fully what's going on.
Perhaps within the paradigm created by whatever you believe in, but it has
nothing to do with what's actually going on.
> Any Christian who knows the history of his faith will see in your
> garbage a half-digested form of the old gnostic heresies.
I'm not trying to promote gnostic ideas as full truth.
> Any Jew should see a garbled version of Qabalah.
I'm not trying to promote Qabalah as full truth.
> In either case, putting it in a new-age pseudo-intellectual dress will
> not make it meaningful.
I'm not trying to put anything in a new-age pseudo-intellectual dress.
> Nor will pop-science big bang talk
Pop-science?
> using silly words like "phantomic" make it a bit better.
"Phantomic" is not a silly word. It means "of or like a phantom".
> Try dropping your obfuscating jargon and see what you have left.
I'm not obfuscating; I'm enlightening. If what I'm saying is confusing,
it's because you haven't built the proper connections in your brain to
facilitate the free flow of information. If you're not hearing crackles
and pops as electrical impulses create electrical arcs between the folds
of your brain, you're suffering from neural stagnation. Fortunately for
you, that doesn't affect your confidence or happiness, but the lack of
sufficient electrical power in your brain can temporarily prevent
understanding ideas that are greater, yet simpler than what you've already
managed to understand.
> > > But it's not uncommon for religious folk to hide behind meaningless
> > > claptrap.
> >
> > And it's not uncommon for atheists to label as "meaningless claptrap"
> > anything they don't understand.
>
> You haven't a clue what my religious convictions may be.
I've got clues, but that's all I really have.
> I can recognize meaningless claptrap from religious and from
> anti-religious people.
Your thought process seems to be, "Ah, that makes no sense. It must be
claptrap since I cannot understand it with my brilliant and infallible
mind."
> Claiming that people who recognize the vacuity of your writing are
> lacking in understanding is common for cranks.
Maybe they're not all cranks, and maybe they're right. Your arrogance is
quite breathtaking, you know. You claim to know certain things, such as
somehow "knowing" that there were no "people" to cut off from God before
the physical universe came into being, yet when I make a claim of the same
magnitude, suddenly you see me as an idiot. If you can make claims about
things that never happened, what gives you the intellectual clearance to
tell me I can't make claims about what *did* happen?
> For every person who can justly claim a parallel to Galileo or Jesus,
> there are thousands who, like you, are just full of it.
It only seems like I'm full of it, for some reason. I thought about this
thread while I was on the road while ago. To me, this is all really very
simple. The universe and its mechanics are so simple that it's easy to
describe with very few words, but some people have come to expect lengthy
explanations loaded with physics math. If they don't see that, they think
the person making the claim must be wrong. That's really very sad, but I
guess it not only takes a genius to describe the universe, but it takes
another one to understand it -- like children. I'm sure a younger child
would understand my views quite easily, but adults who think they've
climbed so high on the totem pole of intellectuality are apparently too
egotistical to fathom that they might actually be wrong about a few
things. If you have a framework in your mind that's been created from all
the scientific theories that make sense to you, it's no wonder you'd start
kicking and screaming anytime something challenges you with ideas outside
your mental comfort zone. That said, when I actually do find someone who
is convinced by my ideas (and it does happen), I feel a bit of
disappointment. The challenge of convincing is invigorating, and seeing
it all come to an end when someone agrees leaves me feeling a little
bored.
> > > It helps, I suppose, in dealing with an impotent "God" that is
> > > incapable of doing "something about the pain".
> >
> > Your intellect has to be trained to understand the way your body feels
> > the spirit.
>
> You haven't a clue how my "intellect has been trained." It certainly
> hasn't been trained "to understand the way [my] body feels the spirit."
Obviously.
> _My_ intellect avoids such vacuous phrases.
LOL, yes, that's a very arrogant statment as you express your view that
you have some kind of superior intellect. And, of course, that arrogance
also prevents your mind from forming an idea that says, "Hmmm, I might
need to rethink a few things." I've already moved beyond the idea that I
need to rethink things. I rethink things all the time as I update old
ideas and throw out things that no longer fit with the new things I've
learned.
> > > no people to be "cut off" from God before the material world came
> > > into being.
> >
> > ...as if you're omnipotent, yourself, and know this so definitely that
> > you can make thinking like that a matter of course.
>
> Only a complete idiot would hallucinate that I made any claims to
> omnipotence.
You don't have to claim it outright. It's exposed in the way you
communicate—telling me what was not in existence before the big bang. If
that's not an expression of at least unawares omniscience (I didn't mean
to use "omnipotence" before), what is?
> > If contraction is impossible, how do you think the big bang became
> > possible?
>
> Only a complete idiot would hallucinate that I made any claim about the
> possibility or impossibility of "contraction".
From one of your posts:
Their supposed insight of "God", "universe of consciousness",
"crushed infinitely", and "contraction" is impossible.
So you think insight about those things are impossible. I do not believe
that. I'm not sure why you think the way you do, but some people, for
some strange reason, put limits on thought.
Damaeus
GordonD
> In news:alt.english.usage, "GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com> posted on
> Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:45:54 -0000 the following:
>
>> You can't disprove god, any more than you can disprove Santa Claus or
>> the tooth fairy. And we don't have to. Yours is the positive viewpoint,
>> so you have to prove that god does exist.
>
> Proving God to some might not be possible unless the ones demanding proof
> are willing to change the way they think about things. I've noticed that
> the atheistic science sticklers like to adhere to their pet theories
> because they read them in a science magazine they like, even though the
> information in a science magazine is just the best the scientists can come
> up with at the time. And what they're saying is correct in some ways, but
> the assumption that no God is provable is a little unfair when the
> processes they're describing are the very proof that God exists, but they
> aren't recognizing it as proof of God.
But they aren't proof that a god exists. In another post you claimed that
the fact that humans have less body hair then chimpanzees is proof of a god!
Science can explain that without the need to introduce a magical sky pixie.
But you won't accept that, so let me ask something else.
If for a moment I accept that a god is required to explain evolution, what
proof is there that it's the Judeo-Christian God who is featured in the Old
Testament and its less-successful sequel, the New Testament? I assume that's
who you're talking about since you refer to it as 'God' (capital G)
throughout. But 'God' isn't a name, it's a job description. Biblical
scholars believe that the god's proper name is Yahweh (westernised as
'Jehovah'). Is that the god you believe in? (In a vain attempt to bring this
even marginally back on topic, should I have phrased that "Is that the god
in whom you believe?")
How do you know the Romans and Greeks were wrong in their belief of a whole
pantheon of gods? Maybe it was Zeus who created life on Earth.
Damaeus
What makes you think it's a joke?
Damaeus
Damaeus
> "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> news:l62em61cddjhiq1sg...@4ax.com...
>
> > So another is expected to come. In a universe nearing its infinite
> > size, the one to come would get all the abilities and have full,
> > unrestricted, constant access to power beyond infinity. Nobody will be
> > able to crucify that one, but when I look at this:
>
> Damaeus, sweetheart, Jesus was a fictional character,
And you know this with certainty how?
> the last in a long line of godmen who walked the Earth, born of a
> virgin, who died to save us all from our sins and rose again on the
> third day. His tale grew in the telling, until by the 4th century
> when the favorite stories were canonized into the New Testament, he
> became a historical character. All other versions of the Christ
> cult were persecuted and burned out of existence, along with most
> pagan literature - leading to the dark ages.
Are you 2,000 years old? Did you actually *see* all these things happen,
or are there just certain sources of information you trust over other
sources? The only thing you can really admit is that you trust one source
of information over another. To do anything else would be a violation of
critical thinking -- a class I scored a 100 in while in college, for your
information.
Damaeus
Damaeus
Fri, 25 Feb 2011 02:00:14 -0500 the following:
> On 2/25/2011 1:05 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> > "Damaeus"<no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:l62em61cddjhiq1sg...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > I consider Jesus. If Jesus really could perform miracles and create
> > > objects out of thin air, raise the dead and whatnot, then the power
> > > of God would have to be beyond infinite.
>
> Gary didn't remark, but I will:
> "Beyond infinite" is without meaning (and if you think the "power of
> God" is a transfinite number, you are beyond hope).
Actually I believed there was nothing greater than infinity until a few
days ago. I was thinking about the singularity from which the universe
expanded. If that singularity had infinite density, the only thing that
could have pulled it apart was something greater than infinity. And the
only way the expansion of the universe could accelerate and reach an
infinite size is if the infinite space has an attraction that overpowers
infinite density and infinite gravity. If that greater-than-infinity
attraction didn't exist, the universe never would have expanded. The
acceleration of cosmic inflation will continue and become exponential.
That's because the attractive force outside the expanding area of space is
greater than infinity. And to take it a step further, that
greater-than-infinity attraction will then lead to the acceleration of
cosmic inflation to also reach infinite speed. That's the moment at which
the universe will actually become infinite in size.
This will all happen very quickly, and we'll most definitely notice the
effects of it as the universe as we know it unravels: galaxies will be
pulled apart, as well as black holes. But since this event is coming,
that means that the people who make some kind of 20-year plan for their
life, as if they expect life to be relatively the same in 2031 as it is
now, will be in for a shock. I don't say with certainty that the universe
will become infinite in the next 20 years, if that process becomes
detectable by more and more people in the next year or two, then we won't
have to wait 20 years to see it happen. Exponential expansion toward
infinity will change things dramatically.
