Atheism - the most thoughtful position for the intelligent man
Rob Arch Ward
>
> Would you care to compare intelligence either by test, or accomplishments
> obtained through cognitive skills?
Is there any purpose to this ? So what if I have less/greater skills
than person B over there ? What is the purpose of this ? So what if
I am less intelligent
Is this a veiled ad hominem attack on the post ?
> I know you wont because your post shows enough to tell everyone that you
> have little if any skills.
How does it do this ? By whose analysis ? Yours ?
Your arguments are nonsensical and unsupported
Your education could be in years, but your
> sources are faulty.
> A full fledged scientist can only come to an agnostic conclusion regarding
> any deity.
Nah I was an agnostic for years and now disagree with this
The more intelligent position is to take the hypothesis that a
deity is non-existent until its existence is proven, as many other
intelligent
atheistic scientists have done, including my twin bro, PhD in pure math
> Being a believer in Jesus Christ takes no intelligence whatsoever.
> Intelligence (massive scientific education) also does not preclude a belief
> in God or Jesus Christ.
I agree with this. What is your point ?
My post was rather an emotional outburst on the massive, unscientific,
anti-gay
propoganda surrounding me. -Rob
--
------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed above are mine and
additionally those of any/all of the "FORTUNE(tm)
500" top-producing multinational corporations.
"Hm...lets lie down for 30 mins and then find
out if we still want to do that, OK?" -Rob Ward
(arms) rw...@smtpgw.arms.ohio-state.edu
(other) wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu
------------------------------------------
teresita_mercado
>The more intelligent position is to take the hypothesis that
>a deity is non-existent until its existence is proven, as many >other
>intelligent atheistic scientists have done, including my >twin bro, PhD in pure
>math
This is the fallacy of Argumentum Ad Verecundiam, or Appeal to Authority. The
*scientific* position is to draw a conclusion about a deity from existing data.
"Scientific" may or may not be equivelent to "intelligent". A monkey can follow
a procedure. Intelligence is often guaged by the ability to take fresh, bold,
intuitive leaps in logic to solve problems.
Teresita
MyKill
>
> Vernon o wrote:
> >
> > Would you care to compare intelligence either by test, or accomplishments
> > obtained through cognitive skills?
>
> Is there any purpose to this ? So what if I have less/greater skills
> than person B over there ? What is the purpose of this ? So what if
> I am less intelligent
Intelligence as interpreted commonly refers to speed of
cognition. I think it irrelevant the speed of cognition - as
long as cognition eventually occurs! And some of our
smartist people work as janitors and dishwashers. -It is
morons who excel in management!
> Is this a veiled ad hominem attack on the post ?
>
> > I know you wont because your post shows enough to tell everyone that you
> > have little if any skills.
>
> How does it do this ? By whose analysis ? Yours ?
> Your arguments are nonsensical and unsupported
>
> Your education could be in years, but your
> > sources are faulty.
> > A full fledged scientist can only come to an agnostic conclusion regarding
> > any deity.
>
> Nah I was an agnostic for years and now disagree with this
>
> The more intelligent position is to take the hypothesis that a
> deity is non-existent until its existence is proven, as many other
> intelligent
> atheistic scientists have done, including my twin bro, PhD in pure math
And how is this different from asserting the hypothesis
Omnipotent Deity is real until proven otherwise? - Either
hypothesis is arbitrary. The intelligent choice is to pick
the hypothesis that is more comfortable and/or helpful. Most
of us are Christians or religious at the moment of mourning
a death - in such a circumstance the idea of a God taking
care of an undying spirit is far more comforting than the
materialistic alternative.
> > Being a believer in Jesus Christ takes no intelligence whatsoever.
> > Intelligence (massive scientific education) also does not preclude a belief
> > in God or Jesus Christ.
Believing in Science rather than Theology doesn't require
intelligence either. Intelligence is required to explore,
test and justify a position - not to have one.
> I agree with this. What is your point ?
>
> My post was rather an emotional outburst on the massive, unscientific,
> anti-gay
> propoganda surrounding me. -Rob
Gay people are the MASTER RACE! All are inferior compared to
us! We are stonger, run faster, jump higher, and are three
times as intelligent and moral as any breeder! -And look Ma!
-No intelligence required to make such a statement!
MyKill
MyKill
> >a deity is non-existent until its existence is proven, as many >other
> >intelligent atheistic scientists have done, including my >twin bro, PhD in pure
> >math
>
> *scientific* position is to draw a conclusion about a deity from existing data.
> "Scientific" may or may not be equivelent to "intelligent". A monkey can follow
> a procedure. Intelligence is often guaged by the ability to take fresh, bold,
> intuitive leaps in logic to solve problems.
>
That what Evil people do! -People who must be killed and
exterminated if we are to protect the staus quo and keep our
families safe! Communism was an "intuitive leap in logic to
solve problems"! First we should shoot all the artists...
Real intellect is doing good things like memorizing the
periodic table and formulas for math and physics! "Intuitive
leaps in logic to solve problems" is a cancerous tumor of
truth. We KNOW what the truth is - "Intuitive" leaps will
only get in the way of proving it!
=;-)
MyKill
teresita_mercado
>"fresh, bold,intuitive leaps in logic to solve problems"? -
>That what Evil people do! -People who must be killed and
>exterminated if we are to protect the staus quo and keep our
>families safe!
That's like in Rand's "Anthem", don't bother us with your electric light thingy,
what would we do with all the displaced candle-makers? Have you thought about
that? Hmmm?
>Real intellect is doing good things like memorizing the
>periodic table and formulas for math and physics!
Real intellect is the idea of arranging all the elements in a table IN THE FIRST
PLACE!
Teresita
MyKill
my sensless stupid fun reactionary rant: Commie-ism!
Intelligence is not just one thing. Creativity is valuable -
but in my experience, more creative eople are making minimum
wage at McDonalds than are doing anything remotely
"sucessfull". Creativity really is bad thing to the thinking
of most companies and management: disturbing the happy baby
- upsetting the personal ego of the boss or manager -
upsetting to those attached to status quo.... Creativity is
at once crucial to progress and reviled as unwelcome.
MyKill
Mindflayer
fell sweep: <6rknlb$l...@pdrn.zippo.com>
> In article <35DDD1...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu>, Rob says...
>
> >The more intelligent position is to take the hypothesis that
> >a deity is non-existent until its existence is proven, as many >other
> >intelligent atheistic scientists have done, including my >twin bro, PhD in pure
> >math
>
> This is the fallacy of Argumentum Ad Verecundiam, or Appeal to Authority. The
> *scientific* position is to draw a conclusion about a deity from existing data.
Teresita, have you ever heard of a funny little scientific thing
called "null hypothesis"?.. There is no data -> null-hypothesis is that
there is no deity.
--
************************************************************************
* Mindflayer alt.atheist #696 * There are no believable gods... *
* BAAWA knight atheist Rev. #69 * -- Ozzy Osbourne, *
* http://www.cs.umass.edu/~danilche/ * "I just want you" *
************************************************************************
teresita_mercado
min...@ix.netcom.com says...
>Teresita, have you ever heard of a funny little scientific
>thing called "null hypothesis"?.. There is no data -> >null-hypothesis is that
>there is no deity.
1. Fictionite is defined as the dark matter necessary to explain the orbits of
visible stars in the Milky Way, which move as though influenced by a great deal
of "missing mass" which is not observed.
2. There is no observational data on fictionite.
3. Null-hypothesis<----there is no fictionite.
Sounds scientific, don't it?
Teresita
Elroy Willis
<wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>Vernon o wrote:
>> Being a believer in Jesus Christ takes no intelligence whatsoever.
Is this a possible Theist QoM? Or maybe somebody already nominated
this one?
Elroy
Michelle Malkin
Mickey (Michelle Malkin) BAAWA
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
...it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful
to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing or in disbelieving;
it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.
-- Thomas Paine - The Age of Reason
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
e-mail in reverse to:moc.gnirpsdnim@7bniklam
Xalan
Teresita Mercado wrote in message <6rlht8$7...@pdrn.zippo.com>...
:In article <MPG.1047ecfe5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
But you stated an observable data...the orbit of visible stars....that's how the
theory of 'Dark Matter' was formed. Visible evidence therefore not Null.
||| |||
|||
||| |||ALAN #1211
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------"Hospitality is making your guests feel at home, even though
you wish they were."
"Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it in for me"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
My ICQ# is 12811297 My Homepage: http://www3.mistral.co.uk/xalan/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Jim Sarbeck
>
>1. Fictionite is defined as the dark matter necessary to explain the orbits of
>visible stars in the Milky Way, which move as though influenced by a great deal
>of "missing mass" which is not observed.
>
>2. There is no observational data on fictionite.
>
>3. Null-hypothesis<----there is no fictionite.
>
>Sounds scientific, don't it?
You have it! That *is* the scientific expression of the burden of proof of
fictionite. And now, scientists have to *get data* that disproves the null
hypothesis, if fictionite is to be considered realite. Of course you may be
right that some scientists may be speaking as though fictionite "must" be
realite or is the "best" naturalistic explanation of the phenomenon you
describe; and many, many more in the lay press and its readership think the
proof is in, but so what? You have the concept of disproof of the null
hypothesis right (by proving the alternative hypothesis), they who leap to
conclusions have it wrong.
Now apply your incisiveness to deity.
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Jeff Wilson
<mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>Rob Arch Ward wrote:
>> The more intelligent position is to take the hypothesis that a
>> deity is non-existent until its existence is proven, as many other
>> intelligent
>> atheistic scientists have done, including my twin bro, PhD in pure math
>
>And how is this different from asserting the hypothesis
>Omnipotent Deity is real until proven otherwise? - Either
>hypothesis is arbitrary. The intelligent choice is to pick
>the hypothesis that is more comfortable and/or helpful. Most
>of us are Christians or religious at the moment of mourning
>a death - in such a circumstance the idea of a God taking
>care of an undying spirit is far more comforting than the
>materialistic alternative.
I think you're falling into a couple of errors.
One is an error that many religious people fall into: the
idea that everyone is "really" religious. For me, the fact
that something appears to me to be false precludes my
having any regard for it just because it might be
comfortable. Even in times of grief, I don't want to be
duped. I gather that religious people just don't get this,
which is fair enough, I guess, since I don't get how
religious people can really believe the intangible,
undemonstrable, and unheard-of things they say they
believe.
Another is the idea that where nothing is known, it is
reasonable to assume whatever you feel like assuming.
The god hypothesis is unfounded for the same reason
that the idea that the universe is run by invisible chocolate
bunnies is unfounded. There are an infinite number of
things for which there is no evidence. Are you going to
believe all of them? Are you going to believe all the ones
you find comfortable? Why some invisible god and not
invisible chocolate bunnies? Both ideas are equally well
founded. Chocolate bunnies are, if anything, more
comfortable than most other gods. They would certainly
be tastier if they weren't also intangible. I'll admit that I
can't prove the universe is not run by invisible chocolate
bunnies. Since there's no evidence offered for them,
there's no way to show the evidence doesn't support the
hypothesis.
All past attempts to present hard evidence for gods have
been unceremoniously dumped to the joke-pile long ago.
Check out Saint Augustine, if you want to be staggered
by what passed for reasonable arguments for gods in past
ages. The more intelligent religious people no longer
attempt to offer any evidence at all any more, which is
definitely the smart (restricted sense) thing to do if they
want to keep their faith. To me, choosing something for
which there is no foundation just because it's comfortable
doesn't seem intelligent in the least: it seems escapist.
For myself, if I have a stroke or something that radically
changes my brain, I'll try the invisible chocolate bunnies
first. They seem more appealing than Jehovah, and
appealingness is apparently all that's needed.
Please remove the capital X's from my e-mail address.
They are meant to thwart unsolicited commercial mail.
MyKill
Having experienced much death in my family, I know from
experience that I, non Christian, do go through the motions
at funeral time. Going through the motions is the most most
Christians do also - so that makes me Christian enough at
the moment in time.
>
> Another is the idea that where nothing is known, it is
> reasonable to assume whatever you feel like assuming.
> The god hypothesis is unfounded for the same reason
> that the idea that the universe is run by invisible chocolate
> bunnies is unfounded. There are an infinite number of
> things for which there is no evidence. Are you going to
> believe all of them? Are you going to believe all the ones
> you find comfortable? Why some invisible god and not
> invisible chocolate bunnies? Both ideas are equally well
> founded. Chocolate bunnies are, if anything, more
> comfortable than most other gods. They would certainly
> be tastier if they weren't also intangible. I'll admit that I
> can't prove the universe is not run by invisible chocolate
> bunnies. Since there's no evidence offered for them,
> there's no way to show the evidence doesn't support the
> hypothesis.
Chocolate Bunnies I don't know about - but if it works for
you I won't argue... -Oh, I'm sorry, your choice is "none of
the above" - that's fine too, but is no less arbitrary a
choice.
Many people are born into preexisting reality structures
than include belief in religion or lack thereof. Being born
into such a structure, most of us believed it wholeheartedly
at least for early childhood. All structures we're born into
, at heart, are as arbitrary as allmighty Chocolate Bunnies.
These structures however, are part of our very basic
experience and thus show up as part of who we are.
Science can fly in the face of some reality structures,
Creationism for example. But smart people don't take such
structures as religious too seriously and only insist it
holds up metaphorically - which even Chocolate Bunnies can
do.
If one look hard enough, I'm sure signifigcant insights can
be found through examination of even Chocolate Bunnies if
they are taken to be meaningful metaphorically.
>
> All past attempts to present hard evidence for gods have
> been unceremoniously dumped to the joke-pile long ago.
> Check out Saint Augustine, if you want to be staggered
> by what passed for reasonable arguments for gods in past
> ages. The more intelligent religious people no longer
> attempt to offer any evidence at all any more, which is
> definitely the smart (restricted sense) thing to do if they
> want to keep their faith. To me, choosing something for
> which there is no foundation just because it's comfortable
> doesn't seem intelligent in the least: it seems escapist.
There is no proof. Any belief fails the test of
reasonableness and is, at heart, as arbitrary as Chocolate
Bunnies. You assume any God does not exist for lack of
evidence - I accuse you of adopting such a faith solely
because it is a COMFORTABLE fit with your other views of how
the world works!
>
> For myself, if I have a stroke or something that radically
> changes my brain, I'll try the invisible chocolate bunnies
> first. They seem more appealing than Jehovah, and
> appealingness is apparently all that's needed.
You can probably score some Acid in the park opposite your
local High School if you want to speed up the process.
I think it is a good thing for people born into Christianity
to remain Christian and validate their set of metaphors and
fight the ugliness rampant in that religion. Why not? People
severly attached to religion can only improve their behavior
if someone shows them how from the same context as their
religion. Christianity is validated by lots of people being
Christians. Chocolate Bunny worship is just plain
anti-social!
MyKill
Chris Peterson
> e...@cyberramp.net (Elroy Willis) wrote:
> >On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 15:59:52 -0400, Rob Arch Ward
> ><wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> >>Vernon o wrote:
> >>> Being a believer in Jesus Christ takes no intelligence whatsoever.
> >Is this a possible Theist QoM? Or maybe somebody already nominated
> >this one?
> >Elroy
I will 2nd this if nobody else has yet.
--
Chris Peterson #1075
Mindflayer
> In article <MPG.1047ecfe5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> min...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> >Teresita, have you ever heard of a funny little scientific
> >thing called "null hypothesis"?.. There is no data -> >null-hypothesis is that
> >there is no deity.
>
> visible stars in the Milky Way, which move as though influenced by a great deal
> of "missing mass" which is not observed.
>
> 2. There is no observational data on fictionite.
>
> 3. Null-hypothesis<----there is no fictionite.
>
> Sounds scientific, don't it?
Yup. Trouble is, since the galaxies do move that way, the null-
hypothesis is rejected by the simple act of defining that "fictionite"
thing. Deity is not only unnecessary -- it does not EXPLAIN anything. The
explanatory and predictive power of your "deity hypothesis" happens to be
zero.
G.M.B. a # 557
>In article <MPG.1047ecfe5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>min...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>>Teresita, have you ever heard of a funny little scientific
>>thing called "null hypothesis"?.. There is no data -> >null-hypothesis is that
>>there is no deity.
>
>1. Fictionite is defined as the dark matter necessary to explain the orbits of
>visible stars in the Milky Way, which move as though influenced by a great deal
>of "missing mass" which is not observed.
>
>2. There is no observational data on fictionite.
>
>3. Null-hypothesis<----there is no fictionite.
>
>Sounds scientific, don't it?
>
>Teresita
It must be.........Because I'll be damned if I understood any of
it... :-)
Jeff Wilson
<mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>There is no proof. Any belief fails the test of
>reasonableness and is, at heart, as arbitrary as Chocolate
>Bunnies. You assume any God does not exist for lack of
>evidence - I accuse you of adopting such a faith solely
>because it is a COMFORTABLE fit with your other views of how
>the world works!
The null hypothesis is always the default in any contention.
