the greatest thing about freedom is...
$Zero
what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
or do you prefer slavery?
...
BTW: those are the words i found necessary to write down the other day
as referenced here:
i haven't used a pen for several months
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/157b54f5d6089ef1
...
-$Zero...
if pot became legal...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e797b0b281cb4d56
Pies de Arcilla
$Zero wrote:
> the greatest thing about freedom is...
>
> what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
>
> or do you prefer slavery?
I prefer to have someone protect me from making mistakes, and if
that's not possible, it's always good to have someone to blame.
boots
>the greatest thing about freedom is...
>
>what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
I'm not sure yet, I'm still exploring.
>or do you prefer slavery?
No, Massah.
I seem to have a genetically transmitted recessive gene somewhat
similar to terrets' syndrome... all those things people think about
saying and doing at work... well, it's not my fault, it's inherited,
you know. Heh. FUCK YOUR MANDATORY MEETING! Oops.
--
The sane answer, to madness, is insanity.
boots
I wholeheartedly agree, but I'm a cheap fucker and do all my own work.
$Zero
>
> $Zero wrote:
>
> > the greatest thing about freedom is...
>
> > what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
>
> > or do you prefer slavery?
>
> I prefer to have someone protect me from making mistakes,
as if.
> and if that's not possible,
yikes.
> it's always good to have someone to blame.
there's never a shortage of people to blame for your mistakes.
your parents, your teachers, your preachers, your friends, your
enemies.
you don't need to be a slave to assign responsibility where it
belongs.
-$Zero...
the greatest thing about freedom is...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/25b38ce7ca97f1e4
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >the greatest thing about freedom is...
>
> >what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
>
> I'm not sure yet, I'm still exploring.
ain't that the truth.
> >or do you prefer slavery?
>
> No, Massah.
>
> I seem to have a genetically transmitted recessive gene somewhat
> similar to terrets' syndrome... all those things people think about
> saying and doing at work... well, it's not my fault, it's inherited,
> you know. �Heh. �FUCK YOUR MANDATORY MEETING! �Oops.
there's your book, boots.
-$Zero...
the greatest thing about freedom is...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/25b38ce7ca97f1e4
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Well, first you have to define "Freedom"
$Zero
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> $Zero wrote:
>
> > the greatest thing about freedom is...
>
> > what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
[...]
> Well, first you have to define "Freedom"
why?
-$Zero...
the greatest thing about freedom is...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/25b38ce7ca97f1e4
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
$Zero wrote:
> On Dec 9, 9:14�am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > $Zero wrote:
> >
> > > the greatest thing about freedom is...
> >
> > > what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
>
> [...]
>
> > Well, first you have to define "Freedom"
>
> why?
So that we have an idea of what you mean by the term.
$Zero
you're completely free to define it yourself.
-$Zero...
the greatest thing about freedom is...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/25b38ce7ca97f1e4
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
$Zero wrote:
> On Dec 9, 11:10 am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > $Zero wrote:
> > > On Dec 9, 9:14�am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> > > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > > $Zero wrote:
> >
> > > > > the greatest thing about freedom is...
> >
> > > > > what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
> >
> > > [...]
> >
> > > > Well, first you have to define "Freedom"
> >
> > > why?
> >
> > So that we have an idea of what you mean by the term.
>
> you're completely free to define it yourself.
>
>
No I'm not. You've just defined part of it..
Glynne Gilmore
> "$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> the greatest thing about freedom is...
>>
>> what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
>
> I'm not sure yet, I'm still exploring.
>
>> or do you prefer slavery?
>
> No, Massah.
Reminds of the time I mentioned Condie Rice's relationship to George W
to my dad, the political writer. Dad quipped, "Yesa, Massa.
Glynne Gilmore
> Condie
Condi. Condoleeezzza.
Alan Hope
>the greatest thing about freedom is...
>
>what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
>
>or do you prefer slavery?
Freedom is an illusion designed to keep you in chains. You don't have
any freedom, other than the freedom to launch yourself from the
precipice. To go to death rather than waiting for death to come to
you.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
no, i haven't.
that was you defining it.
so what's the greatest thing about freedom to you?
-$Zero...
the greatest thing about freedom is...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/25b38ce7ca97f1e4
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
No because you implied that I had the freedom to do it myself, which I
already did without you defining it, but since you implied that I had
it, that meant that you were granting it, so you defined it at that
moment.
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >the greatest thing about freedom is...
>
> >what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
>
> >or do you prefer slavery?
>
> Freedom is an illusion designed to keep you in chains.
keep what about you in chains?
> You don't have any freedom,
everybody has freedom.
and everybody has illusions.
the illusion that you have no freedom is the illusion that keeps you
in chains.
(like a grown elephant with a string tied around it's leg).
> You don't have any freedom,
> other than the freedom to launch yourself from the precipice.
you have the freedom to do that, yes, but it's best to use some sort
of parachute.
> To go to death rather than waiting for death to come to you.
there's only one thing you HAVE to do.
(and even that is debatable).
everything else is optional.
IOW: you have complete freedom.
and so does everybody else.
conflicts can arise when our freedoms overlap eachother.
fortunately, we can choose to sing in harmony, or dance to a beat.
or keep or distance.
of course, some people would rather chain up the overlappers with
various illusions.
(because they have no _real_ creativity).
-$Zero...
the greatest thing about freedom is...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/25b38ce7ca97f1e4
$Zero
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 12:22 pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > $Zero wrote:
> > > > On Dec 9, 11:10 am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> > > > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > > > $Zero wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 9, 9:14�am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> > > > > > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > > > > > $Zero wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > the greatest thing about freedom is...
>
> > > > > > > > what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
>
> > > > > > [...]
>
> > > > > > > Well, first you have to define "Freedom"
>
> > > > > > why?
>
> > > > > So that we have an idea of what you mean by the term.
>
> > > > you're completely free to define it yourself.
>
> > > No I'm not. You've just defined part of it.
>
> > no, i haven't.
>
> > that was you defining it.
>
> > so what's the greatest thing about freedom to you?
>
> No because you implied that I had the freedom to do it myself,
implied?
> which I already did without you defining it,
we have a bingo!
> but since you implied that I had it, that meant that you
> were granting it, so you defined it at that moment
nope. your freedom to define it wasn't mine to grant.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
So why did you assume to grant it?
$Zero
i didn't. i merely restated the obvious.
because you were making excuses for not answering the question:
so what's the greatest thing about freedom to you?
-$Zero...
the greatest thing about freedom is...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/25b38ce7ca97f1e4
Grande Mal
"Alan Hope" <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fdvol39u8appc4f48...@4ax.com...
I'm kind of busy right now or I'd hang myself.
Pies de Arcilla
$Zero wrote:
> On Dec 9, 1:10�am, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > $Zero wrote:
> >
> > > the greatest thing about freedom is...
> >
> > > what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
> >
> > > or do you prefer slavery?
> >
> > I prefer to have someone protect me from making mistakes,
>
> as if.
>
> > and if that's not possible,
>
> yikes.
>
> > it's always good to have someone to blame.
>
> there's never a shortage of people to blame for your mistakes.
>
> your parents, your teachers, your preachers, your friends, your
> enemies.
>
> you don't need to be a slave to assign responsibility where it
> belongs.
If I'm free, then I'm responsible.
I am however, not free or responsible.
God has predetermined everything, including this post.
Pies de Arcilla
I enjoy the weekly meeting--someone always says something amusing, and
we get paid for doing nothing for close to an hour. And we go over the
week's fuckups and I get to gloat that it's not me (usually).
Bill Penrose
> I am however, not free or responsible.
> God has predetermined everything, including this post.
I think that God would be very bored if that were true. No surprises,
nothing new, just watching the playing out of a predetermined sequence
of events. Boring beyond belief.
Can you picture a God, with his brand-new Universe, facing a
predetermined future? Echh. By creating a creature whose behavior
could not be predicted, even by Him, he could make eternity a tad more
interesting.
DB
$Zero
well, then, it looks like God needs more practice.
-$Zero...
after awhile, you figure out why nothing ever changes
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d10e71396a9d48db
Bill Penrose
Monty Python has risen!
"I want to buy an argument"
"No you don't."
DB
boots
>
>
>$Zero wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 1:10?am, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > $Zero wrote:
>> >
>> > > the greatest thing about freedom is...
>> >
>> > > what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
>> >
>> > > or do you prefer slavery?
>> >
>> > I prefer to have someone protect me from making mistakes,
>>
>> as if.
>>
>> > and if that's not possible,
>>
>> yikes.
>>
>> > it's always good to have someone to blame.
>>
>> there's never a shortage of people to blame for your mistakes.
>>
>> your parents, your teachers, your preachers, your friends, your
>> enemies.
>>
>> you don't need to be a slave to assign responsibility where it
>> belongs.
>
>If I'm free, then I'm responsible.
Tough load to bear, huh?
>I am however, not free or responsible.
>
>God has predetermined everything, including this post.
Strange God you have there, robot.
boots
>
>
>$Zero wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 7:38 pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> > $Zero wrote:
>> > > On Dec 9, 12:22 pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>> > > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> > > > $Zero wrote:
>> > > > > On Dec 9, 11:10 am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>> > > > > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> > > > > > $Zero wrote:
>> > > > > > > On Dec 9, 9:14?am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>> > > > > > > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > $Zero wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > the greatest thing about freedom is...
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
>> >
>> > > > > > > [...]
>> >
>> > > > > > > > Well, first you have to define "Freedom"
>> >
>> > > > > > > why?
>> >
>> > > > > > So that we have an idea of what you mean by the term.
>> >
>> > > > > you're completely free to define it yourself.
>> >
>> > > > No I'm not. You've just defined part of it.
>> >
>> > > no, i haven't.
>> >
>> > > that was you defining it.
>> >
>> > > so what's the greatest thing about freedom to you?
>> >
>>
>> > No because you implied that I had the freedom to do it myself,
>>
>> implied?
>>
>> > which I already did without you defining it,
>>
>> we have a bingo!
>>
>> > but since you implied that I had it, that meant that you
>> > were granting it, so you defined it at that moment
>>
>> nope. your freedom to define it wasn't mine to grant.
>>
>
>So why did you assume to grant it?
Q: Why did you choose to read his post as granting it instead of as
simply observing what was already there?
A: usenet posting points
FWOT.
boots
>$Zero goes:
>
>>the greatest thing about freedom is...
>>
>>what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
>>
>>or do you prefer slavery?
>
>Freedom is an illusion designed to keep you in chains. You don't have
>any freedom, other than the freedom to launch yourself from the
>precipice. To go to death rather than waiting for death to come to
>you.