> Nor is the "logic" in any way correct; the ability to convince others of
> miracles and "create objects out of thin air" (where is the scriptural
> basis for this?) might require only a finite power, and not much of it.
I never claimed infinite power was needed to create objects out of thin
air, but one who has infinite power to do that would be able to do it, as
could one with finite power, like Jesus.
> The rest of this paragraph depends on the above stupidity, so can safely
> be ignored, except to note that "Damaeus" has insisted that his Jesus is
> just as impotent as his God.
No. I just said Jesus was not unlimited in his abilities. He was
partially impotent.
> Why does Damaeus think it important to have beliefs about God and Jesus
> when they, according to his story, haven't the ability to do anything?
You don't need beliefs about God or Jesus. You're free to believe in
Barney the Dinosaur, if you want. But in the end, the truth of the
existence of God will be obvious to everyone, but not in a bad way. I
think once people see the stars in the sky moving around so quickly that
it looks different every night, they'll be too dazzled by the mangificence
of it all to care about fighting each other.
> Now, for Gary:
> > Damaeus, sweetheart, Jesus was a fictional character, the last in a
> > long line of godmen who walked the Earth, born of a virgin, who died
> > to save us all from our sins and rose again on the third day.
>
> I believe you have overstated your case. The behavior of people who
> later became known as the early church suggests that there was an actual
> person of great charisma who inspired a good number of people.
They probably didn't believe anybody could manipulate matter with their
mind, either, not having seen it for themselves. I don't make such
assmptions. I have been where you are before. I once thought Jesus was a
miracle-worker, and I once thought he was just a great philosopher with
lots of charisma, and I once even referred to him as the greatest
schizophrenic who ever lived. But since I feel awakening in myself
certain things that could lead to the manipulation of matter with my mind,
I certainly don't reduce Jesus to only a person of great charisma.
> > His tale grew in the telling, until by the 4th century when the
> > favorite stories were canonized into the New Testament, he became a
> > historical character.
>
> The stories have a number of possible sources. For example,
>
> A) some may relate things done or said by a real
> person, as understood by those relating the stories.
>
> B) some may reflect what people were sure _must_ have
> been done or said by a person with the
> characteristics they remember or had been told
> about.
>
> C) some may reflect people's trying to understand their
> own reactions to that person.
>
> D) some _were_ created solely to insure that someone's
> interpretation of Hebrew sacred writings as prophecy
> were fulfilled.
>
> There is no doubt that the legends grew over time.
I feel most confidence saying it was a combination of all of the above.
> > All other versions of the Christ cult were persecuted and burned out
> > of existence, along with most pagan literature - leading to the dark
> > ages.
>
> The dark ages weren't so dark, if you actually read the history. We can
> be glad that many of these versions disappeared. Many of the apocryphal
> gospels reveal a mean-spirited, selfish Jesus, indulging in frankly evil
> acts simply so the writers could point to his "miraculous" power (beyond
> infinite?).
If God created people to be infinite, why not make himself greater than
infinite? If God had made people equal with himself, he might not have
been able to overpower their forthright pessimism. In a universe built to
respond to your state of mind, a pessimist would be constantly tormented
with negative experiences. So the universe needed one person with
greater-than-infinite power so his optimism would overpower all pessimism.
The universe will live forever, and so will we. I'm forever the optimist.
Damaeus
Martin Ambuhl
For example
>>
>> Only a complete idiot would hallucinate that I made any claim about the
>> possibility or impossibility of "contraction".
>
> From one of your posts:
>
> Their supposed insight of "God", "universe of consciousness",
> "crushed infinitely", and "contraction" is impossible.
>
> So you think insight about those things are impossible. I do not believe
> that. I'm not sure why you think the way you do, but some people, for
> some strange reason, put limits on thought.
Only those people who claim, as you do, to be "cut off" from God are
incapable of such insight, having on your own account been cut off from
the source of any such insight. Have proclaimed yourself cut off from
your God, cut off from any possibility of knowing anything at all about
your God, you then claim to have the absolute truth about what you
cannot possibly know. Decide: are you, as you claim. cut off from your
God, or are you, as you claim. full of knowledge about it? Both are not
possible.
CDB
> "CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca> posted:
believing either thing
>>.
>> On the basis of your other posts, I think your idea of God is far
>> too human.
>>
> for the sake of brevity]
>>
Have you read Le Guin's very short piece "Author of the Acacia
Seeds..."? The untunneled is longer than the tunneled.
>>
http://interconnected.org/home/more/2007/03/acacia-seeds.html
>>
> In my view, if humans are going to be immortal, they would fit the
> description of the first paragraph below the last quote. If
> immortals are going to be called "Human", that means that the
> people who fit the description of the last paragraph are subhuman.
> But since the universe is still expanding, it's not yet complete.
> It's a work in progress, and so are we. Once our thoughts are no
> longer distorted by the vibrations of the molecules of our bodies,
> including our brains, we will become what we were originally
> designed to be: beautiful, immortal people who live forever in a
> universe designed to be enjoyed immensely.
>>
>>
>> IMH*O, we are not the centre of anything.
>
> Have you made your mind up on that firmly? I know that from the
> view of science, even though it has not found life on any other
> planet or natural satellite, they like to be optimistic and
> speculate that, mathematically, there should be life out there
> somewhere. Some say there just has to be, as if they're hopeful of
> finding it one day. They even seem excited about it, like they're
> just sure they'll find it if they just keep looking. But, being
> scientists, of course, they don't say that there actually is
> extra-terrestrial life because it hasn't been found yet.
>>
of humans, or maybe of living things. Because we are the centre of
our own perceptual universes, we tend to think we are the centre of
everything. There's also the suggestive record of our
disillusionments: oops, not geocentric; oops, not heliocentric;
therefore oops, not anthropocentric.
>>
> So for the time being, the most up-to-date thing that people could
> say about humans is that we're the greatest thing in the universe,
> even if do seem physically imperfect to each other right now.
> Without current evidence for life elsewhere, to assume and act like
> it's out there somewhere, in any form, is a further departure from
> reality than thinking we're the center of the universe. After all,
> from what I've understood, the objects far away from us are all
> red-shifted. If we were not in the center of the universe, one
> side of the universe would appear to be empty because none of the
> light from it would have ever been able to reach us. Why? Because
> objects at the expanding edge are moving away from us more quickly
> than objects that are close to us. If we were riding the tidal
> wave of cosmic inflation, nothing on the opposite side of the
> expanding area would be visible. If we were somewhere other than
> the center of the universe, we would see a deeper red-shift coming
> from the side of the universe we're farthest from because the
> farthest edge of the universe would be moving away from us more
> quickly than the closest edge of the universe since we would be
> partially caught in the cosmic tide moving the closest edge away
> from us.
>>
of the universe? I don't think we're there either. I don't think
we're anyplace, or anything, special (except to ourselves). I'm not
at all sure there is a centre or an edge.
>> Would you permit a personal question? I've been wondering if you
>> remember the 'sixties.
>
> I wasn't born until 1970.
>>
Ah, so you do.
>>
>> *True, for once. I was watching NCIS:LA, or some such title, last
>> night -- the one with LL Cool J and Linda Hunt -- where they made
>> a running joke of the "humble brag". Not a new thing, of course
>> (Groucho always told me I was a terrible name-dropper), but
>> apparently new and big in the twitterverse.
>>
>> http://wwword.com/1602/words/new-word-expression/humble-brag/
>
> Well, I read the article at that site, but I don't really know why
> it came up.
>>
It stemmed from the "H" in "IMHO". Call me Grasshopper.
Damaeus
> "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> news:n24em6d3s9kpaiin7...@4ax.com...
> > In news:alt.english.usage, "GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com> posted on
> > Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:45:54 -0000 the following:
> >
> > > You can't disprove god, any more than you can disprove Santa Claus
> > > or the tooth fairy. And we don't have to. Yours is the positive
> > > viewpoint, so you have to prove that god does exist.
> >
> > Proving God to some might not be possible unless the ones demanding
> > proof are willing to change the way they think about things. I've
> > noticed that the atheistic science sticklers like to adhere to their
> > pet theories because they read them in a science magazine they like,
> > even though the information in a science magazine is just the best the
> > scientists can come up with at the time. And what they're saying is
> > correct in some ways, but the assumption that no God is provable is a
> > little unfair when the processes they're describing are the very proof
> > that God exists, but they aren't recognizing it as proof of God.
>
> But they aren't proof that a god exists. In another post you claimed
> that the fact that humans have less body hair then chimpanzees is proof
> of a god! Science can explain that without the need to introduce a
> magical sky pixie. But you won't accept that, so let me ask something
> else.
I accept that science can explain thing without introducing a magical sky
pixie. I also accept that as a reason they say there's no proof of God.
They seem to think that if they can explain something with the means of
science, it becomes proof of the scientific method, not proof of God's
existence.
> If for a moment I accept that a god is required to explain evolution,
> what proof is there that it's the Judeo-Christian God who is featured in
> the Old Testament and its less-successful sequel, the New Testament? I
> assume that's who you're talking about since you refer to it as 'God'
> (capital G) throughout. But 'God' isn't a name, it's a job description.