It can be invalidated by proof to the contrary, and that is in fact
how things that actually are true get to be known. The null
hypothesis does not assert anything, so there is nothing to be
proven.
Somebody in another thread here argued that since nothing
is something, it's impossible for there to be nothing. This is
a piece of Jesuit-style sophistry, confounding the concept of a
thing (or lack) with the thing (or lack) itself. You're doing the
same thing by pretending that the null hypothesis is a non-null
hypothesis, then attacking it as a non-null hypothesis. The
concept of a non-null hypothesis is a thing, to be sure, but null
itself is not. The concept is something that people use
because our brains require that we work with ideas. You're
merely playing with the imperfections in the shorthand that
people use in thinking. I hope you haven't been so successful
with that replacement that you've fooled yourself as well!
MyKill
>
> On Sat, 22 Aug 1998 15:28:23 -0700, MyKill
> <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >reasonableness and is, at heart, as arbitrary as Chocolate
> >Bunnies. You assume any God does not exist for lack of
> >evidence - I accuse you of adopting such a faith solely
> >because it is a COMFORTABLE fit with your other views of how
> >the world works!
>
> It can be invalidated by proof to the contrary, and that is in fact
> how things that actually are true get to be known. The null
> hypothesis does not assert anything, so there is nothing to be
> proven.
The assertion that God may or may not exist and that you
don't know -is a statement asserting nothing. This is the
statement I would assert. To say God is not real is a
positive assertion - in English. Your semantics may be
practical for the purpose of science. Science has yet to
reach the point where evidence for or against a sentient
controlling will for all reality is determinable - so
notions of God are, for now, patently unscientific. Thus it
is only fair to use the semantics of English and not those
of Science.
>
> Somebody in another thread here argued that since nothing
> is something, it's impossible for there to be nothing. This is
> a piece of Jesuit-style sophistry, confounding the concept of a
> thing (or lack) with the thing (or lack) itself. You're doing the
> same thing by pretending that the null hypothesis is a non-null
> hypothesis, then attacking it as a non-null hypothesis. The
> concept of a non-null hypothesis is a thing, to be sure, but null
> itself is not. The concept is something that people use
> because our brains require that we work with ideas. You're
> merely playing with the imperfections in the shorthand that
> people use in thinking. I hope you haven't been so successful
> with that replacement that you've fooled yourself as well!
Yes God is not real - is a null hypothesis - as far as
Science is capable of determining now. However Science is
limited and to pretend what is a null hypothesis to Science
is a relevant argumentative point outside of Science is to
pretend Science hasn't limits. -You are being an extreme
fundamentalist for the cult of Science if that is the case -
little different from certain Christians in your strength of
faith.
MyKill
Jeff Wilson
<mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Yes God is not real - is a null hypothesis - as far as
>Science is capable of determining now. However Science is
>limited and to pretend what is a null hypothesis to Science
>is a relevant argumentative point outside of Science is to
>pretend Science hasn't limits. -You are being an extreme
>fundamentalist for the cult of Science if that is the case -
>little different from certain Christians in your strength of
>faith.
Science works, and it is not a matter of opinion.
I've already presented my reason why I need no
support for a null hypothesis. It's time for your
non-spiritual reason why a godhead must really
exist. If you don't have one, you're in the wrong
newsgroup. Arguments depending entirely on
spirituality are, of course, dismissed offhand in
this newsgroup unless and until some support for
spirituality can be decisively and objectively
demonstrated, as the predictive power of science
readily can be to all sane people.
You might want to try:
alt.philosophy.debate
alt.speech.debate
MyKill
>
> On Sun, 23 Aug 1998 03:03:06 -0700, MyKill
> <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes God is not real - is a null hypothesis - as far as
> >Science is capable of determining now. However Science is
> >limited and to pretend what is a null hypothesis to Science
> >is a relevant argumentative point outside of Science is to
> >pretend Science hasn't limits. -You are being an extreme
> >fundamentalist for the cult of Science if that is the case -
> >little different from certain Christians in your strength of
> >faith.
>
> Science works,
So what? Full blown psychosis works too if that's who you
are. Newtonian physics works even though its completely
absurd on a quantum level. We know religion works for the
religious because they tell us so and any other way of
knowing - other than sharing in the faith too - is absurd!
and it is not a matter of opinion.
A lot of Science has resulted in pollution, poverty and mass
starvation (Agriculture alone can account for the last two
[humans only enjoyed true egalitarianism as
hunter-gatherers]). There's no shortage of domains where
whether Science works or not is a questionable opinion.
> I've already presented my reason why I need no
> support for a null hypothesis. It's time for your
> non-spiritual reason why a godhead must really
> exist. If you don't have one, you're in the wrong
> newsgroup. Arguments depending entirely on
> spirituality are, of course, dismissed offhand in
> this newsgroup unless and until some support for
> spirituality can be decisively and objectively
> demonstrated, as the predictive power of science
> readily can be to all sane people.
It is no opinion that God is a subjective reality for many
people. It is no opinion the the accounts of the religious
are of a belief that really works. Logic insists that
personal revelation is perhaps the very best way to know
something. Logic also demands that relying on an
"authorities" knowledge or experience is no proof or premise
for an argument.
Inferance insists the sun will rise tomorrow as it had done
every morning since time has been recorded. It cannot be
proven a fact in logic. Inferance demands that the shared
experience of GOD on the part of many people carry weight.
It is impossible to discount that weight soley due to
personal bias against the notion of God. Or do you really
believe it is the nature of a first hand personal experience
that categorizes it as valid or not.
(Here I'm in a tough situation, as I'm not really a
religious person and am not intimate with claimed
proofs....)
Proof of God is a popular hobby of many Religious and
Spiritual people. If claims to drink lethal poison and
suffer cobra bites with no ill effects are real - Science
has no proof for the phenomena. Experiences of precognition,
being "taken by the Spirit", of healing, of prayer altering
reality ... all these experiences invite the statitician to
distinguish probability as "coincidence" is possible - but
so too is phenomena outside of Science supporting the notion
of supernatural power or of God possible or likely.
Science does hint (Thanx to Einstein) that all experience
(even scintifically measured by cold technology) is
subjective, by the way.
Since when do the methodologies of Science outweigh those of
logic and reason? Is that not paralell to the practice of
Christians holding their Bible as outweighing the methods of
logic and reason?
> You might want to try:
> alt.philosophy.debate
> alt.speech.debate
Thanx for the suggestion. Am I to infer alt.atheism is no
forum for debate as you know that you're RIGHT? -If you've
no room for cognitive dissonance I could be wasting my
time...
MyKill
jimh
>>[jh]Apparently you're out of touch with recent work in logic,
>>where its been argued by some that either some contradictions are
>>true or for some contradictions it is rational to believe that they
>>are true.
>[dk] It is never rational to believe that way.
[jh] This is simply an unsupported assertion not an argument.
>[dk]If you do come to a contradiction, check your premises.
>One or more of them are incorrect.
[jh] "Incorrect" is meaningless in the above context. In logic
premises are properly described as being consistent or
inconsistent.
>[dk]To believe that a contradiction is true is to violate all three
>axioms of logic: identity, excluded-middle and non-contradiction.
[jh]Wrong. Paraconsistent logics are defined as those which do not include
the principle ex falso quodlibet. Some dialethic logics, contain the law
of contradiction some do not. Further some paraconsistent
logics maintain that it is rational to believe that contradictions are true
rather than maintain that contradictions are true. [See references cited
in previous post ].
>>[jh]Kant in CPR argues that reason demands we think that the universe
>>has a beginning in time and /or space or that it has no begining in time
>>and/or space. However if the universe has a beginning in time we can
>>always imagine a time prior to this beginning in which it must
>>have begun,
>[dk]No we cannot, since there was no "prior" to the beginning in temporal
>terms. Time started when the big bang happened. There was no temporal "before".
[jh]You've got the science here hopelessly wrong. Hartle-Hawking
does *not* say that "Time started when the big bang happened".
For HH time is *bounded* by the big bang, nevertheless there was
no first moment.
Further, your comment is irrelevant since I was outlining *Kant's*
views ,* not* contemporary scientific ones. [This was obvious as I
began "Kant in CPR argues...."] I also stated [see below] that an
obvious objection to Kant's view was that it was outdated "in the light
of the Hartle-Hawking model ie where time and space were smeared
out close to the Big Bang.
>[dk]That's logic.
[jh] Its a demonstration of your failure to understand the
Hartle-Hawking model.
>>[jh] but if it had no beginning in time we cannot see how it could
>>begin at all. We therefore have a paradoxical conception of the universe.
>[dk]Not at all.
[jh] *Again* you are seemingly unable to provide any argument in support
of your view expressed here. This is becoming tedious.
>>[jh]Kant argues that these two reasoned but conflicting pictures are ones
>>which human reason must *necessarily* encounter. If it is true that
>>infinity when applied to the universe results in a *self-contradictory
>>yet necessary* conception then it is logically possible for a given
>>conception to be self-contradictory.
>>[dk]No bub. Infinity is a mathematical concept, and can be as large
>>or small as need be.
[jh]Another absurdly irrelevant comment as it was *Kant's*
conception of space/time that was being outlined*not* a
Cantorian view of infinity(ies). Again this was obvious as I
began "Kant argues.....".
>>[dk]the universe is finite and non-bounded. Please do a
>> little research into cosmology.
[jh] You should follow your own advice here as you've
got the science wrong again. Scientists do not know if the
universe is finite or infinite [see Barrow (1992 ) p51]. The comment is
in any case irrelevant as, once again, I was outlining Kant's views.
>>[jh]Thus if *some* conception can be self contradictory then
>>it is logically possible to
>>say of the conception of an omnipotent being that its
>>description *could* contain contradictory properties without
>>being incoherent. The argument works if we accept
>>that infinity as applied to cosmological questions, by its paradoxical
>>nature , compels us to to conceive of it in a fashion at odds
>>with the law of non-contradiction whilst at the same time
>>remaining necessary to our reasoning.
>>[jh]This is sufficient to prove that self-contradictory concepts are logically
>> possible.
>[dk]What? You didn't prove one fucking thing...well other than you speak
>Kantian gibberish.
[jh] No doubt to *you* Kant's work, which is demanding,
would appear as gibberish.
.
>>[jh]An obvious objection to the above is that Kant's argument was
>>based on Euclidean geometry
>[dk]Euclid's geometry, not Euclidean geometry. Euclidean is the stuff we get
>taught in grade/high school. Euclid's is what Henri Poincare
>showed----hyperbolic geometry.
[jh]Euclid presented five postulates from which he developed a large body
of theorems - a system we call Euclidean geometry. Your comment here
doesn't make sense.
>>[jh] and is outdated in the light of , for
>>example, the Hartle-Hawking model where time and space would
>>be smeared out close to Big Bang. If HH is accepted however, we
>>can still formulate a weaker version of the argument above:
>[dk]No, we can't. We must reject it as being completely false.
[jh] Again an empty injunction, not an argument.
>>[jh]it can be maintained that just as we have come to
>>understand the notion of infinity [ie as presented by Kant]
>[dk] Kant presents a false idea of infinity. Ergo.....
[jh] Kant's paradoxical conception of infinity *is* now outdated
- that was the point of what I was saying. So far you
shown that you have not even understood the argument as
presented, nor have you raised a single valid objection to it
( in either the strong or weak versions).
>>[jh] in a non-contradictory fashion, then we might have reason to suppose
>>that the concept of omnipotence could eventually also be
>>understood in a non-contradictory fashion.
>>Thus a deity is a possibly logically possible conception.
>[dk]What a smegging load of shit.
[jh] Lets face it -comments like this are about all you have going for
you, since its obvious you can't hack science or logic.
Most of what you've written above consists of assertion or irrelevancies.
Elsewhere you demonstrate that you don't understand even the basics of
the Hartle-Hawking model and are unaquainted with even basic cosmological
findings.
Jim H
maff91
<mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Jeff Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 1998 03:03:06 -0700, MyKill
>> <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Yes God is not real - is a null hypothesis - as far as
>> >Science is capable of determining now. However Science is
>> >limited and to pretend what is a null hypothesis to Science
>> >is a relevant argumentative point outside of Science is to
>> >pretend Science hasn't limits. -You are being an extreme
>> >fundamentalist for the cult of Science if that is the case -
>> >little different from certain Christians in your strength of
>> >faith.
>>
>> Science works,
>
>So what? Full blown psychosis works too if that's who you
>are. Newtonian physics works even though its completely
>absurd on a quantum level. We know religion works for the
So what? The Scientific method is to model the natural world which
corresponds to the observations (evidence) and has some predictive
power.
When evidence comes along which doesn't correspond to the theory
(Newton's theory), new hypothesis are proposed. If they agree with the
evidence, then they become the new theory.
>religious because they tell us so and any other way of
>knowing - other than sharing in the faith too - is absurd!
But Science works whether you believe in or not.
>
>and it is not a matter of opinion.
>
>A lot of Science has resulted in pollution, poverty and mass
>starvation (Agriculture alone can account for the last two
>[humans only enjoyed true egalitarianism as
You are talking about business practices, government policies which
results in those abuses. What has Science got to do with it?
So why are arguing about it?
>
>Proof of God is a popular hobby of many Religious and
>Spiritual people. If claims to drink lethal poison and
>suffer cobra bites with no ill effects are real - Science
>has no proof for the phenomena. Experiences of precognition,
Well. It could be the immune system. If something happens to the body,
it has a perfectly natural explanation for it.
>being "taken by the Spirit", of healing, of prayer altering
>reality ... all these experiences invite the statitician to
>distinguish probability as "coincidence" is possible - but
>so too is phenomena outside of Science supporting the notion
>of supernatural power or of God possible or likely.
LOL!
>
>Science does hint (Thanx to Einstein) that all experience
>(even scintifically measured by cold technology) is
>subjective, by the way.
Yep. The computer you are using, Internet, etc are all subjective. If
you don't believe in Science, they won't work.
>
>Since when do the methodologies of Science outweigh those of
>logic and reason? Is that not paralell to the practice of
>Christians holding their Bible as outweighing the methods of
>logic and reason?
You mean we can give up Science and religion will feed us. NOT!
>
>> You might want to try:
>> alt.philosophy.debate
>> alt.speech.debate
>
>Thanx for the suggestion. Am I to infer alt.atheism is no
>forum for debate as you know that you're RIGHT? -If you've
>no room for cognitive dissonance I could be wasting my
>time...
All what we have heard is assertions.
Definitions of Scientific Method, Hypothesis and Theory.
http://www.bbc.peachnet.edu/academic_svcs/art_science/chambers/pol101/sci_meth.htm
http://www.scientificmethod.com/i_7.htm
http://www.bbc.peachnet.edu/academic_svcs/art_science/chambers/pol101/theory.htm
Jeff Wilson
<mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>So what? Full blown psychosis works too if that's who you
>are. Newtonian physics works even though its completely
>absurd on a quantum level. We know religion works for the
>religious because they tell us so and any other way of
>knowing - other than sharing in the faith too - is absurd!
I didn't say that all science was right. I pat myself on
the back for being careful to say " the predictive power
of science", since I figured you would come back with
something like you did. Science has embarrassed
itself often enough in the past when it claimed that it
equalled reality that now it does not do more than say
it is an attempt to model reality.
Newton comes close enough for most purposes
even today, though his model is now felt to be wrong in
principle. Where is the predictive power of religion?
It's not even in the ball park.
Now for your next point. Religion can have health
benefits for the religious because of the psychological
benefit of security, real or imagined. That's a scientific
feature, not a religious one. As has been pointed out
a million times before, that effect says nothing about
the truth of any religion. Among the indications of
that is the fact what the particular religion provides
the health benefits makes no difference.
>
>and it is not a matter of opinion.
>
>A lot of Science has resulted in pollution, poverty and mass
>starvation (Agriculture alone can account for the last two
>[humans only enjoyed true egalitarianism as
>hunter-gatherers]). There's no shortage of domains where
>whether Science works or not is a questionable opinion.
What has that to do with truth? Are you defining truth
as that which happens to have consequences that
are beneficial to humans according to some standard?
>
>> I've already presented my reason why I need no
>> support for a null hypothesis. It's time for your
>> non-spiritual reason why a godhead must really
>> exist. If you don't have one, you're in the wrong
>> newsgroup. Arguments depending entirely on
>> spirituality are, of course, dismissed offhand in
>> this newsgroup unless and until some support for
>> spirituality can be decisively and objectively
>> demonstrated, as the predictive power of science
>> readily can be to all sane people.
>
>It is no opinion that God is a subjective reality for many
>people. It is no opinion the the accounts of the religious
>are of a belief that really works. Logic insists that
>personal revelation is perhaps the very best way to know
>something. Logic also demands that relying on an
>"authorities" knowledge or experience is no proof or premise
>for an argument.
Personal revelation has nothing to do with logic.
Since no-one knows everything, people have to rely
on authorities. These authorities are discredited if they
are shown to be full of baloney. I'm sure not all the
baloney in science has been excised, but when I look
at religion all I can see is baloney. There's not a
glimmer of proof of anything, the scenarios are such as
was never seen on sea or land, and the predictive
value is zero.