That is the stupidest post I have read thus far today. Considering
its source, altogether unsurprising.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
But, I'm free not to answer the question, am I not?
$Zero
well, that goes without saying.
ba'dum, chsh!
Alan Hope
One of the mugs pipes up. The first of the God-bothering delusionals
makes his voice heard as he whistles gamely in the dark.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> boots goes:
>
> >Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>$Zero goes:
> >>>the greatest thing about freedom is...
> >>>what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
> >>>or do you prefer slavery?
> >>Freedom is an illusion designed to keep you in chains. You don't have
> >>any freedom, other than the freedom to launch yourself from the
> >>precipice. To go to death rather than waiting for death to come to
> >>you.
> >That is the stupidest post I have read thus far today. �Considering
> >its source, altogether unsurprising.
>
> One of the mugs pipes up. The first of the God-bothering delusionals
> makes his voice heard as he whistles gamely in the dark.
projection, third class.
so anyway, was that an illusion that produced your reply, or your
freedom?
Alan Hope
>On Dec 10, 8:12?am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> boots goes:
>>
>> >Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>$Zero goes:
>> >>>the greatest thing about freedom is...
>> >>>what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
>> >>>or do you prefer slavery?
>> >>Freedom is an illusion designed to keep you in chains. You don't have
>> >>any freedom, other than the freedom to launch yourself from the
>> >>precipice. To go to death rather than waiting for death to come to
>> >>you.
>> >That is the stupidest post I have read thus far today. ?Considering
>> >its source, altogether unsurprising.
>>
>> One of the mugs pipes up. The first of the God-bothering delusionals
>> makes his voice heard as he whistles gamely in the dark.
>
>projection, third class.
Give over. Man invented God because he's afraid of the grave. Grow up
and own your fear.
>so anyway, was that an illusion that produced your reply, or your
>freedom?
Is that what freedom amounts to? BFD
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>On Dec 9, 10:13 pm, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am however, not free or responsible.
>> God has predetermined everything, including this post.
>I think that God would be very bored if that were true. No surprises,
>nothing new, just watching the playing out of a predetermined sequence
>of events. Boring beyond belief.
On the other hand, it's all over in the twinkling of an eye for an
eternal being.
>Can you picture a God, with his brand-new Universe, facing a
>predetermined future? Echh.
How can it be any other way? For there to be something God doesn't
know, he would have to be smaller than his Creation.
>By creating a creature whose behavior
>could not be predicted, even by Him, he could make eternity a tad more
>interesting.
That's a logical impossibility.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
> >On Dec 10, 8:12?am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> boots goes:
> >> >Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>$Zero goes:
> >> >>>the greatest thing about freedom is...
> >> >>>what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
> >> >>>or do you prefer slavery?
> >> >>Freedom is an illusion designed to keep you in chains. You don't have
> >> >>any freedom, other than the freedom to launch yourself from the
> >> >>precipice. To go to death rather than waiting for death to come to
> >> >>you.
> >> >That is the stupidest post I have read thus far today. ?Considering
> >> >its source, altogether unsurprising.
>
> >> One of the mugs pipes up. The first of the God-bothering delusionals
> >> makes his voice heard as he whistles gamely in the dark.
>
> >projection, third class.
>
> Give over. Man invented God because he's afraid of the grave.
man has the freedom to invent?
yes.
and to discover.
but man cannot invent God, man can only invent explanations of God.
> Grow up and own your fear.
fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
and the road to faith.
> >so anyway, was that an illusion that produced your reply, or your
> >freedom?
>
> Is that what freedom amounts to? BFD
that's quite the criticism of yourself, huh?
Alan Hope
>On Dec 10, 8:53?am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> >On Dec 10, 8:12?am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> boots goes:
>> >> >Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>$Zero goes:
>> >> >>>the greatest thing about freedom is...
>> >> >>>what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
>> >> >>>or do you prefer slavery?
>> >> >>Freedom is an illusion designed to keep you in chains. You don't have
>> >> >>any freedom, other than the freedom to launch yourself from the
>> >> >>precipice. To go to death rather than waiting for death to come to
>> >> >>you.
>> >> >That is the stupidest post I have read thus far today. ?Considering
>> >> >its source, altogether unsurprising.
>>
>> >> One of the mugs pipes up. The first of the God-bothering delusionals
>> >> makes his voice heard as he whistles gamely in the dark.
>>
>> >projection, third class.
>>
>> Give over. Man invented God because he's afraid of the grave.
>
>man has the freedom to invent?
>
>yes.
>
>and to discover.
>
>but man cannot invent God, man can only invent explanations of God.
Quite. There is no God.
>> Grow up and own your fear.
>fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
>and the road to faith.
What a worthless quest.
>> >so anyway, was that an illusion that produced your reply, or your
>> >freedom?
>> Is that what freedom amounts to? BFD
>that's quite the criticism of yourself, huh?
No, you're wrong again.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
boots
>Bill Penrose goes:
>
>>On Dec 9, 10:13 pm, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am however, not free or responsible.
>>> God has predetermined everything, including this post.
>
>>I think that God would be very bored if that were true. No surprises,
>>nothing new, just watching the playing out of a predetermined sequence
>>of events. Boring beyond belief.
>
>On the other hand, it's all over in the twinkling of an eye for an
>eternal being.
If it's a good game one can always replay.
>>Can you picture a God, with his brand-new Universe, facing a
>>predetermined future? Echh.
>
>How can it be any other way? For there to be something God doesn't
>know, he would have to be smaller than his Creation.
There's one of the flaws in your wannabe-logic. You neglect free-will
(which gives you the freedom to reject the concept of an omnipotent /
omniscient / omnipresent being) and you neglect time. The combination
of omniscience and omnipresence means only that you know what is at
this moment, throwing free will into the mix makes it interesting
because of the time element combined with choice.
>>By creating a creature whose behavior
>>could not be predicted, even by Him, he could make eternity a tad more
>>interesting.
>
>That's a logical impossibility.
You're a logic incompetent. If you were worth a weekold shit at logic
you'd recognize the proof or disproof of the existence of God is by
definition impossible, it can be recognized or denied but never proven
or disproven because provability either way would deny free-will and
make the entire game pointless. You don't recognize a logical
impossibility when you see one. Nor do you recognize pointlessness
when you look into the mirror. Now piss off, cunt.
boots
Ooooh, a clever cuteness from a cunt who couldn't work his way out of
a paper bag even if it was thoroughly pissed-on. It is you who
whistles in the dark, attacking anyone who lets slip s/he isn't an
atheist, because your widdle feewings are hurt by the fact that God
has given you precisely what you deserve. Now shut the fuck up and go
write in your shitty blog or perform some act of obeisance for your
pissant magazine, you worthless drooling twat.
John Ashby
So what is it that you recognise that convinces you of the existence of
God?
And for a bonus, why should I accept that to convince me?
john
boots
>$Zero goes:
>
>>On Dec 10, 8:12?am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> boots goes:
>>>
>>> >Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>$Zero goes:
>>> >>>the greatest thing about freedom is...
>>> >>>what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
>>> >>>or do you prefer slavery?
>>> >>Freedom is an illusion designed to keep you in chains. You don't have
>>> >>any freedom, other than the freedom to launch yourself from the
>>> >>precipice. To go to death rather than waiting for death to come to
>>> >>you.
>>> >That is the stupidest post I have read thus far today. ?Considering
>>> >its source, altogether unsurprising.
>>>
>>> One of the mugs pipes up. The first of the God-bothering delusionals
>>> makes his voice heard as he whistles gamely in the dark.
>>
>>projection, third class.
>
>Give over. Man invented God because he's afraid of the grave. Grow up
>and own your fear.
Primitive man, or stupid men, may have invented the religious concept
of god because they were afraid of death, who fucking knows what
primitive man acutally did, you can't tell that from petrified bones
beyond the basics.
Death is our only fucking hope of escaping Shithole Earth you stupid
cunt, why would anyone be afraid of losing the tax collector and the
rest of the tedious horseshit that this fucking planet necessitates?
>>so anyway, was that an illusion that produced your reply, or your
>>freedom?
>
>Is that what freedom amounts to? BFD
You don't recognize your own freedom, and that in itself condemns you
to revile others through a mirror. You're fucked, might as well hang
yourself and get over it, after all YOU aren't afraid of death.
Stupid cunt.
Skipper
<J.V....@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
Stomp your little foot, sneer, and turn your nose up further. That
should fix it for you.
boots
>So what is it that you recognise that convinces you of the existence of
>God?
Process of elimination, Watson. However impossible it may seem.
Though when I use the word "God" there is no large bearded fairy
involved, simply a sentient being that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and
omniscient.
>And for a bonus, why should I accept that to convince me?
If you took my assertion for it I'd consider you the dingiest fool of
the lot and I'd be extremely disappointed that someone I'd previously
appraised as having at least a partially-operational (no offense
meant) brain turned out to have none whatsoever.
IF you were shown how to find evidence of God, and IF you chose to
proceed down that path, you might find data within your own life to
support the concept, then you'd be fucked because everything that
supports your existence would be thrown into disarray and the danger
of your becoming societally dysfunctional would be quite significant,
possibly inescapable.
boots
Don't be too harsh on Ashby, his profession requires a certain level
of commitment to the purest rationality he can maintain, but from the
little I've seen the man appears to have a mind capable of
entertaining unfamiliar concepts.
John Ashby
I wasn't talking to you, Skip. How could I be since you allege I'm in
your killfile? It was actually a serious question put to boots, looking
for a serious answer. That you fail to see that is for you to deal
with.
john (talking to himself since Skip surely won't see this unless someone
quotes it)
John Ashby
> John Ashby <J.V....@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>So what is it that you recognise that convinces you of the existence
>>of God?
>
> Process of elimination, Watson. However impossible it may seem.
>
On what criteria have you eliminated the alternatives?
> Though when I use the word "God" there is no large bearded fairy
> involved, simply a sentient being that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and
> omniscient.
>
>>And for a bonus, why should I accept that to convince me?
>
> If you took my assertion for it I'd consider you the dingiest fool of
> the lot and I'd be extremely disappointed that someone I'd previously
> appraised as having at least a partially-operational (no offense
> meant) brain turned out to have none whatsoever.
>
Good, I'm glad we can agree on that. There is no way I could simply take
your assertion for it with any degree of integrity. Yet so often that
is all you (the collective you) have. That's why I phrased my first
question as I did, I want to know your story, what experience in your
life convinces you. You can string words together well enough to be
called a writer; write something that conveys to me your experience.
