Re: Christianity Is Witchcraft
Darwin123
> the idea of curing it. There are many forms of schizophrenia which
> certainly can be cured by way of comparison with dyslexia.
The idea of "demonic impersonation" makes it hard to distinguish
any religion from witchcraft. If you except the idea that one spirit
can impersonate God, then one can use demonic impersonation to excuse
the divine inspiration of anybody you dislike.
If the supreme deity can be impersonated by an evil spirit, there
isn't a single religion that can't accused of worshiping the devil. I
won't point fingers because the logic is not specific to any one
religion. Every divine inspiration and every variation on monotheism
can be perceived as devil worship by people who believe in demonic
impersonation.
Maybe it is better not to believe in divine inspiration. Because
if God is not powerful enough or concerned enough to make his
intentions clear through divine inspiration, then all divine
inspiration is suspect.
John S. Wilkins
It's worse than that. Once you allow there may be malevolent beings with
divine-like powers (including, but not restricted to, Descartes' Evil
Demon) the very real possibility exists that there *is* no supreme
deity, just these guys.
Back to animism, I say!
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Paul J Gans
>> On Jun 27, 2:30 pm, Kevin <barry196...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > the idea of curing it. There are many forms of schizophrenia which
>> > certainly can be cured by way of comparison with dyslexia.
>> The idea of "demonic impersonation" makes it hard to distinguish
>> any religion from witchcraft. If you except the idea that one spirit
>> can impersonate God, then one can use demonic impersonation to excuse
>> the divine inspiration of anybody you dislike.
>> If the supreme deity can be impersonated by an evil spirit, there
>> isn't a single religion that can't accused of worshiping the devil. I
>> won't point fingers because the logic is not specific to any one
>> religion. Every divine inspiration and every variation on monotheism
>> can be perceived as devil worship by people who believe in demonic
>> impersonation.
>> Maybe it is better not to believe in divine inspiration. Because
>> if God is not powerful enough or concerned enough to make his
>> intentions clear through divine inspiration, then all divine
>> inspiration is suspect.
>It's worse than that. Once you allow there may be malevolent beings with
>divine-like powers (including, but not restricted to, Descartes' Evil
>Demon) the very real possibility exists that there *is* no supreme
>deity, just these guys.
>Back to animism, I say!
A dispasssionate observer might notice the omnipresence of evil, yes.
But there must be a Great Packleader in the Sky. There MUST. It
is in my genes to think so.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
<snip>
> A dispasssionate observer might notice the omnipresence of evil, yes.
>
> But there must be a Great Packleader in the Sky. There MUST. It
> is in my genes to think so.
An ingenious way to put it.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
*Hemidactylus*
Causational attribution might be in your genes, but this mindbrain
feature could get erroneous inputs from time to time (Skinner's
adventitious reinforcement) and misattribution of cause could rise to
the level of urban legend, myth, and then eventually a world religion.
Gods aren't hardwired, but the foundation for believing in misattributed
supernatural causes could be. The layers upon layers of misattribution
that get woven into threads of folklore operate in the cultural realm.
These "memes" aren't *sui generis* as Durkheim assumed sociological
constructs to be, but they could be treated as such, since little is
gained by exploring a very indirect genetic basis. Genes help build your
brain, but once fully formed and ready to process information, other
factors become more important than genes in shaping how your brain works
and creates your behaviors and beliefs.
*Hemidactylus*
> In article<iukvb3$la9$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> A dispasssionate observer might notice the omnipresence of evil, yes.
>>
>> But there must be a Great Packleader in the Sky. There MUST. It
>> is in my genes to think so.
>
> An ingenious way to put it.
>
John Vreeland
You can't fool me. Even the Devil believes in Jesus and is thus a
Christian.
Though I guess in principle he could simply be mistaken about the
whole thing. Where is Ray Martinez when you need him?
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.
John S. Wilkins
<ray>The Devil is anti-God and is therefore an Atheist, and hence he
*can't* believe in Jesus. </ray>
chris thompson
> John S. Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
I believe he lives in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Chris
Richard Harter
Wilkins) wrote:
You have something there. Conventionally the Devil and God are
treated as opponents, modulo questions about which is which and who is
more powerful. Suppose, however, we take the notion of evil as
separation from God seriously. If the Devil is the embodiment of the
principle of Evil then he is completely separate from God, i.e., he
cannot perceive God neither directly nor indirectly from evidences in
the creation. Ergo the Devil is an atheist (there is no God) who is
trying to fill the gap and become the missing God.
Ray Martinez
> Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 2:30 pm, Kevin <barry196...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > the idea of curing it. There are many forms of schizophrenia which
> > > certainly can be cured by way of comparison with dyslexia.
> > The idea of "demonic impersonation" makes it hard to distinguish
> > any religion from witchcraft. If you except the idea that one spirit
> > can impersonate God, then one can use demonic impersonation to excuse
> > the divine inspiration of anybody you dislike.
> > If the supreme deity can be impersonated by an evil spirit, there
> > isn't a single religion that can't accused of worshiping the devil. I
> > won't point fingers because the logic is not specific to any one
> > religion. Every divine inspiration and every variation on monotheism
> > can be perceived as devil worship by people who believe in demonic
> > impersonation.
> > Maybe it is better not to believe in divine inspiration. Because
> > if God is not powerful enough or concerned enough to make his
> > intentions clear through divine inspiration, then all divine
> > inspiration is suspect.
