Re: A distorted interpretation of atheism?
BOfL
> "Kadaitcha Man" <a...@no.email> wrote in message
>
> news:fgjsln$cj0$r...@alt.sports.inflammated.lesions.and.abscesses.net.south-korea...> Budikka666, ye fat prater, a slave whose gall coins slanders like a
> > mint, ye evacuated:
>
> >> Because we don't rely on bullshit, fakery, lies, fraud or
> >> gullibility. Why is that so hard to understand?
>
> >> There is also much positive evidence against the supernatural claims
> >> of the theists, such as, for example, the fact that prayer doesn't
> >> work.
>
> > And your proof for the claim that "prayer doesn't work" is?
>
> Again, asking for proof of a negative, a theist staple argument.
For those with a concept of quantum physics, prayer seems less
mysterious. Those that understand the subtle power of the mind also
understand the possibility of the effect.
BOfL
Smiler
> On Nov 1, 9:02 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>> "Kadaitcha Man" <a...@no.email> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fgjsln$cj0$r...@alt.sports.inflammated.lesions.and.abscesses.net.south-korea...>
>> Budikka666, ye fat prater, a slave whose gall coins slanders like a
>>> mint, ye evacuated:
>>
>>>> Because we don't rely on bullshit, fakery, lies, fraud or
>>>> gullibility. Why is that so hard to understand?
>>
>>>> There is also much positive evidence against the supernatural
>>>> claims of the theists, such as, for example, the fact that prayer
>>>> doesn't work.
>>
>>> And your proof for the claim that "prayer doesn't work" is?
>>
>> Again, asking for proof of a negative, a theist staple argument.
>
> For those with a concept of quantum physics, prayer seems less
> mysterious.
For anyone with a functioing brain, prayer is bollocks.
> Those that understand the subtle power of the mind also
> understand the possibility of the effect.
>
Your understanding of the mind lacks an example to work from.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
BOfL
> BOfL wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 9:02 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> >> "Kadaitcha Man" <a...@no.email> wrote in message
>
> >>news:fgjsln$cj0$r...@alt.sports.inflammated.lesions.and.abscesses.net.south-korea...>
> >> Budikka666, ye fat prater, a slave whose gall coins slanders like a
> >>> mint, ye evacuated:
>
> >>>> Because we don't rely on bullshit, fakery, lies, fraud or
> >>>> gullibility. Why is that so hard to understand?
>
> >>>> There is also much positive evidence against the supernatural
> >>>> claims of the theists, such as, for example, the fact that prayer
> >>>> doesn't work.
>
> >>> And your proof for the claim that "prayer doesn't work" is?
>
> >> Again, asking for proof of a negative, a theist staple argument.
>
> > For those with a concept of quantum physics, prayer seems less
> > mysterious.
>
> For anyone with a functioing brain, prayer is bollocks.
Einstein had, early on in his career, a similar view about quantum
mechanics.
>
> > Those that understand the subtle power of the mind also
> > understand the possibility of the effect.
>
> Your understanding of the mind lacks an example to work from.
If you go by others understanding, you will, by definition , be a
believer.
BOfL
>
> --
> Smiler
> The godless one
> a.a.# 2279
> All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
> perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Zinnic
If you ignore others' understanding, you will believe anything!
Smiler
> On Nov 4, 9:25 am, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
>> BOfL wrote:
>>> On Nov 1, 9:02 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <a...@no.email> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:fgjsln$cj0$r...@alt.sports.inflammated.lesions.and.abscesses.net.south-korea...>
>>>> Budikka666, ye fat prater, a slave whose gall coins slanders like a
>>>>> mint, ye evacuated:
>>
>>>>>> Because we don't rely on bullshit, fakery, lies, fraud or
>>>>>> gullibility. Why is that so hard to understand?
>>
>>>>>> There is also much positive evidence against the supernatural
>>>>>> claims of the theists, such as, for example, the fact that prayer
>>>>>> doesn't work.
>>
>>>>> And your proof for the claim that "prayer doesn't work" is?
>>
>>>> Again, asking for proof of a negative, a theist staple argument.
>>
>>> For those with a concept of quantum physics, prayer seems less
>>> mysterious.
>>
>> For anyone with a functioing brain, prayer is bollocks.
>
> Einstein had, early on in his career, a similar view about quantum
> mechanics.
Yet changed his mind when shown the scientific evidence. Now show me the
scientific evidence that prayer works. Until you do, I don't believe you.
>>
>>> Those that understand the subtle power of the mind also
>>> understand the possibility of the effect.
>>
>> Your understanding of the mind lacks an example to work from.
>
> If you go by others understanding, you will, by definition , be a
> believer.
Then why should I go by, or pay any heed to, yours?
Day
the concept of the divine is limited to that of Levantine scripture.
Which is a strawman. There are other concepts that dont make the same
claims and cant thus be debunked.
The second is that it is trying to prove a negative, ie, that some kind
of divine cannot exist. The absence of evidence is not evidence.
The third is that a truly rational atheist would not giva fuck if fools
believe in such a god, but would rather look to take advantage of their
gullibility, and thereby show the Almighty Dollar always has the last word.
bigfl...@gmail.com
differentb course.
If you were unfit, and I suggested running, would the fact that
someone made the suggestion encourage or discourage you?
As far as Im concerned, beliefs are for the birds.
There is a difference between 'go by' and 'heed'.
BOfL
thomas p.
"Day" <dayh...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:4afc0a5f$0$4144$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
> The first distortion seen in the postings is how these 'atheists' assume
> the concept of the divine is limited to that of Levantine scripture. Which
> is a strawman. There are other concepts that dont make the same claims and
> cant thus be debunked.
Yes your above assumption is a strawman.
>
> The second is that it is trying to prove a negative, ie, that some kind of
> divine cannot exist. The absence of evidence is not evidence.
2'nd strawman
>
> The third is that a truly rational atheist would not giva fuck if fools
> believe in such a god, but would rather look to take advantage of their
> gullibility, and thereby show the Almighty Dollar always has the last
> word.
Assumes that atheists are dishonest conmen making it the 3'rd strawman. You
don't have very much do you?
bigfl...@gmail.com
Beliefs are beliefs; period.
And the last word is .......?
BOfL
Day Brown
wrote:
> Beliefs are beliefs; period.
>
> And the last word is .......?
defined by Levantine scriptures, its an easy case to make. As
Nietzsche said, and here its worth noting how he has been misquoted,
"the Levantine concept of god is dead." He didnt say god was dead.
Only that concept.
There is another notion in the original Aryan creation cosmology, in
which Chaos, not god, was the primordial substance. A notion atheism
can agree with. but then it went on to say that what we now call a
'self replicating form emerged', commonly called "Gaia". Atheism has a
hard time trying to refute this, for the evidence we have from Chaos
theory and evolution is that eventually such a form must emerge just
as a million monkeys typing will eventually reproduce this post. Or
the minds of atheists.
Now, I do not have a definition for Gaia other than to note, that
unlike the Levantine god, She is EVOLVING.
Syd M.
> On Nov 12, 9:32 am, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:> Beliefs are beliefs; period.
>
> > And the last word is .......?
>
> By definition, atheism says there is no god.
No.
By definition, atheism says that the proof for god is not there.
Stop lying about us.
PDW
Christopher A. Lee
...and to us.
>PDW
Reverend Dave
742522...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
No, that's not the definition of atheism at all. The word atheist comes
from the Greek, a-theos, without (or denying) the gods. The important thing
to remember here is that the phrase predates Christianity in Greece and as
such initially referred to anyone that didn't believe in Zeus.
Lack of proof for any of the humanly conceived gods is not required to be
an atheist however it's all the more reason to be one.
--
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is
those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert
that this or that problem will never be solved by science. - Charles Darwin
Robibnikoff
"Reverend Dave" <revere...@minister.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CC35880...@news.albasani.net...
> "Syd M." <pdwri...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:9c8f54bb-bd9f-43d4-b5f5-
> 742522...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Nov 13, 9:05 am, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 12, 9:32 am, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:> Beliefs are beliefs; period.
>>>
>>> > And the last word is .......?
>>>
>>> By definition, atheism says there is no god.
>>
>> No.
>> By definition, atheism says that the proof for god is not there.
>> Stop lying about us.
>>
>> PDW
>
> No, that's not the definition of atheism at all. The word atheist comes
> from the Greek, a-theos, without (or denying)
Wrong
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & Belly Dancer Supreme
BAAWA Knight
#1557
Smiler
> "Syd M." <pdwri...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:9c8f54bb-bd9f-43d4-b5f5-
> 742522...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Nov 13, 9:05 am, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 12, 9:32 am, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:> Beliefs are beliefs; period.
>>>
>>>> And the last word is .......?
>>>
>>> By definition, atheism says there is no god.
>>
>> No.
>> By definition, atheism says that the proof for god is not there.
>> Stop lying about us.
>>
>> PDW
>
> No, that's not the definition of atheism at all. The word atheist
> comes from the Greek, a-theos, without (or denying) the gods. The
> important thing to remember here is that the phrase predates
> Christianity in Greece and as such initially referred to anyone that
> didn't believe in Zeus.
>
> Lack of proof for any of the humanly conceived gods is not required
> to be an atheist however it's all the more reason to be one.
As all gods are humanly conceived as explained in my .sig line, I don't
believe in any of them.
Day Brown
what 'proof' is? Its worth noting none of the Greek philosophers were
atheists, and many wrote refutations. I grant there were sophists,
playwrites, and others whose craft was to be outrageous, and atheism was
a handy tool. But that's not philosophy.
Since archeology revealed so many lies, spin, and distortions in what
had passed for history in scripture, debunking their claims about god is
duck soup. But- there are other spiritual traditions based on a direct
experience of the divine, that is sensory input, that those who have had
it find irrefutable proof. But if you dont get it, thats OK with them.