> IF you were shown how to find evidence of God, and IF you chose to
> proceed down that path, you might find data within your own life to
> support the concept, then you'd be fucked because everything that
> supports your existence would be thrown into disarray and the danger
> of your becoming societally dysfunctional would be quite significant,
> possibly inescapable.
>
I face that danger every day.
john
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>$Zero goes:
>>>On Dec 10, 8:12?am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> boots goes:
>>>> >Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>$Zero goes:
>>>> >>>the greatest thing about freedom is...
>>>> >>>what is the greatest thing about freedom to you?
>>>> >>>or do you prefer slavery?
>>>> >>Freedom is an illusion designed to keep you in chains. You don't have
>>>> >>any freedom, other than the freedom to launch yourself from the
>>>> >>precipice. To go to death rather than waiting for death to come to
>>>> >>you.
>>>> >That is the stupidest post I have read thus far today. ?Considering
>>>> >its source, altogether unsurprising.
>>>> One of the mugs pipes up. The first of the God-bothering delusionals
>>>> makes his voice heard as he whistles gamely in the dark.
>>>projection, third class.
>>Give over. Man invented God because he's afraid of the grave. Grow up
>>and own your fear.
>Primitive man, or stupid men, may have invented the religious concept
>of god because they were afraid of death, who fucking knows what
>primitive man acutally did, you can't tell that from petrified bones
>beyond the basics.
No, you God-followers all do it afresh for yourselves, every
generation. Don't blame primitive man, you're the one who believes in
the Great Fucking Pumpkin, you arsehole.
>Death is our only fucking hope of escaping Shithole Earth you stupid
>cunt, why would anyone be afraid of losing the tax collector and the
>rest of the tedious horseshit that this fucking planet necessitates?
So why do you believe in Big Beardy, then?
>>>so anyway, was that an illusion that produced your reply, or your
>>>freedom?
>>Is that what freedom amounts to? BFD
>You don't recognize your own freedom, and that in itself condemns you
>to revile others through a mirror. You're fucked, might as well hang
>yourself and get over it, after all YOU aren't afraid of death.
What's to fear? There's nothing there.
>Stupid cunt.
Go cry on God's shoulder, pussy.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>Ooooh, a clever cuteness from a cunt who couldn't work his way out of
>a paper bag even if it was thoroughly pissed-on. It is you who
>whistles in the dark, attacking anyone who lets slip s/he isn't an
>atheist, because your widdle feewings are hurt by the fact that God
>has given you precisely what you deserve. Now shut the fuck up and go
>write in your shitty blog or perform some act of obeisance for your
>pissant magazine, you worthless drooling twat.
Here, have a hankie.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
boots
It's quoted.
And if you're going to talk to yourself, get one of those cellphone
things to stick in your ear, then nobody will be certain.
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Bill Penrose goes:
>>>On Dec 9, 10:13 pm, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I am however, not free or responsible.
>>>> God has predetermined everything, including this post.
>>>I think that God would be very bored if that were true. No surprises,
>>>nothing new, just watching the playing out of a predetermined sequence
>>>of events. Boring beyond belief.
>>On the other hand, it's all over in the twinkling of an eye for an
>>eternal being.
>If it's a good game one can always replay.
>>>Can you picture a God, with his brand-new Universe, facing a
>>>predetermined future? Echh.
>>How can it be any other way? For there to be something God doesn't
>>know, he would have to be smaller than his Creation.
>There's one of the flaws in your wannabe-logic. You neglect free-will
Of course, as it's an illusion. You can no more change your mind than
shape-shift.
>(which gives you the freedom to reject the concept of an omnipotent /
>omniscient / omnipresent being)
That's not a freedom, it's an obligation. There is no option for the
rational mind.
>and you neglect time. The combination
>of omniscience and omnipresence means only that you know what is at
>this moment, throwing free will into the mix makes it interesting
>because of the time element combined with choice.
Bullshit. You clearly don't know what the prefix omni- means.
>>>By creating a creature whose behavior
>>>could not be predicted, even by Him, he could make eternity a tad more
>>>interesting.
>>That's a logical impossibility.
>You're a logic incompetent. If you were worth a weekold shit at logic
>you'd recognize the proof or disproof of the existence of God is by
>definition impossible, it can be recognized or denied but never proven
>or disproven because provability either way would deny free-will and
>make the entire game pointless.
Utter fucking desperate tripe. You mean to say that the existence of
God cannot be proven because he does not exist. And the existence of
God does not require to be proven because it is a prima facie
absurdity. Despite that, or in addition to it, there is not a single
iota of evidence available in the entire Universe to support the
proposition that God exists.
Free will is of no consequence because you cannot will the existence
of God, although you can will your belief in his existence.
>You don't recognize a logical
>impossibility when you see one. Nor do you recognize pointlessness
>when you look into the mirror. Now piss off, cunt.
You say it but you don't show it, suggesting you don't believe it
yourself. But if you have some evidence of God's existence, feel free
to bring it on. I'll wipe my arse with it, and you'll have to watch,
and that'll make you cry even more than you're crying already.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
Why all this trash talk? Why is nobody coming up with a simple and
convincing answer to Mr Ashby's questions?
Come on, guys, this is a belief for which people have gone to their
deaths, often in horrible ways. And not one of you when pressed can
come up with anything at all to back it up? Surely not. Surely you
must be holding the devastating proof in reserve for the time when
your petty little schoolgirl insults no longer cut it.
O do please say there's more to it than this. I shall be so
disappointed to have gone to all this trouble only to find you guys
don't really believe it either.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
merely the truth of the existence of God.
> And for a bonus, why should I accept that to convince me?
you probably shouldn't take the word of anybody but yourself and your
own experience.
otherwise, you're apt to be deceived.
with that in mind, would you personally prefer that God did NOT exist?
can you rationally dismiss your feelings about that?
really?
Ultraviolet
<>
> Death is our only fucking hope of escaping Shithole Earth you
> stupid cunt, why would anyone be afraid of losing the tax
> collector and the rest of the tedious horseshit that this fucking
> planet necessitates?
Seems that a lot of theists don't see it that way at all, Boots, and
try to exist in their flesh and blood form as long as possible, some
even going so far as to prevent others from escaping when they wish to.
And if you do believe physical life is so awful and something better
awaits after death, why not kill yourself now? I'm not trying to be
mean, but I've just never understood this about theists.
John Ashby
Isn't that circular? You believe God exists because you believe God
exists. That's permissible, but I'd like to see more open
acknowledgment of that. In your case, zero, I'll issue a similar
challenge I put to boots. You say you used to be an atheist but are now
a believer. What changed your mind? What events, experiences happened
to convince you?
>
>> And for a bonus, why should I accept that to convince me?
>
> you probably shouldn't take the word of anybody but yourself and your
> own experience.
>
And thus far, I've had no need of that hypothesis. Which is why I'm
asking people like you and boots where the need came from? What drove,
in particular, your change of view?
> otherwise, you're apt to be deceived.
>
> with that in mind, would you personally prefer that God did NOT exist?
>
That's a good question. I've been talking to a friend recently about
hinduism and the personal responsibility which that religion stresses.
To that extent I "prefer" the non-existence of a Judaeo-Christian God
who makes that responsibility at one remove - we do good to win praise,
we do not do evil to avoid punishment, rather than being guided by the
intrinsic good or evil of the deeds.
> can you rationally dismiss your feelings about that?
>
That's a trick question, isn't it? I can rationalise my feelings about
that. I have no intention of dismissing them, rather of owning them.
john
Alan Hope
>John Ashby <J.V....@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>So what is it that you recognise that convinces you of the existence of
>>God?
>Process of elimination, Watson. However impossible it may seem.
>Though when I use the word "God" there is no large bearded fairy
>involved, simply a sentient being that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and
>omniscient.
Oh right. So it's an argument over the existence of facial hair.
>>And for a bonus, why should I accept that to convince me?
>If you took my assertion for it I'd consider you the dingiest fool of
>the lot and I'd be extremely disappointed that someone I'd previously
>appraised as having at least a partially-operational (no offense
>meant) brain turned out to have none whatsoever.
>IF you were shown how to find evidence of God, and IF you chose to
>proceed down that path, you might find data within your own life to
>support the concept, then you'd be fucked because everything that
>supports your existence would be thrown into disarray and the danger
>of your becoming societally dysfunctional would be quite significant,
>possibly inescapable.
Typical. Ask them for the slightest scrap of evidence and they run a
mile, scattering tin-tacks in their wake.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 10:38 am, John Ashby <J.V.As...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
[...]
> >> So what is it that you recognise that convinces you of the
> >> existence of God?
>
> > merely the truth of the existence of God.
>
> Isn't that circular?
not really.
i'd say the same thing about my sense of humor.
> You believe God exists because you believe God exists.
i believe my sense of humor exists because it does exist.
if you never saw any evidence of it yourself, would my sense of humor
stop existing?
> That's permissible, but I'd like to see more open
> acknowledgment of that. In your case, zero, I'll issue a similar
> challenge I put to boots. You say you used to be an atheist but are now
> a believer. What changed your mind? What events, experiences happened
> to convince you?
lots.
very complex and stretching over many years of non-belief.
and even if i could explain it all, you'd only have my word for any of
it.
so what good would that do you?
> >> And for a bonus, why should I accept that to convince me?
>
> > you probably shouldn't take the word of anybody but yourself and your
> > own experience.
>
> And thus far, I've had no need of that hypothesis.
i never had need of it either.
besides never "needing" God, what made me a thoroughly convinced
atheist for much of my life were most of the people i came across who
were "representing" God.
they always seemed as silly and irrational and illogical and deluded
and gullible as a Flying Spaghetti Monster cult.
for the most part, they distracted me from realizing the truth with
all of their nonsensical positions and comb-overs and wigs and pleads
for cash and whatnot.
and whenever i argued with believers about their beliefs, which was
always fun, they always ended up grasping at straws and sounding and
looking stupid and ridiculous and gullible.
even so, there was always a certain mystery about life and the
universe that i felt somewhere in the back of my mind, regardless of
all the kooks and their nonsense -- though most of it i felt i could
easily explain in some rational way -- and that it didn't really
matter that there was some of it that what was beyond my current
understanding -- that was to be expected.
but there was an unexplainable goodness and peace of mind that i
sensed from one person in particular whom i knew personally and who
was not a loud-mouthed idiot. who had a quiet faith in God, totally
unpushy. never brought it up other than naturally, and not to
persuade. there was no ego thinger involved. they had nothing to
gain by sharing their faith as naturally as they did.
i lost touch with that person over the years but i never forgot their
humble joy, and smile, and their great sense of humor.
i continued on my way, having loads of fun, rationally enjoying the
ride in all its rational glory.
eventually, many things happened in my own life that independently
convinced moi, a major skeptic, of the existence of a Loving Supreme
Being.
but there's no point in my sharing any of the specifics, because you'd
never take my word for any of it -- it's way too complex to explain
anyway, so you really have to find out for yourself.
seek and ye shall find, and all of that.
actually, everyone comes across God all the time, day in, day out,
everywhere they look, even if they don't seek God out, because God's
"proof" is within you.
you just may not recognize it as such until you're ready to do so.
