Einstein's views on God and religion
PJ
interview he did with George Sylvester Vierec.
GSV: "You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
AE: "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the
actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No
myth is filled with such life."
GSV: "Do you believe in God?"
AE: "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist.
The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the
position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in
many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books.
It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they
are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the
arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to
me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.
We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but
only dimly understand these laws."
From later in the same article ...
"There are people who say there is no God," [Einstein] told a friend.
"But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of
such views." And unlike Sigmund Freud or Bertrand Russell or George
Bernard Shaw, Einstein never felt the urge to denigrate those who
believed in God; instead, he tended to denigrate atheists. "What
separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility
toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos," he
explained.
In fact, Einstein tended to be more critical of debunkers, who seemed to
lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. "The fanatical
atheists," he wrote in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling
the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard
struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional
religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the
spheres."
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html
It's a good article -- give it a read.
~ ~ ~
PJ
Ultraviolet
<>
There have been brilliant peeps who believed, and brilliant peeps who
haven't, that much is clear. Personally I'm inclined to go with the
latest studies that suggest that belief in the supernatural is simply
a matter of a particular area of the brain being physically structured
in a certain way, or not, and nothing to do with IQ or want to/don't
want to/stubborness/rebellion, etc. Possibly it was an evolutionary
advantage at some point to be receptive to belief in supernatural
concepts.
--
UV
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
I like this part:
""I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful
harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with
the fate and the doings of mankind." "
That goes a long way with his ideas on a unified theory.
And this:
"For some people, miracles serve as evidence of God's existence. For
Einstein it was the absence of miracles that reflected divine
providence. The fact that the world was comprehensible, that it
followed laws, was worthy of awe. "
PJ
> On Jan 21, 6:51 am, PJ <authores...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <>
>
> There have been brilliant peeps who believed, and brilliant peeps who
> haven't, that much is clear.
This is true. That was the case throughout history, and it's still the
case today.
> Personally I'm inclined to go with the
> latest studies that suggest that belief in the supernatural is simply
> a matter of a particular area of the brain being physically structured
> in a certain way, or not, and nothing to do with IQ or want to/don't
> want to/stubborness/rebellion, etc. Possibly it was an evolutionary
> advantage at some point to be receptive to belief in supernatural
> concepts.
So ... you're saying I haven't fully evolved yet? Well that explains a
lot! <g>
~ ~ ~
PJ
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Individuals cannot evolve, they can only develop; only their offspring
are evolutionary.
Mark
UV, I understand that you have an unwillingness to
consider the supernatural. However, what do you say to
persons who have witnessed, experienced, or continue to
experience the supernatural?
What do you know about Edgar Cayce?
Mark
Ultraviolet
> On Jan 21, 10:07 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 21, 6:51 am, PJ <authores...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <>
>
> > There have been brilliant peeps who believed, and brilliant peeps who
> > haven't, that much is clear. Personally I'm inclined to go with the
> > latest studies that suggest that belief in the supernatural is simply
> > a matter of a particular area of the brain being physically structured
> > in a certain way, or not, and nothing to do with IQ or want to/don't
> > want to/stubborness/rebellion, etc. Possibly it was an evolutionary
> > advantage at some point to be receptive to belief in supernatural
> > concepts.
>
> > --
> > UV
>
> UV, I understand that you have an unwillingness to
> consider the supernatural.
That is a judgmental, insulting statement. I have considered it. I've
had an experience that others might consider supernatural, but I
decided to view as hallucination due to a fever of 105. I've also
experienced interesting coincidences that others might attribute to
"the hand of God" or somesuch, but I still consider them to be
coincidences. Maybe I'll change my mind someday, but it won't be
because a stranger on the internet badgers me.
> However, what do you say to
> persons who have witnessed, experienced, or continue to
> experience the supernatural?
Nothing. Their experience is their own, and as long as they aren't
badgering me to accept it, telling me I should alter my life because
of their perceptions, or breaking any laws, I have no problem with it.
If someone is confident and happy in their belief system, I have to
wonder why they are so relentless in trying to get others to agree
with them.
> What do you know about Edgar Cayce?
Nada. And I'm not interested in reading second-hand accounts of seeing
ghosties or angels or whatever. I'll wait until *I* see one (when I'm
not feverish), 'kay?
--
UV
Mark
Nada. And I'm not interested in reading second-hand accounts of
seeing
> ghosties or angels or whatever. I'll wait until *I* see one (when I'm
> not feverish), 'kay?
Personally I could care less what you believe in.
But when you come on a public forum and spit out
opinions that other people's religious views are
nonsense, then be prepared to have your disillusionment
fed to you on a spoon.
Quite ironic that you started all this in the first
place by stating that its *OK* to make public
judgements and insults about religion, that its
"fair game" and yet now you run from your
own assertion as the facts begin to show your
words faulty.
Typical Atheist.
PJ
> On Jan 21, 11:11 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nada. And I'm not interested in reading second-hand accounts of seeing
>> ghosties or angels or whatever. I'll wait until *I* see one (when I'm
>> not feverish), 'kay?
> Personally I could care less what you believe in.
You seem to be caring quite a bit.
> But when you come on a public forum and spit out
> opinions that other people's religious views are
> nonsense, then be prepared to have your disillusionment
> fed to you on a spoon.
She has not done that at all.
> Quite ironic that you started all this in the first
> place by stating that its *OK* to make public
> judgements and insults about religion, that its
> "fair game" and yet now you run from your
> own assertion as the facts begin to show your
> words faulty.
I think you totally misunderstood what her post was about.
> Typical Atheist.
Suddenly you don't seem so nice anymore.
~ ~ ~
PJ
Ultraviolet
> On Jan 21, 11:11 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nada. And I'm not interested in reading second-hand accounts of
> seeing
>
> > ghosties or angels or whatever. I'll wait until *I* see one (when I'm
> > not feverish), 'kay?
>
> Personally I could care less what you believe in.
Mmmsure.
> But when you come on a public forum and spit out
> opinions that other people's religious views are
> nonsense, then be prepared to have your disillusionment
> fed to you on a spoon.
Feel free to start anytime. You're pretty shitty at this argument
thingie.
> Quite ironic that you started all this in the first
> place by stating that its *OK* to make public
> judgements and insults about religion, that its
> "fair game" and yet now you run from your
> own assertion as the facts begin to show your
> words faulty.
You're a liar, Mark, or else you have serious reading comp problems. I
*never* said that. I said that "some people" think religion is fair
game because (they believe) it is a choice, as opposed to ethnicity,
which is not. I have already explained that I don't consider belief to
be a choice. Right here in this thread I put forth my view that I
believe it is a matter of physical brain structure whether a person is
receptive to supernatural concepts.
> Typical Atheist.
Better than being a fucking idiot.
--
UV
Ultraviolet
Thx, PJ. I'm glad *you* didn't misunderstand! I thought I was pretty
clear.
> > Typical Atheist.
>
> Suddenly you don't seem so nice anymore.
--
UV
Mark
> > > words faulty.
>
> > I think you totally misunderstood what her post was about.
>
> Thx, PJ. I'm glad *you* didn't misunderstand! I thought I was pretty
> clear.
Ok, maybe I've mistaken you for one of the dozens of
people who were throwing profanity at me yesterday.
There were so many, I'd have to re-read them all.
First of all, you are a lady and I should treat you
as such.
You can call me what you want, but the person I am
in real life is nothing like you assume.
Mark
Alan Hope
>It's a good article -- give it a read.
Argument from authority. Why should Einstein's point of view be any
more convincing than your own?