>
>Inferance insists the sun will rise tomorrow as it had done
>every morning since time has been recorded. It cannot be
>proven a fact in logic. Inferance demands that the shared
>experience of GOD on the part of many people carry weight.
>It is impossible to discount that weight soley due to
>personal bias against the notion of God. Or do you really
>believe it is the nature of a first hand personal experience
>that categorizes it as valid or not.
However, if you predict the sun will rise tomorrow based
on the inductive process, you will probably be right.
Science is part observation and induction, as well as part
logic. Deductive logic by itself gets you nowhere. Nothing
is ever settled for sure in science, but theories are regarded
as more valuable when they make predictions that are
borne out. No points for religion here, since religion is
hardly ever right except when it re-interprets after the fact.
>
>(Here I'm in a tough situation, as I'm not really a
>religious person and am not intimate with claimed
>proofs....)
>
>Proof of God is a popular hobby of many Religious and
>Spiritual people. If claims to drink lethal poison and
>suffer cobra bites with no ill effects are real - Science
>has no proof for the phenomena. Experiences of precognition,
>being "taken by the Spirit", of healing, of prayer altering
>reality ... all these experiences invite the statitician to
>distinguish probability as "coincidence" is possible - but
>so too is phenomena outside of Science supporting the notion
>of supernatural power or of God possible or likely.
>
>Science does hint (Thanx to Einstein) that all experience
>(even scintifically measured by cold technology) is
>subjective, by the way.
Predictive power is by far a superior indication of
worthwhileness. Science has demonstrated this power
and religion has not. Newton may have been wrong,
but his predictions were right with great accuracy, and
the discrepancies that were eventually detected,
precisely because his predictions were so close, paved
the way for better theories: hence progress. No points
for religion here.
>
>Since when do the methodologies of Science outweigh those of
>logic and reason? Is that not paralell to the practice of
>Christians holding their Bible as outweighing the methods of
>logic and reason?
The proof is in the pudding. Predictive power.
>
>> You might want to try:
>> alt.philosophy.debate
>> alt.speech.debate
>
>Thanx for the suggestion. Am I to infer alt.atheism is no
>forum for debate as you know that you're RIGHT? -If you've
>no room for cognitive dissonance I could be wasting my
>time...
Alt.atheism is no place for mere debating tricks, in
my opinion. Sorry, but I've found your use of those
really annoying.
-----
My apologies to maff91, since I seem to have mostly
said the same things you did in different words, except
for my expression of irritation at the end. I'm sending
this anyway because I wrote it before I saw your post,
and I want to salve my own annoyance with mykill's
methods.
MyKill
> >>
> >> On Sun, 23 Aug 1998 03:03:06 -0700, MyKill
> >> <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Yes God is not real - is a null hypothesis - as far as
> >> >Science is capable of determining now. However Science is
> >> >limited and to pretend what is a null hypothesis to Science
> >> >is a relevant argumentative point outside of Science is to
> >> >pretend Science hasn't limits. -You are being an extreme
> >> >fundamentalist for the cult of Science if that is the case -
> >> >little different from certain Christians in your strength of
> >> >faith.
> >>
> >> Science works,
> >
> >are. Newtonian physics works even though its completely
> >absurd on a quantum level. We know religion works for the
>
> corresponds to the observations (evidence) and has some predictive
> power.
>
> When evidence comes along which doesn't correspond to the theory
> (Newton's theory), new hypothesis are proposed. If they agree with the
> evidence, then they become the new theory.
Of course Science works! I'm not arguing that point. -I'm
claiming that that fact alone doesn't distinguish it.
>
> >religious because they tell us so and any other way of
> >knowing - other than sharing in the faith too - is absurd!
>
> But Science works whether you believe in or not.
>
Religion does too - or such is the account of many of the
converted.
> >
> >and it is not a matter of opinion.
The nature of religious revelation, for the person blessed
with such, is that it is no matter of opinion. For the rest
of us it is a matter of opinion.
> >A lot of Science has resulted in pollution, poverty and mass
> >starvation (Agriculture alone can account for the last two
> >[humans only enjoyed true egalitarianism as
>
> You are talking about business practices, government policies which
> results in those abuses. What has Science got to do with it?
Science works to do what?
> >hunter-gatherers]). There's no shortage of domains where
> >whether Science works or not is a questionable opinion.
> >
> >> I've already presented my reason why I need no
> >> support for a null hypothesis. It's time for your
> >> non-spiritual reason why a godhead must really
> >> exist. If you don't have one, you're in the wrong
> >> newsgroup. Arguments depending entirely on
> >> spirituality are, of course, dismissed offhand in
> >> this newsgroup unless and until some support for
> >> spirituality can be decisively and objectively
> >> demonstrated, as the predictive power of science
> >> readily can be to all sane people.
> >
> >It is no opinion that God is a subjective reality for many
> >people. It is no opinion the the accounts of the religious
> >are of a belief that really works. Logic insists that
> >personal revelation is perhaps the very best way to know
> >something. Logic also demands that relying on an
> >"authorities" knowledge or experience is no proof or premise
> >for an argument.
> >
> >Inferance insists the sun will rise tomorrow as it had done
> >every morning since time has been recorded. It cannot be
> >proven a fact in logic. Inferance demands that the shared
> >experience of GOD on the part of many people carry weight.
> >It is impossible to discount that weight soley due to
> >personal bias against the notion of God. Or do you really
> >believe it is the nature of a first hand personal experience
> >that categorizes it as valid or not.
> >
> >(Here I'm in a tough situation, as I'm not really a
> >religious person and am not intimate with claimed
> >proofs....)
>
> So why are arguing about it?
Because I find the notion that a Man can prove a claim to
KNOW God does not exist as totally stupid and blind as
anyone who claims the KNOW God does exist and be capable of
proving it.
>
> >
> >Proof of God is a popular hobby of many Religious and
> >Spiritual people. If claims to drink lethal poison and
> >suffer cobra bites with no ill effects are real - Science
> >has no proof for the phenomena. Experiences of precognition,
>
> Well. It could be the immune system. If something happens to the body,
> it has a perfectly natural explanation for it.
Yeah, but there's always that first time. Let me feed you a
glass full of strychnine and we'll see how fast your immune
system adapts. -Same with the Cobra bites -these folks don't
treat the bites!
>
> >being "taken by the Spirit", of healing, of prayer altering
> >reality ... all these experiences invite the statitician to
> >distinguish probability as "coincidence" is possible - but
> >so too is phenomena outside of Science supporting the notion
> >of supernatural power or of God possible or likely.
>
> LOL!
I've got a proposition for you. A week in advance, pick a
specific event, somethin nice, you would like to happen,
that could happen and that you wouldn't be too upset about
if it didn't happen. Got something in mind? Okay, this is an
experiment in magic - real low magic - not illusions or
whatnot. Okay, which sort of God is least objectionable to
you? -And seems credible to your imagination. -Let's say
it's the omnipotent Chocolate Bunny!
Okay, here's the abcs of low magic: You need to believe, if
just for a few moments. -And you need to give something up -
so there's an expectation to get something back. And then
you need to not care too much about the result.
The first element is what ceremony is for. Ceremony is to
distract your rational self. Dark room lit with candles,
scented with incense with an "altar" of some kind.
In this case, lets go with theme: yellow candles, vanilla
incense and a Big Chocolate Bunny (should look cool in the
candlelight). Stick an image of a seven sided star in a
circle (seven is a good prime number without overt
connotations)somewhere prominantly. -Use 7 candles for light
too.
Now you need an invokcation. Say this loud and project and
over act. The embarrassment of possibly being overheard is
important to the process!:
"Milk Chocolate God! In thy basket is the lightning nested!
Above thee hangs the Eyeless Hawk!
Thou art Cocoa and Black! Supremely solitary in that moulded
pose!
Up! The ruddy Clouds hang over thee! It is the storm.
There is a flaming Gash in the sky.
Up.
Thou art tossed about in the grip of the storm for aeon and
an aeon and an aeon. But thou don't crack, thou fallest not!
Only in the end shalt thou give up thy sweetness when the
great God N.E.S.T.L.E. is enthrones on the day of
Be-With-Us.
Now have your request written on a yellow sheet of paper and
solemly offer it to a candle directly in front of the Bunny
Altar.
Hit a gong or ring a bell and say "It is done".
Now turn on the lights and go back to being a skeptic.
If you did this in such a way as to be theatrical and
embarrassing, you should find that it works! -Honest!
>
> >
> >Science does hint (Thanx to Einstein) that all experience
> >(even scintifically measured by cold technology) is
> >subjective, by the way.
>
> Yep. The computer you are using, Internet, etc are all subjective. If
> you don't believe in Science, they won't work.
MyKill
MyKill
>
> On Sun, 23 Aug 1998 15:16:54 -0700, MyKill
> <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >So what? Full blown psychosis works too if that's who you
> >are. Newtonian physics works even though its completely
> >absurd on a quantum level. We know religion works for the
> >religious because they tell us so and any other way of
> >knowing - other than sharing in the faith too - is absurd!
>
> I didn't say that all science was right. I pat myself on
> the back for being careful to say " the predictive power
> of science", since I figured you would come back with
> something like you did. Science has embarrassed
> itself often enough in the past when it claimed that it
> equalled reality that now it does not do more than say
> it is an attempt to model reality.
> Newton comes close enough for most purposes
> even today, though his model is now felt to be wrong in
> principle. Where is the predictive power of religion?
> It's not even in the ball park.
Religion operates on the plane of psychology - it that
domain it can hit right on. At least Buddhism does for me.
> Now for your next point. Religion can have health
> benefits for the religious because of the psychological
> benefit of security, real or imagined. That's a scientific
> feature, not a religious one. As has been pointed out
> a million times before, that effect says nothing about
> the truth of any religion. Among the indications of
> that is the fact what the particular religion provides
> the health benefits makes no difference.
It is a false distinction between science and religion. One
does not contradict the other, no matter how much you may
wish. When religion has a function discenable to Science
doesn't mean the function ceases to be religious.
> >and it is not a matter of opinion.
> >
> >A lot of Science has resulted in pollution, poverty and mass
> >starvation (Agriculture alone can account for the last two
> >[humans only enjoyed true egalitarianism as
> >hunter-gatherers]). There's no shortage of domains where
> >whether Science works or not is a questionable opinion.
>
> What has that to do with truth? Are you defining truth
> as that which happens to have consequences that
> are beneficial to humans according to some standard?
>
Simply questioning the sense of "works" you claim for
Science.
> >> I've already presented my reason why I need no
> >> support for a null hypothesis. It's time for your
> >> non-spiritual reason why a godhead must really
> >> exist. If you don't have one, you're in the wrong
> >> newsgroup. Arguments depending entirely on
> >> spirituality are, of course, dismissed offhand in
> >> this newsgroup unless and until some support for
> >> spirituality can be decisively and objectively
> >> demonstrated, as the predictive power of science
> >> readily can be to all sane people.
> >
> >It is no opinion that God is a subjective reality for many
> >people. It is no opinion the the accounts of the religious
> >are of a belief that really works. Logic insists that
> >personal revelation is perhaps the very best way to know
> >something. Logic also demands that relying on an
> >"authorities" knowledge or experience is no proof or premise
> >for an argument.
>
> Personal revelation has nothing to do with logic.
In my logic 101 class it held honour as a way of knowing yet
was denigrated as being useless for a proof.
>
> Since no-one knows everything, people have to rely
> on authorities. These authorities are discredited if they
> are shown to be full of baloney. I'm sure not all the
> baloney in science has been excised, but when I look
> at religion all I can see is baloney. There's not a
> glimmer of proof of anything, the scenarios are such as
> was never seen on sea or land, and the predictive
> value is zero.
>
Hard logic precludes any appeal to authority.
Inductive logic too.
The function of religion is not divinatory. For Divination
consult the I-Ching, Tarot Cards or Psychic Friends.
Religion functions to establish a context for living - it is
a psychological tool.
> >Inferance insists the sun will rise tomorrow as it had done
> >every morning since time has been recorded. It cannot be
> >proven a fact in logic. Inferance demands that the shared
> >experience of GOD on the part of many people carry weight.
> >It is impossible to discount that weight soley due to
> >personal bias against the notion of God. Or do you really
> >believe it is the nature of a first hand personal experience
> >that categorizes it as valid or not.
>
> However, if you predict the sun will rise tomorrow based
> on the inductive process, you will probably be right.
> Science is part observation and induction, as well as part
> logic. Deductive logic by itself gets you nowhere. Nothing
> is ever settled for sure in science, but theories are regarded
> as more valuable when they make predictions that are
> borne out. No points for religion here, since religion is
> hardly ever right except when it re-interprets after the fact.
Religion is not Nostrodamus. Religion makes claims about the
soul that are , for now, outside of Scientific
quantification. Religion asserts a given context for living
life. Religion touches on psychological tools for gaining
spiritual and philosophical insight. The vast majority of
religious people will makes claims to knowledge and
revelation. This leads directly to an inductive conclusion
that religious people either are legitimate in their claims
or are all borderline psychotic.
> >(Here I'm in a tough situation, as I'm not really a
> >religious person and am not intimate with claimed
> >proofs....)
> >
> >Proof of God is a popular hobby of many Religious and
> >Spiritual people. If claims to drink lethal poison and
> >suffer cobra bites with no ill effects are real - Science
> >has no proof for the phenomena. Experiences of precognition,
> >being "taken by the Spirit", of healing, of prayer altering
> >reality ... all these experiences invite the statitician to
> >distinguish probability as "coincidence" is possible - but
> >so too is phenomena outside of Science supporting the notion
> >of supernatural power or of God possible or likely.
> >
> >Science does hint (Thanx to Einstein) that all experience
> >(even scintifically measured by cold technology) is
> >subjective, by the way.
>
> Predictive power is by far a superior indication of
> worthwhileness. Science has demonstrated this power
> and religion has not. Newton may have been wrong,
> but his predictions were right with great accuracy, and
> the discrepancies that were eventually detected,
> precisely because his predictions were so close, paved
> the way for better theories: hence progress. No points
> for religion here.
>
The goal of science is to explore, explain and understand
the nature of the physical world in which we live. Religion
has the goal of explaining and understanding meaning in
life. Your argument would seem to indicate that the
difficult goal is less worthwhile than the goal that easily.
gives results.
> >
> >Since when do the methodologies of Science outweigh those of
> >logic and reason? Is that not paralell to the practice of
> >Christians holding their Bible as outweighing the methods of
> >logic and reason?
>
> The proof is in the pudding. Predictive power.
> >
> >> You might want to try:
> >> alt.philosophy.debate
> >> alt.speech.debate
> >
> >Thanx for the suggestion. Am I to infer alt.atheism is no
> >forum for debate as you know that you're RIGHT? -If you've
> >no room for cognitive dissonance I could be wasting my
> >time...
>
> Alt.atheism is no place for mere debating tricks, in
> my opinion. Sorry, but I've found your use of those
> really annoying.
>
I really do believe any answer to "Is God Real" other than I
don't know - with the possible exception for those claiming
personal revelation - belies a failure to at all be
thoughtfull.
I hope you won't mind if I take your annoyance as a
compliment.
MyKill
maff91
So what? Science is way of finding things about the natural world.
>>
>> >religious because they tell us so and any other way of
>> >knowing - other than sharing in the faith too - is absurd!
>>
>> But Science works whether you believe in or not.
>>
>Religion does too - or such is the account of many of the
>converted.
Subjective evidence and belief is irrelevant in Science.
>> >
>> >and it is not a matter of opinion.
>
>The nature of religious revelation, for the person blessed
>with such, is that it is no matter of opinion. For the rest
>of us it is a matter of opinion.
>
>> >A lot of Science has resulted in pollution, poverty and mass
>> >starvation (Agriculture alone can account for the last two
>> >[humans only enjoyed true egalitarianism as
>>
>> You are talking about business practices, government policies which
>> results in those abuses. What has Science got to do with it?
>
>Science works to do what?
Science is neutral and value free. I don't know how you justify
anything good or bad for it. It doesn't proclaim any morality.
What do you mean by God? What are it's properties? For early primitive
people anything and everything which could not explained was
rationalized as act of God.
>>
>> >
>> >Proof of God is a popular hobby of many Religious and
>> >Spiritual people. If claims to drink lethal poison and
>> >suffer cobra bites with no ill effects are real - Science
>> >has no proof for the phenomena. Experiences of precognition,
>>
>> Well. It could be the immune system. If something happens to the body,
>> it has a perfectly natural explanation for it.
>
>Yeah, but there's always that first time. Let me feed you a
>glass full of strychnine and we'll see how fast your immune
>system adapts. -Same with the Cobra bites -these folks don't
>treat the bites!
Nope. If a person a person survives a snake bite, only Science can
find out why it was so. Explaining it as an act of God is only an
appeal to ignorance.
Well. I suppose that works for you. I'm quite indifferent to your
delusions. If it makes you happy, so be it.
