OT: On the nature of religion...
Jeremy Reece
Jeremy Ponders.......
dolph...@fsmail.net
Jeremy Reece wrote:
> Institutionalised Superstition?
>
> Jeremy Ponders.......
I might have agreed with you if your subject header had been
"OT: On the nature of organised religion..."
Dolphinius
(Male, early thirties, UK, self-diagnosed AS)
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
dolph...@fsmail.net wrote:
> Jeremy Reece wrote:
> > Institutionalised Superstition?
> >
> > Jeremy Ponders.......
>
> I might have agreed with you if your subject header had been
>
> "OT: On the nature of organised religion..."
>
Thank you for making that distinction, Dolphinius.
Kitten
cr88192
"Jeremy Reece" <jreece_dont_yo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xc2dnQl6yJX...@bt.com...
> Institutionalised Superstition?
>
> Jeremy Ponders.......
I can very much understand that it may seem this way, but if one is willing
to be open, just as much as things seem to oppose religion, one will see
that it is a little more than simply superstition or magical thinking.
then again, the great circular argument. one believes because one believes,
and one needs faith to keep faith alive.
so, from what I can see, there are a number major paths:
those who were raised with a strong emphasis placed on religion, and may not
have ever doubted, but may not have ever tested their belief either;
those who doubt, and may have experienced a much stronger influence of
secularism or of conflicting religions;
those who stick to religion simply because it is useful or fammiliar;
...
my case:
I had traditionally doubted that there was anything at all;
though my parents technically believed I guess, generally put little to no
effort in it, and would instead condemn everyone that didn't agree with
them.
now, in my case, I had a flaw, but at the same time that flaw may have been
used as well.
namely:
I had some level of involvement with magics, and I could see a world which I
did not believe in. it was a world filled with very bizarre things, and
hardly seemed to agree with the world around me, or with widespread beliefs.
eventually, it seemed, I was not alone in this world, but there were others.
they were hardly like people, and would say lots of things that made little
sense.
one thing is they were making insults twards religion, and everything that
religion stood for. this made me curious, why would things purely within my
mind, be so opposed to things for which I had so little concern?...
one can then read a lot of what is written, and partly gain new
understanding, and partly be far more confused than one was to begin with.
what seems to be traditionally viewed as "good" (the anal religious
stereotype), and what is traditionally "bad" (a person who has done many bad
things), is much less clear, and one can be afraid that if they say what
they think than they will be either rejected or destructive, but at the same
time, there is the belief that, whatever the case, one can be acting in the
name of truth.
in a way, through knowlege one can have their beliefs challenged, but
through knowlege they can be strengthened. it is not about sticking firmly
to those beliefs that are demonstratably wrong, but in being flexible and
willing to seek the truth, whatever it may be.
in a way, a strongly speaking religious figure can be no better than someone
who is depraved and has no religion at all if one does not hold respect
twards God, the truth, and the personal wellbeing of others in high regard.
a depraved pervert can care about others far more deeply than someone who
speaks all day in the name of God but personally feels they are superior to
everyone and everything else.
it is sad sometimes how little many can see past the high position and flaws
of people promoting religion (but, often as a means of indirectly promoting
themselves) and the masses of sometimes questionable beliefs held by people
often with little to no evidence to support their claims, instead trying to
discredit everyone with opposing beliefs.
both sides seem guilty, and many things seem far less settled than they
would initially seem.
then of course, a lot comes down to specifics as well.
one can realize there are a lot of things that differ between religions, and
there is a lot of overlap as well.
of course, there is a truth, and that is left for people to find.
many will say that the truth was finalized on the cross, but I don't feel
this personally. I feel that quite possibly this didn't mark the end of the
quest for truth, but rather the beginning.
a simple example:
a core belief is that of the Holy Trinity;
now, as simple as this idea seems, one realizes that this has many
implications, and hardly presents itself as a solved problem, and with
thought, it starts to seem like many have become misled in some major ways,
but even then one can't condemn, as one can't be condemned for things done
in good faith...
as much as one tries to oppose mainstream belief, one only seems to recreate
things echoed in the finer details of practices that are often taken for
granted. one instead begins to feel that widespread belief is more a gross
simplification that has almost seems threatening in some ways.
my current belief: he was not sent to become an idol for us, rather so that
we could know the one who sent him.
instead, only he seems emphasized, and the one who sent him seems almost
forgotten by many people. his purpose was important, but I feel it is
distracted from by many things people do. I feel it is hurtful to them if
one misses the point or doesn't show proper respect.
then again, maybe I am the one who is wrong, but I feel I have to be willing
to face any judgement. it is not useful simply to hide in fear and doubt or
to blindly follow whoever yells loudest. it seems to me that one has to
approach God in confidence, but not dehabilitated by fear, and not in
arrogance, willing to stand their ground and honestly accept the judgement
they are given. if I am not acceptable, I will be punished, but if I don't
stand up, I will be destroyed...
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>my current belief: he was not sent to become an idol for us, rather so that
>we could know the one who sent him.
If you believe in a creator, then the nature of their creation must
necessarily reflect their nature (unless you're claiming that they set
out to mislead us [as indeed some variants do]).
So (IMHO) there's an intrinsic problem with 'revealed' religions
(Christianity, Islam, etc.) to the extent that what is claimed in
words does not appear to match what is observed in reality (i.e. the
'created' world). There's also the issue of inconsistencies /
incompatibilities *within* the 'approved' revelations.
It appears to me that an understanding of the nature of a creator,
based purely on observation of their works, would result in a
considerably different understanding than that suggested by what are
said to be their revealed words / message?
Terry
Eric Fahrender
wrote:
>It appears to me that an understanding of the nature of a creator,
>based purely on observation of their works, would result in a
>considerably different understanding than that suggested by what are
>said to be their revealed words / message?
Consider the appendix, for example. This useless and sometimes
dangerous bit of tissue in our digestive systems effectively debunks
the "intelligent design" hypothesis in my opinion.
Suppose you, Terry, created a birdhouse and some birds moved into it.
How much of your nature could the birds, or another human for that
matter, learn by studying the birdhouse you made?
dolph...@fsmail.net
Terry Jones wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:15:43 +1000, "cr88192"
> <cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >my current belief: he was not sent to become an idol for us, rather so that
> >we could know the one who sent him.
>
> If you believe in a creator, then the nature of their creation must
> necessarily reflect their nature (unless you're claiming that they set
> out to mislead us [as indeed some variants do]).
I think things are much more complicated than that.
One question is what was created? At one extreme, all forms of life
could have been planned out in great detail. Maybe we are just a giant
dominoes set where God worked out how every atom would move at every
point in time from the beginning to the end of the world. At another
extreme, God may just have created the mathematical laws of the
universe, started everything with a big bang and just let things
develop freely.
Another question is the world we can physically sense an important
component of what exists or is it just like a thin skin covering
something more fundamental that we can't sense? (Do you judge a book on
just one word in it?)
And so on ...
Gareeth
>>
> Consider the appendix, for example. This useless and sometimes
> dangerous bit of tissue in our digestive systems effectively debunks
> the "intelligent design" hypothesis in my opinion.
>
>
Gareeth
Terry Jones
wrote:
>Suppose you, Terry, created a birdhouse and some birds moved into it.
>How much of your nature could the birds, or another human for that
>matter, learn by studying the birdhouse you made?
Misleading analogy - What is claimed to have been designed and
constructed is the birds themselves, their lifestyle, their
environment, the plants and creatures they feed on, their predators,
their competitors, the very world they live on, etc., etc..
IOW examining simple constructs provides simple and restricted
information, examining more complex things, and examining things more
widely, give more, and more detailed and extensive information.
Terry
Terry Jones
>One question is what was created? At one extreme, all forms of life
>could have been planned out in great detail. Maybe we are just a giant
>dominoes set where God worked out how every atom would move at every
>point in time from the beginning to the end of the world. At another
>extreme, God may just have created the mathematical laws of the
>universe, started everything with a big bang and just let things
>develop freely.
No, the question when examining a religion is what *their* claims are
(and then comparing them with the world). So for example a deist
creator ('light the blue touchpaper & retire') wouldn't have sent
visions / messages to the Jewish prophets, a Jesus, or a messenger to
Mohammed - since that would make them interventionist.
An intelligent design creationist *does* have to explain the human
appendix (and mens' nipples :) since they are claiming that the
current species are 'as designed' rather than having gone through an
evolutionary process (where in some earlier predecessor the appendix
did have a function).
>Another question is the world we can physically sense an important
>component of what exists or is it just like a thin skin covering
>something more fundamental that we can't sense? (Do you judge a book on
>just one word in it?)
Point is we *do* now understand more than we once did as a result of
developing tools to *extend* our senses - microscopes, electron
microscopes, telescopes, radio-telescopes, infra-red or ultraviolet
sensors, x-rays, etc., etc.. And we're still doing so.
Furthermore the information & understanding we gain through these does
allow us to mentally 'look' deeper than we once could - the big bang,
dark matter, dark energy, string theory, 'branes', etc., etc..
It's an ongoing process.
It's not the scientists and other 'seekers' who are 'judging a book by
just one word' - they are trying to read more and more of it. It is
the dogmatists (religious and secular) who want us to stop at what
they give us, and not to explore any further.
Terry
cr88192
"Terry Jones" <terry...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:prr592922k3c34m5p...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:15:43 +1000, "cr88192"
> <cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>my current belief: he was not sent to become an idol for us, rather so
>>that
>>we could know the one who sent him.
>
> If you believe in a creator, then the nature of their creation must
> necessarily reflect their nature (unless you're claiming that they set
> out to mislead us [as indeed some variants do]).
>
I feel that, whatever the case, what is observed is probably about right,
but there is still room for interpretation.
> So (IMHO) there's an intrinsic problem with 'revealed' religions
> (Christianity, Islam, etc.) to the extent that what is claimed in
> words does not appear to match what is observed in reality (i.e. the
> 'created' world). There's also the issue of inconsistencies /
> incompatibilities *within* the 'approved' revelations.
>
a lot of this comes down to specifics.
what methods were used?
could it have been that evolution was actually a tool used in the creative
process?
could it be that he was just being conservative wrt effort?
...
not everyone believes exactly the same things, and not everyone believes,
strictly, that everything came into existance at once a few k years ago.
more so, a lot of this is not strictly stated in what is written, but is
apparently inferred by people and merged into mainstream belief.
another thing is that I suspect that there is a lot of metaphor, and one has
to be careful to seperate the literal from the metaphor. I feel that if
tries to take some things as fact, rather than for what they portray, then
one is creating problems.
however, that is not to say they aren't fact, as many things have been later
demonstrated through archeological or experimental evidence as well.
even as such, I don't feel that things were written without the possibility
of error either. even inspired, humans are still humans, and subject to
error.
> It appears to me that an understanding of the nature of a creator,
> based purely on observation of their works, would result in a
> considerably different understanding than that suggested by what are
> said to be their revealed words / message?
>
I suspect reality exists in layers, and what is said in some cases may not
refer strictly to this layer.
if, for example, I say that someone is already dead, but they are standing
there and able to walk around and carry on conversation, does this imply
they are some kind of zombie? probably not, as this would be more likely in
reference to psychological or religious matters than physical ones...
> Terry
>
cr88192
"Eric Fahrender" <no...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:abv592ltk6o139hn8...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:01:48 +0100, Terry Jones <terry...@beeb.net>
> wrote:
>
>>It appears to me that an understanding of the nature of a creator,
>>based purely on observation of their works, would result in a
>>considerably different understanding than that suggested by what are
>>said to be their revealed words / message?
>
> Consider the appendix, for example. This useless and sometimes
> dangerous bit of tissue in our digestive systems effectively debunks
> the "intelligent design" hypothesis in my opinion.
>
this only assumes that humans were made "perfectly" and starting from a
clean design.
a thought I have is that, quite possibly, there is a good deal of
copying/pasting between species. no real need to rewrite whay is already
there...
even with human designs, this process is very evident, some amount of new
code, and a large amount of reuse.
anyways, afaik the appendix has minor uses related both to regularity and
the immune system.
> Suppose you, Terry, created a birdhouse and some birds moved into it.
> How much of your nature could the birds, or another human for that
> matter, learn by studying the birdhouse you made?
>
a birdhouse is a birdhouse. one is limited in what level of information they
can gain from it. then again, where would it imply that you did not make the
birdhouse if in fact you did, but the birds, for example, wanted to take
credit for themselves or attribute it solely to nature? (after all, it would
be made of wood and other things found in nature...).
cr88192
> On 16 Jun 2006 13:21:24 -0700, dolph...@fsmail.net wrote:
>
>>One question is what was created? At one extreme, all forms of life
>>could have been planned out in great detail. Maybe we are just a giant
>>dominoes set where God worked out how every atom would move at every
>>point in time from the beginning to the end of the world. At another
>>extreme, God may just have created the mathematical laws of the
>>universe, started everything with a big bang and just let things
>>develop freely.
>
> No, the question when examining a religion is what *their* claims are
> (and then comparing them with the world). So for example a deist
> creator ('light the blue touchpaper & retire') wouldn't have sent
> visions / messages to the Jewish prophets, a Jesus, or a messenger to
> Mohammed - since that would make them interventionist.
>
free choice, but using prophets as a way of being like "look, I exist...",
then maybe going on to give a list of complaints about whatever said people
are doing at the time.
to me this doesn't seem too unreasonable really.
or maybe it is the point that he is and is willing to get involved when
needed...
likewise, I don't entirely believe the creative process has necissarily
entirely stopped either.
> An intelligent design creationist *does* have to explain the human
> appendix (and mens' nipples :) since they are claiming that the
> current species are 'as designed' rather than having gone through an
> evolutionary process (where in some earlier predecessor the appendix
> did have a function).
>
partly agreed. then again, it could be argued, why not?...
my belief is, more likely, this was done for the sake of saving effort, or
some other similar motive...
>>Another question is the world we can physically sense an important
>>component of what exists or is it just like a thin skin covering
>>something more fundamental that we can't sense? (Do you judge a book on
>>just one word in it?)
>
> Point is we *do* now understand more than we once did as a result of
> developing tools to *extend* our senses - microscopes, electron
> microscopes, telescopes, radio-telescopes, infra-red or ultraviolet
> sensors, x-rays, etc., etc.. And we're still doing so.
>
> Furthermore the information & understanding we gain through these does
> allow us to mentally 'look' deeper than we once could - the big bang,
> dark matter, dark energy, string theory, 'branes', etc., etc..
>
> It's an ongoing process.
>
yes, but I still feel it could be, that all this is just one layer.
quite possibly, the others may have properties almost completely seperating
them from this layer, or they may be interconnected in a way not yet
realized.
another possibility could be that the current methods can only detect things
exhibiting certain properties, for example, adherence to the laws of
causality. anything non-causal could by default not be noticed, as any
interactions with said stuff would not have a causal effect (but may in fact
respond to forces of a non-causal manner, just as normal matter responds to
conventional forces...)
so, it could be, there is quite a bit more than what we know or can
currently observe...
> It's not the scientists and other 'seekers' who are 'judging a book by
> just one word' - they are trying to read more and more of it. It is
> the dogmatists (religious and secular) who want us to stop at what
> they give us, and not to explore any further.
>
on this point I agree with you.
one needs to be open, and one needs to look, and one needs to be willing to
understand and accept whatever they may find.
> Terry
Jeremy Reece
> I might have agreed with you if your subject header had been
>
> "OT: On the nature of organised religion..."
Well yeah that was what I was implying... It just occurred to me the
other day that an awful lot of people believe what they believe not
because it's a concept that they've arrived at through personal
reflection or development but because it's what they've been told to
believe by parents, upbringing, a scripture, vicar, priest, imam, rabbi
or any other religious leader.
Take, for example, the concept that people must live a good life to get
through some kind of post-death judgement (that no living person on
earth can testify to having experienced). I find this *remarkably*
similar to persons who have had reinforced in their mind that seeing
only 1 magpie, breaking a mirror or walking under a ladder is somehow
going to bring the world crashing down around them and therefore get
rather concerned when those things happen.
The same, IMO, applies to people who live with a fear/belief* that
either good or bad things will happen post-death depending on how you've
lived your life. It's superstition.
Jeremy (atheist or realist, I'm not sure <g>)
* Which makes me wonder... What proportion of religious beliefs are
governed or otherwise dominated by a fear that cannot be rationally
explained? Hmm.....
Jeremy Reece
> Wrong. The appendix is believed to have served a purpose at one point.
Yes, something to do with digesting fresh leaves and vegetation if I
recall correctly.
Jeremy
Jeremy Reece
> The same, IMO, applies to people who live with a fear/belief* that
> either good or bad things will happen post-death depending on how you've
> lived your life. It's superstition.
Further/to explain:
That's not to say that people shouldn't strive to live a good life but
my belief (reached through my own thoughts and morality system) is that
people should only have to be able to justify themselves to one person -
themselves.
Jeremy
cr88192
> dolph...@fsmail.net wrote:
>> I might have agreed with you if your subject header had been
>>
>> "OT: On the nature of organised religion..."
>
> Well yeah that was what I was implying... It just occurred to me the
> other day that an awful lot of people believe what they believe not
> because it's a concept that they've arrived at through personal reflection
> or development but because it's what they've been told to believe by
> parents, upbringing, a scripture, vicar, priest, imam, rabbi or any other
> religious leader.
>
well, in my case my parents had religion, but I don't feel this in itself
was a strong motive.
a lot was through introspection as well, and a lot through experience.