>
> It's worse than that.
Interpreted to mean that you generally, if not specifically, agree
with OP content.
In this context you then say:
> Once you allow there may be malevolent beings with
> divine-like powers (including, but not restricted to, Descartes' Evil
> Demon) the very real possibility exists that there *is* no supreme
> deity, just these guys.
>
> Back to animism, I say!
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since Descartes obtained the conceptual idea of "demon" (supernatural
evil, liar, deceiver) from the Scriptures, neither he nor anyone else
can use, define or explain the concept apart from the context of
Biblical Revelation.
In said Revelation the concept of demon is under the direct authority
of God. If demons were in control, they would not have allowed the
Scriptures to acknowledge their existence.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
[snip OP content, which was already entered into evidence----RM]
>
> > It's worse than that.
>
> Interpreted to mean that you generally, if not specifically, agree
> with OP content.
>
> In this context you then say:
>
> > Once you allow there may be malevolent beings with
> > divine-like powers (including, but not restricted to, Descartes' Evil
> > Demon) the very real possibility exists that there *is* no supreme
> > deity, just these guys.
>
> > Back to animism, I say!
> > --
> > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> > But al be that he was a philosophre,
> > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Since Descartes obtained the conceptual idea of "demon" (supernatural
> evil, liar, deceiver) from the Scriptures, neither he nor anyone else
> can use, define or explain the concept apart from the context of
> Biblical Revelation.
>
> In said Revelation the concept of demon is under the direct authority
> of God. If demons were in control, they would not have allowed the
> Scriptures to acknowledge their existence.
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
In addition: Descartes cannot employ the concept of "demon," then re-
define it other than how it is defined in Biblical Revelation, because
said employment is subjective and sourceless, a product of his
imagination.
This means his demon does not exist. He is refuted.
Ray
Ray Martinez
CORRECTION/ADDITION:
Last phrase should say: "a product of his non-inspired imagination."
Ray
*Hemidactylus*
that the Miami Vice episode "Prodigal Son" cannot exist and is refuted?
Unix and Linux use the concept of daemons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(computing)
Are these operating systems thus refuted?
Man you come back after a hiatus and hit the ground running.
John S. Wilkins
John S. Wilkins
> On 07/02/2011 04:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Jun 30, 11:53 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >>
> >
> > [snip OP content, which was already entered into evidence----RM]
> >
> >>
> >>> It's worse than that.
> >>
> >> Interpreted to mean that you generally, if not specifically, agree
> >> with OP content.
> >>
> >> In this context you then say:
> >>
> >>> Once you allow there may be malevolent beings with
> >>> divine-like powers (including, but not restricted to, Descartes' Evil
> >>> Demon) the very real possibility exists that there *is* no supreme
> >>> deity, just these guys.
> >>
> >>> Back to animism, I say!
> >>
> >> Since Descartes obtained the conceptual idea of "demon" (supernatural
> >> evil, liar, deceiver) from the Scriptures, neither he nor anyone else
> >> can use, define or explain the concept apart from the context of
> >> Biblical Revelation.
> >>
> >> In said Revelation the concept of demon is under the direct authority
> >> of God. If demons were in control, they would not have allowed the
> >> Scriptures to acknowledge their existence.
> >>
> >
> > In addition: Descartes cannot employ the concept of "demon," then re-
> > define it other than how it is defined in Biblical Revelation, because
> > said employment is subjective and sourceless, a product of his
> > imagination.
> >
> > This means his demon does not exist. He is refuted.
> >
> People use all sorts of biblically sourced allusions. Are you saying
> that the Miami Vice episode "Prodigal Son" cannot exist and is refuted?
>
> Unix and Linux use the concept of daemons:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(computing)
>
> Are these operating systems thus refuted?
>
> Man you come back after a hiatus and hit the ground running.
The Greek term daimon (daemon) means "spirit", not "devil". Descartes,
who had a decent education unlike Ray, knew this, and no more meant
devil than he meant to employ a biblical concept; Socrates had a
"daimon" that advised him - we'd call it his conscience or inspiration.
*Hemidactylus*
You guys are looking at this all wrong, reading Christian perversions
into Jewish theology. All Satan was is God's prosecuting attorney, whom
he colluded with in tormenting that poor fellow Job. There's no Gehenna,
only Sheol, where all souls rest and Satan is strangely absent. When
people die, they enter the Jewish version of the void. No lake of fire
and no pitchforks. Satan, when mentioned, does God's dirtywork, much
like Dog the Bountyhunter. Satan certainly had nothing to do with that
snake inspired nonsense in the Garden. All allusion to Satan in the
modern west are Christian misrepresentations of the mythical character.
They took a thrash heap, threw their perceived enemies into it with
bodies burning and placed a "fallen angel" in charge. Where is this
stuff found in the Jewish Tanakh?
Actually the good vs. evil dynamic that Jews were exposed via the
Zorastrian Persians has been superimposed upon the characters of Jesus
and Satan. Poor Satan got saddled with Ahriman's baggage.
*Hemidactylus*
Daemons are running in the background of many of the servers that give
you access to internet content, Ray. I bet you did not know this. The
deceiver is alive and well and deeply involved in a webpage near you.