> Which is why I'm
> asking people like you and boots where the need came from? What drove,
> in particular, your change of view?
my mysterious experiences.
> > otherwise, you're apt to be deceived.
>
> > with that in mind, would you personally prefer that God did NOT exist?
>
> That's a good question. I've been talking to a friend recently about
> hinduism and the personal responsibility which that religion stresses.
> To that extent I "prefer" the non-existence of a Judaeo-Christian God
> who makes that responsibility at one remove - we do good to win praise,
> we do not do evil to avoid punishment, rather than being guided by the
> intrinsic good or evil of the deeds.
i'm not sure i follow. which is which?
you prefer a godless hinduism because it makes you more directly
responsible for your actions both good and bad?
is that what you're saying?
> > can you rationally dismiss your feelings about that?
>
> That's a trick question, isn't it?
no.
> I can rationalise my feelings about that.
> I have no intention of dismissing them, rather of owning them.
how so?
boots
>boots wrote:
>
>> John Ashby <J.V....@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>So what is it that you recognise that convinces you of the existence
>>>of God?
>>
>> Process of elimination, Watson. However impossible it may seem.
>>
>
>On what criteria have you eliminated the alternatives?
Consistency.
I found the traditional rationalistic approach to be too filled with
inconsistencies. Random chance, statistical happenstance, there are a
lot of names for the inexplicable. A realization early-on that the
level of precision and purity required for a truly scientific analysis
of the world is physically impossible. Recognition that experiments
cannot in fact be reproduced on any but the grossest level. A
lifetime search for the general principle upon which things work. An
understanding that test-tubes are never perfectly clean and
uncontaminated and that as such one is working with imperfect
materials and thus cannot reasonably expect perfectly reproducible
results. Statistics is necessitated by the imperfection of the
materials at hand, assigning standards of deviation, discarding
obviously spurious data-points, certainly in your business you
understand what I am referring to here. I was not satisfied.
Being unsatisfied, I attempted to shrug it off and get on with life.
But life would not be shrugged off. Coincidences that were too
meaningful to be statistically insignificant continued to pile up, and
were collated by the scientific mind I was unable to discard.
Eventually the configuration of the massive mound of coincidences
began to align itself into something almost recognizable, at the very
edge of understanding, niggling where it could not be avoided, needing
only a few more data-points to become restructured into a meaningful
whole.
During this entire period I continued to search for meaning, for the
general principle that made things happen. I looked everywhere, read
everything I could lay hands on that offered even the slightest chance
for further understanding. I learned numerous techniques, such as
intentional control of portions of the autonomic nervous system,
played games with the nurse measuring my pulse and blood pressure, and
moved on. I found some clues related to man's ability to "do" that
were derived from Sufiism, some clues from this, some clues from that.
I continued to look and observe and collate.
At one point I developed the ability to observe my own thoughts, no
great achievement but I did learn to retrace my last few
mental-states, to keep a running log of my past dozen or so thoughts,
and that turned out to be a very important tool.
Those meaningful coincidences continued to mount, and I began to
recognize a correlation between their incidence and my recent thought
patterns. It is there that the realization began, the recognition
that events are never random, that they are responsive, that something
else is involved in the flow of events other than haphazardness.
Now, I cannot say with definiteness that this otherness is "God". I
can observe that it appears to be omnipotent within my own frame of
reference. It also seems to be omniscient and omnipresent within my
own frame of reference, but from that I cannot reasonably conclude
that it is actually omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient within any
larger frame of reference. I cannot say that it is external to and
separate from me, only that it seems so. It could be some deeply
hidden unconscious portion of me that I have run into. That is
unknowable, at least at present.
What I can say is that the correlations are far far beyond
statistically significant and the indication is that the cause of
things is not what I formerly believed them to be, what the scientific
world presents them as being. The facts of a situation are unchanged
but its causation is shifted entirely.
You asked why, you asked for the story, I apologize but that's my best
shot and just writing it down. In summary one could say that the
world became too much for me and I went mad, or you could say that the
world is mad and me along with it, or you could ask questions.
For me, I have to complete yesterday's task of snow shovelling, so I
may not be back online until tomorrow.
boots
I can't speak for simplicity or convincingness but I have answered his
questions.
>Come on, guys, this is a belief for which people have gone to their
>deaths, often in horrible ways. And not one of you when pressed can
>come up with anything at all to back it up? Surely not. Surely you
>must be holding the devastating proof in reserve for the time when
>your petty little schoolgirl insults no longer cut it.
>
>O do please say there's more to it than this. I shall be so
>disappointed to have gone to all this trouble only to find you guys
>don't really believe it either.
You're the one with the belief Hope, and unbacked belief is worthless.
boots
Now that's a crappy argument $Zero, as flimsy as Hope's belief that
there can be no God. I mean, how is anyone besides you supposed to
find your truth?
boots
>boots goes:
>
>>John Ashby <J.V....@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>>So what is it that you recognise that convinces you of the existence of
>>>God?
>
>>Process of elimination, Watson. However impossible it may seem.
>
>>Though when I use the word "God" there is no large bearded fairy
>>involved, simply a sentient being that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and
>>omniscient.
>
>Oh right. So it's an argument over the existence of facial hair.
>
>>>And for a bonus, why should I accept that to convince me?
That made me smile you prick, stop it.
>>If you took my assertion for it I'd consider you the dingiest fool of
>>the lot and I'd be extremely disappointed that someone I'd previously
>>appraised as having at least a partially-operational (no offense
>>meant) brain turned out to have none whatsoever.
>
>>IF you were shown how to find evidence of God, and IF you chose to
>>proceed down that path, you might find data within your own life to
>>support the concept, then you'd be fucked because everything that
>>supports your existence would be thrown into disarray and the danger
>>of your becoming societally dysfunctional would be quite significant,
>>possibly inescapable.
>
>Typical. Ask them for the slightest scrap of evidence and they run a
>mile, scattering tin-tacks in their wake.
Show me your proof that no God exists Hope, all you have is a belief
drummed into your unthinking head by who-knows-who that you're too
stupid or cowardly to examine. Nothing but a belief.
boots
boots
There is no Great Fucking Pumpkin, as far as I can tell. (There might
be a great pumpkin fucking though, at certain times of the year, kept
quiet among the participating sects.)
>>Death is our only fucking hope of escaping Shithole Earth you stupid
>>cunt, why would anyone be afraid of losing the tax collector and the
>>rest of the tedious horseshit that this fucking planet necessitates?
>
>So why do you believe in Big Beardy, then?
There is no Big Beardy, as far as I can tell.
>>>>so anyway, was that an illusion that produced your reply, or your
>>>>freedom?
>
>>>Is that what freedom amounts to? BFD
>
>>You don't recognize your own freedom, and that in itself condemns you
>>to revile others through a mirror. You're fucked, might as well hang
>>yourself and get over it, after all YOU aren't afraid of death.
>
>What's to fear? There's nothing there.
There's no death? Good, go hang.
>>Stupid cunt.
>
>Go cry on God's shoulder, pussy.
Sometimes your inneffectual armwaving truly cracks me up.
You have nothing more than your belief, in other words, nothing.
boots
You have nothing but belief, Hope. That's all you have, belief and
loudmouthed assertions. I'll bet Freud would have fun digging into
your fucked-up childhood, finding out who threatened you so fearfully.
Did they bugger you too, for emphasis, or were a few good thrashings
all it took?
Proove to me that you have no chest-pain, Hope. You can no more prove
that than you can disprove the existence of God or the elemental
"ether".
You're just hot fucking air.
boots
>A screaming came across the sky when boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
><>
>
>> Death is our only fucking hope of escaping Shithole Earth you
>> stupid cunt, why would anyone be afraid of losing the tax
>> collector and the rest of the tedious horseshit that this fucking
>> planet necessitates?
>
>
>Seems that a lot of theists don't see it that way at all, Boots, and
>try to exist in their flesh and blood form as long as possible, some
>even going so far as to prevent others from escaping when they wish to.
I've noticed that about folks. The make up lots of laws then act
surprised when lawyers dick them around for the specific purpose of
using them to screw people over. I don't get it.
>And if you do believe physical life is so awful and something better
>awaits after death, why not kill yourself now?
Ah ah ah, I never said anything about believing in some magical
afterlife. Of course there definitely *is* an afterlife, but it's
called "tomorrow". Beyond death? I'm not Edgar Fucking Cayce or
somebody, I have no clue what happens after death, but I suspect that
the body becomes very inactive at that point... that's based on
observation from this side y'know.
> I'm not trying to be
>mean, but I've just never understood this about theists.
I thought about killing myself. Many times. Something about it just
pissed me off. I have no problem with the idea of death, but I'll be
fucked if I'll do the goddamn wetwork, and anybody who tries to do it
for me is gonna have his hands full for a while.
I'm glad that I felt that way too, life keeps getting better and
better as I understand more about it. "Theist"? Oooh, boy, I don't
know about that. I'm not an atheist, that's for sure. I think I've
gone a little bit over the edge to be calling myself an agnostic
anymore, but I'm not sure, because I'm not certain if deity is
involved or it's a simple matter of cosmic architecture. I think the
origin of the universe is unknowable, whether it qualifies as God or
not is a big question. I'd have to scratch my head about theism, but
I'll go with pantheism straight away. And I'm not talking about some
little guy playing pipes dontcha know.
John Ashby
"$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ae03ff1-393d-44ac...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>On Dec 10, 12:17?pm, John Ashby <J.V.As...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>> $Zero wrote:
>> > On Dec 10, 10:38 am, John Ashby <J.V.As...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
[...]
>> >> So what is it that you recognise that convinces you of the
>> >> existence of God?
>>
>> > merely the truth of the existence of God.
>
>> Isn't that circular?
>not really.
>i'd say the same thing about my sense of humor.
>> You believe God exists because you believe God exists.
>i believe my sense of humor exists because it does exist.
>if you never saw any evidence of it yourself, would my sense of humor
>stop existing?
If I never see any evidence of it, if it has no impact on my life, what
benefit is there to me in positing its existence?
