SEEING THE FACE OF GOD
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
THE HINDUSTAN TIMES
Yahoo! News
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
A common complaint against God is that He doesn't appear
before us. Saints say that He does come, but we fail to
recognize Him because we expect God to put on the costume
of our favourite deity whereas All-Pervading God appears in
any form He pleases, as a dog to Namdev, a man-lion to
Hiranyakashipu, a parrot to Tulsidas.
Shirdi Sai Baba personally told a devotee that he had come
as a hungry dog to his door but the devotee had shooed him
away. Last Saturday at 6.00 a.m., while worshipping Shiva
in the temple, wild barking jolted me.
I ran out with the beggars and flower sellers and we saw a
malnourished male calf trying to dodge ferocious dogs that
were biting at its legs. I shooed them away and it scurried
inside the temple compound and stood shivering in front of
the shivling.
Its right ear was completely bitten and one leg had old
wounds covered with flies. The calf stood there bleeding
and trembling.
I asked the priest if he had antiseptic but he shifted his
position and continued reading Sunder Kanda, the Ramayana
section about God and His animal friends. The flower seller
coaxed the calf outside the temple and I ran to get help.
A good soul at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital asked me to call
9810394051, a Gau Seva Sansthan in Munirka (near JNU) that
helps animals and birds in distress. It was the number of
Chowdhury Mahendra Singh Tokas's truck driver, Pratap.
Pratap assured us he would come if we remained with the
calf. Meanwhile the beggars had decided it was wrong to tie
an injured calf and released it.
The calf trotted away and I tracked it to a kanwaria camp.
That was uncanny, this little Nandi going to a Shiv-sthal.
We called Pratap to tell him our new location. He took away
the calf, but not before the police pulled up and accused
us of injuring it ourselves! Incidentally, Chowdhury
Mahendra Singh accepts no donations for these services, in
the true spirit of seva.
More at:
http://in.news.yahoo.com/32/20080819/1056/tnl-seeing-the-face-of-god.html
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Dutch
> Seeing the face of God
>
> THE HINDUSTAN TIMES
> Yahoo! News
> Tuesday, August 19, 2008
>
> A common complaint against God is that He doesn't appear
> before us. Saints say that He does come, but we fail to
> recognize Him because we expect God to put on the costume
> of our favourite deity whereas All-Pervading God appears in
> any form He pleases, as a dog to Namdev, a man-lion to
> Hiranyakashipu, a parrot to Tulsidas.
This is nonsense. Anyone with the slightest genuine
spiritual knowledge knows that God is in all things.
dh
Who's that?
>'s truck driver, Pratap.
>
>Pratap assured us he would come if we remained with the
>calf. Meanwhile the beggars had decided it was wrong to tie
>an injured calf and released it.
Are beggars the authority over such things?
>The calf trotted away and I tracked it to a kanwaria camp.
>That was uncanny, this little Nandi going to a Shiv-sthal.
Why?
>We called Pratap to tell him our new location. He took away
>the calf, but not before the police pulled up and accused
>us of injuring it ourselves!
Who did they think bit the ear off? Who did they think
bit the legs?
>Incidentally, Chowdhury
>Mahendra Singh accepts no donations for these services, in
>the true spirit of seva.
What did he do with the calf?
dh
>not-a-doctor/not-a-Hindoo Jay Douchebag Stevens blabbered:
>> Seeing the face of God
>>
>> THE HINDUSTAN TIMES
>> Yahoo! News
>> Tuesday, August 19, 2008
>>
>> A common complaint against God is that He doesn't appear
>> before us.
>
>You're an idiot.
It is a common complaint Goober...very common. In fact
Goo you have more than likely done some bitching about it
yourself more than once, you idiot.
dh
Maybe he is. Maybe he's not. Maybe Goo thinks you're
a moron for believing that, unless of course you are Goo
in which case it's probably another question of how you
think you disagree with yourself.
Dutch
Even you. Deep beneath all the semi-coherent
blabbering there is an essential presence that is god.
dh
>You're an idiot too
At least I can understand some reasons why God would
avoid meeting people face to face, or even allow proof of
his existence if he does exist Goo. You can't.
dh
Maybe, if God exists. There's certainly no reason to believe
he's "in" every rock, "in" the wind, "in" water, or any other
inanimate object including the majority of objects in space.
uNmaiviLambi
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> This is nonsense. Anyone with the slightest genuine
> spiritual knowledge knows that God is in all things.
God has many forms. It is true that the whole universe in His form,
all forms are His form. However, He can come and does come in other
forms. He came personally as Lord Krishna and taught us, lived amidst
us for our sake. The universe does not teach us except through the
pain we suffer from if we care to learn! Thirdly, He comes as sages
and saints. The Gita says everything excellent and dharmic is His
aspect ( amsa) only.
Kerry Ladd
> On Aug 20, 5:04 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
>
>>This is nonsense. Anyone with the slightest genuine
>>spiritual knowledge knows that God is in all things.
>
>
> God has many forms.
Indeed!
God is in all MEAT!
Eat meat, and YOU will have "gods" in you!
uNmaiviLambi
Yes. God is in meat as well. Eating meat is a sign of moral weakness.
It is wrong as 1) it is against ecology 2) against ethics to injure or
kill another life form for our pleasure and it is better to avoid that
as much as possible 3) for health reasons better to avoid meat.
However if you have to eat meat, eat with remorse and avoid large
animals such as pigs, beef and at least abstain one day a week.
See:
Kerry Ladd
> On Aug 24, 3:47 pm, Kerry Ladd <G...@Bass.gov.> wrote:
>
>>uNmaiviLambi wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 20, 5:04 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Indeed!
>>God is in all MEAT!
>>
>>Eat meat, and YOU will have "gods" in you!
>
>
> Yes. God is in meat as well. Eating meat is a sign of moral weakness.
On the contrary.
Eating MEAT is a sign of mental, AND physical superiority!
To actually harvest and cultivate you lesser animals to fill our tummies
is a sign of superiority.
Mankind (including Indians) have been eating whatever we/they could
stuff into out gullets for well over a million years!
When we learned about more about cooking and BBQ, then "we" got even
better.. and smarter!
Well, except you!
After all, Fish IS brain food, and look what happened to you!
> It is wrong as 1) it is against ecology 2) against ethics to injure or
> kill another life form for our pleasure and it is better to avoid that
> as much as possible 3) for health reasons better to avoid meat.
Like I said.
Brain Food escaped you!
Eating meat is NOT against "ecology"
After all, you stump stupid Hindu's raise cows just to WORSHIP them...
and force your children to drink their milk because the little girls you
RAPE aren't old enough to grow tits to raise-n-feed the children you
make, and them leave alone!
You IDIOTS, over 1 billion strong, refuse to take care of your own!
> However if you have to eat meat, eat with remorse and avoid large
> animals such as pigs, beef and at least abstain one day a week.
>
> See:
Facts from YOU TUBE from a Sikh Hindu is what YOU base your crap on?
Holy fuck!
Are you stump stupid or what?
I eat meat with great JOY each and every god damned day!
No wonder you morons can't win at the Olympics!
Dutch
So called "inanimate objects" like rocks are actually
99.999% empty space populated with dynamic atomic
structures and forces, as are plants, animals, and
space itself. The solid, inert appearance of a rock
comes from a limitation of our powers of perception.
If god is an all-powerful force then it makes no sense
that it would only exist in some parts of the
universe and not in others.
Kerry Ladd
The beef-n-chedder is Soooooo good-n-tasty!
Get one with extra "horsey sauce" and you will never think twice about
that curried rice flavored crap that you drink with you own urine you
think is so tastey!
Funny how you Hindu's seem to love to drink your own piss, like your
hero Ghandi did!
You Hindu's are a fucked lot.
Dutch
> On Aug 20, 5:04 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
>> This is nonsense. Anyone with the slightest genuine
>> spiritual knowledge knows that God is in all things.
>
> God has many forms. It is true that the whole universe in His form,
> all forms are His form. However, He can come and does come in other
> forms.
That is contradictory. If god is all forms then there
are no "other forms".
> He came personally as Lord Krishna
He is here now as you, as the tree outside the window,
the flower in the pot on the window sill, the cat
sleeping on the chair.
> and taught us, lived amidst
> us for our sake.
He lived, as each of us lives, as a manifestation of
that force we call god. He understood it and tried to
pass on that wisdom, but as in the case of all
spiritual teachings, the message became lost in the
false path of "worship" and the dogma of ritualism.
> The universe does not teach us except through the
> pain we suffer from if we care to learn!
There is nothing you need to learn, everything you
need is here right NOW, always.
Thirdly, He comes as sages
> and saints. The Gita says everything excellent and dharmic is His
> aspect ( amsa) only.
Shhhh.. no more labels, be still and BE god.
Dutch
> On Aug 24, 3:47 pm, Kerry Ladd <G...@Bass.gov.> wrote:
>> uNmaiviLambi wrote:
>>> On Aug 20, 5:04 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Indeed!
>> God is in all MEAT!
>>
>> Eat meat, and YOU will have "gods" in you!
>
> Yes. God is in meat as well. Eating meat is a sign of moral weakness.
> It is wrong as 1) it is against ecology
Not necessarily, grazing is the ideal use for a large
portion of the land on earth. Grazing animals and
grasses are ideal symbiotic ecological partners.
2) against ethics to injure or
> kill another life form for our pleasure
Eating is not only a pleasure, it is survival.
> and it is better to avoid that
> as much as possible
All agriculture causes animal death.
3) for health reasons better to avoid meat.
No, it is better to avoid excess.
> However if you have to eat meat, eat with remorse
That is terrible spiritual advice, as with all acts in
life, eating should always be done with joy and gratitude.
and avoid large
> animals such as pigs, beef and at least abstain one day a week.
One large animal may feed a person a thousand meals,
while a few servings of rice may have caused the death
of a rodent or lizard in the field.
With respect, an eastern sounding name does not endow
a being with spiritual wisdom. Your path demonstrates
a need for silence and contemplation.
pearl
> uNmaiviLambi wrote:
Namaste, Ji. Hope you don't mind... :).
> > On Aug 24, 3:47 pm, Kerry Ladd <G...@Bass.gov.> wrote:
> >> uNmaiviLambi wrote:
> >>> On Aug 20, 5:04 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Indeed!
> >> God is in all MEAT!
> >>
> >> Eat meat, and YOU will have "gods" in you!
> >
> > Yes. God is in meat as well. Eating meat is a sign of moral weakness.
> > It is wrong as 1) it is against ecology
>
> Not necessarily, grazing is the ideal use for a large
> portion of the land on earth. Grazing animals and
> grasses are ideal symbiotic ecological partners.
'When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the
livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-
related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful
greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide,
which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2.
Most of this comes from manure.
And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced methane
(23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive
system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes
significantly to acid rain.
Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly
permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land
used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are
cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation,
especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of
former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.
Land and water
At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about
20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing,
compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands
where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management
contribute to advancing desertification.
The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the
earth's increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other
things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral
reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and
hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used
to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles,
reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources.
Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.
Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source of phosphorous
and nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to
biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems.
Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20 percent of all
terrestrial animal biomass. Livestock's presence in vast tracts of land
and its demand for feed crops also contribute to biodiversity loss; 15
out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed as in decline,
with livestock identified as a culprit.
..'
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
> 2) against ethics to injure or
> > kill another life form for our pleasure
>
> Eating is not only a pleasure, it is survival.
'Throughout the Third World, livestock production is monopolizing the
best land, undermining the local food supply, and barring the efforts of
citizens to become food self-reliant. The trend continues to this day.
The WTO, USAID, and development banks increase the trade in
animal products, while U.S. corporations continue to reap the benefits.
..'
http://slingshot.tao.ca/displaybi.php?0070003
'By eating different species of crops and a more or less vegetarian diet
people can change the number that a plot can feed. And large numbers
of people do change their diets. The calories and protein available from
present cropland could provide a vegetarian diet to ten billion people.
A diet requiring food and feed totaling 6,000 calories daily for ten billion
people, however, would overwhelm the capability of present agriculture
on present cropland. The global totals of sun, CO2, fertilizer, and even
water could produce far more food than what ten billion people need.
- Technological Trajectories and the Human Environment. 1997.
Pp. 56-73. Washington, DC: National Academy Press "How Much
Land Can Ten Billion People Spare for Nature?"
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4767&page=56
> > and it is better to avoid that
> > as much as possible
>
> All agriculture causes animal death.
'SEVEN STOREYS OF ABUNDANCE; A VISIT TO ROBERT
HART'S FOREST GARDEN
Following the Permaculture Design Course run by 'Naturewise' in the
Spring 1997, a group of graduates decided to visit what has been
described as possibly the only fully developed working Permaculture
site in the UK, Robert Hart's Forest Garden.
Situated at Wenlock Edge on the Welsh borders, Robert began the
project over thirty years ago with the intention of providing a healthy
and therapuetic environment for himself and his brother Lacon, born
with severe learning disabilities.
Starting as relatively conventional smallholders, Robert soon discovered
that maintaining large annual vegetable beds, rearing livestock and taking
care of an orchard were tasks beyond their strength. However, he also
observed that a small bed of perennial vegetables and herbs they had
planted up was looking after itself with little or no intervention.
Furthermore, these plants provided interesting and unusual additions to
the diet, as well as seeming to promote health and vigour in both body
and mind.
Noting the maxim of Hippocrates to "make food your medicine and
medicine your food", Robert adopted a vegan, 90% raw food diet.
He also began to examine the interactions and relationships that take
place between plants in natural systems, particularly in woodland, the
climax eco-system of a cool temperate region such as the British Isles.
This led him to evolve the concept of the 'Forest Garden': Based on the
observation that the natural forest can be divided into distinct layers or
'storeys', he developed an existing small orchard of apples and pears
into an edible landscape consisting of seven dimensions;
I) A 'canopy' layer consisting of the original mature fruit trees.
2) A 'low-tree' layer of smaller nut and fruit trees on dwarfing
root stocks.
3) A 'shrub layer' of fruit bushes such as currants and berries.
4) A 'herbaceous layer' of perennial vegetables and herbs.
5) A 'ground cover' layer of edible plants that spread horizontally.
6) A 'rhizosphere' or 'underground' dimension of plants grown
for their roots and tubers.
7) A vertical 'layer' of vines and climbers.
[illustration -
The Forest Garden: A Seven Level Beneficial Guild
1. Canopy (large fruit and nut trees)
2. Low tree layer (dwarf fruit trees)
3. Shrub layer (currants and berries)
4. Herbaceous (comfreys, beets, herbs)
5. Rhizosphere (root vegetables)
6. Soil surface (ground cover, eg. strawberry, etc)
7. Vertical layer (climbers, vines) ]
Stepping into the Forest Garden is like entering another world. All
around is lushness and abundance, a sharp contrast to the dust bowl
aridity of the surrounding prairie farmed fields and farmlands. At
first the sheer profusion of growth is bewildering, like entering a
wild wood. We're not used to productive landscapes appearing so
disorderly. But it doesn't take long for the true harmony of nature's
systems to reveal themselves, and the realisation sinks in that in fact
it is the Agribiz monocultures, with their heavy machinery, genetic
manipulation, erosion, high water inputs, pesticides and fertilisers
which are in a total state of maintained chaos. Whereas hectares of
land may produce bushel after bushel of but one crop, genetically
degraded and totally vulnerable to ever more virulent strains of pest
and disease without the dubious protection of massive chemical
inputs, just an eighth of an acre of a garden such as Robert's can
output a tremendous variety of yields. Whilst too early in the year for
the apples, plums and pears beginning to swell in the trees, we were
surrounded by gluts of black, red and whitecurrants, gooseberries,
raspberries and loganberries; as well as a profusion of saladings
such as sorrel, lovage, tree-onions, wild garlic, borage, lemon balm
and many other herbs.
Foraging a meal for the nine of us was an extremely enjoyable task,
not like work at all. Robert, a gentle and erudite man, yet possessed
of a great clarity of purpose, joined us for our campfire feast. As we
sat and chatted into the evening he explained his motivations and
hopes for the future. Of his plans to expand the original Forest Garden,
and his dream of a network of such gardens covering not only Britain
but the world, bringing an abundance of natural food, and healing to
both peoplekind and the planet. He spoke of his philosophical
inspiration by figures as diverse as John Seymour, Ghandi, Kropotkin
and Kagawa; of the antecedents of the Forest Garden such as the
'home gardens' of Kerala, where most of the land is covered with
productive trees; and later sang us songs that he used to share with
his late brother Lacon, including those of murdered Chilean land and
human rights campaigner Victor Jara.
This was a magical evening, an illustration that perhaps the primary
forces within the Forest Garden are of spirituality and peace. Whilst
being highly productive of nuts, fruits, fresh perennial vegetables
and medicinal herbs, the most important yield of this place is the
reminder that there is much more to how we find sustenance as
human beings than what we consume, than looking at our sources
of nourishment purely in terms of net tonnes per hectare. The
forest garden is an idea whose time has come.
"Obviously, few of us are in a position to restore the forests.. But
tens of millions of us have gardens, or access to open spaces
such as industrial wastelands, where trees can be planted. and if
full advantage can be taken of the potentialities that are available
even in heavily built up areas, new 'city forests' can arise..."
(Robert A.de J.Hart)
GRAHAM BURNETT
Taken from VOHAN News International, issue 2, available from
'Anandavan'
http://www.spiralseed.co.uk/forestgarden/page2.html
> 3) for health reasons better to avoid meat.
>
> No, it is better to avoid excess.
'Plasma lipids and diet groups
The first article published about this study compared concentrations of
total cholesterol and various lipoprotein fractions in 4 diet groups:
vegans, who never ate animal products; vegetarians, who never ate meat
or fish but did eat dairy products, eggs, or both; fish eaters, who ate
fish but no meat; and meat eaters (4). Both total- and LDL-cholesterol
concentrations were significantly lower in vegans than in meat eaters,
whereas vegetarians and fish eaters had similar, intermediate values.
HDL-cholesterol concentrations were highest in fish eaters but did not
differ among the other diet groups.
....
[..] no protective effects were noted for dietary fiber, fish, or alcohol
consumption. Consumption of eggs and cheese were both positively
associated with ischemic heart disease mortality in these subjects (P
for trend, < 0.01 for both foods).
..
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S /
'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
(white meat - fish, poultry)
..
Strong positive trends were shown for red meat intake among subjects who
consumed low levels (0-<1 time/week) of white meat and for white meat
intake among subjects who consumed low levels of (0-<1 time/week) of
red meat. The associations remained evident after further categorization
of the red meat (relative to no red meat intake): relative risk (RR) for
>0-<1 time/week = 1.38, 95 percent CI 0.86-2.20; RR for 1-4 times/week
= 1.77, 95 percent CI 1.05-2.99; and RR for >4 times/week = 1.98, 95
percent CI 1.0-3.89 and white meat (relative to no white meat intake):
RR for >0-<1 time/week = 1.55, 95 percent CI 0.97-2.50; RR for 1-4
times/week = 3.37, 95 percent CI 1.60-7.11; and RR for >4 times/week
= 2.74, 95 percent CI 0.37-20.19 variables to higher intake levels.
..'
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf
etc.
> > However if you have to eat meat, eat with remorse
>
> That is terrible spiritual advice, as with all acts in
> life, eating should always be done with joy and gratitude.
A whole bunch of lies trying to justify your keen fondness for
animal fat; .. blood-sacrifice to yourself, selfish demon, ditch.
> and avoid large
> > animals such as pigs, beef and at least abstain one day a week.
>
> One large animal may feed a person a thousand meals,
> while a few servings of rice may have caused the death
> of a rodent or lizard in the field.
Grasshopper?
> With respect, an eastern sounding name does not endow
> a being with spiritual wisdom. Your path demonstrates
> a need for silence and contemplation.
Follow your own advice!
uNmaiviLambi
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in messagenews:4bksk.112082$nD.12547@pd7urf1no...
> > uNmaiviLambi wrote:
>
> Namaste, Ji. Hope you don't mind... :).
Namasthe, Pearlji! Thanks very much for your elevating thoughts
pearl
I know what you're talking about.. Thanks...
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>> uNmaiviLambi wrote:
<snip orgy of copypasta>
>
>>> However if you have to eat meat, eat with remorse
>> That is terrible spiritual advice, as with all acts in
>> life, eating should always be done with joy and gratitude.
>
> A whole bunch of lies
Where?
> trying to justify your keen fondness for
> animal fat; .. blood-sacrifice to yourself, selfish demon, ditch.
Thanks for the clear example of self-elevation through
demonization.
>
>> and avoid large
>>> animals such as pigs, beef and at least abstain one day a week.
>> One large animal may feed a person a thousand meals,
>> while a few servings of rice may have caused the death
>> of a rodent or lizard in the field.
>
> Grasshopper?
Perhaps, by the thousand.
>
>> With respect, an eastern sounding name does not endow
>> a being with spiritual wisdom. Your path demonstrates
>> a need for silence and contemplation.
>
> Follow your own advice!
I don't use an eastern sounding name in an attempt to
endow my opinions with faux-spiritual cred.
Dutch
Self-elevation, the prime directive of false spirituality.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> >> uNmaiviLambi wrote:
>
> <snip orgy of copypasta>
> >
> >>> However if you have to eat meat, eat with remorse
> >> That is terrible spiritual advice, as with all acts in
> >> life, eating should always be done with joy and gratitude.
> >
> > A whole bunch of lies
>
> Where?
Your orgy of copypasta (memes), fully rebutted by the cites
from authoritative sources which you've predictably snipped.
> > trying to justify your keen fondness for
> > animal fat; .. blood-sacrifice to yourself, selfish demon, ditch.
>
> Thanks for the clear example of self-elevation through
> demonization.
No, ditch, you provide the clear example all on your own.
> >> and avoid large
> >>> animals such as pigs, beef and at least abstain one day a week.
> >> One large animal may feed a person a thousand meals,
> >> while a few servings of rice may have caused the death
> >> of a rodent or lizard in the field.
> >
> > Grasshopper?
>
> Perhaps, by the thousand.
Support your claims with credible evidence.
> >> With respect, an eastern sounding name does not endow
> >> a being with spiritual wisdom. Your path demonstrates
> >> a need for silence and contemplation.
> >
> > Follow your own advice!
>
> I don't use an eastern sounding name in an attempt to
> endow my opinions with faux-spiritual cred.
You so don't know what or whom you're talking about.
pearl
False accusation: the prime directive of self-elevation.
dh
>On Aug 24, 3:47 pm, Kerry Ladd <G...@Bass.gov.> wrote:
>> uNmaiviLambi wrote:
>> > On Aug 20, 5:04 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Indeed!
>> God is in all MEAT!
>>
>> Eat meat, and YOU will have "gods" in you!
>
>Yes. God is in meat as well. Eating meat is a sign of moral weakness.
What if we think some livestock have lives of positive value,
and we contribute to them by being consumers?
>It is wrong as 1) it is against ecology
In the same ways crop farming is.
>2) against ethics to injure or
>kill another life form for our pleasure and it is better to avoid that
>as much as possible
We contribute to the lives of those animals when we consume
their products. Some of them have decent lives of positive value,
while others have horrible lives of negative value.
>3) for health reasons better to avoid meat.
It seems certain that people can eat meat and remain as healthy
as they would if they did not, and quite probably even more healthy.
>However if you have to eat meat, eat with remorse and avoid large
>animals such as pigs,
I don't eat much pork because of the fat content, and also
because I don't know how to feel about the way they are raised
because I haven't been on any hog farms to see for myself.
>beef
Most cattle have decent lives of positive value imo, including
dairy cattle, grass raised beef, and grain fed beef.
>and at least abstain one day a week.
What good would that do?
dh
To me it makes sense that it would exist in things that
have life, but not necessarily things that don't.
dh
>On Aug 20, 5:04 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
>> This is nonsense. Anyone with the slightest genuine
>> spiritual knowledge knows that God is in all things.
>
>God has many forms. It is true that the whole universe in His form,
>all forms are His form. However, He can come and does come in other
>forms. He came personally as Lord Krishna and taught us, lived amidst
>us for our sake.
How about Jesus?
>The universe does not teach us except through the
>pain we suffer from if we care to learn!
It sure has plenty to offer then.
>Thirdly, He comes as sages
>and saints. The Gita says everything excellent and dharmic is His
>aspect ( amsa) only.
If he's in everything then he's in everything, not just
the fun stuff. How exactly do you think you disagree
with yourself about it, do you know?
Dutch
If you drill down to the atomic level all matter is
alive.
Dutch
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:31:17 -0700 (PDT), uNmaiviLambi <tripur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 20, 5:04 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>> This is nonsense. Anyone with the slightest genuine
>>> spiritual knowledge knows that God is in all things.
>> God has many forms. It is true that the whole universe in His form,
>> all forms are His form. However, He can come and does come in other
>> forms. He came personally as Lord Krishna and taught us, lived amidst
>> us for our sake.
>
> How about Jesus?
Jesus tried to get it through to us that "the father"
is in all of us, including "the lilies of fields". We
didn't get it.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:pVpsk.113018$nD.72374@pd7urf1no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>>>> uNmaiviLambi wrote:
>> <snip orgy of copypasta>
>>>>> However if you have to eat meat, eat with remorse
>>>> That is terrible spiritual advice, as with all acts in
>>>> life, eating should always be done with joy and gratitude.
>>> A whole bunch of lies
>> Where?
>
> Your orgy of copypasta (memes), fully rebutted by the cites
> from authoritative sources which you've predictably snipped.
YOUR orgy of copypasta was irrelevant to the exchange.
What lies? False accuser.
>>> trying to justify your keen fondness for
>>> animal fat; .. blood-sacrifice to yourself, selfish demon, ditch.
>> Thanks for the clear example of self-elevation through
>> demonization.
>
> No, ditch, you provide the clear example all on your own.
Bless you dear, YOU used the word "demon", the
"blood-sacrifice" comment was a beauty as well.
>
>>>> and avoid large
>>>>> animals such as pigs, beef and at least abstain one day a week.
>>>> One large animal may feed a person a thousand meals,
>>>> while a few servings of rice may have caused the death
>>>> of a rodent or lizard in the field.
>>> Grasshopper?
>> Perhaps, by the thousand.
>
> Support your claims with credible evidence.
I've seen them on my own farm, two years ago, hundreds
to the square metre. The trees looked like grasshopper
trees. So many that pesticides were ineffective..
http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/pages/index.jsp?what=subjectAreasD&subjectAreasId=24
>
>>>> With respect, an eastern sounding name does not endow
>>>> a being with spiritual wisdom. Your path demonstrates
>>>> a need for silence and contemplation.
>>> Follow your own advice!
>> I don't use an eastern sounding name in an attempt to
>> endow my opinions with faux-spiritual cred.
>
> You so don't know what or whom you're talking about.
I know the fellow is using an eastern sounding name in
order to give the impression he is a spiritual
teacher, which he clearly is not. Anyone who advises
that we eat with "remorse" is confused.
Kerry Ladd
How cosmic!
Dutch claims that lead has life, that bullets think, and that all other
items made of stuff have the ability to "think."