The internet is thus possessed by daemons, but since they cannot exist
apart from a Biblical context, they are refuted. You have refuted
computer science Ray. You were attempting to destroy Darwinism, and
Unix/Linux got caught in the crossfire. Servers across the globe will
likely begin dropping out of existence as Ray exorcises the daemons away.
Httpd, begone! Ray sends you to the pits of hell!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Httpd
I think I just popped a hernia on this one (owww!!)
*Hemidactylus*
> *Hemidactylus*<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 07/02/2011 04:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 30, 11:53 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> [snip OP content, which was already entered into evidence----RM]
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It's worse than that.
>>>>
>>>> Interpreted to mean that you generally, if not specifically, agree
>>>> with OP content.
>>>>
>>>> In this context you then say:
>>>>
>>>>> Once you allow there may be malevolent beings with
>>>>> divine-like powers (including, but not restricted to, Descartes' Evil
>>>>> Demon) the very real possibility exists that there *is* no supreme
>>>>> deity, just these guys.
>>>>
>>>>> Back to animism, I say!
>>>>
>>>> Since Descartes obtained the conceptual idea of "demon" (supernatural
>>>> evil, liar, deceiver) from the Scriptures, neither he nor anyone else
>>>> can use, define or explain the concept apart from the context of
>>>> Biblical Revelation
>>>>
>>>> of God. If demons were in control, they would not have allowed the
>>>> Scriptures to acknowledge their existence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In addition: Descartes cannot employ the concept of "demon," then re-
>>> define it other than how it is defined in Biblical Revelation, because
>>> said employment is subjective and sourceless, a product of his
>>> imagination.
>>>
>>> This means his demon does not exist. He is refuted.
>>>
>> People use all sorts of biblically sourced allusions. Are you saying
>> that the Miami Vice episode "Prodigal Son" cannot exist and is refuted?
>>
>> Unix and Linux use the concept of daemons:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(computing)
>>
>> Are these operating systems thus refuted?
>>
>> Man you come back after a hiatus and hit the ground running.
>
> The Greek term daimon (daemon) means "spirit", not "devil". Descartes,
> who had a decent education unlike Ray, knew this, and no more meant
> devil than he meant to employ a biblical concept; Socrates had a
> "daimon" that advised him - we'd call it his conscience or inspiration.
And when I (or my client software like a browser) queries a web server
for a TCP handshake, is that server possessed by various daemons, such
as Httpd or crond?
John S. Wilkins
*Hemidactylus*
What say you Ray? Does Apache exist on LAMP, WAMP, and MAMP servers
across the globe? You might have interacted with Apache recently and
never realized your information came from a daemonically possessed
source. Google Groups access to Talk.Origins usenet might involve
daemonic servers. DIG might be knowingly using daemons on Darwin (aptly
named). These daemons are doing DIG's bidding.
The deceiver and his daemonic minions are alive and well and colluding
with your browser. Better shut off your computer before it is too late.
The deamons are waiting on you.
Have you recently been leased an IP address? Could be Satan's work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhcpd
Or can Dhcpd exist by your use of the term? Drats, that will cause
problems if you exorcise Dhcpd. Dhcpd be damned to the pits of hell. Ray
commands you!
*Hemidactylus*
[snip to do a Ray-like follow-up of myself)
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/programs/httpd.html
>
> What say you Ray? Does Apache exist on LAMP, WAMP, and MAMP servers
> across the globe?
Oops, left BAMP (BSD based) out of the list. Sorry. Didn't mean to
offend those Satan worshippers. Just look at their logo and you know why
Penguins are the best birds. PC-BSD is a great idea though if it become
more user friendly., but that's just a ploy to recruit more computer
enthusiasts into Satanism:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Bsd_daemon.jpg
vs.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Tux-G2.svg
Tux is not evil. How could a penguin be evil. He's as lovable as can be
for a mascot, unlike that BSD chap.
Looked for SAMP, assuming maybe Solaris could be added to the acronym
and here it is:
http://blogs.oracle.com/nealix/entry/samp_solaris_apache_2_mysql
Ray has single-handedly refuted cross platform implementation of Apache
(LAMP, WAMP, MAMP, BAMP, and SAMP). Daemons be damned to hell!
Josh
Didn't certain apostate Jews borrow the concept of demons from the
Greeks during the period when Greeks ruled Israel? Before this time
they had a concept of fallen angels, but not of demons that could
possess a human being. They turned the Greek helpful spirits into evil
spirits. I'm not sure, but I think it's one of the things that brought
about the Christian apostasy.
Malygris
Actually that was Crom.
--
Malygris
Nick Keighley
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 12:19:31 +1000, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
> Wilkins) wrote:
<snip>
> ><ray>The Devil is anti-God and is therefore an Atheist, and hence he
> >*can't* believe in Jesus. </ray>
>
> You have something there. �Conventionally the Devil and God are
> treated as opponents, modulo questions about which is which and who is
> more powerful. �Suppose, however, we take the notion of evil as
> separation from God seriously.
As a 10 year old theologian (I still consider my 10 year old self had
some very interesting questions) I was surprised to hear that "since
God created everything" he must also have created the Devil. It seemed
unsymetrical to me. If God could be self created why couldn't the
Devil? If God was Good why did he create bad things? And in particular
why the Prince of Evil?
As to why I thought these things (I learned early on actually asking
the questions out loud was a bad idea), the meta questions, I'm
guessing it was being from an unreligious household but attending a
religious school. I got the idea that Greek and Norse mythology were
of equal provenance (but with better stories) to Christian mythology.