> Take, for example, the concept that people must live a good life to get
> through some kind of post-death judgement (that no living person on earth
> can testify to having experienced). I find this *remarkably* similar to
> persons who have had reinforced in their mind that seeing only 1 magpie,
> breaking a mirror or walking under a ladder is somehow going to bring the
> world crashing down around them and therefore get rather concerned when
> those things happen.
>
well, the above is typically referred to as "magical thinking", and I will
argue that there are differences.
what if you can't say you have experienced it, but have experienced things
related to it, and have a lot of experiential stuff and people in ones' mind
talking about it.
> The same, IMO, applies to people who live with a fear/belief* that either
> good or bad things will happen post-death depending on how you've lived
> your life. It's superstition.
>
> Jeremy (atheist or realist, I'm not sure <g>)
>
I vote more for atheist in your case...
how about this, one has things that, whenever done, things within ones' mind
turn against them. one can make things happen out of wanting them to happen,
but then figures come up and start pestering them, ever more for the amount
done (partly this was due though to not being on good terms with them).
eventually, these figures can go away, and then there is a voice which will
complain directly instead...
the voice is itself not entirely new, but was previously difficult to
seperate from the others (mostly giving warnings and similar).
if one gains understanding, the figures are defeated, and left only with the
option of going away.
one could try to argue that this itself is a form of insanity, but I will
say that it is at least a little more than a simple fear or belief.
>
> * Which makes me wonder... What proportion of religious beliefs are
> governed or otherwise dominated by a fear that cannot be rationally
> explained? Hmm.....
note that fear itself is a rather different concept than belief.
how can one hope to understand someone for which they are only afraid?
this can motivate one to follow rules, but not much else.
I feel that the "fear" used in reference to religion more often refers to a
kind of strong respect than to actually being afraid...
cr88192
take note that this mindset in itself has a name, eg, "the spirit of the
antichrist"...
or, in more typical terminology, "the mindset of an atheist".
note that although in mainstream culture the term "antichrist" refers to a
specific figure, in terms of what is written, the term refers more generally
to the secular/atheist or gnostic mindsets (and, ammusingly enough, the
figure in question is not actually referred to using this term...).
now, I can't claim I am exactly in good standing, or without my own
failings, but note that the above mindset is not exactly taken in high
regards...
> Jeremy
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>the above is typically referred to as "magical thinking", and I will
>argue that there are differences.
Well, for one thing you don't necessarily have to believe in gods,
spirits, etc., to believe in / practice magic. (Although at least in
the western tradition, a lot of magical traditions do seem to involve
some such assumptions).
But the concept and practice of 'natural magic' exists, where the
forces involved are seen as purely natural, and manipulated through an
understanding of natural laws.
>> * Which makes me wonder... What proportion of religious beliefs are
>> governed or otherwise dominated by a fear that cannot be rationally
>> explained? Hmm.....
>
>note that fear itself is a rather different concept than belief.
>
>how can one hope to understand someone for which they are only afraid?
>this can motivate one to follow rules, but not much else.
>
>I feel that the "fear" used in reference to religion more often refers to a
>kind of strong respect than to actually being afraid...
>
But 'respect' in this context is not necessarily 'true' (in the sense
of having been thought through and examined) / 'deserved' - Just look
how children and adults are socialised to 'respect' certain offices
and titles and symbols - irrespective of their relevance or the merit
of their holders.
Terry
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> That's not to say that people shouldn't strive to live a good life but my
>> belief (reached through my own thoughts and morality system) is that
>> people should only have to be able to justify themselves to one person -
>> themselves.
>
>take note that this mindset in itself has a name, eg, "the spirit of the
>antichrist"...
>
>or, in more typical terminology, "the mindset of an atheist".
Which is pure childish name-calling on their part. How can someone be
"anti" something they simply disbelieve?
Terry
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> No, the question when examining a religion is what *their* claims are
>> (and then comparing them with the world). So for example a deist
>> creator ('light the blue touchpaper & retire') wouldn't have sent
>> visions / messages to the Jewish prophets, a Jesus, or a messenger to
>> Mohammed - since that would make them interventionist.
>>
>maybe the point is to keep said intervention minimal, and to give people
>free choice, but using prophets as a way of being like "look, I exist...",
>then maybe going on to give a list of complaints about whatever said people
>are doing at the time.
>
>to me this doesn't seem too unreasonable really.
>
>or maybe it is the point that he is and is willing to get involved when
>needed...
>
Then surely this is accepting my suggestion that *what* a deity is
claimed to have done / be like, must necessarily fit in with the
evidence?
But religion (typically) claims to know *more* or *other* than is
supported by the 'worldly' evidence. Therefore making assumptions /
interpretations which fit the evidence better *doesn't* support any
religion which claims otherwise (e.g. literal creationists).
What you seem to be doing here is constructing a personal 'religion'
based on evidence and experience (which is fine, but it's a personal,
not an organised religion). IOW it's not relevant to *other* people's
beliefs.
>> Furthermore the information & understanding we gain through these does
>> allow us to mentally 'look' deeper than we once could - the big bang,
>> dark matter, dark energy, string theory, 'branes', etc., etc..
>>
>> It's an ongoing process.
>
>yes, but I still feel it could be, that all this is just one layer.
>
Well one can't really argue with a belief derived from feeling /
intuition, but on the same basis you can't reasonably expect anyone
else to accept it, unless they've had the same / similar experiences
to yourself.
>quite possibly, the others may have properties almost completely seperating
>them from this layer, or they may be interconnected in a way not yet
>realized.
I thought that that was what I just described above? - Unless you mean
'spiritual' rather than exotic physics? - But where does the one end
and the other begin? Physics for example is looking into the beginning
of the universe, phenomena like phase entanglement (which actually
appears to follow a magical law rather than a physical one), single
photon interference, etc..
Similarly (some) religionists use conservation of matter / energy as
an argument to support the idea of continuance after death.
>another possibility could be that the current methods can only detect things
>exhibiting certain properties, for example, adherence to the laws of
>causality. anything non-causal could by default not be noticed, as any
>interactions with said stuff would not have a causal effect (but may in fact
>respond to forces of a non-causal manner, just as normal matter responds to
>conventional forces...)
But religion, 'creation', miracles, etc., is all *supposed* to be
relevant to our present universe - indeed in many instances is
supposed to influence / be influenced by the 'real world' and our
actions in it (prayer for example).
Terry
Terry Jones
wrote:
>another thing is that I suspect that there is a lot of metaphor, and one has
>to be careful to seperate the literal from the metaphor. I feel that if
>tries to take some things as fact, rather than for what they portray, then
>one is creating problems.
>
>however, that is not to say they aren't fact, as many things have been later
>demonstrated through archeological or experimental evidence as well.
Well that's hardly surprising, since chunks of the Old Testament
(particularly) are essentially the mythologized history of a
particular culture. So yes, it mentions some real places and real
people.
And some of those places can be traced archeologically. But the first
problem is that the chronology often doesn't fit (between the story
and the archeology). The second problem is that we *know* that ancient
'histories' were highly distorted - for example we have descriptions
of the wars between Egypt and Assyria from both sides. So we know that
there was a lot of fictionalising going on.
Consider the story of Britain - There is good archeological evidence
for the presence of the Romans, but this provides no proof for the
existence of a real King Arthur.
So the issue is, does the evidence support the bits that are being
questioned?
Terry
The autist formerly known as
continues to keep you in mind when I don't Berkeley and the trees and all :)
--
žT
L'autisme c'est moi
"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"
"Terry Jones" <terry...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:0th892tbpavi2hdje...@4ax.com...
The autist formerly known as
meddle with them, but whatever. From a humanist point of view it is not to
be recommended.
I am one of those poor benighted souls who has at one time mucked about with
this murky philosophy, actually I have won no thanks to Dr Dee.
Heck if Al himself wanted to duel with me you know he would lose cos Satan
has no power over me.
Magic whether you add the K or not, whether you are a supernaturalist a
pyscoanalyist or a cognitive rationalist or not has a command over
cognition, perception and thus ultimatly what the individual calls reality.
Even according to your rationalist enlightenment thery you have to agree
that belief holds a powerful sway over what you mistakenly call physical
reality.
I don't play magic anymore, but if I did, I could do things to you (by this
statement I already have) fortunately for us (especially me) I prefer
prayer nowadays as indeed I believe does God.
Tag me for a loony (however many i's you want with that) but you reckon
Voltaire was so sane, only like me a product of his times and circumstances
that could be deconstructed, you never really know, but do you walk under
ladders all the same :)
--
şT
L'autisme c'est moi
"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"
"Terry Jones" <terry...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:o4h892lnon2k3ssr4...@4ax.com...
The autist formerly known as
Very much historical by comparison.
Leaving out the erly stuff, the chronicles, prophets, kings etc are no less
accurate than contemporaneous records from the "opposition"
--
þT
L'autisme c'est moi
"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"
"Terry Jones" <terry...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:lni892l85l350r3n8...@4ax.com...
The autist formerly known as
five minutes ago there is no way you can disprove that except by some faith
you have that you have a continous existance since your supposed date of
birth.
You see none of us, the rationalist, the heresiarch, the apostate, the
faithful exist and concieve of ourselves but by some notion of faith thus
you are thoroughly stuffed if you extend your doubt to far, you are as
silent and invisible as ......... (you know what I was going to say there)
--
şT
L'autisme c'est moi
"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"
"Terry Jones" <terry...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:gab69251fnr2porpr...@4ax.com...
The autist formerly known as
The autist formerly known as
are of the elements of this erth and not apart from it, and to think
otherwise might be construed as blasphemy but it is really unreality, we are
part and parcel of this creation even if you don't reckon where it come from
we are part and parcel of it.
Now to me the arrogance comes not from the creationists but from the
Dawkinites, cos who would reckon we are beyond and above the elements we are
made from.
Dawkins who told thee thou wast naked?
Terry Jones
<o...@ym.andius> wrote:
>Hey Terry whistle and "it" will come for yer :)
I thought it was Shadmocks which whistled? :)
cr88192
note that in this case, the term applies to the disbelief itself. eg, one
either believes, or they don't.
part of the point is that anyone who in a way argues against the belief (by
saying it isn't true, for example), is opposing the belief (by the same
action).
note that a person generally does not both support and oppose something.
it is not in reference to anything more drastic, but many don't seem to
realize the relevance of what they are saying...
now, it can be noted that this is just something misc anyways...
now is a time where secularists have quite a bit of power (politically,
socially, ...). for many, these are not good times...
in terms of subserviance to the creator, these times are pretty bad. even if
religion itself is widespread, much of it is not based on truth. so many
seem to think that it is about using a good life or good deeds to buy favor,
but this is not the case.
so, either these are very good times or very bad times. most would argue
that these are good times, but in a way this shows what side they fall on.
secularists think these are good times, as nearly no other time in history
have they been able to so freely reject belief and to carry on as they do,
and this is part of the point.
take note as to how many people get involved outside the bounds of marriage,
openly engage in acts of perversion, use contraceptives, ...
this point is probably not too hard to figure out...
> Terry
>
cr88192
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:49:26 +1000, "cr88192"
> <cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>the above is typically referred to as "magical thinking", and I will
>>argue that there are differences.
>
> Well, for one thing you don't necessarily have to believe in gods,
> spirits, etc., to believe in / practice magic. (Although at least in
> the western tradition, a lot of magical traditions do seem to involve
> some such assumptions).
>
> But the concept and practice of 'natural magic' exists, where the
> forces involved are seen as purely natural, and manipulated through an
> understanding of natural laws.
>
ammusingly enough, "magical thinking" has little to do with "magic". more
often, it is related to assumption that one thing can cause another, when in
fact there is little relation.
a lucky shirt can cause good luck, and good luck causes more success,
somehow increasing (rather than diminishing) the power of said shirt...
>>> * Which makes me wonder... What proportion of religious beliefs are
>>> governed or otherwise dominated by a fear that cannot be rationally
>>> explained? Hmm.....
>>
>>note that fear itself is a rather different concept than belief.
>>
>>how can one hope to understand someone for which they are only afraid?
>>this can motivate one to follow rules, but not much else.
>>
>>I feel that the "fear" used in reference to religion more often refers to
>>a
>>kind of strong respect than to actually being afraid...
>>
> But 'respect' in this context is not necessarily 'true' (in the sense
> of having been thought through and examined) / 'deserved' - Just look
> how children and adults are socialised to 'respect' certain offices
> and titles and symbols - irrespective of their relevance or the merit
> of their holders.
>
yes, and one can't say that there is any belief here.
if one does not have belief, than whether or not they attempt to show
respect does not matter, and this is a mass failing in itself.
> Terry
>
cr88192
"The autist formerly known as" <o...@ym.andius> wrote in message
news:e71t7a$qs6$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Whatever yu say my reasoning or lack of it says that we are made of clay,
> we
> are of the elements of this erth and not apart from it, and to think
> otherwise might be construed as blasphemy but it is really unreality, we
> are
> part and parcel of this creation even if you don't reckon where it come
> from
> we are part and parcel of it.
>
well, it would be difficult for humans to made out of stuff which isn't
found in nature, and can't be made from things found in nature...
I don't rule out direct creation as a possibility either, but from my
perspective evidence does seem to lean, at least, in the direction of a
modification-based process...
> Now to me the arrogance comes not from the creationists but from the
> Dawkinites, cos who would reckon we are beyond and above the elements we
> are
> made from.
>
> Dawkins who told thee thou wast naked?
>
not sure I understand.
actually, I am not even sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with what
all I have written...
cr88192
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:15:33 +1000, "cr88192"
> <cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> No, the question when examining a religion is what *their* claims are
>>> (and then comparing them with the world). So for example a deist
>>> creator ('light the blue touchpaper & retire') wouldn't have sent
>>> visions / messages to the Jewish prophets, a Jesus, or a messenger to
>>> Mohammed - since that would make them interventionist.
>>>
>>maybe the point is to keep said intervention minimal, and to give people
>>free choice, but using prophets as a way of being like "look, I exist...",
>>then maybe going on to give a list of complaints about whatever said
>>people
>>are doing at the time.
>>
>>to me this doesn't seem too unreasonable really.
>>
>>or maybe it is the point that he is and is willing to get involved when
>>needed...
>>
> Then surely this is accepting my suggestion that *what* a deity is
> claimed to have done / be like, must necessarily fit in with the
> evidence?
>
> But religion (typically) claims to know *more* or *other* than is
> supported by the 'worldly' evidence. Therefore making assumptions /
> interpretations which fit the evidence better *doesn't* support any
> religion which claims otherwise (e.g. literal creationists).
>
note that, personally, I don't believe in literal creationism either, as too
much seems to lean against it imo...
> What you seem to be doing here is constructing a personal 'religion'
> based on evidence and experience (which is fine, but it's a personal,
> not an organised religion). IOW it's not relevant to *other* people's
> beliefs.
>
the distinction is not always clear. many people can have their own beliefs,
and still be part of a larger religion.
even more so, there are a very large number of branches of Christianity, and
there is no real strong heirarchy.
for example, some branches answer to the pope, and some do not. all this
does not mean they are completely isolated from each other, or that theology
that exists in one is completely useless in another.
note the very strong differences in beliefs, eg, between baptists (known for
an up-tight and fairly strict approach to religious matters) and
pentacostals (known for yelling, speaking in tongues, and flailing around on
the floor...).
most would not regard them as seperate religions.
the point I guess is if one relates to the central ideas of a religion (for
example: monotheism and the crucifiction), then it is no big deal if one
comes up with their own beliefs wrt the details.
now, if a person is sitting around praying to a statue, are polytheistic,
...
then, yes, they are a different religion.
for example, wiccans are not christians, as they believe, eg, in Gaea and
Baphomet as deities, and generally do not acknowlege Jesus.
islamics are less certain, as they believe him to be a prophet (much like
Moses or Mohammed), but not part of God himself.
if I go by my thoughts, I don't personally feel that the islam is entirely
false, but do feel that many of its followers are misguided...
then again, I feel vaguely similarly about wicca, although I do believe that
its deities are false (in the sense of not being deities, I feel, if
anything, they are more just poweful spirits...).
>>> Furthermore the information & understanding we gain through these does
>>> allow us to mentally 'look' deeper than we once could - the big bang,
>>> dark matter, dark energy, string theory, 'branes', etc., etc..
>>>
>>> It's an ongoing process.
>>
>>yes, but I still feel it could be, that all this is just one layer.
>>
> Well one can't really argue with a belief derived from feeling /
> intuition, but on the same basis you can't reasonably expect anyone
> else to accept it, unless they've had the same / similar experiences
> to yourself.
>
yes, makes sense.
>>quite possibly, the others may have properties almost completely
>>seperating
>>them from this layer, or they may be interconnected in a way not yet
>>realized.
>
> I thought that that was what I just described above? - Unless you mean
> 'spiritual' rather than exotic physics? - But where does the one end
> and the other begin? Physics for example is looking into the beginning
> of the universe, phenomena like phase entanglement (which actually
> appears to follow a magical law rather than a physical one), single
> photon interference, etc..
>
they could be interconnected, or they could be seperate.
> Similarly (some) religionists use conservation of matter / energy as
> an argument to support the idea of continuance after death.
>
I don't believe this personally.
under this explanation (assuming some form of physical existance of the
soul, which I guess is implied by the above), I would think a person would
have to suddenly get lighter and possibly suddenly drop temperature or
similar at the point of death (if, albeit, probably not drastically, and
people would likely notice, eg, if several kg of meterial just suddenly took
off...).
>>another possibility could be that the current methods can only detect
>>things
>>exhibiting certain properties, for example, adherence to the laws of
>>causality. anything non-causal could by default not be noticed, as any
>>interactions with said stuff would not have a causal effect (but may in
>>fact
>>respond to forces of a non-causal manner, just as normal matter responds
>>to
>>conventional forces...)