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:pVpsk.113018$nD.72374@pd7urf1no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> >>>> uNmaiviLambi wrote:
> >> <snip orgy of copypasta>
> >>>>> However if you have to eat meat, eat with remorse
> >>>> That is terrible spiritual advice, as with all acts in
> >>>> life, eating should always be done with joy and gratitude.
> >>> A whole bunch of lies
> >> Where?
> >
> > Your orgy of copypasta (memes), fully rebutted by the cites
> > from authoritative sources which you've predictably snipped.
>
> YOUR orgy of copypasta was irrelevant to the exchange.
> What lies? False accuser.
You just can't stop. But who do you think you're fooling?
> >>> trying to justify your keen fondness for
> >>> animal fat; .. blood-sacrifice to yourself, selfish demon, ditch.
> >> Thanks for the clear example of self-elevation through
> >> demonization.
> >
> > No, ditch, you provide the clear example all on your own.
>
> Bless you dear, YOU used the word "demon", the
> "blood-sacrifice" comment was a beauty as well.
Perfectly appropriate. You've elevated yourself above others
to where their lives are disposable to serve your selfish want.
You remind me indeed, of one of the self-important porkers in
George Orwell's classic "Animal Farm".. "All animals are equal,
but some animals are more equal than others". "Four legs good,
two legs /better/." "No animal shall drink alcohol /to excess/.".
> >>>> and avoid large
> >>>>> animals such as pigs, beef and at least abstain one day a week.
> >>>> One large animal may feed a person a thousand meals,
> >>>> while a few servings of rice may have caused the death
> >>>> of a rodent or lizard in the field.
> >>> Grasshopper?
> >> Perhaps, by the thousand.
> >
> > Support your claims with credible evidence.
>
> I've seen them on my own farm, two years ago, hundreds
> to the square metre. The trees looked like grasshopper
> trees. So many that pesticides were ineffective..
> http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/pages/index.jsp?what=subjectAreasD&subjectAreasId=24
"wheat, alfalfa, soybeans and corn". Don't you know that in the US
*FIVE* times as much grain is eaten by "livestock" as by the entire
N.American human population? There - problem solved by 5/6ths..
loads more space for grasshoppers, lizards and rodents to do their
thing in their own natural habitat. It shouldn't be us against nature.
> >>>> With respect, an eastern sounding name does not endow
> >>>> a being with spiritual wisdom. Your path demonstrates
> >>>> a need for silence and contemplation.
> >>> Follow your own advice!
> >> I don't use an eastern sounding name in an attempt to
> >> endow my opinions with faux-spiritual cred.
> >
> > You so don't know what or whom you're talking about.
>
> I know the fellow is using an eastern sounding name in
> order to give the impression he is a spiritual
> teacher, which he clearly is not. Anyone who advises
> that we eat with "remorse" is confused.
"I have always eaten animal flesh with a somewhat guilty
conscience." - Albert Einstein, Einstein Archive 60-058
You've taken an innocent life. More than just flesh and blood,
a sentient being, - whom you wholly disregard and disrespect,
violently imposing your will so as to give yourself some 'joy'.
And you consider your opinion on spiritual matters of value?
Dutch
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:51:28 GMT, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> If god is an all-powerful force then it makes no sense that it
>>>> would only exist in some parts of the universe and not in others.
>>>
>>>
>>> To me it makes sense that it would exist in things that
>>> have life, but not necessarily things that don't.
>>
>>
>> If you drill down to the atomic level all matter is alive.
>
>
> How cosmic!
Quite
> Dutch claims that lead has life, that bullets think, and that all other
> items made of stuff have the ability to "think."
Notwithstanding that rather obvious strawman,
everything has life, all you need to do is look
closely and broaden your definition a little. The
static appearance of matter is merely a function of
the limits of our powers of perception. Should you
care? That depends on you.
Dutch
> You've taken an innocent life.
So do you, vile accuser, so do you. And you know it.
> More than just flesh and blood,
> a sentient being, - whom you wholly disregard and disrespect,
Not at all. I acknowledge and honour their sacrifice,
unlike you who hides behind cowardly and transparent
demands for "credible evidence". See no evil..
> violently imposing your will so as to give yourself some 'joy'.
As do you with every single act that serves your
interests beyond bare survival.
Et tu, vile accuser, addict to the drug of
self-righteousness.
> And you consider your opinion on spiritual matters of value?
Only for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
dh
>Kerry Ladd wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:51:28 GMT, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> If god is an all-powerful force then it makes no sense that it
>>>>> would only exist in some parts of the universe and not in others.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To me it makes sense that it would exist in things that
>>>> have life, but not necessarily things that don't.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you drill down to the atomic level all matter is alive.
>>
>>
>> How cosmic!
>
>Quite
>
>> Dutch claims that lead has life, that bullets think, and that all other
>> items made of stuff have the ability to "think."
>
>Notwithstanding that rather obvious strawman,
>everything has life,
You confirmed the first part of what he said anyway.
>all you need to do is look
>closely and broaden your definition a little.
You would have to broaden it to include things that
we have absolutely no reason to think of as being alive.
>The static appearance of matter is merely a function
>of the limits of our powers of perception.
It's truly a wonder that electrons continue to orbit
protons and neutrons for billions of years. It's a wonder
that they interact with each other as they do, and that
electrons and photons interact as they do. There is no
reason to think of any of them as being alive. To do
that would blur the meaning of life to the point of it
becoming meaningLESS, since then there would be
no distinction between what is alive and what's not. It
would say that dead people are still alive, and not just
because there are microorganisms consuming their
remains. It would say that they're still alive after all life
in their remains has died out, and that dead people
are still alive even after cremation.
>Should you care? That depends on you.
Having some understanding of the structure
of atoms, what the elements are, what valence
electrons are, what ions are, what isotopes are,
the difference between atoms and molecules,
how electrons and photons interact, etc, can give
more meaning, understanding, and appreciation of
the universe and the things around us. Trying to
accept the idea that it's all alive works the other
way to distort one's view of reality by eliminating
the distinction between what is alive and what's
not alive.
dh
If he thinks God is in them, and he thinks God is able
to think, then it follows that he must.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
>
> > You've taken an innocent life.
>
> So do you, vile accuser, so do you. And you know it.
Were that so, it would be with remorse, not joy, vile accuser.
> > More than just flesh and blood,
> > a sentient being, - whom you wholly disregard and disrespect,
>
> Not at all. I acknowledge and honour their sacrifice,
"sacrifice", ditch? Hah! You clearly couldn't care less.
> unlike you who hides behind cowardly and transparent
> demands for "credible evidence". See no evil..
Make outrageous claims; get asked for credible evidence.
What happened to that paragraph, ditch? Evil coward.
> > violently imposing your will so as to give yourself some 'joy'.
>
> As do you with every single act that serves your
> interests beyond bare survival.
That's what you're doing, and indeed advocate, not me.
> Et tu, vile accuser, addict to the drug of
> self-righteousness.
Righteousness, ditch, something that's totally alien to you.
'righteousness
..
n
Definition: goodness
Antonyms: sinfulness, wickedness
..
It is an attribute that implies that a person's actions are justified,
and can have the connotation that the person has been "judged"
or "reckoned" as leading a life that is pleasing to God.
Righteousness is also used as an attribute for God.
..'
http://www.answers.com/righteousness&r=67
> > And you consider your opinion on spiritual matters of value?
>
> Only for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
We can all see what you're about, ditch. You're a fraud.
pearl
"We have enslaved the rest of animal creation, and have treated our
distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if they
were to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in human form."
-- William Inge
"Can you really ask what reason Pythagoras had for abstaining from flesh?
For my part I rather wonder both by what accident and in what state of soul
or mind the first man did so, touched his mouth to gore and brought his lips
to the flesh of a dead creature, he who set forth tables of dead, stale bodies
and ventured to call food and nourishment the parts that had a little before
bellowed and cried, moved and lived. How could his eyes endure the
slaughter when throats were slit and hides flayed and limbs torn from limb?
How could his nose endure the stench? How was it that the pollution did not
turn away his taste, which made contact with the sores of others and sucked
juices and serums from mortal wounds? The obligations of law and equity
reach only to mankind, but kindness and benevolence should be extended to
the creatures of every species, and these will flow from the breast of a true
man, in streams that issue from the living fountain. Man makes use of flesh
not out of want and necessity, seeing that he has the liberty to make his
choice of herbs and fruits, the plenty of which is inexhaustible; but out of
luxury, and being cloyed with necessaries, he seeks after impure and
inconvenient diet, purchased by the slaughter of living beasts; by showing
himself more cruel than the most savage of wild beasts ... were it only to
learn benevolence to human kind, we should be merciful to other creatures.
It is certainly not lions and wolves that we eat out of self-defense; on the
contrary, we ignore these and slaughter harmless, tame creatures without
stings or teeth to harm us, creatures that, I swear, Nature appears to have
produced for the sake of their beauty and grace. But nothing abashed us,
not the flower-like tinting of the flesh, not the persuasiveness of the
harmonious voice, not the cleanliness of their habits or the unusual
intelligence that may be found in the poor wretches. No, for the sake of a
little flesh we deprive them of sun, of light, of the duration of life to which
they are entitled by birth and being. Why do you belie the earth, as if it were
unable to feed and nourish you? Does it not shame you to mingle murder
and blood with her beneficent fruits? Other carnivores you call savage and
ferocious - lions and tigers and serpents - while yourselves come behind
them in no species of barbarity. And yet for them murder is the only means
of sustenance! Whereas to you it is superfluous luxury and crime!"
-- Plutarch (c. 56 - 120 A.D.) (Roman historian and scholar)
Dutch
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:26:53 GMT, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Kerry Ladd wrote:
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:51:28 GMT, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> If god is an all-powerful force then it makes no sense that it
>>>>>> would only exist in some parts of the universe and not in others.
>>>>>
>>>>> To me it makes sense that it would exist in things that
>>>>> have life, but not necessarily things that don't.
>>>>
>>>> If you drill down to the atomic level all matter is alive.
>>>
>>> How cosmic!
>> Quite
>>
>>> Dutch claims that lead has life, that bullets think, and that all other
>>> items made of stuff have the ability to "think."
>> Notwithstanding that rather obvious strawman,
>> everything has life,
>
> You confirmed the first part of what he said anyway.
The first part was accurate.
>
>> all you need to do is look
>> closely and broaden your definition a little.
>
> You would have to broaden it to include things that
> we have absolutely no reason to think of as being alive.
We do have a reason, we are trying to make some kind
of sense of the structure of the universe.
>
>> The static appearance of matter is merely a function
>> of the limits of our powers of perception.
>
> It's truly a wonder that electrons continue to orbit
> protons and neutrons for billions of years. It's a wonder
> that they interact with each other as they do, and that
> electrons and photons interact as they do. There is no
> reason to think of any of them as being alive. To do
> that would blur the meaning of life to the point of it
> becoming meaningLESS, since then there would be
> no distinction between what is alive and what's not.
That's not true, we are perfectly capable of making
distinctions between rocks, trees, ants, molluscs,
mice, gorillas and humans while still recognizing that
all share a similar molecular structure. A human is
about 97% the same as a banana at the DNA level.
It
> would say that dead people are still alive, and not just
> because there are microorganisms consuming their
> remains. It would say that they're still alive after all life
> in their remains has died out, and that dead people
> are still alive even after cremation.
I understand the significance of organic "life",
sentience vs non-sentience, and the significance of
those factors *to us* but that is another level of the
discussion. I know that flowers don't feel pain, but
God is in them all the same. I am referring to the
very underpinnings of reality, of the universe itself,
nature, God if you like.
>> Should you care? That depends on you.
>
> Having some understanding of the structure
> of atoms, what the elements are, what valence
> electrons are, what ions are, what isotopes are,
> the difference between atoms and molecules,
> how electrons and photons interact, etc, can give
> more meaning, understanding, and appreciation of
> the universe and the things around us. Trying to
> accept the idea that it's all alive works the other
> way to distort one's view of reality by eliminating
> the distinction between what is alive and what's
> not alive.
My intent was not to eliminate distinctions. The
original poster proposed that GOD visited earth in
certain forms, to which he, the poster assigned Indian
names. My response is that GOD, if you will, as I
understand it, doesn't "visit", GOD, *is* the essence
of ALL being, right down to the particle-string level,
deeper than any electron microscope can delve, wider
than the furthest galaxy, and in our very existence, NOW.
This has been the message of spiritual teachers that
has been largely misunderstood.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:KRKsk.116439$nD.25522@pd7urf1no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>
>>> You've taken an innocent life.
>> So do you, vile accuser, so do you. And you know it.
>
> Were that so, it would be with remorse, not joy, vile accuser.
That's unfortunate, because GOD gives its bounty to
all, not to engender sorrow, but joy.
>
>>> More than just flesh and blood,
>>> a sentient being, - whom you wholly disregard and disrespect,
>> Not at all. I acknowledge and honour their sacrifice,
>
> "sacrifice", ditch? Hah! You clearly couldn't care less.
I ask that you not speak for me.
>
>> unlike you who hides behind cowardly and transparent
>> demands for "credible evidence". See no evil..
>
> Make outrageous claims; get asked for credible evidence.
Credible claims.
>
> What happened to that paragraph, ditch? Evil coward.
There are always more paragraphs, they will never have
any meaning until you come to terms with your own
demons instead of projecting them.
>
>>> violently imposing your will so as to give yourself some 'joy'.
>> As do you with every single act that serves your
>> interests beyond bare survival.
>
> That's what you're doing, and indeed advocate, not me.
Its what we are all doing. There are no people here
living a life of bare subsistence.
>
>> Et tu, vile accuser, addict to the drug of
>> self-righteousness.
>
> Righteousness, ditch, something that's totally alien to you.
>
> 'righteousness
> ..
> n
> Definition: goodness
> Antonyms: sinfulness, wickedness
> ..
> It is an attribute that implies that a person's actions are justified,
> and can have the connotation that the person has been "judged"
> or "reckoned" as leading a life that is pleasing to God.
> Righteousness is also used as an attribute for God.
> ..'
> http://www.answers.com/righteousness&r=67
True righteousness is about BEING and DOING according
to ones conscience, not denying one's sins in order to
lord it over others, that is sanctimony.
>
>>> And you consider your opinion on spiritual matters of value?
>> Only for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
>
> We can all see what you're about, ditch. You're a fraud.
The peace you seek is within, it will not come through
attempts to diminish others.
uNmaiviLambi
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:31:17 -0700 (PDT), uNmaiviLambi <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How about Jesus?
All forms are His forms, animate and inanimate
>
> >The universe does not teach us except through the
> >pain we suffer from if we care to learn!
>
> It sure has plenty to offer then.
Experiencing pain to learn is very primitive. Pain itself does not
teach. It is just an experience. Cognition has to be applied to
experience of pain to learn. Learning from sages about how to prevent
pain is far better
> If he's in everything then he's in everything, not just
> the fun stuff. How exactly do you think you disagree
> with yourself about it, do you know?
God is Omnipresent, Omnipotent and omniscient. His omnipresence is
clearly everywhere. His Omnipotence and Omniscience are not easily
recognized by us everywhere. However, we can appreciate His glory in
some places more easily, such as in Sages and in the excellences
humans display
Kerry Ladd
> On Aug 25, 2:04 pm, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:31:17 -0700 (PDT), uNmaiviLambi <tripurant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> How about Jesus?
>
>
> All forms are His forms, animate and inanimate
Then Bullets(a form of "god") used to kill Hindu's( a lower life form)
is great!
I agree!
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:KRKsk.116439$nD.25522@pd7urf1no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>> You've taken an innocent life.
> >> So do you, vile accuser, so do you. And you know it.
> >
> > Were that so, it would be with remorse, not joy, vile accuser.
>
> That's unfortunate, because GOD gives its bounty to
> all, not to engender sorrow, but joy.
Stop engendering sorrow then?!
> >>> More than just flesh and blood,
> >>> a sentient being, - whom you wholly disregard and disrespect,
> >> Not at all. I acknowledge and honour their sacrifice,
> >
> > "sacrifice", ditch? Hah! You clearly couldn't care less.
>
> I ask that you not speak for me.
Your actions speak louder and truer than any words.
> >> unlike you who hides behind cowardly and transparent
> >> demands for "credible evidence". See no evil..
> >
> > Make outrageous claims; get asked for credible evidence.
>
> Credible claims.
Then support them with credible evidence. Rodents, lizards.
Acknowledge that feeding humans directly would free up for
wildlife vast areas, - currently grazed and cropped for feed.
Also acknowledge that we can live in harmony with Nature,
without pesticides and herbicides and chemical fertilizers.
> > What happened to that paragraph, ditch? Evil coward.
>
> There are always more paragraphs, they will never have
> any meaning until you come to terms with your own
> demons instead of projecting them.
Evasive projective babble.
> >>> violently imposing your will so as to give yourself some 'joy'.
> >> As do you with every single act that serves your
> >> interests beyond bare survival.
> >
> > That's what you're doing, and indeed advocate, not me.
>
> Its what we are all doing. There are no people here
> living a life of bare subsistence.
You have no idea what others here are doing.
All other things being equal, you demand killing.
> >> Et tu, vile accuser, addict to the drug of
> >> self-righteousness.
> >
> > Righteousness, ditch, something that's totally alien to you.
> >
> > 'righteousness
> > ..
> > n
> > Definition: goodness
> > Antonyms: sinfulness, wickedness
> > ..
> > It is an attribute that implies that a person's actions are justified,
> > and can have the connotation that the person has been "judged"
> > or "reckoned" as leading a life that is pleasing to God.
> > Righteousness is also used as an attribute for God.
> > ..'
> > http://www.answers.com/righteousness&r=67
>
> True righteousness is about BEING and DOING according
> to ones conscience,
Then anything goes - any atrocity can be termed "righteous",
since "I was told / it felt / seemed alright at the time" to do it.
> not denying one's sins in order to
> lord it over others, that is sanctimony.
But that's exactly what *you* are doing. Go back and address
the cites you evasively snipped in denial of your sins, and retract
your lies and accusations of lying, then admit that your taste for
animal fat requires innocent blood be shed, and that it's wrong,
that it involves sanctimoniously lording it over other creatures.
> >>> And you consider your opinion on spiritual matters of value?
> >> Only for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
> >
> > We can all see what you're about, ditch. You're a fraud.
>
> The peace you seek is within, it will not come through
> attempts to diminish others.
Keep repeating that to yourself, maybe it'll finally get through..
dh
>If you are a manifestation of GOD, and you can think,
>then GOD can think, but I do not believe GOD is much
>interested in "thinking", that is a particular human
>frailty.
It's sad to think you might actually believe that.
>GOD, as manifested in a flower, would not be doing
>much thinking, he/she/it would be too busy being a flower.
He would have plenty of room to think other places
if he wanted to, and apply it to the flowers from there,
according to your pov.
dh
Eliminating the distinction between living and non-living
would be a hindrance, not a help.
>>> The static appearance of matter is merely a function
>>> of the limits of our powers of perception.
>>
>> It's truly a wonder that electrons continue to orbit
>> protons and neutrons for billions of years. It's a wonder
>> that they interact with each other as they do, and that
>> electrons and photons interact as they do. There is no
>> reason to think of any of them as being alive. To do
>> that would blur the meaning of life to the point of it
>> becoming meaningLESS, since then there would be
>> no distinction between what is alive and what's not.
>
>That's not true,
It is true.
>we are perfectly capable of making
>distinctions between rocks, trees, ants, molluscs,
>mice, gorillas and humans while still recognizing that
>all share a similar molecular structure.
You're still trying to eliminate the distinction. Of
course as always when you attempt such absurdity
the big question arises: Why do you even WANT to?
>A human is
>about 97% the same as a banana at the DNA level.
How close are we to rocks at the DNA level?
>> It
>> would say that dead people are still alive, and not just
>> because there are microorganisms consuming their
>> remains. It would say that they're still alive after all life
>> in their remains has died out, and that dead people
>> are still alive even after cremation.
>
>I understand the significance of organic "life",
We have no reason to think everything that's
organic is alive. We do have reason to think that
some organic things are not alive.
>sentience vs non-sentience, and the significance of
>those factors *to us* but that is another level of the
>discussion. I know that flowers don't feel pain,
We hope they don't.
>but God is in them all the same. I am referring to the
>very underpinnings of reality, of the universe itself,
>nature, God if you like.
God means an intelligent being who had/has
deliberate influence on the development of life.
If you want to pretend that God has no intelligence
then you're trying to change the meaning of "God"
to the opposite of what it means...you're trying to
change it to mean "no God". "LaVeyan" "Satanists"
try to do the same thing with the word "Satan"...trying
to change it to mean "no Satan" and "no God".
>>> Should you care? That depends on you.
>>
>> Having some understanding of the structure
>> of atoms, what the elements are, what valence
>> electrons are, what ions are, what isotopes are,
>> the difference between atoms and molecules,
>> how electrons and photons interact, etc, can give
>> more meaning, understanding, and appreciation of
>> the universe and the things around us. Trying to
>> accept the idea that it's all alive works the other
>> way to distort one's view of reality by eliminating
>> the distinction between what is alive and what's
>> not alive.
>
>My intent was not to eliminate distinctions.
Whether you intended it or not, it would be a
necessary part of accepting or even considering
what you suggested. To believe that everything
is alive necessarily removes the distinction between
what is and what is not, since everything would be.
It seems even you should be able to understand
something that obvious.
>The
>original poster proposed that GOD visited earth in
>certain forms, to which he, the poster assigned Indian
>names. My response is that GOD, if you will, as I
>understand it, doesn't "visit", GOD, *is* the essence
>of ALL being, right down to the particle-string level,
>deeper than any electron microscope can delve, wider
>than the furthest galaxy, and in our very existence, NOW.
If God exists I don't doubt that he is as much in direct
contact with whatever he wants to be as he wants to be.
I also believe he has beings who work with him, and that
he has as much influence on other living beings through
them as he wants to have, and through his own direct
influence when he wants to.
>This has been the message of spiritual teachers that
>has been largely misunderstood.
It may be largely doubted. Even though I believe God
has as much influence on everything as he wants to have
if he exists, I doubt that he has direct influence on every
single event that takes place in the universe all the way
down to the sub-atomic level. I believe he does have such
influence when he wants to, but not that he always wants
to. I also believe that if Satan exists he has such influence
on people's thinking, having learned how to recognise
patterns and manipulate the minds of humans in ways
like influencing the flow of electrons down one path more
than another to encourage things like violence and
substance addictions that people would really rather stay
away from.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:Bn%sk.42424$hx.23632@pd7urf3no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:KRKsk.116439$nD.25522@pd7urf1no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You've taken an innocent life.
>>>> So do you, vile accuser, so do you. And you know it.
>>> Were that so, it would be with remorse, not joy, vile accuser.
>> That's unfortunate, because GOD gives its bounty to
>> all, not to engender sorrow, but joy.
>
> Stop engendering sorrow then?!
More vile self-righteousness that you feed on like a
vampire.
>>>>> More than just flesh and blood,
>>>>> a sentient being, - whom you wholly disregard and disrespect,
>>>> Not at all. I acknowledge and honour their sacrifice,
>>> "sacrifice", ditch? Hah! You clearly couldn't care less.
>> I ask that you not speak for me.
>
> Your actions speak louder and truer than any words.
Thank you
>
>>>> unlike you who hides behind cowardly and transparent
>>>> demands for "credible evidence". See no evil..
>>> Make outrageous claims; get asked for credible evidence.
>> Credible claims.
>
> Then support them with credible evidence. Rodents, lizards.
There is very little direct record of the numbers or
the suffering of poisoned birds, drowned mice,
shredded lizards. No-one of good faith denies it. Your
addiction to self-righteousness demands that you do.
> Acknowledge that feeding humans directly would free up for
> wildlife vast areas, - currently grazed and cropped for feed.
Certainly, there would be more wildlife if there were
less livestock.
> Also acknowledge that we can live in harmony with Nature,
> without pesticides and herbicides and chemical fertilizers.
Possibly, it's also possible that we might treat the
animals we farm with respect, even reverence. The fact
is that neither of those happens to be the reality wrt
most of what we consume.
>>> What happened to that paragraph, ditch? Evil coward.
>> There are always more paragraphs, they will never have
>> any meaning until you come to terms with your own
>> demons instead of projecting them.
>
> Evasive projective babble.
Of course you see it that way.
>>>>> violently imposing your will so as to give yourself some 'joy'.
>>>> As do you with every single act that serves your
>>>> interests beyond bare survival.
>>> That's what you're doing, and indeed advocate, not me.
>> Its what we are all doing. There are no people here
>> living a life of bare subsistence.
>
> You have no idea what others here are doing.
I have an excellent idea. I know for example that YOU
aren't doing it.
> All other things being equal, you demand killing.
So do you. The difference is that you hide from it, I
admit it.
>
>>>> Et tu, vile accuser, addict to the drug of
>>>> self-righteousness.
>>> Righteousness, ditch, something that's totally alien to you.
>>>
>>> 'righteousness
>>> ..
>>> n
>>> Definition: goodness
>>> Antonyms: sinfulness, wickedness
>>> ..
>>> It is an attribute that implies that a person's actions are justified,
>>> and can have the connotation that the person has been "judged"
>>> or "reckoned" as leading a life that is pleasing to God.
>>> Righteousness is also used as an attribute for God.
>>> ..'
>>> http://www.answers.com/righteousness&r=67
>> True righteousness is about BEING and DOING according
>> to ones conscience,
>
> Then anything goes - any atrocity can be termed "righteous",
> since "I was told / it felt / seemed alright at the time" to do it.
If its an atrocity then you already know that it's not
alright. One thing is for sure, it is not YOUR job to
define it for me.
>
>> not denying one's sins in order to
>> lord it over others, that is sanctimony.
>
> But that's exactly what *you* are doing.
Nonsense, I'm not the one calling people "demon".
> Go back and address
> the cites you evasively snipped
Get this dearie, once and for all, you don't define
what is right for me, and you don't get to dictate to
me that I put in my newsgroups posts. The control over
others that you seek so desperately will never come,
and even if it did you would find it to be hollow.
> in denial of your sins, and retract
> your lies and accusations of lying, then admit that your taste for
> animal fat requires innocent blood be shed, and that it's wrong,
> that it involves sanctimoniously lording it over other creatures.
That nice cotton shirt on your back came at the cost
of untold death and suffering of tiny creatures in
cotton fields, just to cite one example. Closing your
eyes and screaming for absolute proof of something so
obvious is just cowardly.
>
>>>>> And you consider your opinion on spiritual matters of value?
>>>> Only for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
>>> We can all see what you're about, ditch. You're a fraud.
>> The peace you seek is within, it will not come through
>> attempts to diminish others.
>
> Keep repeating that to yourself, maybe it'll finally get through..
I am at peace, I am trying to help you see how futile
it is to lash out at others like you do. To realize
this you need to look at yourself honestly. I don't
hold out much hope that will happen.
Dutch
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:10:26 GMT, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:17:16 -0400, Kerry Ladd <G...@Bass.gov.> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:51:28 GMT, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> If god is an all-powerful force then it makes no sense that it
>>>>>>> would only exist in some parts of the universe and not in others.
>>>>>> To me it makes sense that it would exist in things that
>>>>>> have life, but not necessarily things that don't.