Hence the idea of multiple devine beings didn't seem odd. Though I now
note thet Greek and Norse mysthology is pretty hierarchic.
Perhaps that's what TO is for. An audience for my inner child...
> If the Devil is the embodiment of the
> principle of Evil then he is completely separate from God, i.e., he
> cannot perceive God neither directly nor indirectly from evidences in
> the creation. �Ergo the Devil is an atheist (there is no God) who is
> trying to fill the gap and become the missing God.
--
Nick Keighley
Kleuskes & Moos
> On 07/01/2011 01:28 PM, Walter Bushell wrote:> In article<iukvb3$la...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > � Paul J Gans<gan...@panix.com> �wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> A dispasssionate observer might notice the omnipresence of evil, yes.
>
> >> But there must be a Great Packleader in the Sky. �There MUST. �It
> >> is in my genes to think so.
>
> > An ingenious way to put it.
>
> If I attacked it, that would be disingenious. Who am I to dis the genes?
A disgenius?
Perseus
the existence of demons are a necessity to upheld the existence of
god. If take the demons out of the picture, the existence of god
makes not any sense at all.
Then, if god created demons is not a good god, but an imperfect god,
for created bad creatures, like demons, humans and other pests, even
if some of them are of microscopic size. Then, god would be a
malevolent creature. Then, this is absurd and proves that god does
not exist.
Perseus
John S. Wilkins
Perseus
> On Jun 27, 2:30�pm, Kevin <barry196...@yahoo.com> wrote:> the idea of curing it. There are many forms of schizophrenia which
> > certainly can be cured by way of comparison with dyslexia.
>
> � �The idea of "demonic impersonation" makes it hard to distinguish
> any religion from witchcraft. If you except the idea that one spirit
> can impersonate God, then one can use demonic impersonation to excuse
> the divine inspiration of anybody you dislike.
> � � If the supreme deity can be impersonated by an evil spirit, there
> isn't a single religion that can't accused of worshiping the devil. �I
> won't point fingers because the logic is not specific to any one
> religion. Every divine inspiration and every variation on monotheism
> can be perceived as devil worship by people who believe in demonic
> impersonation.
> � � Maybe it is better not to believe in divine inspiration. Because
> if God is not powerful enough or concerned enough to make his
> intentions clear through divine inspiration, then all divine
> inspiration is suspect.
one of the troubles of the inquisition to domesticate the mystics who
had "visions" was to instill fear in them, for the visions could be
considered satanic. Then, they kept on a sort leash the so called
mystic to check on what their visions were. If the visions were
obnoxious or undesirable for religious authorities, it was clearly a
case of satanic visions.
Perseus
Perseus
> On 07/01/2011 01:15 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Darwin123<drosen0...@yahoo.com> �wrote:
there is also to take into account the case of Skinner's pigeon
superstition.
In this experiment, a pigeon was being rewarded at random. Then the
pigeon considered the rewards as a consequence of the movement it has
done previously. Then, as the pigeon was hungry kept repeating the
same movement for a while. As the reward was a random one, the
behavior was slowly changing, for sometimes the reward do not
coincided with what the pigeon was doing. So, even if the animal was
repeating quite often the same behavior, sometimes the animal
perceived the reward as for doing something a little different.
The same thing can occur with humans. And this can explain the
feeling of superstition.
Perseus
Perseus
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 16:53:00 +1000, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Wilkins) wrote:
I think that Satan and God are a part of the same divinity. The
different faces of a coin.
A sort of dual divinity made at the same time of God and Evil. It is
enough to read the Ancient Testament to understand that god sometimes
behave like an Evil god, sometimes like a good god. It is the same
situation with the evil and the nice policeman interrogating a suspect
person of crime.
Perseus
Perseus
I think the Satan-God duality was a reflection of the dual behavior of
the preachers that invented the myth of god. As they were
interpreting reality in terms of good and evil, they needed both a
Satan and a God to explain the facts. And when the Israelites were
compelled to exterminated a population it was explain as a mandate
from God, like Hitler did killing the Jews. It was a mandate from god,
sometimes. In other occasions were a mandate from the fatherland. He
ordered to exterminate the Jews for the good of the fatherland. That
is following the designs of god. Like the Roman Catholics authorities
killing heretical protestants, witches and sodomites. That is why I
think that there is the most fuzzy border between god and Satan. For
both qualities are within the inner self of all religious authorities.
Perseus
Darwin123
Or maybe the authorities were basing their beliefs on satanic
visions. After all, even established religions base their doctrine on
the divine revelation of mystics.
Geode
I dont think was based on the visions of mystics, but on the logic of
power. Sometimes they can adopt a peculiar vision of a mystic or
other, but basically, the rules of religious authorities were meant to
keep the reins of power in their hands. I sum it was politics, and
needed the help of the kings, or ordinary authorities. Like in the US
where religion and conservative politics walk holding hands.
Perseus
Darwin123
I believe that most mystics, even "sincere" mystics, are
influenced by power. Mystic insights come from an nonverbal parts of
the brain. If there is any logic in mysticism, it is unconscious
logic. Yet, the sensory inputs are the same. I conjecture that even a
mystic vision is influenced by the culture and prejudices of the
person having the vision.