Alan Hope
><>
I'm sure it made it easier to get on with the very difficult job of
survival when you didn't have to worry any more where the fuck the sun
had gone.
Alan Hope
>On Jan 21, 10:07 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 6:51 am, PJ <authores...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <>
>> There have been brilliant peeps who believed, and brilliant peeps who
>> haven't, that much is clear. Personally I'm inclined to go with the
>> latest studies that suggest that belief in the supernatural is simply
>> a matter of a particular area of the brain being physically structured
>> in a certain way, or not, and nothing to do with IQ or want to/don't
>> want to/stubborness/rebellion, etc. Possibly it was an evolutionary
>> advantage at some point to be receptive to belief in supernatural
>> concepts.
>UV, I understand that you have an unwillingness to
>consider the supernatural. However, what do you say to
>persons who have witnessed, experienced, or continue to
>experience the supernatural?
Hallucinations, delusions, wish-fulfilment. The precise effects of
mystical ecstasy can be recreated in a neurology lab. So why look any
further for explanations when misfiring neurones covers it?
>What do you know about Edgar Cayce?
>
>Mark
Alan Hope
>On Jan 21, 11:11 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nada. And I'm not interested in reading second-hand accounts of
>seeing
>> ghosties or angels or whatever. I'll wait until *I* see one (when I'm
>> not feverish), 'kay?
>Personally I could care less what you believe in.
Dude, you're going out of your way to make your indifference plain.
>But when you come on a public forum and spit out
>opinions that other people's religious views are
>nonsense, then be prepared to have your disillusionment
>fed to you on a spoon.
What does that even mean?
>Quite ironic that you started all this in the first
>place by stating that its *OK* to make public
>judgements and insults about religion, that its
>"fair game" and yet now you run from your
>own assertion as the facts begin to show your
>words faulty.
I don't see anybody running from anything.
>Typical Atheist.
Alan Hope
>I like this part:
>
>""I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful
>harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with
>the fate and the doings of mankind." "
>
>That goes a long way with his ideas on a unified theory.
It also puts him quite a distance away from the Christian God, who
very much concerns himself with the doings of mankind.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx goes:
So.
Jackson Pillock
> I found an article about Albert Einstein that included excerpts of an
> interview he did with George Sylvester Vierec.
I have no problem with Einstein's 'religion.' I just wish he'd called
it something else.
Mark
>
> Hallucinations, delusions, wish-fulfilment. The precise effects of
> mystical ecstasy can be recreated in a neurology lab. So why look any
> further for explanations when misfiring neurones covers it?
What about precognition?
Mark
> I have no problem with Einstein's 'religion.' I just wish he'd called
> it something else.
He called it what he wanted you to understand he meant
PJ
>>> I think you totally misunderstood what her post was about.
>> Thx, PJ. I'm glad *you* didn't misunderstand! I thought I was pretty
>> clear.
>
> Ok, maybe I've mistaken you for one of the dozens of
> people who were throwing profanity at me yesterday.
> There were so many, I'd have to re-read them all.
Here's some advice, Mark. Before you start yelling at people and
accusing them of things, go back and read their posts.
>
> First of all, you are a lady and I should treat you as such.
Bullshit. You should treat her with respect because she's a person, not
a *lady*.
>
> You can call me what you want, but the person I am
> in real life is nothing like you assume.
No one knows what kind of person you are in real life, Mark. All we know
is what we read.
~ ~ ~
PJ
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Oh Crap we're not onto that fourteen year old on the computer in the
basement thing again are we?
PJ
> PJ goes:
>
>> It's a good article -- give it a read.
>
> Argument from authority. Why should Einstein's point of view be any
> more convincing than your own?
Because he was a brilliant scientist, and I thought you might like to
read his views based on your viewpoint that anyone who has faith is
ignoring science. Einstein felt differently.
But the thing is, Alan, I haven't tried to convince you of anything --
I've merely told you what I believe, and you've made it clear that you
have scorn for that kind of belief. Okay, I get that. I respect your
right not to believe; I wish you would reciprocate.
That's really all.
~ ~ ~
PJ
Jackson Pillock
I understand it just fine, but lots of people are confused. Do you
understand that Einstein "worshipped" the laws of nature, not a
personal god with the power to violate them? No walking on water, no
virgin birth... If being amazed, awed, in love, undone by nature's
beauty is what you mean when you speak of 'faith,' then fine, I share
it. I am human. But somehow I don't think that's what you mean, and I
get tired of people misrepresenting Einstein, then citing him as some
kind of genius theologian.
PJ
I actually don't like the word "religion" at all. I once had a pastor
who said, "What does that mean anyway? You can be religious about *not*
being religious."
I loved that.
~ ~ ~
PJ
serenebabe
<...>
> If being amazed, awed, in love, undone by nature's
> beauty is what you mean when you speak of 'faith,' then fine, I share
> it. I am human.
You weren't talking to me, but, that's pretty much how I'd describe
god. Only thing I'd add would be that I can find strength in things
("powers" I'd say) like nature's beauty. I find a similar strength in
my experience with other aspects of life, too. Nature's the easiest
source, though. In my own experience, I've been able to take the
strength I find there and use it to be a stronger and better person.
--
It's All About We! (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.net/ - new 1/14
"A Woman's Right to Kill Her Baby"
Jackson Pillock
> On 2009-01-21 14:07:43 -0500, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> said:
> <...>> If being amazed, awed, in love, undone by nature's
> > beauty is what you mean when you speak of 'faith,' then fine, I share
> > it. I am human.
>
> <...>
>
> You weren't talking to me, but, that's pretty much how I'd describe
> god.
We've been round this way before. Why call it god? It only leads to
confusion.
Mark
> > On Jan 21, 11:39 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> words faulty.
> >>> I think you totally misunderstood what her post was about.
> >> Thx, PJ. I'm glad *you* didn't misunderstand! I thought I was pretty
> >> clear.
>
> > Ok, maybe I've mistaken you for one of the dozens of
> > people who were throwing profanity at me yesterday.
> > There were so many, I'd have to re-read them all.
>
> Here's some advice, Mark. Before you start yelling at people and
> accusing them of things, go back and read their posts.
Fair enough
> > First of all, you are a lady and I should treat you as such.
>
> Bullshit. You should treat her with respect because she's a person, not
> a *lady*.
I treat men and women differently
> > You can call me what you want, but the person I am
> > in real life is nothing like you assume.
>
> No one knows what kind of person you are in real life, Mark. All we know
> is what we read.
I understand that. Its logical. But I think the whole "idiot" thing
is a little over the top, as well as the gang mentality. (yes, I
remember what you said yesterday,....feeling the waters)
Give me a little more time.
---
mark
>
> ~ ~ ~
> PJ
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Consider it a baptism.
Mark
Well, what it is,......there is a lot more to Einstein's personal
views
on Jesus, and are actually posted here right now I believe. Also, I've
posted the names of 100 more renowned scientists.
Makes for a good counterbalance to opposing viewpoints.
Me personally, I'm a Christian. I came to my faith and beliefs
after I was grown. You may or may not share what you believe.
mark
PJ
> On Jan 21, 2:01 pm, PJ <authores...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mark wrote:
>>> On Jan 21, 11:39 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> words faulty.
>>>>> I think you totally misunderstood what her post was about.
>>>> Thx, PJ. I'm glad *you* didn't misunderstand! I thought I was pretty clear.
>>> Ok, maybe I've mistaken you for one of the dozens of people who were throwing profanity at me yesterday. There were so many, I'd have to re-read them all.
>> Here's some advice, Mark. Before you start yelling at people and accusing them of things, go back and read their posts.