>
> But religion, 'creation', miracles, etc., is all *supposed* to be
> relevant to our present universe - indeed in many instances is
> supposed to influence / be influenced by the 'real world' and our
> actions in it (prayer for example).
>
yes, however, I think that they are likely seperate, and generally not
noticable, unless for some reason a causal effect is needed (in response to
some divine action or another).
for most of mundane reality, more likely, not that much amazing is going
on...
it could be that the interaction is largely related to statistics, eg,
prayer influencing the statistical probability of some chain of events
happening, by some means.
or, maybe the creator is not bound by the created laws, and can thus
completely subvert the laws of physics when needed?...
I guess a better answer to this one would probably require a better
understanding of physics...
> Terry
>
cr88192
>
> Consider the story of Britain - There is good archeological evidence
> for the presence of the Romans, but this provides no proof for the
> existence of a real King Arthur.
>
> So the issue is, does the evidence support the bits that are being
> questioned?
>
I suspect that a lot may be true, but that some is in error. as a result,
one can get the general idea, but has to be careful of relying too heavily
on the specifics.
or such...
> Terry
>
Terry Jones
<o...@ym.andius> wrote:
>Do you believe in me? I am not sure I can believe in you unless God
>continues to keep you in mind when I don't Berkeley and the trees and all :)
I believe in the continuity of Larry - But then again I also believe
that trees and physics don't give a damn whether there's anybody
watching them or not :)
Terry Jones
<o...@ym.andius> wrote:
>I do not know how many here have meddled with the Goetia, or had the Goetia
>meddle with them, but whatever. From a humanist point of view it is not to
>be recommended.
>
But does magic work Ex Opere Operato, or by virtue of the operator? If
the later (and it does seem to be an art which works for some but not
for others), then the 'externalist' explanation would be
non-parsimonious, when it could be explained by the ev/invoked powers
& forces deriving from the operator.
>I am one of those poor benighted souls who has at one time mucked about with
>this murky philosophy, actually I have won no thanks to Dr Dee.
I have gazed several times into his obsidian mirror - though I saw
nothing. (Used to be in a cabinet in the BM, wasn't there last time I
looked).
>Magic whether you add the K or not, whether you are a supernaturalist a
>pyscoanalyist or a cognitive rationalist or not has a command over
>cognition, perception and thus ultimatly what the individual calls reality.
>
>Even according to your rationalist enlightenment thery you have to agree
>that belief holds a powerful sway over what you mistakenly call physical
>reality.
Unfortunately by far the easiest sort of magic for many is mind magic
- the persuasion & influencing of others to believe and act outside of
reason. Sometimes for their own good, but often in the interests of
the manipulator.
The advantage of rationalism (honestly applied) is that can make this
process more difficult and what your persuaded of, more selective.
(Though it's a bugger when you could do with some nice comforting
false positive delusions for a while - but CBT never worked for me :)
Terry
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> But religion (typically) claims to know *more* or *other* than is
>> supported by the 'worldly' evidence. Therefore making assumptions /
>> interpretations which fit the evidence better *doesn't* support any
>> religion which claims otherwise (e.g. literal creationists).
>
>note that, personally, I don't believe in literal creationism either, as too
>much seems to lean against it imo...
It would be useful if you would give some indication of the sorts of
things which you *do* believe (which the average agnostic or atheist
wouldn't).
>> What you seem to be doing here is constructing a personal 'religion'
>> based on evidence and experience (which is fine, but it's a personal,
>> not an organised religion). IOW it's not relevant to *other* people's
>> beliefs.
>
>the distinction is not always clear. many people can have their own beliefs,
>and still be part of a larger religion.
*They* may believe that they are, but other members of the 'larger
religion' often don't seem to accept them as such.
And even an agnostic may believe in the historicity of *certain*
things described in the Torah or the Christian Bible - but that
doesn't make them Jewish or Christian. (I may occasionally believe
that something a politician is saying is true, but that doesn't make
me a believer in many of their *other* claims.)
>even more so, there are a very large number of branches of Christianity, and
>there is no real strong heirarchy.
>
>for example, some branches answer to the pope, and some do not. all this
>does not mean they are completely isolated from each other, or that theology
>that exists in one is completely useless in another.
And yet when they had the real world power and authority, various
sects of Christianity were killing and torturing each other over
exactly that. There are still sectarian killings in Northern Ireland,
American fundamentalists have bombed clinics, in the Middle East
different sects of Islam are killing each other in droves (and killing
moderate & liberal believers as well).
It would appear that they regard the details as *very* important.
>the point I guess is if one relates to the central ideas of a religion (for
>example: monotheism and the crucifiction), then it is no big deal if one
>comes up with their own beliefs wrt the details.
>
See above - such a person may regard themselves as Christian, but
whether (most) other 'formal' Christians would *accept* them as such
is questionable.
>now, if a person is sitting around praying to a statue, are polytheistic,
>
You mean like a statue of a man on a cross? :)
>now, if a person is sitting around praying to a statue, are polytheistic,
>
Not if the statue is of their single deity (although they may be
idolaters to those who don't believe in worshiping images).
Polytheists have multiple deities (which may or may not be represented
by some form of image).
>if I go by my thoughts, I don't personally feel that the islam is entirely
>false, but do feel that many of its followers are misguided...
>
>then again, I feel vaguely similarly about wicca, although I do believe that
>its deities are false (in the sense of not being deities, I feel, if
>anything, they are more just poweful spirits...).
But their followers probably wouldn't agree with you - All you're
saying there is that you believe that your intuitions are right, and
(to the extent that they disagree with you) other people's beliefs are
wrong - So essentially we're back to the point of your having a
personal belief system, which includes some elements from other
people's belief systems.
>> I thought that that was what I just described above? - Unless you mean
>> 'spiritual' rather than exotic physics? - But where does the one end
>> and the other begin? Physics for example is looking into the beginning
>> of the universe, phenomena like phase entanglement (which actually
>> appears to follow a magical law rather than a physical one), single
>> photon interference, etc..
>
>they could be interconnected, or they could be seperate.
Well, for anything to influence the phenomenal world (including
providing / exchanging information), they *have* to be connected in
some way. If they were totally separate, no one would ever be aware of
them (for they would have no effect at all upon our 'world').
>> But religion, 'creation', miracles, etc., is all *supposed* to be
>> relevant to our present universe - indeed in many instances is
>> supposed to influence / be influenced by the 'real world' and our
>> actions in it (prayer for example).
>
>yes, however, I think that they are likely seperate, and generally not
>noticable, unless for some reason a causal effect is needed (in response to
>some divine action or another).
>
>for most of mundane reality, more likely, not that much amazing is going
>on...
>
>it could be that the interaction is largely related to statistics, eg,
>prayer influencing the statistical probability of some chain of events
>happening, by some means.
>
>or, maybe the creator is not bound by the created laws, and can thus
>completely subvert the laws of physics when needed?...
>
>I guess a better answer to this one would probably require a better
>understanding of physics...
Why? - In various religions certain things are claimed to have
happened (sometimes quite dramatic things) - Now either they *did* or
they *didn't*.
If they didn't, then they are no evidence for any sort of interaction
with 'otherworldly' / supernatural / divine elements.
And if they *did*, there could be a purely natural explanation (albeit
one which we don't currently understand)
Or something *has* happened, by means that we can't account for - and
*couldn't* account for, even with a full understanding of natural law
(this would be the case even with purely statistical effects).
[Although AFIK the aggregate of double blind studies (where neither
the patient nor the doctor assessing them knew who was being prayed
for and who wasn't) don't show any positive 'skew' towards the prayed
for patients.]
But firstly for there to be *anything* which needs to be accounted
for, something otherwise inexplicable must have happened - And so far
that hasn't been established.
The other point is there's no evidence of a 'moral' dimension. Good
people suffer, evil people prosper. So even if there really are
'forces', they appear to be random, impersonal - nothing like the
deities religion would have us believe in.
Terry
cr88192
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:43:14 +1000, "cr88192"
> <cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> But religion (typically) claims to know *more* or *other* than is
>>> supported by the 'worldly' evidence. Therefore making assumptions /
>>> interpretations which fit the evidence better *doesn't* support any
>>> religion which claims otherwise (e.g. literal creationists).
>>
>>note that, personally, I don't believe in literal creationism either, as
>>too
>>much seems to lean against it imo...
>
> It would be useful if you would give some indication of the sorts of
> things which you *do* believe (which the average agnostic or atheist
> wouldn't).
>
existance of paranormal and magics;
that God exists, and has sent many prophets and similar, and has created the
world by some means;
that the crucifiction allowed people to be free of sins and to understand
God;
...
>>> What you seem to be doing here is constructing a personal 'religion'
>>> based on evidence and experience (which is fine, but it's a personal,
>>> not an organised religion). IOW it's not relevant to *other* people's
>>> beliefs.
>>
>>the distinction is not always clear. many people can have their own
>>beliefs,
>>and still be part of a larger religion.
>
> *They* may believe that they are, but other members of the 'larger
> religion' often don't seem to accept them as such.
>
> And even an agnostic may believe in the historicity of *certain*
> things described in the Torah or the Christian Bible - but that
> doesn't make them Jewish or Christian. (I may occasionally believe
> that something a politician is saying is true, but that doesn't make
> me a believer in many of their *other* claims.)
>
maybe, but usually the distinction is fairly clear.
one has to be careful when treading in the areas of central doctrine, as
that is where dragons lurk...
as far as more ancillary more stuff, there is a lot more room for personal
opinion.
>>even more so, there are a very large number of branches of Christianity,
>>and
>>there is no real strong heirarchy.
>>
>>for example, some branches answer to the pope, and some do not. all this
>>does not mean they are completely isolated from each other, or that
>>theology
>>that exists in one is completely useless in another.
>
> And yet when they had the real world power and authority, various
> sects of Christianity were killing and torturing each other over
> exactly that. There are still sectarian killings in Northern Ireland,
> American fundamentalists have bombed clinics, in the Middle East
> different sects of Islam are killing each other in droves (and killing
> moderate & liberal believers as well).
>
> It would appear that they regard the details as *very* important.
>
I view these as acts by people who are not acting in good will.
many people like this exist, but I don't feel these mindsets are acting in
accordance with God's will.
although, I do feel that at some points in the past actions like this may
have been supported, I don't feel this is the general rule, and that in most
more well known cases, they are acting by their own will and by their
hatred.
>>the point I guess is if one relates to the central ideas of a religion
>>(for
>>example: monotheism and the crucifiction), then it is no big deal if one
>>comes up with their own beliefs wrt the details.
>>
> See above - such a person may regard themselves as Christian, but
> whether (most) other 'formal' Christians would *accept* them as such
> is questionable.
>
well, there is a lot of variation.
as noted elsewhere, baptists and pentacostals have very different beliefs,
and, usually don't, battle each other.
then of course, there are some people that believe, eg, that pentacostals
are acting under demonic influence, but yeah...
>>now, if a person is sitting around praying to a statue, are polytheistic,
>>
> You mean like a statue of a man on a cross? :)
>
well, I don't personally feel that is all that good of a thing, but it may
be passable.
worse than this is praying to saints (a common accusation against
catholics).
now, if a person claims there are any number of gods, rather than just a
single one, then one is into polytheistic domain, and would likely be
rejected.
likewise, even though, eg, mormons claim to be christian, they have
sufficient major disagreements that they would not be accepted by most as
such, and are more often classified as a seperate religion.
>>now, if a person is sitting around praying to a statue, are polytheistic,
>>
> Not if the statue is of their single deity (although they may be
> idolaters to those who don't believe in worshiping images).
> Polytheists have multiple deities (which may or may not be represented
> by some form of image).
>
ok, interpret the above as having an "and" or an "or" placed in there...
I was thinking, for example, of the gaea/baphemot system, or the
vishnu/shiva system.
likewise, for religions that have any number of deities.
>>if I go by my thoughts, I don't personally feel that the islam is entirely
>>false, but do feel that many of its followers are misguided...
>>
>>then again, I feel vaguely similarly about wicca, although I do believe
>>that
>>its deities are false (in the sense of not being deities, I feel, if
>>anything, they are more just poweful spirits...).
>
> But their followers probably wouldn't agree with you - All you're
> saying there is that you believe that your intuitions are right, and
> (to the extent that they disagree with you) other people's beliefs are
> wrong - So essentially we're back to the point of your having a
> personal belief system, which includes some elements from other
> people's belief systems.
>
well, checking around, I don't think I disagree that much with others.
>>> I thought that that was what I just described above? - Unless you mean
>>> 'spiritual' rather than exotic physics? - But where does the one end
>>> and the other begin? Physics for example is looking into the beginning
>>> of the universe, phenomena like phase entanglement (which actually
>>> appears to follow a magical law rather than a physical one), single
>>> photon interference, etc..
>>
>>they could be interconnected, or they could be seperate.
>
> Well, for anything to influence the phenomenal world (including
> providing / exchanging information), they *have* to be connected in
> some way. If they were totally separate, no one would ever be aware of
> them (for they would have no effect at all upon our 'world').
>
this is only assuming that the connection is itself based on physical law.
eg, mystery forces that have no origin, and quite possibly violate the laws
of conservation (or maybe do something somewhere else to balance the
effect).
my feeling is, all this stuff does not play well with experimentation. quite
possibly, it is his will to do things, but make it more or less impossible
to try to gain proof...
> The other point is there's no evidence of a 'moral' dimension. Good
> people suffer, evil people prosper. So even if there really are
> 'forces', they appear to be random, impersonal - nothing like the
> deities religion would have us believe in.
>
personally, I don't feel that trying to make anyone better or worse off is
really his concern. the whole thing is more about belief, and not so much
about the physical/social/economical wellbeing of those involved (most of
the time).
> Terry
>
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>take note that this mindset in itself has a name, eg, "the spirit of the
>>>antichrist"...
>>>
>>>or, in more typical terminology, "the mindset of an atheist".
>>
>> Which is pure childish name-calling on their part. How can someone be
>> "anti" something they simply disbelieve?
>
>note that in this case, the term applies to the disbelief itself. eg, one
>either believes, or they don't.
>part of the point is that anyone who in a way argues against the belief (by
>saying it isn't true, for example), is opposing the belief (by the same
>action).
That's simply people taking a word (prefix in this case), which has a
proper, regular meaning;
1.
1. Opposite: antimere.
2. Opposing; against: antiapartheid.
3. Counteracting; neutralizing: antacid.
4. Destroying: antiaircraft.
2.
1. Inverse: antilogarithm.
2. Displaying opposite characteristics: antihero.
and claiming that when *they* use it, it means something different.
If I say "I don't believe that the tooth fairy is real", people
wouldn't go around saying that I was 'anti-tooth fairy'. It's an
improper use of language.
>note that a person generally does not both support and oppose something.
But the point at issue is *believing in*, not 'opposing' - For example
if you don't believe in most of the core of Christianity, then you
wouldn't expect a Black Mass to be efficacious. IOW you've got to
*believe* in something in order to act with respect to it (either
positively or negatively).
>so, either these are very good times or very bad times. most would argue
>that these are good times, but in a way this shows what side they fall on.
>secularists think these are good times, as nearly no other time in history
>have they been able to so freely reject belief and to carry on as they do,
>and this is part of the point.
>
You *really* need to read more history - this claim of 'decadent
times' has been made many times before. It's nothing special (except
that in 'western' type societies the religious institutions now have
less power to *force* people to act *as if* they believed in the local
religion under threat of 'real world' penalty).
>take note as to how many people get involved outside the bounds of marriage,
>openly engage in acts of perversion, use contraceptives, ...
Again you need to read more history - there's been plenty of
extra-marital sex, even in notionally 'Christian' cultures (as
evidenced by the level of birth records with no identified father).
And there are recipes for contraception dating back thousands of
years.
Certainly there have been periods when people would have had more
incentive to *hide* their behaviour, but it's questionable whether
there ever was a widespread "golden age" in terms of what people
*did*, as opposed to their 'public face' - For example the Victorian
era was perhaps the peak of missionising overseas, but it was also
notorious for the high levels of prostitution in the home country.
To show that the present represents a major decline in behaviour (as
opposed to 'formal' churchgoing), you need to show that the past was
significantly better.
Terry
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> But 'respect' in this context is not necessarily 'true' (in the sense
>> of having been thought through and examined) / 'deserved' - Just look
>> how children and adults are socialised to 'respect' certain offices
>> and titles and symbols - irrespective of their relevance or the merit
>> of their holders.
>
>yes, and one can't say that there is any belief here.
>
>if one does not have belief, than whether or not they attempt to show
>respect does not matter, and this is a mass failing in itself.
>
But a failing on the part of *whom*? - Surely on the part of the
institution and authoritative persons who had previously been seen as
worthy of respect?
"Do what I say, not what I do.", "Feet of clay", etc..
Terry
Terry Jones
<o...@ym.andius> wrote:
>If I say to you there was no Terry yesterday but that Terry came into being
>five minutes ago there is no way you can disprove that except by some faith
>you have that you have a continous existance since your supposed date of
>birth.
But the same logic can be applied to the 'personages' of religion. Do
gods only exist for as long as people believe in them, and fade away
as belief fades?
Terry
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Dawkins who told thee thou wast naked?
Why he just nude he was, until he found his jeans which someone had
selfishly hidden away - After that he always kept a watch out, even
going so far as to construct a blind out of blankets from which to
observe his wardrobe.
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Consider the story of Britain - There is good archeological evidence
>> for the presence of the Romans, but this provides no proof for the
>> existence of a real King Arthur.