Yes, yes, I know. I've thought about that many times. "God" is the title
of an office, as is "Satan". But so is President. That doesn't keep
people from calling Obama "Mr. President", and it doesn't keep the Kazon
from calling members of Starfleet "Starfleet". (I'll probably be made to
regret using a Star Trek reference because people will assume I get all my
ideas from Star Trek, and I don't, but I'll wait for the assumptions to
fly in.)
> Biblical scholars believe that the god's proper name is Yahweh
> (westernised as 'Jehovah'). Is that the god you believe in? (In a vain
> attempt to bring this even marginally back on topic, should I have
> phrased that "Is that the god in whom you believe?")
Since I understand how the mental mechanism works that makes people hear
voices, I posit that "Yahweh" came about because some respected scholar
had an epiphany with deep thoughts about God, and he heard "YHWH". He
believed he must have heard the true name of God, he promoted it as such,
and the rest is recorded in history. It doesn't mean that God's real name
is Yahweh. It just means that someone with a great deal of respect heard
a voice that said "Yahweh" and he believed it must have been a divine
revelation. There's no harm in it, of course. It's just a name.
> How do you know the Romans and Greeks were wrong in their belief of a
> whole pantheon of gods? Maybe it was Zeus who created life on Earth.
I don't vehemently accept nor deny the existence of subgods like Zeus, but
I do proudly separate myself from those who insist they were merely myths;
those people cannot know with certainty that they were mythological
characters. They can only deny the subgods were real because real gods
don't fit within their paradigm of history and reality. But would those
people also like to claim that their paradigms are perfect and infallible?
They probably wouldn't, yet they would still probably defend their choice
to say that subgods, and God himself, are not real. They want it both
ways.
I'm open to the possibility all the gods once existed. Perhaps they
existed long before the universe began expanding, and the people who wrote
stories about them were unconsciously tapping into some cosmic database of
past events. In that case, it's no wonder people called the stories
imaginary. People who couldn't tap into the same cosmic database thought
that the stories from those who could were complete lunacy.
Or the gods could have existed as physical beings so long ago that their
remains and archaeology have long-since deteriorated beyond recognition.
So much of recorded history has been burned or lost that since no physical
proof remains today, many people today just say the stories were myths.
How sad it is, should those stories be true, that people choose to believe
a lie just because of the lack of evidence that could have been
long-destroyed. Lack of evidence for mythogical gods does not prove the
gods were just mythological if the evidence has been lost or destroyed.
Today, for some, it becomes one of those "unknowable" things. But to
those who have nothing to lose by believing they existed, they become
stories of inspiration that can be believed with no harm to anyone.
Finally, the "gods" could have been seen as gods just because they had
very long lifespans. Yet even in mythological stories, the gods were
often murdered or they died somehow. If we, some of us, or one of us
reincarnates over and over, then some of the people alive today may have
once lived as one or more of those gods. Reincarnation would come with
physical amnesia since we'd be eternal spirits born with new brains that
need information from the spirit to know what the full truth of human
existence really is. But with evidence falling away with each generation,
each generation had less reason to believe gods existed prior to their
births, and the disappearance of gods over the ages became proof that if
gods were once here, they weren't as powerful as they thought they were.
Of course that isn't too surprising given all the stories of paranoia,
jealousy and revenge. The gods had all the fallacies of man; they were
just more grandiose in their display of those fallacies.
Damaeus
Gary Eickmeier
"Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
Because you have no way of knowing anything you are talking about.
Gary Eickmeier
GordonD
So why bring a god into the situation at all? When I switch on my light I
know that doing so closes a connection which allows electricity to flow into
the bulb and causes it to glow. I don't believe that operating the switch
causes a prayer to be submitted to a god to magically make the bulb glow.
The scientific explanation doesn't *need* an outside source.
To quote Sir Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic." To pick an example out of the air, I've seen
footage on TV where chocolate bars are fed into one end of a machine and
come out at the other end fully wrapped and ready to go on sale. Now I
couldn't explain exactly what happens inside that machine but I don't
believe for a second that it's magic: somewhere inside there's a roll of
paper printed with the name of the chocolate bar which is cut into pieces
the right size and folded round the bar and sealed in place. If I was
someone from the fifteenth century brought into the present I might think
there was magic involved but I have enough experience of the twenty-first
century and the machines that surround us to know that isn't the case. And
if you find the right person he could tell you precisely what happens at
every stage of the machine's operation.
If aliens beamed down Star Trek-style (don't blame me - you mentioned the
show first!) scientists probably wouldn't be able to explain how they'd done
it but they wouldn't immediately say "It's magic!" They would assume it was
a scientific principle we don't yet understand.
Gary Eickmeier
"Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> If God created people to be infinite, why not make himself greater than
> infinite? If God had made people equal with himself, he might not have
> been able to overpower their forthright pessimism. In a universe built to
> respond to your state of mind, a pessimist would be constantly tormented
> with negative experiences. So the universe needed one person with
> greater-than-infinite power so his optimism would overpower all pessimism.
>
> The universe will live forever, and so will we. I'm forever the optimist.
I would just like to point out that Damaeus's imagination is a great example
of how religions are built. We look up at the sky at night, and try to
imagine what "must" be. If we get it wrong for a while, doesn't matter - it
is a belief system. When it hurts is when these people fashion themselves as
leaders and tell others that they have talked to God and know what he wants
them to do, and what will happen to them if they don't, and on until we find
the evil that religions have created in our world.
Damaeus, stop it, and everyone else, get a grip on yourselves and stop
believing fantastic tales. Mark Twain said faith is believing what you know
ain't so. The key is knowing what you know and what you are fantasizing.
Everyone, stop it.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
"Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
If you do a lot of reading on the subject, you soon see a consistency and
similarity of the Jesus story to 15 other godmen stories from other great
religions of the world. There are more than enough saviors for a football
team. The conclusion is that they are all fantasies. Gods do not impregnate
Earth virgins and start a family. People cannot be raised from the dead,
especially after 4 days (Lazarus). As for atonement theology, it is nothing
more than a blood sacrifice, the most noble of which is to kill a human
being to appease a god. If you believe in such acts, I pity you. Finally,
there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of this most important
person to have ever walked the Earth. If the things that are written in the
bible ever happened, they would have been in all the papers (there would be
some record of them outside of biblical sources).
Would you be interested in some references?
Gary Eickmeier
Damaeus
You must have forgotten where I wrote this:
What a surprising statement from one who mostly acts like a
know-it-all. He doesn't seem to consider that there actually
*IS* a god, but we've been cut off from a portion of God by the
contraction of the universe! So for now, our teeth have a
tendency to decay over time, as does the rest of our bodies. But
as the universe continues to expand, more of God can fit through
the folds in the fabric of space. When the universe becomes
infinite, it'll all be there and not only will we have wonderful
teeth, they won't decay, either.
When I wrote that, I thought that being cut off was temporary. But if we
take the scriptural account seriously, we'll be cut off forever. If
that's the case, then intution does not actually create a way back to God;
it only seems to because the desire of some to return to God is so great.
It becomes a self-delusion. Instead, intuition actually creates an
intelligence absent of God, and new way of life that is not like Heaven,
but is survivable in a different form. Since some of the angels were
kicked out of Heaven for wanton behavior, it sounds like any form of Hell
would be full of the wanton behavior that originally upset God. And my
suspicion is that if you are here now, you were kicked out of Heaven and
cannot return. That would probably make the atheists quite happy. They've
already erased God from their reality.
Damaeus
tony cooper
How about a little tolerance here? While Damaeus and I are poles
apart in our belief systems, I see no reason to call him out on the
error of his thinking. He believes, and I do not. I'm not at all
sure which of us is right, but I am sure that each of us should be
able to believe what they will.
What I do find inappropriate is the subject being brought up for
discussion in the newsgroup.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
tony cooper
<geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>Would you be interested in some references?
>
Have you *ever* felt that you could persuade or convince someone else
that a particular position on religion is right by providing them with
references? He can't. You can't.
Why bother?
Damaeus
25 Feb 2011 08:30:23 -0500 the following:
> Damaeus wrote:
> > "CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca> posted:
> >> On the basis of your other posts, I think your idea of God is far
> >> too human.
> >>
> > [reasonable critique of some traditional religious views, snipped
> > for the sake of brevity]
> >>
> Have you read Le Guin's very short piece "Author of the Acacia
> Seeds..."? The untunneled is longer than the tunneled.
No, I haven't. I'd never heard of it until now.
> > > IMH*O, we are not the centre of anything.
> >
> > Have you made your mind up on that firmly? I know that from the view
> > of science, even though it has not found life on any other planet or
> > natural satellite, they like to be optimistic and speculate that,
> > mathematically, there should be life out there somewhere. Some say
> > there just has to be, as if they're hopeful of finding it one day.
> > They even seem excited about it, like they're just sure they'll find
> > it if they just keep looking. But, being scientists, of course, they
> > don't say that there actually is extra-terrestrial life because it
> > hasn't been found yet.
>
> No, it's just an opinion, based on the essentially narcissistic nature
> of humans, or maybe of living things. Because we are the centre of our
> own perceptual universes, we tend to think we are the centre of
> everything. There's also the suggestive record of our disillusionments:
> oops, not geocentric; oops, not heliocentric; therefore oops, not
> anthropocentric.