>
> Fair enough
And good for you for acknowledging it.
>>> First of all, you are a lady and I should treat you as such.
>> Bullshit. You should treat her with respect because she's a person, not a *lady*.
>
> I treat men and women differently.
On this froup, you might want to reconsider that. Just a thought.
>
>>> You can call me what you want, but the person I am in real life is nothing like you assume.
>> No one knows what kind of person you are in real life, Mark. All we know is what we read.
>
> I understand that. Its logical. But I think the whole "idiot" thing is a little over the top
UV was responding, in kind, to things that you wrote. UV is uber-cool,
BTW, and one of the most NOT judgmental, closed-minded persons on the
planet.
> as well as the gang mentality.
I've heard mucho talk about the gang mentality, and I don't buy into it.
What I have observed is that if someone continues to dig him/herself
deeper into a hole, more peeps will pile on. If the person stops
digging, folks tend to back off.
> (yes, I remember what you said yesterday,....feeling the waters)
Feeling the waters is good.
~ ~ ~
PJ
Skipper
<autho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Just don't say anything about his kids.
gekko
written the perfect poem, for example, or read the one illuminating
book. Instead, Mark <blueri...@yahoo.com> chose to post to
misc.writing:
> On Jan 21, 2:01 pm, PJ <authores...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mark wrote:
>> > On Jan 21, 11:39 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> words faulty.
>> >>> I think you totally misunderstood what her post was about.
>> >> Thx, PJ. I'm glad *you* didn't misunderstand! I thought I was
>> >> pretty clear.
>>
>> > Ok, maybe I've mistaken you for one of the dozens of
>> > people who were throwing profanity at me yesterday.
>> > There were so many, I'd have to re-read them all.
>>
>> Here's some advice, Mark. Before you start yelling at people and
>> accusing them of things, go back and read their posts.
>
> Fair enough
>
>> > First of all, you are a lady and I should treat you as such.
>>
>> Bullshit. You should treat her with respect because she's a
>> person, not a *lady*.
>
> I treat men and women differently
Yes, but it's better to treat people with respect until they have
individually shown they deserve none, regardless of their sex.
>> > You can call me what you want, but the person I am
>> > in real life is nothing like you assume.
>>
>> No one knows what kind of person you are in real life, Mark. All
>> we know is what we read.
>
> I understand that. Its logical. But I think the whole "idiot"
> thing is a little over the top,
You falsely accused her, then belittled her. I'd say you earned the
title.
> as well as the gang mentality.
Come again?
> (yes, I remember what you said yesterday,....feeling the waters)
>
> Give me a little more time.
Just a suggestion, but it'd probably be easier if you sat back, read
up on the froup, learned the personalities, and played a bit. Save
the heavy discussions -- especially the ones that tickle the emotions
-- for when you've learned who's who.
Seems obvious to me you've let your emotions get stirred, and feel a
bit threatened, and you're responding accordingly.
Chillax, kiddo.
Oh, and work hard at this -- it will really keep you sane: laugh at
yourself. Every single time you post here, laugh at yourself.
--
gekko
Know what I hate most? Rhetorical questions.
Ultraviolet
<>
> Ok, maybe I've mistaken you for one of the dozens of
> people who were throwing profanity at me yesterday.
> There were so many, I'd have to re-read them all.
I don't know, Mark. You've at least twice claimed the same thing about
me: that I stated certain minorities/religions were fair game for
insult. That has nothing to do with profanity. Why would you have to
reread all the posts? Just go to my "insults" thread and read *my*
posts if you want to quote me accurately.
> First of all, you are a lady and I should treat you
> as such.
You could start by not misquoting me.
> You can call me what you want, but the person I am
> in real life is nothing like you assume.
Whatev. I don't care how you are in real life and I don't assume
anything about that; I address only the words and links you post in
this froup.
--
UV
Ultraviolet
<>
> UV was responding, in kind, to things that you wrote. UV is uber-cool,
> BTW, and one of the most NOT judgmental, closed-minded persons on the
> planet.
Thanks, PJ, and backatcha.
--
UV
serenebabe
<...>
> UV is uber-cool, BTW, and one of the most NOT judgmental, closed-minded
> persons on the planet.
I totally agree. She can be SUPER scary when she's against you, but
she's one of these actually fair and balanced (unlike FOX news) sorts.
In fact, it's more likely she'll be against what you say than actually
against *you.*
At least that's been my experience. True of most of the people in here
who can be *against* anyone or anything really strongly, even with
venom.
Jackson Pillock
> On Jan 21, 2:07 pm, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 21 Jan, 18:58, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 21, 1:44 pm, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I have no problem with Einstein's 'religion.' I just wish he'd called
> > > > it something else.
>
> > > He called it what he wanted you to understand he meant
>
> > I understand it just fine, but lots of people are confused. Do you
> > understand that Einstein "worshipped" the laws of nature, not a
> > personal god with the power to violate them? No walking on water, no
> > virgin birth... If being amazed, awed, in love, undone by nature's
> > beauty is what you mean when you speak of 'faith,' then fine, I share
> > it. I am human. But somehow I don't think that's what you mean, and I
> > get tired of people misrepresenting Einstein, then citing him as some
> > kind of genius theologian.
>
> Well, what it is,......there is a lot more to Einstein's personal
> views
> on Jesus, and are actually posted here right now I believe.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm not an expert on Einstein, but
he is on record as not believing in a personal god/God.
Also, I've
> posted the names of 100 more renowned scientists.
>
> Makes for a good counterbalance to opposing viewpoints.
> Me personally, I'm a Christian. I came to my faith and beliefs
> after I was grown. You may or may not share what you believe.
I do not accept the existence of the supernatural, God or gods, for
exactly the same reason you do not accept Islam.
In the words of whomever Sylvia quoted a couple days ago, we are both
atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
>
> mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sylvia
<...>
> There have been brilliant peeps who believed, and brilliant peeps who
> haven't, that much is clear. Personally I'm inclined to go with the
> latest studies that suggest that belief in the supernatural is simply
> a matter of a particular area of the brain being physically structured
> in a certain way, or not, and nothing to do with IQ or want to/don't
> want to/stubborness/rebellion, etc. Possibly it was an evolutionary
> advantage at some point to be receptive to belief in supernatural
> concepts.
Some reporters played it up that way, but that wasn't what neuroscientists
like Michael Persinger actually said.
"God experiences, he argues, are correlated with transient instabilities
within the temporal lobe of the human brain. He claims that 'they appear to
have emerged within the human species as a means of dealing with the expanded
capacity to anticipate adverse events' (Persinger 1987: Temporal Lobe
Religiosity). The specific content of these experiences are due to upbringing,
the use of religious language and symbolism, and social strategies.
"Persinger made a startling discovery. By stimulating subjects
electromagnetically on their temporal lobes, they report experiences of God or
other ephemeral entities." [1]
That is, the evolutionary advantage was an "expanded capacity to anticipate
adverse events", and that capacity resides in our temporal lobes. When we
peeps normally weigh possible adverse outcomes of action or of events we are
observing around ourselves, our brains and bodies undergo changes to heighten
our senses--hyper-focusing on searching for any kind of helpful input, we
kinda become one with our surroundings. Like being in The Zone, IYKWIMAITYD.
Somewhere in that zone is where peeps can wander into religiosity or the
paranormal. Looking for input for weighing adverse outcomes of action
stretches into looking for "signs", or they look so hard they sense stuff that
ain't there. You know how you can end up spooking yerself, and then you feel
silly? Well, no, of course not, I've never done that to myself either, but it
can happen to other peeps.