Gregory Gyetko
> A lot of Science has resulted in pollution, poverty and mass
> starvation (Agriculture alone can account for the last two
> [humans only enjoyed true egalitarianism as
> hunter-gatherers]). There's no shortage of domains where
> whether Science works or not is a questionable opinion.
, he typed in to his computer and transmitted over the internet.
Claus Lisberg
wrote:
Add me as number three.
--
(Santa)Claus Lisberg
Founder of PSWEH (Poor Students With Expensive Hobbies)
Director of EAC UOT, a.a atheist #1116, Nirfur prophet #1
"A casual stroll through an asylum will show that faith proves nothing"
- F. Nietszche
Ichimusai
this:
: This is the fallacy of Argumentum Ad Verecundiam, or Appeal to Authority. The
: *scientific* position is to draw a conclusion about a deity from existing data.
: "Scientific" may or may not be equivelent to "intelligent". A monkey can follow
: a procedure. Intelligence is often guaged by the ability to take fresh, bold,
: intuitive leaps in logic to solve problems.
Actually, the null hypothesis would apply here. But, you have to
decide if it should be a part of your formal system first.
--
Ichimusai ICQ UIN# 1645566
http://www.algonet.se/~krikkit/
Ichimusai
this:
: In article <MPG.1047ecfe5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
: min...@ix.netcom.com says...
:
: >Teresita, have you ever heard of a funny little scientific
: >thing called "null hypothesis"?.. There is no data -> >null-hypothesis is that
: >there is no deity.
:
: 1. Fictionite is defined as the dark matter necessary to explain the orbits of
: visible stars in the Milky Way, which move as though influenced by a great deal
: of "missing mass" which is not observed.
:
: 2. There is no observational data on fictionite.
:
: 3. Null-hypothesis<----there is no fictionite.
:
: Sounds scientific, don't it?
Not really - 2 contradicts 1 and renders the argument invalid. "...
matter necessary to explain ... orbits of visible stars" is a
proposition that fictionite may exist drawn from observation - thus
there are some observational data on the effects of fictionite.
However, you are not guarded against the possibility that there may be
something else then fictionite that gives rise to the observation you
have done.
Ichimusai
(Jeff Wilson) wrote this:
: Somebody in another thread here argued that since nothing
: is something, it's impossible for there to be nothing.
I do however not agree. To me that is to argue that non-existance is
existance. I don't buy it.
: This is
: a piece of Jesuit-style sophistry, confounding the concept of a
: thing (or lack) with the thing (or lack) itself.
Yup. Much like when the fundies come sputtering about how atheism
actually is a religion (theism) in itself. Nonsense.
: You're doing the
: same thing by pretending that the null hypothesis is a non-null
: hypothesis, then attacking it as a non-null hypothesis.
Variation on theme of the good old straw man.
:The
: concept of a non-null hypothesis is a thing,
Well, not a thing in fact, it is a concept and let's stay there :)
: to be sure, but null
: itself is not.
It is however, a very clever thing the zero...
Gregory Gyetko
That's what I was assuming.
Greg.
--
alt.atheism atheist #911, BAAWA Knight
"I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway
so why bother?"
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9916/
Jeff Wilson
<mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Jeff Wilson wrote:
<snip>
>
>Religion operates on the plane of psychology - it that
>domain it can hit right on. At least Buddhism does for me.
Careful, now! Religion is an effect that can be
investigated by psychology, but that does not make
it a first-order "tool" of the science of psychology
(as you stretched out toward further down).
<snip>
>It is a false distinction between science and religion. One
>does not contradict the other, no matter how much you may
>wish. When religion has a function discenable to Science
>doesn't mean the function ceases to be religious.
I didn't say anything about a contradiction. I pointed
out that psychological effects of religion do not imply
that there is any truth in any given religion.
>> >A lot of Science has resulted in pollution, poverty and mass
>> >starvation (Agriculture alone can account for the last two
>> >[humans only enjoyed true egalitarianism as
>> >hunter-gatherers]). There's no shortage of domains where
>> >whether Science works or not is a questionable opinion.
>>
>> What has that to do with truth? Are you defining truth
>> as that which happens to have consequences that
>> are beneficial to humans according to some standard?
>>
>Simply questioning the sense of "works" you claim for
>Science.
My usage of "works" was "succeeds in explaining",
as was clear from the context.
<snip>
>>
>> Personal revelation has nothing to do with logic.
>
>In my logic 101 class it held honour as a way of knowing yet
>was denigrated as being useless for a proof.
That seems a very odd position indeed. I suppose it's
a way to set personal revelation apart from the
curriculum, while assuaging deeply held sensibilities. It's
an inauspicious beginning for a logic class, in my opinion.
Gobbledygook 101.
>>
>> Since no-one knows everything, people have to rely
>> on authorities. These authorities are discredited if they
>> are shown to be full of baloney. I'm sure not all the
>> baloney in science has been excised, but when I look
>> at religion all I can see is baloney. There's not a
>> glimmer of proof of anything, the scenarios are such as
>> was never seen on sea or land, and the predictive
>> value is zero.
>>
>Hard logic precludes any appeal to authority.
>Inductive logic too.
Logic alone is useless. Observation is necessary.
Who said any kind of logic appealed to authority?
Observation usually does, though, since there's
not time for everyone to check everything.
>
>The function of religion is not divinatory. For Divination
>consult the I-Ching, Tarot Cards or Psychic Friends.
>Religion functions to establish a context for living - it is
>a psychological tool.
When it offers no prediction
And escapes from all detection,
That's a very exposition
Of a grievous misconception.
<snip>
>Religion is not Nostrodamus. Religion makes claims about the
>soul that are , for now, outside of Scientific
>quantification. Religion asserts a given context for living
>life. Religion touches on psychological tools for gaining
>spiritual and philosophical insight. The vast majority of
>religious people will makes claims to knowledge and
>revelation. This leads directly to an inductive conclusion
>that religious people either are legitimate in their claims
>or are all borderline psychotic.
I'll go with option 2, but I'm not sure about "borderline".
More seriously, I regard all religion, including my own secular
humanism, as illusion, simply because there is plenty of
evidence that it is, even with what little we know about the
brain, and no indication that it is anything more than that.
The brain is very good with illusion. Patterning is one of
the mechanisms it uses. I know how many balls are on
a pool table without counting just by seeing them in
constellations of five. If I thought pool balls actually came
in patterns of five just because I saw them that way, then
I would indeed be delusional.
Sometimes people have revelations so singular they're
convinced they must have come from outside. A pattern
has come to them that neatly resolves everything that
was troubling them about religion. Likewise, when a
musician frets over the creation of a musical passage, he
is creating a template by delimiting the problems. Ideas
in the back of his mind flow over the template. When
some of those ideas finally chance on compatibility in a
shape that fits the template, the mind that had been
sharply on the lookout for just such a thing recognizes
the solution and pops it into the foreground of thought,
even though the musician had not been focussing on the
problem at the time. It seems as though the solution has
magically appeared out of nowhere. It's a breathtaking
experience. It's still very mysterious how the mind does
this, but there's really no reason to suppose such
revelations come from outside in the absense of any
evidence or reason for supposing they would, or that
they are true outside the template for the problem that
was constructed in the mind of the revelatee.
<snip>
>The goal of science is to explore, explain and understand
>the nature of the physical world in which we live. Religion
>has the goal of explaining and understanding meaning in
>life. Your argument would seem to indicate that the
>difficult goal is less worthwhile than the goal that easily.
>gives results.
I don't find religion difficult, whether Christianity or
Buddhism or my own secular humanism: there's nothing
to it, in more than one sense. It's certainly far less
difficult than science.
<snip>
>I hope you won't mind if I take your annoyance as a
>compliment.
You're welcome. I was flattering your techniques,
such as confounding things with concepts, appealing
to subjective valuation as a substitute for evidence,
misrepresenting opposition views, and falsely
assigning causes. I bow deeply in response to
your gracious acceptance of the compliment.
MyKill
>
> On Mon, 24 Aug 1998 02:33:35 -0700, MyKill
> <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Jeff Wilson wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> >Religion operates on the plane of psychology - it that
> >domain it can hit right on. At least Buddhism does for me.
>
> Careful, now! Religion is an effect that can be
> investigated by psychology, but that does not make
> it a first-order "tool" of the science of psychology
> (as you stretched out toward further down).
Religion is a first order tool for psychological growth but,
granted, only once the axioms of the given faith are
accepted.
> <snip>
> >It is a false distinction between science and religion. One
> >does not contradict the other, no matter how much you may
> >wish. When religion has a function discenable to Science
> >doesn't mean the function ceases to be religious.
>
>
> I didn't say anything about a contradiction. I pointed
> out that psychological effects of religion do not imply
> that there is any truth in any given religion.
I refer you to "the power of Positive Nihilism" posts
elsewhere here in alt.Atheism.
There is no proof to be found or even possible given the
nature of where you're looking from - which is a context of:
no possibility sans hard reproduceable evidence.
> My usage of (Science) "works" was "succeeds in explaining",
> as was clear from the context.
Science suceeds in distinguishing reproduceable phenomena.
Science in the domain of "explaining" finds itself in the
catch 22 of having every one answer raise dozens or more
questions.
> >In my logic 101 class it (revelation) held honour as a way of knowing yet
> >was denigrated as being useless for a proof.
>
> That seems a very odd position indeed. I suppose it's
> a way to set personal revelation apart from the
> curriculum, while assuaging deeply held sensibilities. It's
> an inauspicious beginning for a logic class, in my opinion.
> Gobbledygook 101.
This is at the heart of our disagreement. I choose the
respect the knowing of the person claiming revelation as
being valid as a possibility, yet useless as a point for
argument. Do you consider the innovations of Nicolai Tesla
as gobbledygook 'cause they sprang from the same
"revelationary" source as much world religion?
> >Hard logic precludes any appeal to authority.
> >Inductive logic too.
>
> Logic alone is useless. Observation is necessary.
> Who said any kind of logic appealed to authority?
> Observation usually does, though, since there's
> not time for everyone to check everything.
You are correct when it comes to day to day resoning. For a
proof, however - checking of every supporting notion and
"fact" is not optional - it is necessary. Or you are guilty
of very poor science.
> >The function of religion is not divinatory. For Divination
> >consult the I-Ching, Tarot Cards or Psychic Friends.
> >Religion functions to establish a context for living - it is
> >a psychological tool.
>
> When it offers no prediction
> And escapes from all detection,
> That's a very exposition
> Of a grievous misconception.
And if I meditate on this mantra...
Religions invite detection - but as they operate on a
psychological domain - the recognition too is on a
psychological domain.
You present the absurd notion that a potential reality of
the inner human should be quantifiable in the world without.
This is the equivelant of saying there's no such thing as
quantum mechanics because you have no evidence for it in
your dreams!
> <snip>
> >Religion is not Nostrodamus. Religion makes claims about the
> >soul that are , for now, outside of Scientific
> >quantification. Religion asserts a given context for living
> >life. Religion touches on psychological tools for gaining
> >spiritual and philosophical insight. The vast majority of
> >religious people will makes claims to knowledge and
> >revelation. This leads directly to an inductive conclusion
> >that religious people either are legitimate in their claims
> >or are all borderline psychotic.
>
> I'll go with option 2, but I'm not sure about "borderline".
> More seriously, I regard all religion, including my own secular
> humanism, as illusion, simply because there is plenty of
> evidence that it is, even with what little we know about the
> brain, and no indication that it is anything more than that.
Here then is the heart of your position: contempt for
psychological reality (in your case, the value system of
Secular Humanism) and denial of any possiblity of it having
real significance.
I won't argue that it isn't all illusion. I simply argue
that the illusion may be no less real and potent than
apparent physical reality.
> The brain is very good with illusion. Patterning is one of
> the mechanisms it uses. I know how many balls are on
> a pool table without counting just by seeing them in
> constellations of five. If I thought pool balls actually came
> in patterns of five just because I saw them that way, then
> I would indeed be delusional.
No, you would be a Discordian. :)
> Sometimes people have revelations so singular they're
> convinced they must have come from outside. A pattern
> has come to them that neatly resolves everything that
> was troubling them about religion. Likewise, when a
> musician frets over the creation of a musical passage, he
> is creating a template by delimiting the problems. Ideas
> in the back of his mind flow over the template. When
> some of those ideas finally chance on compatibility in a
> shape that fits the template, the mind that had been
> sharply on the lookout for just such a thing recognizes
> the solution and pops it into the foreground of thought,
> even though the musician had not been focussing on the
> problem at the time. It seems as though the solution has
> magically appeared out of nowhere. It's a breathtaking
> experience. It's still very mysterious how the mind does
> this, but there's really no reason to suppose such
> revelations come from outside in the absense of any
> evidence or reason for supposing they would, or that
> they are true outside the template for the problem that
> was constructed in the mind of the revelatee.
That's a fine model of psychology. Well done...but....
There's no reason to suppose to know thought originates from
within our physical bodies at all. The brain could be as
much an amplifier as source.
You have no respect for the notion, then, that personal
knowledge of the self and of spiritual reality can be found
within, via meditation or prayer?
Can you not see, possible as your model is, it is no less
arbitrary than any other model? Psychology barely has any
claim to "science". -The closest it comes is in the field of
psychoactive medication.
> <snip>
> >The goal of science is to explore, explain and understand
> >the nature of the physical world in which we live. Religion
> >has the goal of explaining and understanding meaning in
> >life. Your argument would seem to indicate that the
> >difficult goal is less worthwhile than the goal that easily.
> >gives results.
>
> I don't find religion difficult, whether Christianity or
> Buddhism or my own secular humanism: there's nothing
> to it, in more than one sense. It's certainly far less
> difficult than science.
I was referring to the capacity to obtain results relating
to the goal: much simpler for Science.
You have never pursued any religion seriously. You may also
claim there is nothing to it; being an Actor or Hang Gliding
- for lack of any intimate knowledge. Zen meditation - any
real meditation - is an extremely difficult discipline.
Christians, the ones I know anyhow (of a progressive
Methodist Church that welcomes Gays) put a lot of emphasis
on "experience of the Holy Spirit" - you try simply willing
a psychotic episode if its not in your nature. Or try
practicing as some in the south do - and prove your faith by
drinking a glassfull of strychnine!
>
> <snip>
> >I hope you won't mind if I take your annoyance as a
> >compliment.
>
> You're welcome. I was flattering your techniques,
> such as confounding things with concepts, appealing
> to subjective valuation as a substitute for evidence,
> misrepresenting opposition views, and falsely
> assigning causes. I bow deeply in response to
> your gracious acceptance of the compliment.
>
And this is of course a backhanded insult. Oh well.
Confounding things with concepts is fair game I think.
Subjective valuation is a form of evidence; hence "opinion
polls" - though as you have no respect for revelation,
genuine or otherwise.... I insist my suppositions have been
within the realm of possibility - if you would condemn my
assigning of causes as false: the burden of proof is on your
shoulders.
I know I may have misrepresented your views - it's no
function of maliciousness - it's a weakness of written
communication and language in general. And my powers of
inferance are questionable at best, perhaps. I hope you'll
forgive me.
MyKill
Robert Arch Ward
>
> MyKill wrote:
>
> > starvation (Agriculture alone can account for the last two
> > [humans only enjoyed true egalitarianism as
> > hunter-gatherers]). There's no shortage of domains where
> > whether Science works or not is a questionable opinion.
>
Touche! -Rob
--
[ work] rw...@smtpgw.arms.ohio-state.edu
[other] wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu
Jeff Wilson
<mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Jeff Wilson wrote:
<snip>
>There is no proof to be found or even possible given the
>nature of where you're looking from - which is a context of:
>no possibility sans hard reproduceable evidence.
This is alt.atheism. If you don't have hard, reproducible
evidence you're not going to get anywhere here. That is
of course why people advocating religion never do get
anywhere here. In Catullus' poem "Atys", Atys receives
a personal revelation to cut his balls off, which he does,
after which Catullus refers to him as "she". Since
Catullus ends the poem with a plea to spare the house
of Catullus from such beliefs, I gather this was not a
unique event in that age. If there's so much variation
in personal revelation, and if you accept that the idea
of "truth" requires uniqueness, then unsupported
personal revelation is internally inconsistent against a
template of unique truth, and is not worth consideration
as proof.
<snip>
>> >In my logic 101 class it (revelation) held honour as a way of knowing yet
>> >was denigrated as being useless for a proof.
>>
>> That seems a very odd position indeed. I suppose it's
>> a way to set personal revelation apart from the
>> curriculum, while assuaging deeply held sensibilities. It's
>> an inauspicious beginning for a logic class, in my opinion.
>> Gobbledygook 101.
>
>This is at the heart of our disagreement. I choose the
>respect the knowing of the person claiming revelation as
>being valid as a possibility, yet useless as a point for
>argument. Do you consider the innovations of Nicolai Tesla
>as gobbledygook 'cause they sprang from the same
>"revelationary" source as much world religion?
I don't regard Tesla's revelations as gobbledygook at all,
because he (or somebody, I know little about Tesla myself)
was able to back them up. For every Tesla there are
countless equally inspired would-be Teslas who were wrong.