They were never into burning witches or heretics.
Day Brown
> "Day" <dayh...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:4afc0a5f$0$4144$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>> The first distortion seen in the postings is how these 'atheists' assume
>> the concept of the divine is limited to that of Levantine scripture. Which
>> is a strawman. There are other concepts that dont make the same claims and
>> cant thus be debunked.
>
> Yes your above assumption is a strawman.
thomas p.
"Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:4aff78fb$0$4179$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
The strawman consisted in assuming that atheists think the concept
of the divine is limited to that of Levantine scripture or that atheists
have some
obligation to demonstrate that no god exists. I do not believe in any god
claim that I have encountered simply because I have never seen any
objective evidence of any.
The theists are making the positive claim. I have no need or obligation to
refute their claim, since I make no positive claim.
I hope that helps.
Reverend Dave
news:7m83uoF...@mid.individual.net:
OK. So what is the correct definition and etymology of the word atheist?
Reverend Dave
@newsfe18.ams2:
> Reverend Dave wrote:
>> "Syd M." <pdwri...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:9c8f54bb-bd9f-43d4-b5f5-
>> 742522...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Nov 13, 9:05 am, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 12, 9:32 am, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:> Beliefs are beliefs; period.
>>>>
>>>>> And the last word is .......?
>>>>
>>>> By definition, atheism says there is no god.
>>>
>>> No.
>>> By definition, atheism says that the proof for god is not there.
>>> Stop lying about us.
>>>
>>> PDW
>>
>> No, that's not the definition of atheism at all. The word atheist
>> comes from the Greek, a-theos, without (or denying) the gods. The
>> important thing to remember here is that the phrase predates
>> Christianity in Greece and as such initially referred to anyone that
>> didn't believe in Zeus.
>>
>> Lack of proof for any of the humanly conceived gods is not required
>> to be an atheist however it's all the more reason to be one.
>
> As all gods are humanly conceived as explained in my .sig line, I don't
> believe in any of them.
>
Sadly most theists will never understand this because they are blinded
and/or prejudiced by their own beliefs to the exclusion of all others.
Dan Listermann
"Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aff7898$0$4179$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
But- there are other spiritual traditions based on a direct
> experience of the divine, that is sensory input, that those who have had
> it find irrefutable proof.
Who could deny the existence of hallucinations?
Mitchell Holman
Isn't that a requirement of all religions?
Day Brown
religion, nor, as I said, have I seen a post where that was attempted.
Not that the Levantine religions are not most richly due for debunking;
they cause, and have caused, the most trouble.
Day Brown
internal mental experiences are anything but hallucinations.
The famous Greek Eleusinian Mysteries resulted in many reports by the
"Epoptes" [one whose eyes were opened] that they no longer feared death.
So far as we can tell, this was caused by a direct experience of the
divine. See ethnobotanist RG Wasson, "The Road to Eleusis".
He also produced "Persephone's Quest" trying to unravel the secret of
the famous Aryan & Vedic potion "Soma", which had a similar effect.
The ultimate expression of this is seen in 18th century Bengalese Saint
Ramprasad's hymns to Kali [his concept of the divine] in which he says
that everything you see is part of a "projected matrix" out of the mind
of Kali, right down to the ink in a Bible.
Everything Ramprasad has to say is entirely consistent with chaos theory
and quantum mechanics, and for that matter, the Big Bang. As Ramprasad
said, what passes for reality is an ongoing projection in the three
dimensions you see, but not limited to three. Which is what Quantum
theory says.
He also makes it clear these insights arise from "altered states" of
consciousness. While these altered states may include what you regard as
'hallucinations', they are not limited to delusion, and it is the
insights that result which were reported in the Vedas and remembered.
Day Brown
> OK. So what is the correct definition and etymology of the word atheist?
term as he sees fit according to the need of the moment.
Whatever 'correct' may be, its not hard to look over the postings by
self proclaimed 'atheists' to derive a definition, which is what I began
the thread with. Its also obvious that all those we see debating this
with them are followers of a Levantine faith. Maybe the Buddhists dont
care, which follows since they dont have the same mandate to spread a
gospel.
Dan Listermann
Raw silliness.
Day Brown
> Raw silliness.
In the Bagavad Gita, Arjuna is told that some of what he sees are
divinely created and animated forms which only exist as a challenge to
the fulfillment of his kharma. From what the Vedas have to say, these
forms act as they are, as we now say, programmed to. Such a form does
not have a soul, which is consistent with atheist thinking.
The Vedas call them "avatars". The thing about an avatar is, that while
you may learn from one, you cannot teach an avatar anything. Just like
with a Turing machine, that's not in the software. So of course, I am
not trying to teach you anything, merely leave these presentations for
those who may learn from them.
You certainly have no use for spiritual enlightenment since you do not
have a spirit. Which is all right with me, and probably OK with you. To
assume however, that just because you cannot sense a spirit or any
divine presence, does not prove to anyone else such do not exist.
Some of the Vedas are written in Tocharian; one of the reasons I admire
the language is that, while it has words for 'men' and 'women' like all
other tongues, it has a special suffix, "-os" which denotes a sentient
being. Which of course, does not mean that sentient beings do not
respect the other forms of livestock that abound. There's no reason to
make them more miserable than they already are, nor to try to enlighten
them. That's a fool's errand.
Ramprasad also said there are a myriad worlds, so I'd expect some to
exist where there is no evidence at all of spiritual truth. A matrix
like that would be rather boring, but its not my problem.
Dan Listermann
> Dan Listermann wrote:
>> Raw silliness.
>
> have a spirit. Which is all right with me, and probably OK with you. To
> assume however, that just because you cannot sense a spirit or any divine
> presence, does not prove to anyone else such do not exist.
>
Day Brown
had an altered state of consciousness reveal a connection with the
divine, and know others whose opinions I respect and appear rational,
who report the same.
Innumerable anthropology reports tell of individuals who experience
various kinds of entities who also are often "pathological". But as
Socrates noted, sometimes its the fool who sees the emperor has no
clothes. A common group think problem.
Its a lot like Quantum Physicians arguing about how many Quarks can
dance on the head of an atom. Ever SEEN a Quark? Then too, there are
others who say it takes 10 dimensions to explain observed phenomena,
while others say no, it takes 11. Depends on which bishop you choose to
listen to. In any case, wierdo cranks exist in the field. No way to know
if any are correct.
One, Heidelburg, I'm told says not only do we not know, we can not know.
Whatever the truth is does not seem to fit in atheist cosmology.
Dan Listermann
> Dan Listermann wrote:
>> "Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4b00d206$0$7225$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>> Dan Listermann wrote:
>>>> Raw silliness.
>>> You certainly have no use for spiritual enlightenment since you do not
>>> have a spirit. Which is all right with me, and probably OK with you. To
>>> assume however, that just because you cannot sense a spirit or any
>>> divine presence, does not prove to anyone else such do not exist.
>>>
>> Can't the same be said of leprechauns?
> Could be I spoze. I've no personal experience with them, whereas I have
> had an altered state of consciousness reveal a connection with the divine,
> and know others whose opinions I respect and appear rational, who report
> the same.
Again, hallucinations are rather common.
Mike Painter
>> Can't the same be said of leprechauns?
>>
>>
> Could be I spoze. I've no personal experience with them, whereas I
> have had an altered state of consciousness reveal a connection with
> the divine, and know others whose opinions I respect and appear
> rational, who report the same.
>
> Innumerable anthropology reports tell of individuals who experience
> various kinds of entities who also are often "pathological". But as
> Socrates noted, sometimes its the fool who sees the emperor has no
> clothes. A common group think problem.
>
> Its a lot like Quantum Physicians arguing about how many Quarks can
> dance on the head of an atom. Ever SEEN a Quark? Then too, there are
> others who say it takes 10 dimensions to explain observed phenomena,
> while others say no, it takes 11. Depends on which bishop you choose
> to listen to. In any case, wierdo cranks exist in the field. No way
> to know if any are correct.
>
> One, Heidelburg, I'm told says not only do we not know, we can not
> know. Whatever the truth is does not seem to fit in atheist cosmology.
until we open the top.
There are valid theories for quantum physics. Applications based on the
theory work.
Thre are no theories about altered states of consciousness that don't
reflect what scienc knows about the brain.
You would think that if thre was some comnnection with something "devine"
the results would be similar.
Day Brown
> "Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b01b362$0$7261$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>> Dan Listermann wrote:
>>> "Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4b00d206$0$7225$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>>> Dan Listermann wrote:
>>>>> Raw silliness.
>>>> You certainly have no use for spiritual enlightenment since you do not
>>>> have a spirit. Which is all right with me, and probably OK with you. To
>>>> assume however, that just because you cannot sense a spirit or any
>>>> divine presence, does not prove to anyone else such do not exist.
>>>>
>>> Can't the same be said of leprechauns?
>> Could be I spoze. I've no personal experience with them, whereas I have
>> had an altered state of consciousness reveal a connection with the divine,
>> and know others whose opinions I respect and appear rational, who report
>> the same.
>
> Again, hallucinations are rather common.
>
>
is wrong. The history of genius is full of revelations that arose out of
the subconscious mind. What you denigrate as 'hallucinations' include
experiences, which may indeed be immediately experienced as confusion
and/or delusion, but which afterwards, upon reflection and whatever
processing the subconscious mind comes up with reveal important truths.
One of the advantages of altered states of consciousness is the freedom
from the limits of group think. Of course, groups that support a dogma,
like religions based on sacred text, take a dim view of this, and impose
the "WAR ON DRUGS" in the attempt to eradicate these experiences that so
challenge official dogma, be that religion or atheism.
ornamentalmind
now.