But we may be the center of everything. Some are so turned off by that
narcissisistic idea that they both deny the existence of extra-terrestrial
life since no proof has been found, while also denying that humans here on
Earth are the most culturally, socially and technologically advanced
species in the universe. Right now, all the evidence we have says that we
are the most advanced. So why not take up the torch and be that?
> > If we were riding the tidal wave of cosmic inflation, nothing on the
> > opposite side of the expanding area would be visible. If we were
> > somewhere other than the center of the universe, we would see a deeper
> > red-shift coming from the side of the universe we're farthest from
> > because the farthest edge of the universe would be moving away from us
> > more quickly than the closest edge of the universe since we would be
> > partially caught in the cosmic tide moving the closest edge away from
> > us.
>
> Do you mean that these conditions would prevail if we were at one edge
> of the universe?
I don't think we could exist at the expanding edge of the universe. It'd
be a nasty, hostile place. I think we're actually in the safest place in
the universe right here, which is why we have life.
> I don't think we're there either. I don't think we're anyplace, or
> anything, special (except to ourselves). I'm not at all sure there is a
> centre or an edge.
A finite space has a center. I see no way around that. But I see the
universe in two parts: an finite area that contains matter, and an
infinite area, part of which does not yet contain matter, but one day will
when the finite, expanding area expands to fill all that infinite space.
At that point, you can say the universe has no edge, but as I see it, it
will always have a starting point -- that point in space from which the
expansion began. You could call *that* the center of the universe, just
to have some kind of reference point from where you are in an infinite,
three-dimensional space.
Damaeus
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>
>But we may be the center of everything. Some are so turned off by that
>narcissisistic idea that they both deny the existence of extra-terrestrial
>life since no proof has been found, while also denying that humans here on
>Earth are the most culturally, socially and technologically advanced
>species in the universe. Right now, all the evidence we have says that we
>are the most advanced. So why not take up the torch and be that?
That would be inconsistent with Christian humility.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
Damaeus
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> posted on Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:49:17 +0000 the
following:
I don't think anything is said about believing unreasonable things just to
maintain humility. I would think that discovering we're the most
intelligent life in the universe would increase humility, not narcissism.
Damaeus
Damaeus
> "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> news:f19fm69argvpqjeav...@4ax.com...
>
> > Are you 2,000 years old? Did you actually *see* all these things happen,
> > or are there just certain sources of information you trust over other
> > sources? The only thing you can really admit is that you trust one source
> > of information over another. To do anything else would be a violation of
> > critical thinking -- a class I scored a 100 in while in college, for your
> > information.
>
> If you do a lot of reading on the subject, you soon see a consistency and
> similarity of the Jesus story to 15 other godmen stories from other great
> religions of the world.
Yes, I know.
> There are more than enough saviors for a football team. The conclusion
> is that they are all fantasies.
What makes you think they're all fantasies? Because their stories match?
It doesn't mean they were actually fantasies. They could have all come to
earth with a formula and a similar story. That their stories match could
be a proof via the consistency between them.
> Gods do not impregnate Earth virgins and start a family.
Michio Kaku:
Everything about the quantum theory revolted Einstein. The
quantum theory makes even bizarre events possible. For example,
walking across the street we expect to wind up on the other
side. However there is a finite calculable probability that you
will dissolve and wind up on Mars, dissolve and wind up on the
Earth again. Of course you will have to wait longer than the
lifetime of the universe but in principle it could happen.
Me:
If under quantum theory there is a finite, calculable
probability that you will dissolve, wind up on Mars, then
dissolve again and wind up back on Earth, then there would also
be a finite, calculable probability that a random sperm could
materialize inside the womb of a virgin and result in the birth
of a human being.
If Jesus (or any of the similar figures) were born of a virgin, obviously
we've waited long enough for a sperm to materialize inside the womb of not
just one, but several virgins.
> People cannot be raised from the dead, especially after 4 days
> (Lazarus). As for atonement theology, it is nothing more than a blood
> sacrifice, the most noble of which is to kill a human being to appease a
> god. If you believe in such acts, I pity you.
No, I leave that for the radicals over in the Middle East. I wish they
wouldn't do that, but who am I to be their oppressor?
> Finally, there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of this most
> important person to have ever walked the Earth. If the things that are
> written in the bible ever happened, they would have been in all the
> papers (there would be some record of them outside of biblical sources).
There are plenty of references outside Biblical sources. I have read many
texts that are not found in the Bible.
> Would you be interested in some references?
Of course!
Damaeus
Damaeus
posted on Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:17:29 -0500 the following:
> What I do find inappropriate is the subject being brought up for
> discussion in the newsgroup.
I like thread drift, myself. Disinterested people with decent newsreaders
have probably activated their ignore feature for this thread.
Damaeus
Martin Ambuhl
Surely, as a matter of English usage, you mean "uninterested".
Disinterested people not only might be following this thread, but might,
as Tony did, step in at times.
Damaeus
> "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> news:r09fm6958t525a9m4...@4ax.com...
> > In news:alt.english.usage, "Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com>
> > posted on Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:54:43 -0500 the following:
> >
> > > "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:c3dem6lglqkt5f24n...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > > In one of the "models" I have of both the post-big bang universe
> > > > and the pre-big bang universe, the pre-big bang universe was not
> > > > material. It was whispy, dream-like, and non-material. If the
> > > > universe had been material before the big bang, we wouldn't have
> > > > needed a big bang to make materiality possible. Therefore the
> > > > universe was mainly consciousness before the big bang. Everything
> > > > was phantomic. Once those phantom particles were contracted into
> > > > infinite density, and expanded, solid, material particles began to
> > > > form, which is why we are made of relatively stable matter now,
> > > > and not just phantoms. Those phantom particles still exist today
> > > > and are being emitted from black holes as Hawking radiation.
> > >
> > > Now we know he is joking with us.
> >
> > What makes you think it's a joke?
>
> Because you have no way of knowing anything you are talking about.
And you think that way because you are me? Did you do some kind of Vulcan
mind meld to jump into my consciousness and parse my thought processes? To
make a statement like that, you'd have to actually be me. And if you were
me, you would not believe that line.
Damaeus
Damaeus
Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:29:08 -0500 the following:
> On 2/25/2011 12:26 PM, Damaeus wrote:
> > In news:alt.english.usage, tony cooper<tony_co...@earthlink.net>
> > posted on Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:17:29 -0500 the following:
> >
> >> What I do find inappropriate is the subject being brought up for
> >> discussion in the newsgroup.
> >
> > I like thread drift, myself. Disinterested people with decent newsreaders
> > have probably activated their ignore feature for this thread.
>
> Surely, as a matter of English usage, you mean "uninterested".
disinterested - uninterested; indifferent: this usage, a revival
of an obsolete meaning, is objected to by some
(Webster's New World College Dictionary)
I guess you object.
> Disinterested people not only might be following this thread, but might,
> as Tony did, step in at times.
If I'm engaged in something, then become disengaged, I have removed myself
from that activity. If I'm unengaged, I may have never engaged myself to
begin with. If I'm interested in the thread, I could later become
disinterested, disengage myself from the subject, and activate my ignore
feature.
No wonder "disinterested" was revived. It's quite useful!
Damaeus
GordonD
news:jrkfm6lu21rnbbjdo...@4ax.com...
> What I do find inappropriate is the subject being brought up for
> discussion in the newsgroup.
You're quite right, Tony, and as a newbie here I apologise for getting
carried away. It's clear that neither Damaeus nor I have any chance of
convincing the other so I'm going to stop here.
Damaeus
> "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> news:44bfm6pg8jv74fo8p...@4ax.com...
>
> > I accept that science can explain thing without introducing a magical
> > sky pixie. I also accept that as a reason they say there's no proof of
> > God. They seem to think that if they can explain something with the
> > means of science, it becomes proof of the scientific method, not proof
> > of God's existence.
>
> So why bring a god into the situation at all? When I switch on my light
> I know that doing so closes a connection which allows electricity to
> flow into the bulb and causes it to glow. I don't believe that operating
> the switch causes a prayer to be submitted to a god to magically make
> the bulb glow. The scientific explanation doesn't *need* an outside
> source.
I've never claimed that light bulbs or even remote controls need god-like
infusions of power to work. At this point, I'm talking more about what
it's possible to know through intuition and internal reasoning, though not
excluding the absorption of enough information that is true, false,
fictional, anecdotal, proven, and unproven. Take enough of it in, and
pretty soon, all the pieces start coming together, and you start forming
ideas that fit within your developing paradigm too perfectly to be
rejected just because you didn't read it in a science journal first.
> To quote Sir Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is
> indistinguishable from magic." To pick an example out of the air, I've
> seen footage on TV where chocolate bars are fed into one end of a
> machine and come out at the other end fully wrapped and ready to go on
> sale. Now I couldn't explain exactly what happens inside that machine
> but I don't believe for a second that it's magic: somewhere inside
> there's a roll of paper printed with the name of the chocolate bar which
> is cut into pieces the right size and folded round the bar and sealed in
> place. If I was someone from the fifteenth century brought into the
> present I might think there was magic involved but I have enough
> experience of the twenty-first century and the machines that surround us
> to know that isn't the case. And if you find the right person he could
> tell you precisely what happens at every stage of the machine's
> operation.