In realms where there is no possibility of distinguishing truth
from falsehood, such as religion, the best working
assumption by far is that any given Tesla is wrong. I'm
certainly not saying that inspiration is always useless (I write
music, after all). I'm saying that it's nowhere near enough to
discover truth.
>
>
>> >Hard logic precludes any appeal to authority.
>> >Inductive logic too.
>>
>> Logic alone is useless. Observation is necessary.
>> Who said any kind of logic appealed to authority?
>> Observation usually does, though, since there's
>> not time for everyone to check everything.
>
>You are correct when it comes to day to day resoning. For a
>proof, however - checking of every supporting notion and
>"fact" is not optional - it is necessary. Or you are guilty
>of very poor science.
Certainly in any field where I was doing original work, I
would have to do do my own testing to a certain extent.
Theoretical astronomers do rely on the authority of proven
observers, though, for example, so even there some
reliance on authority is accepted.
>
>> >The function of religion is not divinatory. For Divination
>> >consult the I-Ching, Tarot Cards or Psychic Friends.
>> >Religion functions to establish a context for living - it is
>> >a psychological tool.
>>
>> When it offers no prediction
>> And escapes from all detection,
>> That's a very exposition
>> Of a grievous misconception.
>
>And if I meditate on this mantra...
>
>Religions invite detection - but as they operate on a
>psychological domain - the recognition too is on a
>psychological domain.
>
>You present the absurd notion that a potential reality of
>the inner human should be quantifiable in the world without.
>This is the equivelant of saying there's no such thing as
>quantum mechanics because you have no evidence for it in
>your dreams!
Garbage. The "reality of the inner human" is not objective
reality. It's just a person's psychic meanderings, which have
their source in natural selection. Natural selection cares
nothing for truth. It teaches us Newton instead of Einstein
because Newton is easier to calculate when leaping from
one tree branch to another.
<snip>
>Here then is the heart of your position: contempt for
>psychological reality (in your case, the value system of
>Secular Humanism) and denial of any possiblity of it having
>real significance.
>
>I won't argue that it isn't all illusion. I simply argue
>that the illusion may be no less real and potent than
>apparent physical reality.
Potent to the individual, yes. Objectively true? That
must be demonstrated.
<snip>
>There's no reason to suppose to know thought originates from
>within our physical bodies at all. The brain could be as
>much an amplifier as source.
There's no reason not to, and there's the hub of the
disagreement! I will apply the principle of parsimony and
refrain from throwing any out-of-the-blue idea that suits
my fancy into the mix until it is clear that I do not already
have enough to explain things without it! I see no
reason at present to assume that any external source is
needed, so why on earth should I pick one of the
millions of possible mites out of the air and try to show
how that particular mite might be able to explain things
that bid fair to be explainable without any mite at all?
>
>You have no respect for the notion, then, that personal
>knowledge of the self and of spiritual reality can be found
>within, via meditation or prayer?
I don't have much regard for the idea of "spiritual reality",
though if you get something out of it I have no objection
(as long as it doesn't prompt you to step on my dress).
>
>Can you not see, possible as your model is, it is no less
>arbitrary than any other model? Psychology barely has any
>claim to "science". -The closest it comes is in the field of
>psychoactive medication.
Psychology and medicine in general are in their infancy.
My model benefits from parsimony, so Occam, the
"celebrated madman" as Voltaire called him, is my guide
for the present.
<snip>
>> I don't find religion difficult, whether Christianity or
>> Buddhism or my own secular humanism: there's nothing
>> to it, in more than one sense. It's certainly far less
>> difficult than science.
>
>I was referring to the capacity to obtain results relating
>to the goal: much simpler for Science.
Not "simpler" : rather "possible".
>
>You have never pursued any religion seriously. You may also
>claim there is nothing to it; being an Actor or Hang Gliding
>- for lack of any intimate knowledge. Zen meditation - any
>real meditation - is an extremely difficult discipline.
>Christians, the ones I know anyhow (of a progressive
>Methodist Church that welcomes Gays) put a lot of emphasis
>on "experience of the Holy Spirit" - you try simply willing
>a psychotic episode if its not in your nature. Or try
>practicing as some in the south do - and prove your faith by
>drinking a glassfull of strychnine!
I have had bad trips on LSD that would qualify as
psychotic episodes. Moreover, my whole view of the
world I think has been greatly enhanced by my experiences
with that drug. I remember standing on Dante's View
overlooking Death Valley on New Years Day in 1971, with
the scorched valley, below, the candy-striped mountains
ringing the horizon, and the blazing yellow sun furiously
burning in a cloudless clear blue sky. I felt I could hold all
the universe and all time in the palm of my hand. That
feeling has never left me, but there were no gods there.
People who drink strychnine to demonstrate their faith
probably had cousins for parents, in my view.
<snip>
>I know I may have misrepresented your views - it's no
>function of maliciousness - it's a weakness of written
>communication and language in general. And my powers of
>inferance are questionable at best, perhaps. I hope you'll
>forgive me.
No problem. My irritation disappeared after the last
post. I'm sure you're very sincere. We have different
standards of evidence. If I were vitally interested in
spirituality, I might be struggling along your path. Since
I feel no need for spirituality in myself, and since it
looks like pointless waffling to me, I don't give it much
thought except when responding to posts in alt.atheism..
MyKill
>
> On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:50:10 -0700, MyKill
> <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Jeff Wilson wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >There is no proof to be found or even possible given the
> >nature of where you're looking from - which is a context of:
> >no possibility sans hard reproduceable evidence.
>
> This is alt.atheism. If you don't have hard, reproducible
> evidence you're not going to get anywhere here.
what you're describing sounds more like "alt.materialism".
That is
> of course why people advocating religion never do get
> anywhere here. In Catullus' poem "Atys", Atys receives
> a personal revelation to cut his balls off, which he does,
> after which Catullus refers to him as "she". Since
> Catullus ends the poem with a plea to spare the house
> of Catullus from such beliefs, I gather this was not a
> unique event in that age. If there's so much variation
> in personal revelation, and if you accept that the idea
> of "truth" requires uniqueness, then unsupported
> personal revelation is internally inconsistent against a
> template of unique truth, and is not worth consideration
> as proof.
My interest in proof is limited to the possiblity of a
thing. My honest intuition is that "truth" is always
paradoxical and never exactly unique. But my position is
that I don't know that truth is always unique.
> <snip>
> >> >In my logic 101 class it (revelation) held honour as a way of knowing yet
> >> >was denigrated as being useless for a proof.
> >>
> >> That seems a very odd position indeed. I suppose it's
> >> a way to set personal revelation apart from the
> >> curriculum, while assuaging deeply held sensibilities. It's
> >> an inauspicious beginning for a logic class, in my opinion.
> >> Gobbledygook 101.
> >
> >This is at the heart of our disagreement. I choose the
> >respect the knowing of the person claiming revelation as
> >being valid as a possibility, yet useless as a point for
> >argument. Do you consider the innovations of Nicolai Tesla
> >as gobbledygook 'cause they sprang from the same
> >"revelationary" source as much world religion?
>
> I don't regard Tesla's revelations as gobbledygook at all,
> because he (or somebody, I know little about Tesla myself)
> was able to back them up. For every Tesla there are
> countless equally inspired would-be Teslas who were wrong.
> In realms where there is no possibility of distinguishing truth
> from falsehood, such as religion, the best working
> assumption by far is that any given Tesla is wrong. I'm
> certainly not saying that inspiration is always useless (I write
> music, after all). I'm saying that it's nowhere near enough to
> discover truth.
Were you a religious person claiming to have access to
ultimate truth through revelation alone I would condemn you
as a madman. You are right that revelation falls short of
truth. Revelation does point to possibility that could be
truth. Most serious mystics also echo the thought. It is a
common rule of thumb in mysticism: the more one claims to
know the less that is understood.
A Sufi (The sufi are Islamic Mystics and pretty far out [and
cool!] as mystics go) parable: A man dies and his spirit
arrives at the Gates to Paradise. Saint Peter gaurds the
gates and queries the spirit: "On what basis do you claim to
be worthy of entry to Paradise?". The Spirit thinks a bit
and answers:"First tell me, how is it I may know these are
truly the gates to Paradise and not a delusion of my mind
experiencing death?". Before Saint Peter can respond - from
within the gate: "Let him in - He's one of us!".
The SUFI, by the way - have the official stamp of approval
of most factions of Islam (They predate Islam, but were
given the seal of approval by Muhhumad himself!). Sufism is
the one saving grace of Islam.
> >
> ...
For a
> >proof, however - checking of every supporting notion and
> >"fact" is not optional - it is necessary. Or you are guilty
> >of very poor science.
>
> Certainly in any field where I was doing original work, I
> would have to do do my own testing to a certain extent.
> Theoretical astronomers do rely on the authority of proven
> observers, though, for example, so even there some
> reliance on authority is accepted.
The Authorities proofs are regularly tested by Collegiate
undergraduates or Grad students, justifing said faith.
> >
> >You present the absurd notion that a potential reality of
> >the inner human should be quantifiable in the world without.
> >This is the equivelant of saying there's no such thing as
> >quantum mechanics because you have no evidence for it in
> >your dreams!
>
> Garbage. The "reality of the inner human" is not objective
> reality.
The "inner reality" is the only medium humans have to
interract with objective reality. Objective reality shifts
and warps subjectively for each person - which is why
technological non human tools for quantifying phenomena are
necessary and not merely helpfull.
It's just a person's psychic meanderings, which have
> their source in natural selection. Natural selection cares
> nothing for truth. It teaches us Newton instead of Einstein
> because Newton is easier to calculate when leaping from
> one tree branch to another.
And how does this notion not reflect faith similar to that
required of religion? It SEEMS right to you - but so what?
-Right? -Or have you objective proof?
> <snip>
> >Here then is the heart of your position: contempt for
> >psychological reality (in your case, the value system of
> >Secular Humanism) and denial of any possiblity of it having
> >real significance.
> >
> >I won't argue that it isn't all illusion. I simply argue
> >that the illusion may be no less real and potent than
> >apparent physical reality.
>
> Potent to the individual, yes.
Who among us fails to exist as an individual?
Objectively true? That
> must be demonstrated.
It has yet to be done, obviously. -But objective proof could
come in time.
> <snip>
> >There's no reason to suppose to know thought originates from
> >within our physical bodies at all. The brain could be as
> >much an amplifier as source.
>
> There's no reason not to, and there's the hub of the
> disagreement!
If you use the notion that thought originates from the
physical brain as a foundation for a world view - certainly
you have no reason not to buy into said notion if you're
happy with the world view you've got.
If, on the other hand - you wish to quantify and prove all
"facts" and "notions"... few world views hold up at all - as
long as any given axiom has a possible alternative and fails
the test of exclusivity.
I will apply the principle of parsimony and
> refrain from throwing any out-of-the-blue idea that suits
> my fancy into the mix until it is clear that I do not already
> have enough to explain things without it!
Is this not paralell to the Creationist Christian who scoffs
at Geological record as not real and unnecessary 'cause the
Bible has all the answers and explanations that person
needs?
> >
> >You have no respect for the notion, then, that personal
> >knowledge of the self and of spiritual reality can be found
> >within, via meditation or prayer?
> I don't have much regard for the idea of "spiritual reality",
> though if you get something out of it I have no objection
> (as long as it doesn't prompt you to step on my dress).
So you have tolerance but no respect. Why? Do you have a
knowing other than intuition that is responsible for your
lack of regard? The promise of many religions is that
introspection and meditation is enough for realization - no
"faith" - no "dogma". Such promises intrigue me.
> >Can you not see, possible as your model is, it is no less
> >arbitrary than any other model? Psychology barely has any
> >claim to "science". -The closest it comes is in the field of
> >psychoactive medication.
>
> Psychology and medicine in general are in their infancy.
> My model benefits from parsimony, so Occam, the
> "celebrated madman" as Voltaire called him, is my guide
> for the present.
I'm unfamiliar with "Occam".
Do you admit to intuition and arbitrariness in your belief
structure? Once Science, as we know it, was in its infancy -
alive then, would parsimony have you adopt the common belief
structure of the going Theism?
> <snip>
> >> I don't find religion difficult, whether Christianity or
> >> Buddhism or my own secular humanism: there's nothing
> >> to it, in more than one sense. It's certainly far less
> >> difficult than science.
> >
> >I was referring to the capacity to obtain results relating
> >to the goal: much simpler for Science.
>
> Not "simpler" : rather "possible".
Hanggliding too is impossible until you seriously give it a
try.
>
*clip*
> I have had bad trips on LSD that would qualify as
> psychotic episodes. Moreover, my whole view of the
> world I think has been greatly enhanced by my experiences
> with that drug. I remember standing on Dante's View
> overlooking Death Valley on New Years Day in 1971, with
> the scorched valley, below, the candy-striped mountains
> ringing the horizon, and the blazing yellow sun furiously
> burning in a cloudless clear blue sky. I felt I could hold all
> the universe and all time in the palm of my hand. That
> feeling has never left me, but there were no gods there.
My own limited experience with the drug led me to a sense of
tremendous synchronicity in life. -But no God.
Mysticism doesn't require God, by the way.
> People who drink strychnine to demonstrate their faith
> probably had cousins for parents, in my view.
Second cousins, at least - these folk following Gods book to
the letter and all. A truer genetic/medical proof would be
that such people have parents that too drank sctrychnine
regularly!
...my powers of
> >inferance are questionable at best, perhaps. I hope you'll
> >forgive me.
>
> No problem. My irritation disappeared after the last
> post. I'm sure you're very sincere. We have different
> standards of evidence. If I were vitally interested in
> spirituality, I might be struggling along your path. Since
> I feel no need for spirituality in myself, and since it
> looks like pointless waffling to me, I don't give it much
> thought except when responding to posts in alt.atheism..
I look for possibility and do have an interest in
spirituality.
MyKill
Claus Lisberg
<mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Jeff Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 1998 03:03:06 -0700, MyKill
>> <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Yes God is not real - is a null hypothesis - as far as
>> >Science is capable of determining now. However Science is
>> >limited and to pretend what is a null hypothesis to Science
>> >is a relevant argumentative point outside of Science is to
>> >pretend Science hasn't limits. -You are being an extreme
>> >fundamentalist for the cult of Science if that is the case -
>> >little different from certain Christians in your strength of
>> >faith.
>>
>> Science works,
>
>So what? Full blown psychosis works too if that's who you
>are. Newtonian physics works even though its completely
>absurd on a quantum level. We know religion works for the
>religious because they tell us so and any other way of
>knowing - other than sharing in the faith too - is absurd!
Think you just argued against your own point.
>and it is not a matter of opinion.
*Everything* is a matter of opinion, in the end, even facts ;).
>A lot of Science has resulted in pollution, poverty and mass
>starvation
Not science, but the application of scientific research.
If anything agriculture has allowed a very small part of the
population to support the rest. Agree on the pollution part, though,
which is an enormous problem.
>(Agriculture alone can account for the last two
Poverty and mass starvation? Please support this.
>[humans only enjoyed true egalitarianism as
>hunter-gatherers]). There's no shortage of domains where
>whether Science works or not is a questionable opinion.
Where things discovered by scientist works or not, you mean.
>> I've already presented my reason why I need no
>> support for a null hypothesis. It's time for your
>> non-spiritual reason why a godhead must really
>> exist. If you don't have one, you're in the wrong
>> newsgroup. Arguments depending entirely on
>> spirituality are, of course, dismissed offhand in
>> this newsgroup unless and until some support for
>> spirituality can be decisively and objectively
>> demonstrated, as the predictive power of science
>> readily can be to all sane people.
>
>It is no opinion that God is a subjective reality for many
>people. It is no opinion the the accounts of the religious
>are of a belief that really works. Logic insists that
>personal revelation is perhaps the very best way to know
>something. Logic also demands that relying on an
>"authorities" knowledge or experience is no proof or premise
>for an argument.
>
>Inferance insists the sun will rise tomorrow as it had done
>every morning since time has been recorded. It cannot be
>proven a fact in logic. Inferance demands that the shared
>experience of GOD on the part of many people carry weight.
No, this is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad numerum.
>It is impossible to discount that weight soley due to
>personal bias against the notion of God.
How about lack of evidence?
>Or do you really
>believe it is the nature of a first hand personal experience
>that categorizes it as valid or not.
Not sure I understood you there.
>(Here I'm in a tough situation, as I'm not really a
>religious person and am not intimate with claimed
>proofs....)
Heh.
>Proof of God is a popular hobby of many Religious and
>Spiritual people. If claims to drink lethal poison and
>suffer cobra bites with no ill effects are real - Science
>has no proof for the phenomena.
Wait until scientists start focusing on those things. Answers are
usually found.
>Experiences of precognition,
>being "taken by the Spirit", of healing, of prayer altering
>reality ... all these experiences invite the statitician to
>distinguish probability as "coincidence" is possible - but
>so too is phenomena outside of Science supporting the notion
>of supernatural power or of God possible or likely.