“All companions are given both eyes and ears, But each man differs in
his quickness of mind. There are some who are like deep refreshing
lakes, and yet others like shallow pools of water.” Rig-Veda
"When Men of the Word, companions, worship, in their hearts refining
flashes of insight, then some become fully conscious of knowledge,
while others go their way mouthing empty words." Rig-Veda
And for the ancient mind deniers:
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert
Einstein (1879 - 1955)
Merlin
exciting quote there none the same.
Reality is what we make of it, how we piece what we know together and
stitch our story. It is our autobiographical journey through what we
call space and time. Knowing seems to be glimpses of the way things
are, just as our mind compensates for our eyes and fills in the wholes
in our seeing to create a 'whole picture'.
Thanks, In love with the living loving gay jesus,
Merlin
Dan Listermann
> Dan Listermann wrote:
>> "Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4b01b362$0$7261$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>> Dan Listermann wrote:
>>>> "Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4b00d206$0$7225$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>>>> Dan Listermann wrote:
>>>>>> Raw silliness.
>>>>> You certainly have no use for spiritual enlightenment since you do not
>>>>> have a spirit. Which is all right with me, and probably OK with you.
>>>>> To assume however, that just because you cannot sense a spirit or any
>>>>> divine presence, does not prove to anyone else such do not exist.
>>>>>
>>>> Can't the same be said of leprechauns?
>>> Could be I spoze. I've no personal experience with them, whereas I have
>>> had an altered state of consciousness reveal a connection with the
>>> divine, and know others whose opinions I respect and appear rational,
>>> who report the same.
>>
>> Again, hallucinations are rather common.
> Yes, but the assumption they dont produce allegorical and literal truth is
> wrong.
I suppose a blind squirrel might find a nut every once in a while, but I
would not go around depending on it for a living.
thomas p.
People may have been inspired to discover "important truths" through the
experiences you mention, but we do not know
that they are true until they are actually tested in the real world.
By the way it should be glaringly obvious by now that atheism does not
support or oppose anything regardless of your above implication.
Day Brown
> On Nov 17, 4:23 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> While I normally abhor text quotation, it might just be apropos here
>> now.
>>
>> his quickness of mind. There are some who are like deep refreshing
>>
>> "When Men of the Word, companions, worship, in their hearts refining
>> flashes of insight, then some become fully conscious of knowledge,
>> while others go their way mouthing empty words." Rig-Veda
>>
>> And for the ancient mind deniers:
>> "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert
>> Einstein (1879 - 1955)
>
> exciting quote there none the same.
>
> Reality is what we make of it, how we piece what we know together and
> stitch our story. It is our autobiographical journey through what we
> call space and time. Knowing seems to be glimpses of the way things
> are, just as our mind compensates for our eyes and fills in the wholes
> in our seeing to create a 'whole picture'.
>
> Thanks, In love with the living loving gay jesus,
Gospel of Mary Magdaline, you get the idea he was not gay, nor celibate.
Your choice whether to regard this as 'scripture'.
Curious too tho the similarity in approach between the Vedas and these
Gnostic documents. Either way, you either get it, or you dont, but in
any case, using the sword to spread the word dont look so good.
Day Brown
>>> Again, hallucinations are rather common.
>> Yes, but the assumption they dont produce allegorical and literal truth is
>> wrong.
>
> I suppose a blind squirrel might find a nut every once in a while, but I
> would not go around depending on it for a living.
does real well using his nose to the ground to find squirrel caches. To
the squirrel, it looks like magic.
In like manner St. Paul said reason was not sufficient to find the
truth, that one needed to use faith. Given what I can make of his powers
of reason, I can see how he'd have that attitude, and can see as well it
would be useless to argue with him. But to assume all men are as limited
as you in their perceptions is not reasonable.
There are times too when the wise plays the fool because he knows fools
can be dangerous to those they perceive more intelligent or gifted in
some other way of acquiring knowledge.
Reverend Dave
> Reverend Dave wrote:
>> OK. So what is the correct definition and etymology of the word
>> atheist?
> Since "atheists" dont have a pope, each of them is free to define the
> term as he sees fit according to the need of the moment.
What exactly is there to define? An atheist is someone who doesn't
believe in the existence of a god or gods. Is it possible that you are
referring to how individual atheists define their reasons for not
believing?
>
> Whatever 'correct' may be, its not hard to look over the postings by
> self proclaimed 'atheists' to derive a definition, which is what I
> > began the thread with.
Sounds like a waste of time to me considering the definition for atheist
has been out there for over two millenia.
> Its also obvious that all those we see debating this
> with them are followers of a Levantine faith.
For obvious reasons. Those of the Levantine faiths, as you prefer to
call them, have a mandate to convert us sinners to belief in their
mythology.
> Maybe the Buddhists dont
> care, which follows since they dont have the same mandate to spread a
> gospel.
Perhaps the reason Buddhists don't care is because they are de facto
atheists themselves.
Day Brown
> People may have been inspired to discover "important truths" through the
> experiences you mention, but we do not know
> that they are true until they are actually tested in the real world.
show that something is indeed going on during meditation or the various
trance states. And of course, you can carry out the test yourself with
any of the traditional sacred entheogens. This is most effectively done
at the sacred time, in the sacred space, under the direction of those
who are familiar with the entheogen, and for sacred purpose.
But if you dont get it, that's all right. Nobody would expect a moron to
either. Some minds are not organized to become spiritually enlightened.
I do not dismiss the Greek philosophers- who invented the rules of
reason by which we discuss this, yet all admitted there was some form of
divine power. St. Paul reports an altar to "The unknown god". Because
the divine was not defined does not mean such does not exist. Nor do I
claim to know what other men can not know.
> By the way it should be glaringly obvious by now that atheism does not
> support or oppose anything regardless of your above implication.
In theory. But in practice, we see self proclaimed 'atheists' commonly
take
unsupportable positions ostensibly, and understandably, against
Levantine proselytizing religions. There are other spiritual traditions
I do not see them ever mention that are not such easy strawmen.
Dan Listermann
Faith is the celebration and rewarding of gullibility. It uses are not
generally good.
Day Brown
>> Maybe the Buddhists dont
>> care, which follows since they dont have the same mandate to spread a
>> gospel.
>
> Perhaps the reason Buddhists don't care is because they are de facto
> atheists themselves.
Atheists are correct in saying the divine is not as characterized in
scripture. But that does not preclude a more ambiguous position.
Day Brown
> generally good.
But leaving the issue open to Levantine religion zealots has produced a
lot of mass hysteria we all would like to eliminate.
There's a way to do that by characterizing the divine as Gaia, aka the
Great Earth Mother. Imagine the problem a demagogue would have trying to
rile up a mob or an army by claiming that HE speaks in HER name, and you
can see the improvement in the general lot of hominids.
History records no wars in the name of Gaia. It does record wars in the
name of various atheistic leaders and similar alpha male tyrant concepts
of the divine.
Dan Listermann
I prefer to avoid superstition.
Christopher A. Lee
<md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> One, Heidelburg, I'm told says not only do we not know, we can not
>> know. Whatever the truth is does not seem to fit in atheist cosmology.
What the heck does the idiot imagine is "atheist cosmology"?
>Ah, Heidelburg, he of the beer stein. We don't know if it full or empty
>until we open the top.
Would that be Scarface Heidelburg?
Day Brown
>> Agreed; but for them, the rational arguments of atheists are useless.
>> But leaving the issue open to Levantine religion zealots has produced a
>> lot of mass hysteria we all would like to eliminate.
>>
>> There's a way to do that by characterizing the divine as Gaia, aka the
>> Great Earth Mother. Imagine the problem a demagogue would have trying to
>> rile up a mob or an army by claiming that HE speaks in HER name, and you
>> can see the improvement in the general lot of hominids.
>>
>> History records no wars in the name of Gaia. It does record wars in the
>> name of various atheistic leaders and similar alpha male tyrant concepts
>> of the divine.
>
> I prefer to avoid superstition.
them, we need a religion demagogues can not make such good use of. With
the faith in Gaia, all the clerics were female. They didnt have clerics
fucking teen age girls, or trying to put the make on your daughter.
And if the priestesses were fucking boys, I for one would have been
grateful, as no doubt would all the men I know who are not fairies.
Reverend Dave
$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com:
> Reverend Dave wrote:
>>> Maybe the Buddhists dont
>>> care, which follows since they dont have the same mandate to spread a
>>> gospel.
>>
>> Perhaps the reason Buddhists don't care is because they are de facto
>> atheists themselves.
> They dont deny the existence of the divine, merely do not define it.
Really? Then perhaps you can explain this quote from the Dalai Lama. It
sure seems like there's a whole lot of denial going on in it.
"Buddhism does not accept a theory of God, or a creator. According to
Buddhism, one's own actions are the creator, ultimately. Some people say
that, from a certain angle, Buddhism is not a religion but rather a
science of mind. Religion has much involvement with faith. Sometimes it
seems that there is quite a distance between a way of thinking based on
faith and one entirely based on experiment, remaining skeptical. Unless
you find something through investigation, you do not want to accept it as
fact. From one viewpoint, Buddhism is a religion, from another viewpoint
Buddhism is a science of mind and not a religion. Buddhism can be a
bridge between these two sides. Therefore, with this conviction I try to
have closer ties with scientists, mainly in the fields of cosmology,
psychology, neurobiology and physics. In these fields there are insights
to share, and to a certain extent we can work together."
> Atheists are correct in saying the divine is not as characterized in
> scripture. But that does not preclude a more ambiguous position.
What exactly would that ambiguous position be?