Anyway, peeps may believe in their gods or their ghosts in their hearts, but
it registers in their temporal lobes. What happens if yer temporal lobes get
out of whack? It's been observed for a long time that a high percentage of
peeps who have Temporal Lobe Epilepsy display hyper-religiosity. One of
Persinger's observations from his research was that, when this temporal lobe
imbalance has been momentarily reproduced in healthy peeps, most of them
suddenly sense something supernatural--*what* they sense depends on their
beliefs. They either swear they've had a god experience or a paranormal
experience or they don't know WTF that experience was.
It was electromagnets.
--
Sylvia
[1] Michael Persinger, Professor of psychology and head of the Neuroscience
Research Group at La urentian University, Sudbury, Ontario
http://tinyurl.com/bjz9t2
serenebabe
"Supernatural!" That's the word UV used somewhere. I couldn't find the
reference.
Why do the atheists seem to think god needs to be supernatural?
Okay, I looked up the word and if you just mean "beyond what can be
explained by natural law," I can see that. Although the phrase "natural
law" doesn't sit well with me, but I expect it has some science-y basis.
When I hear "supernatural" though, I think ghosts and things happening
that science can't explain, etc. Fiction. The stuff of movies and books.
Do you (who have used "supernatural" to describe god) just mean you
don't believe in anything that can't be explained using logic?
Just Me
> I found an article about Albert Einstein that included excerpts of an
> interview he did with George Sylvester Vierec.
>
>
> AE: "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the
> actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No
> myth is filled with such life."
>
> GSV: "Do you believe in God?"
>
> AE: "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist.
> The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the
> position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in
> many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books.
> It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they
> are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the
> arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to
> me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.
> We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but
> only dimly understand these laws."
>
> From later in the same article ...
>
> "There are people who say there is no God," [Einstein] told a friend.
> "But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of
> such views." And unlike Sigmund Freud or Bertrand Russell or George
> Bernard Shaw, Einstein never felt the urge to denigrate those who
> believed in God; instead, he tended to denigrate atheists. "What
> separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility
> toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos," he
> explained.
>
> In fact, Einstein tended to be more critical of debunkers, who seemed to
> lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. "The fanatical
> atheists," he wrote in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling
> the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard
> struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional
> religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the
> spheres."
>
> www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html
>
> It's a good article -- give it a read.
I will! Einstein is my man. And for sake of my own so-called "faith" I
find it highly comforting--not to mention comical--to realize that
this man who affirms the high historical probability of Jesus of
Nazareth; who recognizes a transcendent "order" in the universe that
gives evidence of something powerfully beyond our understanding that
might rightly be regarded as divine (again in a sense we cannot
approach with our puny minds)--that . . . well, isn't it wildly funny
to see all these atheists who think they are in a position to know
better than Einstein?
That has to leave you laughing your buns off.
What else? I've said it before, I'll say it again: the very
definition of ignorance is the inability to give due honor to
intelligence. The minute a person hears these things from Einstein, if
they are smart, they will stop thinking themselves all THAT smart,
that they can be certain of what held a whole lot of doubt and wonder
for the smartest man on earth from his time to this.
People disagree with me to say, "No, that's stupidity, not ignorance."
That is, an inability to honor intelligence. But note that I did not
say "illiteracy". A person can be ignorant--willfully. Ignorance
arises all too often from prejudice, from passion, emotion, an opinion
one is unwilling to give up. From stinginess. You can be so ignorant
as to suppose that what ignorant believers say about God IS what God
is. That's really ignorant. You can be prejudiced against any idea
of God based on what you've heard ignorant believers saying of God.
Thus you remain just so ignorant as they are, being so immensely
ignorant as to take an ignorant opinion for the truth about God.
If you are the sort who has her mind SHUT against all notions of God
based on some ignorant wet-behind-the-ears theory of so called
"neuroscience" that all transcendent experience can be reductively
deconstructed into nothing but neural impulses, then you have done
exactly the ignorant thing that you accuse believers of doing: you
have taken on FAITH that these self-described scientists CANNOT BE
WRONG. You have found a Pope in Steven Pinker for cryin' out loud!
And that only happens because you don't know enough about science to
identify the charlatans when you see them.
Even so! What sort of mind is it that is able to take ANYTHING of man,
from man, by man for CERTAIN? The mark of high intelligence is to
understand that NOTHING is certain, or as you have heard it given to
the lips of Lawrence of Arabia, "Nothing is written."
NOTHING. He or she who says she KNOWS is either a liar or a fool. But
worse than that is to demand "proof" of that which is by nature not
capable of proof. The nature of God is spirit, the invisible, the
immaterial. God is NOT empirical, but it's the same for reason, for
love, for an awe of beauty, and many another highly powerful
untouchable, unprovable thing. Prove my love? Prove my conviction that
the Rose of Sharon is beautiful? Prove that God is real? You would
have to be God to do that.
--
JM http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://doo-dads.blogspot.com
http://jesusexegesis.blogspot.com
http://mackiemesser.zoomshare.com
boots
>On Jan 21, 11:39 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > words faulty.
>>
>> > I think you totally misunderstood what her post was about.
>>
>> Thx, PJ. I'm glad *you* didn't misunderstand! I thought I was pretty
>> clear.
>
>Ok, maybe I've mistaken you for one of the dozens of
>people who were throwing profanity at me yesterday.
>There were so many, I'd have to re-read them all.
If you weren't so fucking blinkered you'd be able to get past the
specific words used to the meaning behind them. I am making a note
here that because of your extreme cuntitude the best approach may be
to include more obscenities than usual.
--
sig text to prevent insertion of advertising
Mark
> If you weren't so fucking blinkered you'd be able to get past the
> specific words used to the meaning behind them. I am making a note
> here that because of your extreme cuntitude the best approach may be
> to include more obscenities than usual.
Write what you want. The words you chose are
a reflection of you. You spend a lot of time talking
about me, but I don't see you making analytical
commentaries on much else. Don't you have any
other interests? ha ha ha
boots
>Possibly it was an evolutionary
>advantage at some point to be receptive to belief in supernatural
>concepts.
What does "supernatural" mean? Outside what is known about nature, or
contravening what is known about nature?
If very early man knew hardly anything about nature it would've been
contra-survival to discount anything beond what he already knew of
nature because that amounted to "most things". If you extend the
analogy backward to a point where very early man knew only one thing
you could make an argument that "belief in the supernatural" was
required for survival.
But saying "belief in the supernatural was required for the human
species to evolve" sounds silly and Haddadian.
boots
>Koolc...@smurfsareus.xxx goes:
>
>>I like this part:
>>
>>""I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful
>>harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with
>>the fate and the doings of mankind." "
>>
>>That goes a long way with his ideas on a unified theory.
>
>It also puts him quite a distance away from the Christian God, who
>very much concerns himself with the doings of mankind.
The Judeo-Christian concept of God seems to place God in a position of
caring, moreover needing, men to comply with His wishes. Gravity has
no such need and does not seem to care the least bit when men choose
to fall or not, why should any God that has created gravity be more
needy than his creation?
boots
>PJ goes:
>
>>It's a good article -- give it a read.
>
>Argument from authority. Why should Einstein's point of view be any
>more convincing than your own?
GASP! Are you denying that Authority is less than absolute?
boots
>On 21 Jan, 18:58, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 1:44 pm, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I have no problem with Einstein's 'religion.' I just wish he'd called
>> > it something else.