Eh? Examples?
>Science does hint (Thanx to Einstein) that all experience
>(even scintifically measured by cold technology) is
>subjective, by the way.
My perception of the world is my perception- Let's not go into
solipsism here, please.
>Since when do the methodologies of Science outweigh those of
>logic and reason? Is that not paralell to the practice of
>Christians holding their Bible as outweighing the methods of
>logic and reason?
Humm, science includes logic and reason.
>> You might want to try:
>> alt.philosophy.debate
>> alt.speech.debate
>
>Thanx for the suggestion. Am I to infer alt.atheism is no
>forum for debate as you know that you're RIGHT? -If you've
>no room for cognitive dissonance I could be wasting my
>time...
Go ahead. Post posts.
>MyKill
Claus Lisberg
<mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Jeff Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 1998 15:16:54 -0700, MyKill
>> <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >So what? Full blown psychosis works too if that's who you
>> >are. Newtonian physics works even though its completely
>> >absurd on a quantum level. We know religion works for the
>> >religious because they tell us so and any other way of
>> >knowing - other than sharing in the faith too - is absurd!
>>
>> I didn't say that all science was right. I pat myself on
>> the back for being careful to say " the predictive power
>> of science", since I figured you would come back with
>> something like you did. Science has embarrassed
>> itself often enough in the past when it claimed that it
>> equalled reality that now it does not do more than say
>> it is an attempt to model reality.
>
>> Newton comes close enough for most purposes
>> even today, though his model is now felt to be wrong in
>> principle. Where is the predictive power of religion?
>> It's not even in the ball park.
>
>Religion operates on the plane of psychology - it that
>domain it can hit right on. At least Buddhism does for me.
"In illusion comfort lies" and all.
>
>> Now for your next point. Religion can have health
>> benefits for the religious because of the psychological
>> benefit of security, real or imagined. That's a scientific
>> feature, not a religious one. As has been pointed out
>> a million times before, that effect says nothing about
>> the truth of any religion. Among the indications of
>> that is the fact what the particular religion provides
>> the health benefits makes no difference.
>
>It is a false distinction between science and religion. One
>does not contradict the other, no matter how much you may
>wish. When religion has a function discenable to Science
>doesn't mean the function ceases to be religious.
Some religions, such as the Christian one, makes several claims that
go against scientific facts.
>
>> >and it is not a matter of opinion.
>> >
>> >A lot of Science has resulted in pollution, poverty and mass
>> >starvation (Agriculture alone can account for the last two
>> >[humans only enjoyed true egalitarianism as
>> >hunter-gatherers]). There's no shortage of domains where
>> >whether Science works or not is a questionable opinion.
>>
>> What has that to do with truth? Are you defining truth
>> as that which happens to have consequences that
>> are beneficial to humans according to some standard?
>>
>Simply questioning the sense of "works" you claim for
>Science.
"Science" isn't capitalized unless it's the first word in a sentence.
>
>> >> I've already presented my reason why I need no
>> >> support for a null hypothesis. It's time for your
>> >> non-spiritual reason why a godhead must really
>> >> exist. If you don't have one, you're in the wrong
>> >> newsgroup. Arguments depending entirely on
>> >> spirituality are, of course, dismissed offhand in
>> >> this newsgroup unless and until some support for
>> >> spirituality can be decisively and objectively
>> >> demonstrated, as the predictive power of science
>> >> readily can be to all sane people.
>> >
>> >It is no opinion that God is a subjective reality for many
>> >people. It is no opinion the the accounts of the religious
>> >are of a belief that really works. Logic insists that
>> >personal revelation is perhaps the very best way to know
>> >something. Logic also demands that relying on an
>> >"authorities" knowledge or experience is no proof or premise
>> >for an argument.
>>
>> Personal revelation has nothing to do with logic.
>
>In my logic 101 class it held honour as a way of knowing yet
>was denigrated as being useless for a proof.
Eh?
Probably the latter.
Already made one assumption; that tere is a meaning with life. Back it
up first, then move on. Logic 101.
> Your argument would seem to indicate that the
>difficult goal is less worthwhile than the goal that easily.
Not mine.
>gives results.
>> >
>> >Since when do the methodologies of Science outweigh those of
>> >logic and reason? Is that not paralell to the practice of
>> >Christians holding their Bible as outweighing the methods of
>> >logic and reason?
>>
>> The proof is in the pudding. Predictive power.
>
>> >
>> >> You might want to try:
>> >> alt.philosophy.debate
>> >> alt.speech.debate
>> >
>> >Thanx for the suggestion. Am I to infer alt.atheism is no
>> >forum for debate as you know that you're RIGHT? -If you've
>> >no room for cognitive dissonance I could be wasting my
>> >time...
>>
>> Alt.atheism is no place for mere debating tricks, in
>> my opinion. Sorry, but I've found your use of those
>> really annoying.
>>
>I really do believe any answer to "Is God Real" other than I
>don't know - with the possible exception for those claiming
>personal revelation - belies a failure to at all be
>thoughtfull.
Our opinions differ, then.
>
>I hope you won't mind if I take your annoyance as a
>compliment.
>
>MyKill
--
MyKill
>
> On Mon, 24 Aug 1998 02:33:35 -0700, MyKill
> <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Jeff Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >Religion operates on the plane of psychology - it that
> >domain it can hit right on. At least Buddhism does for me.
>
> "In illusion comfort lies" and all.
alternative to Religion have said bias as a function of
finding it comfortable as much as anything else.
> >
> Some religions, such as the Christian one, makes several claims that
> go against scientific facts.
>
Those Christians that insist that literal interpretation on
the Bible precludes Science facts like, for example,
geologic record - hardly represent the whole, or even a
significant minority, of Christian faith. The Seminary that
doesn't promote much Bible as being metaphorical in nature
will be very tough to find.
Your statement is severely bigoted. -Like saying All Black
men are rapists 'cause it's true of Mike Tyson. You do owe
Christians an apology. (Not me, I'm not Christian).
...Simply questioning the sense of "works" you claim for
> >Science.
>
> "Science" isn't capitalized unless it's the first word in a sentence.
Religions get capitalized. To the extent science functions
as an alternative or substitute for religion - are you sure
Science shouldn't be capitalized?
> >In my logic 101 class it held honour as a way of knowing yet
> >was denigrated as being useless for a proof.
>
> Eh?
Law does use this as a proof: "I saw that Man do that bad
thing!" is considered valid evidence - even when supporting
fact and other evidence is absent....
Hypothetically, if you were to spontaneously levitate out of
your chair and then fall to the floor - absent of witnesses
- you still know it happened - that it is real. Even though
there is no proof that it happened outside of your
experience. -And the experience is no axiom for argument
with anyone who also didn't share your experience. -Such is
the catch 22 of anyone who may have a genuine UFO
experience.
The vast majority of
> >religious people will makes claims to knowledge and
> >revelation. This leads directly to an inductive conclusion
> >that religious people either are legitimate in their claims
> >or are all borderline psychotic.
>
> Probably the latter.
But without hard fact to the contrary, it is impolite to not
at least extend benefit of the doubt.
Crazy people are people who have revelations and don't get
that everyone else shouldn't get their experience.
Christians are excused as they have their own culture and
brainwashing techniques.
The sane person keeps his mouth shut! Or at least expresses
his experience in a context that doesn't have it "prove"
something.
> >
> >The goal of science is to explore, explain and understand
> >the nature of the physical world in which we live. Religion
> >has the goal of explaining and understanding meaning in
> >life.
>
> Already made one assumption; that tere is a meaning with life. Back it
> up first, then move on. Logic 101.
For many it is a more comfortable notion - that life have
inherent meaning instead of it having none. It is certainly
the assumption behind most law. If life has no meaning - the
true consequences of rape, torture, murder, genocide... are
in fact trivial.
That is reason enough to seek proof of meaning in life.
Since we already work with that assumption anyway.
> >I really do believe any answer to "Is God Real" other than I
> >don't know - with the possible exception for those claiming
> >personal revelation - belies a failure to at all be
> >thoughtfull.
>
> Our opinions differ, then.
God is real, by definition. The question isn't if God is
real or not - how can a metaphor be unreal? The question is
the nature of the truth of creation: was it borne of random
design or of intelligent design? Is God an unreasoning
idiot? Or is our intelligence redundant and superfluous -
because it pales in comparison to ...something?
MyKill
Jeff Wilson
<mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Jeff Wilson wrote:
<snip>
>> This is alt.atheism. If you don't have hard, reproducible
>> evidence you're not going to get anywhere here.
>
>what you're describing sounds more like "alt.materialism".
If materialism includes quantum uncertainty, then my
particular atheism is entwined and fused with that.
<snip>
>My interest in proof is limited to the possiblity of a
>thing. My honest intuition is that "truth" is always
>paradoxical and never exactly unique. But my position is
>that I don't know that truth is always unique.
I might use the word "paradigm" instead of "truth" for
something that's internally consistent but not unique.
<snip>
>> Certainly in any field where I was doing original work, I
>> would have to do do my own testing to a certain extent.
>> Theoretical astronomers do rely on the authority of proven
>> observers, though, for example, so even there some
>> reliance on authority is accepted.
>
>The Authorities proofs are regularly tested by Collegiate
>undergraduates or Grad students, justifing said faith.
That's still reliance on authority.
<snip>
> It's just a person's psychic meanderings, which have
>> their source in natural selection. Natural selection cares
>> nothing for truth. It teaches us Newton instead of Einstein
>> because Newton is easier to calculate when leaping from
>> one tree branch to another.
>
>And how does this notion not reflect faith similar to that
>required of religion? It SEEMS right to you - but so what?
>-Right? -Or have you objective proof?
You keep coming back to the idea, stated or implied,
without a shred of objective evidence, that there must
be some kind of nonmaterial essence "out there"
someplace that people can tune into. I don't get it.
It seems like really powerful wishful thinking to me.
Mozart's Prague Symphony is a structure similar to
the ideas that mystics construct, I imagine. That
symphony is an overwhelmingly compelling structure
whose riches seem to have no end, but I see no
reason whatsoever to therefore assume that it must
be somehow tuned into something unknown. We
know enough of human psychology and of art to see
how those are sufficient to account for it. It just
doesn't make any sense to me at all to go fishing
around for something extraneous to add the
world-bound and apparently adequate factors that
make up Mozart or Sufism. I very much doubt any
mystical structure will ever look as good to me as
the Prague Symphony. To be sure I can get
transported by Mozart, but that doesn't mean there
must be something non-material involved in Mozart
or in my psychological response to his music. Since
there's no evidence for anything non-material, and
no need for it, why pop such an idea in there? Just
out of human egotism?
>
>> <snip>
>> >Here then is the heart of your position: contempt for
>> >psychological reality (in your case, the value system of
>> >Secular Humanism) and denial of any possiblity of it having
>> >real significance.
Significance for what? Ultimately something has to stand
by itself, without being significant for something else. If you
think there's a deity or something out there, then I guess
human psychological machinations could be significant for
that, and that god or whatever would have no significance
for anything else, or maybe it would be significant for some
uberGod, and on and on. If you don't go for the mysticism
idea, your life can stand by itself. Not as flattering as
having a God perhaps, but flattery isn't much.
>> >I won't argue that it isn't all illusion. I simply argue
>> >that the illusion may be no less real and potent than
>> >apparent physical reality.
>>
>> Potent to the individual, yes.
>
>Who among us fails to exist as an individual?
>
> Objectively true? That
>> must be demonstrated.
>
>It has yet to be done, obviously. -But objective proof could
>come in time.
Proof of how people's brains work? Yes. Proof that
people's untestable visions are true? No.
<snip>
>I will apply the principle of parsimony and
>> refrain from throwing any out-of-the-blue idea that suits
>> my fancy into the mix until it is clear that I do not already
>> have enough to explain things without it!
>
>Is this not paralell to the Creationist Christian who scoffs
>at Geological record as not real and unnecessary 'cause the
>Bible has all the answers and explanations that person
>needs?
The geological record is objective. It makes sense and
can be objectively tested.
>> >You have no respect for the notion, then, that personal
>> >knowledge of the self and of spiritual reality can be found
>> >within, via meditation or prayer?
>
>> I don't have much regard for the idea of "spiritual reality",
>> though if you get something out of it I have no objection
>> (as long as it doesn't prompt you to step on my dress).
>
>So you have tolerance but no respect. Why? Do you have a
>knowing other than intuition that is responsible for your
>lack of regard? The promise of many religions is that
>introspection and meditation is enough for realization - no
>"faith" - no "dogma". Such promises intrigue me.
Realization of what?
<snip>
>I'm unfamiliar with "Occam".
>Do you admit to intuition and arbitrariness in your belief
>structure? Once Science, as we know it, was in its infancy -
>alive then, would parsimony have you adopt the common belief
>structure of the going Theism?
For Occam's razor, please see:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
(thanx to Ciaran, posted in another thread)
I've often wondered about what position I would have taken
about religion before Copernicus and Darwin. I'm not at all sure
I'd have been an atheist then. I remember that I thought God
was a dumb idea when I was 6, though, before I'd heard of
natural selection or knew much about physics. (I moved to
America at age 6, so that gives me a milestone for dating my
early thoughts.) However, I don't remember ever going to
church in England, and I remember only one conversation
about Jesus (which I distinctly remember being deeply
skeptical about even then.)
My favorite person in history, the poet Shelley, got himself
expelled from Oxford for atheism 50 years before Darwin, so
clearly atheist thought was well established even before the
last great bastion of theism was demolished by Darwin.
Nowadays, religion is just hiding in a few cracks in
comparison to where it used to live, and it doesn't look very
attractive to one who isn't drawn to it in the first place, even
disregarding the dogmatic sects for which I feel contempt.
I'm sure I would have held some very wrong views about the
nature of reality had I been born in, say, 4 BC. I'm sure I hold
some now, but don't know which they are. I'm not about to
take on what I see as unsupported views deliberately, though.
I could never have dreamed up anything like quantum
uncertainty had I lived in the 19th century. That's a discovery
I find really thrilling. Before it, a materialist like me would have
had to take the existing universe as a given, and just apply
Newton's clockworkings to it. With quantum uncertainty,
all you need is the fact of existence itself (incorporating
whatever lies behind matter/energy and the laws of physics).
A universe of the complexity we see can evolve (old sense)
out of that automatically. That's still miraculous, but it's so
much less gadgety than the Newtonian universe that it's an
aesthetic paragon. For me, QM beats any religion or mystical
system I've ever heard of hands down, and it's supported by
objective evidence.
<snip>
>Mysticism doesn't require God, by the way.
If mysticism can also accommodate a completely mechanistic
view of reality (modified by QM) without any of what I would
consider fluff about a special status for the human mind, I'd
regard my whole interaction with the world as mystical. That
would make "mystical" just a word, without much meaning
though, like Spinoza's god.
I just read an old (1980) essay of S.J.Gould's ("Natural
Selection and the Human Brain, Darwin vs. Wallace", in
the book of essays "The Panda's Thumb"). In that essay,
he mentions a difference between Darwin and Wallace.
Wallace stopped short of including the human brain in
natural selection, and insisted that divine intervention was
required to make something that seemed to so far exceed
what was needed for survival. Darwin of course pushed
past that psychological barrier in "The Descent of Man".
Gould points out that "Natural selection may build an
organ 'for' a specific function or group of functions. But
this 'purpose' need not fully specify the capacity of the
organ ... A factory may install a computer only to issue the
monthly pay checks, but such a machine can also
analyze the election returns or whip anyone's ass (or at
least perpetually tie them) in tic-tack-toe. Our large brains
may have originated 'for' some set of necessary skills in
gathering food, socializing, or whatever, but these skills
do not exhaust the limits of what such a complex
machine can do. Fortunately for us, those limits include,
among other things, an ability to write, from shopping lists
to grand opera for a few."
When we rhapsodize about our capacities, it's
educational to notice what we can't do. For example, we
can hear many octaves of sound, but see less than one
octave of colour. Imagine the new dimension that would
be added to painting if we had eight or ten kinds of pure
red, as we have eight or ten kinds of D-flat. What new
appreciation of sculpture might we have if we could
echo-locate as bats do? What kind of smell-symphonies
might we create if we could smell as well as dogs?
Those limititations are very telling about our history, just as
the poor structure of our knees tells about how little time
natural selection has had to hone our upright gait. Our
brains are our pasture and our prison, an agglomeration
of capabilities surrounded by incapacities. There's
nothing mystical about that: it fits very well with a
mechanical view of how they evolved. It doesn't even
suggest mysticism, as far as I can see.
You're free to believe what you want, and if the fact
that it can't be disproved yet or ever is enough for you,
so be it. I want what seems to me to be more, which
seems to you to be less.
<snip>
MyKill
>
> On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 18:15:14 -0700, MyKill
> <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Jeff Wilson wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >> This is alt.atheism. If you don't have hard, reproducible
> >> evidence you're not going to get anywhere here.
> >
> >what you're describing sounds more like "alt.materialism".
>
> If materialism includes quantum uncertainty, then my
> particular atheism is entwined and fused with that.