>>
>> So the issue is, does the evidence support the bits that are being
>> questioned?
>>
>I suspect a lot of this depends on a case by case basis.
>
>I suspect that a lot may be true, but that some is in error. as a result,
>one can get the general idea, but has to be careful of relying too heavily
>on the specifics.
Then by similar logic, one cannot rely on the specifics of religion?
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It would be useful if you would give some indication of the sorts of
>> things which you *do* believe (which the average agnostic or atheist
>> wouldn't).
>
>existance of paranormal and magics;
Well the existence of as yet unidentified forces, and means of
manipulating forces and matter, is surely the realm of physics and
cosmology - So what distinguishes these from paranormal / magic?
>that God exists, and has sent many prophets and similar, and has created the
>world by some means;
>that the crucifiction allowed people to be free of sins and to understand
>God;
As it stands, that is simply belief by authority - Someone said /
wrote these things, and you choose to believe them. Which is fair
enough for yourself, but why do you think that other people ought to
believe them (assuming that's what you do believe)?
And why *these* particular beliefs rather than other sets of beliefs
(either religious or secular)?
>>>the distinction is not always clear. many people can have their own
>>>beliefs, and still be part of a larger religion.
>>
>> *They* may believe that they are, but other members of the 'larger
>> religion' often don't seem to accept them as such.
>>
>> And even an agnostic may believe in the historicity of *certain*
>> things described in the Torah or the Christian Bible - but that
>> doesn't make them Jewish or Christian. (I may occasionally believe
>> that something a politician is saying is true, but that doesn't make
>> me a believer in many of their *other* claims.)
>>
>maybe, but usually the distinction is fairly clear.
>one has to be careful when treading in the areas of central doctrine, as
>that is where dragons lurk...
>
>as far as more ancillary more stuff, there is a lot more room for personal
>opinion.
Depending on how dogmatically rigid and authoritarian that particular
sect is - It seems to me that polytheistic religions are often more
'forgiving' / flexible in this area than most monotheistic ones.
>> And yet when they had the real world power and authority, various
>> sects of Christianity were killing and torturing each other over
>> exactly that. There are still sectarian killings in Northern Ireland,
>> American fundamentalists have bombed clinics, in the Middle East
>> different sects of Islam are killing each other in droves (and killing
>> moderate & liberal believers as well).
>>
>> It would appear that they regard the details as *very* important.
>
>I view these as acts by people who are not acting in good will.
>
>many people like this exist, but I don't feel these mindsets are acting in
>accordance with God's will.
Yet apart from those who were after purely secular gain by using
religion and church to their own advantage, there seem to have been
many who were sincere in their beliefs and actions.
Which returns us to the basic issue that belief by this mechanism
*doesn't* necessarily guarantee being right. (For example wars in
which both parties believed they had "God on their side").
>although, I do feel that at some points in the past actions like this may
>have been supported, I don't feel this is the general rule, and that in most
>more well known cases, they are acting by their own will and by their
>hatred.
Initiating violence, death, torture, rape, against men, women &
children, who offered no physical threat, but who simply differed in
their beliefs - ever?
>>>now, if a person is sitting around praying to a statue, are polytheistic,
>>>
>> You mean like a statue of a man on a cross? :)
>
>well, I don't personally feel that is all that good of a thing, but it may
>be passable.
>
>worse than this is praying to saints (a common accusation against
>catholics).
>
But why should this be worse? Aren't you just saying "what *I* believe
in is right, and people who believe / act otherwise are wrong"?
In fact why is polytheism wrong? - The observed world more closely
fits the model of multiple 'powers' with individual (and sometimes
conflicting) agendas, than it does a single power with a single
coherent plan.
>> Well, for anything to influence the phenomenal world (including
>> providing / exchanging information), they *have* to be connected in
>> some way. If they were totally separate, no one would ever be aware of
>> them (for they would have no effect at all upon our 'world').
>
>this is only assuming that the connection is itself based on physical law.
>eg, mystery forces that have no origin, and quite possibly violate the laws
>of conservation (or maybe do something somewhere else to balance the
>effect).
What you're describing there is connections acting by means not
currently understood, not the *absence* of any connection at all.
>> But firstly for there to be *anything* which needs to be accounted
>> for, something otherwise inexplicable must have happened - And so far
>> that hasn't been established.
>
>my feeling is, all this stuff does not play well with experimentation. quite
>possibly, it is his will to do things, but make it more or less impossible
>to try to gain proof...
So you're saying that the Biblically reported miracles *didn't*
happen, and that prayers for anything 'worldly' such as healing, have
no such effect?
>> The other point is there's no evidence of a 'moral' dimension. Good
>> people suffer, evil people prosper. So even if there really are
>> 'forces', they appear to be random, impersonal - nothing like the
>> deities religion would have us believe in.
>
>personally, I don't feel that trying to make anyone better or worse off is
>really his concern. the whole thing is more about belief, and not so much
>about the physical/social/economical wellbeing of those involved (most of
>the time).
But what's the 'virtue' in belief, when apparently it's just
happenstance whether what you believe in is right or wrong (mostly
influenced by where you were born, where you were brought up, the
culture around you)?
Terry
cr88192
well, the term was used this way in almost 2k years old greek text, so they
probably have some autority in use of the term.
I think it was that in greek times, "anti" more typically meant "without"
than "in direct opposition to", but that the meaning got altered some when
it was reused later on.
I guess an example being "chili con carne" and a hypothetical "chili
anticarne".
>>note that a person generally does not both support and oppose something.
>
> But the point at issue is *believing in*, not 'opposing' - For example
> if you don't believe in most of the core of Christianity, then you
> wouldn't expect a Black Mass to be efficacious. IOW you've got to
> *believe* in something in order to act with respect to it (either
> positively or negatively).
>
yes, this is a point.
however, many people also use "for or against" reasoning, so I guess a lot
depends on whether one believes in the existance of a middle ground...
then the next issue is whether the creator believes in the existance of a
middle ground, and then so where the borders lie.
>>so, either these are very good times or very bad times. most would argue
>>that these are good times, but in a way this shows what side they fall on.
>>secularists think these are good times, as nearly no other time in history
>>have they been able to so freely reject belief and to carry on as they do,
>>and this is part of the point.
>>
> You *really* need to read more history - this claim of 'decadent
> times' has been made many times before. It's nothing special (except
> that in 'western' type societies the religious institutions now have
> less power to *force* people to act *as if* they believed in the local
> religion under threat of 'real world' penalty).
>
possibly.
it may be just that people are just more open about it, or it may be that
things are actually worse...
note that the whole thing is not about the "real world" penalty anyways. by
acting on ones' impulses they are acting against good will, and through
their actions they are acting against the good will of others.
people who oppose good will will be punished regardless (though not
necissarily by humans), but at least in the past they had to keep quiet and
this limited their ability to influence others to act as they do.
>>take note as to how many people get involved outside the bounds of
>>marriage,
>>openly engage in acts of perversion, use contraceptives, ...
>
> Again you need to read more history - there's been plenty of
> extra-marital sex, even in notionally 'Christian' cultures (as
> evidenced by the level of birth records with no identified father).
> And there are recipes for contraception dating back thousands of
> years.
>
yes, but this does not mean it is right...
the suspition is that the levels are higher now than they were previously.
> Certainly there have been periods when people would have had more
> incentive to *hide* their behaviour, but it's questionable whether
> there ever was a widespread "golden age" in terms of what people
> *did*, as opposed to their 'public face' - For example the Victorian
> era was perhaps the peak of missionising overseas, but it was also
> notorious for the high levels of prostitution in the home country.
>
> To show that the present represents a major decline in behaviour (as
> opposed to 'formal' churchgoing), you need to show that the past was
> significantly better.
>
I wasn't claiming that there was said "golden age" either, only that now is
not good times, and people are open about things rather than being
suppressed.
eg:
queers can roam the streets without fear, acting as a display for their
perversion;
people make public exhibits that previously would have been viewed as
abominations;
mass media portrays lifestyles focused solely on meterialism and basic
impulses;
...
the consequence, is that many are no longer given the impression that any of
this is wrong, so people who are more neutral may infact do things that
previously they may not have, leading to a net negative effect.
however, most things I have heard do suggest there is a change in statistics
(albeit, now is probably not as bad as the 60s or 70s, but it is still far
from a desirable state...).
> Terry
>
cr88192
no humans are perfect.
even the major religions are not perfect, as humans are often the ones put
in power, and there is often no real guerantee as to whether or not they act
under the authority of the creator, or under their own will.
God is the authority, and the one who needs to be shown respect.
if one is told to do things that are against God's will, then one has a
right to object.
however, if the authority expects someone to respect God, and all they do is
put on a face for those who demand that said respect be given, then for that
individual it is valueless, as nothing is hidden from him.
if the authority directs respect away from God (for example, to themselves),
or tries to somehow take credit for his authority, then it can be expected
that they are not acting in his will.
that is part of the reason for the existence of the holy spirit, and for
what was written, eg, so that one will know for themselves if what is said
is true, or if someone is acting under their own will.
a big problem it seems is that so many leaders are false, and so many
followers don't know what is written or can hear what he says, that many are
being lead away from God in his own name...
soon it may be that this is no longer the case, and in this time the truth
will be known. all one can do really is be ready.
> Terry
>
cr88192
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:33:13 +1000, "cr88192"
> <cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> It would be useful if you would give some indication of the sorts of
>>> things which you *do* believe (which the average agnostic or atheist
>>> wouldn't).
>>
>>existance of paranormal and magics;
>
> Well the existence of as yet unidentified forces, and means of
> manipulating forces and matter, is surely the realm of physics and
> cosmology - So what distinguishes these from paranormal / magic?
>
no more need for mediums, one can watch the spirits perform on a screen...
it may be that the rules are different, and that purely experimental
observation may not detect them, or it may be that they already have...
>>that God exists, and has sent many prophets and similar, and has created
>>the
>>world by some means;
>>that the crucifiction allowed people to be free of sins and to understand
>>God;
>
> As it stands, that is simply belief by authority - Someone said /
> wrote these things, and you choose to believe them. Which is fair
> enough for yourself, but why do you think that other people ought to
> believe them (assuming that's what you do believe)?
>
> And why *these* particular beliefs rather than other sets of beliefs
> (either religious or secular)?
>
well, assuming they are truth, then they are truth, and thus have authority.
another thing is that one does not have to trust what others say, if they
can see or hear it for themselves. then it becomes a matter of experience,
and one only has to have faith that they can see and hear, and little by
little this world is revealed...
>>>>the distinction is not always clear. many people can have their own
>>>>beliefs, and still be part of a larger religion.
>>>
>>> *They* may believe that they are, but other members of the 'larger
>>> religion' often don't seem to accept them as such.
>>>
>>> And even an agnostic may believe in the historicity of *certain*
>>> things described in the Torah or the Christian Bible - but that
>>> doesn't make them Jewish or Christian. (I may occasionally believe
>>> that something a politician is saying is true, but that doesn't make
>>> me a believer in many of their *other* claims.)
>>>
>>maybe, but usually the distinction is fairly clear.
>>one has to be careful when treading in the areas of central doctrine, as
>>that is where dragons lurk...
>>
>>as far as more ancillary more stuff, there is a lot more room for personal
>>opinion.
>
> Depending on how dogmatically rigid and authoritarian that particular
> sect is - It seems to me that polytheistic religions are often more
> 'forgiving' / flexible in this area than most monotheistic ones.
>
maybe.
>>> And yet when they had the real world power and authority, various
>>> sects of Christianity were killing and torturing each other over
>>> exactly that. There are still sectarian killings in Northern Ireland,
>>> American fundamentalists have bombed clinics, in the Middle East
>>> different sects of Islam are killing each other in droves (and killing
>>> moderate & liberal believers as well).
>>>
>>> It would appear that they regard the details as *very* important.
>>
>>I view these as acts by people who are not acting in good will.
>>
>>many people like this exist, but I don't feel these mindsets are acting in
>>accordance with God's will.
>
> Yet apart from those who were after purely secular gain by using
> religion and church to their own advantage, there seem to have been
> many who were sincere in their beliefs and actions.
>
> Which returns us to the basic issue that belief by this mechanism
> *doesn't* necessarily guarantee being right. (For example wars in
> which both parties believed they had "God on their side").
>
in these cases, only the creator knows who is right.
the point is that not all who think they hear in fact hear, and not all who
think they see in fact see, and not all who act are honest in their motives.
likewise, not all words come from the creator, as many may come from his
enemies.
so, all this is not an exact science by any means...
>>although, I do feel that at some points in the past actions like this may
>>have been supported, I don't feel this is the general rule, and that in
>>most
>>more well known cases, they are acting by their own will and by their
>>hatred.
>
> Initiating violence, death, torture, rape, against men, women &
> children, who offered no physical threat, but who simply differed in
> their beliefs - ever?
>
this is not acceptable, and all those involved should surely realize this.
no, I was thinking more about wars being used as punishment. many examples
of this, when purported followers act against his will, he sends their
enemies to attack them.
>>>>now, if a person is sitting around praying to a statue, are
>>>>polytheistic,
>>>>
>>> You mean like a statue of a man on a cross? :)
>>
>>well, I don't personally feel that is all that good of a thing, but it may
>>be passable.
>>
>>worse than this is praying to saints (a common accusation against
>>catholics).
>>
> But why should this be worse? Aren't you just saying "what *I* believe
> in is right, and people who believe / act otherwise are wrong"?
>
quite possibly. these claims, in themselves, take faith, but if one does not
have this, they have little to go by.
> In fact why is polytheism wrong? - The observed world more closely
> fits the model of multiple 'powers' with individual (and sometimes
> conflicting) agendas, than it does a single power with a single
> coherent plan.
>
I don't believe it is wrong, technically, just that all their powers are not
God, but rather lesser spirits.
not all will originates from the creator, as each spirit has their own will,
and many have chosen to oppose him as well. it is not just the will of
humans that one needs to be concerned with.
>>> Well, for anything to influence the phenomenal world (including
>>> providing / exchanging information), they *have* to be connected in
>>> some way. If they were totally separate, no one would ever be aware of
>>> them (for they would have no effect at all upon our 'world').
>>
>>this is only assuming that the connection is itself based on physical law.
>>eg, mystery forces that have no origin, and quite possibly violate the
>>laws
>>of conservation (or maybe do something somewhere else to balance the
>>effect).
>
> What you're describing there is connections acting by means not
> currently understood, not the *absence* of any connection at all.
>
possibly.
>>> But firstly for there to be *anything* which needs to be accounted
>>> for, something otherwise inexplicable must have happened - And so far
>>> that hasn't been established.
>>
>>my feeling is, all this stuff does not play well with experimentation.
>>quite
>>possibly, it is his will to do things, but make it more or less impossible
>>to try to gain proof...
>
> So you're saying that the Biblically reported miracles *didn't*
> happen, and that prayers for anything 'worldly' such as healing, have
> no such effect?
>
no, I am just saying that it is not likely possible to get well documented
proof, or to recreate it in a lab setting.
more likely, for example, these effects will come up and show themselves to
scientists, quite possibly as a way to taunt them, but they will be unable
to gather any real proof for what they have seen.
if we could get proof, then there wouldn't be any more need for faith, and
there would no longer be room for free will...
being an intelligent being, the creator can refrain to answer prayers, or
even allow basic things to happen, at his will.
everything else serves him, he does not serve everything else.
>>> The other point is there's no evidence of a 'moral' dimension. Good
>>> people suffer, evil people prosper. So even if there really are
>>> 'forces', they appear to be random, impersonal - nothing like the
>>> deities religion would have us believe in.
>>
>>personally, I don't feel that trying to make anyone better or worse off is
>>really his concern. the whole thing is more about belief, and not so much
>>about the physical/social/economical wellbeing of those involved (most of
>>the time).
>
> But what's the 'virtue' in belief, when apparently it's just
> happenstance whether what you believe in is right or wrong (mostly
> influenced by where you were born, where you were brought up, the
> culture around you)?
>
I believe there is a truth. this may be sufficient...
> Terry
>
cr88192
one can argue this if they want, and many have...
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>that is part of the reason for the existence of the holy spirit, and for
>what was written, eg, so that one will know for themselves if what is said
>is true, or if someone is acting under their own will.
>
>a big problem it seems is that so many leaders are false, and so many
>followers don't know what is written or can hear what he says, that many are
>being lead away from God in his own name...
I see that as one major point against there being a god as described
in the major religions - That their supposedly inspired (or in the
case of Islam, dictated) word, is so mixed, so ambiguous and sometimes
contradictory, that people can read into it 'authorisation' for almost
anything.
And that mechanisms like the 'holy spirit' / personal inspiration
don't *in fact* help people in general to "sort out the wheat from the
chaff", but lead to them believing very different things.
Terry
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>I suspect that a lot may be true, but that some is in error. as a result,
>>>one can get the general idea, but has to be careful of relying too heavily
>>>on the specifics.
>>
>> Then by similar logic, one cannot rely on the specifics of religion?
>
>one can argue this if they want, and many have...
Which means that to many people it is a reasonable question to ask. So
what's the answer? (Or were you agreeing that one *cannot* rely on the
specifics of religion?)
Terry
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> If I say "I don't believe that the tooth fairy is real", people
>> wouldn't go around saying that I was 'anti-tooth fairy'. It's an
>> improper use of language.
>
>well, the term was used this way in almost 2k years old greek text, so they
>probably have some autority in use of the term.
>
>I think it was that in greek times, "anti" more typically meant "without"
>than "in direct opposition to", but that the meaning got altered some when
>it was reused later on.