>>>>> If you drill down to the atomic level all matter is alive.
>>>> How cosmic!
>>>>
>>>> Dutch claims that lead has life, that bullets think, and that all other
>>>> items made of stuff have the ability to "think."
>>> If he thinks God is in them, and he thinks God is able
>>> to think, then it follows that he must.
>> If you are a manifestation of GOD, and you can think,
>> then GOD can think, but I do not believe GOD is much
>> interested in "thinking", that is a particular human
>> frailty.
>
> It's sad to think you might actually believe that.
Its sad to think that you considered that sentence
worth typing.
>> GOD, as manifested in a flower, would not be doing
>> much thinking, he/she/it would be too busy being a flower.
>
> He would have plenty of room to think other places
> if he wanted to, and apply it to the flowers from there,
> according to your pov.
Huh? You seem to be suffering from the delusion that
"thinking" is some kind of high spiritual achievement
worthy of God. Thinking is to the human brain as
digestion is to the stomach, it's mostly an autonomic
function. It is not my belief that God would be any
more bothered with thinking than HE would take a crap.
Dutch
My intent was not to eliminate distinctions. It is to
see a commonality.
>>>> The static appearance of matter is merely a function
>>>> of the limits of our powers of perception.
>>> It's truly a wonder that electrons continue to orbit
>>> protons and neutrons for billions of years. It's a wonder
>>> that they interact with each other as they do, and that
>>> electrons and photons interact as they do. There is no
>>> reason to think of any of them as being alive. To do
>>> that would blur the meaning of life to the point of it
>>> becoming meaningLESS, since then there would be
>>> no distinction between what is alive and what's not.
>> That's not true,
>
> It is true.
It's not true that I am trying to eliminate distinctions.
>
>> we are perfectly capable of making
>> distinctions between rocks, trees, ants, molluscs,
>> mice, gorillas and humans while still recognizing that
>> all share a similar molecular structure.
>
> You're still trying to eliminate the distinction.
Where? I just stated clearly that there ARE differences.
Of
> course as always when you attempt such absurdity
> the big question arises: Why do you even WANT to?
Why do you want to deny that all matter shares a
common structure?
>
>> A human is
>> about 97% the same as a banana at the DNA level.
>
> How close are we to rocks at the DNA level?
I haven't checked, but at some level I suspect very
close.
>
>>> It
>>> would say that dead people are still alive, and not just
>>> because there are microorganisms consuming their
>>> remains. It would say that they're still alive after all life
>>> in their remains has died out, and that dead people
>>> are still alive even after cremation.
>> I understand the significance of organic "life",
>
> We have no reason to think everything that's
> organic is alive. We do have reason to think that
> some organic things are not alive.
Our discussion would be better served if you would not
interject responses into the middle of my sentences.
>
>> sentience vs non-sentience, and the significance of
>> those factors *to us* but that is another level of the
>> discussion. I know that flowers don't feel pain,
>
> We hope they don't.
Right, I don't think they do, not pain as we know it.
>
>> but God is in them all the same. I am referring to the
>> very underpinnings of reality, of the universe itself,
>> nature, God if you like.
>
> God means an intelligent being who had/has
> deliberate influence on the development of life.
I have a broader perspective than that.
> If you want to pretend that God has no intelligence
> then you're trying to change the meaning of "God"
> to the opposite of what it means.
I NEVER suggested such a thing.
..you're trying to
> change it to mean "no God". "LaVeyan" "Satanists"
> try to do the same thing with the word "Satan"...trying
> to change it to mean "no Satan" and "no God".
>
>>>> Should you care? That depends on you.
>>> Having some understanding of the structure
>>> of atoms, what the elements are, what valence
>>> electrons are, what ions are, what isotopes are,
>>> the difference between atoms and molecules,
>>> how electrons and photons interact, etc, can give
>>> more meaning, understanding, and appreciation of
>>> the universe and the things around us. Trying to
>>> accept the idea that it's all alive works the other
>>> way to distort one's view of reality by eliminating
>>> the distinction between what is alive and what's
>>> not alive.
>> My intent was not to eliminate distinctions.
>
> Whether you intended it or not, it would be a
> necessary part of accepting or even considering
> what you suggested. To believe that everything
> is alive necessarily removes the distinction between
> what is and what is not, since everything would be.
> It seems even you should be able to understand
> something that obvious.
Why are threatened by the idea that there is a primal
energy in every aspect of the universe that is a
manifestation of GOD? Everything.
>
>> The
>> original poster proposed that GOD visited earth in
>> certain forms, to which he, the poster assigned Indian
>> names. My response is that GOD, if you will, as I
>> understand it, doesn't "visit", GOD, *is* the essence
>> of ALL being, right down to the particle-string level,
>> deeper than any electron microscope can delve, wider
>> than the furthest galaxy, and in our very existence, NOW.
>
> If God exists I don't doubt that he is as much in direct
> contact with whatever he wants to be as he wants to be.
> I also believe he has beings who work with him, and that
> he has as much influence on other living beings through
> them as he wants to have, and through his own direct
> influence when he wants to.
This strikes me as a rather quaint parochial storybook
kind of religious view.
>
>> This has been the message of spiritual teachers that
>> has been largely misunderstood.
>
> It may be largely doubted. Even though I believe God
> has as much influence on everything as he wants to have
> if he exists, I doubt that he has direct influence on every
> single event that takes place in the universe all the way
> down to the sub-atomic level.
Why?
I believe he does have such
> influence when he wants to, but not that he always wants
> to. I also believe that if Satan exists he has such influence
> on people's thinking, having learned how to recognise
> patterns and manipulate the minds of humans in ways
> like influencing the flow of electrons down one path more
> than another to encourage things like violence and
> substance addictions that people would really rather stay
> away from.
Those are just expressions of human pain.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:Bn%sk.42424$hx.23632@pd7urf3no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:KRKsk.116439$nD.25522@pd7urf1no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> You've taken an innocent life.
> >>>> So do you, vile accuser, so do you. And you know it.
> >>> Were that so, it would be with remorse, not joy, vile accuser.
> >> That's unfortunate, because GOD gives its bounty to
> >> all, not to engender sorrow, but joy.
> >
> > Stop engendering sorrow then?!
>
> More vile self-righteousness that you feed on like a
> vampire.
Yet more rabid evasion when faced with the hard truth.
> >>>>> More than just flesh and blood,
> >>>>> a sentient being, - whom you wholly disregard and disrespect,
> >>>> Not at all. I acknowledge and honour their sacrifice,
> >>> "sacrifice", ditch? Hah! You clearly couldn't care less.
> >> I ask that you not speak for me.
> >
> > Your actions speak louder and truer than any words.
>
> Thank you
Why on Earth are you thanking me?
> >>>> unlike you who hides behind cowardly and transparent
> >>>> demands for "credible evidence". See no evil..
> >>> Make outrageous claims; get asked for credible evidence.
> >> Credible claims.
> >
> > Then support them with credible evidence. Rodents, lizards.
>
> There is very little direct record of the numbers or
> the suffering of poisoned birds, drowned mice,
> shredded lizards. No-one of good faith denies it. Your
> addiction to self-righteousness demands that you do.
Thanks for the admission that you make (outrageous) claims
lacking all credible evidence. Why poisoned grasshoppers
(and as a consequence, birds) but not millions upon millions
of "drowned mice and shredded lizards"? As for the rest..
> > Acknowledge that feeding humans directly would free up for
> > wildlife vast areas, - currently grazed and cropped for feed.
>
> Certainly, there would be more wildlife if there were
> less livestock.
And abundant sustenance for wildlife in regenerated habitat..
> > Also acknowledge that we can live in harmony with Nature,
> > without pesticides and herbicides and chemical fertilizers.
>
> Possibly,
It's being done. You've seen exactly how it can be done.
> it's also possible that we might treat the
> animals we farm with respect, even reverence. The fact
> is that neither of those happens to be the reality wrt
> most of what we consume.
Animals regarded as 'end products' will never be respected
as individual living sentient beings. The reality is inevitable.
And as we're not respecting the animals we're supposed to
care for... then what chance for wild critters? It's the same
damnable attitude. It is a true respect and reverance for all
living creatures that will, please God, bring us back on track.
> >>> What happened to that paragraph, ditch? Evil coward.
> >> There are always more paragraphs, they will never have
> >> any meaning until you come to terms with your own
> >> demons instead of projecting them.
> >
> > Evasive projective babble.
>
> Of course you see it that way.
Of course I do, as that's what it is.
> >>>>> violently imposing your will so as to give yourself some 'joy'.
> >>>> As do you with every single act that serves your
> >>>> interests beyond bare survival.
> >>> That's what you're doing, and indeed advocate, not me.
> >> Its what we are all doing. There are no people here
> >> living a life of bare subsistence.
> >
> > You have no idea what others here are doing.
>
> I have an excellent idea. I know for example that YOU
> aren't doing it.
How so? Explain.
> > All other things being equal, you demand killing.
>
> So do you. The difference is that you hide from it, I
> admit it.
I certainly don't demand killing. You admit you do.
> >>>> Et tu, vile accuser, addict to the drug of
> >>>> self-righteousness.
> >>> Righteousness, ditch, something that's totally alien to you.
> >>>
> >>> 'righteousness
> >>> ..
> >>> n
> >>> Definition: goodness
> >>> Antonyms: sinfulness, wickedness
> >>> ..
> >>> It is an attribute that implies that a person's actions are justified,
> >>> and can have the connotation that the person has been "judged"
> >>> or "reckoned" as leading a life that is pleasing to God.
> >>> Righteousness is also used as an attribute for God.
> >>> ..'
> >>> http://www.answers.com/righteousness&r=67
> >> True righteousness is about BEING and DOING according
> >> to ones conscience,
> >
> > Then anything goes - any atrocity can be termed "righteous",
> > since "I was told / it felt / seemed alright at the time" to do it.
>
> If its an atrocity then you already know that it's not
> alright. One thing is for sure, it is not YOUR job to
> define it for me.
As it is perceived by others. Brutalizing others is a morally-
depraved act. It's not tolerated amongst humans, and there
is no valid reason why it should be tolerated in our treatment
of non-human animals. There's a state of collective denial.
> >> not denying one's sins in order to
> >> lord it over others, that is sanctimony.
> >
> > But that's exactly what *you* are doing.
>
> Nonsense, I'm not the one calling people "demon".
Your history here consists wholly of demonizing others.
> > Go back and address
> > the cites you evasively snipped
>
> Get this dearie, once and for all, you don't define
> what is right for me, and you don't get to dictate to
> me that I put in my newsgroups posts. The control over
> others that you seek so desperately will never come,
> and even if it did you would find it to be hollow.
If you want to be seen as an evasive blowhard, carry on..
> > in denial of your sins, and retract
> > your lies and accusations of lying, then admit that your taste for
> > animal fat requires innocent blood be shed, and that it's wrong,
> > that it involves sanctimoniously lording it over other creatures.
>
> That nice cotton shirt on your back came at the cost
> of untold death and suffering of tiny creatures in
> cotton fields, just to cite one example. Closing your
> eyes and screaming for absolute proof of something so
> obvious is just cowardly.
My eyes are open, and I see no evidence to support your claim.
Evasion noted.
> >>>>> And you consider your opinion on spiritual matters of value?
> >>>> Only for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
> >>> We can all see what you're about, ditch. You're a fraud.
> >> The peace you seek is within, it will not come through
> >> attempts to diminish others.
> >
> > Keep repeating that to yourself, maybe it'll finally get through..
>
> I am at peace, I am trying to help you see how futile
> it is to lash out at others like you do. To realize
> this you need to look at yourself honestly. I don't
> hold out much hope that will happen.
R.I.P ditch.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:mPntk.227465$gc5.53630@pd7urf2no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:Bn%sk.42424$hx.23632@pd7urf3no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:KRKsk.116439$nD.25522@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've taken an innocent life.
>>>>>> So do you, vile accuser, so do you. And you know it.
>>>>> Were that so, it would be with remorse, not joy, vile accuser.
>>>> That's unfortunate, because GOD gives its bounty to
>>>> all, not to engender sorrow, but joy.
>>> Stop engendering sorrow then?!
>> More vile self-righteousness that you feed on like a
>> vampire.
>
> Yet more rabid evasion when faced with the hard truth.
Your vile self-righteousness is the hard truth about
you, I don't evade it.
>>>>>>> More than just flesh and blood,
>>>>>>> a sentient being, - whom you wholly disregard and disrespect,
>>>>>> Not at all. I acknowledge and honour their sacrifice,
>>>>> "sacrifice", ditch? Hah! You clearly couldn't care less.
>>>> I ask that you not speak for me.
>>> Your actions speak louder and truer than any words.
>> Thank you
>
> Why on Earth are you thanking me?
For making my point.
>
>>>>>> unlike you who hides behind cowardly and transparent
>>>>>> demands for "credible evidence". See no evil..
>>>>> Make outrageous claims; get asked for credible evidence.
>>>> Credible claims.
>>> Then support them with credible evidence. Rodents, lizards.
>> There is very little direct record of the numbers or
>> the suffering of poisoned birds, drowned mice,
>> shredded lizards. No-one of good faith denies it. Your
>> addiction to self-righteousness demands that you do.
>
> Thanks for the admission that you make (outrageous) claims
> lacking all credible evidence. Why poisoned grasshoppers
> (and as a consequence, birds) but not millions upon millions
> of "drowned mice and shredded lizards"? As for the rest..
All credible claims, all true.
>
>>> Acknowledge that feeding humans directly would free up for
>>> wildlife vast areas, - currently grazed and cropped for feed.
>> Certainly, there would be more wildlife if there were
>> less livestock.
>
> And abundant sustenance for wildlife in regenerated habitat..
Nature takes care of itself, it's not always pretty,
populations grow to match whatever resources are
available.
>>> Also acknowledge that we can live in harmony with Nature,
>>> without pesticides and herbicides and chemical fertilizers.
>> Possibly,
>
> It's being done. You've seen exactly how it can be done.
It's being done on a relatively small scale, whether
or not the world can have all the cotton of bananas it
demands without poisons is another question. I hope so.
>
>> it's also possible that we might treat the
>> animals we farm with respect, even reverence. The fact
>> is that neither of those happens to be the reality wrt
>> most of what we consume.
>
> Animals regarded as 'end products' will never be respected
> as individual living sentient beings. The reality is inevitable.
It's no more inevitable than treating the animals in
crop fields as "pests" to be eliminated by the most
efficient means possible.
> And as we're not respecting the animals we're supposed to
> care for... then what chance for wild critters? It's the same
> damnable attitude. It is a true respect and reverance for all
> living creatures that will, please God, bring us back on track.
GOD's creature consume one another, GOD does not have
the same squeamishness about life and death as you.
>
>>>>> What happened to that paragraph, ditch? Evil coward.
>>>> There are always more paragraphs, they will never have
>>>> any meaning until you come to terms with your own
>>>> demons instead of projecting them.
>>> Evasive projective babble.
>> Of course you see it that way.
>
> Of course I do, as that's what it is.
To you, your perceptions are not reality.
>
>>>>>>> violently imposing your will so as to give yourself some 'joy'.
>>>>>> As do you with every single act that serves your
>>>>>> interests beyond bare survival.
>>>>> That's what you're doing, and indeed advocate, not me.
>>>> Its what we are all doing. There are no people here
>>>> living a life of bare subsistence.
>>> You have no idea what others here are doing.
>> I have an excellent idea. I know for example that YOU
>> aren't doing it.
>
> How so? Explain.
Since I am not standing beside you watching everything
you do, the obvious example is you running your mouth
day after day on a home computer, that is not bare
subsistence, it is excess of that. Beyond that I can
say with good confidence that you probably live a
fairly comfortable life, buying imported fruit
sometimes, eating until you are good and full,
subscribe to cable television etc etc.. You have
justified to yourself that your lifestyle is ethical,
despite the reality that children are dying of
starvation and disease as you read this, that your
consumer habits have wrought a path of death,
suffering and injustice. Absurd? No. All our lives are
compromises, and your need to define mine is your
problem, not mine.
>
>>> All other things being equal, you demand killing.
>> So do you. The difference is that you hide from it, I
>> admit it.
>
> I certainly don't demand killing. You admit you do.
You do demand killing, defining consumption with
passive acceptance as demand.
That is clear statement of the moral confusion
inherent in AR. The world is chock full of life forms,
we cause them to suffer whether we consume them or not.
>
>>>> not denying one's sins in order to
>>>> lord it over others, that is sanctimony.
>>> But that's exactly what *you* are doing.
>> Nonsense, I'm not the one calling people "demon".
>
> Your history here consists wholly of demonizing others.
No, my only desire here is to relieve people of the
guilt they live with and come here to project on others.
>
>>> Go back and address
>>> the cites you evasively snipped
>> Get this dearie, once and for all, you don't define
>> what is right for me, and you don't get to dictate to
>> me that I put in my newsgroups posts. The control over
>> others that you seek so desperately will never come,
>> and even if it did you would find it to be hollow.
>
> If you want to be seen as an evasive blowhard, carry on..
Just the voice of reason, the voice you can't hear.
>>> in denial of your sins, and retract
>>> your lies and accusations of lying, then admit that your taste for
>>> animal fat requires innocent blood be shed, and that it's wrong,
>>> that it involves sanctimoniously lording it over other creatures.
>> That nice cotton shirt on your back came at the cost
>> of untold death and suffering of tiny creatures in
>> cotton fields, just to cite one example. Closing your
>> eyes and screaming for absolute proof of something so
>> obvious is just cowardly.
>
> My eyes are open, and I see no evidence to support your claim.
Your eyes are open but your mind is closed for business.
>
> Evasion noted.
>
>>>>>>> And you consider your opinion on spiritual matters of value?
>>>>>> Only for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
>>>>> We can all see what you're about, ditch. You're a fraud.
>>>> The peace you seek is within, it will not come through
>>>> attempts to diminish others.
>>> Keep repeating that to yourself, maybe it'll finally get through..
>> I am at peace, I am trying to help you see how futile
>> it is to lash out at others like you do. To realize
>> this you need to look at yourself honestly. I don't
>> hold out much hope that will happen.
>
> R.I.P ditch.
I am at peace, your anger and loathing towards good
people is the problem.
dh
Regardless of whether you want to or not, to accept
what you suggest REQUIRES it. The only question
there is why you can't appreciate that aspect of it.
>>> we are perfectly capable of making
>>> distinctions between rocks, trees, ants, molluscs,
>>> mice, gorillas and humans while still recognizing that
>>> all share a similar molecular structure.
>>
>> You're still trying to eliminate the distinction.
>
>Where?
Wherever you suggest that all things are alive.
>I just stated clearly that there ARE differences.
>
> Of
>> course as always when you attempt such absurdity
>> the big question arises: Why do you even WANT to?
>
>Why do you want to deny that all matter shares a
>common structure?
I know all matter that we're familiar with shares
common structures. I also know that's not what
we're disagreeing about.
>>> A human is
>>> about 97% the same as a banana at the DNA level.
>>
>> How close are we to rocks at the DNA level?
>
>I haven't checked, but at some level I suspect very
>close.
You said the DNA level, suggesting that rocks have
DNA. It's the first I've heard of that one. If you can
provide evidence that rocks have DNA, please do so.
>>>> It
>>>> would say that dead people are still alive, and not just
>>>> because there are microorganisms consuming their
>>>> remains. It would say that they're still alive after all life
>>>> in their remains has died out, and that dead people
>>>> are still alive even after cremation.
>>> I understand the significance of organic "life",
>>
>> We have no reason to think everything that's
>> organic is alive. We do have reason to think that
>> some organic things are not alive.
>
>Our discussion would be better served if you would not
>interject responses into the middle of my sentences.
No. I'll interject where it could do the most good,
but none of the things I point out ever do you any
good anyway regardless of when I point them out.
Now I'll point out that afaik all living things are
organic, but not all organic things have been alive.
>>> sentience vs non-sentience, and the significance of
>>> those factors *to us* but that is another level of the
>>> discussion. I know that flowers don't feel pain,
>>
>> We hope they don't.
>
>Right, I don't think they do, not pain as we know it.
>
>>
>>> but God is in them all the same. I am referring to the
>>> very underpinnings of reality, of the universe itself,
>>> nature, God if you like.
>>
>> God means an intelligent being who had/has
>> deliberate influence on the development of life.
>
>I have a broader perspective than that.
You have no perspective. You have removed
the concept of God, and replaced it with nothing.
>> If you want to pretend that God has no intelligence
>> then you're trying to change the meaning of "God"
>> to the opposite of what it means.
>
>I NEVER suggested such a thing.
Again it would be a necessary part of accepting
what you're suggesting. First you want to change
the meaning completely, and then you want to deny
doing it. Such absurdity from you is far from unusual,
and it always leaves a person wondering WHY you
want people to believe it.
Maybe there is, but if it has no intelligence or
ability to perform deliberate acts it's certainly not
God, and worthy of no more true respect than
gravity or magnetism, which is none.
>that is a
>manifestation of GOD?
God means an intelligent thinking being, not
a mindless force incapable of thought.
>Everything.
>
>>
>>> The
>>> original poster proposed that GOD visited earth in
>>> certain forms, to which he, the poster assigned Indian
>>> names. My response is that GOD, if you will, as I
>>> understand it, doesn't "visit", GOD, *is* the essence
>>> of ALL being, right down to the particle-string level,
>>> deeper than any electron microscope can delve, wider
>>> than the furthest galaxy, and in our very existence, NOW.
>>
>> If God exists I don't doubt that he is as much in direct
>> contact with whatever he wants to be as he wants to be.
>> I also believe he has beings who work with him, and that
>> he has as much influence on other living beings through
>> them as he wants to have, and through his own direct
>> influence when he wants to.
>
>This strikes me as a rather quaint parochial storybook
>kind of religious view.
He has influence or not. Your "storybook" interpretation
shows that you have only the most childlike interpretation
of what God would be like if he exists...too childlike for you
to be able to think realistically about the possibility.
>>> This has been the message of spiritual teachers that
>>> has been largely misunderstood.
>>
>> It may be largely doubted. Even though I believe God
>> has as much influence on everything as he wants to have
>> if he exists, I doubt that he has direct influence on every
>> single event that takes place in the universe all the way
>> down to the sub-atomic level.
>
>Why?
Because I don't believe he would be that easily amused.
> I believe he does have such
>> influence when he wants to, but not that he always wants
>> to. I also believe that if Satan exists he has such influence
>> on people's thinking, having learned how to recognise
>> patterns and manipulate the minds of humans in ways
>> like influencing the flow of electrons down one path more
>> than another to encourage things like violence and
>> substance addictions that people would really rather stay
>> away from.
>
>Those are just expressions of human pain.
The fact that you can't consider the possibility of more
than that, just shows great limitation on your part and
nothing more. It goes right along with your earlier absurdities,
and also your inability to consider the existence of God in
anything but a childlike way.
dh
Only from your position, not mine.
>>> GOD, as manifested in a flower, would not be doing
>>> much thinking, he/she/it would be too busy being a flower.
>>
>> He would have plenty of room to think other places
>> if he wanted to, and apply it to the flowers from there,
>> according to your pov.
>
>Huh? You seem to be suffering from the delusion that
>"thinking" is some kind of high spiritual achievement
>worthy of God.
To suggest God doesn't think is an insult to God.
To suggest thinking is of no value is an insult to
everything that thinks, but most especially to yourself.
>Thinking is to the human brain as
>digestion is to the stomach, it's mostly an autonomic
>function. It is not my belief that God would be any
>more bothered with thinking than HE would take a crap.
That's certainly an insulting thing to say about him,
since it's more likely that he created so much variety
to give himself more to think about.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:mPntk.227465$gc5.53630@pd7urf2no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:Bn%sk.42424$hx.23632@pd7urf3no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:KRKsk.116439$nD.25522@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You've taken an innocent life.
> >>>>>> So do you, vile accuser, so do you. And you know it.
> >>>>> Were that so, it would be with remorse, not joy, vile accuser.
> >>>> That's unfortunate, because GOD gives its bounty to
> >>>> all, not to engender sorrow, but joy.
> >>> Stop engendering sorrow then?!
> >> More vile self-righteousness that you feed on like a
> >> vampire.
> >
> > Yet more rabid evasion when faced with the hard truth.
>
> Your vile self-righteousness is the hard truth about
> you, I don't evade it.
Let's see.. a person you don't know at all says that if you must eat
animal flesh then at least do so with remorse and your response is
a series of self-justifying false claims and vile self-righteous attack.
This goes some way toward explaining your situation:
'The extent of a person's knowledge creates their reality as much
as the truth, because the human mind can only contemplate that
which it has been exposed to. When objects are viewed without
understanding, the mind will try to reach for something that it
already recognizes, in order to process what it is viewing. '
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
"It always gave me a kind of puffed-up feeling when I thought I had
made someone feel a little uncomfortable, a little guilty about their diet. "
- Dutch 21/8/2006
"The deeper secrets and laws of our being are self-protected; to learn
them requires an adaptation of character and purpose, and a humility
of mind and spirit, inconsistent with those displayed by the perverse or
merely curious enquirer. To understand, let alone practically to explore,
the Hermetic Mystery is not for every one -- at least, at his present state
of evolutional unfolding. . . . Only to those whose spiritual destiny has
already equipped them with a certain high measure of moral and
intellectual fitness will even a rough notional apprehension of it be
practicable."
- Mary A. Atwood, Hermetic Philosophy and Alchemy, 1850
> >>>>>>> More than just flesh and blood,
> >>>>>>> a sentient being, - whom you wholly disregard and disrespect,
> >>>>>> Not at all. I acknowledge and honour their sacrifice,
> >>>>> "sacrifice", ditch? Hah! You clearly couldn't care less.
> >>>> I ask that you not speak for me.
> >>> Your actions speak louder and truer than any words.
> >> Thank you
> >
> > Why on Earth are you thanking me?
>
> For making my point.
What? Do you think that your poor victims care for your claim to
"acknowledge and honour their sacrifice" while bleeding to death?
> >>>>>> unlike you who hides behind cowardly and transparent
> >>>>>> demands for "credible evidence". See no evil..
> >>>>> Make outrageous claims; get asked for credible evidence.
> >>>> Credible claims.
> >>> Then support them with credible evidence. Rodents, lizards.
> >> There is very little direct record of the numbers or
> >> the suffering of poisoned birds, drowned mice,
> >> shredded lizards. No-one of good faith denies it. Your
> >> addiction to self-righteousness demands that you do.
> >
> > Thanks for the admission that you make (outrageous) claims
> > lacking all credible evidence. Why poisoned grasshoppers
> > (and as a consequence, birds) but not millions upon millions
> > of "drowned mice and shredded lizards"? As for the rest..
>
> All credible claims, all true.
As credible as your claim to have had children -- Status: FALSE.
From: Michael (michael-nnooospppaaammmm...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Collateral Damage in Crop Fields?
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
View: Complete Thread (370 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2002-05-20 17:31:08 PST
I have been farming for almost thirty years. I am unaware of this term
collateral damage in the context of farming.
I have hayed countless acres of fields and can't remember seeing anything
killed except the grass. We see plenty of wildlife but all it has to do is
move over six feet (2M) at a slow walk to avoid the machine. Now one thing
they (who the hell is THEY?, sorry old John Wayne movie quote) do fall
victim to is by removing the cover these animals have had for a few months
the hawks have a field day.