>> That's permissible, but I'd like to see more open
>> acknowledgment of that. In your case, zero, I'll issue a similar
>> challenge I put to boots. You say you used to be an atheist but are now
>> a believer. What changed your mind? What events, experiences happened
>> to convince you?
>lots.
>very complex and stretching over many years of non-belief.
>and even if i could explain it all, you'd only have my word for any of
>it.
>so what good would that do you?
None in terms of my own belief, but it might help me to comprehend yours.
>> >> And for a bonus, why should I accept that to convince me?
>>
> >> you probably shouldn't take the word of anybody but yourself and your
>> > own experience.
>
>> And thus far, I've had no need of that hypothesis.
>i never had need of it either.
>besides never "needing" God, what made me a thoroughly convinced
>atheist for much of my life were most of the people i came across who
>were "representing" God.
>they always seemed as silly and irrational and illogical and deluded
>and gullible as a Flying Spaghetti Monster cult.
>for the most part, they distracted me from realizing the truth with
>all of their nonsensical positions and comb-overs and wigs and pleads
>for cash and whatnot.
>and whenever i argued with believers about their beliefs, which was
>always fun, they always ended up grasping at straws and sounding and
>looking stupid and ridiculous and gullible.
>even so, there was always a certain mystery about life and the
>universe that i felt somewhere in the back of my mind, regardless of
>all the kooks and their nonsense -- though most of it i felt i could
>easily explain in some rational way -- and that it didn't really
>matter that there was some of it that what was beyond my current
>understanding -- that was to be expected.
So, a desire for explanation of how the world is the way it is. Would that
be an adequate summary?
>but there was an unexplainable goodness and peace of mind that i
>sensed from one person in particular whom i knew personally and who
>was not a loud-mouthed idiot. who had a quiet faith in God, totally
>unpushy. never brought it up other than naturally, and not to
>persuade. there was no ego thinger involved. they had nothing to
>gain by sharing their faith as naturally as they did.
What did you feel about that aspect of this person? I'm sensing that you
envied them their certainty and that envy was not set aside (as it normally
would have been) by the irritation at arrogance you felt about others.
>i lost touch with that person over the years but i never forgot their
>humble joy, and smile, and their great sense of humor.
>i continued on my way, having loads of fun, rationally enjoying the
>ride in all its rational glory.
>eventually, many things happened in my own life that independently
>convinced moi, a major skeptic, of the existence of a Loving Supreme
>Being.
Up to here you've been making sense - I'm not saying you're convincing me of
the existence of God, but I can understand the feelings you talk about at
some level.
>but there's no point in my sharing any of the specifics, because you'd
>never take my word for any of it -- it's way too complex to explain
>anyway, so you really have to find out for yourself.
But here you hide behind "Oh, it's too difficult to explain". If I did that
with science I'd be accused of using smoke and mirrors to create an arcane
world. Why is it acceptable for religion?
>seek and ye shall find, and all of that.
>actually, everyone comes across God all the time, day in, day out,
>everywhere they look, even if they don't seek God out, because God's
>"proof" is within you.
I don't understand phrases like this. They carry no information to me. This
might be a deficiency in me, or it may be that there really is no
information in them, they are merely formulaic platitudes which sound grand
but don't mean anything.
>you just may not recognize it as such until you're ready to do so.
>> Which is why I'm
>> asking people like you and boots where the need came from? What drove,
>> in particular, your change of view?
>my mysterious experiences.
Some of which I can understand, some I can't.
>> > otherwise, you're apt to be deceived.
>>
>> > with that in mind, would you personally prefer that God did NOT exist?
>
>> That's a good question. I've been talking to a friend recently about
>> hinduism and the personal responsibility which that religion stresses.
>> To that extent I "prefer" the non-existence of a Judaeo-Christian God
>> who makes that responsibility at one remove - we do good to win praise,
>> we do not do evil to avoid punishment, rather than being guided by the
>> intrinsic good or evil of the deeds.
>i'm not sure i follow. which is which?
>you prefer a godless hinduism because it makes you more directly
>responsible for your actions both good and bad?
Hinduism is far from godless. I prefer atheism because it makes me more
directly responsible.
>is that what you're saying?
>> > can you rationally dismiss your feelings about that?
>
>> That's a trick question, isn't it?
>no.
>> I can rationalise my feelings about that.
>> I have no intention of dismissing them, rather of owning them.
>how so?
Just so. I value taking personal responsibility, the rest follows.
john
John Ashby
"boots" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
news:3hsql3d8vkpk9u51i...@4ax.com...
> John Ashby <J.V....@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>boots wrote:
>>
>>> John Ashby <J.V....@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>So what is it that you recognise that convinces you of the existence
>>>>of God?
>>>
>>> Process of elimination, Watson. However impossible it may seem.
>>>
>>
>>On what criteria have you eliminated the alternatives?
>
> Consistency.
>
> I found the traditional rationalistic approach to be too filled with
> inconsistencies. Random chance, statistical happenstance, there are a
> lot of names for the inexplicable. A realization early-on that the
> level of precision and purity required for a truly scientific analysis
> of the world is physically impossible. Recognition that experiments
> cannot in fact be reproduced on any but the grossest level. A
> lifetime search for the general principle upon which things work. An
> understanding that test-tubes are never perfectly clean and
> uncontaminated and that as such one is working with imperfect
> materials and thus cannot reasonably expect perfectly reproducible
> results. Statistics is necessitated by the imperfection of the
> materials at hand, assigning standards of deviation, discarding
> obviously spurious data-points, certainly in your business you
> understand what I am referring to here. I was not satisfied.
>
So as with zero, you were looking for underlying causes, in particular in
your case for a deterministic explanation (not, perhaps, surprising for
someone with an engineering training).
> Being unsatisfied, I attempted to shrug it off and get on with life.
> But life would not be shrugged off. Coincidences that were too
> meaningful to be statistically insignificant continued to pile up, and
> were collated by the scientific mind I was unable to discard.
> Eventually the configuration of the massive mound of coincidences
> began to align itself into something almost recognizable, at the very
> edge of understanding, niggling where it could not be avoided, needing
> only a few more data-points to become restructured into a meaningful
> whole.
>
Here I find myself very aware of the capacity of the human mind to look for
and find patterns in any data. Are you aware of the Titus-Bode law which
predicts the distance of the planets from the Sun? It makes a pretty good
job of it, but it is purely an empirical "law", with no predictive or
explicative power. What makes you believe that your configuration of
coincidences is no more than a Titus-Bode law, or a massive Rorschach test
on which you are imposing order and meaning?
> During this entire period I continued to search for meaning, for the
> general principle that made things happen. I looked everywhere, read
> everything I could lay hands on that offered even the slightest chance
> for further understanding. I learned numerous techniques, such as
> intentional control of portions of the autonomic nervous system,
> played games with the nurse measuring my pulse and blood pressure, and
> moved on. I found some clues related to man's ability to "do" that
> were derived from Sufiism, some clues from this, some clues from that.
> I continued to look and observe and collate.
This passage reads like Hesse or Gurdjieff. Oh the lost hills of my youth.
>
> At one point I developed the ability to observe my own thoughts, no
> great achievement but I did learn to retrace my last few
> mental-states, to keep a running log of my past dozen or so thoughts,
> and that turned out to be a very important tool.
>
> Those meaningful coincidences continued to mount, and I began to
> recognize a correlation between their incidence and my recent thought
> patterns. It is there that the realization began, the recognition
> that events are never random, that they are responsive, that something
> else is involved in the flow of events other than haphazardness.
>
I think it was you a while back who was basically arguing that whatever one
said about the probability of a coin toss being heads, once it had landed
heads the probability was 100%. I see something of the same argument in what
you write here. And I see it as reflecting a desire in you for some agency
that removes uncertainty from the world, if only you could understand it. I
don't say that to diminish you, merely to express how I am trying to
recreate in my own mind what your viewpoint might be.
> Now, I cannot say with definiteness that this otherness is "God". I
> can observe that it appears to be omnipotent within my own frame of
> reference. It also seems to be omniscient and omnipresent within my
> own frame of reference, but from that I cannot reasonably conclude
> that it is actually omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient within any
> larger frame of reference. I cannot say that it is external to and
> separate from me, only that it seems so. It could be some deeply
> hidden unconscious portion of me that I have run into. That is
> unknowable, at least at present.
>
> What I can say is that the correlations are far far beyond
> statistically significant and the indication is that the cause of
> things is not what I formerly believed them to be, what the scientific
> world presents them as being. The facts of a situation are unchanged
> but its causation is shifted entirely.
>
> You asked why, you asked for the story, I apologize but that's my best
> shot and just writing it down. In summary one could say that the
> world became too much for me and I went mad, or you could say that the
> world is mad and me along with it, or you could ask questions.
>
Thank you. It seems to me that your madness, if such it is, lies in
ascribing too much importance to fairly simple mundane events. I interpolate
from what you say to assume that the correlations are not overwhelmingly
"miraculous".
> For me, I have to complete yesterday's task of snow shovelling, so I
> may not be back online until tomorrow.
Ah, there'll only be more snow tomorrow. Let it shovel itself.
john
Alan Hope
>>>>>projection, third class.
Yes there is. He goes by the name of God, and you believe in him.
>>>Death is our only fucking hope of escaping Shithole Earth you stupid
>>>cunt, why would anyone be afraid of losing the tax collector and the
>>>rest of the tedious horseshit that this fucking planet necessitates?
>>So why do you believe in Big Beardy, then?
>There is no Big Beardy, as far as I can tell.
But there's a God who lives only in your head, who can't be shown to
anyone least of all me. Why? Oh, just because.
>>>>>so anyway, was that an illusion that produced your reply, or your
>>>>>freedom?
>>>>Is that what freedom amounts to? BFD
>>>You don't recognize your own freedom, and that in itself condemns you
>>>to revile others through a mirror. You're fucked, might as well hang
>>>yourself and get over it, after all YOU aren't afraid of death.
>>What's to fear? There's nothing there.
>There's no death? Good, go hang.
There is an end to my experience. That's all. Click. Lights out. I'll
live on in your experience, though, especially the way I've rooted you
all the way up to the back teeth in this thread and all the others.
>>>Stupid cunt.
>>Go cry on God's shoulder, pussy.
>Sometimes your inneffectual armwaving truly cracks me up.
No it doesn't. You're desperately trying to save face because I
challenged you to stand up your belief and you fucking couldn't. The
only thing that's stopping you from running away is that you're too
fucking stupid to put one foot in front of the other.
>You have nothing more than your belief, in other words, nothing.