If "quantun uncertainty" is a proven fact of Science, then
you are a materialist as well as an Atheist.
>
> <snip>
> I might use the word "paradigm" instead of "truth" for
> something that's internally consistent but not unique.
Fair enough.
> <snip>
> >The (Scientific) Authorities proofs are regularly tested by Collegiate
> >undergraduates or Grad students, justifing said faith.
>
> That's still reliance on authority.
True, but if called on it, it would be possible to provide
proof other than authority. There is an element of being
reasonable, even in reason.
>
> <snip>
> > It's just a person's psychic meanderings, which have
> >> their source in natural selection. Natural selection cares
> >> nothing for truth. It teaches us Newton instead of Einstein
> >> because Newton is easier to calculate when leaping from
> >> one tree branch to another.
> >
> >And how does this notion not reflect faith similar to that
> >required of religion? It SEEMS right to you - but so what?
> >-Right? -Or have you objective proof?
>
> You keep coming back to the idea, stated or implied,
> without a shred of objective evidence, that there must
> be some kind of nonmaterial essence "out there"
> someplace that people can tune into. I don't get it.
> It seems like really powerful wishful thinking to me.
Wishful thinking? Yes, that is one example of one kind of
non material essense.
> Mozart's Prague Symphony is a structure similar to
> the ideas that mystics construct, I imagine. That
> symphony is an overwhelmingly compelling structure
> whose riches seem to have no end, but I see no
> reason whatsoever to therefore assume that it must
> be somehow tuned into something unknown.
All creativity is outside of science's capability to
quantify - rendering it an "unkown".
We
> know enough of human psychology and of art to see
> how those are sufficient to account for it.
This is a belief, almost of a religious scale. We can almost
prove nothing in psychology outside of some success in
psychopharmacology.
It just
> doesn't make any sense to me at all to go fishing
> around for something extraneous to add the
> world-bound and apparently adequate factors that
> make up Mozart or Sufism. I very much doubt any
> mystical structure will ever look as good to me as
> the Prague Symphony. To be sure I can get
> transported by Mozart, but that doesn't mean there
> must be something non-material involved in Mozart
> or in my psychological response to his music.
Is not a psychological response non material by definition?
-The most you can claim is a material source for the non
material substance of psychology.
Since
> there's no evidence for anything non-material, and
> no need for it, why pop such an idea in there? Just
> out of human egotism?
Thought is non-material, is it truly reasonable to assume it
is unique and alone in that? Dreams are non material as
well. You're thinking through your bias and not looking at
the obvious.
> >> <snip>
> >> >Here then is the heart of your position: contempt for
> >> >psychological reality (in your case, the value system of
> >> >Secular Humanism) and denial of any possiblity of it having
> >> >real significance.
>
> Significance for what?
Most of us will die ( allowing for Bill Gates immortaly thru
cloning replacement body parts) - at which point we will
either just exist as memories or we will exist beyond that
in some manner. If the latter proposition is true, you'll
find psychological and spiritual reality is terribly
signigicant.
Ultimately something has to stand
> by itself, without being significant for something else. If you
> think there's a deity or something out there, then I guess
> human psychological machinations could be significant for
> that, and that god or whatever would have no significance
> for anything else, or maybe it would be significant for some
> uberGod, and on and on. If you don't go for the mysticism
> idea, your life can stand by itself. Not as flattering as
> having a God perhaps, but flattery isn't much.
God is a metaphor - and as such cannot not exist. The
question is if God is as a vegetable, unthinking and non
sentient - or if our universe and reality was created from
intellect and sentience: the more familiar notion of a GOD.
I know that I am both intelligent and sentient - But I'm
also pretty damn stupid: I sure hope Einstein isn't the
ceiling to intelligence in our objective reality. I hope
humanity isn't it - the apex of intelligence and sentience
in all the universe!
>
> >It has yet to be done, obviously. -But objective proof could
> >come in time.
>
> Proof of how people's brains work? Yes. Proof that
> people's untestable visions are true? No.
It is silly to predict what Science will or will not be
capable of in the future.
However, complete knowledge of how the brain/mind works will
certainly answer all questions about visions. I'm not too
optimistic about a complete knowledge of how the brain/mind
works any time soon or at all: every answer in turn raising
10 or more questions...
> <snip>
> >I will apply the principle of parsimony and
> >> refrain from throwing any out-of-the-blue idea that suits
> >> my fancy into the mix until it is clear that I do not already
> >> have enough to explain things without it!
> >
> >Is this not paralell to the Creationist Christian who scoffs
> >at Geological record as not real and unnecessary 'cause the
> >Bible has all the answers and explanations that person
> >needs?
>
> The geological record is objective. It makes sense and
> can be objectively tested.
I'm simply referring to the notion that having an answer to
a question doesn't necesarily mean it silly to look at other
answers or paradigms. This is exactly what the Creationists
do. -And, justified as you are, you follow their example.
> >> I don't have much regard for the idea of "spiritual reality",
> >> though if you get something out of it I have no objection
> >> (as long as it doesn't prompt you to step on my dress).
> >
> >So you have tolerance but no respect. Why? Do you have a
> >knowing other than intuition that is responsible for your
> >lack of regard? The promise of many religions is that
> >introspection and meditation is enough for realization - no
> >"faith" - no "dogma". Such promises intrigue me.
> Realization of what?
You find that out when you realise it.
A clarification might be that I disagree with your not
extending of benefit of the doubt to beliefs that that
you're personally satisfied arn't "it" but neither can
discredit (spirituality being outside of scientific
quantification - for now).
> <snip>
> >I'm unfamiliar with "Occam".
> >Do you admit to intuition and arbitrariness in your belief
> >structure? Once Science, as we know it, was in its infancy -
> >alive then, would parsimony have you adopt the common belief
> >structure of the going Theism?
>
> For Occam's razor, please see:
> http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
> (thanx to Ciaran, posted in another thread)
Thanx!
>
> I've often wondered about what position I would have taken
> about religion before Copernicus and Darwin. I'm not at all sure
> I'd have been an atheist then. I remember that I thought God
> was a dumb idea when I was 6, though, before I'd heard of
> natural selection or knew much about physics. (I moved to
> America at age 6, so that gives me a milestone for dating my
> early thoughts.) However, I don't remember ever going to
> church in England, and I remember only one conversation
> about Jesus (which I distinctly remember being deeply
> skeptical about even then.)
I was indoctrinated in a Southern Baptist Sunday School. I
queried why Jesus thought so much of children when, as a
child, I knew they could be cruel and evil. I also thought
Missionary was the same as Mercenary! -Ha! I had my first
real existential crisis at age 7 (did a lot of moving to and
fro various family members then).
>
> My favorite person in history, the poet Shelley, got himself
> expelled from Oxford for atheism 50 years before Darwin, so
> clearly atheist thought was well established even before the
> last great bastion of theism was demolished by Darwin.
> Nowadays, religion is just hiding in a few cracks in
> comparison to where it used to live, and it doesn't look very
> attractive to one who isn't drawn to it in the first place, even
> disregarding the dogmatic sects for which I feel contempt.
I tend be whatever is unpopular - just to be different. My
spirituality probably has much to do with living most of my
life with Atheist parents and family - and many my friends
being Atheist science geeks. To be honest, I spent a lot of
time attacking Christianity then (see my syllogism 666 and
"Scary suggestion for Christians" posts here). My background
is mostly one of playing role playing games and reading
books on the occult. Playing a bit with the occult, I
satisfied myself that there was something to it and then
lost interest (It's so much more effective to punch someone
if you hate them, rather than to light black candles and
pretend to punch them). My interest in Occult matured into
an interest in Zen.
> I'm sure I would have held some very wrong views about the
> nature of reality had I been born in, say, 4 BC. I'm sure I hold
> some now, but don't know which they are. I'm not about to
> take on what I see as unsupported views deliberately, though.
>
> I could never have dreamed up anything like quantum
> uncertainty had I lived in the 19th century. That's a discovery
> I find really thrilling. Before it, a materialist like me would have
> had to take the existing universe as a given, and just apply
> Newton's clockworkings to it. With quantum uncertainty,
> all you need is the fact of existence itself (incorporating
> whatever lies behind matter/energy and the laws of physics).
> A universe of the complexity we see can evolve (old sense)
> out of that automatically. That's still miraculous, but it's so
> much less gadgety than the Newtonian universe that it's an
> aesthetic paragon. For me, QM beats any religion or mystical
> system I've ever heard of hands down, and it's supported by
> objective evidence.
A lot of Eastern mystical beliefs work to metaphorically
anticipate Quantum Mechanics. I must confess to having
limited exposure to Quantum mechanics though.
> <snip>
> >Mysticism doesn't require God, by the way.
>
> If mysticism can also accommodate a completely mechanistic
> view of reality (modified by QM) without any of what I would
> consider fluff about a special status for the human mind, I'd
> regard my whole interaction with the world as mystical. That
> would make "mystical" just a word, without much meaning
> though, like Spinoza's god.
I've reduced "magick" in such a way. I don't understand
thouroughly the model of quantum mechanics and am thus
unable to give you my view.
> I just read an old (1980) essay of S.J.Gould's ("Natural
> Selection and the Human Brain, Darwin vs. Wallace", in
> the book of essays "The Panda's Thumb"). In that essay,
> he mentions a difference between Darwin and Wallace.
> Wallace stopped short of including the human brain in
> natural selection...*clip*
Natural selection alone doesn't account for evoloution: If I
push all of humanity off the top of the Empire State
Building - not one human will develope the capacity to fly.
I believe (and this is at best a theory) that evoloution is
a function of will. That would account no human record
failing to be broken in time. That accounts for "practice
makes perfect". -And would explain why IQ increases with
education when, in theory, it is independant. I believe
talent, as well as skill - can be "learned".
> When we rhapsodize about our capacities, it's
> educational to notice what we can't do. For example, we
> can hear many octaves of sound, but see less than one
> octave of colour. Imagine the new dimension that would
> be added to painting if we had eight or ten kinds of pure
> red, as we have eight or ten kinds of D-flat. What new
> appreciation of sculpture might we have if we could
> echo-locate as bats do? What kind of smell-symphonies
> might we create if we could smell as well as dogs?
> Those limititations are very telling about our history, just as
> the poor structure of our knees tells about how little time
> natural selection has had to hone our upright gait. Our
> brains are our pasture and our prison, an agglomeration
> of capabilities surrounded by incapacities. There's
> nothing mystical about that: it fits very well with a
> mechanical view of how they evolved. It doesn't even
> suggest mysticism, as far as I can see.
That's one paradigm - of a great many possible ones. Mystics
are often frowned upon by the mainsteam religion as
blaphemous or worse (as they defy the authority of the
Institution and seek personal wisdom rather than blindly
following). I would argue that spirituality as an experience
is unnatural to most humans. So I have no problem with
anyone not being spiritual if its not in their nature. I
simply insist on extension of benefit of the doubt to those
that do pursue spirituality. I argue that Atheism definitly
does not have a distinction as being more thoughtfull than
all other pardigms.
>
> You're free to believe what you want, and if the fact
> that it can't be disproved yet or ever is enough for you,
> so be it. I want what seems to me to be more, which
> seems to you to be less.
Evidence for Spirituality may not be found in material
reality - which is all you're willing to examine. If it is
true that we are spirits and not our bodies - a supposition
promoted by many mystics - then the mind must on some level
already know this. It is simply a matter of clearing the
mind of clutter to properly reveal its nature. -Or so is the
premise of my practice.
MyKill
MyKill
yang hu
> A lot of Eastern mystical beliefs work to metaphorically
> anticipate Quantum Mechanics. I must confess to having
> limited exposure to Quantum mechanics though.
just read Gribbon's In Search of Schrodinger's Cat. A decade old but
still very readable to the non-physicists.
> Natural selection alone doesn't account for evoloution: If I
> push all of humanity off the top of the Empire State
> Building - not one human will develope the capacity to fly.
Just like If I subject all of the dinosaurs to a meteor the size of
Santa Monica not one dinosaur will develop the ability to resist a
nuclear winter- And yet mass extinction does not contradict evolution.
> I believe (and this is at best a theory) that evoloution is
> a function of will. That would account no human record
> failing to be broken in time. That accounts for "practice
> makes perfect". -And would explain why IQ increases with
> education when, in theory, it is independant. I believe
> talent, as well as skill - can be "learned".
Human records were broken in time. For example we have no written recods
in parts of Europe during the Middle ages despite the fact that there
were written records by the Romans prior to that period.
Personally I think that IQ is as good an indicator of intellegence as
SAT scores- that is to say none (I scored in the 98th percentile when I
was in high school, and from experience I can say that more than 2
percent of the Americans are smarter than me)
> Evidence for Spirituality may not be found in material
> reality - which is all you're willing to examine. If it is
> true that we are spirits and not our bodies - a supposition
> promoted by many mystics - then the mind must on some level
> already know this. It is simply a matter of clearing the
> mind of clutter to properly reveal its nature. -Or so is the
> premise of my practice.
on a completely unrelated tangent, since the molecules in our body are
recylced from someone else, you realize that you and I at one point or
another may contain a molecule in our kidney that once belonged to
Jesus' toe nail or that the elements that made up our hair might have
come from Hitler's appendix?
Yang
#28
Claus Lisberg
<mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Claus Lisberg wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 1998 02:33:35 -0700, MyKill
>> <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Jeff Wilson wrote:
>> >>
>> >Religion operates on the plane of psychology - it that
>> >domain it can hit right on. At least Buddhism does for me.
>>
>> "In illusion comfort lies" and all.
>I would argue that those for whom Science is a preferable
>alternative to Religion have said bias as a function of
>finding it comfortable as much as anything else.
Then you need to learn about science, its methods, what claims it
makes, how it makes them, and so forth. And "science" isn't
capitalized unless it's the first word in a sentence.
Science, unlike Christianity, works.
>> Some religions, such as the Christian one, makes several claims that
>> go against scientific facts.
>>
>Those Christians that insist that literal interpretation on
>the Bible precludes Science facts like, for example,
>geologic record - hardly represent the whole, or even a
>significant minority, of Christian faith. The Seminary that
>doesn't promote much Bible as being metaphorical in nature
>will be very tough to find.
As I said, some religions, such as the Christian one, make several
clams that go against scientific facts.
>Your statement is severely bigoted. -Like saying All Black
>men are rapists 'cause it's true of Mike Tyson. You do owe
>Christians an apology. (Not me, I'm not Christian).
No. I'm not bigoted, nor am I making a blanket statement. I'm viewving
Christinaity from a historical point of view, and seeing how it is
used today.
If anything, Christians owe apologies to the thousands of innocent
they've killed in the name of their god.
>> "Science" isn't capitalized unless it's the first word in a sentence.
>
>Religions get capitalized. To the extent science functions
>as an alternative or substitute for religion - are you sure
>Science shouldn't be capitalized?
Are you refering to science as a religion? If so, see the faq. It
should be quite obvious to anyone with knowledge of religion, and what
consititues one and science that equalling the two is not only wrong,
it's laughable.
>> >In my logic 101 class it held honour as a way of knowing yet
>> >was denigrated as being useless for a proof.
>>
>> Eh?
>
>Law does use this as a proof: "I saw that Man do that bad
>thing!" is considered valid evidence - even when supporting
>fact and other evidence is absent....
Evidence, not proof, no?
>Hypothetically, if you were to spontaneously levitate out of
>your chair and then fall to the floor - absent of witnesses
>- you still know it happened - that it is real. Even though
>there is no proof that it happened outside of your
>experience.
Heh, that'd be neat.
>And the experience is no axiom for argument
>with anyone who also didn't share your experience. -Such is
>the catch 22 of anyone who may have a genuine UFO
>experience.
If I can't re levitate, I'd ask myself what kind of drugs I was using
at the time.
>> Probably the latter.
>
>But without hard fact to the contrary, it is impolite to not
>at least extend benefit of the doubt.
Not when their raving behavior and delusions start affecting me
directly. Not when they're destroying the minds of thousands, when
they're putting guilt in the minds of innocent children.
I will not be polite.
>Crazy people are people who have revelations and don't get
>that everyone else shouldn't get their experience.
>Christians are excused as they have their own culture and
>brainwashing techniques.
Yes, agree.
>The sane person keeps his mouth shut! Or at least expresses
>his experience in a context that doesn't have it "prove"
>something.
Please clarify.
>> >
>> >The goal of science is to explore, explain and understand
>> >the nature of the physical world in which we live. Religion
>> >has the goal of explaining and understanding meaning in
>> >life.
>>
>> Already made one assumption; that tere is a meaning with life. Back it
>> up first, then move on. Logic 101.
>
>For many it is a more comfortable notion - that life have
>inherent meaning instead of it having none. It is certainly
>the assumption behind most law. If life has no meaning - the
>true consequences of rape, torture, murder, genocide... are
>in fact trivial.
While life may not have a meaning, that doesn't mean one cannot aim at
living a good one. laws help with this.
>That is reason enough to seek proof of meaning in life.
>Since we already work with that assumption anyway.