[pearl: Another very good reason to leave crop residue on the fields.
... "Dutch" et al. regard all organic crop residue as feed for "cattle".]
Corn and milo fields attract deer by the score but we consider that food
they take as the "angels share".
There are some farmers who have such large losses to deer that the state
authorities allow killing the deer out of season. I add this not for shock
value but in the sake of honesty. No one I know has requested this
dispensation.
During the raising or harvesting of what are the crops is damage to wildlife
occurring? Combines and threshers are not Porsches. I have one tractor
that is geared so low I can bungee cord the wheel straight, hop off, fix a
displaced plant, hop back on and never go above a walk. You tell what wild
animal is going to be surprised and caught by this thing. And it's loud as
the hammers of hell.
I don't know about this CD stuff. Sounds like BS to me.
[end]
===================================================
'There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.
The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.
Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However, the
number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison to the
road kill on a mile of highway. Harvesters move slowly, and they are
not the high speed machines described in this article.
At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that we share
our fields with. For example, every spring before field work begins, we
search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a local incubation
centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are disturbed like this).
After hatching, the fledglings are raised and released back into the
wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000 duck eggs. After harvest, we
flood our fields to provide habitat for winter migratory birds and
waterfowl. They eat the rice that is left in the fields and contribute
fertilizer for next spring. There are autumn days when the sky is
blackened by canadian geese (and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks,
geese, cranes, rails, pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald
eagles resting in our fields.
We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques. We see
our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and would not
continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that this hoax
suggests.
--> Kent Lundberg.
Kent Lundberg
Lundberg Family Farms
http://www.lundberg.com
> >>> Acknowledge that feeding humans directly would free up for
> >>> wildlife vast areas, - currently grazed and cropped for feed.
> >> Certainly, there would be more wildlife if there were
> >> less livestock.
> >
> > And abundant sustenance for wildlife in regenerated habitat..
>
> Nature takes care of itself, it's not always pretty,
> populations grow to match whatever resources are
> available.
To each their own.
> >>> Also acknowledge that we can live in harmony with Nature,
> >>> without pesticides and herbicides and chemical fertilizers.
> >> Possibly,
> >
> > It's being done. You've seen exactly how it can be done.
>
> It's being done on a relatively small scale, whether
> or not the world can have all the cotton of bananas it
> demands without poisons is another question. I hope so.
What about wheat? Isn't it time you urged you tenant farmer
to go organic and maybe diversify a bit? Crops for humans?
> >> it's also possible that we might treat the
> >> animals we farm with respect, even reverence. The fact
> >> is that neither of those happens to be the reality wrt
> >> most of what we consume.
> >
> > Animals regarded as 'end products' will never be respected
> > as individual living sentient beings. The reality is inevitable.
>
> It's no more inevitable than treating the animals in
> crop fields as "pests" to be eliminated by the most
> efficient means possible.
That's the agri-business way.
> > And as we're not respecting the animals we're supposed to
> > care for... then what chance for wild critters? It's the same
> > damnable attitude. It is a true respect and reverance for all
> > living creatures that will, please God, bring us back on track.
>
> GOD's creature consume one another, GOD does not have
> the same squeamishness about life and death as you.
Some of God's creatures consume others apparently for good
reasons with benefits beyond their own necessary sustenance,
so don't try to equate your position with that of true carnivores.
> >>>>> What happened to that paragraph, ditch? Evil coward.
> >>>> There are always more paragraphs, they will never have
> >>>> any meaning until you come to terms with your own
> >>>> demons instead of projecting them.
> >>> Evasive projective babble.
> >> Of course you see it that way.
> >
> > Of course I do, as that's what it is.
>
> To you, your perceptions are not reality.
"Deluding myself felt good" - Dutch, Jun 4 2005 .
> >>>>>>> violently imposing your will so as to give yourself some 'joy'.
> >>>>>> As do you with every single act that serves your
> >>>>>> interests beyond bare survival.
> >>>>> That's what you're doing, and indeed advocate, not me.
> >>>> Its what we are all doing. There are no people here
> >>>> living a life of bare subsistence.
> >>> You have no idea what others here are doing.
> >> I have an excellent idea. I know for example that YOU
> >> aren't doing it.
> >
> > How so? Explain.
>
> Since I am not standing beside you watching everything
Anything.
> you do, the obvious example is you running your mouth
Projection.
> day after day on a home computer, that is not bare
> subsistence, it is excess of that.
Someone needs to rebutt your pro-meat propaganda.
> Beyond that I can
> say with good confidence that you probably live a
> fairly comfortable life, buying imported fruit
> sometimes, eating until you are good and full,
> subscribe to cable television etc etc..
I avoid any excess.
> You have
> justified to yourself that your lifestyle is ethical,
> despite the reality that children are dying of
> starvation and disease as you read this, that your
> consumer habits have wrought a path of death,
> suffering and injustice. Absurd? No. All our lives are
> compromises, and your need to define mine is your
> problem, not mine.
==============================
311. pearl Sep 27 2006, 12:04 pm
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.religion.buddhism
From: "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:04:25 +0100
Local: Wed, Sep 27 2006 12:04 pm
Subject: Re: What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?
author
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:12hk6tf...@news.supernews.com...
> I am not talking about lip service or frilly sounding speeches, I am talking
> about all of us especially in the west, how we decide to balance our own
> "right to pursue happiness" and the knowledge that most of the rest of the
> world is in desperate need. For example I can easily spend $200 or more on a
> round of golf and dinner. How can that be right while there are people
> literally starving?
'C: Third World Poverty Caused by the Animal Exploitation Industry.
The Animal exploitation industries have boosted third world poverty
in a number of ways:-
C.a) The Expropriation of Land.
A colossal part of the Earth's land surface has been devoted to pasture,
"A quarter of the earth's landmass is used as pasture for cattle and other
livestock .."55
['About 29 percent of the world's land surface is used for livestock
production, either by permanent pasture for grazing or croplands for
animal fodder and feed.
www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0511sp1.htm
'It is estimated that 73 percent of the world's grazing land has so
deteriorated that it has lost at least 25 percent of its animal carrying
capacity [3].
UNEP, Global Environment Outlook 2000, Earthscan, 1999. ]
Some of this land has been acquired through expropriation.
This is as true in the third world today as it was centuries ago in the
over-industrialized nations. Large numbers of poor people have been
imprisoned, made homeless, killed, or have starved as a result of big
landowners expropriating land for pasture. The same sort of
expropriation has occurred, although not on the same scale, to provide
grains for livestock Animals in the over-industrialized world. As has
been pointed out above 14% of the land in third world countries is being
used for cash crops although it is not known what proportion of this
land is being used to grow grains for the Animal exploitation industry.
C.b) The Expropriation of Food.
Large areas of pastureland in the disintegrating/industrializing countries
are used for livestock Animals which are exported to the
over-industrialized world. Huge numbers of people in these countries
go hungry even though they are surrounded by livestock Animals,
"Birds Eye Walls import 30,000 tonnes of beef from Brazil every year."
Although meat exports from third world countries continue to grow,
they are declining relative to meat exports from the over-industrialied
nations.
The same is also true as regards the crops which provide feed for
livestock Animals. Huge numbers of people are going hungry even
though third world countries are producing vast quantities of grains
which are exported to feed livestock in the over-industrialized nations,
"Although soybeans are consumed directly as tofu and soy sauce in
many countries, food use accounts for a small fraction of the world
harvest. Most of the world's soybeans are grown primarily for the
protein meal that is widely used in pork and poultry rations. Argentina
and Brazil .. crush most of their beans and export them largely as meal,
retaining much of the oil for domestic consumption."
The over-industrialized world cannot grow enough feed for its livestock
and have to import huge quantities of fodder from third world countries,
"Because of the large amounts of grain required to produce beef, the
geographic location of cattle herds can be misleading. Most industrial
countries do not have sufficient agricultural land to support their meat
consumption. Beef production is particularly land-intensive, because
one calorie of meat production requires 3 calories of grain inputs for
pork and 10 calories for beef. Land requirements can be up to 50 times
higher than for protein production from grain. As a result, a great deal
of the feed consumed in industrialized countries is not produced on
the home farm, but purchased from developing countries. For example,
Western Europe imports more than 40%, or 21 million tons per year, of
its feed grains from the Third World.";"Feeding the meat-eating (world)
class takes nearly 40% of the world's grain, grown on close to one-fifth
of the world's cropland."; "There has been a fundamental shift in world
agriculture this century from food grains to feed grains, and cattle now
compete with people for food. A third of the world's fish catch and
more than a third of the world's total grain output is fed to livestock."61
Huge numbers of third world peoples are starving because the crops
grown in their country are exported to fatten Animals in the
over-industrialized nations, "More people are hungry now than ever
before. Many states where hunger is prevalent are net exporters of food."
Even during times of famine, grains continue to be exported from third
world countries to the over-industrialized world, "In addition, about
two-thirds of the total domestic grain crop goes to feed-lots. The
agribusiness production of grains for foreign exchange-earning exports
to the industrialized region is one among several factors in the
displacement of the rural poor in the Third world onto marginal,
ecologically sensitive land. The magnitude of the food value involved
in this trade is significant: the 500 million people suffering starvation
could find relief from this condition if they had the cash to buy the
grains exported to industrial country feedlots. In that sense, the present
level of meat consumption in the wealthy industrialized countries is
directly related to starvation in the poor countries of the world."
C.c) The Expropriation of Resources.
Third world elites devote huge quantities of resources, from water,
minerals, and fossil fuels to the Animal exploitation industry when
these resources could be used to alleviate third world poverty,
"While it takes, on average, 25 gallons of water (113 litres) to produce
a pound of wheat in modern Western farming systems, it requires an
astounding 2,500 gallons (11,250 litres) of water to produce a pound
of meat."
C.d) Third world Elites Exploiting their own People for the sake of Meat.
Animals are a major export earner in many third world countries ..
"African export earnings from this source (live animals, meat, hides and
skins) exceed those from tobacco, tea or bauxite." Just as was the case
with exports of cash crops and raw materials for the car industries, the
wealth generated by Animal exports is expropriated by third world elites.
Third world elites, like consumers in the over-industrialized nations, are
meat eaters, and some of their countries' export earnings are used to
sustain a carnivorous diet. Third world elites would rather spend money
on buying meat for their own consumption rather than alleviating poverty.
They are therefore responsible for some of the poverty caused by the
Animal exploitation industry.
C.e) Rich in Meat, Poor in Wealth.
There is a general rule about the Animal exploitation industry in third
world countries and this is that the greater the wealth generated by
Animal exports the greater the scale of poverty. For example .. "meat
exporting countries are among Africa's poorest and most drought stricken:
Chad, Sudan, Niger, Somalia, Mali, Botswana and Namibia." There are a
number of reasons for this:- Firstly, because third world countries' export
earnings are confiscated by third world elites rather than disbursed
throughout the population;
Secondly, the Animal exploitation industry is such a land extensive
enterprise that little land left for the development of local agriculture or
other industries;
Thirdly, the Animal exploitation industry uses only a small workforce,
thereby further limiting the spread of wealth throughout the population;
and,
Finally, the Animal exploitation industry is a capital intensive industry
which means that little capital is left for other industries.
As a consequence, "No other agro-export has contributed less to the
welfare of the Guatemalan population than beef. Cattle ranching has
displaced hundreds of small farmers and employed very few workers.
Moreover, Guatemala was no exception to the process common
throughout central America by which countries of the region rapidly
increased beef exports to the united states to meet the demands of fast
food chains like MacDonalds, while per capita domestic consumption
declined."
C.f) The Oppression of World Trade related to the Animal Exploitation
Industry.
It was pointed out above that the over-industrialized nations cannot
produce enough grains to feed their own livestock Animals and need to
import huge quantities of grains from third world countries. The injustices
of this situation are compounded by the oppression of world trade. The
over-industrialized countries prevent third world countries from subsidizing
their agricultural products whilst at the same time giving huge subsidies to
their own pharmers. As a consequence of these subsidies the
over-industrialized pharmers produce huge food mountains which are then
dumped on third world countries ruining their agricultural industry because
the grains from over-industrialized nations are cheaper than locally produced
third world grains - even though the former has often been transported half
way around the world. Furthermore the over-industrialized nations prevent
third world countries from blocking the importation of subsidized agricultural
products from the over-industrialized nations, "The grain imports required to
compensate for this shift of agricultural land further undermines the self
reliance of developing countries: Grain exports from industrialized countries
to Third World countries are routinely subsidized." The injustices of world
trade exacerbate the injustices caused by the Animal exploitation industries
in third world countries.
C.g) The Animal Exploitation Industry exacerbates Global Warming which
will Increase Third World Poverty.
The Animal exploitation industry is the biggest contributor to global warming.
It boosts global warming through Animal flatulence, the ...
read more >>
========================================
312. Dutch Sep 27 2006, 7:55 pm
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.religion.buddhism
From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:55:10 -0700
Local: Wed, Sep 27 2006 7:55 pm
Subject: Re: What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:efdlr8$job$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:12hk6tf...@news.supernews.com...
>> I am not talking about lip service or frilly sounding speeches, I am
>> talking
>> about all of us especially in the west, how we decide to balance our own
>> "right to pursue happiness" and the knowledge that most of the rest of
>> the
>> world is in desperate need. For example I can easily spend $200 or more
>> on a
>> round of golf and dinner. How can that be right while there are people
>> literally starving?
> 'C: Third World Poverty Caused by
If you want to spread your propaganda start your own thread, don't paste it
as a response to my posts.
=================================================
313. pearl Sep 27 2006, 8:40 pm
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.religion.buddhism
From: "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:40:09 +0100
Local: Wed, Sep 27 2006 8:40 pm
Subject: Re: What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:12hli8g...@news.supernews.com...
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:efdlr8$job$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:12hk6tf...@news.supernews.com...
> >> I am not talking about lip service or frilly sounding speeches, I am
> >> talking
> >> about all of us especially in the west, how we decide to balance our own
> >> "right to pursue happiness" and the knowledge that most of the rest of
> >> the
> >> world is in desperate need. For example I can easily spend $200 or more
> >> on a
> >> round of golf and dinner. How can that be right while there are people
> >> literally starving?
> > 'C: Third World Poverty Caused by
> If you want to spread your propaganda start your own thread, don't paste it
> as a response to my posts.
So you are not *actually* concerned about human poverty and starvation then,
just as you aren't _really_ concerned about animal welfare (well-being). It is all
just lip service and frilly sounding propaganda, because if you *were* concerned
you'd ACKNOWLEDGE THE INFORMATION AND ACT ACCORDINGLY,
not keep on ignoring it and brushing it off with baseless attacks on the messengers
like you've done here. Great stuff, ditch. I'm sure everyone is suitably impressed.
BTW, what happened to basic human rights? Guess you don't believe in them..
===========================================
314. Dutch View profile
More options Sep 27 2006, 9:32 pm
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.religion.buddhism
From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:32:09 -0700
Local: Wed, Sep 27 2006 9:32 pm
Subject: Re: What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:efek28$veq$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:12hli8g...@news.supernews.com...
>> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>> news:efdlr8$job$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>> > news:12hk6tf...@news.supernews.com...
>> >> I am not talking about lip service or frilly sounding speeches, I am
>> >> talking
>> >> about all of us especially in the west, how we decide to balance our
>> >> own
>> >> "right to pursue happiness" and the knowledge that most of the rest of
>> >> the
>> >> world is in desperate need. For example I can easily spend $200 or
>> >> more
>> >> on a
>> >> round of golf and dinner. How can that be right while there are people
>> >> literally starving?
>> > 'C: Third World Poverty Caused by
>> If you want to spread your propaganda start your own thread, don't paste
>> it
>> as a response to my posts.
> So you are not *actually* concerned
I am actually not interested with your pasted polemics. I posed a specific
question, if you don't have an actual answer then silence is golden.
==============================================
Got your number, ditch...
> >>> All other things being equal, you demand killing.
> >> So do you. The difference is that you hide from it, I
> >> admit it.
> >
> > I certainly don't demand killing. You admit you do.
>
> You do demand killing, defining consumption with
> passive acceptance as demand.
What "killing" are you talking about?
Seems your abandoning all control over your own life here.
> >>>> not denying one's sins in order to
> >>>> lord it over others, that is sanctimony.
> >>> But that's exactly what *you* are doing.
> >> Nonsense, I'm not the one calling people "demon".
> >
> > Your history here consists wholly of demonizing others.
>
> No,
Yes.
> my only desire here is to relieve people of the
> guilt they live with and come here to project on others.
What guilt? And by hurling baseless guilt-inducing accusations
at people? You ARE guilty, ditch, and that's NOT projection.
> >>> Go back and address
> >>> the cites you evasively snipped
> >> Get this dearie, once and for all, you don't define
> >> what is right for me, and you don't get to dictate to
> >> me that I put in my newsgroups posts. The control over
> >> others that you seek so desperately will never come,
> >> and even if it did you would find it to be hollow.
> >
> > If you want to be seen as an evasive blowhard, carry on..
>
> Just the voice of reason, the voice you can't hear.
Your voice of self-delusion, silly clown.
> >>> in denial of your sins, and retract
> >>> your lies and accusations of lying, then admit that your taste for
> >>> animal fat requires innocent blood be shed, and that it's wrong,
> >>> that it involves sanctimoniously lording it over other creatures.
> >> That nice cotton shirt on your back came at the cost
> >> of untold death and suffering of tiny creatures in
> >> cotton fields, just to cite one example. Closing your
> >> eyes and screaming for absolute proof of something so
> >> obvious is just cowardly.
> >
> > My eyes are open, and I see no evidence to support your claim.
>
> Your eyes are open but your mind is closed for business.
Could you get at least some of your land under organic hemp?
> > Evasion noted.
> >
> >>>>>>> And you consider your opinion on spiritual matters of value?
> >>>>>> Only for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
> >>>>> We can all see what you're about, ditch. You're a fraud.
> >>>> The peace you seek is within, it will not come through
> >>>> attempts to diminish others.
> >>> Keep repeating that to yourself, maybe it'll finally get through..
> >> I am at peace, I am trying to help you see how futile
> >> it is to lash out at others like you do. To realize
> >> this you need to look at yourself honestly. I don't
> >> hold out much hope that will happen.
> >
> > R.I.P ditch.
>
> I am at peace, your anger and loathing towards good
> people is the problem.
You are very far from peace, and you won't find it until you take a
good hard look at yourself and your behaviour, then change so as
to avoid inflicting further harm. Maybe a conscience will follow.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:2JCtk.231078$gc5.47464@pd7urf2no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:mPntk.227465$gc5.53630@pd7urf2no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:Bn%sk.42424$hx.23632@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:KRKsk.116439$nD.25522@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You've taken an innocent life.
>>>>>>>> So do you, vile accuser, so do you. And you know it.
>>>>>>> Were that so, it would be with remorse, not joy, vile accuser.
>>>>>> That's unfortunate, because GOD gives its bounty to
>>>>>> all, not to engender sorrow, but joy.
>>>>> Stop engendering sorrow then?!
>>>> More vile self-righteousness that you feed on like a
>>>> vampire.
>>> Yet more rabid evasion when faced with the hard truth.
>> Your vile self-righteousness is the hard truth about
>> you, I don't evade it.
>
> Let's see.. a person you don't know at all
Hence who knows me not at all.
> says that if you must eat
> animal flesh then at least do so with remorse and your response is
> a series of self-justifying false claims and vile self-righteous attack.
My response to him was and is this, when one takes the
fruits of nature in order to sustain oneself, indeed
to thrive, do so with gratitude and joy, not remorse.
That is terrible spiritual advice. I question if food
eaten in a state of remorse can even nourish, it might
even cause disease. Any a vegetarian Buddhist who
happened to accept the gift of a meal of fish would
confirm this basic principle. Life should always be
partaken of in a state of rejoicing. To do less is to
cast insult on god.
> This goes some way toward explaining your situation:
>
> 'The extent of a person's knowledge creates their reality as much
> as the truth, because the human mind can only contemplate that
> which it has been exposed to. When objects are viewed without
> understanding, the mind will try to reach for something that it
> already recognizes, in order to process what it is viewing. '
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
Your middle school philosophy lessons are quaint, and
ironic. Your perception of reality is completely
dominated and warped beyond recognition by an extreme
"Animal Rights" view.
> "It always gave me a kind of puffed-up feeling when I thought I had
> made someone feel a little uncomfortable, a little guilty about their diet. "
> - Dutch 21/8/2006
One of the best quotes ever, that experience as a
vegan gives me a clear insight into the psyche of the
ARA. Like the heroine addict who no longer even
notices he is high, you now must feed your addiction
to self-righteousness constantly just to feel normal.
> "The deeper secrets and laws of our being are self-protected; to learn
> them requires an adaptation of character and purpose, and a humility
> of mind and spirit, inconsistent with those displayed by the perverse or
> merely curious enquirer. To understand, let alone practically to explore,
> the Hermetic Mystery is not for every one -- at least, at his present state
> of evolutional unfolding. . . . Only to those whose spiritual destiny has
> already equipped them with a certain high measure of moral and
> intellectual fitness will even a rough notional apprehension of it be
> practicable."
> - Mary A. Atwood, Hermetic Philosophy and Alchemy, 1850
Self-righteousness is an indication of a lower state
of consciousness.
>
>>>>>>>>> More than just flesh and blood,
>>>>>>>>> a sentient being, - whom you wholly disregard and disrespect,
>>>>>>>> Not at all. I acknowledge and honour their sacrifice,
>>>>>>> "sacrifice", ditch? Hah! You clearly couldn't care less.
>>>>>> I ask that you not speak for me.
>>>>> Your actions speak louder and truer than any words.
>>>> Thank you
>>> Why on Earth are you thanking me?
>> For making my point.
>
> What? Do you think that your poor victims care for your claim to
> "acknowledge and honour their sacrifice" while bleeding to death?
Pointing to the animal "victims" of other people's
consumption and lifestyle, classic feeding of the
unconscious addiction to self-righteousness.
>
>>>>>>>> unlike you who hides behind cowardly and transparent
>>>>>>>> demands for "credible evidence". See no evil..
>>>>>>> Make outrageous claims; get asked for credible evidence.
>>>>>> Credible claims.
>>>>> Then support them with credible evidence. Rodents, lizards.
>>>> There is very little direct record of the numbers or
>>>> the suffering of poisoned birds, drowned mice,
>>>> shredded lizards. No-one of good faith denies it. Your
>>>> addiction to self-righteousness demands that you do.
>>> Thanks for the admission that you make (outrageous) claims
>>> lacking all credible evidence. Why poisoned grasshoppers
>>> (and as a consequence, birds) but not millions upon millions
>>> of "drowned mice and shredded lizards"? As for the rest..
>> All credible claims, all true.
>
> As credible as your claim to have had children -- Status: FALSE.
They are credible claims, if you were conscious, and
honest, you would admit it.
What else is he going to say?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972951/posts
The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should
Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet.
The following abstract and the aforementioned title
were written by S.L. Davis, Department of Animal
Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331.
I'll allow the reader to follow the link and leave the
copypasta to you.
>
>>>>> Acknowledge that feeding humans directly would free up for
>>>>> wildlife vast areas, - currently grazed and cropped for feed.
>>>> Certainly, there would be more wildlife if there were
>>>> less livestock.
>>> And abundant sustenance for wildlife in regenerated habitat..
>> Nature takes care of itself, it's not always pretty,
>> populations grow to match whatever resources are
>> available.
>
> To each their own.
>
>>>>> Also acknowledge that we can live in harmony with Nature,
>>>>> without pesticides and herbicides and chemical fertilizers.
>>>> Possibly,
>>> It's being done. You've seen exactly how it can be done.
>> It's being done on a relatively small scale, whether
>> or not the world can have all the cotton of bananas it
>> demands without poisons is another question. I hope so.
>
> What about wheat? Isn't it time you urged you tenant farmer
> to go organic and maybe diversify a bit? Crops for humans?
The crop we grow is Red Spring wheat, for humans. It's
not as simple as just going organic, an entire area
has to do it. If there is a non-organic field anywhere
near ours we could not be certified.
>
>>>> it's also possible that we might treat the
>>>> animals we farm with respect, even reverence. The fact
>>>> is that neither of those happens to be the reality wrt
>>>> most of what we consume.
>>> Animals regarded as 'end products' will never be respected
>>> as individual living sentient beings. The reality is inevitable.
>> It's no more inevitable than treating the animals in
>> crop fields as "pests" to be eliminated by the most
>> efficient means possible.
>
> That's the agri-business way.
It is the reality behind the lifestyles we live.
>
>>> And as we're not respecting the animals we're supposed to
>>> care for... then what chance for wild critters? It's the same
>>> damnable attitude. It is a true respect and reverance for all
>>> living creatures that will, please God, bring us back on track.
>> GOD's creature consume one another, GOD does not have
>> the same squeamishness about life and death as you.
>
> Some of God's creatures consume others apparently for good
> reasons with benefits beyond their own necessary sustenance,
> so don't try to equate your position with that of true carnivores.
At the risk of inducing an orgy of copypasta, we are
meat eaters, since before our species branched off.
>
>>>>>>> What happened to that paragraph, ditch? Evil coward.
>>>>>> There are always more paragraphs, they will never have
>>>>>> any meaning until you come to terms with your own
>>>>>> demons instead of projecting them.
>>>>> Evasive projective babble.
>>>> Of course you see it that way.
>>> Of course I do, as that's what it is.
>> To you, your perceptions are not reality.
>
> "Deluding myself felt good" - Dutch, Jun 4 2005 .
It feels even better since I stopped. I have this
newsgroup to thank for that. Some people come here to
feed their addiction to self-righteousness, some come
to learn the truth and free their minds.
>
>>>>>>>>> violently imposing your will so as to give yourself some 'joy'.
>>>>>>>> As do you with every single act that serves your
>>>>>>>> interests beyond bare survival.
>>>>>>> That's what you're doing, and indeed advocate, not me.
>>>>>> Its what we are all doing. There are no people here
>>>>>> living a life of bare subsistence.
>>>>> You have no idea what others here are doing.
>>>> I have an excellent idea. I know for example that YOU
>>>> aren't doing it.
>>> How so? Explain.
>> Since I am not standing beside you watching everything
>
> Anything.
>
>> you do, the obvious example is you running your mouth
>
> Projection.
You make my case, copypasta queen.
>
>> day after day on a home computer, that is not bare
>> subsistence, it is excess of that.
>
> Someone needs to rebutt your pro-meat propaganda.
If you and your ilk weren't here spewing your hateful
demonizing dogma I would not be here either. You are
perpetuating this excess, every day.
>
>> Beyond that I can
>> say with good confidence that you probably live a
>> fairly comfortable life, buying imported fruit
>> sometimes, eating until you are good and full,
>> subscribe to cable television etc etc..
>
> I avoid any excess.
Liar, everything beyond mere subsistence is excess.
You decide for yourself where to draw the line, what
level of comfort and convenience, richness of life, is
sufficient to satisfy you. Having done that you come
here to preach, dictate, demonize and control to feed
an addiction to living atop a false moral pedestal.