Christopher A. Lee
<revere...@minister.com> wrote:
>Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote in news:4b0309bb$0$7209
>$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com:
>
>> Reverend Dave wrote:
>>>> Maybe the Buddhists dont
>>>> care, which follows since they dont have the same mandate to spread a
>>>> gospel.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the reason Buddhists don't care is because they are de facto
>>> atheists themselves.
>> They dont deny the existence of the divine, merely do not define it.
What is there to "deny the existence of" outside the theist's belief
system?
>Really? Then perhaps you can explain this quote from the Dalai Lama. It
>sure seems like there's a whole lot of denial going on in it.
>
>"Buddhism does not accept a theory of God, or a creator. According to
>Buddhism, one's own actions are the creator, ultimately. Some people say
>that, from a certain angle, Buddhism is not a religion but rather a
>science of mind. Religion has much involvement with faith. Sometimes it
>seems that there is quite a distance between a way of thinking based on
>faith and one entirely based on experiment, remaining skeptical. Unless
>you find something through investigation, you do not want to accept it as
>fact. From one viewpoint, Buddhism is a religion, from another viewpoint
>Buddhism is a science of mind and not a religion. Buddhism can be a
>bridge between these two sides. Therefore, with this conviction I try to
>have closer ties with scientists, mainly in the fields of cosmology,
>psychology, neurobiology and physics. In these fields there are insights
>to share, and to a certain extent we can work together."
>
>> Atheists are correct in saying the divine is not as characterized in
>> scripture. But that does not preclude a more ambiguous position.
What "the divine"?
>What exactly would that ambiguous position be?
I just wish these idiots would try to think for once. It shouldn't be
difficult even for them.
If you're not theist, then "the divine" is merely part of somebody
else's religious belief.
Which is hardly rocket science.
So why do people like the previous poster invent things for us to say
that assume it meant the same thing to atheists, that it does inside
the theist's belief system?
It's one of the reasons atheists conclude that theists are by and
large stupid.
philosophy
> The first distortion seen in the postings is how these 'atheists' assume
> the concept of the divine is limited to that of Levantine scripture.
> Which is a strawman. There are other concepts that dont make the same
> claims and cant thus be debunked.
I have no idea what you are babbling about.
>
> The second is that it is trying to prove a negative, ie, that some kind
> of divine cannot exist. The absence of evidence is not evidence.
What rubbish. The absence of something is not a negative. If
anything it is a neutral position. No evidence is actually required.
However, if you claim that there is something, like a God, then it
behoves you to prove your claim.
>
> The third is that a truly rational atheist would not giva fuck if fools
> believe in such a god,
True
> but would rather look to take advantage of their
> gullibility,
Why? People who are gullible are weak minded fools,
and we can all be fools up to a point. Why is it necessary
to show a fool up for a fool - that he can do quite well himself.
Don't try and make all atheists the same. The only thing that
makes atheists similar is a lack of a belief in a god.
> and thereby show the Almighty Dollar always has the last word.
What has the almighty dollar got to do with atheists? It is the
theists who hold out the plate - not atheists.
Reverend Dave
news:duhdg5928fabnf2fc...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:36:33 +0000 (UTC), Reverend Dave
> <revere...@minister.com> wrote:
>
>>Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote in news:4b0309bb$0$7209
>>$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com:
>>
>>> Reverend Dave wrote:
>>>>> Maybe the Buddhists dont
>>>>> care, which follows since they dont have the same mandate to
>>>>> spread a gospel.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the reason Buddhists don't care is because they are de
>>>> facto atheists themselves.
>>> They dont deny the existence of the divine, merely do not define it.
>
> What is there to "deny the existence of" outside the theist's belief
> system?
My quote from the Dalai Lama should have been enough evidence for our
friend to prove that Buddhists are, as I wrote, de facto atheists. Sure
many western Buddhists who converted from Christianity or Judaism have
this understanding of the divine but Buddhists from places like Sri Lanka
and Cambodia don't.
Part of the problem with most theists is that they operate from a
"Godcentric" point of view. They are totally oblivious to all religions
and cultures outside of their own.
>
>>Really? Then perhaps you can explain this quote from the Dalai Lama.
>>It sure seems like there's a whole lot of denial going on in it.
>>
>>"Buddhism does not accept a theory of God, or a creator. According to
>>Buddhism, one's own actions are the creator, ultimately. Some people
>>say that, from a certain angle, Buddhism is not a religion but rather
>>a science of mind. Religion has much involvement with faith. Sometimes
>>it seems that there is quite a distance between a way of thinking
>>based on faith and one entirely based on experiment, remaining
>>skeptical. Unless you find something through investigation, you do not
>>want to accept it as fact. From one viewpoint, Buddhism is a religion,
>>from another viewpoint Buddhism is a science of mind and not a
>>religion. Buddhism can be a bridge between these two sides. Therefore,
>>with this conviction I try to have closer ties with scientists, mainly
>>in the fields of cosmology, psychology, neurobiology and physics. In
>>these fields there are insights to share, and to a certain extent we
>>can work together."
>>
>>> Atheists are correct in saying the divine is not as characterized in
>>> scripture. But that does not preclude a more ambiguous position.
>
> What "the divine"?
Yeah, I know. His answer was pretty ambiguous.
>
>>What exactly would that ambiguous position be?
>
> I just wish these idiots would try to think for once. It shouldn't be
> difficult even for them.
I disagree. Logical thinking seems to be outside the realm of theistic
thought processes. For them, repeating the same lies, distortions and
inane rhetoric over and over again in the hope that we'll eventually get
tired, give up and accept it, seems to be the norm. You've seen enough
posts by clowns like Fagsnatch, Old Man Joe, Puke and others to know
exactly what I mean.
>
> If you're not theist, then "the divine" is merely part of somebody
> else's religious belief.
>
> Which is hardly rocket science.
>
> So why do people like the previous poster invent things for us to say
> that assume it meant the same thing to atheists, that it does inside
> the theist's belief system?
>
> It's one of the reasons atheists conclude that theists are by and
> large stupid.
Most atheists and agnostics generally have something higher than a grade
ten level of understanding in subjects like mathematics, and science. It
has been proven statistically that atheism and atheistic agnosticism is
higher than normal in PHD's who are physicists, chemists, biologists, and
mathematicians. It would seem that the larger the IQ, the higher the
probabilty that someone is an atheist.
Day Brown
> It would seem that the larger the IQ, the higher the
> probabilty that someone is an atheist.
>
Maybe you should read Plato, who cites Socrates commenting on how men,
who may well be remarkably talented in their own field, are fools when
it comes to questions about the nature of the divine.
Or read up on Janis' work on group think to see how profoundly people
will, quite literally, not believe their own eyes to go along with what
they think the group thinks.
Furthermore, the Dali Lama is not a pope, and does not speak for a
majority of those who claim to be Buddhist. Somewhere, I recall a Veda
in which the Buddha castigates debate over such issues. Just because
there is no proof of the divine is no reason to try to prove there is no
divine. No, whats at work here, which the Buddha saw, was what we now
call the alpha male ego trying to acquire status by convincing others to
agree with him.
From what Dr. Freud had to say, most of what the high IQ referred to
above is to invent more ingenious excuses to explain neurotic denial.
Only a fool would claim to know what others can, or can not know. Ergo,
atheists are fools or sophists; which is the universal opinion of Plato
and the other Greek philosophers.
thomas p.
"Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:4b0830e6$0$32618$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
> Reverend Dave wrote:
>> It would seem that the larger the IQ, the higher the probabilty that
>> someone is an atheist.
>>
> =
>
> Maybe you should read Plato, who cites Socrates commenting on how men, who
> may well be remarkably talented in their own field, are fools when it
> comes to questions about the nature of the divine.
>
> Or read up on Janis' work on group think to see how profoundly people
> will, quite literally, not believe their own eyes to go along with what
> they think the group thinks.
>
> Furthermore, the Dali Lama is not a pope, and does not speak for a
> majority of those who claim to be Buddhist. Somewhere, I recall a Veda in
> which the Buddha castigates debate over such issues. Just because there is
> no proof of the divine is no reason to try to prove there is no divine.
> No, whats at work here, which the Buddha saw, was what we now call the
> alpha male ego trying to acquire status by convincing others to agree with
> him.
>
> From what Dr. Freud had to say, most of what the high IQ referred to above
> is to invent more ingenious excuses to explain neurotic denial.
Really? What is being denied?
>
> Only a fool would claim to know what others can, or can not know. Ergo,
> atheists are fools or sophists; which is the universal opinion of Plato
> and the other Greek philosophers.
I don't understand. Aren't you the one who claims to know what atheists
think?
Day Brown
>> From what Dr. Freud had to say, most of what the high IQ referred to above
>> is to invent more ingenious excuses to explain neurotic denial.
>
> Really? What is being denied?
correct about things outside their field of expertise is what is being
questioned. Which was the point of Socrates.
>> Only a fool would claim to know what others can, or can not know. Ergo,
>> atheists are fools or sophists; which is the universal opinion of Plato
>> and the other Greek philosophers.
>
> I don't understand. Aren't you the one who claims to know what atheists
> think?
All I respond to are the postings by those who claim to be atheist or
try to use that point of view to attack Levantine religions. Which I
agree, deserve to be challenged. But whether they are in fact, atheist,
merely Turing machines, or whatever, I've no way of knowing. The
thinking I refer to is outlined in the postings.
The thinking most often is that no god can exist because the author does
not know of any evidence for the existence of a god. Which tries to
prove a negative. Were the claim that no god, as defined in Levantine
scripture, can exist, it'd be a vastly more rational position by merely,
as we've seen also, pointing out all the inconsistencies of a god who is
spozed to be both loving and vengeful.
This contrasts with the position of Epictetus, who said to put aside
such a weighty issue as the nature of the divine and seek first to
strengthen the mind by the practice of reason and the control of emotion
where it clouds reason. He recommends proper diet and exercise to help
strengthen the mind; modern science says he was correct.
thomas p.