Many authorities are also mystics. "Personality cults" are full
of mystics. I think it is dangerous to suppose they are "insincere" in
any way. I suspect that followers sense sincerity, not matter how
crazy it is presented, and follow it.
What one shouldn't do is project ones own dishonesty on
charismatic personalities. Tyrants use their opponents insincerity. A
tyrant can eat an "insincere" person alive, whichever side he is on.
Ray Martinez
> *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 07/02/2011 04:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > >>> On Jun 30, 11:53 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > > [snip OP content, which was already entered into evidence----RM]
>
> > >>> It's worse than that.
>
> > >> Interpreted to mean that you generally, if not specifically, agree
> > >> with OP content.
>
> > >> In this context you then say:
>
> > >>> Once you allow there may be malevolent beings with
> > >>> divine-like powers (including, but not restricted to, Descartes' Evil
> > >>> Demon) the very real possibility exists that there *is* no supreme
> > >>> deity, just these guys.
>
> > >>> Back to animism, I say!
>
> > >> Since Descartes obtained the conceptual idea of "demon" (supernatural
> > >> evil, liar, deceiver) from the Scriptures, neither he nor anyone else
> > >> can use, define or explain the concept apart from the context of
> > >> Biblical Revelation.
>
> > >> In said Revelation the concept of demon is under the direct authority
> > >> of God. If demons were in control, they would not have allowed the
> > >> Scriptures to acknowledge their existence.
>
> > > In addition: Descartes cannot employ the concept of "demon," then re-
> > > define it other than how it is defined in Biblical Revelation, because
> > > imagination.
>
> > > This means his demon does not exist. He is refuted.
>
> > People use all sorts of biblically sourced allusions. Are you saying
> > that the Miami Vice episode "Prodigal Son" cannot exist and is refuted?
>
> > Unix and Linux use the concept of daemons:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(computing)
>
> > Are these operating systems thus refuted?
>
> > Man you come back after a hiatus and hit the ground running.
>
> The Greek term daimon (daemon) means "spirit", not "devil". Descartes,
> who had a decent education unlike Ray, knew this, and no more meant
Very sloppy and inaccurate message by a person (John Wilkins) with an
advanced degree.
Nobody said the Greek word for demon meant devil. (Why Wilkins would
invent such a blatant misrepresentation is beyond explanation.)
The Greek word for demon actually means "evil spirit." Wilkins was the
one who initiated Descartes Evil Demon into this topic, not me.
I responded, addressing Descartes Evil DEMON (not devil). The argument
is very famous and considered irrefutable. But anyone with an
Evangelical understanding of Theology can refute Descartes.
WHERE did Descartes OBTAIN the idea for the concept of demon?
Whatever the source, the same refutes his usage of the concept as made-
up, subjective, quote-mine. (Demons do not have ultimate and absolute
power.)
Ray
Perseus
it is difficult to argue about this point you present. Anyway, there
exists actors, and their acting is compelling in most cases. How much
are we acting in real life? We can be more or less good actors. It
is difficult to determine this for an outside observer.
It is a little bit the case of a schizophrenia. We cannot determine
how real are the fantasies of a person suffering this. For sometimes
he is within the bounders of reality like any other person. The only
difference is the moments in which he manifest his fantasies that are
not commonly share by other people.
A similar case is the leaders of some religions, or some ideologies.
How much they believe all that shit? Are they really sure it is true
what are preaching? Or they simply need to have followers and this is
the main way to have them?
Let me put as an example this man, Harold Camping, that predicted the
end of the world for May 21 this year. Did he really believe that
shit? Or was he longing for the followers he had when he predicted
the end of the world for September 6, 1994, or two years later, on
April 3, 1996.
Having these visions, or rather preaching them to people with
assuredness, showing one has faith in what one is telling... produces
a lot of emotion on gullible people, that has been conditioned to
believe this short of trash; like miracles and supernatural wonders.
For it is real that most people is rather immune to these type of
deliriums. Then, it is difficult to discern if the visionary is a
real one, a perfect unadulterated schizophrenic, or is just a actor.
The same can be said of Hitler. Did he really believe all this shit
he was preaching about the superiority of the Aryan race and the
misery of Germany was caused by Jews, or was he simple preaching this
sort of shit because people around him believe it? What would had
happened if nobody around Hitler would had not believe any these
doctrinal excrements? The History would had been different. It
would not had existed a Nazi party or something. But Hitler had not
enough imagination to invent all this trash. he simple pick it up
reader popular papers and pamphlets with this shit printed. But they
needed an actor that could preach all this bullshit without winking an
eye, without showing the least sign of doubt.
There is the case of Dorothy Martin (a.k.a. Marian Keech) that mixed
UFO fantasies with Christian mysticism and predicted the end of the
world for Dic 21, 1954 by flooding. Water would sourced up from the
Salt Lake and flood the whole world. A group of a few hundred people
believe her.
I am not going to mention all the swindlers that predicted the end of
the World, like the captain William Miller that predicted the faithful
would be raptured between May 21 of 1843 and May 21 of 1844. From
this failed prediction resulted some new branches of Christianity,
giving birth to the Second and the Seventh Day Adventists.
Or for the case, the example of David Koresh of Waco, Texas, that
declared himself the reincarnation of the Messiah, and predicted the
end of the world for 1995. His prediction was in error for the end
really happened in April 19 of year 1993, putting a fire on the place
he was living while sieged but the FBI and the ATF police force that
came with a search and arrest warrant.