>
>> You have
>> justified to yourself that your lifestyle is ethical,
>> despite the reality that children are dying of
>> starvation and disease as you read this, that your
>> consumer habits have wrought a path of death,
>> suffering and injustice. Absurd? No. All our lives are
>> compromises, and your need to define mine is your
>> problem, not mine.
>
<snip EXCESS>
>> If you want to spread your propaganda start your own thread, don't paste it
>> as a response to my posts.
>
> So you are not *actually* concerned about human poverty and starvation then,
> just as you aren't _really_ concerned about animal welfare (well-being). It is all
> just lip service and frilly sounding propaganda, because if you *were* concerned
> you'd ACKNOWLEDGE THE INFORMATION AND ACT ACCORDINGLY,
> not keep on ignoring it and brushing it off with baseless attacks on the messengers
> like you've done here. Great stuff, ditch. I'm sure everyone is suitably impressed.
>
> BTW, what happened to basic human rights? Guess you don't believe in them..
More of the same lesley, unfounded attacks to feed her
ever-growing need to feel superior to others.
Wow, did you ever get your own number with that one.
>
>>>>> All other things being equal, you demand killing.
>>>> So do you. The difference is that you hide from it, I
>>>> admit it.
>>> I certainly don't demand killing. You admit you do.
>> You do demand killing, defining consumption with
>> passive acceptance as demand.
>
> What "killing" are you talking about?
Not a genuine question.
[..]
>>> As it is perceived by others. Brutalizing others is a morally-
>>> depraved act. It's not tolerated amongst humans, and there
>>> is no valid reason why it should be tolerated in our treatment
>>> of non-human animals. There's a state of collective denial.
>> That is clear statement of the moral confusion
>> inherent in AR. The world is chock full of life forms,
>> we cause them to suffer whether we consume them or not.
>
> Seems your abandoning all control over your own life here.
On the contrary, I have taken control over my own
life, removing it from the hands of confused
self-righteous propagandists like you.
>>>>>> not denying one's sins in order to
>>>>>> lord it over others, that is sanctimony.
>>>>> But that's exactly what *you* are doing.
>>>> Nonsense, I'm not the one calling people "demon".
>>> Your history here consists wholly of demonizing others.
>> No,
>
> Yes.
Not at all. The most self-righteous, morally confused
ARA is a decent person at heart, that's what leads a
person into the trap in the first place. I sympathize
with them, not so much you though, you should know better.
>
>> my only desire here is to relieve people of the
>> guilt they live with and come here to project on others.
>
> What guilt?
The never-ending vicious cycle of demonizing others,
feeling guilty for doing so, then attempting to
relieve that guilt by upping the ante and increasing
the rhetoric.
> And by hurling baseless guilt-inducing accusations
> at people? You ARE guilty, ditch, and that's NOT projection.
Thank you for the demonstration.
>
>>>>> Go back and address
>>>>> the cites you evasively snipped
>>>> Get this dearie, once and for all, you don't define
>>>> what is right for me, and you don't get to dictate to
>>>> me that I put in my newsgroups posts. The control over
>>>> others that you seek so desperately will never come,
>>>> and even if it did you would find it to be hollow.
>>> If you want to be seen as an evasive blowhard, carry on..
>> Just the voice of reason, the voice you can't hear.
>
> Your voice of self-delusion, silly clown.
To the deluded like yourself, the voice of reason
sounds like nonsense.
>
>>>>> in denial of your sins, and retract
>>>>> your lies and accusations of lying, then admit that your taste for
>>>>> animal fat requires innocent blood be shed, and that it's wrong,
>>>>> that it involves sanctimoniously lording it over other creatures.
>>>> That nice cotton shirt on your back came at the cost
>>>> of untold death and suffering of tiny creatures in
>>>> cotton fields, just to cite one example. Closing your
>>>> eyes and screaming for absolute proof of something so
>>>> obvious is just cowardly.
>>> My eyes are open, and I see no evidence to support your claim.
>> Your eyes are open but your mind is closed for business.
>
> Could you get at least some of your land under organic hemp?
Nope. All we could do is to take it out of production
completely, even then we would have to control weeds.
>
>>> Evasion noted.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> And you consider your opinion on spiritual matters of value?
>>>>>>>> Only for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
>>>>>>> We can all see what you're about, ditch. You're a fraud.
>>>>>> The peace you seek is within, it will not come through
>>>>>> attempts to diminish others.
>>>>> Keep repeating that to yourself, maybe it'll finally get through..
>>>> I am at peace, I am trying to help you see how futile
>>>> it is to lash out at others like you do. To realize
>>>> this you need to look at yourself honestly. I don't
>>>> hold out much hope that will happen.
>>> R.I.P ditch.
>> I am at peace, your anger and loathing towards good
>> people is the problem.
>
> You are very far from peace, and you won't find it until you take a
> good hard look at yourself and your behaviour, then change so as
> to avoid inflicting further harm. Maybe a conscience will follow.
You're dead wrong, I am very much at peace. I am aware
that my lifestyle, my actions inflict harm. I am no
longer driven to point fingers at others to relieve
guilt over it.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:2JCtk.231078$gc5.47464@pd7urf2no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:mPntk.227465$gc5.53630@pd7urf2no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:Bn%sk.42424$hx.23632@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:KRKsk.116439$nD.25522@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You've taken an innocent life.
> >>>>>>>> So do you, vile accuser, so do you. And you know it.
> >>>>>>> Were that so, it would be with remorse, not joy, vile accuser.
> >>>>>> That's unfortunate, because GOD gives its bounty to
> >>>>>> all, not to engender sorrow, but joy.
> >>>>> Stop engendering sorrow then?!
> >>>> More vile self-righteousness that you feed on like a
> >>>> vampire.
> >>> Yet more rabid evasion when faced with the hard truth.
> >> Your vile self-righteousness is the hard truth about
> >> you, I don't evade it.
> >
> > Let's see.. a person you don't know at all
>
> Hence who knows me not at all.
?
> > says that if you must eat
> > animal flesh then at least do so with remorse and your response is
> > a series of self-justifying false claims and vile self-righteous attack.
>
> My response to him was and is this, when one takes the
> fruits of nature in order to sustain oneself, indeed
> to thrive, do so with gratitude and joy, not remorse.
>
> That is terrible spiritual advice.
Heaven forbid you might give a damn and spoil your joy.
> I question if food
> eaten in a state of remorse can even nourish, it might
> even cause disease.
Dead flesh eaten in any state *does* cause disease.
> Any a vegetarian Buddhist who
> happened to accept the gift of a meal of fish would
> confirm this basic principle. Life should always be
> partaken of in a state of rejoicing. To do less is to
> cast insult on god.
'Certain Mahayana sutras do present the Buddha as very vigorously
and unreservedly denouncing the eating of meat, mainly on the grounds
that such an act is linked to the spreading of fear amongst sentient beings
(who can allegedly sense the odour of death that lingers about the meat-
eater and who consequently fear for their own lives) and violates the
bodhisattva's fundamental cultivation of compassion. Moreover,
according to the Buddha in the Angulimaliya Sutra, since all beings share
the same "Dhatu" (spiritual Principle or Essence) and are intimately related
to one another, killing and eating other sentient creatures is tantamount to
a form of self-killing and cannibalism. The sutras which inveigh against
meat-eating include the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the
Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the
Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative
karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the
Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final
elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the
very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat
extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind
of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is
prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go
out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should
be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and
scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach
the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this
sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic
Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and falsely claim that the
Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas he says he does not. A long
passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very
forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of
vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is
said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva
should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too
(e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that
meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome.
..
When asked in recent years what he thinks of vegetarianism, the 14th
Dalai Lama has said: "It is wonderful. We must absolutely promote
vegetarianism."[2]
On 3 January 2007, 17th Karmapa, Urgyen Trinley Dorje, also strongly
urged vegetarianism upon his students, saying that generally, in his view,
it was very important in the Mahayana not to eat meat and that even in
Vajrayana students should not eat meat:
There are many great masters and very great realized beings in India and
there have been many great realized beings in Tibet also, but they are not
saying, "I'm realized, therefore I can do anything; I can eat meat and
drink alcohol." It's nothing like that. It should not be like that. According
to the Kagyupa school, we have to see what the great masters of the past,
the past lamas of Kagyupas, did and said about eating meat. The Drikung
Shakpa [sp?] Rinpoche, master of Drikungpa, said like this, "My students,
whomever are eating or using meat and calling it tsokhor or tsok, then
these people are completely deserting me and going against the dharma."
I can't explain each of these things, but he said that anybody that is using
meat and saying it is something good, this is completely against the dharma
and against me and they completely have nothing to do with dharma. He
said it very, very strongly.[3]
..'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism
<..>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972951/posts
> The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should
> Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet.
>
> The following abstract and the aforementioned title
> were written by S.L. Davis, Department of Animal
> Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331.
>
> I'll allow the reader to follow the link and leave the
> copypasta to you.
Why even post it when you know full well that it's misleading?
(Why am I even asking that question..?)
'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land animals
are raised and slaughtered for human consumption. Given the suffering
these animals endure, and given that all our nutritional needs can easily
be satisfied without eating these animals, arguments that vegetarianism
is morally required have been advanced from a wide range of ethical
perspectives: utilitarianism (Singer, 2002), rights-based deontology
(Regan, 1983), contractarianism (Rowlands, 2002; Bernstein, 1997),
virtue ethics (Hurst-house, 2000), common-sense morality (DeGrazia,
1996; Engel, 1999; Sapontzis 1987), and religious moralities (Linzey
and Regan, 1988). Common to these arguments is the belief that
vegetarian diets cause the least harm - to animals, human health, and
the environment - and are thereby morally obligatory.
In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis (2003) accepts the common
moral intuition that we should cause the least harm (the "least harm
principle") but challenges the empirical claim that vegetarian diets do
in fact cause the least harm.
...
Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in crop
production
[guesstimate, without any actual physical evidence (i.e. bodies)]
(15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5).
If this is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half as
many hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount of food,
a vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In fact, crop
production uses less than half as many hectares as grass-fed dairy and
one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to deliver the same amount
of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on
as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy and corn, 2.6 hectares used as
pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or 10 hectares used as pasture for
grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar, 1998;UNFAO, 1996). As such, to
obtain the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a
vegan- vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian
would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-style omnivore would kill
1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting Davis's math, we see that a vegan-
vegetarian population would kill the fewest number of wild animals,
followed closely by a lacto-vegetarian population.
..'
http://jgmatheny.org/matheny%202003.pdf
> >>>>> Acknowledge that feeding humans directly would free up for
> >>>>> wildlife vast areas, - currently grazed and cropped for feed.
> >>>> Certainly, there would be more wildlife if there were
> >>>> less livestock.
> >>> And abundant sustenance for wildlife in regenerated habitat..
> >> Nature takes care of itself, it's not always pretty,
> >> populations grow to match whatever resources are
> >> available.
> >
> > To each their own.
> >
> >>>>> Also acknowledge that we can live in harmony with Nature,
> >>>>> without pesticides and herbicides and chemical fertilizers.
> >>>> Possibly,
> >>> It's being done. You've seen exactly how it can be done.
> >> It's being done on a relatively small scale, whether
> >> or not the world can have all the cotton of bananas it
> >> demands without poisons is another question. I hope so.
> >
> > What about wheat? Isn't it time you urged your tenant farmer
> > to go organic and maybe diversify a bit? Crops for humans?
>
> The crop we grow is Red Spring wheat, for humans. It's
> not as simple as just going organic, an entire area
> has to do it. If there is a non-organic field anywhere
> near ours we could not be certified.
Then you see how the system is stacked against the ethical producer
as well as the ethical consumer. Go to source with your complaints.
> >>>> it's also possible that we might treat the
> >>>> animals we farm with respect, even reverence. The fact
> >>>> is that neither of those happens to be the reality wrt
> >>>> most of what we consume.
> >>> Animals regarded as 'end products' will never be respected
> >>> as individual living sentient beings. The reality is inevitable.
> >> It's no more inevitable than treating the animals in
> >> crop fields as "pests" to be eliminated by the most
> >> efficient means possible.
> >
> > That's the agri-business way.
>
> It is the reality behind the lifestyles we live.
It's what's been forced on us.
> >>> And as we're not respecting the animals we're supposed to
> >>> care for... then what chance for wild critters? It's the same
> >>> damnable attitude. It is a true respect and reverance for all
> >>> living creatures that will, please God, bring us back on track.
> >> GOD's creature consume one another, GOD does not have
> >> the same squeamishness about life and death as you.
> >
> > Some of God's creatures consume others apparently for good
> > reasons with benefits beyond their own necessary sustenance,
> > so don't try to equate your position with that of true carnivores.
>
> At the risk of inducing an orgy of copypasta, we are
> meat eaters, since before our species branched off.
Again? A few backward males got off on competitive male
displays around a dead animal, then got hooked on the fat.
Not much has changed really, has it. So much for evolution.
Look, do us a favour and learn the meaning of "copypasta".
> >>>>>>> What happened to that paragraph, ditch? Evil coward.
> >>>>>> There are always more paragraphs, they will never have
> >>>>>> any meaning until you come to terms with your own
> >>>>>> demons instead of projecting them.
> >>>>> Evasive projective babble.
> >>>> Of course you see it that way.
> >>> Of course I do, as that's what it is.
> >> To you, your perceptions are not reality.
> >
> > "Deluding myself felt good" - Dutch, Jun 4 2005 .
>
> It feels even better since I stopped. I have this
> newsgroup to thank for that. Some people come here to
> feed their addiction to self-righteousness, some come
> to learn the truth and free their minds.
And we know who's who. You never stopped.
..
> > I avoid any excess.
>
> Liar, everything beyond mere subsistence is excess.
I'm not lying.
[snip]
SystemX
What crap!
You are reinterpreting 'God' in light of science.
Wake up! There is NO God! None!
You have been greatly misled to believe that there is a God.
Ask Ball.
Dutch
What insight!
> You are reinterpreting 'God' in light of science.
Not in the least, I am stating the some understandings
of the concept of God are not inconsistent with modern
science. By God I am not referring to any of the
parochial fables taught by organized religion.
> Wake up! There is NO God! None!
>
> You have been greatly misled to believe that there is a God.
I am taken by your sense of absolute assurance, it
reminds me of "faith". I presume that you have some
sort of argument to back it up, or at the very least
you can give some definition of this "God" which you
are so certain doesn't exist. If you do that perhaps
we can agree on some level. For example, I agree that
there is no white-bearded man in the clouds watching
over us.
> Ask Ball.
Why would I want to do that?
uNmaiviLambi
Dutch wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> My response to him was and is this, when one takes the
> fruits of nature in order to sustain oneself, indeed
> to thrive, do so with gratitude and joy, not remorse.
Animals are not the fruits of nature to feed on! How do you say then
when people feed on dog meat, cats, any animal. There was cannibalism.
People get a monkey drunk, tie it up, then remove the top of the skull
and then scoop the brain and eat it! People split alive a snake and
then drink its blood! You think they should eat and drink with joy?
What if they are addicted to meat, should they not control their
addictions? People overeat, should they overeat with joy? Or should
they realize it is not good and feel a sense of remorse and that way
at least hope one day to control their addictions? In addition to the
moral, ethical question, there is the ecological damage from meat
eating. This is far more than the damage from other industries. Also
consider the health risks of excessive meat eating that is so rampant
nowadays
> One of the best quotes ever, that experience as a
> vegan gives me a clear insight into the psyche of the
> ARA. Like the heroine addict who no longer even
> notices he is high, you now must feed your addiction
> to self-righteousness constantly just to feel normal.
I am afraid your views are based on an addiction. Hence you revolt
against the views of those who oppose
> Self-righteousness is an indication of a lower state
> of consciousness.
Is it not your self righteousness that is the subject for discussion
here? You insist you have to kill animals for you to survive, thrive
and be healthy, all false assumptions
Dutch
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>
>
>> My response to him was and is this, when one takes the
>> fruits of nature in order to sustain oneself, indeed
>> to thrive, do so with gratitude and joy, not remorse.
>
> Animals are not the fruits of nature to feed on!
All of nature comprises the fruits of nature.
> How do you say then
> when people feed on dog meat, cats, any animal.
I say that in many cases they would be violating
deeply ingrained western cultural taboos.
> There was cannibalism.
Yes there was, then there were laws and social and
cultural prohibitions which essentially ended the
practice.
> People get a monkey drunk, tie it up, then remove the top of the skull
> and then scoop the brain and eat it! People split alive a snake and
> then drink its blood! You think they should eat and drink with joy?
I think that the society comprised of people of
conscience should decide what is acceptable and what
is not and that should form the basis of our moral
code. Killing great apes, consuming animals alive, for
different reasons, both fall outside what most people
find acceptable. Having done that, and within the
bounds of what is acceptable, people ought to partake
with joy and gratitude, or not at all.
> What if they are addicted to meat, should they not control their
> addictions? People overeat, should they overeat with joy?
People should not engage in addictive behaviour, and
should not over-eat. Doing so with a sense of guilt is
not a recipe for overcoming these behaviours, on the
contrary it usually leads to a vicious cycle of more
excess.
> Or should
> they realize it is not good and feel a sense of remorse and that way
> at least hope one day to control their addictions?
Remorse and guilt are useless, destructive emotions.
What is useful is to decide what is best and act
accordingly.
> In addition to the
> moral, ethical question, there is the ecological damage from meat
> eating. This is far more than the damage from other industries.
False.
> Also
> consider the health risks of excessive meat eating that is so rampant
> nowadays
I never advocated excess of any kind. Moderation and
balance are key.
>
>> One of the best quotes ever, that experience as a
>> vegan gives me a clear insight into the psyche of the
>> ARA. Like the heroine addict who no longer even
>> notices he is high, you now must feed your addiction
>> to self-righteousness constantly just to feel normal.
>
> I am afraid your views are based on an addiction. Hence you revolt
> against the views of those who oppose.
My views are based on my experience of many years as a
vegetarian. First, it is not a diet that in the end
served me well either from a health or a enjoyment
standpoint. I also discovered that I came to be quite
narrow minded and judgmental towards others, and I see
that constantly in other vegetarians here. It is not
an attractive trait and it does not serve people well.
>> Self-righteousness is an indication of a lower state
>> of consciousness.
>
> Is it not your self righteousness that is the subject for discussion
> here?
No, I do not claim that my diet or lifestyle places me
morally above others.
> You insist you have to kill animals for you to survive, thrive
> and be healthy, all false assumptions
Wrong, as stated. All of us must sanction the killing
of animals in order to live our modern lives. The
cotton shirt on your back is the result of an industry
extremely damaging to the environment, meaning it
kills animals, lots of them. The same goes for most
fruits, vegetables and grains. You're posing as a
moral paragon by drawing a dishonest and sanctimonious
dichotomy with others. You're like a kind of psychic
vampire, sucking energy off this activity.
dh
If God exists, then what science teaches us is about how he
did things, etc.
>Wake up! There is NO God!
Are you willing to admit your faith that that guess is correct,
or are you too ashamed to admit it as most strong atheists are?
>None!
Not associated with any star system? Or with any galaxy?
Or just not associated with this star system in this galaxy?
How do you think you found out?
>You have been greatly misled to believe that there is a God.
How do you think you found out?
>Ask Ball.
How do you think Goo found out?
SystemX
> SystemX wrote:
snip
>>>
>>> My intent was not to eliminate distinctions. The original poster
>>> proposed that GOD visited earth in certain forms, to which he, the
>>> poster assigned Indian names. My response is that GOD, if you will,
>>> as I understand it, doesn't "visit", GOD, *is* the essence of ALL
>>> being, right down to the particle-string level, deeper than any
>>> electron microscope can delve, wider than the furthest galaxy, and in
>>> our very existence, NOW.
>>> This has been the message of spiritual teachers that has been largely
>>> misunderstood.
>>>
>>
>> What crap!
>
> What insight!
Agreed.
>
>> You are reinterpreting 'God' in light of science.
>
> Not in the least, I am stating the some understandings of the concept of
> God are not inconsistent with modern science. By God I am not referring
> to any of the parochial fables taught by organized religion.
You're inappropriately attempting to reconcile a faith in God with
science. - I hope you don't start spouting "intelligent evolution"!
Any concept of a God are inconsistent with modern science.
>
>> Wake up! There is NO God! None!
>>
>> You have been greatly misled to believe that there is a God.
>
> I am taken by your sense of absolute assurance, it reminds me of
> "faith". I presume that you have some sort of argument to back it up, or
> at the very least you can give some definition of this "God" which you
> are so certain doesn't exist.
I can not define something that does not exist. I can not argue that
something does not exist. You believe in a God, it is up to you to
prove, or at least provide SOME real evidence that it exists.
>If you do that perhaps we can agree on
> some level. For example, I agree that there is no white-bearded man in
> the clouds watching over us.
The you're not a completely lost cause.
Can't you see that your concept of God is at best entirely based on
hearsay and rumour, and perhaps it could be a form of propaganda.
>
> > Ask Ball.
>
> Why would I want to do that?
I guess you would take his word more seriously than mine.
SystemX
>>> My intent was not to eliminate distinctions. The original poster
>>> proposed that GOD visited earth in certain forms, to which he, the
>>> poster assigned Indian names. My response is that GOD, if you will, as I
>>> understand it, doesn't "visit", GOD, *is* the essence of ALL being,
>>> right down to the particle-string level, deeper than any electron
>>> microscope can delve, wider than the furthest galaxy, and in our very
>>> existence, NOW.
>>> This has been the message of spiritual teachers that has been largely
>>> misunderstood.
>>>
>> What crap!
>>
>> You are reinterpreting 'God' in light of science.
>
> If God exists, then what science teaches us is about how he
> did things, etc.
'He' does not exit, so science can teach us nothing about how 'he did
things'
>
>> Wake up! There is NO God!
>
> Are you willing to admit your faith that that guess is correct,
> or are you too ashamed to admit it as most strong atheists are?
It's you that have a problem.
>
>> None!
>
> Not associated with any star system? Or with any galaxy?
> Or just not associated with this star system in this galaxy?
> How do you think you found out?
>
>> You have been greatly misled to believe that there is a God.
>
> How do you think you found out?
>
>> Ask Ball.
>
> How do you think Goo found out?
Sorry, but I can't take your views seriously.
God does NOT exist.
Santa does NOT exist.
uNmaiviLambi
> Dutch wrote:
> You're inappropriately attempting to reconcile a faith in God with
> science. - I hope you don't start spouting "intelligent evolution"!
>
> Any concept of a God are inconsistent with modern science.
Science is only a methodology. There is no finality to any conclusion
from this methodology. For example, in future they may find some
reason to validate the concept of God or negate it. Even then it will
be subject to further evaluation for ever. Thus there is no point
saying concept of God is inconsistent with science. Moreover,
scientific methods are applicable only to observable phenomena. Thus
we can analyze observable scientifically phenomena but not morality,
ethics, beauty, justice, poetry, brotherhood, happiness, peace etc
etc. These are not directly observable but one may see the effects of
these. Thus scientific methodology is inapplicable. Hence similarly
God does not yield to science either as He is the author of the whole
universe and is not "observable".
Science does not yield final conclusions. True religion yields
conclusions and concepts for the welfare of mankind. They can be
analysed and logically examined as well
> I can not define something that does not exist. I can not argue that
> something does not exist. You believe in a God, it is up to you to
> prove, or at least provide SOME real evidence that it exists.
The common problem is people are caught up with the existence of God!
God, being the author of the whole universe, has to be the basis of
the world. Thus *Existence* is God. The universe is an aspect of God
but not His totality. He is Immanent and transcendent. The universe is
His expression and operates in Space-Time with Cause-Effect
parameters. God is thus beyond Space-Time and Cause -Effect but He is
Immanent
> The you're not a completely lost cause.
Almighty God can come in any form He chooses. We have to accept the
accounts of saints who describe these as much as we accept scientists
and people who testify to their experiences we are nor privy to such
as for example, the city of Moscow which I have not visited
SystemX
> On Sep 1, 3:29 pm, SystemX <syst...@clipityclop.com> wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>
>> You're inappropriately attempting to reconcile a faith in God with
>> science. - I hope you don't start spouting "intelligent evolution"!
>>
>> Any concept of a God are inconsistent with modern science.
>
> Science is only a methodology. There is no finality to any conclusion
> from this methodology. For example, in future they may find some
> reason to validate the concept of God or negate it. Even then it will
> be subject to further evaluation for ever. Thus there is no point
> saying concept of God is inconsistent with science.
Following that flawed logic, there is no point in science.
>Moreover,
> scientific methods are applicable only to observable phenomena. Thus
> we can analyze observable scientifically phenomena but not morality,
> ethics, beauty, justice, poetry, brotherhood, happiness, peace etc
> etc.
I know some of the above have been subject to scientific scrutiny and
debate (possibly all, but I've not the time or inclination to look further).
One example: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/blinded-by-science
>These are not directly observable but one may see the effects of
> these. Thus scientific methodology is inapplicable. Hence similarly
> God does not yield to science either as He is the author of the whole
> universe and is not "observable".
The only reason you believe in God is because someone told you that
there is a God.
>
> Science does not yield final conclusions. True religion yields
> conclusions and concepts for the welfare of mankind. They can be
> analysed and logically examined as well
Any effort to improve the welfare of any species should be applauded,
but should not be based on a false premise.
>
>
>> I can not define something that does not exist. I can not argue that
>> something does not exist. You believe in a God, it is up to you to
>> prove, or at least provide SOME real evidence that it exists.
>
> The common problem is people are caught up with the existence of God!
Exactly. I came here because someone said something exists, when it
clearly does not.
> God, being the author of the whole universe, has to be the basis of
> the world. Thus *Existence* is God. The universe is an aspect of God
> but not His totality. He is Immanent and transcendent. The universe is
> His expression and operates in Space-Time with Cause-Effect
> parameters. God is thus beyond Space-Time and Cause -Effect but He is
> Immanent
Yawn. This is just regurgitated rubbish.
>
>
>> The you're not a completely lost cause.
>
>
> Almighty God can come in any form He chooses. We have to accept the
> accounts of saints who describe these as much as we accept scientists
> and people who testify to their experiences we are nor privy to such
> as for example, the city of Moscow which I have not visited
Accounts that are from scientifically verifiable sources are acceptable.
Why do you believe in an account of a saint? - An account that is retold
hearsay subject to exaggeration and amendment to meet particular
political needs.
Why did you snip the following?
uNmaiviLambi
> uNmaiviLambi wrote:
> Why did you snip the following?
>
> Can't you see that your concept of God is at best entirely based on
> hearsay and rumour, and perhaps it could be a form of propaganda
I thought I answered the point. To be precise, the concept of God and
theology itself is based on a logical and totally analyzable
foundation. Saying God does not exist is nonsense, as then as I said,
nothing can exist. To summarize, Existence is God. Hence the thesis
God does not exist is nonsense. The question whether God exists is
meaningless
Dutch
> Dutch wrote:
>> SystemX wrote:
> snip
>>>>
>>>> My intent was not to eliminate distinctions. The original poster
>>>> proposed that GOD visited earth in certain forms, to which he, the
>>>> poster assigned Indian names. My response is that GOD, if you will,
>>>> as I understand it, doesn't "visit", GOD, *is* the essence of ALL
>>>> being, right down to the particle-string level, deeper than any
>>>> electron microscope can delve, wider than the furthest galaxy, and
>>>> in our very existence, NOW.