>>
>> He called it what he wanted you to understand he meant
>
>I understand it just fine, but lots of people are confused. Do you
>understand that Einstein "worshipped" the laws of nature, not a
>personal god with the power to violate them? No walking on water,
I walk on water quite frequently this time of the year, though us
hicks call it "ice" in its frozen form.
boots
Is it something that should never be referred to?
If it is referred to, isn't a label useful in identifying the
reference?
$Zero
> Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >PJ goes:
>
> >>It's a good article -- give it a read.
>
> >Argument from authority. Why should Einstein's point of view be any
> >more convincing than your own?
>
> GASP! Are you denying that Authority is less than absolute?
LOL
game. set. match.
-$Zero...
but see, these paper-trail peeps don't
use their full minds when they evaluate
the truth of their "proof".
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/828c169747985f37
boots
Oh. No, I guess my only interest in the whole wide world is showing
you what you are appearing to be. Yep, that's it. Never wrote a word
in my life that wasn't about the latest fuckwit cunt to show up here,
nope.
Ultraviolet
> Miz Ultraviolet wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > There have been brilliant peeps who believed, and brilliant peeps who
> > haven't, that much is clear. Personally I'm inclined to go with the
> > latest studies that suggest that belief in the supernatural is simply
> > a matter of a particular area of the brain being physically structured
> > in a certain way, or not, and nothing to do with IQ or want to/don't
> > want to/stubborness/rebellion, etc. Possibly it was an evolutionary
> > advantage at some point to be receptive to belief in supernatural
> > concepts.
>
> Some reporters played it up that way, but that wasn't what neuroscientists
> like Michael Persinger actually said.
Exactly so, Sylvia. I wasn't quoting anyone. I gave a perfectly
adequate layman's interpretation.
> "God experiences, he argues, are correlated with transient instabilities
> within the temporal lobe of the human brain. He claims that 'they appear to
> have emerged within the human species as a means of dealing with the expanded
> capacity to anticipate adverse events' (Persinger 1987: Temporal Lobe
> Religiosity). The specific content of these experiences are due to upbringing,
> the use of religious language and symbolism, and social strategies.
>
> "Persinger made a startling discovery. By stimulating subjects
> electromagnetically on their temporal lobes, they report experiences of God or
> other ephemeral entities." [1]
>
> That is, the evolutionary advantage was an "expanded capacity to anticipate
> adverse events", and that capacity resides in our temporal lobes. When we
> peeps normally weigh possible adverse outcomes of action or of events we are
> observing around ourselves, our brains and bodies undergo changes to heighten
> our senses--hyper-focusing on searching for any kind of helpful input, we
> kinda become one with our surroundings. Like being in The Zone, IYKWIMAITYD.
>
> Somewhere in that zone is where peeps can wander into religiosity or the
> paranormal. Looking for input for weighing adverse outcomes of action
> stretches into looking for "signs", or they look so hard they sense stuff that
> ain't there. You know how you can end up spooking yerself, and then you feel
> silly? Well, no, of course not, I've never done that to myself either, but it
> can happen to other peeps.
Right, right. ~checking under the bed for alligators~
> Anyway, peeps may believe in their gods or their ghosts in their hearts, but
No one believes anything in their heart -- that's just an expression.
> it registers in their temporal lobes. What happens if yer temporal lobes get
> out of whack? It's been observed for a long time that a high percentage of
> peeps who have Temporal Lobe Epilepsy display hyper-religiosity. One of
> Persinger's observations from his research was that, when this temporal lobe
> imbalance has been momentarily reproduced in healthy peeps, most of them
> suddenly sense something supernatural--*what* they sense depends on their
> beliefs. They either swear they've had a god experience or a paranormal
> experience or they don't know WTF that experience was.
>
> It was electromagnets.
Mine was due to a fever of 105. But I don't think a person has to
necessarily directly experience the supernatural to be receptive to
belief in it. If your brain has the "god-shaped spot," you might
simply believe what you're told as a child or accept the majority
opinion on the subject. I've heard several people describe their
belief in God as simply "something greater than ourselves," which is
pretty ambiguous.
> --
> Sylvia
>
> [1] Michael Persinger, Professor of psychology and head of the Neuroscience
> Research Group at La urentian University, Sudbury, Ontario http://tinyurl.com/bjz9t2
--
UV
Ultraviolet
> On 2009-01-22 03:00:41 -0500, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> said:
> <...>> I do not accept the existence of the supernatural, God or gods
>
> <...>
>
> "Supernatural!" That's the word UV used somewhere. I couldn't find the
> reference.
>
> Why do the atheists seem to think god needs to be supernatural?
It's just the definition, Heather. If something can be explained by
natural law, then most people wouldn't call it "God."
> Okay, I looked up the word and if you just mean "beyond what can be
> explained by natural law," I can see that. Although the phrase "natural
> law" doesn't sit well with me, but I expect it has some science-y basis.
>
> When I hear "supernatural" though, I think ghosts and things happening
> that science can't explain, etc. Fiction. The stuff of movies and books.
Okay, but the definition itself is all-inclusive. I consider gods,
ghosties, angels, genies, vampires, etc. all to be in that category.
> Do you (who have used "supernatural" to describe god) just mean you
> don't believe in anything that can't be explained using logic?
Anything that can't be explained using natural law.
--
UV
Mark
>
> > > There have been brilliant peeps who believed, and brilliant peeps who
> > > haven't, that much is clear. Personally I'm inclined to go with the
> > > latest studies that suggest that belief in the supernatural is simply
> > > a matter of a particular area of the brain
I have witnessed the supernatural on many occasions.
Explain to me how my brain produces visions of future
events, and then I use these visions to avoid disaster .
How does my brain make a deer run in front of your truck?
(after I slowed to 5mph to look at the spot where 2 hours
earlier I witnessed an apparition of a deer at this one spot)
How does my brain, make a drunk driver run into you?
(where I trained for the upcoming accident, so I would
survive it)
How does my brain, show me pictures of things, and then
later I witness the exact events, of which coincidence is
simply impossible?
I know about the supernatural. And I know about Jesus.
---
Mark
Ultraviolet
> Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Possibly it was an evolutionary
> >advantage at some point to be receptive to belief in supernatural
> >concepts.
>
> What does "supernatural" mean? Outside what is known about nature, or
> contravening what is known about nature?
Outside natural law -- "miracles," ghosts, vampires, communicating
with the dead, etc.
> If very early man knew hardly anything about nature it would've been
> contra-survival to discount anything beond what he already knew of
> nature because that amounted to "most things".
Right. Paraphrasing Hope: much easier to get through the scary night
if you believed a nice god would put the sun back up in the morning.
> If you extend the
> analogy backward to a point where very early man knew only one thing
> you could make an argument that "belief in the supernatural" was
> required for survival.
Maybe *you* could. :)
That far back, I'm not sure there was a whole lot of thinking going
on.
> But saying "belief in the supernatural was required for the human
> species to evolve" sounds silly and Haddadian.
Well, I didn't say that, so yay.
--
UV
serenebabe
> On Jan 22, 4:51 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Possibly it was an evolutionary
>>> advantage at some point to be receptive to belief in supernatural
>>> concepts.
>>
>> What does "supernatural" mean? Outside what is known about nature, or
>> contravening what is known about nature?
>
> Outside natural law -- "miracles," ghosts, vampires, communicating
> with the dead, etc.
<...>
Haven't seen if this was addressed wherever I asked it, but, this is
how I read "supernatural," too. Not sure at all why someone would have
to connect this kind of "supernatural" with faith in god...? Using
science to explain my concept of god doesn't diminish my experience of
god at all. Why do you think they need to coexist (supernatural and
god)?