I think that all these mystics and political leaders are sort of liars
and swindlers. They are able to scam people with their lies. It is
that simple. Their reward is the worshiping of gullible people around
them, that seem to believe all this trash.
Perseus
Perseus
the Christians were those that the determined ad posteriori that all
demons were evil spirits, except of course the angels of the lord.
That were the only good spirits. Then as Greeks were pagans all
their demons would be declared "evil spirits". But they were not
considered as such by the Ancient Greeks of Romans. The romans spoke
of genies instead of the demons of the Greeks. These spiritual
entities were on the rank of minor gods, like the nymphs, the muses
and the satyrs. They were imaginary supernatural beings, like Jehovah
or Jesus the Man-God, or Zeus and Poseidon.
Perseus
Burkhard
No it doesn't. That was your mistake that John pointed out. "Daimon"
in Greek is simply spirit or soul, and no value judgement attaches -
hence in Hesiod, you find:
"When in the Grave this Race of Men was lay'd,
Soon was the World of holy D�mons made.
Aeiral Spirts, by great Jove design'd,
To be on Earth the Guardians of Mankind;"
Later, you get e.g. the concept of "eudaemonia", happiness, discussed
by amongst others Aristotle, Etymologically a combination of
"eu" (good) and "daimon", spirit - so hte highest good is a daemon
too.
So in the classical text, that Descartes undoubtedly knew, "daemons"
can be either benign or malevolent, you have to be explicit which one
it is, but what they have in common is that hey are more powerful than
man, which is all that Descartes needs.
Wilkins was the
> one who initiated Descartes Evil Demon into this topic, not me.
> I responded, addressing Descartes Evil DEMON (not devil). The argument
> is very famous and considered irrefutable. But anyone with an
> Evangelical understanding of Theology can refute Descartes.
>
> WHERE did Descartes OBTAIN the idea for the concept of demon?
It is a thought experiment to test analytically the limits of our
knowledge. It does the job extremely well. Descartes does not claim
such a thing exists, he posits it merely hypothetically to test if any
reliable knowledge remain even if, contra factum, we were to assume
such a being. So to that extend, he makes it up, but inspired no doubt
by both Christian and ancient Greek ideas. The concept of a deceiver
god for rather similar arguments is discussed e.g. by Plutarch and
Doesn't really matter, as the attributes are, as he says very clearly,
purely hypothetically posited.
>
> Whatever the source, the same refutes his usage of the concept as made-
> up, subjective, quote-mine. (Demons do not have ultimate and absolute
> power.)
And you miss the point entirely. Descartes does not say that such a
demon/deceiver god exists, in fact his whole project is to knock down
that idea. He reasons hypothetically, to test the consistency of
concepts, not making empirical claims
>
> Ray
SkyEyes
> > On Jun 27, 2:30 pm, Kevin <barry196...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > the idea of curing it. There are many forms of schizophrenia which
> > > certainly can be cured by way of comparison with dyslexia.
> > � �The idea of "demonic impersonation" makes it hard to distinguish
> > any religion from witchcraft. If you except the idea that one spirit
> > can impersonate God, then one can use demonic impersonation to excuse
> > the divine inspiration of anybody you dislike.
> > � � If the supreme deity can be impersonated by an evil spirit, there
> > isn't a single religion that can't accused of worshiping the devil. �I
> > won't point fingers because the logic is not specific to any one
> > religion. Every divine inspiration and every variation on monotheism
> > can be perceived as devil worship by people who believe in demonic
> > impersonation.
> > � � Maybe it is better not to believe in divine inspiration. Because
> > if God is not powerful enough or concerned enough to make his
> > intentions clear through divine inspiration, then all divine
> > inspiration is suspect.
>
> divine-like powers (including, but not restricted to, Descartes' Evil
> Demon) the very real possibility exists that there *is* no supreme
> deity, just these guys.
>
> Back to animism, I say!
Be it known that the cats heartily agree with that sentiment.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
Ray Martinez
Wilkins put words in my mouth. All you have to do is post the link and
quote showing where I said what Wilkins has me saying....waiting.
Ray
[....]
Burkhard
here you are:
>Since Descartes obtained the conceptual idea of
"demon" (supernatural
> > > > > >> evil, liar, deceiver)
and here of course:
> The Greek word for demon actually means "evil spirit."
The Greek "demon" does not carry the negative connotations you claim,
which is John's point.
Ray Martinez
> On Jul 6, 12:18�ｿｽam, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 5, 11:54�ｿｽam, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 5, 6:14�ｿｽpm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "demon" (supernatural
>
> > > > > > >> evil, liar, deceiver)
>
> and here of course:
>
> > The Greek word for demon actually means "evil spirit."
>
> The Greek "demon" does not carry the negative connotations you claim,
> which is John's point.
No, Wilkins said that I conflated demon with devil. I did no such
thing. Do you agree?
We can continue on once this simple issue is resolved.
Ray
*Hemidactylus*
Would the jinn of the pre-Islamic Arabs be similar?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinn#Jinn_in_the_pre-Islamic_era
*Hemidactylus*
So what are your thoughts of the use of the term daemon in computer
science...waiting?
Ray Martinez
> On 07/05/2011 07:18 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> On Jul 5, 6:14 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> 锟絯rote:> >>>> *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> 锟絯rote:
I am not concerned with "claims" made in the context of science
fiction or computer programming.