> thomas p. wrote:
>>> From what Dr. Freud had to say, most of what the high IQ referred to
>>> above is to invent more ingenious excuses to explain neurotic denial.
>>
>> Really? What is being denied?
> Thats not the question. The assertion that those with high IQ must be
> correct about things outside their field of expertise is what is being
> questioned. Which was the point of Socrates.
Who made that assertion?
>
>>> Only a fool would claim to know what others can, or can not know. Ergo,
>>> atheists are fools or sophists; which is the universal opinion of Plato
>>> and the other Greek philosophers.
>>
>> I don't understand. Aren't you the one who claims to know what atheists
>> think?
> All I respond to are the postings by those who claim to be atheist or try
> to use that point of view to attack Levantine religions. Which I agree,
> deserve to be challenged. But whether they are in fact, atheist, merely
> Turing machines, or whatever, I've no way of knowing. The thinking I refer
> to is outlined in the postings.
>
> The thinking most often is that no god can exist because the author does
> not know of any evidence for the existence of a god. Which tries to prove
> a negative. Were the claim that no god, as defined in Levantine scripture,
> can exist, it'd be a vastly more rational position by merely, as we've
> seen also, pointing out all the inconsistencies of a god who is spozed to
> be both loving and vengeful.
You are clearly attacking your own strawman.
>
> This contrasts with the position of Epictetus, who said to put aside such
> a weighty issue as the nature of the divine and seek first to strengthen
> the mind by the practice of reason and the control of emotion where it
> clouds reason. He recommends proper diet and exercise to help strengthen
> the mind; modern science says he was correct.
That a good diet and regular exercise is a good thing, yes, but that has
nothing to do with the fact that no objective evidence has ever been
presented for any god; nor with the fact that the god usually claimed by
theists in alt.atheism is negated by the inherent logical contradictions.
Mike Jones
> ........................................................but that has
> nothing to do with the fact that no objective evidence has ever been
> presented for any god; nor with the fact that the god usually claimed
> by theists in alt.atheism is negated by the inherent logical
> contradictions.
Worth putting into auto-sig generators. :)
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
*=( For all your UK news needs.
thomas p.
"Mike Jones" <N...@Arizona.Bay> skrev i meddelelsen
news:pan.2009.11...@Arizona.Bay...
> Responding to thomas p.:
>
>
>
>> ........................................................but that has
>> nothing to do with the fact that no objective evidence has ever been
>> presented for any god; nor with the fact that the god usually claimed
>> by theists in alt.atheism is negated by the inherent logical
>> contradictions.
>
>
> Worth putting into auto-sig generators. :)
Thanks!
Day Brown
> "Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:4b08a866$0$32588$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>> thomas p. wrote:
>>>> From what Dr. Freud had to say, most of what the high IQ referred to
>>>> above is to invent more ingenious excuses to explain neurotic denial.
>>> Really? What is being denied?
>> Thats not the question. The assertion that those with high IQ must be
>> correct about things outside their field of expertise is what is being
>> questioned. Which was the point of Socrates.
>
> Who made that assertion?
>>>"Most atheists and agnostics generally have something higher than a
grade ten level of understanding in subjects like mathematics, and
science. It has been proven statistically that atheism and atheistic
agnosticism is higher than normal in PHD's who are physicists, chemists,
Its interesting that he puts atheists and agnostics in the same set. I
dare say the latter would object. They dont claim to know, or claim to
know what other people can know.
Atheism looks like Newtonian physics in which you can go from every
cause to every effect, and PROVE your point. Only now we have
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle based on a number of Quantum physics
experiments that show that not only do you not know, you know that you
can not know. The agnostic, but not the atheist position.
The link from cause to effect in the conventional atheistic 3
dimensional concept of reality has been broken. Quantum math shows you
need 10 or 11 dimensions, depending on which bishop you listen to, but
you cant say anything about what is in those dimensions or relationships
they have with each other. Simply put, you do not know; agnosticism. But
contrary to atheism which appears to say that everything can be
explained within conventional, newtonian, science to show that there is
no other force, eg, a divine, needed.
thomas p.
> thomas p. wrote:
>> "Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:4b08a866$0$32588$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>> thomas p. wrote:
>>>>> From what Dr. Freud had to say, most of what the high IQ referred to
>>>>> above is to invent more ingenious excuses to explain neurotic denial.
>>>> Really? What is being denied?
>>> Thats not the question. The assertion that those with high IQ must be
>>> correct about things outside their field of expertise is what is being
>>> questioned. Which was the point of Socrates.
>>
>> Who made that assertion?
> Why dont we clear this up first? Reverend Dave, just a few posts up:
> >>>"Most atheists and agnostics generally have something higher than a
> grade ten level of understanding in subjects like mathematics, and
> science. It has been proven statistically that atheism and atheistic
> agnosticism is higher than normal in PHD's who are physicists, chemists,
> biologists, and mathematicians. It would seem that the larger the IQ, the
> higher the probabilty that someone is an atheist."<<<
Where does it say they that their assertions outside their fields of
expertise must be correct?
>
> Its interesting that he puts atheists and agnostics in the same set. I
> dare say the latter would object. They dont claim to know, or claim to
> know what other people can know.
Neither does atheism. To be an atheist does not require a person to know
there is no god.
That has been pointed out repeatedly. No doubt this is the very first time
you heard it.
>
> Atheism looks like Newtonian physics in which you can go from every cause
> to every effect, and PROVE your point. Only now we have Heisenberg's
> uncertainty principle based on a number of Quantum physics experiments
> that show that not only do you not know, you know that you can not know.
> The agnostic, but not the atheist position.
You are misrepresenting atheism. It is merely a lack of belief in a deity.
I also lack a belief
in leprechauns, even though I cannot prove they do not exist; and even
though the possibility
exists. See?
>
> The link from cause to effect in the conventional atheistic 3 dimensional
> concept of reality has been broken. Quantum math shows you need 10 or 11
> dimensions, depending on which bishop you listen to, but you cant say
> anything about what is in those dimensions or relationships they have with
> each other. Simply put, you do not know; agnosticism. But contrary to
> atheism which appears to say that everything can be explained within
> conventional, newtonian, science to show that there is no other force, eg,
> a divine, needed.
Nice strawman.
chazwin
> On Nov 1, 9:02 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > "Kadaitcha Man" <a...@no.email> wrote in message
>
> >news:fgjsln$cj0$r...@alt.sports.inflammated.lesions.and.abscesses.net.south-korea...> Budikka666, ye fat prater, a slave whose gall coins slanders like a
> > > mint, ye evacuated:
>
> > >> Because we don't rely on bullshit, fakery, lies, fraud or
> > >> gullibility. Why is that so hard to understand?
>
> > >> There is also much positive evidence against the supernatural claims
> > >> of the theists, such as, for example, the fact that prayer doesn't
> > >> work.
>
> > > And your proof for the claim that "prayer doesn't work" is?
>
> > Again, asking for proof of a negative, a theist staple argument.
>
> For those with a concept of quantum physics, prayer seems less
> mysterious. Those that understand the subtle power of the mind also
> understand the possibility of the effect.
>
> BOfL
Ignorant Savage!
Hannele
> thomas p. wrote:
>> "Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:4b08a866$0$32588$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>> thomas p. wrote:
>>>>> From what Dr. Freud had to say, most of what the high IQ referred to
>>>>> above is to invent more ingenious excuses to explain neurotic denial.
>>>> Really? What is being denied?
>>> Thats not the question. The assertion that those with high IQ must be
>>> correct about things outside their field of expertise is what is being
>>> questioned. Which was the point of Socrates.
>> Who made that assertion?
> Why dont we clear this up first? Reverend Dave, just a few posts up:
> >>>"Most atheists and agnostics generally have something higher than a
> grade ten level of understanding in subjects like mathematics, and
> science. It has been proven statistically that atheism and atheistic
> agnosticism is higher than normal in PHD's who are physicists, chemists,
> biologists, and mathematicians. It would seem that the larger the IQ,
> the higher the probabilty that someone is an atheist."<<<
>
> Its interesting that he puts atheists and agnostics in the same set. I
> dare say the latter would object. They dont claim to know, or claim to
> know what other people can know.
>
I'm both an atheist and an agnostic and I'm not the only one. There are
also people that are both theist and agnostic. (a)theism is about believe,
agnosticism is about knowledge. So I don't know for sure that no gods
exist, but I don't believe in either of them.
> Atheism looks like Newtonian physics in which you can go from every
> cause to every effect, and PROVE your point. Only now we have
> Heisenberg's uncertainty principle based on a number of Quantum physics
> experiments that show that not only do you not know, you know that you
> can not know. The agnostic, but not the atheist position.
>
> The link from cause to effect in the conventional atheistic 3
> dimensional concept of reality has been broken. Quantum math shows you
> need 10 or 11 dimensions, depending on which bishop you listen to, but
> you cant say anything about what is in those dimensions or relationships
> they have with each other. Simply put, you do not know; agnosticism. But
> contrary to atheism which appears to say that everything can be
> explained within conventional, newtonian, science to show that there is
> no other force, eg, a divine, needed.
--
Hannele, A.A #2211
There are at least as many gods as there are believers.
Virgil
"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:4b09871a$0$8789$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
> > thomas p. wrote:
> >> "Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> >> news:4b08a866$0$32588$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
> >>> thomas p. wrote:
> >>>>> From what Dr. Freud had to say, most of what the high IQ referred to
> >>>>> above is to invent more ingenious excuses to explain neurotic denial.
> >>>> Really? What is being denied?
> >>> Thats not the question. The assertion that those with high IQ must be
> >>> correct about things outside their field of expertise is what is being
> >>> questioned. Which was the point of Socrates.