It's easy to pick an example that proves your point. But what if you're
sitting at your desk, and on your desk is a remote control. While you're
at your desk, you see a ghost copy of your remote control fly off the
desk, while the solid remote control remains where it is. I don't call
that proof of Arthur C. Clarke's "sufficiently advanced technology" at
work. That is to say, I don't think a space ship tried to steal my remote
control. But what happened?
Here's another example. Once I was in the shower and saw a particle of
light manifest, move around gracefully, then fade out of sight. I created
a graphic to show exactly how this particle of light behaved. I'm
thinking that later I'm going to create an animation of it so I can
illustrate how the light of the particle "flickered" as it moved around.
Note that I only placed the image on an HTML document so I could include a
black background and a little text:
http://home.earthlink.net/~damaeus/light-particle.html
If you're paranoid about HTML pages, you can go to the image by itself
here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~damaeus/images/light-particle-path.png
The light was quite bright. To me, it looked like a kind of magic that
had nothing to do with technology. And what caused it? Have I thought of
hallucinations? Yes, of course I have. That was the first thing I
thought about, even as I was seeing it: "Is it really there? Or was the
image created in the visual processing center of my brain?"
Those who don't think it's possible for a particle of light to materialize
will say, "Of course, you just hallucinated it. It wasn't really there."
But they cannot know that for sure. Yes, I've heard that people
hallucinate. I know all about it. I just don't think every hallucination
is just some unimportant event that should be ignored by the one who had
the hallucination.
> If aliens beamed down Star Trek-style (don't blame me - you mentioned
> the show first!) scientists probably wouldn't be able to explain how
> they'd done it but they wouldn't immediately say "It's magic!" They
> would assume it was a scientific principle we don't yet understand.
Yes, I understand that, but if I were the scientist, it would depend on
how they materialized. If they had little sparklies, I'd say it might be
technology. If they materialized with ornate special effects obviously
included to make their beam-down beautiful, I might question whether it
was technology or god-like powers to create beautiful photonic energy
patterns for effect. I mean, if humans are destined to be gods of magic,
what fun would it be to use magic if there's no beautiful special effects
to go along with it? We obviously like those things. Look at Hollywood
and the interest in computer animation. If the humans who are into
computer animation become gods, you just have to know that they would
carry their love for beautiful designs into their magical abilities.
Damaeus
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:jrkfm6lu21rnbbjdo...@4ax.com...
>
>> What I do find inappropriate is the subject being brought up for
>> discussion in the newsgroup.
>
>You're quite right, Tony, and as a newbie here I apologise for getting
>carried away. It's clear that neither Damaeus nor I have any chance of
>convincing the other so I'm going to stop here.
I've made a small number of contributions to the discussion, but I've
now concluded that Damaeus's statements would require so much detailed
analysis to pin down his arguments that the chance of progress is
infinitesimal.
I'm out.
GordonD
> It's easy to pick an example that proves your point. But what if you're
> sitting at your desk, and on your desk is a remote control. While you're
> at your desk, you see a ghost copy of your remote control fly off the
> desk, while the solid remote control remains where it is. I don't call
> that proof of Arthur C. Clarke's "sufficiently advanced technology" at
> work. That is to say, I don't think a space ship tried to steal my remote
> control. But what happened?
You imagined it. Or more likely you're making it up, in which case there's
no point in trying to explain something which didn't happen.
And now I really am going to stop.
Robin Bignall
wrote:
>In one of the "models" I have of both the post-big bang universe and the
>pre-big bang universe, the pre-big bang universe was not material. It was
>whispy, dream-like, and non-material. If the universe had been material
>before the big bang, we wouldn't have needed a big bang to make
>materiality possible. Therefore the universe was mainly consciousness
>before the big bang. Everything was phantomic. Once those phantom
>particles were contracted into infinite density, and expanded, solid,
>material particles began to form, which is why we are made of relatively
>stable matter now, and not just phantoms. Those phantom particles still
>exist today and are being emitted from black holes as Hawking radiation.
What absolute rubbish. Stick to religion; you obviously know nothing about
physics or cosmology.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England
Virgil
"Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
Christianity seems to hold that some god created the entire universe
just so it could also create humanity.
To me that shows very little humility.
--
Creationism is code for "Here, we want you to believe this bullshit"
Humans have been successfully applying the principles of Evolution in
agriculture and animal husbandry for over 10,000 years now.
Wisely Non-Theist
Damaeus <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
> That would probably make the atheists quite happy. They've
> already erased God from their reality.
"A" as a prefix normally means "non", not "anti".
http://wordinfo.info/units/view/2838/page:18/ip:1
The vast majority of a-theists are merely non-believers, not
anti-believers.
It is only theists who insist that atheists have any beliefs about gods.
tony cooper
Thread drift is like left-overs: the dish must be appetizing for the
left-overs to be good.
Gary Eickmeier
"Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
Yes, of course I was you - but just long enough to see the truth. I became
phantomic and was able to inject my consciousness into yours through the
internet, just for seven seconds. It was amazing. While there, I saw that
you were NOT present before the Big Bang, and you are just testing us, so
don't try and fool us any more with that.
OK, now I've got to hunt down some young virgins to impregnate.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
> How about a little tolerance here? While Damaeus and I are poles
> apart in our belief systems, I see no reason to call him out on the
> error of his thinking. He believes, and I do not. I'm not at all
> sure which of us is right, but I am sure that each of us should be
> able to believe what they will.
>
> What I do find inappropriate is the subject being brought up for
> discussion in the newsgroup.
Come on Tony. I view this as a group of like-minded intelligent people. I
find this an interesting subject, and am glad we tripped into it. I was
sincere in the language connection, that they don't have a right to call
someone an "atheist" and label him for not believing as they do. For my next
thread, I may introduce my distaste for the word "stereotype." Everything is
a "stereotype," even if it is a valid observation. I could go on.....
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
"Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> In news:alt.english.usage, "Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com>
> posted on Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:45:12 -0500 the following:
>> Finally, there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of this most
>> important person to have ever walked the Earth. If the things that are
>> written in the bible ever happened, they would have been in all the
>> papers (there would be some record of them outside of biblical sources).
>
> There are plenty of references outside Biblical sources. I have read many
> texts that are not found in the Bible.
Now you've got my attention! Please do tell!
>
>> Would you be interested in some references?
>
> Of course!
OK, try "Man Made God" by Barbara Walker, a lot of fun, and ""The World's
Sixteen Crucified Saviors" by Kersey Graves, and by far my favorite for
explaining how the Jesus myth got started is "The Jesus Mysteries" by
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. I've read it twice now. Might go again.
Gary Eickmeier
Patok
> "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
>> Of course!
>
> OK, try "Man Made God" by Barbara Walker, a lot of fun, and ""The World's
> Sixteen Crucified Saviors" by Kersey Graves, and by far my favorite for
> explaining how the Jesus myth got started is "The Jesus Mysteries" by
> Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. I've read it twice now. Might go again.
Let's not forget the classics! I recommend James Frazer: "The Golden Bough"
(Duh!), "Folk-lore in the Old Testament" and "The Belief in Immortality and the
Worship of the Dead".
--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
*
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.
Damaeus
> "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> news:pfqfm65ok3bn2jjqa...@4ax.com...
>
> > It's easy to pick an example that proves your point. But what if you're
> > sitting at your desk, and on your desk is a remote control. While you're
> > at your desk, you see a ghost copy of your remote control fly off the
> > desk, while the solid remote control remains where it is. I don't call
> > that proof of Arthur C. Clarke's "sufficiently advanced technology" at
> > work. That is to say, I don't think a space ship tried to steal my remote
> > control. But what happened?
>
> You imagined it. Or more likely you're making it up,
Yes, that's the problem with these types of discussions. To feel like
you've come out on top, you've got to accuse the other person of lying!
Damaeus
Damaeus
Feb 2011 17:43:03 -0700 the following:
> In article <abnfm6p0orp8r571s...@4ax.com>,
> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:22:55 -0600, Damaeus
> > <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >But we may be the center of everything. Some are so turned off by that
> > >narcissisistic idea that they both deny the existence of extra-terrestrial
> > >life since no proof has been found, while also denying that humans here on
> > >Earth are the most culturally, socially and technologically advanced
> > >species in the universe. Right now, all the evidence we have says that we
> > >are the most advanced. So why not take up the torch and be that?
> >
> > That would be inconsistent with Christian humility.
>
> Christianity seems to hold that some god created the entire universe
> just so it could also create humanity.
>
> To me that shows very little humility.
Well, where would you have humans live, if not the universe?
Damaeus
Damaeus
> "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote
>
> > "Gary Eickmeier" posted:
> >
> > > "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote
> > >
> > > > What makes you think it's a joke?
> > >
> > > Because you have no way of knowing anything you are talking about.
> >
> > And you think that way because you are me? Did you do some kind of
> > Vulcan mind meld to jump into my consciousness and parse my thought
> > processes? To make a statement like that, you'd have to actually be
> > me. And if you were me, you would not believe that line.
>
> Yes, of course I was you - but just long enough to see the truth.