Ultraviolet
> On 2009-01-22 10:02:18 -0500, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > On Jan 22, 4:51 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> >> Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Possibly it was an evolutionary
> >>> advantage at some point to be receptive to belief in supernatural
> >>> concepts.
>
> >> What does "supernatural" mean? Outside what is known about nature, or
> >> contravening what is known about nature?
>
> > Outside natural law -- "miracles," ghosts, vampires, communicating
> > with the dead, etc.
>
> <...>
>
> Haven't seen if this was addressed wherever I asked it, but, this is
> how I read "supernatural," too. Not sure at all why someone would have
> to connect this kind of "supernatural" with faith in god...? Using
> science to explain my concept of god doesn't diminish my experience of
> god at all. Why do you think they need to coexist (supernatural and
> god)?
Your concept of god doesn't seem to be aligned with what is commonly
referred to as "God," Heather, so I can't really answer your question,
but the God of miracles and smiting and heaven and hell goes into the
pile with vampires and genies (for me).
--
UV
serenebabe
I should've read the whole list of messages before replying. I pretty
much replied higher up in the thread. The jist? For me scientific
explanations don't cancel out my experience of god (doesn't bother me
if it's neurotransmitters, etc.).
Ultraviolet
> On Jan 22, 9:37 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > There have been brilliant peeps who believed, and brilliant peeps who
> > > > haven't, that much is clear. Personally I'm inclined to go with the
> > > > latest studies that suggest that belief in the supernatural is simply
> > > > a matter of a particular area of the brain
>
> I have witnessed the supernatural on many occasions.
>
> Explain to me how my brain produces visions of future
> events, and then I use these visions to avoid disaster .
The way you put it there, it just sounds as though you're a cautious,
careful person. I too can imagine disasters and then take precautions
in hopes of avoiding them.
> How does my brain make a deer run in front of your truck?
I don't have a truck. :)
> (after I slowed to 5mph to look at the spot where 2 hours
> earlier I witnessed an apparition of a deer at this one spot)
Coincidence, I would say.
> How does my brain, make a drunk driver run into you?
> (where I trained for the upcoming accident, so I would
> survive it)
I'm not sure what you're asking, Mark. You developed some skills and
then they were needed. That really doesn't sound so extraordinary.
> How does my brain, show me pictures of things, and then
> later I witness the exact events, of which coincidence is
> simply impossible?
Why is coincidence impossible? In any case, I'm skeptical of your
claim.
> I know about the supernatural. And I know about Jesus.
--
UV
Jackson Pillock
Jackson Pillock
> On 2009-01-22 03:00:41 -0500, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> said:
> <...>> I do not accept the existence of the supernatural, God or gods
>
> <...>
>
> "Supernatural!" That's the word UV used somewhere. I couldn't find the
> reference.
>
> Why do the atheists seem to think god needs to be supernatural?
>
> Okay, I looked up the word and if you just mean "beyond what can be
> explained by natural law," I can see that. Although the phrase "natural
> law" doesn't sit well with me, but I expect it has some science-y basis.
>
> When I hear "supernatural" though, I think ghosts and things happening
> that science can't explain, etc. Fiction. The stuff of movies and books.
Spot on. I don't believe in that stuff.
>
> Do you (who have used "supernatural" to describe god) just mean you
> don't believe in anything that can't be explained using logic?
>
I don't believe in things for which there is no evidence, especially
when those things do not tie in with my experience of how the world
is.
> --
> It's All About We! (the column)http://www.serenebabe.net/- new 1/14
Ultraviolet
> On 2009-01-21 15:12:36 -0500, PJ <authores...@gmail.com> said:
> <...>> UV is uber-cool, BTW, and one of the most NOT judgmental, closed-minded
> > persons on the planet.
>
> <...>
>
> I totally agree. She can be SUPER scary when she's against you, but
> she's one of these actually fair and balanced (unlike FOX news) sorts.
> In fact, it's more likely she'll be against what you say than actually
> against *you.*
With a few exceptions. :)
Thx, Heather.
> At least that's been my experience. True of most of the people in here
> who can be *against* anyone or anything really strongly, even with
> venom.
--
UV
Ultraviolet
> On 2009-01-22 09:41:23 -0500, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> said:
<>
> > Anything that can't be explained using natural law.
>
> I should've read the whole list of messages before replying. I pretty
> much replied higher up in the thread. The jist? For me scientific
> explanations don't cancel out my experience of god (doesn't bother me
> if it's neurotransmitters, etc.).
The same goes for me with love and other emotions, so I can see what
you're saying.
--
UV
Jackson Pillock
I have to drive on it quite a lot. I call it car-skating. Think I can
get my own religion?
serenebabe
Yeah, I guess I was thinking the same thing. Seems useless for me to
participate in this conversation because all the atheists and at least
what seems like all the god-believers have this notion of God that
doesn't come close to my own.
I guess I was thinking the fact that I believe in god, have experienced
it, but not within typical definitions shows it can exist.
serenebabe
> On 22 Jan, 08:54, serenebabe <sereneb...@gmail.com> wrote:
<...>
>> Do you (who have used "supernatural" to describe god) just mean you
>> don't believe in anything that can't be explained using logic?
>
> I don't believe in things for which there is no evidence, especially
> when those things do not tie in with my experience of how the world
> is.
So, you do not count someone's personal experience as evidence?
No way am I trying to convince you of anything. I'm just curious to
know how you define "evidence."
--
It's All About We! (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.net/ - new 1/14
Jackson Pillock
> On 2009-01-22 10:40:06 -0500, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> said:
>
>
>
> > On 22 Jan, 08:54, serenebabe <sereneb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <...>
> >> Do you (who have used "supernatural" to describe god) just mean you
> >> don't believe in anything that can't be explained using logic?
>
> > I don't believe in things for which there is no evidence, especially
> > when those things do not tie in with my experience of how the world
> > is.
>
> So, you do not count someone's personal experience as evidence?
Depends. Sometimes I think the person is deluded. Sometimes, I think
they're lying. Sometimes I believe it, but put a natural
interpretation on it. Give me an example of personal testimony and
I'll tell you what I think of it.
>
> No way am I trying to convince you of anything. I'm just curious to
> know how you define "evidence."
Is there something wrong with trying to convince people of things?
$Zero
believers have better orgasms.
-$Zero...
and you said you didn't find my sense of humor funny. hah!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/6674f5304cf93242
Whenever two or more people gather in
the spirit of love, it's a bickerfest!
http://bickerfest.com
serenebabe
> On 22 Jan, 16:48, serenebabe <sereneb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-01-22 10:40:06 -0500, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> said:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 22 Jan, 08:54, serenebabe <sereneb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <...>
>>>> Do you (who have used "supernatural" to describe god) just mean you
>>>> don't believe in anything that can't be explained using logic?
>>
>>> I don't believe in things for which there is no evidence, especially
>>> when those things do not tie in with my experience of how the world
>>> is.
>>
>> So, you do not count someone's personal experience as evidence?
>
> Depends. Sometimes I think the person is deluded. Sometimes, I think
> they're lying. Sometimes I believe it, but put a natural
> interpretation on it. Give me an example of personal testimony and
> I'll tell you what I think of it.
My example is Boooooooooring. But, here it is. I'm an alcoholic (the
crowd groans, "oh, one of THOSE"). About 12 years ago I'd spent a lot
of years trying to control my drinking (and drugging) and never had any
success. As soon as I "asked God" to help me, I was able to stop. I
believe it's *me* keeping me sober, by staying connected to that
whatever-it-is-I-call God. But, it's a physical experience no longer
having the obsession of the mind I used to have. Being free of that
obsession keeps me from the first drink. It's no struggle, it's easy, I
barely ever think about it. If/when I do, I simply ask god to help and
it's a totally freeing experience. No worries. Ahhhhhhhh...