>
Which raises another problem - That we don't *know* the meaning of
many words & phrases in Greek, Aramaic, etc., *at the time they were
written* - the best we have is 'educated guesswork' - Hence there are
multiple (and different) English 'translations' of the Bible, Koran,
etc.. Even a native speaker of contemporary Greek or Arabic can't be
sure, since the modern language has changed considerably since that
time.
>I guess an example being "chili con carne" and a hypothetical "chili
>anticarne".
And of course we don't in fact use that term (or any such equivalent),
but would say "Chili Beans" (or whatever the main ingredient was).
>> But the point at issue is *believing in*, not 'opposing' - For example
>> if you don't believe in most of the core of Christianity, then you
>> wouldn't expect a Black Mass to be efficacious. IOW you've got to
>> *believe* in something in order to act with respect to it (either
>> positively or negatively).
>
>yes, this is a point.
>
>however, many people also use "for or against" reasoning, so I guess a lot
>depends on whether one believes in the existance of a middle ground...
Forcing a false dilemma is a common trick in debating, politics, etc..
The fact that someone *claims* that there are only two alternatives
doesn't make it true.
It's not a question of 'believing' in a 'middle ground', because the
reality of multiple options has nothing to do with whether people
believe in them or not - And those options are not *necessarily* a
'middle ground', in the sense of being somewhere *between* those two
points of view.
But of course it makes things a lot easier for anyone pushing a
particular dogma - be that religious or political - if they can
persuade people to think in those terms rather than to think for
themselves.
For example a voter may believe in general in 'law & order' (a
'conservative' emphasis), while at the same time believing that the
law should not restrict consensual sexual activities amongst
consenting adults (a 'liberal' view). Does that make them
'conservative', 'liberal', both, neither?
>then the next issue is whether the creator believes in the existance of a
>middle ground, and then so where the borders lie.
The existence of a creator hasn't been established though. And
worldwide there are multiple 'claimants' for that position.
>note that the whole thing is not about the "real world" penalty anyways. by
>acting on ones' impulses they are acting against good will, and through
>their actions they are acting against the good will of others.
Well, no - that's one of the issues - because of the paucity of hard
evidence, and the many conflicting claims and interpretations,
*believers* are acting just as much on 'impulse' / feeling / instinct.
And it's certainly true that a great deal of evil has been (and
continues to be) done on the basis of religious belief.
>people who oppose good will will be punished regardless (though not
>necissarily by humans), but at least in the past they had to keep quiet and
>this limited their ability to influence others to act as they do.
OTOH when religion was more influential, it lead to and even
instructed believers to do evil towards their neighbours simply
because of differences in religious beliefs - Evil which might
otherwise not have happened, or at least not on such a scale.
>I wasn't claiming that there was said "golden age" either, only that now is
>not good times, and people are open about things rather than being
>suppressed.
>
>eg:
>queers can roam the streets without fear, acting as a display for their
>perversion;
>people make public exhibits that previously would have been viewed as
>abominations;
>mass media portrays lifestyles focused solely on meterialism and basic
>impulses;
I'd agree with your point about the mass media.
But otherwise, one criticism which has been leveled against (at least
Christian) moralists is an obsession with sex - To such an extent that
their use of 'morality' & 'immorality' has become a sort of shorthand
for *sexual* morality - Rather than treating sex as just one of *many*
areas in which standards of behaviour should be applied - be that
government, business, law, etc..
[And even there 'standards' are not consistent - concubinage is
treaded as normal & acceptable in the Old Testament, some Christians
view contraception as wrong while others do not, etc.]
The other issue is the difference between 'wrong' (secular morality),
and 'sin' (religious morality).
For example only the last half of the Commandments would be
appropriate under secular morality (ether as guidelines or as specific
laws).
The problem with 'pure sin' (religion based standards which don't
overlap with secular standards) is that there's no way of validating
them - It takes us back to the recurrent problem that there's no
credible way to know which god(s) [if any] are 'true', nor what their
words actually are.
Therefore all that can safely be allowed in the secular world as
standards of behaviour which - by persuasion / education, or threat of
force - people are required to apply to others, are those of secular
morality - Truthfulness, informed consent, no deception or coercion,
no harm to others or their property, etc..
Some of these probably will overlap with the ideas of religion, but
others won't - Indeed they may lead to *opposite* conclusions (to use
the example you gave, with respect to same-sex relationships).
One cannot safely do otherwise, since the same 'tools' which lead to
one person believing in one particular god, and one particular set of
beliefs about that god, lead other (equally honest) people to
different beliefs, different gods.
IOW unless one particular religion, and one particular interpretation
of that religion, can prove itself to the world, its views should not
be incorporated into the laws and standards of 'everyday' society.
[Of course I believe the same about purely secular laws as well - that
many of them need much better analysis and validation before they are
imposed on the general public.]
Terry
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Well the existence of as yet unidentified forces, and means of
>> manipulating forces and matter, is surely the realm of physics and
>> cosmology - So what distinguishes these from paranormal / magic?
>>
>well, if a physical reason exists, then a physical reason exists.
>
>no more need for mediums, one can watch the spirits perform on a screen...
>
One problem is that there's a million dollar prize for anyone who can
demonstrate any such phenomenon, and it hasn't been collected. See:
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
>it may be that the rules are different, and that purely experimental
>observation may not detect them, or it may be that they already have...
If a phenomenon cannot be ever detected, then why believe in it?
(Physicists & cosmologists may predict certain phenomena which cannot
*yet* be detected, but they then work towards developing ways to
confirm or disconfirm those predictions).
Or do you mean phenomena which only appear to be 'detectable' in the
mind of the observer, and only some observers at that?
[As an autistic, I'm very aware of the problem of 'subjective'
phenomena - Fortunately developments like fMRI are starting to provide
substantive evidence to support these - Though this can only show that
something *is* happening, and *where* it's happening, rather than
specifically *what* is happening.
However work with trans-cranial stimulation of parts of the brain have
succeeded in producing some of these phenomena 'artificially' and in a
repeatable way.]
>> As it stands, that is simply belief by authority - Someone said /
>> wrote these things, and you choose to believe them. Which is fair
>> enough for yourself, but why do you think that other people ought to
>> believe them (assuming that's what you do believe)?
>>
>> And why *these* particular beliefs rather than other sets of beliefs
>> (either religious or secular)?
>
>well, assuming they are truth, then they are truth, and thus have authority.
>another thing is that one does not have to trust what others say, if they
>can see or hear it for themselves. then it becomes a matter of experience,
>and one only has to have faith that they can see and hear, and little by
>little this world is revealed...
That's largely circular logic - And it doesn't really work, because
people who start off with *other* religions equally come to similar
conclusions about *those* beliefs - So either they're *all* true (or
god doesn't care which one you believe in), or the method itself isn't
valid.
>> Which returns us to the basic issue that belief by this mechanism
>> *doesn't* necessarily guarantee being right. (For example wars in
>> which both parties believed they had "God on their side").
>
>in these cases, only the creator knows who is right.
>
Or there isn't a creator at all, or there is one but one who doesn't
get involved, or there are multiple gods - so both sides may be right
(but it's not the same god approving of both).
>the point is that not all who think they hear in fact hear, and not all who
>think they see in fact see, and not all who act are honest in their motives.
>likewise, not all words come from the creator, as many may come from his
>enemies.
>
>so, all this is not an exact science by any means...
Then it's largely up to chance and fortune whether an honest person
"gets it right" or not (unless it doesn't matter which 'god', which
set of rules, or there isn't a god at all) - There's no credible way
to tell whether it's the Protestants, Catholics, Sunni, Shia, Hindus,
Zoroastrians, Dervishes, Buddhists, Gnostics, Wicca, etc., etc..
So why not choose one which fits your psychological needs, or your
social needs, or indeed none at all - since you've just as much chance
of getting it right?
Terry
The autist formerly known as
well goodbye to all that as the Rio de Janeirans might say in portuguese :)
--
þT
L'autisme c'est moi
"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"
"cr88192" <cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fa9$44974ea8$ca83abe2$27...@saipan.com...
>
> "Terry Jones" <terry...@beeb.net> wrote in message
> news:354d92t2nivvijf2b...@4ax.com...
>
The autist formerly known as
whatever they spake in Ur of the Chaldees, but philologists can trace words
from Northern India accross Europe in the Gypsy migrations,
--
şT
L'autisme c'est moi
"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"
"Terry Jones" <terry...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:4g9f92pbea4qc6du0...@4ax.com...
cr88192
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:20:20 +1000, "cr88192"
> <cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> If I say "I don't believe that the tooth fairy is real", people
>>> wouldn't go around saying that I was 'anti-tooth fairy'. It's an
>>> improper use of language.
>>
>>well, the term was used this way in almost 2k years old greek text, so
>>they
>>probably have some autority in use of the term.
>>
>>I think it was that in greek times, "anti" more typically meant "without"
>>than "in direct opposition to", but that the meaning got altered some when
>>it was reused later on.
>>
> Which raises another problem - That we don't *know* the meaning of
> many words & phrases in Greek, Aramaic, etc., *at the time they were
> written* - the best we have is 'educated guesswork' - Hence there are
> multiple (and different) English 'translations' of the Bible, Koran,
> etc.. Even a native speaker of contemporary Greek or Arabic can't be
> sure, since the modern language has changed considerably since that
> time.
>
they are usually good enough...
>>I guess an example being "chili con carne" and a hypothetical "chili
>>anticarne".
>
> And of course we don't in fact use that term (or any such equivalent),
> but would say "Chili Beans" (or whatever the main ingredient was).
>
I had usually seen "chili" and "vegeterian chili"...
>>> But the point at issue is *believing in*, not 'opposing' - For example
>>> if you don't believe in most of the core of Christianity, then you
>>> wouldn't expect a Black Mass to be efficacious. IOW you've got to
>>> *believe* in something in order to act with respect to it (either
>>> positively or negatively).
>>
>>yes, this is a point.
>>
>>however, many people also use "for or against" reasoning, so I guess a lot
>>depends on whether one believes in the existance of a middle ground...
>
> Forcing a false dilemma is a common trick in debating, politics, etc..
> The fact that someone *claims* that there are only two alternatives
> doesn't make it true.
>
> It's not a question of 'believing' in a 'middle ground', because the
> reality of multiple options has nothing to do with whether people
> believe in them or not - And those options are not *necessarily* a
> 'middle ground', in the sense of being somewhere *between* those two
> points of view.
>
of course, the middle ground could be itself an idealistic conception for
all it matters...
> But of course it makes things a lot easier for anyone pushing a
> particular dogma - be that religious or political - if they can
> persuade people to think in those terms rather than to think for
> themselves.
>
> For example a voter may believe in general in 'law & order' (a
> 'conservative' emphasis), while at the same time believing that the
> law should not restrict consensual sexual activities amongst
> consenting adults (a 'liberal' view). Does that make them
> 'conservative', 'liberal', both, neither?
>
maybe they are mixed.
my personal belief is that it is pointless to try to legally restrict some
activities, but I do believe the actions of many such "consenting adults" to
be immoral and perverse...
rather, better to just tell people that their acts are immoral, rather than
all of the "cultural diversity" type stuff that is endlessly pushed on
people.
>>then the next issue is whether the creator believes in the existance of a
>>middle ground, and then so where the borders lie.
>
> The existence of a creator hasn't been established though. And
> worldwide there are multiple 'claimants' for that position.
>
maybe, but the point is that one believe, rather than expect proof, and
rather than expecting everyone else to believe.
if you are thinking, eg, of christianity vs judeaism vs islam, I feel it is
the same God in all 3 cases, only that the religions themselves differ on a
few points...
>>note that the whole thing is not about the "real world" penalty anyways.
>>by
>>acting on ones' impulses they are acting against good will, and through
>>their actions they are acting against the good will of others.
>
> Well, no - that's one of the issues - because of the paucity of hard
> evidence, and the many conflicting claims and interpretations,
> *believers* are acting just as much on 'impulse' / feeling / instinct.
>
I was meaning, more specifically, the impulse to do things that are wrong or
immoral. eg, stealing things, getting involved with someone outside marital
bounds, ...
> And it's certainly true that a great deal of evil has been (and
> continues to be) done on the basis of religious belief.
>
a lot depends on how one defines "evil".
is evil war and percieved oppression? is evil the immorality and crimes
commited by the populus?
is evil the sense of being moral? or is evil destroying morality by saying
that there is no reason to be moral?
depending on ones' definitions, there are many interpretations.
how about this:
a lost war, followed by secular domination and attempted destruction of
religious belief systems.
is this evil? I would think so.
how about, similar, but having "oppressive" beliefs forced on them, eg,
getting dominated by a religion that views "going anal" or being a queer as
a crime worthy of execution.
is this evil? maybe, or maybe not.
is it the beliefs that are evil, or is it the leaders for executing their
populace?
...
>>people who oppose good will will be punished regardless (though not
>>necissarily by humans), but at least in the past they had to keep quiet
>>and
>>this limited their ability to influence others to act as they do.
>
> OTOH when religion was more influential, it lead to and even
> instructed believers to do evil towards their neighbours simply
> because of differences in religious beliefs - Evil which might
> otherwise not have happened, or at least not on such a scale.
>
this depends on how one classifies things.
personally, I don't believe in acting against anyone, partly because they
will recieve punishment on their own...
>>I wasn't claiming that there was said "golden age" either, only that now
>>is
>>not good times, and people are open about things rather than being
>>suppressed.
>>
>>eg:
>>queers can roam the streets without fear, acting as a display for their
>>perversion;
>>people make public exhibits that previously would have been viewed as
>>abominations;
>>mass media portrays lifestyles focused solely on meterialism and basic
>>impulses;
>
> I'd agree with your point about the mass media.
>
yeah.
> But otherwise, one criticism which has been leveled against (at least
> Christian) moralists is an obsession with sex - To such an extent that
> their use of 'morality' & 'immorality' has become a sort of shorthand
> for *sexual* morality - Rather than treating sex as just one of *many*
> areas in which standards of behaviour should be applied - be that
> government, business, law, etc..
>
note that it is also one of the biggest areas of failing, with the littlest
being done. likewise goes for, eg, greed and meterialism.
I remember highschool, and the mass of highschoolers were hardly that well
behaved. many of the students were already parents, ...
note that I also oppose idolotry.
I can also understand those who oppose any activity on saturdays/sundays,
and who oppose eating pork or other unclean animals (dogs, cats, rabbits,
shellfish, ...).
however, unlike the above, being physical is something which more people
have control of, yet many people excersize so little restraint.
> [And even there 'standards' are not consistent - concubinage is
> treaded as normal & acceptable in the Old Testament, some Christians
> view contraception as wrong while others do not, etc.]
>
I view both as wrong...
> The other issue is the difference between 'wrong' (secular morality),
> and 'sin' (religious morality).
>
> For example only the last half of the Commandments would be
> appropriate under secular morality (ether as guidelines or as specific
> laws).
>
yet, there is often a lacking sense of enforcement. the sense is that
authority comes from laws, rather than from the creator. this is a rather
different mindset...
> The problem with 'pure sin' (religion based standards which don't
> overlap with secular standards) is that there's no way of validating
> them - It takes us back to the recurrent problem that there's no
> credible way to know which god(s) [if any] are 'true', nor what their
> words actually are.
>
maybe.
> Therefore all that can safely be allowed in the secular world as
> standards of behaviour which - by persuasion / education, or threat of
> force - people are required to apply to others, are those of secular
> morality - Truthfulness, informed consent, no deception or coercion,
> no harm to others or their property, etc..
>
> Some of these probably will overlap with the ideas of religion, but
> others won't - Indeed they may lead to *opposite* conclusions (to use
> the example you gave, with respect to same-sex relationships).
>
ok.
> One cannot safely do otherwise, since the same 'tools' which lead to
> one person believing in one particular god, and one particular set of
> beliefs about that god, lead other (equally honest) people to
> different beliefs, different gods.
>
> IOW unless one particular religion, and one particular interpretation
> of that religion, can prove itself to the world, its views should not
> be incorporated into the laws and standards of 'everyday' society.
>
> [Of course I believe the same about purely secular laws as well - that
> many of them need much better analysis and validation before they are
> imposed on the general public.]
>
yes, ok.
> Terry
cr88192
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:45:34 +1000, "cr88192"
> <cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>that is part of the reason for the existence of the holy spirit, and for
>>what was written, eg, so that one will know for themselves if what is said
>>is true, or if someone is acting under their own will.
>>
>>a big problem it seems is that so many leaders are false, and so many
>>followers don't know what is written or can hear what he says, that many
>>are
>>being lead away from God in his own name...
>
> I see that as one major point against there being a god as described
> in the major religions - That their supposedly inspired (or in the
> case of Islam, dictated) word, is so mixed, so ambiguous and sometimes
> contradictory, that people can read into it 'authorisation' for almost
> anything.
>
I was meaning, more particularly, in forms like mormonism and televangalism
style beliefs.
most mainstream beliefs have a lot more authority, so long as they stick to
what is written.
a major point: people need to be accountable for their thoughts and actions.
it is not through deeds, but also not given "just because". a person not
only has to believe, but also to avoid commiting sins...
> And that mechanisms like the 'holy spirit' / personal inspiration
> don't *in fact* help people in general to "sort out the wheat from the
> chaff", but lead to them believing very different things.
>
a problem is that there are many other spirits, so it is not always easy for
one to tell which one they are hearing at any given time...
however, if one knows what is written, they can at least gain a better idea
of which is which...
> Terry
>
cr88192
posting...].
"Terry Jones" <terry...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:s2if92hg5pnaebme2...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:17:52 +1000, "cr88192"
> <cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Well the existence of as yet unidentified forces, and means of
>>> manipulating forces and matter, is surely the realm of physics and
>>> cosmology - So what distinguishes these from paranormal / magic?