No wonder you come to the wrong conclusions. There is no "just long
enough" possible. Either you've lived my entire life, or you haven't. You
can't analyze it all with a few minutes of possession.
> I became phantomic and was able to inject my consciousness into yours
> through the internet, just for seven seconds. It was amazing. While
> there, I saw that you were NOT present before the Big Bang, and you are
> just testing us,
I'm not testing you. I'm informing you.
> so don't try and fool us any more with that.
I'm not trying to fool anyone. I always tell the truth.
Damaeus
Damaeus
Fri, 25 Feb 2011 21:30:49 +0000 the following:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:07:09 -0600, Damaeus <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > In one of the "models" I have of both the post-big bang universe and
> > the pre-big bang universe, the pre-big bang universe was not material.
> > It was whispy, dream-like, and non-material. If the universe had been
> > material before the big bang, we wouldn't have needed a big bang to
> > make materiality possible. Therefore the universe was mainly
> > consciousness before the big bang. Everything was phantomic. Once
> > those phantom particles were contracted into infinite density, and
> > expanded, solid, material particles began to form, which is why we are
> > made of relatively stable matter now, and not just phantoms. Those
> > phantom particles still exist today and are being emitted from black
> > holes as Hawking radiation.
>
> What absolute rubbish.
Perhaps you don't understand enough about physics and cosmology to
recognize an extremely condensed version of the history of the universe,
or perhaps my description of what happened isn't a verbatim quote of what
you memorized out of a textbook, but everything there is factual.
> Stick to religion; you obviously know nothing about physics or
> cosmology.
The only way you could make that statement is if you know everything about
physics and cosmology, both discovered and undiscovered. I don't imagine
that's the case.
Damaeus
Damaeus
25 Feb 2011 17:57:17 -0700 the following:
You're not distinguishing between agnostic atheism and plain old atheism.
Atheists are anti-belief. Agnostic atheists are non-believers.
Damaeus
Damaeus
> "Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ciofm6het0b4ill2g...@4ax.com...
> > In news:alt.english.usage, "Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com>
> > posted on Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:45:12 -0500 the following:
>
> >> Finally, there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of this most
> >> important person to have ever walked the Earth. If the things that are
> >> written in the bible ever happened, they would have been in all the
> >> papers (there would be some record of them outside of biblical sources).
> >
> > There are plenty of references outside Biblical sources. I have read many
> > texts that are not found in the Bible.
>
> Now you've got my attention! Please do tell!
What, you want me to provide, a laundry list??? Here's a list of what
I've read from books I have here at home. This doesn't include anything
I've read online:
From: The Gnostic Bible (Hardback)
©2003 by Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer
1. The Gospel of Thomas
2. The Gospel of John
3. The Book of Baruch
4. The Secret Book of John
6. The Revelation of Adam
7. The Forms of First Thought
13. The Letter of Peter to Philip
14. The Gospel of Truth
15. The Gospel of Philip
21. The Secret Book of James
25. The Book of Thomas
26. The Exegesis on the Soul
27. On the Origin of the World
30. The Gospel of Mary
38. On the Origin of His Body
39. The Story of the Death of Mani
45. The Gospel of the Secret Supper
From: The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version
Robert J. Miller
©1992, 1994 by Polebridge Press
1. Gospel of Mark
2. Gospel of Matthew
3. Gospel of Luke
4. Signs Gospel
5. Gospel of John
6. Sayings Gospel Q
7. Gospel of Thomas
8. Greek Fragments of Thomas
9. Secret Book of James
10. Dialogue of the Savior
11. Gospel of Mary
12. Infancy Gospel of Thomas
13. Infancy Gospel of James
Fragmentary Gospels
14. Gospel of Peter
15. Secret Gospel of Mark
16. Egerton Gospel
17. Gospel Oxyrhynchus 840
18. Gospel Oxyrhynchus 1224
The book also contains some orphan fragments I've looked through.
The Lost Book of Enoch: A Comprehensive Transliteration of the Forgotten
Book of the Bible
©2004 Joseph B. Lumpkin
The Secret Gospel: The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel
According to Mark
©1973, 1982 Morton Smith
The Book of Mormon (parts of it)
I've also read significant portions of these books:
The Essential Rumi (Translation by Coleman Barks)
The Way of a Pilgrom (Translation by R. M. French)
Tao Te Ching (Translation by Victor H. Mair)
The Bhagavad-Gita (Translation by Barbara Stoler Miller)
The Tibetan Book of the Dead (Translation by Robert A. F. Thurman)
The Essential Kabbalah
Finally, and probably to much laughter, I've read parts of The Urantia
Book. I have a leather-bound copy of it on my bookshelf.
> > > Would you be interested in some references?
> >
> > Of course!
>
> OK, try "Man Made God" by Barbara Walker, a lot of fun, and ""The World's
> Sixteen Crucified Saviors" by Kersey Graves, and by far my favorite for
> explaining how the Jesus myth got started is "The Jesus Mysteries" by
> Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. I've read it twice now. Might go again.
I might look for them if one of the libraries around here has them.
Damaeus
Damaeus
Fri, 25 Feb 2011 02:00:14 -0500 the following:
> On 2/25/2011 1:05 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> > "Damaeus"<no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:l62em61cddjhiq1sg...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > I consider Jesus. If Jesus really could perform miracles and create
> > > objects out of thin air, raise the dead and whatnot, then the power
> > > of God would have to be beyond infinite.
>
> Gary didn't remark, but I will:
> "Beyond infinite" is without meaning (and if you think the "power of
> God" is a transfinite number, you are beyond hope). Nor is the "logic"
> in any way correct; the ability to convince others of miracles and
> "create objects out of thin air" (where is the scriptural basis for
> this?)
Okay, here is your proof: I typed this out of the book I have sitting
before me, credited at the end:
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas:
1 I, Thomas, the Israelite, am reporting to you, all my non-Jewish
brothers and sisters, to make known the extraordinary childhood deeds of
our Lord Jesus Christ—what he did after his birth in my region. This is
how it all started:
2 When this boy, Jesus, was five years old, he was playing at the
ford of a rushing stream. He was collecting the flowing water into ponds
and made the water instantly pure. He did this with a single command. He
then made soft clay and shaped it into twelve sparrows. He did this on
the sabbath day, and many other boys were playing with him.
But when a Jew saw what Jesus was doing while playing on the sabbath
day, he immediately went off and told Joseph, Jesus' father: "See here,
your boy is at the ford and has taken mud and fashioned twelve birds with
it, and so has violated the sabbath."
So Joseph went there, and as soon as he spotted him, he shouted, "Why
are you doing what's not permitted on the sabbath."
But Jesus simply clapped his hands and shouted to the sparrows: "Be
off, fly away, and remember me, you who are now alive!" And the sparrows
took off and flew away noisily.
The Jews watched with amazement, then left the scene to report to
their leaders what they had seen Jesus doing.
3 The son of Annas the scholar, standing there with Jesus, took a
willow branch and drained the water Jesus had collected. Jesus, however,
saw what had happened and became angry, saying to him, "Damn you, you
irreverent fool! What harm did the ponds of water do to you? From this
moment you, too, will dry up like a tree, and you'll never produce leaves
or bear fruit."
In an instant the boy had completely withered away. Then Jesus
departed and left for the house of Joseph. The parents of the boy who had
withered away picked him up and were carrying him out, sad because he was
so young. And they came to Joseph and accused him: "It's your fault—your
boy did all this."
4 Later he was going through the village again when a boy ran by and
bumped him on the shoulder. Jesus got angry and said to him, "You won't
continue your journey." And all of a sudden he fell down and died.
Some people saw what had happened and said, "Where has this boy come
from? Everything he says happens instantly!"
The parents of the dead boy came to Joseph and blamed him, saying,
"Because you have such a boy, you can't live with us in the village, or
else teach him to bless and not curse. He's killing our children!"
5 So Joseph summoned his child and admonished him in private, saying,
"Why are you doing all this? These people are suffering and so they hate
and harass us." Jesus said, "I know that the words I spoke are not my
words. Still, I'll keep quiet for your sake. But those people must take
their punishment." There and then his accusers became blind.
Those who saw this became very fearful and at a loss. All they could
say was, "Every word he says, whether good or bad, has become a deed—a
miracle, even!" When Joseph saw that Jesus had done such a thing, he got
angry and grabbed his ear and pulled very hard. The boy became infuriated
with him and replied, "It's one thing for you to seek and not find; it's
quite another for you to act this unwisely. Don't you know that I don't
really belong to you? Don't make me upset."
[...]
8 While the Jews were advising Zacchaeus, the child laughed loudly
and said, "Now let the infertile bear fruit and let the blind see and the
deaf in the understanding of their heart hear: I've come from above so
that I might save those who are below and summon them to higher things,
just as the one who sent me to you commanded me."
When the child stopped speaking, all those who had fallen under the
curse were instantly saved. And from then on, no one dared to anger him
for fear of being cursed and maimed for life.
9 A few days later, Jesus was playing on the roof of a house when one
of the children playing with him fell off the roof and died. When the
other children saw what had happened, they fled, leaving Jesus standing
all by himself.
The parents of the dead child came and accused Jesus: "You
troublemaker you, you're the one who threw him down."
Jesus responded, "I didn't throw him down—he threw himself down. He
just wasn't being careful and leaped down from the roof and died."