>>>> This has been the message of spiritual teachers that has been
>>>> largely misunderstood.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What crap!
>>
>> What insight!
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>>> You are reinterpreting 'God' in light of science.
>>
>> Not in the least, I am stating the some understandings of the concept
>> of God are not inconsistent with modern science. By God I am not
>> referring to any of the parochial fables taught by organized religion.
>
> You're inappropriately attempting to reconcile a faith in God with
> science.
You're arguing against up a position I am not
presenting. I never used the word faith, I don't
believe it has validity. Faith is inconsistent with
science.
>- I hope you don't start spouting "intelligent evolution"!
I've never heard the term. I do observe a fundamental
intelligence in nature though, and I do not observe a
fundamental randomness, although randomness plays a role.
> Any concept of a God are inconsistent with modern science.
You like making blanket statements without supporting
them don't you?
>
>>
>>> Wake up! There is NO God! None!
>>>
>>> You have been greatly misled to believe that there is a God.
>>
>> I am taken by your sense of absolute assurance, it reminds me of
>> "faith". I presume that you have some sort of argument to back it up,
>> or at the very least you can give some definition of this "God" which
>> you are so certain doesn't exist.
>
> I can not define something that does not exist.
How can state with such assurance that something
doesn't exist when you don't even know what you're
talking about?
> I can not argue that
> something does not exist.
That's what I'm telling you, yet you state
categorically that there is no concept of a god that
could exist.
> You believe in a God, it is up to you to
> prove, or at least provide SOME real evidence that it exists.
How about if I define god as that vital energy at the
core of living organisms that keeps them going,
growing, seeking to survive, etc, like a "life force"?
Could you accept that such an energy exists? Could you
accept that if that's god, then god exists?
>
>> If you do that perhaps we can agree on some level. For example, I
>> agree that there is no white-bearded man in the clouds watching over us.
>
> The you're not a completely lost cause.
I don't think that of you either.
> Can't you see that your concept of God is at best entirely based on
> hearsay and rumour, and perhaps it could be a form of propaganda.
You don't even know what my concept of god is. Can't
you see that your absolute belief in the absence of
any kind of god is a form of dogmatism? One of man's
greatest handicaps is his need to hold absolute
opinions about everything, when it's hardly ever
necessary or wise to do so. Reality is more comforting
that way, but not as interesting.
>> > Ask Ball.
>>
>> Why would I want to do that?
>
> I guess you would take his word more seriously than mine.
I take words seriously based on how well they seem to
be reasoned, not who is saying them.
Dutch
> God does NOT exist.
You don't even offer a definition for that which you
are certain does not exist. Doesn't that strike you as
odd?
> Santa does NOT exist.
We have a definition for Santa.
Dutch
> uNmaiviLambi wrote:
>> On Sep 1, 3:29 pm, SystemX <syst...@clipityclop.com> wrote:
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>
>>> You're inappropriately attempting to reconcile a faith in God with
>>> science. - I hope you don't start spouting "intelligent evolution"!
>>>
>>> Any concept of a God are inconsistent with modern science.
>>
>> Science is only a methodology. There is no finality to any conclusion
>> from this methodology. For example, in future they may find some
>> reason to validate the concept of God or negate it. Even then it will
>> be subject to further evaluation for ever. Thus there is no point
>> saying concept of God is inconsistent with science.
>
> Following that flawed logic, there is no point in science.
That's not true, science can help us to explain how
the universe works, how it is put together, without
being able to explain why things happen, why they are.
>> Moreover,
>> scientific methods are applicable only to observable phenomena. Thus
>> we can analyze observable scientifically phenomena but not morality,
>> ethics, beauty, justice, poetry, brotherhood, happiness, peace etc
>> etc.
>
> I know some of the above have been subject to scientific scrutiny and
> debate (possibly all, but I've not the time or inclination to look
> further).
>
> One example: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/blinded-by-science
Why are flowers beautiful? They serve no useful purpose.
>
>
>> These are not directly observable but one may see the effects of
>> these. Thus scientific methodology is inapplicable. Hence similarly
>> God does not yield to science either as He is the author of the whole
>> universe and is not "observable".
>
> The only reason you believe in God is because someone told you that
> there is a God.
The reason you reject the concept of a god is because
someone else did, and you followed them.
>> Science does not yield final conclusions. True religion yields
>> conclusions and concepts for the welfare of mankind. They can be
>> analysed and logically examined as well
>
> Any effort to improve the welfare of any species should be applauded,
> but should not be based on a false premise.
Your belief that there is no god is based on your
belief system, not rational analysis.
>>> I can not define something that does not exist. I can not argue that
>>> something does not exist. You believe in a God, it is up to you to
>>> prove, or at least provide SOME real evidence that it exists.
>>
>> The common problem is people are caught up with the existence of God!
>
> Exactly. I came here because someone said something exists, when it
> clearly does not.
What does not?
>> God, being the author of the whole universe, has to be the basis of
>> the world. Thus *Existence* is God. The universe is an aspect of God
>> but not His totality. He is Immanent and transcendent. The universe is
>> His expression and operates in Space-Time with Cause-Effect
>> parameters. God is thus beyond Space-Time and Cause -Effect but He is
>> Immanent
>
> Yawn. This is just regurgitated rubbish.
You don't believe that there is a universe?
>>> The you're not a completely lost cause.
>>
>>
>> Almighty God can come in any form He chooses. We have to accept the
>> accounts of saints who describe these as much as we accept scientists
>> and people who testify to their experiences we are nor privy to such
>> as for example, the city of Moscow which I have not visited
>
> Accounts that are from scientifically verifiable sources are acceptable.
The life within you is verifiable.
>
> Why do you believe in an account of a saint? - An account that is retold
> hearsay subject to exaggeration and amendment to meet particular
> political needs.
You're talking about "religion".
>
> Why did you snip the following?
>
> Can't you see that your concept of God is at best entirely based on
> hearsay and rumour, and perhaps it could be a form of propaganda.
Perhaps your mind is just incapable of understanding
the concept.
dh
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:43:56 +0100, SystemX <sys...@clipityclop.com> wrote:
>>
>snip
>>>> My intent was not to eliminate distinctions. The original poster
>>>> proposed that GOD visited earth in certain forms, to which he, the
>>>> poster assigned Indian names. My response is that GOD, if you will, as I
>>>> understand it, doesn't "visit", GOD, *is* the essence of ALL being,
>>>> right down to the particle-string level, deeper than any electron
>>>> microscope can delve, wider than the furthest galaxy, and in our very
>>>> existence, NOW.
>>>> This has been the message of spiritual teachers that has been largely
>>>> misunderstood.
>>>>
>>> What crap!
>>>
>>> You are reinterpreting 'God' in light of science.
>>
>> If God exists, then what science teaches us is about how he
>> did things, etc.
>
>'He' does not exit,
I have been aware of that possibility for quite some time.
I'm also aware of others, and certainly have no reason to
put faith in your guess being correct.
>so science can teach us nothing about how 'he did
>things'
If the possibility you put your faith in is correct then
no, and that's as far as you can go in that direction.
In contrast to that, if the guess you put your faith in
is wrong, then there are infininite possibilities and
things to take into consideration, interconnecting
everything together including God. If God exists, it
appears that he made use of the evolutionary method
of creation. Cool idea. He tried out the dinosaur models
and decided it would never work out, so he made
some changes, etc. Maybe after he got the prototypes
out of the way he made a human atom by atom, or
molecule by molecule or whatever, and played around
with him for a while until the dude started complaining
about wanting some ass. Of course God probably knew
it would put an end to their friendship when his buddy
got mated, but he cloned a young lady out of some rib
material (pray to God and maybe he'll send you a clue
as to why he used material from a rib) anyway, it screwed
up their friendship, and cursed the human race forever.
On the plus side for us, it made our existence possible.
>>> Wake up! There is NO God!
>>
>> Are you willing to admit your faith that that guess is correct,
>> or are you too ashamed to admit it as most strong atheists are?
>
>It's you that have a problem.
Can you admit your faith, or will you pitifully/amusingly
deny it even as you demonstrate it clearly for all to see:
"Wake up! There is NO God!"
>>> None!
>>
>> Not associated with any star system? Or with any galaxy?
>> Or just not associated with this star system in this galaxy?
>> How do you think you found out?
>>
>>> You have been greatly misled to believe that there is a God.
>>
>> How do you think you found out?
>>
>>> Ask Ball.
>>
>> How do you think Goo found out?
>
>Sorry, but I can't take your views seriously.
That's because you're incapable of thinking about the
possibity of God's existence in a realistic way. You can
only do it on a childlike level almost certainly, meaning
that's the only interpretation you're capable of so that
would mean the idea seems childlike to you. It's not that
the idea itself is a childlike idea, but that you can only
think about the possibility in a childlike way.
>God does NOT exist.
You can't even think about it realistically enough to
begin coming to a conclusion like that. With billions of
stars out there, I pretty much take it for granted that
there is more intelligent life in the universe than just the
lowly examples on this planet. That being the case, I
believe there are places where space travel is common
and things go on that we can't even imagine. I believe
beings in such positions have influence on the development
of planets, and on the life that develops on them. Maybe
not all of them. Whatever. Did some such beings have
influence on the development of life on this planet? We,
meaning you as well, don't know. If they did, is it possible
that they keep in touch, and have influence on our thinking
and things that happen in lives? We, meaning you as well,
don't know. You don't even have enough to go on to make
an educated guess, yet you make claims as if they were
known fact.
>Santa does NOT exist.
I'm not ashamed to say: I have faith that there is no
person or spirit visiting the homes of millions of children
taking them presents on Christmas Eve each year, being
dragged through the sky by flying reindeer etc...
I'm also not ashamed to say: I consider the possibility
that God exists and came to Earth in the form of a man
to whatever extent, and sacrificed himself for the advantage
of those who would accept it. And that there is an adversary
or adversaries to what he has planned, who inspired the
idiotic notions of Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny for
the specific purpose of manipulating the minds of billions
of children with the intention of drawing their interest away
from what the holidays are actually being celebrated for.
If it's all for real, it makes sense that things would be as
they are.
dh
>SystemX wrote:
>
>> God does NOT exist.
>
>You don't even offer a definition for that which you
>are certain does not exist. Doesn't that strike you as
>odd?
I've found that people who make statements like that
can't think things through. They apparently have
considered the possibility that God does not exist, and
then put their faith in it being the correct possibility. But.
They are almost always ashamed to admit it. To make it
even more absurd, they show that they have put faith
in it by encouraging others to put faith in it as well, but
then want to deny that they have it. And that's their
"foundation"! One problem they all appear to have in
common is that they can only consider God in a childlike
way, so since they're incapable of thinking about him in
a realistic way they just can't do it, hence the disbelief.
The denial is a common mental disorder or whatever...
it doesn't make any sense whatever it is, but I've found
denial of the obvious to be very common among people
who disbelieve in God.
>> Santa does NOT exist.
>
>We have a definition for Santa.
What would be required to be a God? I say there
would need to be some sense of being and intelligence,
and probably individuality to whatever extent. Also there
would need to be deliberate influence over the development
of life to whatever extent. The being/s wouldn't necessarily
have had to create the universe, but would have to have
had a greater influence on the development of life on a
planet than humans have, and would have to have originated
somewhere other than on the planet in question. The being/s
would not necessarily have to maintain contact and interact
with the developing life forms in order to qualify as God, imo, but
I'm not firm on that...maybe there would need to be something
in order to distinguish between being a real God and being a
disinterested creator.
SystemX
What a waste of time you are.
You're stuck in transmit mode.
SystemX
> SystemX wrote:
>> uNmaiviLambi wrote:
>>> On Sep 1, 3:29 pm, SystemX <syst...@clipityclop.com> wrote:
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're inappropriately attempting to reconcile a faith in God with
>>>> science. - I hope you don't start spouting "intelligent evolution"!
>>>>
>>>> Any concept of a God are inconsistent with modern science.
>>>
>>> Science is only a methodology. There is no finality to any conclusion
>>> from this methodology. For example, in future they may find some
>>> reason to validate the concept of God or negate it. Even then it will
>>> be subject to further evaluation for ever. Thus there is no point
>>> saying concept of God is inconsistent with science.
>>
>> Following that flawed logic, there is no point in science.
>
> That's not true, science can help us to explain how the universe works,
> how it is put together, without being able to explain why things happen,
> why they are.
uNmaiviLambi's inference was that as science had no finality, it
followed that there is no point to it.
>
>>> Moreover,
>>> scientific methods are applicable only to observable phenomena. Thus
>>> we can analyze observable scientifically phenomena but not morality,
>>> ethics, beauty, justice, poetry, brotherhood, happiness, peace etc
>>> etc.
>>
>> I know some of the above have been subject to scientific scrutiny and
>> debate (possibly all, but I've not the time or inclination to look
>> further).
>>
>> One example: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/blinded-by-science
>
> Why are flowers beautiful? They serve no useful purpose.
Of course they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entomophily
>
>>
>>
>>> These are not directly observable but one may see the effects of
>>> these. Thus scientific methodology is inapplicable. Hence similarly
>>> God does not yield to science either as He is the author of the whole
>>> universe and is not "observable".
>>
>> The only reason you believe in God is because someone told you that
>> there is a God.
>
> The reason you reject the concept of a god is because someone else did,
> and you followed them.
No, I listened to the available evidence and other peoples views and
concluded that the is no God.
>
>>> Science does not yield final conclusions. True religion yields
>>> conclusions and concepts for the welfare of mankind. They can be
>>> analysed and logically examined as well
>>
>> Any effort to improve the welfare of any species should be applauded,
>> but should not be based on a false premise.
>
> Your belief that there is no god is based on your belief system, not
> rational analysis.
'Prey tell' What is your "rational analysis" - I'm game for a laugh!
>
>>>> I can not define something that does not exist. I can not argue that
>>>> something does not exist. You believe in a God, it is up to you to
>>>> prove, or at least provide SOME real evidence that it exists.
>>>
>>> The common problem is people are caught up with the existence of God!
>>
>> Exactly. I came here because someone said something exists, when it
>> clearly does not.
>
> What does not?
Exactly.
>
>>> God, being the author of the whole universe, has to be the basis of
>>> the world. Thus *Existence* is God. The universe is an aspect of God
>>> but not His totality. He is Immanent and transcendent. The universe is
>>> His expression and operates in Space-Time with Cause-Effect
>>> parameters. God is thus beyond Space-Time and Cause -Effect but He is
>>> Immanent
>>
>> Yawn. This is just regurgitated rubbish.
>
> You don't believe that there is a universe?
What's that got to do with the crap written by uNmaiviLambi? Do you
think it is NOT rubbish?
>
>>>> The you're not a completely lost cause.
>>>
>>>
>>> Almighty God can come in any form He chooses. We have to accept the
>>> accounts of saints who describe these as much as we accept scientists
>>> and people who testify to their experiences we are nor privy to such
>>> as for example, the city of Moscow which I have not visited
>>
>> Accounts that are from scientifically verifiable sources are acceptable.
>
> The life within you is verifiable.
>
>>
>> Why do you believe in an account of a saint? - An account that is
>> retold hearsay subject to exaggeration and amendment to meet
>> particular political needs.
>
> You're talking about "religion".
In response to uNmaiviLambi; yes.
>
>>
>> Why did you snip the following?
>>
>> Can't you see that your concept of God is at best entirely based on
>> hearsay and rumour, and perhaps it could be a form of propaganda.
>
> Perhaps your mind is just incapable of understanding the concept.
I don't rule that out.
Perhaps you have a fear of admitting that there is no God. A fear
brought about by cultural conditioning and propaganda.
>
SystemX
Faith is, in this context "trusting belief in a transcendent reality".
You believe in a form of transcendent reality.
>
>> - I hope you don't start spouting "intelligent evolution"!
>
> I've never heard the term. I do observe a fundamental intelligence in
> nature though, and I do not observe a fundamental randomness, although
> randomness plays a role.
A definition of intelligence is "a property of the mind that encompasses
many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to
solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use
language, and to learn."
>
>> Any concept of a God are inconsistent with modern science.
>
> You like making blanket statements without supporting them don't you?
I don't believe in God, I don't think there is a God, there is no real
evidence of God.
I'm trying to help you see things as they are and stop wasting your time
on the unreal.
You believe in this crap, YOU support your assertion.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Wake up! There is NO God! None!
>>>>
>>>> You have been greatly misled to believe that there is a God.
>>>
>>> I am taken by your sense of absolute assurance, it reminds me of
>>> "faith". I presume that you have some sort of argument to back it up,
>>> or at the very least you can give some definition of this "God" which
>>> you are so certain doesn't exist.
>>
>> I can not define something that does not exist.
>
> How can state with such assurance that something doesn't exist when you
> don't even know what you're talking about?
The concept exists in your head. If I stated that there a invisible
floating things all around us, you wouldn't know what I'm taking about.
I would have to prove it to you, I'm sure, before you would believe me.
>
>> I can not argue that something does not exist.
>
> That's what I'm telling you, yet you state categorically that there is
> no concept of a god that could exist.
"There a invisible floating things all around us"
>
>> You believe in a God, it is up to you to prove, or at least provide
>> SOME real evidence that it exists.
>
> How about if I define god as that vital energy at the core of living
> organisms that keeps them going, growing, seeking to survive, etc, like
> a "life force"? Could you accept that such an energy exists? Could you
> accept that if that's god, then god exists?
Not in the sense that you're trying to contort, no.
>
>>
>>> If you do that perhaps we can agree on some level. For example, I
>>> agree that there is no white-bearded man in the clouds watching over us.
>>
>> The you're not a completely lost cause.
>
> I don't think that of you either.
>
>> Can't you see that your concept of God is at best entirely based on
>> hearsay and rumour, and perhaps it could be a form of propaganda.
>
> You don't even know what my concept of god is.
No I do not. It's a irrational concept.
>Can't you see that your
> absolute belief in the absence of any kind of god is a form of
> dogmatism?
LOL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogmatic
I think the term easily fits you, more than me.
>One of man's greatest handicaps is his need to hold absolute
> opinions about everything, when it's hardly ever necessary or wise to do
> so. Reality is more comforting that way, but not as interesting.
If you're happy holding a wishy-washy opinion, then be my guest.
SystemX
> SystemX wrote:
>
>> God does NOT exist.
>
> You don't even offer a definition for that which you are certain does
> not exist. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
No. The only 'definition' that springs to mind is a white bearded old
man. But I'm sure that's not your concept.
>
>> Santa does NOT exist.
>
> We have a definition for Santa.
I'm sure there are different definitions, as there are different
definitions of 'your' God.
I would choose to define Santa as the most common image that I've seen,
a white bearded old man, but apart from that I could not define very
concept held by individuals.
Dutch
I am not even sure what "transcendent reality" means,
I surely don't believe in one. In fact generally
speaking I don't believe in "believing in" anything. I
all I can do is observe, attempt to avoid subjective
errors, and report.
>>> - I hope you don't start spouting "intelligent evolution"!
>>
>> I've never heard the term. I do observe a fundamental intelligence in
>> nature though, and I do not observe a fundamental randomness, although
>> randomness plays a role.
>
> A definition of intelligence is "a property of the mind that encompasses
> many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to
> solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use
> language, and to learn."
That is one common meaning of intelligence, I am
referring to a broader meaning. There is an
intelligence demonstrated in the way organisms
function on many levels. The way plants reach for the
light, the amazing way photosynthesis works, those are
types of intelligence.
>>> Any concept of a God are inconsistent with modern science.
>>
>> You like making blanket statements without supporting them don't you?
>
> I don't believe in God, I don't think there is a God, there is no real
> evidence of God.
What do you mean by "God" when you say you don't
believe in it?
> I'm trying to help you see things as they are and
stop wasting your time
> on the unreal.
You're not doing a very good job. Your position
appears to be a kind of mundane atheism trying to pass
itself off as rationality when it's actually just
intellectual laziness.
> You believe in this crap, YOU support your assertion.
I haven't claimed to "believe in" anything, I'm not
even using the word. You are one professing firm
beliefs. A belief that something does not exist *is* a
belief. You are suffering from the same delusion as
most atheists, you think you can assert a blanket
denial without defining what you're denying, then
smugly claim that as "scientific thinking". It's
pretty hilarious.
>>>>> Wake up! There is NO God! None!
>>>>>
>>>>> You have been greatly misled to believe that there is a God.
>>>>
>>>> I am taken by your sense of absolute assurance, it reminds me of
>>>> "faith". I presume that you have some sort of argument to back it
>>>> up, or at the very least you can give some definition of this "God"
>>>> which you are so certain doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> I can not define something that does not exist.
>>
>> How can state with such assurance that something doesn't exist when
>> you don't even know what you're talking about?
>
> The concept exists in your head.
Where all concepts exist.
> If I stated that there a invisible
> floating things all around us, you wouldn't know what I'm taking about.
I would be interested to hear more. In fact there are
invisible (to the naked eye) floating things all
around us, dust mites feces for example. There are
also many invisible forms of energy, TV, radio and
phone signals, to name a few.
> I would have to prove it to you, I'm sure, before you would believe me.
I would NOT state categorically that they don't exist,
especially if they were things which I did not fully
understand.
>
>>
>>> I can not argue that something does not exist.
>>
>> That's what I'm telling you, yet you state categorically that there is
>> no concept of a god that could exist.
>
> "There a invisible floating things all around us"
Yes, I agree.
>>> You believe in a God, it is up to you to prove, or at least provide
>>> SOME real evidence that it exists.
>>
>> How about if I define god as that vital energy at the core of living
>> organisms that keeps them going, growing, seeking to survive, etc,
>> like a "life force"? Could you accept that such an energy exists?
>> Could you accept that if that's god, then god exists?
>
> Not in the sense that you're trying to contort, no.
That was a pretty accurate description of what I
interpret the word "God" to mean. Don't evade, if we
define God as that, does God then exist?
>>>> If you do that perhaps we can agree on some level. For example, I
>>>> agree that there is no white-bearded man in the clouds watching over
>>>> us.
>>>
>>> The you're not a completely lost cause.
>>
>> I don't think that of you either.
>>
>>> Can't you see that your concept of God is at best entirely based on
>>> hearsay and rumour, and perhaps it could be a form of propaganda.
>>
>> You don't even know what my concept of god is.
>
> No I do not. It's a irrational concept.
You don't know what it is but you know that its
irrational. Can't you see that THAT is irrational?
>
>> Can't you see that your absolute belief in the absence of any kind of
>> god is a form of dogmatism?
>
> LOL.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogmatic
>
> I think the term easily fits you, more than me.
No it doesn't, because I don't profess a belief in
anything.
>
>
>> One of man's greatest handicaps is his need to hold absolute opinions
>> about everything, when it's hardly ever necessary or wise to do so.
>> Reality is more comforting that way, but not as interesting.
>
> If you're happy holding a wishy-washy opinion, then be my guest.
I am delighted to hold wishy-washy opinions about
things I do not fully understand. The alternative is
to hold on to irrational dogmatic beliefs about them.
Dutch
> Dutch wrote:
>> SystemX wrote:
>>
>>> God does NOT exist.
>>
>> You don't even offer a definition for that which you are certain does
>> not exist. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
>
> No. The only 'definition' that springs to mind is a white bearded old
> man. But I'm sure that's not your concept.
I don't even like the word God, I don't use it, partly
because it gets people's knickers in a bunch, but it
refers to a common phenomenon that has existed as long
as humans have been walking around. That's what I am
curious about. I am actually talking about something
like an essential force in nature.
>>
>>> Santa does NOT exist.
>>
>> We have a definition for Santa.
>
> I'm sure there are different definitions,
Not essentially, they all refer to a Christmas man who
flies around magically giving gifts to little kids,
that's obviously a fable.
> as there are different
> definitions of 'your' God.
Most of which I consider to be fables.
> I would choose to define Santa as the most common image that I've seen,
> a white bearded old man, but apart from that I could not define very
> concept held by individuals.
You could attempt to understand what *I* mean by God
and give an opinion on that.
SystemX
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(religion)
>I surely don't
> believe in one. In fact generally speaking I don't believe in "believing
> in" anything. I all I can do is observe, attempt to avoid subjective
> errors, and report.
What then, have you objectively observed that has been 'provided' by God?
>
>
>>>> - I hope you don't start spouting "intelligent evolution"!
>>>
>>> I've never heard the term. I do observe a fundamental intelligence in
>>> nature though, and I do not observe a fundamental randomness,
>>> although randomness plays a role.
>>
>> A definition of intelligence is "a property of the mind that
>> encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason,
>> to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas,
>> to use language, and to learn."
>
> That is one common meaning of intelligence, I am referring to a broader
> meaning. There is an intelligence demonstrated in the way organisms
> function on many levels. The way plants reach for the light, the amazing
> way photosynthesis works, those are types of intelligence.
No they are not. You are PURPOSELY obfuscating science with some wishy
washy form of God.
>
>>>> Any concept of a God are inconsistent with modern science.
>>>
>>> You like making blanket statements without supporting them don't you?
>>
>> I don't believe in God, I don't think there is a God, there is no real
>> evidence of God.
>
> What do you mean by "God" when you say you don't believe in it?
I don't know what YOU believe in, so I can't comment, all I can say is
you are not making sense.
>
> > I'm trying to help you see things as they are and stop wasting your time
>> on the unreal.
>
> You're not doing a very good job. Your position appears to be a kind of
> mundane atheism trying to pass itself off as rationality when it's
> actually just intellectual laziness.
What? What is intellectual about believing in fairy's, Santa or God?
You are getting lazy. You have no evidence for this God concept, NONE.
Your only resort is to call me lazy. Why am I lazy?
>
>> You believe in this crap, YOU support your assertion.
>
> I haven't claimed to "believe in" anything,
You are obfuscating again. Support your assertion that (for examaple)
that you "observe a fundamental intelligence in nature"
>I'm not even using the word.
> You are one professing firm beliefs. A belief that something does not
> exist *is* a belief. You are suffering from the same delusion as most
> atheists, you think you can assert a blanket denial without defining
> what you're denying, then smugly claim that as "scientific thinking".
> It's pretty hilarious.
>
You are plainly struggling. Why am I 'smug'? What could I draw from the
your thought that I am 'smug'?
>>>>>> Wake up! There is NO God! None!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have been greatly misled to believe that there is a God.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am taken by your sense of absolute assurance, it reminds me of
>>>>> "faith". I presume that you have some sort of argument to back it
>>>>> up, or at the very least you can give some definition of this "God"
>>>>> which you are so certain doesn't exist.
>>>>
>>>> I can not define something that does not exist.
>>>
>>> How can state with such assurance that something doesn't exist when
>>> you don't even know what you're talking about?
>>
>> The concept exists in your head.
>
> Where all concepts exist.
Can you prove your concept to me, or anyone else?
>
>> If I stated that there a invisible floating things all around us, you
>> wouldn't know what I'm taking about.
>
> I would be interested to hear more. In fact there are invisible (to the
> naked eye) floating things all around us, dust mites feces for example.