Ray
*Hemidactylus*
> On Jul 5, 4:26 pm, Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 12:18 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 5, 11:54 am, Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 5, 6:14 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "demon" (supernatural
>>
>>>>>>>>> evil, liar, deceiver)
>>
>> and here of course:
>>
>>> The Greek word for demon actually means "evil spirit."
>>
>> The Greek "demon" does not carry the negative connotations you claim,
>> which is John's point.
>
> No, Wilkins said that I conflated demon with devil. I did no such
> thing. Do you agree?
>
> We can continue on once this simple issue is resolved.
>
Can computer nerds use the term if they want to or do they have to have
your special permission? You criticizing Descartes for how he chose to
use a term is priceless, but then again Descartes was capable of
publishing stuff that others read and took seriously. Descartes used the
term for a thought experiment, which has some relevance to cognitive
philosophy and all its overdone brain in vat mind games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat
Or Daniel Dennett in _Consciousness Explained_ [p. 3. pbk]: "This old
saw, the brain in the vat, is a favorite thought experiment in the
toolkit of many philosophers. It is a modern-day version of Descartes's
(1641) evil demon, an imagined illusionist bent on tricking Descartes
about absolutely everything, including his own existence."
Regardless of whether Descartes used Christian or Greek conceptions of
"demon", you make yourself look really silly claiming nobody can borrow
the concept for their own use as Descartes did. Concepts, like species,
change over time. That's why words often have multiple definitions.
Wilkins might have assumed you were conflating demon and devil, but this
is an irrelevant side issue. You are practically patent trolling over
the term "demon" as if Christians have sole authority to use the term. I
countered about whether daemon is a term that could be used in
Linux/Unix and have yet to see a reply from you.
*Hemidactylus*
> On Jul 5, 6:16 pm, *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 07/05/2011 07:18 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> On Jul 5, 6:14 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 2, 4:14 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>
In other words you have realized you made a boo boo and have no clear
way to backpedal out of this one so you will avoid it (= inability to
refute). Wilkins point out a wider usage of demon/daemon that you are
able to deal with, so you focus on a silly sidebar (whether he
misattributed a conflation of demon and devil on your part). That helps
shield you from dealing with the larger issues at hand, namely your
patent trolling on the term "demon".
*Hemidactylus*
infringement. True Christian have trademarked the term "demon" and only
they can use it. Greeks can't use it as they didn't submit the proper
paper work. Descartes infringed on the trademark as have developers of
Unix and Linux, since daemon cannot be shown to be different enough from
demon and should cease and desist. Dr. Wilkins with his background in
philosophy cannot opine as Ray Martinez is the sole authority on how the
term "demon" can be used. If Descartes weren't dead, he would be
reprimanded severely.
I think, given Ray's supreme authority on this matter, he should add the
title Demonologist to his signature (alongside Immutabilist).
Obviously Ray take immutability seriously and carries it over to word
usage. Only the strict True Christian usage of demon is correct and only
Ray has the authority to define it.
We stand corrected.
He will soon proclaim the official definition of Objectivism, where
fundies like him can be members and Ayn Rand can go to heaven. Just like
Descartes cannot use the term demon as he saw fit, Ray is allowed to use
Objectivism in a manner contrary to the beliefs of its founder.
Priceless.
*Hemidactylus*
approved by him, yet he sees fit to use Objectivism in a manner that its
founder Ayn Rand would surely find objectionable, God rest her soul up
there in Heaven.
Perseus
It is the same idea. It is difficult to discern who copied the word
genius from. If the Romans copied from the Arabic, or it is a simple
coincidence. It is the same concept as the daemons of the Ancient
Greeks.
Perseus
John S. Wilkins
Genius means "of the gens", i.e., the family (etymologically connected
to genus, derived from the Indo-European/Greek). It applied to local
spirits. I would think that the direction was Roman to Arab, if there is
any connection at all, which Wikipedia says not:
"Jinn is a word of the collective number in Arabic, derived from the
Arabic root g-n-n meaning 'to hide' or 'be hidden'."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinn
As to Descartes' idea, here's an English translation fromt he
Meditations:
"I shall then suppose, not that God who is supremely good and the
fountain of truth, but some evil genius not less powerful than
deceitful, has employed his whole energies in deceiving me; I shall
consider that the heavens, the earth, colours, figures, sound, and all
other external things are nought but the illusions and dreams of which
this genius has availed himself in order to lay traps for my credulity;
I shall consider myself as having no hands, no eyes, no flesh, no blood,
nor any senses, yet falsely believing myself to possess all these
things; I shall remain obstinately attached to this idea, and if by this
means it is not in my power to arrive at the knowledge of any truth, I
may at least do what is in my power [i.e. suspend my judgment], and with
firm purpose avoid giving credence to any false thing, or being imposed
upon by this arch deceiver, however powerful and deceptive he may be. "
The Latin is
"Supponam igitur non optimum Deum, fontem veritatis, sed genium aliquem
malignum..." so "genius" is a better translation than "demon". Here it
means some spirit like the Roman "genius", but the term "genius" is
neither of good nor evil intent as such.
Burkhard
I agree with you that you don't conflate demon with devil. I agree
with john that you conflate demon with evil spirit
Ray Martinez
Finally....