Then Jesus himself leaped down from the roof and stood by the body of
the child and shouted in a loud voice: "Zeno!"—that was his name—"Get up
and tell me: Did I push you?"
He got up immediately and said, "No, Lord, you didn't push me, you
raised me up."
Those who saw this were astonished, and the child's parents praised
God for the miracle that had happened and worshipped Jesus.
Note: Don't criticize my style of referencing. I don't reference
materials for a living so in trying to find examples online to refresh my
memory, I found that there are no so many damned styles for referencing
that I can't tell which one I should use to keep from offending a
reference nazi. No matter which one I choose, I probably couldn't satisfy
anyone, anyway, so I'm coming up with my own. I provide more information
in my reference than most of the exemplifications I've seen on the web,
anyway:
Reference List
Miller, Robert J., The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version.
Polebridge Press, 1992. pp. 371-375.
===============
I think I've gone far enough. There were many other so-called "miracles"
in the many passages that followed, but I don't think it's necessary to
continue providing them here. These texts exist in other forms on the web
with slightly different wording spawned from different opinions about what
the translation should be. I didn't paste them from the web because I
read them first in the book I have.
So I've proven you wrong. There are "miracles" in scripture.
Damaeus
CDB
> "CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca> posted:
>> Damaeus wrote:
>>> "CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca> posted:
>>
>>>> On the basis of your other posts, I think your idea of God is far
>>>> too human.
>>>>
>>> [reasonable critique of some traditional religious views, snipped
>>> for the sake of brevity]
>>>>
>> Have you read Le Guin's very short piece "Author of the Acacia
>> Seeds..."? The untunneled is longer than the tunneled.
>
> No, I haven't. I'd never heard of it until now.
>
>>>> IMH*O, we are not the centre of anything.
>>>
>>> Have you made your mind up on that firmly? I know that from the
>>> view of science, even though it has not found life on any other
>>> planet or natural satellite, they like to be optimistic and
>>> speculate that, mathematically, there should be life out there
>>> somewhere. Some say there just has to be, as if they're hopeful
>>> of finding it one day. They even seem excited about it, like
>>> they're just sure they'll find it if they just keep looking. But,
>>> being scientists, of course, they don't say that there actually
>>> is extra-terrestrial life because it hasn't been found yet.
>>
>> No, it's just an opinion, based on the essentially narcissistic
>> nature of humans, or maybe of living things. Because we are the
>> centre of our own perceptual universes, we tend to think we are
>> the centre of everything. There's also the suggestive record of
>> our disillusionments: oops, not geocentric; oops, not
>> heliocentric; therefore oops, not anthropocentric.
>
> But we may be the center of everything.
>>
thought you might consider was the side-reference to a distinction
between evidence that permits an interpretation and evidence that
supports that interpretation. Besides its relevance to the present
discussion, it offers a nice complement to the difference between "not
believing" and "believing ... not".
>>
> Some are so turned off by
> that narcissisistic idea that they both deny the existence of
> extra-terrestrial life since no proof has been found, while also
> denying that humans here on Earth are the most culturally, socially
> and technologically advanced species in the universe. Right now,
> all the evidence we have says that we are the most advanced. So
> why not take up the torch and be that?
>>
little.
>>
[cosmographic speculations]
GFH
wrote:
> In news:alt.english.usage, "Gary Eickmeier" <geick...@tampabay.rr.com>
> posted on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 07:52:11 -0500 the following:
>
> > "Damaeus" <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:pp19m6p3mknkcdq5u...@4ax.com...
>
> > > Everything that has happened in the universe only happened because God
> > > exists.
>
> > Where did this come from?
>
> Well, if atheists can assume and conclude that there is no God, I figured
> it's only fair that I assume and conclude the opposite. Atheists seem to
> be claiming that all this happened and God wasn't necessary. But if God
> actually was necessary, then this all happened under God's watch, and
> atheists simply see no evidence for it. That would mean that atheists are
> wrong, but they have yet to realize that.
Where did God come from? There is no end to these questions, and more
to the point, neither a theistic nor an atheistic assumption helps to
resolve
the quandary.
GFH
Damaeus
Feb 2011 05:18:46 -0800 (PST) the following:
> On Feb 24, 10:06 am, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid>
> wrote:
> > In news:alt.english.usage, "Gary Eickmeier" <geick...@tampabay.rr.com>
> > posted on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 07:52:11 -0500 the following:
> >
> > > "Damaeus" <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> > >news:pp19m6p3mknkcdq5u...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > > Everything that has happened in the universe only happened because God
> > > > exists.
> >
> > > Where did this come from?
> >
> > Well, if atheists can assume and conclude that there is no God, I figured
> > it's only fair that I assume and conclude the opposite. Atheists seem to
> > be claiming that all this happened and God wasn't necessary. But if God
> > actually was necessary, then this all happened under God's watch, and
> > atheists simply see no evidence for it. That would mean that atheists are
> > wrong, but they have yet to realize that.
>
> Where did God come from?
I dunno. I don't think that disproves his existence, though.
Damaeus
Martin Ambuhl
> In news:alt.english.usage, Martin Ambuhl<mam...@earthlink.net> posted on
> Fri, 25 Feb 2011 02:00:14 -0500 the following:
>
>> On 2/25/2011 1:05 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>> "Damaeus"<no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:l62em61cddjhiq1sg...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> I consider Jesus. If Jesus really could perform miracles and create
>>>> objects out of thin air, raise the dead and whatnot, then the power
>>>> of God would have to be beyond infinite.
>>
>> Gary didn't remark, but I will:
>> "Beyond infinite" is without meaning (and if you think the "power of
>> God" is a transfinite number, you are beyond hope). Nor is the "logic"
>> in any way correct; the ability to convince others of miracles and
>> "create objects out of thin air" (where is the scriptural basis for
>> this?)
>
> Okay, here is your proof: I typed this out of the book I have sitting
> before me, credited at the end:
>
> The Infancy Gospel of Thomas:
Unbelievable. You denied that you were pushing gnostic heresies and
cite a gnostic text as "proof" of something or other. Origen mentions
in passing in his 1st Homily on Luke that Gospel of Thomas was current,
although which one is unclear. Hippolytus in his _Refutation of
Heresies_ (V.7.20) mentions a Gospel of Thomas which he ascribes to the
heretical Naassenes, and it seems from this short notice to have been an
infancy gospel, although the line he quotes has been found only in the
2nd Book of Jeu and in the gnostic Manichean Kephalaia. Cyril of
Jerusalem in 348 CE said of this text in his Catechism: "The Manichaeans
also rite a Gospel according to Thomas, which, though coloured with the
fragrance of a gospel-name, corrupts the souls of the simpler" (iv.36)
and "Let no one read the Gospel according to Thomas, for it is not by
one of the twelve apostles, but by one of the three wicked disciples of
Manes" (vi.31). Modern scholarship (see Schneemelcher for references)
is mostly in agreement with Ireneus in _Against Heresies_ (I.13.1H) that
the infancy gosepel it is a production of the Marcosians.
The finding of the complete Gospel of Thomas at Nag Hammadi (Cidx III,
pp. 32.10-51.28) suggests that most of these references to Manicheans
and Naassenes are _not_ to the infancy gospel, which now is without
citatation earlier than Ireneus. In any case, no extant copy of this
"Gospel" is older than the 13th century. Your text corresponds to Greek
A, represented by 2 manuscripts from the 15th-16th centuries at Bologna
and Dresden. The connection to Thomas of the pseudographic and
heretical work is through the retelling for Jesus of older Indian
legends about other god-like heroes (See G.A. Van den Bergh van
Eysinga's _Indische Einfluesse auf evangelische Erzaehlungen_, 1909).
While "the Bible says so" counts as proof for some believers, only, as
Cyril says, "the simpler" could possibly accept your citing this text as
proof of anything except that you couldn't find a more reliable source
to quote. And, by the way, this is one of those texts that shows Jesus
acting in mean-spirited, even not simply evil ways.
> ===============
>
> I think I've gone far enough. There were many other so-called "miracles"
> in the many passages that followed, but I don't think it's necessary to
> continue providing them here. These texts exist in other forms on the web
> with slightly different wording spawned from different opinions about what
> the translation should be. I didn't paste them from the web because I
> read them first in the book I have.
>
> So I've proven you wrong. There are "miracles" in scripture.
You have proven that a text rejected by every Christian church, and
certainly not scripture, contains some fairly nasty "miracles". When
and where does your gnostic group to discuss these?
Martin Ambuhl
> What, you want me to provide, a laundry list??? Here's a list of what
> I've read from books I have here at home. This doesn't include anything
> I've read online:
>
> From: The Gnostic Bible (Hardback)
Notice that when I quite rightly pointed out that Damaeus was providing
us a half-digested dog's breakfast of mixed gnostic heresies and Qabalah
he _denied_ that his crap was gnostic. But now he cites gnostic texts
as his sources.
Gary Eickmeier
"Damaeus" <no-...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
> You're not distinguishing between agnostic atheism and plain old atheism.
> Atheists are anti-belief. Agnostic atheists are non-believers.