> There are also many invisible forms of energy, TV, radio and phone
> signals, to name a few.
>
>> I would have to prove it to you, I'm sure, before you would believe me.
>
> I would NOT state categorically that they don't exist, especially if
> they were things which I did not fully understand.
I guess then, that you fully understand fairy's, Santa and the terrorist
threat. (The last bit about terrorism was a lame joke).
You have stated that this God like life force, or what ever wishy washy
description you wish to append to it does exist, yet you have no
rational explanation as to why you think that.
Would you be 'happy' *if* I stated that I don't believe in God, but a
God might exist?
>
>>
>>>
>>>> I can not argue that something does not exist.
>>>
>>> That's what I'm telling you, yet you state categorically that there
>>> is no concept of a god that could exist.
>>
>> "There a invisible floating things all around us"
>
> Yes, I agree.
Ummm. I made that up, just as any of those propaganda experts would.
>
>>>> You believe in a God, it is up to you to prove, or at least provide
>>>> SOME real evidence that it exists.
>>>
>>> How about if I define god as that vital energy at the core of living
>>> organisms that keeps them going, growing, seeking to survive, etc,
>>> like a "life force"? Could you accept that such an energy exists?
>>> Could you accept that if that's god, then god exists?
>>
>> Not in the sense that you're trying to contort, no.
>
> That was a pretty accurate description of what I interpret the word
> "God" to mean. Don't evade, if we define God as that, does God then exist?
No. You are attempting trying to be scientific AND be a believer in
'God'. The two are incompatible, no matter how much you attempt to
stretch the truth.
My guess is that you are fundamentally scientific, but you have a
cultural and social pressures that make you come up with these
convoluted solutions to resolve the inevitable mental stress.
>
>
>>>>> If you do that perhaps we can agree on some level. For example, I
>>>>> agree that there is no white-bearded man in the clouds watching
>>>>> over us.
>>>>
>>>> The you're not a completely lost cause.
>>>
>>> I don't think that of you either.
>>>
>>>> Can't you see that your concept of God is at best entirely based on
>>>> hearsay and rumour, and perhaps it could be a form of propaganda.
>>>
>>> You don't even know what my concept of god is.
>>
>> No I do not. It's a irrational concept.
>
> You don't know what it is but you know that its irrational. Can't you
> see that THAT is irrational?
Unless your concept of God *is* scientifically demonstrable then it *is*
irrational.
>
>>
>>> Can't you see that your absolute belief in the absence of any kind of
>>> god is a form of dogmatism?
>>
>> LOL.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogmatic
>>
>> I think the term easily fits you, more than me.
>
> No it doesn't, because I don't profess a belief in anything.
You observe 'life forces' yet you don't believe in them?
>
>>
>>
>>> One of man's greatest handicaps is his need to hold absolute opinions
>>> about everything, when it's hardly ever necessary or wise to do so.
>>> Reality is more comforting that way, but not as interesting.
>>
>> If you're happy holding a wishy-washy opinion, then be my guest.
>
> I am delighted to hold wishy-washy opinions about things I do not fully
> understand. The alternative is to hold on to irrational dogmatic beliefs
> about them.
I'm getting a point of giving up on a lost cause.
SystemX
> SystemX wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> SystemX wrote:
>>>
>>>> God does NOT exist.
>>>
>>> You don't even offer a definition for that which you are certain does
>>> not exist. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
>>
>> No. The only 'definition' that springs to mind is a white bearded old
>> man. But I'm sure that's not your concept.
>
> I don't even like the word God, I don't use it, partly because it gets
> people's knickers in a bunch, but it refers to a common phenomenon that
> has existed as long as humans have been walking around. That's what I am
> curious about. I am actually talking about something like an essential
> force in nature.
I think it's a psychological weakness that has been expolited.
>
>>>
>>>> Santa does NOT exist.
>>>
>>> We have a definition for Santa.
>>
>> I'm sure there are different definitions,
>
> Not essentially, they all refer to a Christmas man who flies around
> magically giving gifts to little kids, that's obviously a fable.
Too some young children Santa is VERY real. Just as God is to some of
the same age or older.
>
>> as there are different definitions of 'your' God.
>
> Most of which I consider to be fables.
>
>> I would choose to define Santa as the most common image that I've
>> seen, a white bearded old man, but apart from that I could not define
>> very concept held by individuals.
>
> You could attempt to understand what *I* mean by God and give an opinion
> on that.
Your God does not exist. You seem to have a want to give some validation
to the word 'God' - perhaps to appease yourself or someone close to you.
Dutch
I notice you used demi-quotes on the word provided,
cute. I didn't half use the word.
>>
>>
>>>>> - I hope you don't start spouting "intelligent evolution"!
>>>>
>>>> I've never heard the term. I do observe a fundamental intelligence
>>>> in nature though, and I do not observe a fundamental randomness,
>>>> although randomness plays a role.
>>>
>>> A definition of intelligence is "a property of the mind that
>>> encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason,
>>> to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas,
>>> to use language, and to learn."
>>
>> That is one common meaning of intelligence, I am referring to a
>> broader meaning. There is an intelligence demonstrated in the way
>> organisms function on many levels. The way plants reach for the light,
>> the amazing way photosynthesis works, those are types of intelligence.
>
> No they are not. You are PURPOSELY obfuscating science with some wishy
> washy form of God.
Of course they are a form of intelligence. Just as it
takes a higher form of intelligence for an animal to
track and capture prey and an even higher form of
intelligence for a human to function well in a social
situation. Intelligence in that context refers to the
clever way organisms function in order to be successful.
>>>>> Any concept of a God are inconsistent with modern science.
>>>>
>>>> You like making blanket statements without supporting them don't you?
>>>
>>> I don't believe in God, I don't think there is a God, there is no real
>>> evidence of God.
>>
>> What do you mean by "God" when you say you don't believe in it?
>
> I don't know what YOU believe in,
I'm not saying I believe in anything. You're the one
making a statement about "belief" here, not me.
> so I can't comment, all I can say is
> you are not making sense.
You are stating a belief, a negative one, I asked
about what exactly?
>
>>
>> > I'm trying to help you see things as they are and stop wasting your
>> time
>>> on the unreal.
>>
>> You're not doing a very good job. Your position appears to be a kind
>> of mundane atheism trying to pass itself off as rationality when it's
>> actually just intellectual laziness.
>
> What? What is intellectual about believing in fairy's, Santa or God?
It is intellectually lazy to group concepts together
to make it easy for yourself as you just did.
> You are getting lazy. You have no evidence for this God concept, NONE.
I have explained the "god concept" I am referring to
and where it is exhibited.
> Your only resort is to call me lazy. Why am I lazy?
You're lazy because you're falling back on some vague,
undifferentiated preconceived ideas then projecting
them on me instead of attempting understand what my
actual position is.
>>
>>> You believe in this crap, YOU support your assertion.
>>
>> I haven't claimed to "believe in" anything,
>
> You are obfuscating again.
No, I am correcting misconceptions you have about what
I am saying.
> Support your assertion that (for examaple)
> that you "observe a fundamental intelligence in nature"
I observe that things happen in a very deliberate and
clever way. I observe that there are incredible
patterns in everything, from the tiniest crystal to
the most complex organism and social structure, music.
I observe that many natural things posses beauty and
elegance beyond description. I find "a fundamental
intelligence" more consistent with reality as I
observe them than some "willy-nilly" randomness.
>
>> I'm not even using the word. You are one professing firm beliefs. A
>> belief that something does not exist *is* a belief. You are suffering
>> from the same delusion as most atheists, you think you can assert a
>> blanket denial without defining what you're denying, then smugly claim
>> that as "scientific thinking". It's pretty hilarious.
>>
>
> You are plainly struggling.
You're the one erecting strawman after strawman.
> Why am I 'smug'?
Your whole attitude is smug. You've made up your mind
that whenever you hear the word "god" you will issue
these autonomic denial phrases then fold your arms and
announce that you have taken the high ground of
rationality. You do all this without even attempting
to understand what I am actually saying. It's
laziness, and it's lame.
> What could I draw from the
> your thought that I am 'smug'?
That's up to you. Ideally you would try some
self-evaluation and perhaps see that you are being smug.
>
>>>>>>> Wake up! There is NO God! None!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have been greatly misled to believe that there is a God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am taken by your sense of absolute assurance, it reminds me of
>>>>>> "faith". I presume that you have some sort of argument to back it
>>>>>> up, or at the very least you can give some definition of this
>>>>>> "God" which you are so certain doesn't exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can not define something that does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> How can state with such assurance that something doesn't exist when
>>>> you don't even know what you're talking about?
>>>
>>> The concept exists in your head.
>>
>> Where all concepts exist.
>
> Can you prove your concept to me, or anyone else?
I don't know that concepts are "proven" per se, but
they can be demonstrated or illustrated. Words will
tend to fall just short but.. My observation is that
there is a pure energy at the core of living things,
you might call it a "life force". It powers reality
like RAM in a computer, resulting in something we
experience as "the present", "now", or "being".
Spiritual teachers have called in many things,
Nirvana, God, etc..
>
>>
>>> If I stated that there a invisible floating things all around us, you
>>> wouldn't know what I'm taking about.
>>
>> I would be interested to hear more. In fact there are invisible (to
>> the naked eye) floating things all around us, dust mites feces for
>> example. There are also many invisible forms of energy, TV, radio and
>> phone signals, to name a few.
>>
>>> I would have to prove it to you, I'm sure, before you would believe me.
>>
>> I would NOT state categorically that they don't exist, especially if
>> they were things which I did not fully understand.
>
>
> I guess then, that you fully understand fairy's, Santa and the terrorist
> threat. (The last bit about terrorism was a lame joke).
I understand each of those things to different
degrees, as most of us do.
> You have stated that this God like life force, or what ever wishy washy
> description you wish to append to it does exist, yet you have no
> rational explanation as to why you think that.
Think what, why I think a "life force" exists? Why I
think it has intelligence? Because those ideas are
more consistent with the reality I observe than
anything else I've heard.
>
> Would you be 'happy' *if* I stated that I don't believe in God, but a
> God might exist?
It's better than stating categorically a position on
something you don't even begin to understand, but it
just sounds like another pat statement, it doesn't
demonstrate to me that you have attempted to actually
bring your intellect to bear on the question. You're
just repeating opinions you've heard others repeat.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I can not argue that something does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> That's what I'm telling you, yet you state categorically that there
>>>> is no concept of a god that could exist.
>>>
>>> "There a invisible floating things all around us"
>>
>> Yes, I agree.
>
> Ummm. I made that up, just as any of those propaganda experts would.
But it's true. Dust mite feces are invisible. Look at
the air in a room sometime when a bright sunbeam is
shining through a window, the air is thick with
particles invisible to the naked eye in normal light.
>>>>> You believe in a God, it is up to you to prove, or at least provide
>>>>> SOME real evidence that it exists.
>>>>
>>>> How about if I define god as that vital energy at the core of living
>>>> organisms that keeps them going, growing, seeking to survive, etc,
>>>> like a "life force"? Could you accept that such an energy exists?
>>>> Could you accept that if that's god, then god exists?
>>>
>>> Not in the sense that you're trying to contort, no.
>>
>> That was a pretty accurate description of what I interpret the word
>> "God" to mean. Don't evade, if we define God as that, does God then
>> exist?
>
> No. You are attempting trying to be scientific AND be a believer in
> 'God'. The two are incompatible, no matter how much you attempt to
> stretch the truth.
How can you say they're incompatible when you haven't
examined the specific concept I am referring to when I
say "god"?
>
> My guess is that you are fundamentally scientific, but you have a
> cultural and social pressures that make you come up with these
> convoluted solutions to resolve the inevitable mental stress.
Wrong, the only pressures I have are intellectual
curiosity and natural skepticism.
My guess about you is that you have bought into a list
of prepackaged notions about things to avoid the
mental stress associated with doubt or admitting you
don't know something.
>
>>
>>
>>>>>> If you do that perhaps we can agree on some level. For example, I
>>>>>> agree that there is no white-bearded man in the clouds watching
>>>>>> over us.
>>>>>
>>>>> The you're not a completely lost cause.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that of you either.
>>>>
>>>>> Can't you see that your concept of God is at best entirely based on
>>>>> hearsay and rumour, and perhaps it could be a form of propaganda.
>>>>
>>>> You don't even know what my concept of god is.
>>>
>>> No I do not. It's a irrational concept.
>>
>> You don't know what it is but you know that its irrational. Can't you
>> see that THAT is irrational?
>
> Unless your concept of God *is* scientifically demonstrable then it *is*
> irrational.
It is demonstrable, to a point. But as another poster
said, not everything in the universe is explainable by
science. Why do we find flowers beautiful?
>>>> Can't you see that your absolute belief in the absence of any kind
>>>> of god is a form of dogmatism?
>>>
>>> LOL.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogmatic
>>>
>>> I think the term easily fits you, more than me.
>>
>> No it doesn't, because I don't profess a belief in anything.
>
> You observe 'life forces' yet you don't believe in them?
I don't spend any energy in "belief". If I observe
something, I simply say "It is" and move on to the
next moment in time.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> One of man's greatest handicaps is his need to hold absolute
>>>> opinions about everything, when it's hardly ever necessary or wise
>>>> to do so. Reality is more comforting that way, but not as interesting.
>>>
>>> If you're happy holding a wishy-washy opinion, then be my guest.
>>
>> I am delighted to hold wishy-washy opinions about things I do not
>> fully understand. The alternative is to hold on to irrational dogmatic
>> beliefs about them.
>
> I'm getting a point of giving up on a lost cause.
You should not give up on yourself so easily. I know
that's not what you meant, but it is what you meant.
Dutch
> Dutch wrote:
>> SystemX wrote:
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>> SystemX wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> God does NOT exist.
>>>>
>>>> You don't even offer a definition for that which you are certain
>>>> does not exist. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
>>>
>>> No. The only 'definition' that springs to mind is a white bearded old
>>> man. But I'm sure that's not your concept.
>>
>> I don't even like the word God, I don't use it, partly because it gets
>> people's knickers in a bunch, but it refers to a common phenomenon
>> that has existed as long as humans have been walking around. That's
>> what I am curious about. I am actually talking about something like an
>> essential force in nature.
>
> I think it's a psychological weakness that has been expolited.
Curiosity?
>>>>> Santa does NOT exist.
>>>>
>>>> We have a definition for Santa.
>>>
>>> I'm sure there are different definitions,
>>
>> Not essentially, they all refer to a Christmas man who flies around
>> magically giving gifts to little kids, that's obviously a fable.
>
> Too some young children Santa is VERY real.
It's still a fable. But there is an actual "Christmas
Spirit" that people feel at that time of year. It's an
infectious energy of generosity.
> Just as God is to some of
> the same age or older.
There are many, many God fables as well, yet they
raise the question, what are the reasons they exist?
Just as Santa is to The Christmas Spirit perhaps God
fables have their root in something about reality.
>>> as there are different definitions of 'your' God.
>>
>> Most of which I consider to be fables.
>>
>>> I would choose to define Santa as the most common image that I've
>>> seen, a white bearded old man, but apart from that I could not define
>>> very concept held by individuals.
>>
>> You could attempt to understand what *I* mean by God and give an
>> opinion on that.
>
> Your God does not exist.
Your haste to express sureness is a sign of
intellectual sloth, and immaturity.
> You seem to have a want to give some validation
> to the word 'God'
It's just a word, not my word of choice, but it got
going in this thread and I left it in. I prefer life
force or "being".
- perhaps to appease yourself or someone close to you.
Your armchair psychoanalysis is miles off. It's just
you and me X.
SystemX
Well; what have you objectively observed? (I used quotes as a form of
shorthand, nothing more. I did not expect you to avoid answering a
question because of it.)
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> - I hope you don't start spouting "intelligent evolution"!
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never heard the term. I do observe a fundamental intelligence
>>>>> in nature though, and I do not observe a fundamental randomness,
>>>>> although randomness plays a role.
>>>>
>>>> A definition of intelligence is "a property of the mind that
>>>> encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to
>>>> reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to
>>>> comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn."
>>>
>>> That is one common meaning of intelligence, I am referring to a
>>> broader meaning. There is an intelligence demonstrated in the way
>>> organisms function on many levels. The way plants reach for the
>>> light, the amazing way photosynthesis works, those are types of
>>> intelligence.
>>
>> No they are not. You are PURPOSELY obfuscating science with some wishy
>> washy form of God.
>
> Of course they are a form of intelligence. Just as it takes a higher
> form of intelligence for an animal to track and capture prey and an even
> higher form of intelligence for a human to function well in a social
> situation. Intelligence in that context refers to the clever way
> organisms function in order to be successful.
The context was "intelligent evolution"; not your obfuscating
observation of "higher intelligence"
>
>>>>>> Any concept of a God are inconsistent with modern science.
>>>>>
>>>>> You like making blanket statements without supporting them don't you?
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe in God, I don't think there is a God, there is no real
>>>> evidence of God.
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "God" when you say you don't believe in it?
>>
>> I don't know what YOU believe in,
>
> I'm not saying I believe in anything. You're the one making a statement
> about "belief" here, not me.
That's agreed then. You don't believe in God.
>
>> so I can't comment, all I can say is you are not making sense.
>
> You are stating a belief, a negative one, I asked about what exactly?
You're tying yourself in knots. There is no God. There is no "essence of
ALL beings".
>
>>
>>>
>>> > I'm trying to help you see things as they are and stop wasting
>>> your time
>>>> on the unreal.
>>>
>>> You're not doing a very good job. Your position appears to be a kind
>>> of mundane atheism trying to pass itself off as rationality when it's
>>> actually just intellectual laziness.
>>
>> What? What is intellectual about believing in fairy's, Santa or God?
>
> It is intellectually lazy to group concepts together to make it easy for
> yourself as you just did.
They are all false, so I group them together. I take it that you think
they should not be grouped; I guess because you think you might go to hell?
>
>> You are getting lazy. You have no evidence for this God concept, NONE.
>
> I have explained the "god concept" I am referring to and where it is
> exhibited.
Still no evidence.
>
>> Your only resort is to call me lazy. Why am I lazy?
>
> You're lazy because you're falling back on some vague, undifferentiated
> preconceived ideas then projecting them on me instead of attempting
> understand what my actual position is.
Your position is weak and untenable. You are sitting on the fence,
'science' on one side and 'make believe' on the other.
>
>>>
>>>> You believe in this crap, YOU support your assertion.
>>>
>>> I haven't claimed to "believe in" anything,
>>
>> You are obfuscating again.
>
> No, I am correcting misconceptions you have about what I am saying.
OK you are sitting on the fence.
>
>> Support your assertion that (for examaple) that you "observe a
>> fundamental intelligence in nature"
>
> I observe that things happen in a very deliberate and clever way. I
> observe that there are incredible patterns in everything, from the
> tiniest crystal to the most complex organism and social structure,
> music. I observe that many natural things posses beauty and elegance
> beyond description. I find "a fundamental intelligence" more consistent
> with reality as I observe them than some "willy-nilly" randomness.
>
Rather than "more consistent" I would call it (for you) "more comforting".
>>
>>> I'm not even using the word. You are one professing firm beliefs. A
>>> belief that something does not exist *is* a belief. You are suffering
>>> from the same delusion as most atheists, you think you can assert a
>>> blanket denial without defining what you're denying, then smugly
>>> claim that as "scientific thinking". It's pretty hilarious.
>>>
>>
>> You are plainly struggling.
>
> You're the one erecting strawman after strawman.
Oh that old chestnut; you must do better than this.
>
>> Why am I 'smug'?
>
> Your whole attitude is smug. You've made up your mind that whenever you
> hear the word "god" you will issue these autonomic denial phrases then
> fold your arms and announce that you have taken the high ground of
> rationality. You do all this without even attempting to understand what
> I am actually saying. It's laziness, and it's lame.
You 'feel' I have the "high ground" because your position is weak and
untenable.
>
> > What could I draw from the
>> your thought that I am 'smug'?
>
> That's up to you. Ideally you would try some self-evaluation and perhaps
> see that you are being smug.
I'm trying to come across as an 'equal'; I'm not taking any "high ground".
>
>>
>>>>>>>> Wake up! There is NO God! None!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have been greatly misled to believe that there is a God.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am taken by your sense of absolute assurance, it reminds me of
>>>>>>> "faith". I presume that you have some sort of argument to back it
>>>>>>> up, or at the very least you can give some definition of this
>>>>>>> "God" which you are so certain doesn't exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can not define something that does not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> How can state with such assurance that something doesn't exist when
>>>>> you don't even know what you're talking about?
>>>>
>>>> The concept exists in your head.
>>>
>>> Where all concepts exist.
>>
>> Can you prove your concept to me, or anyone else?
>
> I don't know that concepts are "proven" per se, but they can be
> demonstrated or illustrated. Words will tend to fall just short but.. My
> observation is that there is a pure energy at the core of living things,
> you might call it a "life force". It powers reality like RAM in a
> computer, resulting in something we experience as "the present", "now",
> or "being". Spiritual teachers have called in many things, Nirvana, God,
> etc..
>
Oh well; I give up. Perhaps after some time and reflection, you will
conclude that there's no "life force" that others call God.
>>
>>>
>>>> If I stated that there a invisible floating things all around us,
>>>> you wouldn't know what I'm taking about.
>>>
>>> I would be interested to hear more. In fact there are invisible (to
>>> the naked eye) floating things all around us, dust mites feces for
>>> example. There are also many invisible forms of energy, TV, radio and
>>> phone signals, to name a few.
>>>
>>>> I would have to prove it to you, I'm sure, before you would believe me.
>>>
>>> I would NOT state categorically that they don't exist, especially if
>>> they were things which I did not fully understand.
>>
>>
>> I guess then, that you fully understand fairy's, Santa and the
>> terrorist threat. (The last bit about terrorism was a lame joke).
>
> I understand each of those things to different degrees, as most of us do.
>
>> You have stated that this God like life force, or what ever wishy
>> washy description you wish to append to it does exist, yet you have no
>> rational explanation as to why you think that.
>
> Think what, why I think a "life force" exists? Why I think it has
> intelligence? Because those ideas are more consistent with the reality I
> observe than anything else I've heard.
As above.
>
>>
>> Would you be 'happy' *if* I stated that I don't believe in God, but a
>> God might exist?
>
> It's better than stating categorically a position on something you don't
> even begin to understand, but it just sounds like another pat statement,
> it doesn't demonstrate to me that you have attempted to actually bring
> your intellect to bear on the question. You're just repeating opinions
> you've heard others repeat.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I can not argue that something does not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what I'm telling you, yet you state categorically that there
>>>>> is no concept of a god that could exist.
>>>>
>>>> "There a invisible floating things all around us"
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree.
>>
>> Ummm. I made that up, just as any of those propaganda experts would.
>
> But it's true. Dust mite feces are invisible. Look at the air in a room
> sometime when a bright sunbeam is shining through a window, the air is
> thick with particles invisible to the naked eye in normal light.
Too late.
>
>>>>>> You believe in a God, it is up to you to prove, or at least
>>>>>> provide SOME real evidence that it exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about if I define god as that vital energy at the core of
>>>>> living organisms that keeps them going, growing, seeking to
>>>>> survive, etc, like a "life force"? Could you accept that such an
>>>>> energy exists? Could you accept that if that's god, then god exists?
>>>>
>>>> Not in the sense that you're trying to contort, no.
>>>
>>> That was a pretty accurate description of what I interpret the word
>>> "God" to mean. Don't evade, if we define God as that, does God then
>>> exist?
>>
>> No. You are attempting trying to be scientific AND be a believer in
>> 'God'. The two are incompatible, no matter how much you attempt to
>> stretch the truth.
>
> How can you say they're incompatible when you haven't examined the
> specific concept I am referring to when I say "god"?
>
>>
>> My guess is that you are fundamentally scientific, but you have a
>> cultural and social pressures that make you come up with these
>> convoluted solutions to resolve the inevitable mental stress.
>
> Wrong, the only pressures I have are intellectual curiosity and natural
> skepticism.
>
> My guess about you is that you have bought into a list of prepackaged
> notions about things to avoid the mental stress associated with doubt or
> admitting you don't know something.
I've stated that I don't know what's in your head. Perhaps it's your
insurance policy for the Pearly Gates.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> If you do that perhaps we can agree on some level. For example, I
>>>>>>> agree that there is no white-bearded man in the clouds watching
>>>>>>> over us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The you're not a completely lost cause.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that of you either.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't you see that your concept of God is at best entirely based
>>>>>> on hearsay and rumour, and perhaps it could be a form of propaganda.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't even know what my concept of god is.
>>>>
>>>> No I do not. It's a irrational concept.
>>>
>>> You don't know what it is but you know that its irrational. Can't you
>>> see that THAT is irrational?
>>
>> Unless your concept of God *is* scientifically demonstrable then it
>> *is* irrational.
>
> It is demonstrable, to a point. But as another poster said, not
> everything in the universe is explainable by science. Why do we find
> flowers beautiful?
Some ideas here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4255479.stm
>
>>>>> Can't you see that your absolute belief in the absence of any kind
>>>>> of god is a form of dogmatism?
>>>>
>>>> LOL.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogmatic
>>>>
>>>> I think the term easily fits you, more than me.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't, because I don't profess a belief in anything.
>>
>> You observe 'life forces' yet you don't believe in them?
>
> I don't spend any energy in "belief". If I observe something, I simply
> say "It is" and move on to the next moment in time.
And you call me lazy.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> One of man's greatest handicaps is his need to hold absolute
>>>>> opinions about everything, when it's hardly ever necessary or wise
>>>>> to do so. Reality is more comforting that way, but not as interesting.
>>>>
>>>> If you're happy holding a wishy-washy opinion, then be my guest.
>>>
>>> I am delighted to hold wishy-washy opinions about things I do not
>>> fully understand. The alternative is to hold on to irrational
>>> dogmatic beliefs about them.
>>
>> I'm getting a point of giving up on a lost cause.
>
> You should not give up on yourself so easily. I know that's not what you
> meant, but it is what you meant.
Should I carry on beating my head against a brick wall? Or do you think
you're offering some sort of salvation?
SystemX
> SystemX wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> SystemX wrote:
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>> SystemX wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> God does NOT exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't even offer a definition for that which you are certain
>>>>> does not exist. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
>>>>
>>>> No. The only 'definition' that springs to mind is a white bearded
>>>> old man. But I'm sure that's not your concept.
>>>
>>> I don't even like the word God, I don't use it, partly because it
>>> gets people's knickers in a bunch, but it refers to a common
>>> phenomenon that has existed as long as humans have been walking
>>> around. That's what I am curious about. I am actually talking about
>>> something like an essential force in nature.
>>
>> I think it's a psychological weakness that has been expolited.
>
> Curiosity?
No.
>
>>>>>> Santa does NOT exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have a definition for Santa.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure there are different definitions,
>>>
>>> Not essentially, they all refer to a Christmas man who flies around
>>> magically giving gifts to little kids, that's obviously a fable.
>>
>> Too some young children Santa is VERY real.
>
> It's still a fable. But there is an actual "Christmas Spirit" that
> people feel at that time of year. It's an infectious energy of generosity.