> >>
> >> Who made that assertion?
> > Why dont we clear this up first? Reverend Dave, just a few posts up:
>
> > >>>"Most atheists and agnostics generally have something higher than a
> > grade ten level of understanding in subjects like mathematics, and
> > science. It has been proven statistically that atheism and atheistic
> > agnosticism is higher than normal in PHD's who are physicists, chemists,
> > biologists, and mathematicians. It would seem that the larger the IQ, the
> > higher the probabilty that someone is an atheist."<<<
>
> Where does it say they that their assertions outside their fields of
> expertise must be correct?
While individually it might not be the case, statistically one would
expect brighter people to be more often right.
Virgil
For those with some understanding of psychology, the alleged power of
prayer and mind is a good deal less subtle and mysterious.
Mike Jones
Jes' keep 'em a-comin'. :)
Rockinghorse Winner
>>
>> Where does it say they that their assertions outside their fields of
>> expertise must be correct?
>While individually it might not be the case, statistically one would
>expect brighter people to be more often right.
>>
Physicists are right that God does not exist as a peach or a building
exists. But when they make claims about the *possibility* of a metaphysics,
they are arguing out of school. They have as much reliability about
religion as they do about poetry or painting or philosophy.
If intelligence were inextricably linked to atheism, and intelligence has
not appreciably changed in the human species for many thousands of years, it
is odd that atheism has not become current until recently. Obviously, other
factors are involved besides intelligence.
I don't think you are saying that Newton, Aquinas or Plato were less
intelligent than three random professors on the faculty of a major
University, are you?
I would have more respect for the opinions of physicists on the existence of
God if they could produce a great work of art. I don't look to scientists
for information about God, and I don't look to religious leaders about the
latest scientific discoveries.
--
Hug your sweetie today.
*R* *H*
Day Brown
> I would have more respect for the opinions of physicists on the existence of
> God if they could produce a great work of art. I don't look to scientists
> for information about God, and I don't look to religious leaders about the
> latest scientific discoveries.
Ramprasad, who in his hymns to Kali (his name for The Goddess), says
that everything you see is part of a "projected matrix" out of the mind
of Kali.
Now, you could, as many have, employ an entheogenic potion to create an
altered state of consciousness at the sacred time, in the sacred place &
way, for a sacred purpose. Rather than just getting high. Most of those
who did so report a direct experience of the divine. Enlightenment often
is expressed as the sense of the awareness of the matrix.
But then along comes Planck, whose constant is the frame rate of the
matrix. Which is related to the speed of light, that is the rate at
which the software can calculate the location of moving objects and/or
forces. And, IIRC, the number is 10X-35 meter, that is the minimum
distance an Atom can be moved. They cant pack any together closer than
that. ie, the pixel size. Then too, we have the issue of how many, 10 or
11, dimensions are needed to make the math derived from scientific
experiment work out.
I dont claim to know what the other dimensions do or are. Or limit the
definition of the software and/or extradimensional hardware that is now
projecting the matrix to "the Goddess". But the term does make it clear
we are not talking about the easily debunked idea of the alpha male
tyrant god in Levantine scriptures.
I notice threads with atheists and followers of a Levantine scripture
commonly choose to define the term which is applied to their position as
if the rest of us always have that wrong. Any self described follower
has a perfect right to do that, so you never know just who you are
writing to, or what they will make of what you posted.
Those of use who dont follow any of these can agree on what the terms
mean based on the general run of the threads even tho that position will
never match what any of the individual followers claim is the correct
definition. The only correct definition of course, is their own. I dont
have a problem with it other than it rarely produces an insight of any
value to anyone.
The matrix I exist on has its own zeitgeist, which I see evolving, and
doing so in ways that make the debate between atheists and theists moot.
Day Brown
> I'm both an atheist and an agnostic and I'm not the only one. There are
> also people that are both theist and agnostic. (a)theism is about
> believe, agnosticism is about knowledge. So I don't know for sure that
> no gods exist, but I don't believe in either of them.
one without me ever meeting any of them. All I see in the postings are
those trying to debunk the Levantine concept of the divine. Which I
agree certainly could do with debunking. We'd all be better off.
IIRC, Plotinus was one who parsed out Christian dogma as bullshit. But
he wasnt an atheist. And altho he commonly used the term "gods", that
was a politically correct position to avoid drinking hemlock. I dont see
that he was not actually monotheistic, but didnt want to disturb pagan
sensibilities. But Christians were wackos.
Virgil
Rockinghorse Winner <rwi...@8600.com> wrote:
> Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> writes:
>
> >>
> >> Where does it say they that their assertions outside their fields of
> >> expertise must be correct?
>
> >While individually it might not be the case, statistically one would
> >expect brighter people to be more often right.
> >>
>
> Physicists are right that God does not exist as a peach or a building
> exists. But when they make claims about the *possibility* of a metaphysics,
> they are arguing out of school. They have as much reliability about
> religion as they do about poetry or painting or philosophy.
Which will still make the more intelligent and competent right more
often than the claims of dimmer and less competent persons when
pontificating about things outside of their area of expertise.
>
> If intelligence were inextricably linked to atheism, and intelligence has
> not appreciably changed in the human species for many thousands of years, it
> is odd that atheism has not become current until recently. Obviously, other
> factors are involved besides intelligence.
There is some evidence indicating that religions flourish most when the
society in which they occur has less than satisfactory control of
disturbing forces, like poverty, disease and criminality, and tend to
lose influence in societies which do have such control.
>
> I would have more respect for the opinions of physicists on the existence of
> God if they could produce a great work of art. I don't look to scientists
> for information about God, and I don't look to religious leaders about the
> latest scientific discoveries.
Do you look equally at the religious leaders of all theist religions.
If not, by what standard do you choose one theist religion over another?
As far as I can see, anything that religions in general have to offer
can be found in non-theists religions, such as some Buddhist sects,
Taoism, Confucianism, and the like.
So what is the point of insisting on gods?
Day Brown
> Do you look equally at the religious leaders of all theist religions.
>
> If not, by what standard do you choose one theist religion over another?
> As far as I can see, anything that religions in general have to offer
> can be found in non-theists religions, such as some Buddhist sects,
> Taoism, Confucianism, and the like.
Agreed; these Oriental traditions have had less violence among them over
the course of the last 2500 years than the Levantine religions have had
in the last 25. But while they do not define the divine, unlike
atheists, they dont claim to know no divine exists.
> So what is the point of insisting on gods?
Who getsta defind "gods"? The exoteric traditions do so in scripture,
which leaves them open to debunking unsubstantiated claims. The esoteric
traditions, that rely on meditation or other forms of altered states of
consciousness have had many report a direct experience of the presence
of the divine even tho they defer from saying what that is.
The Vedas have many 'drinking songs' to "Soma", a psychedelic sacred
potion which they report produced spiritual enlightenment. Useful if
your mind is too busy to successfully meditate. But whether meditation,
hypnotic dance or drum, sacred entheogenic potion, and/or Tantric sex,
the point was that the point of the sword was not effective. In sharp
contrast to the Levantine traditions.
So, lets be clear here on where the real problem lies; not with the idea
of some divine, but with a particular idea, that of the alpha male
tyrant notion as seen in Jehovah, Jesus, and Allah.
thomas p.
> Virgil wrote:
>> Do you look equally at the religious leaders of all theist religions.
>>
>> If not, by what standard do you choose one theist religion over another?
> By their fruits yea shall know them.
>
>> As far as I can see, anything that religions in general have to offer can
>> be found in non-theists religions, such as some Buddhist sects, Taoism,
>> Confucianism, and the like.
> Agreed; these Oriental traditions have had less violence among them over
> the course of the last 2500 years than the Levantine religions have had in
> the last 25. But while they do not define the divine, unlike atheists,
> they dont claim to know no divine exists.
Are you still pushing that strawman? I am an atheist, and I don't claim to
know
that no deity exists.
>
>> So what is the point of insisting on gods?
> Who getsta defind "gods"? The exoteric traditions do so in scripture,
> which leaves them open to debunking unsubstantiated claims. The esoteric
> traditions, that rely on meditation or other forms of altered states of
> consciousness have had many report a direct experience of the presence of
> the divine even tho they defer from saying what that is.
>
> The Vedas have many 'drinking songs' to "Soma", a psychedelic sacred
> potion which they report produced spiritual enlightenment. Useful if your
> mind is too busy to successfully meditate. But whether meditation,
> hypnotic dance or drum, sacred entheogenic potion, and/or Tantric sex, the
> point was that the point of the sword was not effective. In sharp contrast
> to the Levantine traditions.
>
> So, lets be clear here on where the real problem lies; not with the idea
> of some divine, but with a particular idea, that of the alpha male tyrant
> notion as seen in Jehovah, Jesus, and Allah.
No, the problem lies in the fact that there is no objective evidence for any
deity.
chazwin
> >>news:4b08a866$0$32588$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
> >>> thomas p. wrote:
> >>>>> From what Dr. Freud had to say, most of what the high IQ referred to
> >>>>> above is to invent more ingenious excuses to explain neurotic denial.
> >>>> Really? What is being denied?
> >>> Thats not the question. The assertion that those with high IQ must be
> >>> correct about things outside their field of expertise is what is being
> >>> questioned. Which was the point of Socrates.
> >> Who made that assertion?
> > Why dont we clear this up first? Reverend Dave, just a few posts up:
> > >>>"Most atheists and agnostics generally have something higher than a
> > grade ten level of understanding in subjects like mathematics, and
> > science. It has been proven statistically that atheism and atheistic
> > agnosticism is higher than normal in PHD's who are physicists, chemists,
> > biologists, and mathematicians. It would seem that the larger the IQ,
> > the higher the probabilty that someone is an atheist."<<<
>
> > Its interesting that he puts atheists and agnostics in the same set. I
> > dare say the latter would object. They dont claim to know, or claim to
> > know what other people can know.