>>>
>>well, if a physical reason exists, then a physical reason exists.
>>
>>no more need for mediums, one can watch the spirits perform on a screen...
>>
> One problem is that there's a million dollar prize for anyone who can
> demonstrate any such phenomenon, and it hasn't been collected. See:
> http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
>
I think that, presently, there is an explicit block in place to prevent such
demonstrations.
>>it may be that the rules are different, and that purely experimental
>>observation may not detect them, or it may be that they already have...
>
> If a phenomenon cannot be ever detected, then why believe in it?
> (Physicists & cosmologists may predict certain phenomena which cannot
> *yet* be detected, but they then work towards developing ways to
> confirm or disconfirm those predictions).
>
I think it is intentional that it not be detectable, and that this may hold
at least until a certain point in the future...
> Or do you mean phenomena which only appear to be 'detectable' in the
> mind of the observer, and only some observers at that?
>
> [As an autistic, I'm very aware of the problem of 'subjective'
> phenomena - Fortunately developments like fMRI are starting to provide
> substantive evidence to support these - Though this can only show that
> something *is* happening, and *where* it's happening, rather than
> specifically *what* is happening.
>
> However work with trans-cranial stimulation of parts of the brain have
> succeeded in producing some of these phenomena 'artificially' and in a
> repeatable way.]
>
maybe...
>>> As it stands, that is simply belief by authority - Someone said /
>>> wrote these things, and you choose to believe them. Which is fair
>>> enough for yourself, but why do you think that other people ought to
>>> believe them (assuming that's what you do believe)?
>>>
>>> And why *these* particular beliefs rather than other sets of beliefs
>>> (either religious or secular)?
>>
>>well, assuming they are truth, then they are truth, and thus have
>>authority.
>>another thing is that one does not have to trust what others say, if they
>>can see or hear it for themselves. then it becomes a matter of experience,
>>and one only has to have faith that they can see and hear, and little by
>>little this world is revealed...
>
> That's largely circular logic - And it doesn't really work, because
> people who start off with *other* religions equally come to similar
> conclusions about *those* beliefs - So either they're *all* true (or
> god doesn't care which one you believe in), or the method itself isn't
> valid.
>
it is circular logic, yes, but if we entirely disallow circular logic, many
other things don't hold so well either (in many domains).
personally, I don't feel that only 1 religion is true, quite possibly there
is instead a range. a lot of people have found parts of the truth, but not
all of it, and mixed it with a lot of their own beliefs...
>>> Which returns us to the basic issue that belief by this mechanism
>>> *doesn't* necessarily guarantee being right. (For example wars in
>>> which both parties believed they had "God on their side").
>>
>>in these cases, only the creator knows who is right.
>>
> Or there isn't a creator at all, or there is one but one who doesn't
> get involved, or there are multiple gods - so both sides may be right
> (but it's not the same god approving of both).
>
...
>>the point is that not all who think they hear in fact hear, and not all
>>who
>>think they see in fact see, and not all who act are honest in their
>>motives.
>>likewise, not all words come from the creator, as many may come from his
>>enemies.
>>
>>so, all this is not an exact science by any means...
>
> Then it's largely up to chance and fortune whether an honest person
> "gets it right" or not (unless it doesn't matter which 'god', which
> set of rules, or there isn't a god at all) - There's no credible way
> to tell whether it's the Protestants, Catholics, Sunni, Shia, Hindus,
> Zoroastrians, Dervishes, Buddhists, Gnostics, Wicca, etc., etc..
>
> So why not choose one which fits your psychological needs, or your
> social needs, or indeed none at all - since you've just as much chance
> of getting it right?
>
note above, I feel all have parts of the truth, but none all of it...
> Terry
>
cr88192
there is a truth which people search for, and many have found this truth,
but on the larger scale, this truth has imo not been entirely realized by
any group.
by specifics I meant largely on things which are either arbitrary or are
easily falsifiable, or which almost no one can come into agreement on.
above this, we have the more large scale divisions, which from what I can
tell go largely into 3 major groups:
God: religions which focus on God (monotheistic religions);
Earth: religions which focus more on spirits and similar, and are often
polytheistic;
Man: groups which focus on humans (most secular groups), and are often
atheistic.
now, which is true? that is itself a mystery...
each may have part of the truth, and each may have some failings.
now, in my case, a big and as of yet unsolved mystery is whether my
existance is good or evil...
my preference would be to be just yet another person.
> Terry
>
Terry Jones
<o...@ym.andius> wrote:
>Yep there are dialogues and dialects in modern Arabic and likewise in
>whatever they spake in Ur of the Chaldees, but philologists can trace words
>from Northern India accross Europe in the Gypsy migrations,
True enough, but not necessarily with their original *meanings*. There
are plenty of words in modern English which have different or even the
opposite meanings to earlier usage (at least from context), and
colloquial phrases & idioms are often lost within a generation or two.
Terry
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>most mainstream beliefs have a lot more authority, so long as they stick to
>what is written.
But that's the problem - Even just within Christianity you have
different Bibles (Protestant, Catholic, etc.), different translations,
and different interpretations of what those words & phrases actually
*mean*, how important one thing is compared to another, what is
metaphorical and what is intended to be literal, etc..
(An remember that fallible human members of some of those 'mainstream'
beliefs were the ones who *chose* what should be included and what
should be left out of 'the Bible').
And why should the 'written word' of one religion carry more weight,
be considered any more credible, than the written word of any *other*
religion?
>a major point: people need to be accountable for their thoughts and actions.
>it is not through deeds, but also not given "just because". a person not
>only has to believe, but also to avoid commiting sins...
>
I've discussed the issue of 'sin' in another post in this thread.
>a problem is that there are many other spirits, so it is not always easy for
>one to tell which one they are hearing at any given time...
>
>however, if one knows what is written, they can at least gain a better idea
>of which is which...
See my response in the first part of the post.
Terry
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>now, in my case, a big and as of yet unsolved mystery is whether my
>existance is good or evil...
>
>my preference would be to be just yet another person.
That is a mixture of the two?
Terry
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>[this thread is tiring and using up too much time, so I may stop
>posting...].
Likewise - so I've tried to strip things down, close out some of the
issues (by agreeing that we differ on various points), and gather
together some of the sub-threads.
>>>no more need for mediums, one can watch the spirits perform on a screen...
>>>
>> One problem is that there's a million dollar prize for anyone who can
>> demonstrate any such phenomenon, and it hasn't been collected. See:
>> http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
>
>I think that, presently, there is an explicit block in place to prevent such
>demonstrations.
They are no longer accepting entries? Or the conditions under which
that need the phenomena to be show to be accepted as valid?
>>>it may be that the rules are different, and that purely experimental
>>>observation may not detect them, or it may be that they already have...
>>
>> If a phenomenon cannot be ever detected, then why believe in it?
>> (Physicists & cosmologists may predict certain phenomena which cannot
>> *yet* be detected, but they then work towards developing ways to
>> confirm or disconfirm those predictions).
>
>I think it is intentional that it not be detectable, and that this may hold
>at least until a certain point in the future...
That is your feeling, but against that is the observation that as
people work at them, an increasing range of phenomena *are* in fact
becoming observable / detectable - just as one would expect as a
natural result of such activities.
>personally, I don't feel that only 1 religion is true, quite possibly there
>is instead a range. a lot of people have found parts of the truth, but not
>all of it, and mixed it with a lot of their own beliefs...
I'd agree that many religions contain social ethics / guidelines which
may be generally sound, or valid within a particular time and culture.
Where we differ is whether the assumption of divinity (at all) is
established, and their claims to specific knowledge about the nature
and wishes of divinit(y/ies) if they exist.
Terry
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Which raises another problem - That we don't *know* the meaning of
>> many words & phrases in Greek, Aramaic, etc., *at the time they were
>> written* - the best we have is 'educated guesswork' - Hence there are
>> multiple (and different) English 'translations' of the Bible, Koran,
>> etc.. Even a native speaker of contemporary Greek or Arabic can't be
>> sure, since the modern language has changed considerably since that
>> time.
>
>they are usually good enough...
I would disagree with that, based on the observation that people do in
fact form different churches and sects and factions based on their
different interpretations of the 'real' meaning.
>> It's not a question of 'believing' in a 'middle ground', because the
>> reality of multiple options has nothing to do with whether people
>> believe in them or not - And those options are not *necessarily* a
>> 'middle ground', in the sense of being somewhere *between* those two
>> points of view.
>
>of course, the middle ground could be itself an idealistic conception for
>all it matters...
I'm sure it is - The ideology of 'compromise' (middle ground) often
appears to be used as a substitute for critical thought, and facing up
to unpleasant evidence - especially in politics and other 'social'
areas.
>> For example a voter may believe in general in 'law & order' (a
>> 'conservative' emphasis), while at the same time believing that the
>> law should not restrict consensual sexual activities amongst
>> consenting adults (a 'liberal' view). Does that make them
>> 'conservative', 'liberal', both, neither?
>
>maybe they are mixed.
>
>my personal belief is that it is pointless to try to legally restrict some
>activities, but I do believe the actions of many such "consenting adults" to
>be immoral and perverse...
>
>rather, better to just tell people that their acts are immoral, rather than
>all of the "cultural diversity" type stuff that is endlessly pushed on
>people.
>
But 'immoral' only on the basis of something which cannot be proven,
and which is only accepted by a limited group - Whereas 'secular
morality' is (ideally) mostly based on more verifiable harms and
benefits - If I don't have a 'soul' then it can't be harmed or
penalised [Which of course doesn't prevent me from trying to follow my
secular morality as best I can, it's just not for that particular
reason.]
>> The existence of a creator hasn't been established though. And
>> worldwide there are multiple 'claimants' for that position.
>
>maybe, but the point is that one believe, rather than expect proof, and
>rather than expecting everyone else to believe.
>
It doesn't make sense to me that there is value just in simple
*belief* - otherwise you would regard all who have beliefs (but
different ones to those you agree with) to be of equal merit and
virtue.
>if you are thinking, eg, of christianity vs judeaism vs islam, I feel it is
>the same God in all 3 cases, only that the religions themselves differ on a
>few points...
No, I was thinking worldwide (and historywide too), not just 'the
people of the book').
>I was meaning, more specifically, the impulse to do things that are wrong or
>immoral. eg, stealing things, getting involved with someone outside marital
>bounds, ...
>
Although impulses can be for good as well as bad - a charitable
impulse, spontaneously helping a stranger, etc.. - As to the
specifics, we're back to the issue of 'sin' versus 'wrong'.
>> And it's certainly true that a great deal of evil has been (and
>> continues to be) done on the basis of religious belief.
>
>a lot depends on how one defines "evil".
>
>is evil war and percieved oppression?
Wars of aggression and actual oppression
>is evil the immorality and crimes commited by the populus?
See my point on secular versus religious morality.
>is evil the sense of being moral? or is evil destroying morality by saying
>that there is no reason to be moral?
The 'morality' of the National Socialists in Germany, or the
Stalinists in Russia (there are some who remain unrepentant to this
day, who see themselves as having done nothing wrong)? The standard
morality of slave based societies? The morality of the Empire
builders, who invaded other people lands for their own benefit? The
morality of the Crusade or the Jihad? The morality of the Inquisition,
or of those who killed people as 'witches'?
Yes, someone who *believes* themself to be acting 'morally' can do
evil, and do so *because* of their beliefs.
And *who* exactly is going around saying that there's no reason to be
moral? A few certainly, but the majority of people in predominately
secular societies still have a sense of right and wrong - They still
oppose murder, theft, etc.. It's mainly these unverified 'sins' which
are being excluded from secular law and morality.
>depending on ones' definitions, there are many interpretations.
>
>how about this:
>a lost war, followed by secular domination and attempted destruction of
>religious belief systems.
>
>is this evil? I would think so.
>
Depends on the belief system(s) - Is it itself coercive or oppressive?
Does it attempt to interfere in secular affairs?
>how about, similar, but having "oppressive" beliefs forced on them, eg,
>getting dominated by a religion that views "going anal" or being a queer as
>a crime worthy of execution.
>
>is this evil? maybe, or maybe not.
>
How not?
>is it the beliefs that are evil, or is it the leaders for executing their
>populace?
>
I think that's a false dilemma - as expressed these are not
alternatives.
>> OTOH when religion was more influential, it lead to and even
>> instructed believers to do evil towards their neighbours simply
>> because of differences in religious beliefs - Evil which might
>> otherwise not have happened, or at least not on such a scale.
>
>this depends on how one classifies things.
How would you classify some of the examples I've given - the
Inquisition, the killing of 'witches', the Crusades, the Muslim
invasions of Northern Africa & parts of Europe?
Or how about various pogroms against local Jewish populations? The
slaughter of the Cathars, the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, the
warfare between Protestant and Catholic in general. The current murder
of Shia by Sunni & Sunni by Shia in Iraq, Hindu versus Muslim killings
in India - All strongly influenced by / 'justified' by religion.
>personally, I don't believe in acting against anyone, partly because they
>will recieve punishment on their own...
The problem is that a lot of people (still) *do* believe in a religion
based 'reason' for, and 'authorisation' of, violence. Hence my
concerns about the *mechanisms* underlying religious beliefs.
>> But otherwise, one criticism which has been leveled against (at least
>> Christian) moralists is an obsession with sex - To such an extent that
>> their use of 'morality' & 'immorality' has become a sort of shorthand
>> for *sexual* morality - Rather than treating sex as just one of *many*
>> areas in which standards of behaviour should be applied - be that
>> government, business, law, etc..
>
>note that it is also one of the biggest areas of failing, with the littlest
>being done. likewise goes for, eg, greed and meterialism.
>
Although it needs some form of power / position for corruption to be
profitable, whereas sex is available even to the poor & powerless.
But what sort of example are 'authority figures' setting for morality
in general - both sexual and non-sexual? Where even leaders and
ministers of religion fail to 'practice what they preach'?
Those with power and position have lost much of their 'moral
authority' for very valid reasons, their own behaviour, and not
*primarily* their sexual behaviour, but their actions in government,
in the corporate & financial world, the workplace and the school.
And unfortunately too many ordinary people seem to have 'thrown out
the baby with the bathwater' - to ignore sensible rules as well as
asymmetrical or corrupt ones - But you can hardly blame them for
ignoring the precepts of an authority which has lost much of its
credibility (and which largely failed to teach them to think
critically for themselves).
>I remember highschool, and the mass of highschoolers were hardly that well
>behaved. many of the students were already parents, ...
Apparently abstensionist groups (like the 'Ring Thing') have about the
same proportion of unplanned pregnancies as the rest of their age
group. They are less likely to have sex, but when they do, they're
less likely to have taken precautions.
>note that I also oppose idolotry.
But is there any evidence that those who do use images and icons are
any less moral (in the secular sense) than those who do not?
>I can also understand those who oppose any activity on saturdays/sundays,
But why should the consequences of *some* peoples' religious beliefs
be imposed on others who do not share them? (And what about Fridays?)
>>and who oppose eating pork or other unclean animals (dogs, cats, rabbits,
>>shellfish, ...).
Whereas some potential foods may be dangerous, and need to be kept,
cleaned, processed properly for health reasons - Rabbits (though less
so nowadays), and shellfish (extensively) are eaten in the UK, and
dogs (again less often with modernisation / westernisation) in the Far
East (and at least historically in South America). I don't know about
cats (although parts of Tigers, etc., are consumed for their supposed
benefits to health & virility in the Far East (and IIRC in parts of
Africa)).
So the definition 'unclean' appears to be more of a religious
prohibition than one having any secular merit.
>> [And even there 'standards' are not consistent - concubinage is
>> treaded as normal & acceptable in the Old Testament, some Christians
>> view contraception as wrong while others do not, etc.]
>
>I view both as wrong...
Again that is 'cherry picking' - using what in other areas you have
presented as a justification of non-secular values and morality as a
'menu' from which to select and reject as you choose.
That is, when you use religious texts as a source or framework on
which to base your own beliefs, by yourself *selecting* and rejecting,
you are employing your own judgment, this means that you cannot
legitimately use these texts as a source of authorisation - *You*
choose what seems right to you, and reject what does not.
Which I *agree* with (except that I tend to use non-religious
sources). But I do try to justify my beliefs and conclusions in other
ways rather than by appeal to an 'authority' which I've partially
rejected - Do you see the problem here?
>> For example only the last half of the Commandments would be
>> appropriate under secular morality (ether as guidelines or as specific
>> laws).
>
>yet, there is often a lacking sense of enforcement. the sense is that
>authority comes from laws, rather than from the creator. this is a rather
>different mindset...
Authority based *only* on laws has proven to be unworkable in the long
term. You need at least passive acquiescence by the bulk of the
population, and for many 'everyday' laws, their active cooperation. So
no, authority comes from the bulk of people accepting the *validity*
of the laws (and informal social standards).
Terry
cr88192
I will only state that I disagree on many points here.
you have expressed your views, and I have expressed mine, but I have other
things demanding time and effort...
what do you think, that the only purpose of the creator is to benefiet
humans. really, it is the other way around...
if one views the strict existance and wellbeing of humans as a lesser issue,
then the mindset is rather different, than if we view only humans and human
acts as the focus of attention.
there is no utopia, and I don't think the point is that there will be, at
least for anyone who is still alive, and at least for the time being...
his death wasn't just for those who are alive, but for the redemption of
those who have died and have not yet died.
now, your comments seem to only focus on humans, and generally disregard
everything else.
what will you have to say for yourself in death? will the only answer be
that you believed nothing would happen, or that there was no way of
knowing?...
then again, maybe it is that I still don't understand, but for now I will
stand by what I have said thus far.