> I agree
> with john that you conflate demon with evil spirit
>
It was John Wilkins who INITIATED Descartes into this discussion. When
this occurred he mentioned his "Evil Demon" argument. Descartes
understands, unlike Wilkins, that the definition of demon is "evil
spirit" which is what I said too, however. I do acknowledge that in
credible sources only "spirit" appears. The context of usage, though,
makes it clear what kind of spirit is being addressed.
Ray
*Hemidactylus*
> On Jul 6, 1:51 am, Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 12:40 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 5, 4:26 pm, Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 6, 12:18 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 5, 11:54 am, Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Jul 5, 6:14 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> "demon" (supernatural
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> evil, liar, deceiver)
>>
>>>> and here of course:
>>
>>>>> The Greek word for demon actually means "evil spirit."
>>
>>>> The Greek "demon" does not carry the negative connotations you claim,
>>>> which is John's point.
>>
>>> No, Wilkins said that I conflated demon with devil. I did no such
>>> thing. Do you agree?
>>
>> I agree with you that you don't conflate demon with devil.
>
> Finally....
>
>> I agree
>> with john that you conflate demon with evil spirit
>>
>
> It was John Wilkins who INITIATED Descartes into this discussion. When
> this occurred he mentioned his "Evil Demon" argument. Descartes
> understands, unlike Wilkins, that the definition of demon is "evil
> spirit" which is what I said too, however. I do acknowledge that in
> credible sources only "spirit" appears. The context of usage, though,
> makes it clear what kind of spirit is being addressed.
Evil=adjective and demon=noun.
Ever hear of eudaemonism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia
Have you ever been in good spirits, Ray?
Demons can be good, bad, or indifferent.
Day Brown
> On Jun 27, 2:30 pm, Kevin<barry196...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> the idea of curing it. There are many forms of schizophrenia which
>> certainly can be cured by way of comparison with dyslexia.
> The idea of "demonic impersonation" makes it hard to distinguish
> any religion from witchcraft. If you except the idea that one spirit
> can impersonate God, then one can use demonic impersonation to excuse
> the divine inspiration of anybody you dislike.
> If the supreme deity can be impersonated by an evil spirit, there
> isn't a single religion that can't accused of worshiping the devil. I
> won't point fingers because the logic is not specific to any one
> religion. Every divine inspiration and every variation on monotheism
> can be perceived as devil worship by people who believe in demonic
> impersonation.
> Maybe it is better not to believe in divine inspiration. Because
> if God is not powerful enough or concerned enough to make his
> intentions clear through divine inspiration, then all divine
> inspiration is suspect.
>
>
is so easily debunked, but altered states of consciousness- which dont
make the same claims to be debunked either.
They are either unwilling or unable to enter the altered state, and so
far as I can tell, consistently say it is delusion, without ever having
the direct experience. Granted psychosis can produce both delusion and
spiritual awakening; but enlightenment does not match the psychological
definition of delusion.
Whether this is better or not, cant say. Shit happens.
Mark Isaak
> On 06/30/2011 10:39 PM, Darwin123 wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 2:30 pm, Kevin<barry196...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> the idea of curing it. There are many forms of schizophrenia which
>>> certainly can be cured by way of comparison with dyslexia.
>> The idea of "demonic impersonation" makes it hard to distinguish
>> any religion from witchcraft. If you except the idea that one spirit
>> can impersonate God, then one can use demonic impersonation to excuse
>> the divine inspiration of anybody you dislike.
>> If the supreme deity can be impersonated by an evil spirit, there
>> isn't a single religion that can't accused of worshiping the devil. I
>> won't point fingers because the logic is not specific to any one
>> religion. Every divine inspiration and every variation on monotheism
>> can be perceived as devil worship by people who believe in demonic
>> impersonation.
>> Maybe it is better not to believe in divine inspiration. Because
>> if God is not powerful enough or concerned enough to make his
>> intentions clear through divine inspiration, then all divine
>> inspiration is suspect.
>>
>>
> Atheists consistently ignore traditions based, not on scripture, which
> is so easily debunked, but altered states of consciousness- which dont
> make the same claims to be debunked either.
I have heard them debunked. Granted, the debunking was by a Protestant
minister, not by an atheist, but that should not matter to the argument.
The argument, basically, is (1) traditions based on altered states of
consciousness cannot be verified, not even by the person experiencing
them. The minister brought up a famous Christian mystic -- I forgot her
name -- who for years was not sure if her visions were really from God.
And (2) the traditions from various people conflict one to another.
> They are either unwilling or unable to enter the altered state, and so
> far as I can tell, consistently say it is delusion, without ever having
> the direct experience. Granted psychosis can produce both delusion and
> spiritual awakening; but enlightenment does not match the psychological
> definition of delusion.
I enter altered states of consciousness, on average, more than once per
day (the most common state is usually called "REM sleep"). If you are
asking me for something more and different, then no I am not willing to
subject myself to brain damage on your say so. Furthermore, psychosis is
not the only alternative. Fantasy-prone personality is another, and
there are likely more that we do not know about.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Kevin
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think Christianity put way too much thought into what is a demon for
me to dispute their expertise... Jesus simply used the idea of what is
a demon for political gain... Jesus performed exorcisms so that no one
would claim that Jesus refused to help them... Paul used demon
possession as a reason for why some people would not submit to the
authority of his church organization.
*Hemidactylus*
Has Ray abandoned this topic? That's a shame if so.