>> No way am I trying to convince you of anything. I'm just curious to
>> know how you define "evidence."
>
> Is there something wrong with trying to convince people of things?
No problem at all. It's just not my style. I feel really strongly that
my beliefs are my own and I can't do much to change anyone else's. I
don't like beating my head against brick walls, and that's what it
feels like when I "try to convince" people of things. I mean, sure, I'd
love to convince everyone that caring for disadvantaged people is
actually a benefit to everyone. And, sure, I might take actions to make
that point. But I have no wish to try to change anyone else. Does that
make sense?
For me, people learn a lot more from each other when they just share
their own opinions and experiences. When we say, "this is right" or
"this is wrong" it sort of ends a lot of conversations.
Mark
>
> Depends. Sometimes I think the person is deluded. Sometimes, I think
> they're lying. Sometimes I believe it, but put a natural
> interpretation on it. Give me an example of personal testimony and
> I'll tell you what I think of it.
I've already tried once, but I'll try again. My family knows me to
have psychic "occurances". From where I'm sitting, I know
precisely that they are. I experience premonitions and also
and "awareness" of beings/things out of the realm of explanation.
Here goes......
I saw a ghost
It looked like a deer, but it was translucent.
I slammed on my brakes, so as not to drive thru it.
It dissolved before me.
I was stunned and had no explanation.
So I drove off from this insignificant place in the highway
and continued on my trip.
When I returned later, I slowed down and began to look
for the place where this deer ghost appeared.
I came to the exact spot.
I slowed to 5mph, and stopped.(out in the country)
A real deer, the *same* deer that I saw earlier, ran
out from the *same* place, and like a video replay,
took the *same* steps and *same* actions as the
ghost deer. Had I not stopped to try and understand
what I'd seen earlier, I would have hit the actual deer.
Mark
Grand Mal
"Jackson Pillock" <and...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:148cfc1e-02ee-42f0...@v4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On 22 Jan, 13:06, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >On 21 Jan, 18:58, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 21, 1:44 pm, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I have no problem with Einstein's 'religion.' I just wish he'd called
> >> > it something else.
>
> >> He called it what he wanted you to understand he meant
>
> >I understand it just fine, but lots of people are confused. Do you
> >understand that Einstein "worshipped" the laws of nature, not a
> >personal god with the power to violate them? No walking on water,
>
> I walk on water quite frequently this time of the year, though us
> hicks call it "ice" in its frozen form.
>
> --
> sig text to prevent insertion of advertising
-I have to drive on it quite a lot. I call it car-skating. Think I can
-get my own religion?
If you could score 60 goals in a season, 30 million Canadians would call you
God.
PJ
> On Jan 22, 10:45 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 7:28 am, serenebabe <sereneb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2009-01-22 09:41:23 -0500, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> said:
>> <>
>>
>>>> Anything that can't be explained using natural law.
>>> I should've read the whole list of messages before replying. I pretty
>>> much replied higher up in the thread. The jist? For me scientific
>>> explanations don't cancel out my experience of god (doesn't bother me
>>> if it's neurotransmitters, etc.).
>> The same goes for me with love and other emotions, so I can see what
>> you're saying.
>
> believers have better orgasms.
ROFL!!!
~ ~ ~
PJ
Jackson Pillock
Okay. You said it yourself; it's you keeping you sober. So you have
not given any testimony in favour of the existence of god, and I have
nothing to respond to, in terms of personal experience as evidence of
God.
Jackson Pillock
This does not sound like a credible account to me. That's for
starters. I think you're spinning or exaggerating it, at the very
least.
However, for the sake of argument, let's assume I found that to be a
convincing story. I would sooner think you'd had a hallucination, or
experienced an optical illusion than believe that some magic person
saved a deer by giving you a vision.
Towse
> However, for the sake of argument, let's assume I found that to be a
> convincing story. I would sooner think you'd had a hallucination, or
> experienced an optical illusion than believe that some magic person
> saved a deer by giving you a vision.
Folks who care about such things estimate that over 1.5million DVCs
(deer-vehicle collisions) in the U.S. kill over two hundred people a year.
Why would God hand out freebie visions to some souls to spare them a DVC
and possible death and at the same time let over 1.5million others have
a collision and two hundred go innocently to their deaths?
I, personally, believe there may be such things as visions and
precognition. I don't believe those talents are God-sent.
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
Mark
>
> I, personally, believe there may be such things as visions and
> precognition. I don't believe those talents are God-sent.
>
> --
> Sal
Yes sir. Yes sir. I tend to agree with you. I do know for
a fact these things exist. I don't know where they come
from, or how to make them replicate. I'm not saying it
necessarily even has *anything* to do with God, but
.......it may. I really have nothing to go on.
What it does for me...though....is let me know beyond a
shadow of a doubt,......that there is definitely more to
reality than most people think there is. And .....it puts
me into the fortunate position....to have a little different
perspective on life.
Mark
Mark
I understand, and am not offended in the least that you feel
this way. I don't expect you to understand something that
some guy on the internet says......especially in light of the
fact that I don't understand it either, and it happened to me.
I have had so many of these occurances, that I eventually
sought professional help to talk with someone about it.
I found these things to be very disturbing. After several
sessions, the trained doctor just said, "Well, obviously
these things actually are happening. I just wouldn't
worry about it. It's kinda neat. Just enjoy it."
Pissed me off. So instead, I concentrated on making
it *not* happen, and I eventually seemed to make some
progress.
> However, for the sake of argument, let's assume I found that to be a
> convincing story. I would sooner think you'd had a hallucination, or
> experienced an optical illusion than believe that some magic person
> saved a deer by giving you a vision.-
I don't think it was a magic person. I don't even think its
supernatural. I guess what I'm trying to say is that....
maybe some very unexplained things *are* natural.
I have some far better instances which I could site, particularly
with dreams.
What about this one little one (just remembered)! I'm driving
down the road with my (then) girlfriend. I suddenly see a
vision of my windshield breaking. I turn to her and ask, "Do
you think we could be just going down the road and then
the windshield suddenly breaks?"
She looked at me like I was crazy and said, "Uh,...
well nooo." I just smiled and said, of course not.
When I looked away from her and back at the street,
the windshield "popped", and a huge stress crack
broke down in a long line, from the roof on her side,
then horizontal completely across the window, ending
against the doorjam on my side.
She yelled, "Whoooooa! What the Hell?"
I looked at her, and tears came to my eyes.
She was laughing and asked, "what's wrong,
insurance will pay for it, its just a big crack"
I said, Yeah, but how did I know? How did I
know?
---
Mark
PJ
> On Jan 22, 3:06 pm, Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
>> I, personally, believe there may be such things as visions and
>> precognition. I don't believe those talents are God-sent.
>
Sal Towse is a "ma'am," not a "sir."
~ ~ ~
PJ
Jackson Pillock
Just to be clear, I understand it fine. I just don't buy it.
> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Ashby
"PJ" <autho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:glaajs$hei$1...@news.motzarella.org...
That's not laughter.
john
PJ
> "PJ" wrote
>> $Zero wrote:
>>> On Jan 22, 10:45 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 22, 7:28 am, serenebabe <sereneb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2009-01-22 09:41:23 -0500, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> said:
>>>> <>
>>>>
>>>>>> Anything that can't be explained using natural law.