"Terry Jones" <terry...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:tm7i92d6ihd54t9v8...@4ax.com...
cr88192
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:52:58 +1000, "cr88192"
> <cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>[this thread is tiring and using up too much time, so I may stop
>>posting...].
>
> Likewise - so I've tried to strip things down, close out some of the
> issues (by agreeing that we differ on various points), and gather
> together some of the sub-threads.
>
>>>>no more need for mediums, one can watch the spirits perform on a
>>>>screen...
>>>>
>>> One problem is that there's a million dollar prize for anyone who can
>>> demonstrate any such phenomenon, and it hasn't been collected. See:
>>> http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
>>
>>I think that, presently, there is an explicit block in place to prevent
>>such
>>demonstrations.
>
> They are no longer accepting entries? Or the conditions under which
> that need the phenomena to be show to be accepted as valid?
>
dude, not on the human side of things.
not even the spirits can change this one, as they are all bounded by the
same will.
>>>>it may be that the rules are different, and that purely experimental
>>>>observation may not detect them, or it may be that they already have...
>>>
>>> If a phenomenon cannot be ever detected, then why believe in it?
>>> (Physicists & cosmologists may predict certain phenomena which cannot
>>> *yet* be detected, but they then work towards developing ways to
>>> confirm or disconfirm those predictions).
>>
>>I think it is intentional that it not be detectable, and that this may
>>hold
>>at least until a certain point in the future...
>
> That is your feeling, but against that is the observation that as
> people work at them, an increasing range of phenomena *are* in fact
> becoming observable / detectable - just as one would expect as a
> natural result of such activities.
>
yes.
however, there is a lot more, and I think that is the stuff presently
blocked.
soon, these blocks may be removed, and there will no longer be any doubt,
but as a cost those who don't believe will be destroyed...
>>personally, I don't feel that only 1 religion is true, quite possibly
>>there
>>is instead a range. a lot of people have found parts of the truth, but not
>>all of it, and mixed it with a lot of their own beliefs...
>
> I'd agree that many religions contain social ethics / guidelines which
> may be generally sound, or valid within a particular time and culture.
> Where we differ is whether the assumption of divinity (at all) is
> established, and their claims to specific knowledge about the nature
> and wishes of divinit(y/ies) if they exist.
>
sadly, I suspect one can't fully know or understand the truth until after
death. however, long ago I was told something very specific: to not go into
the world of the dead. I think I can understand why, and the gate that leads
there is scary enough as it is...
for now though, I am alive, however I also feel that as it stands most of my
time is already gone. some things are left to do, and a decent amount of
time is left, but just as many others, I will die...
in a way though I will be lucky vs those who are still alive at the time.
> Terry
cr88192
maybe, or to live and die like everyone else.
but at least in my world, I am not be granted this.
there may not be enough time left to live a life like everyone else.
one can be given a choice, in one they can live as everyone else, but will
gain destruction, and in the other there is death, but one will be redeemed.
lucky are those who can die quickly and with minimal pain.
they may think they have won, and those who choose to live may think they
have made the right choice, but it will be a false utopia and they will be
the ones who are destroyed.
> Terry
>
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>what do you think, that the only purpose of the creator is to benefiet
>humans. really, it is the other way around...
It depends whether humans are viewed as 'cattle' or something more
than that - And (at least in the west) we *try*, however imperfectly,
to treat even our cattle as humanely as we can.
>if one views the strict existance and wellbeing of humans as a lesser issue,
>then the mindset is rather different, than if we view only humans and human
>acts as the focus of attention.
There's a difference between it being a "lesser issue", and cruel and
capricious behaviour. And the complaint is exactly that (if your
chosen sources are correct), humans and their acts have been a "focus
of intention" - neither supported, *nor* left alone to make their own
way.
>there is no utopia, and I don't think the point is that there will be, at
>least for anyone who is still alive, and at least for the time being...
Oh I agree with that - but that would be the situation god or no god.
>his death wasn't just for those who are alive, but for the redemption of
>those who have died and have not yet died.
But who *asked* for that death? - Compared to what *could* have been
chosen, it's little more than a showy but inefficient piece of
'gesture politics' - Instead of providing clarity it sowed confusion
and yet more division.
>now, your comments seem to only focus on humans, and generally disregard
>everything else.
That's simply because I've no credible sources regarding 'everything
else', only confusing and conflicting claims and assertions.
>what will you have to say for yourself in death? will the only answer be
>that you believed nothing would happen, or that there was no way of
>knowing?...
I don't believe that there is anything afterwards, at least not 'as
advertised' in the religions - But if there is, and if I'm given a
fair say, then it will be something to the effect that "The so called
advice and instructions were rather like a computer manual, written by
a committee of politicians in a foreign language". "And are you going
to take responsibility for your *own* actions?" - So essentially the
latter option.
>then again, maybe it is that I still don't understand, but for now I will
>stand by what I have said thus far.
You believe what you believe, I believe what I *can*, given the
evidence so far - I've lived too long to just take what I'm told if it
appears to conflict internally or with what else I know - and even as
a child I was questioning the simplified and distorted things which
adults would try to tell us.
It's my nature - and I doubt that I'd choose otherwise even if it were
possible.
According to one source "God created man in his own image" - but
*which* image - the believer or the questioner?
Terry
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>maybe, or to live and die like everyone else.
>
>but at least in my world, I am not be granted this.
>there may not be enough time left to live a life like everyone else.
I don't quite understand that, unless you're suggesting that your
beliefs would lead to a premature death?
>one can be given a choice, in one they can live as everyone else, but will
>gain destruction, and in the other there is death, but one will be redeemed.
Personally I would desire non-existence after physical death.
Obviously no sensible person would want suffering, but the criteria
for 'redemption' are complex and contradictory - and apparently
require me to believe in things which I find incredible (in the
literal sense of the word).
And the variants of god as described in the three 'book' religions are
none of them ones with which I would care to spend eternity - So
overall, total oblivion would be the rational choice (for me).
Terry
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> They are no longer accepting entries? Or the conditions under which
>> that need the phenomena to be show to be accepted as valid?
>
>dude, not on the human side of things.
>
>not even the spirits can change this one, as they are all bounded by the
>same will.
That seems strange, when at least the Tora and the Christian Bible
report that such things *were* allowed, indeed sometimes explicitly
performed - Both to provide proof where there was doubt, and to meet
specific needs of the god's people.
>sadly, I suspect one can't fully know or understand the truth until after
>death. however, long ago I was told something very specific: to not go into
>the world of the dead. I think I can understand why, and the gate that leads
>there is scary enough as it is...
That seems sensible advice - Unfortunately it also cuts off one
possible way for the living to find out the truth - Yet another reason
why plainly expressed communications, and credible evidence in this
here and now world should be provided by a god who was honest and
honourable, even by human standards.
Terry
cr88192
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 01:31:55 +1000, "cr88192"
> <cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> They are no longer accepting entries? Or the conditions under which
>>> that need the phenomena to be show to be accepted as valid?
>>
>>dude, not on the human side of things.
>>
>>not even the spirits can change this one, as they are all bounded by the
>>same will.
>
> That seems strange, when at least the Tora and the Christian Bible
> report that such things *were* allowed, indeed sometimes explicitly
> performed - Both to provide proof where there was doubt, and to meet
> specific needs of the god's people.
>
why not now:
people are still shown things;
people are not allowed to gain proof;
even if they do, others will rarely regard it as anything anyways.
people are given enough so that many will believe, and many do believe, but
not so much as to destroy all possibility of doubt.
I think the point is that things are allowed to work in general, but not in
experimental settings, and even if they did, skeptics would still deny it.
things were provided, in a way, so that things could be as they are now, but
now is not the final state. often when there is prosperity, people will turn
from him, and be unwilling to turn back even when faced with imminent
destruction.
>>sadly, I suspect one can't fully know or understand the truth until after
>>death. however, long ago I was told something very specific: to not go
>>into
>>the world of the dead. I think I can understand why, and the gate that
>>leads
>>there is scary enough as it is...
>
> That seems sensible advice - Unfortunately it also cuts off one
> possible way for the living to find out the truth - Yet another reason
> why plainly expressed communications, and credible evidence in this
> here and now world should be provided by a god who was honest and
> honourable, even by human standards.
>
in my case, I have seen that gate, but I have never gone there, and I have
reasons not to go, but so many will go there and not even look at him in
their path.
> Terry
>
cr88192
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 01:45:09 +1000, "cr88192"
> <cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>maybe, or to live and die like everyone else.
>>
>>but at least in my world, I am not be granted this.
>>there may not be enough time left to live a life like everyone else.
>
> I don't quite understand that, unless you're suggesting that your
> beliefs would lead to a premature death?
>
those who live will still face death.
however, there will be those who hunt down and kill those who have belief.
it is "claimed" they can keep their belief, but only by also accepting
beliefs which oppose him and effectively render their first beliefs void.
this happens many places already, but so many seem not to notice or care.
>>one can be given a choice, in one they can live as everyone else, but will
>>gain destruction, and in the other there is death, but one will be
>>redeemed.
>
> Personally I would desire non-existence after physical death.
>
> Obviously no sensible person would want suffering, but the criteria
> for 'redemption' are complex and contradictory - and apparently
> require me to believe in things which I find incredible (in the
> literal sense of the word).
>
> And the variants of god as described in the three 'book' religions are
> none of them ones with which I would care to spend eternity - So
> overall, total oblivion would be the rational choice (for me).
>
in a way, this can be gained, and in a way, this is the cost...
or would you rather have a queen that claims you are free to do anything you
want and that there is no real punishment for ones thoughts and actions?
note that this queen will be punished just the same as those who follow her.
it is only a cheerful and free spirited covering for a heart of death...
> Terry
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>why not now:
>people are still shown things;
>people are not allowed to gain proof;
>even if they do, others will rarely regard it as anything anyways.
>
>people are given enough so that many will believe, and many do believe, but
>not so much as to destroy all possibility of doubt.
We will have to 'agree we disagree' on that - to me the observed
*pattern* of belief worldwide is inconsistent with such a supposition.
And (as I've mentioned elsewhere) there are questions about the merit
of simple belief.
Terry
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>however, there will be those who hunt down and kill those who have belief.
>it is "claimed" they can keep their belief, but only by also accepting
>beliefs which oppose him and effectively render their first beliefs void.
>
>this happens many places already, but so many seem not to notice or care.
>
Religion is just *one* of the belief systems which employ coerced
'conversion' - Consider Communism for example, or the separation and
'education' of the children of native peoples (US in America, UK in
Australia).
I live in London, a prime target for 'fundamentalist' attacks, but
we've been equally at risk from the IRA who are basically *political*
terrorists.
IOW it's not an issue of religion per sec, but of intractable 'belief
by belief', simple conviction that they are *right*, and so everyone
who disagrees with them are 'legitimate' targets.
>> Personally I would desire non-existence after physical death.
>>
>> Obviously no sensible person would want suffering, but the criteria
>> for 'redemption' are complex and contradictory - and apparently
>> require me to believe in things which I find incredible (in the
>> literal sense of the word).
>>
>> And the variants of god as described in the three 'book' religions are
>> none of them ones with which I would care to spend eternity - So
>> overall, total oblivion would be the rational choice (for me).
>
>in a way, this can be gained, and in a way, this is the cost...
I don't understand what you're trying to say here ...
(Unless you're saying that in your belief system there is an 'oblivion
option' but that this would preclude the chance of 'heaven'?)
>or would you rather have a queen that claims you are free to do anything you
>want and that there is no real punishment for ones thoughts and actions?
>
As I've said elsewhere, I believe in morality (and try to act within
it as far as I can), just not in a morality based on the 'authority'
of religions and deities which I don't believe in.
And as I've also said elsewhere, in the secular realm, compliance with
the law and social standards would be unworkable without the active
compliance of the bulk of the population - not just fear of
punishment. Outside of murder, how many criminals 'get away with it'?
(And even those who don't, don't *expect* to get caught).
With religion - how many people believe that they believe, but do
wrong anyway? And in this case they can't even claim (if they
genuinely believe), that they're not going to have to pay in the end.
So what you present isn't really a realistic picture of people's
actions.
Terry
cr88192
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:23:17 +1000, "cr88192"
> <cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>why not now:
>>people are still shown things;
>>people are not allowed to gain proof;
>>even if they do, others will rarely regard it as anything anyways.
>>
>>people are given enough so that many will believe, and many do believe,
>>but
>>not so much as to destroy all possibility of doubt.
>
> We will have to 'agree we disagree' on that - to me the observed
> *pattern* of belief worldwide is inconsistent with such a supposition.
>
in what way?...
are you now claiming that people see or experience nothing?
or are you claiming that proof is abundant?
one can be shown things, and one may be able to do things, but that does not
mean thing wont cop out as soon as they are put to the test, as from what I
can gather this is a common experience.
then again, it may be that I have never had enough belief to try...
> And (as I've mentioned elsewhere) there are questions about the merit
> of simple belief.
>
quite possibly simple belief is either the greatest folley or the greatest
power in this case. in my case, I believe it is a power...
I guess maybe to understand my mindset, one would need to understand my
experience...
> Terry
>
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>people are given enough so that many will believe, and many do believe,
>>>but not so much as to destroy all possibility of doubt.
>>
>> We will have to 'agree we disagree' on that - to me the observed
>> *pattern* of belief worldwide is inconsistent with such a supposition.
>
>in what way?...
>
>are you now claiming that people see or experience nothing?
>or are you claiming that proof is abundant?
>
Neither - I'm saying (apart from when outside interference occurs),
the majority of people around the world take on the faith(s) of those
around them - And where (internal) differences do occur, it's often
just a variation on these (e.g. the splitting of Protestants from the
Catholic Church).
Or a tendency towards secularism, either openly or by a merely token
adherence to religion.
In other words, if something *is* happening which gives insights other
than those of the 'home town faith' it doesn't appear to influence any
significant numbers of people. Unless of course they're hiding this
for fear of social reprisal.
It does seem true that the greatest variety occurs in regions such as
Western Europe & parts of North America where the social pressures to
observe the 'right' religion are minimal. But it is just that -
*variety* rather than any particular trend. So again no real
indication of any significant numbers of individuals receiving
insights from a coherent 'source' - at most a general trend towards
'New Age', Occult, Neo-Paganism, Mysticism. Plus more recently,
somewhat towards "you're told what to think and believe" versions of
Christianity & Islam.
>I guess maybe to understand my mindset, one would need to understand my
>experience...
Likewise - Though this does appear to weigh against this being
something equally available to all, does it not?
Terry
cr88192
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:42:58 +1000, "cr88192"
> <cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>however, there will be those who hunt down and kill those who have belief.
>>it is "claimed" they can keep their belief, but only by also accepting
>>beliefs which oppose him and effectively render their first beliefs void.
>>
>>this happens many places already, but so many seem not to notice or care.
>>
> Religion is just *one* of the belief systems which employ coerced
> 'conversion' - Consider Communism for example, or the separation and
> 'education' of the children of native peoples (US in America, UK in
> Australia).
>
> I live in London, a prime target for 'fundamentalist' attacks, but
> we've been equally at risk from the IRA who are basically *political*
> terrorists.
>
> IOW it's not an issue of religion per sec, but of intractable 'belief
> by belief', simple conviction that they are *right*, and so everyone
> who disagrees with them are 'legitimate' targets.
>
then again, how can one be completely sure the IRA isn't right in this
case?...
ok, I will state that, personally, I disagree with their tactics.
>>> Personally I would desire non-existence after physical death.
>>>
>>> Obviously no sensible person would want suffering, but the criteria
>>> for 'redemption' are complex and contradictory - and apparently
>>> require me to believe in things which I find incredible (in the
>>> literal sense of the word).
>>>
>>> And the variants of god as described in the three 'book' religions are
>>> none of them ones with which I would care to spend eternity - So
>>> overall, total oblivion would be the rational choice (for me).
>>
>>in a way, this can be gained, and in a way, this is the cost...
>
> I don't understand what you're trying to say here ...
>
I am not entirely sure myself sometimes...
> (Unless you're saying that in your belief system there is an 'oblivion
> option' but that this would preclude the chance of 'heaven'?)
>
I am not entirely sure where the border lies between oblivion and damnation.
in my mind, I can't completely seperate the concepts, much less can I
describe what I can see...
there is no time, it could be an instant or it could be an eternity, and it
could be nothing or it could be endless pain. it could be that it is all
these things at once.
personally, I can't see past the border (which varies from a tiny opening to
a massive lake, to a film which is everywhere but imperceptibly thin).
a lot of this gets into parts of my thoughts that I have no real idea how to
describe...
not everyone goes there though, some instead go to heaven, or may just
remain where they are.
>>or would you rather have a queen that claims you are free to do anything
>>you
>>want and that there is no real punishment for ones thoughts and actions?
>>
> As I've said elsewhere, I believe in morality (and try to act within
> it as far as I can), just not in a morality based on the 'authority'
> of religions and deities which I don't believe in.
>
ok.
however, in this case, I wasn't really talking about morality, but more
about this figure. I don't know why I can see her, sensibly under my current
beliefs she should have disappeared. some things are harder to dispell than
others.
she has many names, and references to her are frequent in many things. she
is also an enemy of the creator, yet many regard her as a deity, and many
more seem to follow her ways (whether or not they are fully aware).
however, for now I don't feel like mentioning any of the names, in a way it
is horrid enough that I know them...
I guess, if one can stay away, that is at least worth something...
one can be glad if they never see her and never know her influence and
destruction...
there are things I could say but I feel I would rather not.