It's your belief, pal. I believe in nothing. You believe in fairies.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>boots goes:
>>
>>>Ooooh, a clever cuteness from a cunt who couldn't work his way out of
>>>a paper bag even if it was thoroughly pissed-on. It is you who
>>>whistles in the dark, attacking anyone who lets slip s/he isn't an
>>>atheist, because your widdle feewings are hurt by the fact that God
>>>has given you precisely what you deserve. Now shut the fuck up and go
>>>write in your shitty blog or perform some act of obeisance for your
>>>pissant magazine, you worthless drooling twat.
>>
>>Here, have a hankie.
>
>You have nothing but belief, Hope.
What belief? Answer one straight question with a straight answer, just
once, you weaselly little pussy-fart.
What belief do you think I'm entertaining. Ask God to explain the
question if it got tough around the fourth or fifth word there.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
No, you haven't. That's why I said.
>>Come on, guys, this is a belief for which people have gone to their
>>deaths, often in horrible ways. And not one of you when pressed can
>>come up with anything at all to back it up? Surely not. Surely you
>>must be holding the devastating proof in reserve for the time when
>>your petty little schoolgirl insults no longer cut it.
>>O do please say there's more to it than this. I shall be so
>>disappointed to have gone to all this trouble only to find you guys
>>don't really believe it either.
>You're the one with the belief Hope, and unbacked belief is worthless.
I see you have nowhere to go now but the poor sad IKYA. What a
shattering blow for you, to have your belief in God wrecked and
destroyed in one day. Still, not to worry, it'll be for the best in
the end.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>I found the traditional rationalistic approach to be too filled with
>inconsistencies. Random chance, statistical happenstance, there are a
>lot of names for the inexplicable. A realization early-on that the
>level of precision and purity required for a truly scientific analysis
>of the world is physically impossible.
Oh right. The scientific explanation is far too unlikely, so it must
all be the work of a giant bearded guy who flies through the skies
instead. That makes much more sense.
>Recognition that experiments
>cannot in fact be reproduced on any but the grossest level.
Bollocks. If an experiment can be carried out it can be reproduced.
Unless perhaps it's not a scientific experiment.
>A
>lifetime search for the general principle upon which things work.
Yeah, couldn't find anything, so let's go with the large wrathful
creature who has his Son murdered instead. That makes much more sense.
>An
>understanding that test-tubes are never perfectly clean and
>uncontaminated and that as such one is working with imperfect
>materials and thus cannot reasonably expect perfectly reproducible
>results.
Fucking imbecile.
>Statistics is necessitated by the imperfection of the
>materials at hand, assigning standards of deviation, discarding
>obviously spurious data-points, certainly in your business you
>understand what I am referring to here. I was not satisfied.
Okay. So scrap all that science and attempts at scientific method,
because it's unsatisfactory. Instead, let's just agree that it must
all be the work of a Supreme Being who created us so we could worship
him for eternity, because he likes being worshipped. That makes much
more sense.
>Being unsatisfied, I attempted to shrug it off and get on with life.
>But life would not be shrugged off. Coincidences that were too
>meaningful to be statistically insignificant continued to pile up, and
>were collated by the scientific mind I was unable to discard.
So scientific method is unsatisfactory, but some vague anecdotal
coincidence theory grabs your reason instead. And that leads you to
believe there's some giant consciousness shaping our ends, who's so
omnipotent he fucked up the whole of science by making the test-tubes
dirty. That makes much more sense.
>Eventually the configuration of the massive mound of coincidences
>began to align itself into something almost recognizable, at the very
>edge of understanding, niggling where it could not be avoided, needing
>only a few more data-points to become restructured into a meaningful
>whole.
I know, we'll call it God.
>During this entire period I continued to search for meaning, for the
>general principle that made things happen. I looked everywhere, read
>everything I could lay hands on that offered even the slightest chance
>for further understanding. I learned numerous techniques, such as
>intentional control of portions of the autonomic nervous system,
Fucksake. Lyall Watson, you have a lot to answer for.
>played games with the nurse measuring my pulse and blood pressure, and
>moved on. I found some clues related to man's ability to "do" that
>were derived from Sufiism, some clues from this, some clues from that.
>I continued to look and observe and collate.
>At one point I developed the ability to observe my own thoughts, no
>great achievement but I did learn to retrace my last few
>mental-states, to keep a running log of my past dozen or so thoughts,
>and that turned out to be a very important tool.
>Those meaningful coincidences continued to mount, and I began to
>recognize a correlation between their incidence and my recent thought
>patterns. It is there that the realization began, the recognition
>that events are never random, that they are responsive, that something
>else is involved in the flow of events other than haphazardness.
What a fucking trip this guy is on. Man what I wouldn't have given for
some acid like that back in the day.
>Now, I cannot say with definiteness that this otherness is "God".
Yes you can. That's what you've been doing. Saying it with
definiteness.
>I
>can observe that it appears to be omnipotent within my own frame of
>reference.
I'd like to introduce you to two words you may never have met before:
this is Contradiction, and this here is Terms.
>It also seems to be omniscient and omnipresent within my
>own frame of reference, but from that I cannot reasonably conclude
>that it is actually omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient within any
>larger frame of reference.
Uh-oh. You were only mad, batshit and deluded up to that point. Now
you're stupid as well.
>I cannot say that it is external to and
>separate from me, only that it seems so. It could be some deeply
>hidden unconscious portion of me that I have run into. That is
>unknowable, at least at present.
In other words, you may have imagined it all. Dur. You think?
>What I can say is that the correlations are far far beyond
>statistically significant and the indication is that the cause of
>things is not what I formerly believed them to be, what the scientific
>world presents them as being.
This is not a case. It's not an argument. It's not evidence. It's
something like poetry, only it's poetry that sucks a lot.
>The facts of a situation are unchanged
>but its causation is shifted entirely.
>You asked why, you asked for the story, I apologize but that's my best
>shot and just writing it down.
You've said precisely nothing. This is not even an anecdote.
>In summary one could say that the
>world became too much for me and I went mad, or you could say that the
>world is mad and me along with it, or you could ask questions.
Guess which one I'm going for?
>For me, I have to complete yesterday's task of snow shovelling, so I
>may not be back online until tomorrow.
You have to lie down on your front to ease the ache in your poor
ruptured arse, you mean. Yeah, fuck off and sidle out of the hole
you're in, cunt. I'll get you when you come back.
They always come back, until one day they don't.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>I think it was you a while back who was basically arguing that whatever one
>said about the probability of a coin toss being heads, once it had landed
>heads the probability was 100%. I see something of the same argument in what
>you write here.
Isn't it called perception bias or something like that? The idea being
that the explanation you thought up is the one that convinces you,
because you thought it up. In your unconscious mind, that gives it
credibility.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>Show me your proof that no God exists Hope
Go back to school and learn how arguments work.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>i believe my sense of humor exists because it does exist.
Wrong again.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>>actually, everyone comes across God all the time, day in, day out,
>>everywhere they look, even if they don't seek God out, because God's
>>"proof" is within you.
>
>I don't understand phrases like this. They carry no information to me. This
>might be a deficiency in me, or it may be that there really is no
>information in them, they are merely formulaic platitudes which sound grand
>but don't mean anything.
Three guesses.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
There is no "your truth". Zero's idiot ramblings are as insane as
yours. The truth is as I state: there is no God because he would be an
absurdity. How can an omnipresent being create something from which he
is separate? How can God not inhabit Hell?
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>FWOT.
Great answer. Demonstrates the strength of your case perfectly.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
serenebabe
<snip>
> So what is it that you recognise that convinces you of the existence of
> God?
My answer to this question is always the fact that I can't make a tree.
I could plant a seed, water it, etc. but the tree would grow itself.
The other example (same concept) is that I can't make a squirrel.
Scientists could put the stuff together to grow a squirrel in a lab, I
suppose, but the growing wouldn't be what the scientists do, the stuff
of life takes over.
That is evidence, for me, of the existence of god. Of course, it's the
"for me" part that makes it a question of faith, not science. I happen
to be okay with that, though.
--Heather
--
It's All About We! (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.net/
serenebabe
> boots wrote:
<snip>
>> If you took my assertion for it I'd consider you the dingiest fool of
>> the lot and I'd be extremely disappointed that someone I'd previously
>> appraised as having at least a partially-operational (no offense
>> meant) brain turned out to have none whatsoever.
>
> your assertion for it with any degree of integrity. Yet so often that
> is all you (the collective you) have. That's why I phrased my first
> question as I did, I want to know your story, what experience in your
> life convinces you. You can string words together well enough to be
> called a writer; write something that conveys to me your experience.
Wouldn't it be hilarious (miraculous, even) if someone wrote something
in this discussion that caused an atheist or agnostic to suddenly say,
"OH, I GET IT! There god *DOES* exist!"
serenebabe
> A screaming came across the sky when boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> <>
>> Death is our only fucking hope of escaping Shithole Earth you
>> stupid cunt, why would anyone be afraid of losing the tax
>> collector and the rest of the tedious horseshit that this fucking
>> planet necessitates?
>
> Seems that a lot of theists don't see it that way at all, Boots, and
> try to exist in their flesh and blood form as long as possible, some
> even going so far as to prevent others from escaping when they wish to.
> And if you do believe physical life is so awful and something better
> awaits after death, why not kill yourself now? I'm not trying to be
> mean, but I've just never understood this about theists.
Why does everyone always connect belief in god to a belief in some kind
of "afterlife?"
god believer-in-ly yours,
Heather
serenebabe
<snip>
> little pussy-fart.
<snip>
How is quiff spelled?
Kweef? Obviously not.
Ultraviolet
<seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
<>
> Wouldn't it be hilarious (miraculous, even) if someone wrote
> something in this discussion that caused an atheist or agnostic to
> suddenly say, "OH, I GET IT! There god *DOES* exist!"
I would, if someone could present a good case. I'd love to believe in
God right now.
serenebabe
<snip>
> I'd love to believe in
> God right now.
Why don't you? You only need to decide you do. Seriously. That's what
happened for me.
I'm not trying to convince you, by the way.
Ultraviolet
<seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2007-12-10 12:07:16 -0500, Ultraviolet <viol...@newsguy.com>
> said:
>
>> A screaming came across the sky when boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> <>
>>> Death is our only fucking hope of escaping Shithole Earth you
>>> stupid cunt, why would anyone be afraid of losing the tax
>>> collector and the rest of the tedious horseshit that this
>>> fucking planet necessitates?
>>
>> Seems that a lot of theists don't see it that way at all, Boots,
>> and try to exist in their flesh and blood form as long as
>> possible, some even going so far as to prevent others from
>> escaping when they wish to. And if you do believe physical life
>> is so awful and something better awaits after death, why not kill
>> yourself now? I'm not trying to be mean, but I've just never
>> understood this about theists.