>
> I'm both an atheist and an agnostic and I'm not the only one. There are
> also people that are both theist and agnostic.
Those people are confused. Agnosticism is a subcategory of atheism.
If you take the agnostic step then you can't then have faith and
believe in god. it is nonsense.
> (a)theism is about believe,
Duh! Theism is about belief ! atheism is about an absence of a belief.
Virgil
<9d6745ab-3fbd-4d27...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
chazwin <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > (a)theism is about believe, �
>
> Duh! Theism is about belief ! atheism is about an absence of a belief.
Both are about having belief in (at least one) god,
theists do and atheists don't.
Rockinghorse Winner
>>
>> I would have more respect for the opinions of physicists on the existence of
>> God if they could produce a great work of art. I don't look to scientists
>> for information about God, and I don't look to religious leaders about the
>> latest scientific discoveries.
>Do you look equally at the religious leaders of all theist religions.
>If not, by what standard do you choose one theist religion over another?
>As far as I can see, anything that religions in general have to offer
>can be found in non-theists religions, such as some Buddhist sects,
>Taoism, Confucianism, and the like.
>So what is the point of insisting on gods?
I don't insist on Gods, although there are very valid philosophic arguments
for God. What I am trying to say, is that the scientific and religious camps
are about as far apart as biology and poetry. Now a biologist can offer a
million explanations in excruciating detail about how one person writes and
another person reads a poem, and say absolutely nothing pertinent about
poetry, art, or the experience of same. Poetry can't be examined in a petri
dish, and neither can relgion, the concept of god, or any metaphysics. It is
a doomed project from the start.
Virgil
> Those people are confused. Agnosticism is a subcategory of atheism.
> If you take the agnostic step then you can't then have faith and
> believe in god. it is nonsense.
Agnosticism is about certainty and knowledge (what one can prove).
Atheism and theism are about what one believes.
Everyone believes a lot of things that they cannot prove, at least in
any but the most primitive of societies, as the vast majority of what
one comes to believes is what one has been told by others, e.g., ones
parents and teachers, not what one had verified directly for oneself.
Rockinghorse Winner
>No, the problem lies in the fact that there is no objective evidence for any
>deity.
Neither is there any objective evidence that the deepest strivings of the
human heart mean anything more than the subjective, biologic stirrings of
neurons in the brain. If we were to believe that completely, we would of
course cease to be essentially human. For to be human consists *precisely*
in attaching *meaning* and importance to these movements of the inner man.
No one actually goes around believing the scientific view of these things.
We all take our thoughts, feelings and emotions as having significance, even
if, when pressed, we could not say exactly *what* that significance
consisted in. The essential, natural condition of man *is* religious. It's
how we all live inwardly. Throwing scientific theses at this basic truth is
like throwing water on a duck; it has no effect on this most basic truth of
existence.
Dan Listermann
"Rockinghorse Winner" <rwi...@8600.com> wrote in message
news:4ZednaKbEP1...@giganews.com...
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> writes:
>For to be human consists *precisely* in attaching *meaning* and importance
>to these movements >of the inner man.
Sounds wonderful, but it is, of course, nonsense.
Virgil
Rockinghorse Winner <rwi...@8600.com> wrote:
There are, as far as I can see, absolutely no benefits deriveable from
theist religions like Christianity that are not also available from
non-theist, or at least not-neccesarily-theist religions, like Buddhism,
and Taoism, and the like.
Thus I see absolutely no practical arguments for assuming gods.
Virgil
Rockinghorse Winner <rwi...@8600.com> wrote:
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >No, the problem lies in the fact that there is no objective evidence for any
> >deity.
>
> Neither is there any objective evidence that the deepest strivings of the
> human heart mean anything more than the subjective, biologic stirrings of
> neurons in the brain. If we were to believe that completely, we would of
> course cease to be essentially human. For to be human consists *precisely*
> in attaching *meaning* and importance to these movements of the inner man.
> No one actually goes around believing the scientific view of these things.
> We all take our thoughts, feelings and emotions as having significance, even
> if, when pressed, we could not say exactly *what* that significance
> consisted in. The essential, natural condition of man *is* religious.
It is quite possible to be as religious as one wants without positing
any gods. Consider such religions as Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism,
which do not require any theism.
Do you claim that such non-theist religions lack spirituality?
To my mind spirituality and theism are totally independent of each
other, and often somewhat antagonistic.
It's
> how we all live inwardly. Throwing scientific theses at this basic truth is
> like throwing water on a duck; it has no effect on this most basic truth of
> existence.
Your notion that spirituality requires theism is hardly basic truth.
Christopher A. Lee
<rwi...@8600.com> wrote:
>Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> writes:
>
>>>
>>> I would have more respect for the opinions of physicists on the existence of
>>> God if they could produce a great work of art. I don't look to scientists
>>> for information about God, and I don't look to religious leaders about the
>>> latest scientific discoveries.
>
>>Do you look equally at the religious leaders of all theist religions.
>
>>If not, by what standard do you choose one theist religion over another?
>
>>As far as I can see, anything that religions in general have to offer
>>can be found in non-theists religions, such as some Buddhist sects,
>>Taoism, Confucianism, and the like.
>
>>So what is the point of insisting on gods?
>
>I don't insist on Gods, although there are very valid philosophic arguments
>for God.
There are none.
Please don't confuse attempted rationalisation for a memetic belief
with failed attempts to generate information out of nothing.
The information simply isn't there. If it were that would be evidence
and it wouldn't be necessary to argue it into existence.
[snip]
Christopher A. Lee
<rwi...@8600.com> wrote:
>"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>No, the problem lies in the fact that there is no objective evidence for any
>>deity.
So why don't the idiots have the sense not to beg tthe question they
always cop outof answering?
>Neither is there any objective evidence that the deepest strivings of the
>human heart mean anything more than the subjective, biologic stirrings of
>neurons in the brain.
Irrelevent.
People only demand believers provide evidence when they beg the
question by rudely and stupidly presuming their beliefs outside their
religion, to people who don't share them.
Day Brown
> Thus I see absolutely no practical arguments for assuming gods.
we see most clearly in the violence justified by Levantine religions, is
that you can replace that concept with a vision that isnt violent, and
does not justify aggression or offer 'divine forgiveness'.
The faith in Gaia did that. Atheism, as we saw with atheistic
government, resulted in people making gods of their leaders. By their
fruits yea shall know them. That's the practical argument.
The Vedic notion of a projected matrix includes the idea that some of
what we see are divinely created and animated forms that do not, in
fact, have souls, but are like cosmic robots or androids, programmed to
think as they do, who often do not, since they dont sense a soul, seem
to think such a thing cannot exist, nor a divine source which created
them. There's no reason for them to believe in a divine.
Conversely, meditation and the other forms of altered consciousness have
left us with reports of a directly experienced divine presence. You
either have that, in which case not atheistic refutation is possible, or
if not, then no other proof will suffice.
Quite commonly we see atheists say all forms of altered consciousness
are delusion. But how can they know without trying it?
Smiler
How can you know if a mushroom is poisonous without eating it?
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Day Brown
>> I don't insist on Gods, although there are very valid philosophic arguments
>> for God.
>
> There are none.
does not mean that none can exist.
Virgil
Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
There are at least two form of atheist, the strong more gnostic type who
claim that there are no gods and the weak more agnostic type who merely
lack belief in more gods than theists do.
Both sorts rely on the various definitions of gods provided by various
types of theists rather than trying to imagine definitions on their own.
thomas p.
Fundamental flaw in your argument: Just because you continue to ignore the
fact that you are
arguing against your own strawman, does not mean that you are not.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>"Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:4b0b5a1d$0$8812$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> I don't insist on Gods, although there are very valid philosophic
>>>> arguments
>>>> for God.
>>>
>>> There are none.
>> Fundamental flaw in atheism. Just because you do not know what they are,
>> does not mean that none can exist.
The intellectually honest thing would have been to refute me by
providing one.
But hey, it's a Christian who can't back up his claim, and who doesn't
understand that every time they do this confirms what we all realised
a long time ago.
But in their black and white alternate realty there is no such thing
as a falsifiable conclusion.
Dishonest fundie mode: "just because he didn't, doesn't mean he
can't".
>Fundamental flaw in your argument: Just because you continue to ignore the
>fact that you are
>arguing against your own strawman, does not mean that you are not.
He needs to learn some basic information theory.
His so-called "very valid philosophic arguments" attempt to generate
information out of nothing.
Because if there actually were any, that would be direct evidence and
there wouldn't be any need to argue it.
Which he snipped.
Are there any honest believers when it comes to their religion?
Rockinghorse Winner
>In article <4ZednaKbEP1...@giganews.com>,
> Rockinghorse Winner <rwi...@8600.com> wrote:
>> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> >No, the problem lies in the fact that there is no objective evidence for any
>> >deity.
>>
>> Neither is there any objective evidence that the deepest strivings of the
>> human heart mean anything more than the subjective, biologic stirrings of
>> neurons in the brain. If we were to believe that completely, we would of
>> course cease to be essentially human. For to be human consists *precisely*
>> in attaching *meaning* and importance to these movements of the inner man.
>> No one actually goes around believing the scientific view of these things.
>> We all take our thoughts, feelings and emotions as having significance, even
>> if, when pressed, we could not say exactly *what* that significance
>> consisted in. The essential, natural condition of man *is* religious.
>It is quite possible to be as religious as one wants without positing
>any gods. Consider such religions as Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism,
>which do not require any theism.
>Do you claim that such non-theist religions lack spirituality?
>To my mind spirituality and theism are totally independent of each
>other, and often somewhat antagonistic.