> And as I've also said elsewhere, in the secular realm, compliance with
> the law and social standards would be unworkable without the active
> compliance of the bulk of the population - not just fear of
> punishment. Outside of murder, how many criminals 'get away with it'?
> (And even those who don't, don't *expect* to get caught).
>
yeah.
> With religion - how many people believe that they believe, but do
> wrong anyway? And in this case they can't even claim (if they
> genuinely believe), that they're not going to have to pay in the end.
>
well, keep in mind that I am also not saying that people will be able to
completely avoid sin, however, one of the great gifts is that of the will to
be able to resist said actions.
> So what you present isn't really a realistic picture of people's
> actions.
>
only if we believe that people don't have an ability to excersize restraint,
rather than saying that most don't excersize restraint...
> Terry
>
toto
wrote:
>I live in London, a prime target for 'fundamentalist' attacks, but
>we've been equally at risk from the IRA who are basically *political*
>terrorists.
hmmmmmm. So Islamic terrorists are religious, but Catholic terrorists
are political? Odd, that. If the oppression in Ireland was not
based on differences of religion, perhaps that would be true, but the
oppression has been based on religion, not just politics.
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
The Outer Limits
Terry Jones
>>I live in London, a prime target for 'fundamentalist' attacks, but
>>we've been equally at risk from the IRA who are basically *political*
>>terrorists.
>
>hmmmmmm. So Islamic terrorists are religious, but Catholic terrorists
>are political? Odd, that. If the oppression in Ireland was not
>based on differences of religion, perhaps that would be true, but the
>oppression has been based on religion, not just politics.
Well their public goals are political rather than religious - they
were the Irish *Republican* Army with the aim of an independent
Ireland. Although it's true that after the partition they mostly found
support & shelter in Northern Ireland amongst the Catholics (who of
course have equal legal rights as anyone else, but did indeed [in
certain areas] legitimately feel threatened by some elements of the
Protestant community).
But if you prefer I'll substitute ETA for the IRA as an example of
purely secular terrorists. - The point I was trying to make is that
people kill and get killed as much on the basis of political 'faith'
as they do on the basis of religion.
Therefore I see 'the mechanism of faith' as the problem, not religion
per sec.
Terry
Terry Jones
>but Catholic terrorists are political?
That is indeed how it started out - With the Pope acting politically
authorising 'good Catholics' to assassinate the English Monarch. For a
long time Catholics were, with reason, seen as a credible *political*
threat, with conflicted loyalties *in the secular arena* - i.e. who
was to be head of state. (Or at least who *wasn't*).
The (Catholic) Gunpowder Plot against King James didn't help either.
There's a useful summary of the period at:
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/ENGLAND.HTM
Terry
cr88192
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:31:37 +1000, "cr88192"
> <cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>people are given enough so that many will believe, and many do believe,
>>>>but not so much as to destroy all possibility of doubt.
>>>
>>> We will have to 'agree we disagree' on that - to me the observed
>>> *pattern* of belief worldwide is inconsistent with such a supposition.
>>
>>in what way?...
>>
>>are you now claiming that people see or experience nothing?
>>or are you claiming that proof is abundant?
>>
> Neither - I'm saying (apart from when outside interference occurs),
> the majority of people around the world take on the faith(s) of those
> around them - And where (internal) differences do occur, it's often
> just a variation on these (e.g. the splitting of Protestants from the
> Catholic Church).
>
> Or a tendency towards secularism, either openly or by a merely token
> adherence to religion.
>
ok.
> In other words, if something *is* happening which gives insights other
> than those of the 'home town faith' it doesn't appear to influence any
> significant numbers of people. Unless of course they're hiding this
> for fear of social reprisal.
>
makes sense.
> It does seem true that the greatest variety occurs in regions such as
> Western Europe & parts of North America where the social pressures to
> observe the 'right' religion are minimal. But it is just that -
> *variety* rather than any particular trend. So again no real
> indication of any significant numbers of individuals receiving
> insights from a coherent 'source' - at most a general trend towards
> 'New Age', Occult, Neo-Paganism, Mysticism. Plus more recently,
> somewhat towards "you're told what to think and believe" versions of
> Christianity & Islam.
>
I am not sure where I fall in, but I am right now paranoid that I may be
drifting into the occult realms. then I am told not to be afraid, but it is
difficult sometimes.
>>I guess maybe to understand my mindset, one would need to understand my
>>experience...
>
> Likewise - Though this does appear to weigh against this being
> something equally available to all, does it not?
>
I doubt I am that unique.
one of the more unsettling things I find is when I become aware of
something, and check with wikipedia, and it says very similar stuff (more
so, answering a few questions that I did not know the answers to).
I guess if there is one thing to fear asking for, it is that of knowing the
truth. it is a hole, where one can dig and unearth new details, each time
with new and unsettling things.
one has to wonder if this could be classified as a blessing or a curse, or
if now my sanity is gone.
or maybe it that a happy and cheerful notion of religion is out of reach. so
many things seem to be known, at least partly, but so much is kept hidden.
then again, these things don't lead to salvation, but maybe I have a reason
for knowing them?...
then again, maybe all this is a trick?...
I don't know...
> Terry
>
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>I am not sure where I fall in, but I am right now paranoid that I may be
>drifting into the occult realms. then I am told not to be afraid, but it is
>difficult sometimes.
Well, in the sense of something 'hidden from view' - that might be
good or bad, pleasant of frightening, interesting or even boring. But
if it's something which you're uncomfortable about, then best stay
away - Even a child soon learns that "You'll like this" or "This won't
hurt a bit", are often not true.
>one of the more unsettling things I find is when I become aware of
>something, and check with wikipedia, and it says very similar stuff (more
>so, answering a few questions that I did not know the answers to).
Or it could be that the human mind handles input which doesn't make
sense to it in certain consistent ways - That is the case in the
sensory realms, which is why optical illusions 'work' (produce a
predicable result), why people 'hear' voices speaking in random noise,
etc..
What you're finding in Wikipedia *may* be more a result of the common
way the human mind works, the way it interprets these inputs, rather
than of the nature of the 'it' which is being observed.
>I guess if there is one thing to fear asking for, it is that of knowing the
>truth. it is a hole, where one can dig and unearth new details, each time
>with new and unsettling things.
>
>one has to wonder if this could be classified as a blessing or a curse, or
>if now my sanity is gone.
>
>or maybe it that a happy and cheerful notion of religion is out of reach. so
>many things seem to be known, at least partly, but so much is kept hidden.
>then again, these things don't lead to salvation, but maybe I have a reason
>for knowing them?...
One thing about the Christian description of Heaven, the Islamic
Paradise, the Norse Valhalla, etc., is that they all sound pretty
*repetitious*, as if they'd rapidly become boring to anyone with much
of a mind.
Perhaps the real reward is the opportunity to explore and try to
understand the *whole* (which of necessity is going to include the
unpleasant as well as the pleasing) - An infinity long exploration and
learning, rather than 'happy clappy', or 'party, party'?
>then again, maybe all this is a trick?...
That too is possible, though more likely is a *mixture* of trickery
and truth - Though remember that the most effective deceptions are
based on using just the truth - but only a selective part of it.
Terry
Terry Jones
<cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>then again, how can one be completely sure the IRA isn't right in this
>case?...
>
>ok, I will state that, personally, I disagree with their tactics.
Well for one thing the 'Irish' claim to the land is no better and no
different to that of the English - right of conquest. They likewise
conquered or otherwise came to dominate an existing populace - Just as
neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians can claim to be the original
inhabitants of the land they are fighting over.
>I am not entirely sure where the border lies between oblivion and damnation.
>in my mind, I can't completely seperate the concepts, much less can I
>describe what I can see...
True oblivion is simply the end - no consciousness, no awareness,
neither time nor timelessness - nor even the possibility of any of
these.
>> With religion - how many people believe that they believe, but do
>> wrong anyway? And in this case they can't even claim (if they
>> genuinely believe), that they're not going to have to pay in the end.
>
>well, keep in mind that I am also not saying that people will be able to
>completely avoid sin, however, one of the great gifts is that of the will to
>be able to resist said actions.
>
>> So what you present isn't really a realistic picture of people's
>> actions.
>
>only if we believe that people don't have an ability to excersize restraint,
>rather than saying that most don't excersize restraint...
As an autistic, I'm familiar with areas where my behaviour is very
clearly not within my control - though that's more often in the area
of *not* being able to do / act than the reverse.
So in a way I'm trying to work backwards - from what (ordinary) people
*actually* do, to the reality, rather than the fictions which they
tell each other.
Terry
The autist formerly known as
and there allies fought for money changing sides depending on the size of
the bribes.
One man Sir John Hawkwood bled Italy dry before he ended up bankrupt himself
and died in his in bed.
This was long before the reformation when Catholic fought Catholic and never
gave a damn about religion cos was politics and power pure and simple.
--
şT
L'autisme c'est moi
"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"
"Terry Jones" <terry...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:1dbl92ttmq77stfbq...@4ax.com...
cr88192
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 01:18:07 +1000, "cr88192"
> <cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I am not sure where I fall in, but I am right now paranoid that I may be
>>drifting into the occult realms. then I am told not to be afraid, but it
>>is
>>difficult sometimes.
>
> Well, in the sense of something 'hidden from view' - that might be
> good or bad, pleasant of frightening, interesting or even boring. But
> if it's something which you're uncomfortable about, then best stay
> away - Even a child soon learns that "You'll like this" or "This won't
> hurt a bit", are often not true.
>
yes.
maybe it is that people are not told some things, even if known, because
many would be afraid.
>>one of the more unsettling things I find is when I become aware of
>>something, and check with wikipedia, and it says very similar stuff (more
>>so, answering a few questions that I did not know the answers to).
>
> Or it could be that the human mind handles input which doesn't make
> sense to it in certain consistent ways - That is the case in the
> sensory realms, which is why optical illusions 'work' (produce a
> predicable result), why people 'hear' voices speaking in random noise,
> etc..
>
> What you're finding in Wikipedia *may* be more a result of the common
> way the human mind works, the way it interprets these inputs, rather
> than of the nature of the 'it' which is being observed.
>
same figure, pretty much the same description, and the same name.
the same figure has a different name, and is viewed by many as a deity.
the scary thing is realizing that they are the same, and how many follow in
her ways...
apart from another, much more well known figure, she is the most powerful. I
suspect both are bound together in a way neither can escape.
>>I guess if there is one thing to fear asking for, it is that of knowing
>>the
>>truth. it is a hole, where one can dig and unearth new details, each time
>>with new and unsettling things.
>>
>>one has to wonder if this could be classified as a blessing or a curse, or
>>if now my sanity is gone.
>>
>>or maybe it that a happy and cheerful notion of religion is out of reach.
>>so
>>many things seem to be known, at least partly, but so much is kept hidden.
>>then again, these things don't lead to salvation, but maybe I have a
>>reason
>>for knowing them?...
>
> One thing about the Christian description of Heaven, the Islamic
> Paradise, the Norse Valhalla, etc., is that they all sound pretty
> *repetitious*, as if they'd rapidly become boring to anyone with much
> of a mind.
>
unless humans are still allowed to persue things...
> Perhaps the real reward is the opportunity to explore and try to
> understand the *whole* (which of necessity is going to include the
> unpleasant as well as the pleasing) - An infinity long exploration and
> learning, rather than 'happy clappy', or 'party, party'?
>
quite possibly.
multiple sides. what is commonly shown is the nature of the good side, but
rarely mentioned as much is the nature of the opposite.
it seems that references to specific figures are common but obscure, and if
one becomes aware of them, these references stick out very strongly.
>>then again, maybe all this is a trick?...
>
> That too is possible, though more likely is a *mixture* of trickery
> and truth - Though remember that the most effective deceptions are
> based on using just the truth - but only a selective part of it.
>
makes sense, and I think this has been used in the past.
long ago, religion had once lost its way, but had since found it again. then
again, mr smith couldn't have gained so many followers had he mentioned that
the authority had been regained...
against my usual ways, that is a religion I do feel is wrong. an outward
surface that is a mimick of the others, but a core that has secretly changed
their deity, and has left enough details to point this one out, but enough
covering to conceal this.
the figure mentioned above, of 2 supposed deities (male and female) bound
together, is one opposed by the one I hear.
and then they will conceal the fact that they have made this their deity.
now, they are not the only ones, but they go and try to pass them off in the
name of the creator, which I feel is worse.
so, I will say, the creator does not have a human form, and the creator is
not married. this is someone else.
> Terry
>
cr88192
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:42:43 +1000, "cr88192"
> <cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>then again, how can one be completely sure the IRA isn't right in this
>>case?...
>>
>>ok, I will state that, personally, I disagree with their tactics.
>
> Well for one thing the 'Irish' claim to the land is no better and no
> different to that of the English - right of conquest. They likewise
> conquered or otherwise came to dominate an existing populace - Just as
> neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians can claim to be the original
> inhabitants of the land they are fighting over.
>
afaik, the land was once known as canaan, and presumably the descendants of
Abraham (including both the israelis and the palestinians) intermarried at
least to some extent with the canaanites (eg, since they lived in the same
area and on peaceful terms, at least for a while).
>>I am not entirely sure where the border lies between oblivion and
>>damnation.
>>in my mind, I can't completely seperate the concepts, much less can I
>>describe what I can see...
>
> True oblivion is simply the end - no consciousness, no awareness,
> neither time nor timelessness - nor even the possibility of any of
> these.
>
well, then, it seems you have a different concept...
>>> With religion - how many people believe that they believe, but do
>>> wrong anyway? And in this case they can't even claim (if they
>>> genuinely believe), that they're not going to have to pay in the end.
>>
>>well, keep in mind that I am also not saying that people will be able to
>>completely avoid sin, however, one of the great gifts is that of the will
>>to
>>be able to resist said actions.
>>
>>> So what you present isn't really a realistic picture of people's
>>> actions.
>>
>>only if we believe that people don't have an ability to excersize
>>restraint,
>>rather than saying that most don't excersize restraint...
>
> As an autistic, I'm familiar with areas where my behaviour is very
> clearly not within my control - though that's more often in the area
> of *not* being able to do / act than the reverse.
>
yes, I know this one...
note that I am AS, as much as my recent line of topics probably seems to
imply otherwise.
but, yeah, restraint is a lot easier than free-form actions, which is partly
why I have not been claimimg much credit for things I haven't done (my
failings are largely not what most would even consider as such, as my
failings largely exist within my own mind).
of course, I have done some things wrong as well, eg, around 1 week ago I
was asked something, but in the name of not being complained to incesently I
gave an incorrect answer. grr, something I have like a month left to do but
just can't motivate myself to do it...
stupid vb database crap, vb teh sucks, as instead of just writing things,
people are given all this pointy-clicky crap, and I don't really know vb
anyways, yet I am expected to understand it intuitively or something because
of longstanding fammiliarity with c...
in a way, I am compelled to do coding, but not that, which is much closer to
being a lame farse...
at the same time, it seems I can't escape working on more interesting
things, eg: a script lang interpreter. ok, progress has been slow given the
masses of time going into everything else (several weeks in, and the
interpreter is not even fully implemented).
days in which in one can look seemingly do something momentarily and then
discover it to be several hours later...
> So in a way I'm trying to work backwards - from what (ordinary) people
> *actually* do, to the reality, rather than the fictions which they
> tell each other.
>
and I will make the claim that "ordinary" people are not a good model for
truth or morality, unless of course the goal is behavioral prediction, in
which case it is a much better model...
much more likely, people are a much better model of their failures...
the discrepency does imply something, and that something is an important
detail of religion as well: all are guilty of sin, and no one is capable of
upholding the laws which they were given.
it can be well noted that moses had violated at least some of the laws that
were given (for example, he had gotten angy and killed someone).
so, the point is not that people can upheld these laws, but more that they
should at least try, and if they are honest and faithful they can be
forgiven for their failings.
if a person claims to believe but says that they do not sin, that is itself
a major warning.
> Terry
>
Terry Jones
<o...@ym.andius> wrote:
>And there was a time when there were more than one claimant to the Papacy
>and there allies fought for money changing sides depending on the size of
>the bribes.
>
I'm trying to remember - wasn't there a break in the 'Apostolic
succession'? So can the present linage legitimately claim to be the
heirs of the rock apostle, or not?
>One man Sir John Hawkwood bled Italy dry before he ended up bankrupt himself
>and died in his in bed.
And ended up with a fake (trompe l'oeil) tomb instead of the real
thing :)
Terry
Stephen Wilson
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:42:43 +1000, "cr88192"
> <cr8...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>then again, how can one be completely sure the IRA isn't right in this
>>case?...
>>
>>ok, I will state that, personally, I disagree with their tactics.
>
> Well for one thing the 'Irish' claim to the land is no better and no
> different to that of the English - right of conquest. They likewise
> conquered or otherwise came to dominate an existing populace - Just as
> neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians can claim to be the original
> inhabitants of the land they are fighting over.
I don't get any of it. I was born on a particular piece of land. I had no
choice in this matter. Does it define who I am?
I am not English. I am not Welsh. I am not French. I am not German. I am not
Candadian, American, African or anything else. I am a human being and I live
on planet Earth.
Stephen Wilson
Life after death. Eternal life. Sounds like a punishment to me. I hope that
when I die, that's it. No eternal life, strumming harps on fluffy clouds.
That is on the assumption I've worshipped Jesus every day. And no eternal
life stuck in the fires of hell.
Nope, I don't need, and don't want, to go on to a life after this.
Having said that, I'm quite happy with the life I've got. It's not perfect,
but it's interesting.