>
> Why does everyone always connect belief in god to a belief in some
> kind of "afterlife?"
Well, I don't know about "everyone" (Jewish theists, forex, often
don't take much of a position on it), but it sure seems that a lot
of theists do believe in an afterlife.
Ultraviolet
<seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2007-12-10 18:50:32 -0500, Ultraviolet <viol...@newsguy.com>
> said: <snip>
>> I'd love to believe in
>> God right now.
>
> Why don't you? You only need to decide you do. Seriously. That's
> what happened for me.
>
> I'm not trying to convince you, by the way.
The more I want to the more I'm sure it isn't true, as I can't help but
think that the reason so many others believe it is because they want to
rather than because it is true. If I didn't want to, then maybe I
would.
Yeah, that made sense. <g>
serenebabe
> <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Why does everyone always connect belief in god to a belief in some
>> kind of "afterlife?"
>
> Well, I don't know about "everyone" (Jewish theists, forex, often
> don't take much of a position on it), but it sure seems that a lot
> of theists do believe in an afterlife.
I can see you're right about the frequency of connection, but, I just
don't get it. Why the two are connected at all, especially in the "does
god exist" debate.
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >i believe my sense of humor exists because it does exist.
>
> Wrong again.
ROTFLMAO!
-$Zero...
after awhile, you figure out why nothing ever changes
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d10e71396a9d48db
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 10, 10:38 am, John Ashby <J.V.As...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> boots wrote:
>
> >> >>Bill Penrose goes:
>
> >> >>>On Dec 9, 10:13 pm, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> I am however, not free or responsible.
> >> >>>> God has predetermined everything, including this post.
>
> >> >>>I think that God would be very bored if that were true. No surprises,
> >> >>>nothing new, just watching the playing out of a predetermined
> >> >>>sequence of events. Boring beyond belief.
>
> >> >>On the other hand, it's all over in the twinkling of an eye for an
> >> >>eternal being.
>
> >> > If it's a good game one can always replay.
>
> >> >>>Can you picture a God, with his brand-new Universe, facing a
> >> >>>predetermined future? Echh.
>
> >> >>How can it be any other way? For there to be something God doesn't
> >> >>know, he would have to be smaller than his Creation.
>
> >> > There's one of the flaws in your wannabe-logic. �You neglect free-will
> >> > of omniscience and omnipresence means only that you know what is at
> >> > this moment, throwing free will into the mix makes it interesting
> >> > because of the time element combined with choice.
>
> >> >>>could not be predicted, even by Him, he could make eternity a tad
> >> >>>more interesting.
>
> >> >>That's a logical impossibility.
>
> >> > You're a logic incompetent. �If you were worth a weekold shit at logic
> >> > you'd recognize the proof or disproof of the existence of God is by
> >> > definition impossible, it can be recognized or denied but never proven
> >> > or disproven because provability either way would deny free-will and
> >> > make the entire game pointless.
>
> >> existence of God?
>
>
> Now that's a crappy argument $Zero,
except, of course, that it wasn't meant as an argument.
> as flimsy as Hope's belief that there can be no God. �
Hope's a hoot.
he's working real hard to maintain his seat in oblivion.
> I mean, how is anyone besides you supposed to
> find your truth?
their job is to find the truth themselves.
it's not something they can buy in bulk at Sam's Club on credit.
Josh Hill
>John Ashby <J.V....@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>boots wrote:
>>
>>> John Ashby <J.V....@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>So what is it that you recognise that convinces you of the existence
>>>>of God?
>>>
>>> Process of elimination, Watson. However impossible it may seem.
>>>
>>
>>On what criteria have you eliminated the alternatives?
>
>Consistency.
>
>I found the traditional rationalistic approach to be too filled with
>inconsistencies. Random chance, statistical happenstance, there are a
>lot of names for the inexplicable. A realization early-on that the
>level of precision and purity required for a truly scientific analysis
>of the world is physically impossible. Recognition that experiments
>cannot in fact be reproduced on any but the grossest level.
>A lifetime search for the general principle upon which things work. An
>understanding that test-tubes are never perfectly clean and
>uncontaminated and that as such one is working with imperfect
>materials and thus cannot reasonably expect perfectly reproducible
>results. Statistics is necessitated by the imperfection of the
>materials at hand, assigning standards of deviation, discarding
>obviously spurious data-points, certainly in your business you
>understand what I am referring to here. I was not satisfied.
You began, in other words, with a bum map, and your treasure hunt went
awry. You were seeking a mathematical level of proof, which science
doesn't require and can't attain. Every experimental result comes with
a +/- after it, and even that is only a statistic. Fortunately, when
you're in a plane, the pluses and minuses are generally small enough
to keep you aloft.
--
Josh
"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals.
We know now that it is bad economics." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6ae03ff1-393d-44ac...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >On Dec 10, 12:17?pm, John Ashby <J.V.As...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> $Zero wrote:
> >> > On Dec 10, 10:38 am, John Ashby <J.V.As...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> >> So what is it that you recognise that convinces you of the
> >> >> existence of God?
>
> >> > merely the truth of the existence of God.
>
> >> Isn't that circular?
> >not really.
> >i'd say the same thing about my sense of humor.
> >> You believe God exists because you believe God exists.
> >i believe my sense of humor exists because it does exist.
> >if you never saw any evidence of it yourself, would my sense of humor
> >stop existing?
>
> If I never see any evidence of it, if it has no impact on my life, what
> benefit is there to me in positing its existence?
well, if you already have a good sense of humor, not much, i suppose.
anyway, i was merely pointing out that it was not circular reasoning.
ba'dum, chsh!
Josh Hill
wrote:
>On 2007-12-10 10:38:36 -0500, John Ashby <J.V....@rl.ac.uk> said:
><snip>
>> So what is it that you recognise that convinces you of the existence of
>> God?
>
>My answer to this question is always the fact that I can't make a tree.
>I could plant a seed, water it, etc. but the tree would grow itself.
>The other example (same concept) is that I can't make a squirrel.
>Scientists could put the stuff together to grow a squirrel in a lab, I
>suppose, but the growing wouldn't be what the scientists do, the stuff
>of life takes over.
That was easy to believe 100 years ago, but we know way too much now
to suppose that there's any magic to life. It's only a matter of time
before someone gets around to making life from laboratory chemicals.
Pies de Arcilla
It's my theory that both sides of an argument like this are
_doubters_, not believers, subconsciously trying to troll God into
revealing himself and settling things.
Pies de Arcilla
boots wrote: (i think)
> > Those meaningful coincidences continued to mount, and I began to
> > recognize a correlation between their incidence and my recent thought
> > patterns. It is there that the realization began, the recognition
> > that events are never random, that they are responsive, that something
> > else is involved in the flow of events other than haphazardness.
That is exactly what the onset of psychosis is like for some people.
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6ae03ff1-393d-44ac...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >On Dec 10, 12:17?pm, John Ashby <J.V.As...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> $Zero wrote:
> >> > On Dec 10, 10:38 am, John Ashby <J.V.As...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> >> So what is it that you recognise that convinces you of the
> >> >> existence of God?
>
> >> > merely the truth of the existence of God.
>
> >> Isn't that circular?
> >not really.
> >i'd say the same thing about my sense of humor.
> >> You believe God exists because you believe God exists.
> >i believe my sense of humor exists because it does exist.
> >if you never saw any evidence of it yourself, would my sense of humor
> >stop existing?
>
> If I never see any evidence of it, if it has no impact on my life, what
> benefit is there to me in positing its existence?
if you saw me constantly laughing my ass off, but you didn't see the
direct source of the amusement, wouldn't you at least be curious about
why?
or would you automatically attribute it to insanity?
> >> That's permissible, but I'd like to see more open
> >> acknowledgment of that. In your case, zero, I'll issue a similar
> >> challenge I put to boots. You say you used to be an atheist but are now
> >> a believer. What changed your mind? What events, experiences happened
> >> to convince you?
> >lots.
> >very complex and stretching over many years of non-belief.
> >and even if i could explain it all, you'd only have my word for any of
> >it.
> >so what good would that do you?
>
> None in terms of my own belief, but it might help me to comprehend yours.
but what good would that be to you?
i suppose it might serve to help you to somehow debunk my belief in
God in your own mind.
that's what i always used to do with all of the gullible saps that i
argued with.
and it was easy to do. because most of them really were gullible
saps.
but you don't come across in that "delightfully debunking" way at all.
Hope does, though.
you seem more interested in furthering your understanding.
hopeful for some insight you may have somehow missed along the way.
i was like that too, at times.
not nearly as entertaining as Alan's pokings, but at least it's
sincere.
well, so is Hope's hope, but he has to be a clown about it, it's his
nature.
> >> >> And for a bonus, why should I accept that to convince me?
>
> > >> you probably shouldn't take the word of anybody but yourself and your
> >> > own experience.
>
> >> And thus far, I've had no need of that hypothesis.
> >i never had need of it either.
> >besides never "needing" God, what made me a thoroughly convinced
> >atheist for much of my life were most of the people i came across who
> >were "representing" God.
> >they always seemed as silly and irrational and illogical and deluded
> >and gullible as a Flying Spaghetti Monster cult.
> >for the most part, they distracted me from realizing the truth with
> >all of their nonsensical positions and comb-overs and wigs and pleads
> >for cash and whatnot.
> >and whenever i argued with believers about their beliefs, which was
> >always fun, they always ended up grasping at straws and sounding and
> >looking stupid and ridiculous and gullible.
> >even so, there was always a certain mystery about life and the
> >universe that i felt somewhere in the back of my mind, regardless of
> >all the kooks and their nonsense -- though most of it i felt i could
> >easily explain in some rational way -- and that it didn't really
> >matter that there was some of it that what was beyond my current
> >understanding -- that was to be expected.
>
> So, a desire for explanation of how the world is the way it is. Would that
> be an adequate summary?
no. like i said, i already believed that i had that mostly figured
out.
the part i didn't understand was fine with me. i still wondered about
it, naturally, but not enough to attrribute it to the Flying Spaghetti
monsters of the world. to me the unknown was just something to marvel
about.
my eventual belief in God didn't come about out of some relentless
curiosity for wanting to understand what i did not already understand.
nor did it come in some sort of fox-hole desperation moment.