I disagree with the last statement, but the first statement is certainly
true. Even atheists can have a profound sense of the mystery of the
universe. And that is my point. That the religious sense is *universal.*
It's just the way we are, and it takes a strong effort to suppress it in the
name of a distorted sense of what an atheist *should* think, or what a
materialist *should* believe.
What often happens with people who suppress their religious instinct, is
that spirituality pops up in unsuspected ways: in artistic expression,
conspiracy theories, UFO beliefs, etc.
But the human mind is always in a transcendent space.
Rockinghorse Winner
>There are none.
>[snip]
There are many rational truths that have no evidence of existence. Pi is the
ratio of a circle's dimensions. Which circle? Certainly, no circle in the
universe. Is Pi real? Where is your evidence?
Christopher A. Lee
<rwi...@8600.com> wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> writes:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:32:53 -0600, Rockinghorse Winner
>><rwi...@8600.com> wrote:
>
>>>Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> writes:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have more respect for the opinions of physicists on the existence of
>>>>> God if they could produce a great work of art. I don't look to scientists
>>>>> for information about God, and I don't look to religious leaders about the
>>>>> latest scientific discoveries.
>>>
>>>>Do you look equally at the religious leaders of all theist religions.
>>>
>>>>If not, by what standard do you choose one theist religion over another?
>>>
>>>>As far as I can see, anything that religions in general have to offer
>>>>can be found in non-theists religions, such as some Buddhist sects,
>>>>Taoism, Confucianism, and the like.
>>>
>>>>So what is the point of insisting on gods?
>>>
>>>I don't insist on Gods, although there are very valid philosophic arguments
>>>for God.
>
>>There are none.
>
>>Please don't confuse attempted rationalisation for a memetic belief
>>with failed attempts to generate information out of nothing.
>
>>The information simply isn't there. If it were that would be evidence
>>and it wouldn't be necessary to argue it into existence.
>
>>[snip]
[dishonest snip of explanation restored]
::Please don't confuse attempted rationalisation for a memetic belief
::with failed attempts to generate information out of nothing.
::
::The information simply isn't there. If it were that would be evidence
::and it wouldn't be necessary to argue it into existence.
Whhy didn't you address this?
>There are many rational truths that have no evidence of existence.
Dishonest redefinition of "truth" from "correspondance with reality"
to something meaningles.
> Pi is the
>ratio of a circle's dimensions. Which circle? Certainly, no circle in the
>universe. Is Pi real? Where is your evidence?
Meaningless word salad.
Dishonest demand that I defend a straw man.
Christopher A. Lee
Why pretend this is a "religious sense"?
Is it so you can dishonestly equivocate?
>It's just the way we are, and it takes a strong effort to suppress it in the
>name of a distorted sense of what an atheist *should* think, or what a
>materialist *should* believe.
Why the fuck should we think your bullahit?
>What often happens with people who suppress their religious instinct, is
>that spirituality pops up in unsuspected ways: in artistic expression,
>conspiracy theories, UFO beliefs, etc.
What "religious instinct" are you lying about?
>But the human mind is always in a transcendent space.
What a fucking moron.
Richo
> On Nov 12, 9:32 am, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:> Beliefs are beliefs; period.
>
> > And the last word is .......?
>
> By definition, atheism says there is no god.
By definition atheism is NOT believing in a god or gods.
Atheism is defined by what it isn't not by what it is.
Mark
thomas p.
"Rockinghorse Winner" <rwi...@8600.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:veKdnRM75Lu...@giganews.com...
> Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> writes:
>
>>In article <4ZednaKbEP1...@giganews.com>,
>> Rockinghorse Winner <rwi...@8600.com> wrote:
>
>>> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>> >No, the problem lies in the fact that there is no objective evidence
>>> >for any
>>> >deity.
>>>
(piggybacking to respond to Rocking....)
>>> Neither is there any objective evidence that the deepest strivings of
>>> the
>>> human heart mean anything more than the subjective, biologic stirrings
>>> of
>>> neurons in the brain. If we were to believe that completely, we would of
>>> course cease to be essentially human.
That, of course, is a completely unsupported claim.
For to be human consists *precisely*
>>> in attaching *meaning* and importance to these movements of the inner
>>> man.
>>> No one actually goes around believing the scientific view of these
>>> things.
They don't? Where do you get this knowledge you claim?
>>> We all take our thoughts, feelings and emotions as having significance,
>>> even
>>> if, when pressed, we could not say exactly *what* that significance
>>> consisted in. The essential, natural condition of man *is* religious.
So you say.
snip
thomas p.
We are talking about it. Since it is a concept not a thing, the fact that
we are talking
about it proves that the concept exists.
Christopher A. Lee
My bad - I shouldn't go online when I'm tired but can't sleep.
Apologies for a senior moment.
>::Please don't confuse attempted rationalisation for a memetic belief
>::with failed attempts to generate information out of nothing.
>::
>::The information simply isn't there. If it were that would be evidence
>::and it wouldn't be necessary to argue it into existence.
>
>Why didn't you address this?
But you still didn't address this.
Rockinghorse Winner
>Meaningless word salad.
Ah, you don't want to tell me whether Pi is real! That's ok. I can assure
you it is real. Pi is the true ratio of a perfect circle's circumference to
it's diameter, even though as we all know, there are no perfect circles in
existence. It is a purely *rational* truth. It can be proven by a trained
mathematician. You don't deny this, do you?
No matter. The proofs of God are all rational, like mathematical proofs.
I could go over a couple that appeal to me, but there are many books on the
subject by authors that are much better writers than I am.
BTW, correspondence to reality assumes that reality can be seen perfectly,
in all it's truth. Do you believe this to be the case? Can this be proven?
Dan Listermann
>
> No matter. The proofs of God are all rational, like mathematical proofs.
> I could go over a couple that appeal to me, but there are many books on
> the
> subject by authors that are much better writers than I am.
Super! Please give us your very best!
Rockinghorse Winner
>What "religious instinct" are you lying about?
>>But the human mind is always in a transcendent space.
>What a fucking moron.
I amend my statement: *most* human minds.
Christopher A. Lee
<rwi...@8600.com> wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> writes:
>
>>::Please don't confuse attempted rationalisation for a memetic belief
>>::with failed attempts to generate information out of nothing.
>>::
>>::The information simply isn't there. If it were that would be evidence
>>::and it wouldn't be necessary to argue it into existence.
>
>>Why didn't you address this?
Well, moron?
>>>There are many rational truths that have no evidence of existence.
>
>>Dishonest redefinition of "truth" from "correspondance with reality"
>>to something meaningles.
>
>>> Pi is the
>>>ratio of a circle's dimensions. Which circle? Certainly, no circle in the
>>>universe. Is Pi real? Where is your evidence?
>
>>Meaningless word salad.
>
>>Dishonest demand that I defend a straw man.
>
>Ah, you don't want to tell me whether Pi is real!
A liar as well as an idiot.
Your need to introduce a straw man as a red herring and then demand I
defend it, is very revealing.
But as an attempt to divert from addressing the fact that there are no
"very valid philosophic arguments for God" and the explanation why
there can't be, it failed.
All it did was confirm you have none otherwise you would not have
needed this kind of cop out.
> That's ok. I can assure
>you it is real. Pi is the true ratio of a perfect circle's circumference to
>it's diameter, even though as we all know, there are no perfect circles in
>existence. It is a purely *rational* truth. It can be proven by a trained
>mathematician. You don't deny this, do you?
IT'S STILL A DISHONEST RED HERRING.
>No matter. The proofs of God are all rational, like mathematical proofs.
Don't be so silly.
Instead of ignoring why there are none, and simply insisting they are,
either provide some that work, or stop being so dishonest.
>I could go over a couple that appeal to me, but there are many books on the
>subject by authors that are much better writers than I am.
In other words you can't.
>BTW, correspondence to reality assumes that reality can be seen perfectly,
>in all it's truth. Do you believe this to be the case? Can this be proven?
The dishonest lapse into solipsism that doesn't even fool yourself.
After YOU made claims you cannot back up.
Fundie mode: "just because I don't doesn't mean I can't"
Dan Listermann
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:5e6ng5hi76lb84pk7...@4ax.com...
I am starting to think that there is an instinct that promotes superstition.
Today, it is obviously vestigial, like an appendix, but in more primitive
times, it probably helped the social animal that humans are, survive as a
group.
Me, my wife and my brother would all be dead were it not for appendectomies.
Christopher A. Lee
<rwi...@8600.com> wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> writes:
>
>>What "religious instinct" are you lying about?
>
>>>But the human mind is always in a transcendent space.
>
>>What a fucking moron.
>
>I amend my statement: *most* human minds.
What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot who dishonestly cops
out of backing up claims he obviously knows are false by trying to
hide behind meaningless word salad because he knows he can't.
Rockinghorse Winner
>> There are many rational truths that have no evidence of existence. Pi is
>> the
>> ratio of a circle's dimensions. Which circle? Certainly, no circle in the
>> universe. Is Pi real? Where is your evidence?
>We are talking about it. Since it is a concept not a thing, the fact that
>we are talking
>about it proves that the concept exists.
There are many concepts we can talk about that have no reality: unicorns,
the square roots of negative numbers, etc. In the latter case, we say the
number in question is imaginary - it is not real. That is not the case with
Pi, however. Pi is real, because we can compute it from the dimensions of a
circle, and we can not merely show that it is so in every circle we posit,
but that it *must* hold for *any* circle we posit. That is what
differentiates a true concept like Pi from an imaginary concept like the
former. It makes no difference that the circle in question does not exist
anywhere in the universe. It exists in our own minds, and using that mental
concept as a starting point, we can show PI to exist as well.
That is what is know as a purely rational proof. There are many such things.