>>>>> I should've read the whole list of messages before replying. I pretty
>>>>> much replied higher up in the thread. The jist? For me scientific
>>>>> explanations don't cancel out my experience of god (doesn't bother me
>>>>> if it's neurotransmitters, etc.).
>>>> The same goes for me with love and other emotions, so I can see what
>>>> you're saying.
>>> believers have better orgasms.
>> ROFL!!!
>
> That's not laughter.
Sure it is ... ooooooohhh ........ aaaaaahhhhhhh ... oooohhhhaaaahhhh
... ohhhhhhhhh my .......... yes .........YES! YES! YES!
Okay, maybe you're right.
~ ~ ~
PJ
serenebabe
Huh? No. It's my tapping into that power where I find strength I don't
have on my own.
It can be my effort *and* a power outside of me at the same time.
Not sure why you sound hostile? Maybe I'm reading you wrong?
Jackson Pillock
> On 2009-01-22 13:07:32 -0500, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> said:
> Huh? No. It's my tapping into that power where I find strength I don't
> have on my own.
I think it's an aspect of your brain. There is nothing about your
reported experience which makes me jump up and say, 'Wow! That could
only have been whatever-the-hell-serenebabe-means-when-she-says-god-
with-a-little-g.'
>
> It can be my effort *and* a power outside of me at the same time.
>
> Not sure why you sound hostile? Maybe I'm reading you wrong?
Call it adversarial. I'm not trying to be hostile.
Jackson Pillock
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'll believe what she's believing.
Towse
So says you. Ever met me?
Maybe it's all just a game and I'm a guy pretending to be a gal
pretending to be a guy on the innertubes.
Or not.
PJ
>>>> I, personally, believe there may be such things as visions and
>>>> precognition. I don't believe those talents are God-sent.
>>>
>>> Yes sir. Yes sir.
>>
>> Sal Towse is a "ma'am," not a "sir."
>
> So says you. Ever met me?
Well ... only virtually. But it's been a darned good friendship for more
than 12 years, so I sorta know you.
> Maybe it's all just a game and I'm a guy pretending to be a gal pretending to be a guy on the innertubes.
Could be, but even though you might be a great actress, I highly doubt
you're *that* good.
<g>
> Or not.
Ayep.
~ ~ ~
PJ
John Ashby
High five.
john
PJ
> "Jackson Pillock" wrote
>> On 22 Jan, 22:28, PJ wrote
>>> John Ashby wrote:
>>>> "PJ" wrote
>>>>> $Zero wrote:
>>>>>> believers have better orgasms.
>>>>> ROFL!!!
>>>> That's not laughter.
>>> Sure it is ... ooooooohhh ........ aaaaaahhhhhhh ... oooohhhhaaaahhhh ... ohhhhhhhhh my .......... yes .........YES! YES! YES!
>>> Okay, maybe you're right.
>> I'll believe what she's believing.
>
> High five.
<sob> I just really LOVE you guys.
~ ~ ~
PJ
Mark
Omg! Sorry,.....clothes look so unisex these days.
mark
Mark
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'll have what she's having
PJ
> PJ wrote
>> Mark wrote:
>>>> I, personally, believe there may be such things as visions and precognition. I don't believe those talents are God-sent.
>>> Yes sir. Yes sir.
>> Sal Towse is a "ma'am," not a "sir."
>
> Omg! Sorry,.....clothes look so unisex these days.
No need to apologize. Since I no longer have a fat butt, I'm often
mistaken for a man myself.
~ ~ ~
PJ
PJ
> On Jan 22, 5:28 pm, PJ <authores...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> John Ashby wrote:
>>> "PJ" wrote
>>>> $Zero wrote:
>>>>>> Heather wroge
>>>>>>> UV wrote
>>>>>> <>
>>>>>>>> Anything that can't be explained using natural law.
>>>>>>> I should've read the whole list of messages before replying. I pretty much replied higher up in the thread. The jist? For me scientific
>>>>>>> explanations don't cancel out my experience of god (doesn't bother me if it's neurotransmitters, etc.).
>>>>>> The same goes for me with love and other emotions, so I can see what you're saying.
>>>>> believers have better orgasms.
>>>> ROFL!!!
>>> That's not laughter.
>> Sure it is ... ooooooohhh ........ aaaaaahhhhhhh ... oooohhhhaaaahhhh ... ohhhhhhhhh my .......... yes .........YES! YES! YES!
>>
>> Okay, maybe you're right.
> I'll have what she's having
Hello, Harry? It's me, Sally, and I gotta tell ya, these folks on this
froup are a little too predictable for my liking. What's that? I should
lighten up on them? Give them a break? Yeah, well fuck you Harry, I
never liked you anyway.
~ ~ ~
PJ
Jackson Pillock
>
> - Show quoted text -
Harry (O.S., filtered): Would a last fuck be out of the question? You
know, old time's sake? I'll do that thing with the salad dressing.
boots
>On 22 Jan, 13:08, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >On 21 Jan, 19:21, serenebabe <sereneb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2009-01-21 14:07:43 -0500, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> said:
>> >> <...>> If being amazed, awed, in love, undone by nature's
>> >> > beauty is what you mean when you speak of 'faith,' then fine, I share
>> >> > it. I am human.
>>
>> >> <...>
>>
>> >> You weren't talking to me, but, that's pretty much how I'd describe
>> >> god.
>>
>> >We've been round this way before. Why call it god? It only leads to
>> >confusion.
>>
>> Is it something that should never be referred to?
>>
>> If it is referred to, isn't a label useful in identifying the
>> reference?
>
>
>How about "nature?"
I've been using "cosmic order" elsewhere because it points to the
order thingy AlbertE was referring to. Whatever, it could be called
"shitspiggot" and I'd be happy as long as everybody could agree on
what the fuck was being talked about. Well, nearly. Shitspiggot is
pretty distracting and makes me forget what's being talked about.
Whatever. I have little hope of the English-speaking world ever
agreeing on defintions of words as complex as "cat". Making do innit.
boots
boots
>I don't believe in things for which there is no evidence, especially
>when those things do not tie in with my experience of how the world
>is.
I used to think that way.
Then I had a few minor earthshaking experiences.
Funny thing, I still think that way.
My experience of how the world is, that's different now though.
boots
>Is there something wrong with trying to convince people of things?
There's an interesting question, Jackson.
I think it depends on who's going to profit from it, whether you're
trying to unload some crap aluminum siding or trying to keep someone
out of oncoming traffic.
But I am mistaken a lot.
boots
Doesn't matter PJ, let the lad salute instead of going to the brig.
<g>
boots
>Just to be clear, I understand it fine. I just don't buy it.
There's the essence of it. You won't buy it until it happens to you,
isn't that right?
boots
>On 22 Jan, 13:06, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >On 21 Jan, 18:58, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jan 21, 1:44 pm, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > I have no problem with Einstein's 'religion.' I just wish he'd called
>> >> > it something else.
>>
>> >> He called it what he wanted you to understand he meant
>>
>> >I understand it just fine, but lots of people are confused. Do you
>> >understand that Einstein "worshipped" the laws of nature, not a
>> >personal god with the power to violate them? No walking on water,
>>
>> I walk on water quite frequently this time of the year, though us
>> hicks call it "ice" in its frozen form.
>>
>> --
>> sig text to prevent insertion of advertising
>
>I have to drive on it quite a lot. I call it car-skating. Think I can
>get my own religion?
Why'na hell would you want one? What would you do with it? What's it
good for? Wouldn't you have to feed the damned thing?
Mark
>
> Doesn't matter PJ, let the lad salute instead of going to the brig.
>
> <g>
Makes me feel young when you call me lad.
I am most assuredly older than you son.