Some people may. - I hate Christmas. - Go on say it "Ba Humbug" I guess
you'll want to.
It's time of great expense to a large number of families that is driven
by the propaganda of commercial enterprises.
>
>> Just as God is to some of the same age or older.
>
> There are many, many God fables as well, yet they raise the question,
> what are the reasons they exist? Just as Santa is to The Christmas
> Spirit perhaps God fables have their root in something about reality.
They exist because of exploitation and propaganda.
>
>>>> as there are different definitions of 'your' God.
>>>
>>> Most of which I consider to be fables.
>>>
>>>> I would choose to define Santa as the most common image that I've
>>>> seen, a white bearded old man, but apart from that I could not
>>>> define very concept held by individuals.
>>>
>>> You could attempt to understand what *I* mean by God and give an
>>> opinion on that.
>>
>> Your God does not exist.
>
> Your haste to express sureness is a sign of intellectual sloth, and
> immaturity.
It's my opinion; call me names if you want.
>
>> You seem to have a want to give some validation to the word 'God'
>
> It's just a word, not my word of choice, but it got going in this thread
> and I left it in. I prefer life force or "being".
Yet you willingly terminate an animal's "life force" so you can eat.
>
> - perhaps to appease yourself or someone close to you.
>
> Your armchair psychoanalysis is miles off. It's just you and me X.
Oh dear. :-)
>
uNmaiviLambi
> Dutch wrote:
If there is no God, then you do not exist! All Existence *is God*!
Dutch
He ain't gettin it.
Dutch
I have observed a powerful, deliberate and organized
life force running through everything. I have also
observed complex patterns in everything.
(I used quotes as a form of
> shorthand, nothing more. I did not expect you to avoid answering a
> question because of it.)
I didn't answer the question because it referred to a
position that I didn't take, it was just another strawman.
>>>>>>> - I hope you don't start spouting "intelligent evolution"!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've never heard the term. I do observe a fundamental intelligence
>>>>>> in nature though, and I do not observe a fundamental randomness,
>>>>>> although randomness plays a role.
>>>>>
>>>>> A definition of intelligence is "a property of the mind that
>>>>> encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to
>>>>> reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to
>>>>> comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn."
>>>>
>>>> That is one common meaning of intelligence, I am referring to a
>>>> broader meaning. There is an intelligence demonstrated in the way
>>>> organisms function on many levels. The way plants reach for the
>>>> light, the amazing way photosynthesis works, those are types of
>>>> intelligence.
>>>
>>> No they are not. You are PURPOSELY obfuscating science with some
>>> wishy washy form of God.
>>
>> Of course they are a form of intelligence. Just as it takes a higher
>> form of intelligence for an animal to track and capture prey and an
>> even higher form of intelligence for a human to function well in a
>> social situation. Intelligence in that context refers to the clever
>> way organisms function in order to be successful.
>
> The context was "intelligent evolution"; not your obfuscating
> observation of "higher intelligence"
"Intelligent evolution" is an interesting phrase, do
you think evolution is just dumb? Pretty amazing that
plenaria evolved into birds and ultimately humans.
>>
>>>>>>> Any concept of a God are inconsistent with modern science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You like making blanket statements without supporting them don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe in God, I don't think there is a God, there is no
>>>>> real
>>>>> evidence of God.
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by "God" when you say you don't believe in it?
>>>
>>> I don't know what YOU believe in,
>>
>> I'm not saying I believe in anything. You're the one making a
>> statement about "belief" here, not me.
>
> That's agreed then. You don't believe in God.
I have no such thought pattern, that's correct. I do
not find, "believing in" things to be particularly
useful or interesting. I observe and try to make sense
out of things. I wonder at some things in utter
amazement knowing that I will never understand them.
>
>>
>>> so I can't comment, all I can say is you are not making sense.
>>
>> You are stating a belief, a negative one, I asked about what exactly?
>
> You're tying yourself in knots.
No, I'm tying YOU in knots, or rather you're doing it
to yourself.
> There is no God.
That's nice, what is "God"?
> There is no "essence of
> ALL beings".
No? What does that mean and how do you know it?
>>>> > I'm trying to help you see things as they are and stop wasting
>>>> your time
>>>>> on the unreal.
>>>>
>>>> You're not doing a very good job. Your position appears to be a kind
>>>> of mundane atheism trying to pass itself off as rationality when
>>>> it's actually just intellectual laziness.
>>>
>>> What? What is intellectual about believing in fairy's, Santa or God?
>>
>> It is intellectually lazy to group concepts together to make it easy
>> for yourself as you just did.
>
> They are all false, so I group them together.
You haven't even attempting to define what you mean by
God. I've asked you to do so several times. All you
seem to know for sure is that it doesn't exist. That
strikes me as very odd.
> I take it that you think
> they should not be grouped; I guess because you think you might go to hell?
Is that really what you think I believe? You're not
putting much effort into this conversation are you? Or
is this all there is to you?
>>> You are getting lazy. You have no evidence for this God concept, NONE.
>>
>> I have explained the "god concept" I am referring to and where it is
>> exhibited.
>
> Still no evidence.
Sure there is, plenty. If god is manifested in a
flower then every flower is evidence of god.
>>> Your only resort is to call me lazy. Why am I lazy?
>>
>> You're lazy because you're falling back on some vague,
>> undifferentiated preconceived ideas then projecting them on me instead
>> of attempting understand what my actual position is.
>
> Your position is weak and untenable.
ROTFL! You don't have the first clue what my position
is. You appear to lack the intellectual capacity to know.
> You are sitting on the fence,
> 'science' on one side and 'make believe' on the other.
I doubt very much if many scientists would find your
view very enlightening. Science is about delving into
the unknown, the mysterious, not rejecting anything
you can't put into a neat little box. The frontiers of
science like quantum physics right now are exploring
concepts that would have been the stuff of far out
science fantasy a couple of decades ago. You're living
in a little no-no world of comfortable sureness.
>>>>> You believe in this crap, YOU support your assertion.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't claimed to "believe in" anything,
>>>
>>> You are obfuscating again.
>>
>> No, I am correcting misconceptions you have about what I am saying.
>
> OK you are sitting on the fence.
What fence? The only fence is in your literal imagination.
>
>>
>>> Support your assertion that (for examaple) that you "observe a
>>> fundamental intelligence in nature"
>>
>> I observe that things happen in a very deliberate and clever way. I
>> observe that there are incredible patterns in everything, from the
>> tiniest crystal to the most complex organism and social structure,
>> music. I observe that many natural things posses beauty and elegance
>> beyond description. I find "a fundamental intelligence" more
>> consistent with reality as I observe them than some "willy-nilly"
>> randomness.
>>
>
> Rather than "more consistent" I would call it (for you) "more comforting".
The only thing comforting about it is that it makes
sense, and I like the world to make sense. Why else
would it be comforting? I'm not professing a belief in
an after-life. You are the one who is hiding behind
comfortable realities, things you can see, touch and
measure.
>
>
>>>
>>>> I'm not even using the word. You are one professing firm beliefs. A
>>>> belief that something does not exist *is* a belief. You are
>>>> suffering from the same delusion as most atheists, you think you can
>>>> assert a blanket denial without defining what you're denying, then
>>>> smugly claim that as "scientific thinking". It's pretty hilarious.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are plainly struggling.
>>
>> You're the one erecting strawman after strawman.
>
> Oh that old chestnut; you must do better than this.
I don't require a new description for old behaviour,
your responses are over and over directed at someone
in your mind who is clinging to some religion in the
hopes of finding everlasting life, or salvation or
something.. that's not me, at all. But your mind can't
understand what I am saying, so you're defaulting to
responding to something you understand.
>>> Why am I 'smug'?
>>
>> Your whole attitude is smug. You've made up your mind that whenever
>> you hear the word "god" you will issue these autonomic denial phrases
>> then fold your arms and announce that you have taken the high ground
>> of rationality. You do all this without even attempting to understand
>> what I am actually saying. It's laziness, and it's lame.
>
> You 'feel' I have the "high ground" because your position is weak and
> untenable.
I feel you are smug because you emote smugness.
>
>>
>> > What could I draw from the
>>> your thought that I am 'smug'?
>>
>> That's up to you. Ideally you would try some self-evaluation and
>> perhaps see that you are being smug.
>
> I'm trying to come across as an 'equal'; I'm not taking any "high ground".
You have the impression that you have staked out this
rational position because you can just utter denials
to anything that sounds unfamiliar, or that reminds
you of some religious dogma you've heard.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wake up! There is NO God! None!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have been greatly misled to believe that there is a God.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am taken by your sense of absolute assurance, it reminds me of
>>>>>>>> "faith". I presume that you have some sort of argument to back
>>>>>>>> it up, or at the very least you can give some definition of this
>>>>>>>> "God" which you are so certain doesn't exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can not define something that does not exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How can state with such assurance that something doesn't exist
>>>>>> when you don't even know what you're talking about?
>>>>>
>>>>> The concept exists in your head.
>>>>
>>>> Where all concepts exist.
>>>
>>> Can you prove your concept to me, or anyone else?
>>
>> I don't know that concepts are "proven" per se, but they can be
>> demonstrated or illustrated. Words will tend to fall just short but..
>> My observation is that there is a pure energy at the core of living
>> things, you might call it a "life force". It powers reality like RAM
>> in a computer, resulting in something we experience as "the present",
>> "now", or "being". Spiritual teachers have called in many things,
>> Nirvana, God, etc..
>>
>
> Oh well; I give up. Perhaps after some time and reflection, you will
> conclude that there's no "life force" that others call God.
I think you're right, I give up too. But who knows,
someday you might wake up and feel a life force
burning in your gut, take a deep breath and in that
moment while your mind is quiet, realize that you just
felt that essence, that life force that guy said was god.
>>>>> If I stated that there a invisible floating things all around us,
>>>>> you wouldn't know what I'm taking about.
>>>>
>>>> I would be interested to hear more. In fact there are invisible (to
>>>> the naked eye) floating things all around us, dust mites feces for
>>>> example. There are also many invisible forms of energy, TV, radio
>>>> and phone signals, to name a few.
>>>>
>>>>> I would have to prove it to you, I'm sure, before you would believe
>>>>> me.
>>>>
>>>> I would NOT state categorically that they don't exist, especially if
>>>> they were things which I did not fully understand.
>>>
>>>
>>> I guess then, that you fully understand fairy's, Santa and the
>>> terrorist threat. (The last bit about terrorism was a lame joke).
>>
>> I understand each of those things to different degrees, as most of us do.
>>
>>> You have stated that this God like life force, or what ever wishy
>>> washy description you wish to append to it does exist, yet you have
>>> no rational explanation as to why you think that.
>>
>> Think what, why I think a "life force" exists? Why I think it has
>> intelligence? Because those ideas are more consistent with the reality
>> I observe than anything else I've heard.
>
> As above.
There's nothing up there worth going back for.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Would you be 'happy' *if* I stated that I don't believe in God, but a
>>> God might exist?
>>
>> It's better than stating categorically a position on something you
>> don't even begin to understand, but it just sounds like another pat
>> statement, it doesn't demonstrate to me that you have attempted to
>> actually bring your intellect to bear on the question. You're just
>> repeating opinions you've heard others repeat.
>>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can not argue that something does not exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what I'm telling you, yet you state categorically that
>>>>>> there is no concept of a god that could exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> "There a invisible floating things all around us"
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I agree.
>>>
>>> Ummm. I made that up, just as any of those propaganda experts would.
>>
>> But it's true. Dust mite feces are invisible. Look at the air in a
>> room sometime when a bright sunbeam is shining through a window, the
>> air is thick with particles invisible to the naked eye in normal light.
>
> Too late.
You've degenerated into flaccid non sequiturs now.
>
>>
>>>>>>> You believe in a God, it is up to you to prove, or at least
>>>>>>> provide SOME real evidence that it exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about if I define god as that vital energy at the core of
>>>>>> living organisms that keeps them going, growing, seeking to
>>>>>> survive, etc, like a "life force"? Could you accept that such an
>>>>>> energy exists? Could you accept that if that's god, then god exists?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not in the sense that you're trying to contort, no.
>>>>
>>>> That was a pretty accurate description of what I interpret the word
>>>> "God" to mean. Don't evade, if we define God as that, does God then
>>>> exist?
>>>
>>> No. You are attempting trying to be scientific AND be a believer in
>>> 'God'. The two are incompatible, no matter how much you attempt to
>>> stretch the truth.
>>
>> How can you say they're incompatible when you haven't examined the
>> specific concept I am referring to when I say "god"?
>>
>>>
>>> My guess is that you are fundamentally scientific, but you have a
>>> cultural and social pressures that make you come up with these
>>> convoluted solutions to resolve the inevitable mental stress.
>>
>> Wrong, the only pressures I have are intellectual curiosity and
>> natural skepticism.
>>
>> My guess about you is that you have bought into a list of prepackaged
>> notions about things to avoid the mental stress associated with doubt
>> or admitting you don't know something.
>
> I've stated that I don't know what's in your head.
You never will unless you listen to what I say.
> Perhaps it's your
> insurance policy for the Pearly Gates.
That's another strawman, your desperate attempt to
attribute some religious belief to me which I do not
subscribe to.
Wouldn't it be more interesting to actually talk to
*ME* rather than talking to yourself? Or is talking to
yourself more comfortable?
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you do that perhaps we can agree on some level. For example,
>>>>>>>> I agree that there is no white-bearded man in the clouds
>>>>>>>> watching over us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The you're not a completely lost cause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think that of you either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can't you see that your concept of God is at best entirely based
>>>>>>> on hearsay and rumour, and perhaps it could be a form of propaganda.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't even know what my concept of god is.
>>>>>
>>>>> No I do not. It's a irrational concept.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know what it is but you know that its irrational. Can't
>>>> you see that THAT is irrational?
>>>
>>> Unless your concept of God *is* scientifically demonstrable then it
>>> *is* irrational.
>>
>> It is demonstrable, to a point. But as another poster said, not
>> everything in the universe is explainable by science. Why do we find
>> flowers beautiful?
>
> Some ideas here:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4255479.stm
No real answer there, what do YOU think?
>>>>>> Can't you see that your absolute belief in the absence of any kind
>>>>>> of god is a form of dogmatism?
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogmatic
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the term easily fits you, more than me.
>>>>
>>>> No it doesn't, because I don't profess a belief in anything.
>>>
>>> You observe 'life forces' yet you don't believe in them?
>>
>> I don't spend any energy in "belief". If I observe something, I simply
>> say "It is" and move on to the next moment in time.
>
> And you call me lazy.
Yes I do, because you are. Are you suggesting I should
follow your lead and label and categorize everything
into neat little boxes so I can file them away?
>>>>>> One of man's greatest handicaps is his need to hold absolute
>>>>>> opinions about everything, when it's hardly ever necessary or wise
>>>>>> to do so. Reality is more comforting that way, but not as
>>>>>> interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're happy holding a wishy-washy opinion, then be my guest.
>>>>
>>>> I am delighted to hold wishy-washy opinions about things I do not
>>>> fully understand. The alternative is to hold on to irrational
>>>> dogmatic beliefs about them.
>>>
>>> I'm getting a point of giving up on a lost cause.
>>
>> You should not give up on yourself so easily. I know that's not what
>> you meant, but it is what you meant.
>
> Should I carry on beating my head against a brick wall?
The reason it seems like that is because you're
responding to preconceptions in your own mind. Is it
any wonder you can't make any headway? You're talking
to your own illusions.
Or do you think
> you're offering some sort of salvation?
Interesting question, considering that right above you
said "I'm getting a point of giving up on a lost
cause", as if you believe that *you* are offering me
some kind of salvation that I am not getting. You
aren't, so you can quit trying. If you want to get
anything useful out of our exchange try setting aside
your preconceptions for a minute and try to understand
what *I* am actually trying to relate to you. If you
can't do that then I agree, you may as well give up.
SystemX
Interesting interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yENWf5ThIg4&feature=related
Interesting video of animal slaughter in the name of God:
http://www.natallnews.com/images/teaser/kosherslaughter.wmv
Watch both and let me know what you think. (uNmaiviLambi as well).
Dutch
Dawkins rejects the idea that the universe contains a
creative intelligence by saying "the world would be a
very different place if that were the case". Is that
so? He doesn't bother to explain how he thinks it
would look *with* a creative intelligence and he never
offers any alternate explanation for what I consider
to be the amazing properties of nature. The rest is
pretty much a yawner, but he does reveal that he is an
agnostic, not an atheist.
There are more articulate, funnier opponents of
"religion" which I would call "the God Mythologies",
or "the bullshit".
Bill Maher
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=08faadshLvg
my fav
George Carlin
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=casUr9UsabY
You are confusing "religion", which in my opinion is a
steaming pile of bullshit, with something much more
fundamental about nature and the universe that I won't
attempt put a name to here for fear of setting off
your alarm bells again..
9/11 was motived by religion, all sorts of crimes
against nature, intolerance, you name it, all because
of religion. In a misguided attempt to understand the
spiritual aspect of existence man has made a real mess
of it. The kosher slaughter video is a prime example.
SystemX
I've enjoyed our 'chat', and the links.
I think it best to stop this particular thread where we (in the most)
agree.
All the best.
(I'd may be interested in uNmaiviLambi's response of the videos, but I
don't think we'll get one.)
>
>
>
>
>
Dutch
Same to you.
>
> (I'd may be interested in uNmaiviLambi's response of the videos, but I
> don't think we'll get one.)
If I had to predict it would be that he will use the
kosher slaughter video to promote his anti-meat agenda.
uNmaiviLambi
> (I'd may be interested in uNmaiviLambi's response of the videos, but I
> don't think we'll get one.)
Thanks. I am familiar with Richard Dawkins. I have no use for
Christianity or Islam. In my view, their concepts are mere beliefs and
are irrational. Hindu theology is very advanced and not understood,
not surprisingly. Richard Dawkins himself said he does not fully
follow the theology of Hindus and Buddhists and says in his DVD that
he accepts the Hindu view of God but not the Semitic view. Christian
and Islamic views have brought true religions into disrepute. Theology
is far more complicated than what Christians or Muslims want us to
"believe"
Please see the only reference I can see on the web:
The second video is also popular. There are many more. Shows the
inhumanity in slaughter. That does not mean all meat eaters are
inhuman but nevertheless it leads to insensitivity to life
uNmaiviLambi
> (I'd may be interested in uNmaiviLambi's response of the videos, but I
> don't think we'll get one.)
Thanks. I am familiar with Richard Dawkins. I have no use for
SystemX
> On Sep 5, 6:29 pm, SystemX <syst...@clipityclop.com> wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> SystemX wrote:
>
>> (I'd may be interested in uNmaiviLambi's response of the videos, but I
>> don't think we'll get one.)
>
> Thanks. I am familiar with Richard Dawkins. I have no use for
> Christianity or Islam. In my view, their concepts are mere beliefs and
> are irrational. Hindu theology is very advanced and not understood,
> not surprisingly. Richard Dawkins himself said he does not fully
> follow the theology of Hindus and Buddhists and says in his DVD that
> he accepts the Hindu view of God but not the Semitic view. Christian
> and Islamic views have brought true religions into disrepute. Theology
> is far more complicated than what Christians or Muslims want us to
> "believe"
>
> Please see the only reference I can see on the web:
>
> http://richarddawkins.net/article,2014,Hinduism-and-Buddhism-offer-much-more-sophisticated-worldviews-or-philosophies-and-I-see-nothing-wrong-with-these-religions,RichardDawkinsnet
>
Thanks for the link. It made interesting reading; especially the comments.
Reading them has, on the whole brought me to disagree with Dawkin's
statement "I see nothing wrong with these religions", but agree with the
fact that they, particularly Buddhism offer "more sophisticated world
views or philosophies".
> The second video is also popular. There are many more. Shows the
> inhumanity in slaughter. That does not mean all meat eaters are
> inhuman but nevertheless it leads to insensitivity to life
Agreed.
>
All the best.
dh
>SystemX wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> SystemX wrote:
>>>
>>>> God does NOT exist.
>>>
>>> You don't even offer a definition for that which you are certain does
>>> not exist. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
>>
>> No. The only 'definition' that springs to mind is a white bearded old
>> man. But I'm sure that's not your concept.
>
>I don't even like the word God, I don't use it, partly
>because it gets people's knickers in a bunch, but it
>refers to a common phenomenon that has existed as long
>as humans have been walking around. That's what I am
>curious about. I am actually talking about something
>like an essential force in nature.
A mindless force is no more God than magnetism is.
>>>> Santa does NOT exist.
>>>
>>> We have a definition for Santa.
>>
>> I'm sure there are different definitions,
>
>Not essentially, they all refer to a Christmas man who
>flies around magically giving gifts to little kids,
>that's obviously a fable.
>
>> as there are different
>> definitions of 'your' God.
>
>Most of which I consider to be fables.
None of which are as stupid as the practice of referring to a
mindless force as God.
>> I would choose to define Santa as the most common image that I've seen,
>> a white bearded old man, but apart from that I could not define very
>> concept held by individuals.
>
>You could attempt to understand what *I* mean by God
>and give an opinion on that.
That's easy enough: you think there is some force or something
interacting with every part of the universe simultaneously though
having no intelligence or ability to perform deliberate acts, which
even if such a incredible whatever did exist, the concept of it
having no intelligence removes it completely from possibly being
any sort of God. You're like a young child claiming his tricycle is
an interstellar space vehicle, when in reality it's not even close.
dh
>Dutch wrote:
>> SystemX wrote:
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>> SystemX wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> God does NOT exist.
>>>>
>>>> You don't even offer a definition for that which you are certain does
>>>> not exist. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
>>>
>>> No. The only 'definition' that springs to mind is a white bearded old
>>> man. But I'm sure that's not your concept.
>>
>> I don't even like the word God, I don't use it, partly because it gets
>> people's knickers in a bunch, but it refers to a common phenomenon that
>> has existed as long as humans have been walking around. That's what I am
>> curious about. I am actually talking about something like an essential
>> force in nature.
>
>I think it's a psychological weakness that has been expolited.
There has undoubtedly been plenty of exploitation, but if there
is also the promised reward then you are absolutely clueless.
Congratulations on being among the most clueless people on
Earth, I guess, since that's how you apparently want it.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:0bg8c45f2e0hp7sf8...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:29:30 GMT, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>SystemX wrote:
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>> SystemX wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> God does NOT exist.
>>>>
>>>> You don't even offer a definition for that which you are certain does
>>>> not exist. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
>>>
>>> No. The only 'definition' that springs to mind is a white bearded old
>>> man. But I'm sure that's not your concept.
>>
>>I don't even like the word God, I don't use it, partly
>>because it gets people's knickers in a bunch, but it
>>refers to a common phenomenon that has existed as long
>>as humans have been walking around. That's what I am
>>curious about. I am actually talking about something
>>like an essential force in nature.
>
> A mindless force is no more God than magnetism is.
Mindless? Who says a "mind" is the greatest intelligence possible?
>
>>>>> Santa does NOT exist.
>>>>
>>>> We have a definition for Santa.
>>>
>>> I'm sure there are different definitions,
>>
>>Not essentially, they all refer to a Christmas man who
>>flies around magically giving gifts to little kids,
>>that's obviously a fable.
>>
>>> as there are different
>>> definitions of 'your' God.
>>
>>Most of which I consider to be fables.
>
> None of which are as stupid as the practice of referring to a
> mindless force as God.
Then don't do it.
>
>>> I would choose to define Santa as the most common image that I've seen,
>>> a white bearded old man, but apart from that I could not define very
>>> concept held by individuals.
>>
>>You could attempt to understand what *I* mean by God
>>and give an opinion on that.
>
> That's easy enough: you think there is some force or something
> interacting with every part of the universe simultaneously though
> having no intelligence or ability to perform deliberate acts, which
> even if such a incredible whatever did exist, the concept of it
> having no intelligence removes it completely from possibly being
> any sort of God. You're like a young child claiming his tricycle is
> an interstellar space vehicle, when in reality it's not even close.
When did I say it had no intelligence?
SystemX
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:11:29 +0100, SystemX <sys...@clipityclop.com> wrote:
>
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> SystemX wrote:
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>> SystemX wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> God does NOT exist.
>>>>> You don't even offer a definition for that which you are certain does
>>>>> not exist. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
>>>> No. The only 'definition' that springs to mind is a white bearded old
>>>> man. But I'm sure that's not your concept.
>>> I don't even like the word God, I don't use it, partly because it gets
>>> people's knickers in a bunch, but it refers to a common phenomenon that
>>> has existed as long as humans have been walking around. That's what I am
>>> curious about. I am actually talking about something like an essential
>>> force in nature.
>> I think it's a psychological weakness that has been expolited.
>
> There has undoubtedly been plenty of exploitation,
Yes.
>but if there
> is also the promised reward then you are absolutely clueless.
What is this "promised reward". I need a laugh!
> Congratulations on being among the most clueless people on
> Earth, I guess, since that's how you apparently want it.
Some, as you, express this psychological weakness less subtlety.
dh
I doubt my reply was to what you said it was Goober, since it doesn't
apply to it. What I said is pretty obviously true if God does exist though
Goo, and you certainly can't argue against it in anything but the most
childlike of ways. I challenge you to try, even as I expect you are totally
incapable. Try Goo, TRY:
> Goo Fuckwit David Harrison in reply:
> That shows God's good foresight. He knew from the beginning that as
> humans continue to grow and develop, we will also continue to change
> the environment of the planet. He understood from the start that in
> the end, humans will decided which animals get to survive and which
> don't.
> [...]
> He also saw to it that they aren't able to talk, and communicate
> complex ideas between each other, so they can't discuss or understand
> the situation they are in. If they could, they really would be
> living the horrible life of hell that so many of you seem to think
> they are, but they can't, which is a blessing for them in this case.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5atfhl - 21 Jun 1999
dh
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:11:29 +0100, SystemX <sys...@clipityclop.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>> SystemX wrote:
>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>> SystemX wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> God does NOT exist.
>>>>>> You don't even offer a definition for that which you are certain does
>>>>>> not exist. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
>>>>> No. The only 'definition' that springs to mind is a white bearded old
>>>>> man. But I'm sure that's not your concept.
>>>> I don't even like the word God, I don't use it, partly because it gets
>>>> people's knickers in a bunch, but it refers to a common phenomenon that
>>>> has existed as long as humans have been walking around. That's what I am
>>>> curious about. I am actually talking about something like an essential
>>>> force in nature.
>
>
>>> I think it's a psychological weakness that has been expolited.
>>
>> There has undoubtedly been plenty of exploitation,
>
>Yes.
>
>>but if there
>> is also the promised reward then you are absolutely clueless.
>
>What is this "promised reward".
You know what it is. You just can't think about it in a realistic
way.
>I need a laugh!
That proves my point, no doubt.
>> Congratulations on being among the most clueless people on
>> Earth, I guess, since that's how you apparently want it.
>
>Some, as you, express this psychological weakness less subtlety.
You're proud of your cluelessness and inability to consider
the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way, yet you're
almost certainly ashamed of your faith that God does not
exist. We can't really consider that to be anything more than
psychological weakness, as you say. In fact we can consider
it weakness to the point of being wishy-washyness, now that
you mention it.