(though amusingly, even though i was a devout atheist, when i faced
death a few times in my life, i did find myself praying rather
intensely -- but once the danger passed, i always went back to my
atheism, ASAP).
anyway, my belief in God just sorta happened as a combination of
rememberings and irrefutable proofs of things and experiences in my
life that could not possibly be explained by anything other than a
Supreme Being.
and in hindsight, i realized that there were far more of those
experiences than i had been willing to recognize as such when they
were happening.
too busy having fun or striving for glory, i guess.
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6ae03ff1-393d-44ac...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >On Dec 10, 12:17?pm, John Ashby <J.V.As...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> $Zero wrote:
> >> > On Dec 10, 10:38 am, John Ashby <J.V.As...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
> >but there was an unexplainable goodness and peace of mind that i
> >sensed from one person in particular whom i knew personally and who
> >was not a loud-mouthed idiot. who had a quiet faith in God, totally
> >unpushy. never brought it up other than naturally, and not to
> >persuade. there was no ego thinger involved. they had nothing to
> >gain by sharing their faith as naturally as they did.
>
> What did you feel about that aspect of this person?
the joy of being with them.
we never had discussions about God.
i was an atheist, and they never preached, so the subject never really
came up.
i just noticed it in the natural flow of things when we having fun.
> I'm sensing that you
> envied them their certainty and that envy was not set aside (as it normally
> would have been) by the irritation at arrogance you felt about others.
i'm not sure envy is the right word to describe my feelings toward
them.
i was very happy myself in my own atheistic beliefs. understatement.
it was just something wonderful i noticed about them.
the way they glowed outwardly and inwardly.
for all i know, i may have given off the same feelings to others.
nor would "certainty", necessarily be the right word.
"comfortable" with their faith, maybe. majorly happy, perhps.
but yeah, there was a definite contrast with the stupidity and
gullibleness (not always arrogance, though usually -- some of the
people were truly humble, just not very bright, yet utterly convinced)
that i had experienced with those who were "arrogant" or foolish about
their faith.
at least in my opinion, after grilling them about it.
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6ae03ff1-393d-44ac...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >On Dec 10, 12:17?pm, John Ashby <J.V.As...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> $Zero wrote:
> >> > On Dec 10, 10:38 am, John Ashby <J.V.As...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
> >i lost touch with that person over the years but i never forgot their
> >humble joy, and smile, and their great sense of humor.
> >i continued on my way, having loads of fun, rationally enjoying the
> >ride in all its rational glory.
> >eventually, many things happened in my own life that independently
> >convinced moi, a major skeptic, of the existence of a Loving Supreme
> >Being.
>
> Up to here you've been making sense - I'm not saying you're convincing me of
> the existence of God, but I can understand the feelings you talk about at
> some level.
>
> >but there's no point in my sharing any of the specifics, because you'd
> >never take my word for any of it -- it's way too complex to explain
> >anyway, so you really have to find out for yourself.
>
> But here you hide behind "Oh, it's too difficult to explain". If I did that
> with science I'd be accused of using smoke and mirrors to create an arcane
> world. Why is it acceptable for religion?
well, i'm not talking about religion here.
but that tweak aside, i really don't have an answer for the spirit of
that question other than my guess that the mysterious existence of God
is something that one must experience for themselves.
if you only relied on the experience of others for your proof, you'd
be relying solely on faith.
is that ironic, or what?
...
there's several stories i could tell you which led me personally to
believe in something i previously thought of as gullible wishful
thinking, but you'd be no further down the road, would you?
no matter what i said, no matter how much independent proof i
provided, you'd find a way to debunk it.
but you cannot debunk your own mysterious experiences.
maybe that's the way God wants it.
if you feel that God is screwing up in that way, you'd have to take
that up with God.
you're perfectly free to offer God advice, no?
so, in your opinion, how could God do a better job in the proof
department?
a few good fossils of faith?
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6ae03ff1-393d-44ac...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >On Dec 10, 12:17?pm, John Ashby <J.V.As...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> $Zero wrote:
> >> > On Dec 10, 10:38 am, John Ashby <J.V.As...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
> >seek and ye shall find, and all of that.
> >actually, everyone comes across God all the time, day in, day out,
> >everywhere they look, even if they don't seek God out, because God's
> >"proof" is within you.
>
> I don't understand phrases like this. They carry no information to me.
the information is within you.
> This might be a deficiency in me, or it may be that there really is
> no information in them, they are merely formulaic platitudes which
> sound grand but don't mean anything.
why do you say that they "sound great"?
what "sounds great" about it?
> >you just may not recognize it as such until you're ready to do so.
> >> Which is why I'm
> >> asking people like you and boots where the need came from? What drove,
> >> in particular, your change of view?
> >my mysterious experiences.
>
> Some of which I can understand, some I can't.
ain't that the truth.
> >> > otherwise, you're apt to be deceived.
>
> >> > with that in mind, would you personally prefer that God did NOT exist?
>
> >> That's a good question. I've been talking to a friend recently about
> >> hinduism and the personal responsibility which that religion stresses.
> >> To that extent I "prefer" the non-existence of a Judaeo-Christian God
> >> who makes that responsibility at one remove - we do good to win praise,
> >> we do not do evil to avoid punishment, rather than being guided by the
> >> intrinsic good or evil of the deeds.
> >i'm not sure i follow. which is which?
> >you prefer a godless hinduism because it makes you more directly
> >responsible for your actions both good and bad?
>
> Hinduism is far from godless.
but there's no single Supreme Being, is there?
anyway, i've always been attracted to Hinduism becasue of Gandhi.
because of the non-bullshit amusing truth that Gandhi was so great at.
at least the Ben Kingsley version, anyway.
i never studied it formally beyond that.
> I prefer atheism because it makes me more directly responsible.
does it?
for instance, what are the consequences for totally off-the-wall
absolute self-serving behavior?
...
but anyway, let's assume that atheism does make you more personally
responsible.
there's still no longterm benefits.
which is fine, i suppose, but given the choice...
sammy
> On Dec 9, 10:13 pm, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am however, not free or responsible.
> > God has predetermined everything, including this post.
>
> I think that God would be very bored if that were true. No surprises,
> nothing new, just watching the playing out of a predetermined sequence
> of events. Boring beyond belief.
>
> could not be predicted, even by Him, he could make eternity a tad more
> interesting.
>
"...One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years
as one day." (II Peter 3:8)
Bernie
"Alan Hope" <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:elfrl39n18rbrhvlm...@4ax.com...
Phew, what a thread this is turning out to be!
But, like I suggested towards the beginning of it:-
"Some people call it Nature. Others call it God."
From as far back as I can remember, (rich or poor, sickness or
health, better or worse, etc.) they've always meant precisely the
same thing to me.
Bernie.
John Ashby
> On 2007-12-10 19:05:21 -0500, Ultraviolet <viol...@newsguy.com> said:
>
>> <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>>> Why does everyone always connect belief in god to a belief in some
>>> kind of "afterlife?"
>>
>> Well, I don't know about "everyone" (Jewish theists, forex, often
>> don't take much of a position on it), but it sure seems that a lot
>> of theists do believe in an afterlife.
>
> I can see you're right about the frequency of connection, but, I just
> don't get it. Why the two are connected at all, especially in the
> "does god exist" debate.
>
My own view of the connection is that people often use God as a crutch
to support them in things they find difficult to cope with, and
mortality is a major source of fear, so "God" takes away that fear by
promising them an afterlife. Then the control freaks come in and use
the threat of Hell and the promise of Heaven to ensure a) subdued,
respectful behaviour amongst hoi polloi, and b) a steady flow of money
towards the control freaks.
john
John Ashby
> On Dec 10, 4:24 pm, "John Ashby" <j.v.as...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
news:6ae03ff1-393d-44ac...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> >On Dec 10, 12:17?pm, John Ashby <J.V.As...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> $Zero wrote:
>> >> > On Dec 10, 10:38 am, John Ashby <J.V.As...@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> >> So what is it that you recognise that convinces you of the
>> >> >> existence of God?
>>
>> >> > merely the truth of the existence of God.
>>
>> >> Isn't that circular?
>> >not really.
>> >i'd say the same thing about my sense of humor.
>> >> You believe God exists because you believe God exists.
>> >i believe my sense of humor exists because it does exist.
>> >if you never saw any evidence of it yourself, would my sense of
>> >humor stop existing?
>>
>> If I never see any evidence of it, if it has no impact on my life,
>> what benefit is there to me in positing its existence?
>
> if you saw me constantly laughing my ass off,
Which would be (indirect) evidence...
> but you didn't see the
> direct source of the amusement, wouldn't you at least be curious about
> why?
>
Which is the point of my questions in this thread.
> or would you automatically attribute it to insanity?
>
Not automatically, but if I asked what was so funny and you replied "Oh,
you wouldn't understand it" often enough, or were unable to explain the
joke and why you found it funny, then I might well send for the men in
white coats.
>
>> >> That's permissible, but I'd like to see more open
>> >> acknowledgment of that. In your case, zero, I'll issue a similar
>> >> challenge I put to boots. You say you used to be an atheist but
>> >> are now a believer. What changed your mind? What events,
>> >> experiences happened to convince you?
>> >lots.
>> >very complex and stretching over many years of non-belief.
>> >and even if i could explain it all, you'd only have my word for any
>> >of it.
>> >so what good would that do you?
>>
>> None in terms of my own belief, but it might help me to comprehend
>> yours.
>
> but what good would that be to you?
>
Suppose that as a writer I wished to write a character who had a strong
faith. To do so convincingly I'd need to get inside the mindset of that
character.
> i suppose it might serve to help you to somehow debunk my belief in
> God in your own mind.
>
> that's what i always used to do with all of the gullible saps that i
> argued with.
>
> and it was easy to do. because most of them really were gullible
> saps.
>
> but you don't come across in that "delightfully debunking" way at all.
>
> Hope does, though.
>
Good cop, bad cop. Alan has less patience than I have with all sorts of
things.
Hmm, I've just posted a response to Heather about God as crutch, and
here you are confirming that.
> anyway, my belief in God just sorta happened as a combination of
> rememberings and irrefutable proofs of things and experiences in my
> life that could not possibly be explained by anything other than a
> Supreme Being.
>
But you just said that your belief didn't arise from a search for an
explanation. Isn't this rather contradictory? Leaving that aside,
though, what is unsatisfactory about saying those things and
experiences were inexplicable? Not that they had no (rational) cause,
but that such cause was outside (fights off urge to use outwith) your
knowledge?
> and in hindsight, i realized that there were far more of those
> experiences than i had been willing to recognize as such when they
> were happening.
>
> too busy having fun or striving for glory, i guess.
>
> -$Zero...
>
> after awhile, you figure out why nothing ever changes
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d10e71396a9d48db
john