OK class, and especially Tony Cooper, listen up. This silly statement is the
whole reason for this thread. There is little distinction between these
definitions. Atheist, agnostic, unbeliever - all are the same thing. We
can't know about the truth of a philosophical concept. To label someone as
being "against" your imaginary belief system is, I'm sorry, not authorized.
The atheist is not a marked man, to be running around with his tail between
his legs and hiding his true identity. Unfortunately, that is what is
happening, because the language has coined a term for him. There are
probably a lot more examples of this principle, a lot of them of late
brought about because of political correctness. If you don't believe the
same as some large group, you are a - fill in the blank - some sort of
bigot, phobe, anti, or "a." Screw that. Screw them all.
So who is with me? Any more anti antis out there?
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
"Martin Ambuhl" <mam...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:daWdnR8NCc1Bg_TQ...@earthlink.com...
I asked for references outside of religious texts, as in written history of
the times. I wasn't talking about The Book of Mormon! Fer Chrissakes.
You know, I sat through about a year in college studying Egyptian history,
waiting to hear what they said about the Exodus and all those Moses miracles
and the great escape of all those Jewish slaves. It never came up. Not a
word of recorded history on that, outside of the bible.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Martin, you are obviously better-read than I on some of this. I got the
impression from most of my reading that the early church persecuted the
bejeezus out of any group that did not believe as they did in the literal
Jesus, and also any history of the other (pagan) mangods that were so
similar to Jesus as to make it comical. There would have been a few
different groups who did not believe the same, and who were all as equally
full of crap as anyone else. There were various sects with their own
versions of the mythology. The fact that one group won out is not proof of
their truth, just their power and cleverness. We all know that the church
called the gnostics a heresy, but that doesn't prove anything one way or the
other. All of the religions of the present world believe that all of the
others are going to hell.
What is your version of the truth? If you would like to take this to Email,
I could understand, but I think it is all very interesting and others may as
well.
Gary Eickmeier
Martin Ambuhl
> Martin, you are obviously better-read than I on some of this. I got the
> impression from most of my reading that the early church persecuted the
> bejeezus out of any group that did not believe as they did in the literal
> Jesus, and also any history of the other (pagan) mangods that were so
> similar to Jesus as to make it comical. There would have been a few
> different groups who did not believe the same, and who were all as equally
> full of crap as anyone else. There were various sects with their own
> versions of the mythology. The fact that one group won out is not proof of
> their truth, just their power and cleverness. We all know that the church
> called the gnostics a heresy, but that doesn't prove anything one way or the
> other. All of the religions of the present world believe that all of the
> others are going to hell.
>
> What is your version of the truth? If you would like to take this to Email,
> I could understand, but I think it is all very interesting and others may as
> well.
You are absolutely right that the persecution of the gnostic sects
proves only that one group had more secular power than another. The real
persecution by the church only gets under way when ecclesiastical power
was combined with state power from Constantine onwards. That what is
now mainstream Christianity prevailed has nothing to do with truth. I
rather enjoy gnostic writing: it often shows more thought and better
ethics than the mainstream Christian writings. On the other hand,
gnostic cosmology and cosmogeny tends to be a good deal sillier even
than that of the Bible. So what is the point of my post?
a) In my very first post, I pointed out that Damaeus was serving up
nothing but a half-digested version of gnosticism. He stated firmly
that he had nothing to do with gnosticism, yet every citation and
quotation he supports his case with is from gnostic texts.
b) In response to my asking for the scriptural basis for his claim that
Jesus could "create objects out of thin air", he posted an excerpt from
the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. He claimed this was scriptural basis for
his claim. It used to be thought this was an early gnostic text, based
on numerous references by the church fathers, in their writing against
heresy, to a Gospel of Thomas. Since the discovery of the complete
Gospel of Thomas at Nag Hammadi, we know that these references are not
to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, except perhaps the reference by
Ireneus, again in a text against heresy. The Infancy gospel is actually
known at best from the 13th century in Syriac fragments which might be
the precursor to the text we have, which dates from the 15th century.
His claim to have found a scriptural basis for his claim is shown to be
bogus.
c) In addition to his complete lack of understanding of scientific
cosmology and cosmogeny, his version seeming to have derived from
science fiction reading, he has shown
1) that he hasn't a clue what scripture is, and
2) that he knowingly lied when he claimed not to be spewing
gnosticism, since the your and my requests for citations led to
his posting in your case a list of gnostic texts and in mine a long
excerpt from what cannot be shown to be earlier than the 13th
century (and rejected by the churches) unless it is also a gnostic
text.
By the way, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas has Jesus killing other
children and striking his teachers dumb. Quite a nice chap.
aquachimp
> A friend Emailed me with his message that atheism is a faith, because you
> can't prove a negative,
But "can't" sounds quite negative, so perhaps that "can't prove a
negative" is also itself ruled unprovable.
Besides, if a negative can't be proven how then can the existence of a
negative be proven is one can't prove a negative existence?
And what about false negatives?
> so you can't prove God does not exist, so you have
> to just believe that. My response, of course, is that I don't have to prove
> anything, it is up to him to prove theism.
>
> So my thought is that no one is authorized to call anyone an "atheist,"
> because without a "theist" there is nothing to "a." In other words, if I do
> not believe in Harvey the invisible rabbit, does anyone have a right to
> label me an aharveyist? Unless and until Harvey has been proven, there is
> nothing to not believe in.
>
> Talk amongst yourselves.....
We've done so before:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.poetry/browse_thread/thread/2c3a82afc2c3ef3e/162c597165a14863?q=Theism+-+Atheism%3B+is+there+only+%27a%27+difference%3F&lnk=ol&
(AUE)
It seems agreed that atheism is not a religion.
That said, my wife has just handed me this: (a meditation class hand-
out)
"Taoism say "Shit happens"
Confucianism says "Confucius says, Shit happens"
Buddhism says "If Shit happens, it really isn't Shit"
Zen asks "What is the sound of Shit happening?"
Hinduism says "This Shit has happened before"
Islam say "If Shit happens, it is the will of Allah"
Protestantism says " let Shit happen to someone else"
Catholicism say "If Shit happens you deserve it"
Atheism says "I don't belief this Shit"
Judaism asks "Why does this Shit always happen to us?"
And The Jehovah's Witness will reply " Let me into you house and I'll
tell you why Shit happens." "
To recap; from information given within my OED: Or, to be more
specific, from an absence of information within my small pocket OED:
Setting aside the matter of being aware of the concept of the
existence of god(s) as opposed to the subject of the concept; there
seems to be no official word for someone who has no sense of belief in
the
existence of any kind of god(s), other than Godless.
Theism is the belief in the existence of an interactive deity,
therefore atheism is at a certain level
merely without-belief ("a = without) in the existence of an
interactive deity. Contrast Theism with Deism in which the belief is
in the existence of a non-interactive deity. Both accept the
existence. The "interactive deity" bit in theism is the crux of the
matter as is the "a" in atheism because without-belief denotes absence
of belief and so IMO is not necessarily the same as "disbelief" which
implies conclusion. Therefore the definition of atheism, whilst
qualifying that non-belief in the existence of an interactive deity,
does not underline an absence of belief in the existence in any deity.
The given definitions are not as Patok states that "atheists" are
those
who believe that God does not exist. Those that do not believe that
God exists,
are called agnostics"
The gno" refers to knowing, the "a" to without, therefore agnos" says
without knowing. The don't knows
Martin Ambuhl
> You know, I sat through about a year in college studying Egyptian history,
> waiting to hear what they said about the Exodus and all those Moses miracles
> and the great escape of all those Jewish slaves. It never came up. Not a
> word of recorded history on that, outside of the bible.
Exodus tells us that just the armed men of the tribes which would become
the Jewish nation were 650,000 strong as they left Egypt, not counting
women, children, the aged, and the infirm. Such an army dwarfed any
Egyptian army in the centuries around the supposed exodus.
You would think that someone other than the writers of Exodus would have
noticed what had to be one of the greatest world powers of the age.
Certainly, such a group would have no need to flee the numerically much
weaker Egyptians.
aquachimp
wrote:
> On Feb 19, 7:38 pm, "Gary Eickmeier" <geick...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Talk amongst yourselves.....
>
me
> We've done so before:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.poetry/browse_thread/thread/2c3a82...
> (AUE)
oops wrong group this is the AUE discussion
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/browse_thread/thread/2c3a82afc2c3ef3e/162c597165a14863?q=aquachimp+atheist&lnk=ol&
aquachimp
> "Damaeus" <no-m...@damaeus.earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:p9ehm6hhgg5nkj62m...@4ax.com...
>
> > You're not distinguishing between agnostic atheism and plain old atheism.
> > Atheists are anti-belief. Agnostic atheists are non-believers.
>
> OK class, and especially Tony Cooper, listen up. This silly statement is the
> whole reason for this thread. There is little distinction between these
> definitions. Atheist, agnostic, unbeliever - all are the same thing.
Try a dictionary
Atheist; without belief in the existence of an interactive deity
Agnostic; undecided.
Unbeliever: Synonymous with disbeliever, implying arrival at
conclusion on the matter as opposed to merely an absence or a sense of
belief in it/ usually, non-believer overlaps with religion and faith.
Robin Bignall
wrote:
The 'doc' in docrobin is a PhD in physics. I won't waste any more time on
someone who believes that 'phantom particles' existed before the Big Bang.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England