Many theist do, I don't.
>> Our opinions differ, then.
>
>God is real, by definition.
Only the Right God(tm).
>The question isn't if God is
>real or not - how can a metaphor be unreal?
"Blue is white just as yellow is yellow".
>The question is
>the nature of the truth of creation: was it borne of random
>design or of intelligent design? Is God an unreasoning
>idiot?
Occam's razor.
>Or is our intelligence redundant and superfluous -
>because it pales in comparison to ...something?
It's nice to contemplate upon this, but until compelling evidence
arrives that supports this view, wouldn't it be more reasonable to
live as if it didn't,s since evidence suggest this?
maff91
wrote:
>MyKill wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> A lot of Eastern mystical beliefs work to metaphorically
>> anticipate Quantum Mechanics. I must confess to having
>> limited exposure to Quantum mechanics though.
>
>
>just read Gribbon's In Search of Schrodinger's Cat. A decade old but
>still very readable to the non-physicists.
"n Search of Schrodinger's Cat : Quantum Physics and Reality" by John
Gribbin
[snip]
Norman Doering
news:35E51268...@mindspring.com/snip/
>> You keep coming back to the idea, stated or implied,
>> without a shred of objective evidence, that there must
>> be some kind of nonmaterial essence "out there" someplace
>> that people can tune into. I don't get it.
>> It seems like really powerful wishful thinking to me.
>
> Wishful thinking? Yes, that is one example of one kind of
> non material essense.
believe that the brain is a biological mechanism that contains
these thoughts and wishful thoughts?
/snip/
> All creativity is outside of science's capability to quantify -
> rendering it an "unkown".
becoming an essential part of future schemes for creating
artificial intelligence.
Do you know about the genetic algorithm and its relationship
to neural nets? Here are some links:
http://www.aic.nrl.navy.mil/galist/
The Genetic Algorithms Archive
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/coast/archive/clife/FAQ/www/
Hitch-Hiker's Guide to Evolutionary Computation
news:comp.ai.genetic
http://www.marlboro.edu/~lmoss/planhome/index.html
Evolutionary Computer Graphics (more natural looking evolutions)
One thing about evolution you have to admit -- it's creative
in the same way a human being can be.
/snip/
> This is a belief, almost of a religious scale. We can almost
> prove nothing in psychology outside of some success in
> psychopharmacology.
anything?
/snip/
>> To be sure I can get
>> transported by Mozart, but that doesn't mean there
>> must be something non-material involved in Mozart
>> or in my psychological response to his music.
>
> Is not a psychological response non material by definition?
Evidence suggests psychology is dependent on brain and body.
Drugs can change a person's emotional response. Brain damage
can seriously alter the psychology of a victim. The evidence is
too extensive to even list -- I suggest you do a web search
on the subjects: neurophysiology, neuroscience, the brain...
etc.
>> -The most you can claim is a material source for the non
>> material substance of psychology. Since
>> there's no evidence for anything non-material, and
>> no need for it, why pop such an idea in there? Just
>> out of human egotism?
>
> Thought is non-material, is it truly reasonable to assume it
> is unique and alone in that? Dreams are non material as
> well. You're thinking through your bias and not looking at
> the obvious.
I suppose you don't think people working in artificial
intelligence will ever create a human work-alike intelligence
system?
What is your opinion of the artificial intelligence effort?
/snip/
> God is a metaphor - and as such cannot not exist.
I say God does not exist because I define God as necessarily
having the qualities of foresight, will, desire and intension.
I believe it takes a material system to create such qualities.
> The question is if God is as a vegetable, unthinking and non
> sentient - or if our universe and reality was created from
> intellect and sentience:
that the universe might have even without life in it. Intelligence
is not one thing -- its many things, many systems, working
together.
> ... the more familiar notion of a GOD. I know that I am both
> sure hope Einstein isn't the ceiling to intelligence in our
> objective reality. I hope humanity isn't it - the apex of
> intelligence and sentience in all the universe!
together make for an intelligence system that is much more than
man alone. We see the power of our computers rising every year
and their potential limits lie in the realm of nanotechnology.
/snip/
> It is silly to predict what Science will or will not be
> capable of in the future.
21st century! Not if you're an investor in high tech stocks! Every
new technology is based on predictions made from the edges of the
unknown... Are quantum computers a possibility? How far can we
push genetic engineering? Can we program DNA like we program
computers?
> However, complete knowledge of how the brain/mind works will
> certainly answer all questions about visions. I'm not too
> optimistic about a complete knowledge of how the brain/mind
> works any time soon or at all: every answer in turn raising
> 10 or more questions...
That finish line will let us create human like artificial
intelligences. They've accomplished neural net models that
strongly correlate to the brain's neurons, neural net systems that
are capable of learning. NMRI and PET scans are looking into the
brain to see which areas are active when you think about certain
things. Brain surgery is starting to take on a new sophistication.
>> <snip>
>> >> I will apply the principle of parsimony and
>> >> refrain from throwing any out-of-the-blue idea that suits
>> >> my fancy into the mix until it is clear that I do not already
>> >> have enough to explain things without it!
>> >
>> > Is this not paralell to the Creationist Christian who scoffs
>> > at Geological record as not real and unnecessary 'cause the
>> > Bible has all the answers and explanations that person
>> > needs?
>>
>> The geological record is objective. It makes sense and
>> can be objectively tested.
>
> I'm simply referring to the notion that having an answer to
> other answers or paradigms.
I agree -- but we are looking at your paradigm -- aren't we?
We're reading and considering what you say. We're just trying to
tell you why it doesn't fit into our scheme.
> This is exactly what the Creationists
> do. -And, justified as you are, you follow their example.
They've been told and still don't know.
/snip/
>> > The promise of many religions is that introspection and
>> > meditation is enough for realization - no "faith" - no
>> > "dogma". Such promises intrigue me.
>>
>> Realization of what?
>
> You find that out when you realise it.
Are you looking for something and you don't know what it is
you're looking for?
> A clarification might be that I disagree with your not
> extending of benefit of the doubt to beliefs that that
> discredit (spirituality being outside of scientific
> quantification - for now).
quantification... however, for now it is only theoretical
and speculative, but very solid and fact based speculation.
>> > <snip>
>> > I'm unfamiliar with "Occam".
respect.
>> > Do you admit to intuition and arbitrariness in your
>> > belief structure?
arbitrariness. As far intuition -- we think it has a non-mystical
source.
> Once Science, as we know it, was in its infancy -
> alive then, would parsimony have you adopt the common
> belief structure of the going Theism?
become a deist. In it's time it was the best choice around for
those who were free thinkers. I think the combination of quantum
mechanics and Darwin's theory of common descent shoots down deism
and if Paine lived today he'd have understood he'd dumped deism
too.
>> For Occam's razor, please see:
>> http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
>> (thanx to Ciaran, posted in another thread)
>
> Thanx!
>> My favorite person in history, the poet Shelley, got
>> himself expelled from Oxford for atheism 50 years before
>> Darwin, so clearly atheist thought was well established
>> even before the last great bastion of theism was demolished
>> by Darwin.
>> Nowadays, religion is just hiding in a few cracks in
>> comparison to where it used to live, and it doesn't look
>> very attractive to one who isn't drawn to it in the first
>> place, even disregarding the dogmatic sects for which I
>> feel contempt.
> Playing a bit with the occult, I satisfied myself that there was
Like what? You're getting like the average theist here. You throw
out these claims but don't give any details... It's details
that will at least sound convincing. Prove you know what you're
talking about -- what occult stuff exactly were you into? What
happened to make you think there was something to it?
> ... and then lost interest (It's so much more effective to punch
> pretend to punch them).
What's the reason for black candles? What's the reason for
pretending? Even this tiny little detail sounds just a bit
psychotic.
> My interest in Occult matured into an interest in Zen.
>> I'm sure I would have held some very wrong views about the
>> nature of reality had I been born in, say, 4 BC. I'm sure I
>> hold some now, but don't know which they are. I'm not about
>> to take on what I see as unsupported views deliberately,
>> though.
It reminds me of a line from Alice in Wonderland... "I try to
believe six impossible things before breakfast..." or something
like that. I can fantasize and day dream of impossible worlds,
but I can't leap off into a true "belief."
>> I could never have dreamed up anything like quantum
>> uncertainty had I lived in the 19th century. That's a discovery
>> I find really thrilling. Before it, a materialist like me would
>> have had to take the existing universe as a given, and just apply
>> all you need is the fact of existence itself (incorporating
>> whatever lies behind matter/energy and the laws of physics).
>> A universe of the complexity we see can evolve (old sense)
>> out of that automatically. That's still miraculous, but it's so
>> much less gadgety than the Newtonian universe that it's an
>> aesthetic paragon. For me, QM beats any religion or mystical
>> system I've ever heard of hands down, and it's supported by
>> objective evidence.
>> anticipate Quantum Mechanics.
I think it's more likely that some physicists reached for
Eastern mysticism when confronted by the puzzle of how things
could be like that and then projected "mind" and "observer"
into places where they didn't belong.
/snip/
> Natural selection alone doesn't account for evoloution:
algorithms. Selection accounts for a lot. The other mechanisms
evolutionary biologists have found and postulated are not
"mystical," but mechanistic. There are things going on with
genes that Darwin didn't anticipate -- other mechanisms include
genetic drift and mutator genes. Even sex is a mechanism
of evolution.
> If I push all of humanity off the top of the Empire State
> Building - not one human will develope the capacity to fly.
Evolution builds on small steps, it doesn't take big jumps like
you think must happen. It's more a case of an animal finding a use
for a random mutation that aids its survival rather than them
getting the mutations they want.
> I believe (and this is at best a theory) that evoloution is
> a function of will.
mechanism would the will influence evolution? ... Only if we
become genetic engineers or if you include "those who die trying
generation after generation until they can crawl on the land..."
> That would account no human record
> failing to be broken in time. That accounts for "practice
> makes perfect". -And would explain why IQ increases with
> education when, in theory, it is independant. I believe
> talent, as well as skill - can be "learned".
above, you won't fly even if your life depends on it -- not
without a device.
>> When we rhapsodize about our capacities, it's
>> educational to notice what we can't do. For example, we
>> can hear many octaves of sound, but see less than one
>> octave of colour. Imagine the new dimension that would
>> be added to painting if we had eight or ten kinds of pure
>> red, as we have eight or ten kinds of D-flat. What new
>> appreciation of sculpture might we have if we could
>> echo-locate as bats do? What kind of smell-symphonies
>> might we create if we could smell as well as dogs?
>> Those limititations are very telling about our history, just
>> as the poor structure of our knees tells about how little
>> time natural selection has had to hone our upright gait.
>> Our brains are our pasture and our prison, an agglomeration
>> of capabilities surrounded by incapacities. There's
>> nothing mystical about that: it fits very well with a
>> mechanical view of how they evolved. It doesn't even
>> suggest mysticism, as far as I can see.
> I argue that Atheism definitly does not have a distinction as
> being more thoughtfull than all other pardigms.
> You're free to believe what you want, and if the fact that it
> can't be disproved yet or ever is enough for you, so be it.
> I want what seems to me to be more, which seems to you to be
> less.
> Evidence for Spirituality may not be found in material
> reality -
an experience that those familiar other "spiritual experiences"
regard as a "spiritual experience," then it's a clue to the
chemical nature of those experiences.
>... which is all you're willing to examine.
Not true -- it's all we're are willing to LABEL as real, not all
that we're willing to examine, because Occam's Razor says we
shouldn't introduce a needless new entity into our model of how
things work.
I myself am not willing to induce meditative or drug experiences
any longer.... but I will listen to what others say about them.
Just stick to the experience and drop the dogma.
> If it is true that we are spirits and not our bodies - a
> supposition promoted by many mystics - then the mind must on
> some level already know this. It is simply a matter of clearing
> the mind of clutter to properly reveal its nature. -Or so is
> the premise of my practice.
>
Go ahead and practice... however, my experience tells me that
those who indulge these kinds of practices come away damaged
somehow. I know people who do TM, and my biased perception is
telling me their thinking about everything gets more ambiguous
and fuzzy, they forget things more often, and they seem spaced
out. Proceed with caution, watch yourself closely for negative
effects.
MyKill
>
> MyKill wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > A lot of Eastern mystical beliefs work to metaphorically
> > anticipate Quantum Mechanics. I must confess to having
> > limited exposure to Quantum mechanics though.
>
> still very readable to the non-physicists.
>
>
> > push all of humanity off the top of the Empire State
> > Building - not one human will develope the capacity to fly.
>
> Santa Monica not one dinosaur will develop the ability to resist a
> nuclear winter- And yet mass extinction does not contradict evolution.
Survival of the fittest doesn't come anywhere near
explaining evoloution from water breathing to air breathing,
for example. Survival of the fittest explains the superior
capacity for living in water - water life has, nothing
beyond that. Something must be added to the mix to really
explain evoloution. Mutation doesn't really cut it - in real
life mutations are not beneficial. Mutants, further, are
considered, usually, "ugly" by those not so mutated: How in
danger are humans of being raped by Apes?
>
> > I believe (and this is at best a theory) that evoloution is
> > a function of will. That would account no human record
> > failing to be broken in time. That accounts for "practice
> > makes perfect". -And would explain why IQ increases with
> > education when, in theory, it is independant. I believe
> > talent, as well as skill - can be "learned".
>
> Human records were broken in time. For example we have no written recods
> in parts of Europe during the Middle ages despite the fact that there
> were written records by the Romans prior to that period.
In the modern time of record keeping - the ceilings of human
capcity would surely have been met if we no longer evolve.
If you don't agree with that, do you suppose such a ceiling
will be arrived at soon? How fast is a human capable of
running? -of jumping? - how much weight is it possible for a
human frame to lift? -A limit has yet to be determined.
> Personally I think that IQ is as good an indicator of intellegence as
> SAT scores- that is to say none (I scored in the 98th percentile when I
> was in high school, and from experience I can say that more than 2
> percent of the Americans are smarter than me)
Point taken. However I'm sure that you elect to not
associate with much humanity for lack of a background of
relatedness: comparable intellect. This would certainly skew
your experience of the percentages.
I, by the way, did far better on my IQ testing than I did on
the SAT (poor math skills - but good reasoning)
> > Evidence for Spirituality may not be found in material
> > reality - which is all you're willing to examine. If it is
> > true that we are spirits and not our bodies - a supposition
> > promoted by many mystics - then the mind must on some level
> > already know this. It is simply a matter of clearing the
> > mind of clutter to properly reveal its nature. -Or so is the
> > premise of my practice.
>
>
> on a completely unrelated tangent, since the molecules in our body are
> recylced from someone else, you realize that you and I at one point or
> another may contain a molecule in our kidney that once belonged to
> Jesus' toe nail or that the elements that made up our hair might have
> come from Hitler's appendix?
>
I knew that. Perhaps intuition thereof helped form Eastern
antogonism to Ego?
Thanks for the helpfull reply. And for not slamming me as a
fundie Xtian!
MyKill
Norman Doering
news:35E361A2...@mindspring.com>> On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:50:10 -0700, MyKill
>
>> > There is no proof to be found or even possible given the
>> > nature of where you're looking from - which is a context of:
>> > no possibility sans hard reproduceable evidence.
>>
>> evidence you're not going to get anywhere here.
>
> what you're describing sounds more like "alt.materialism".
some subjective experiences under the wire as evidence provided
that the person who claims such subjective evidence can meet
a few criteria. For instance, in another post MyKill starts
getting specific about a few of those occult practices he was
into... but then he drops the subject before he says why he
found it convincing. I find that suspicious and annoying.
>> That is of course why people advocating religion never do get
>> anywhere here. In Catullus' poem "Atys", Atys receivesa
>> personal revelation to cut his balls off, which he does,
>> after which Catullus refers to him as "she". Since Catullus
>> such beliefs, I gather this was not aunique event in that age.
>> If there's so much variationin personal revelation, and if you
>> accept that the idea of "truth" requires uniqueness, then
>> unsupported personal revelation is internally inconsistent
>> against a template of unique truth, and is not worth
>> consideration as proof.
>>>> > In my logic 101 class it (revelation) held honour as a
>>>> > way of knowing yet was denigrated as being useless for
>>>> > a proof.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose it's a way to set personal revelation apart from
>>>> the curriculum, while assuaging deeply held sensibilities.
>>>> It's an inauspicious beginning for a logic class, in my
>>>> opinion. Gobbledygook 101.
>>
>> > This is at the heart of our disagreement. I choose the
>> > respect the knowing of the person claiming revelation as
>> > being valid as a possibility, yet useless as a point for
>> > argument.
can meet my criteria -- here's why:
If you've read some of my posts before you'll see me asking
theists who claim to have been "born again" or who "have a
relationship" or "experience" of God (or Jesus or whatever) to
describe it. The reason I do that is because I am familiar with
unusual experiences; dreams, experiences with LSD, DMT and a
couple other psychedelics, illusionary perceptions, intuitive
feelings etc. It's the only thing I've got to compare notes on.
I can even jokingly refer to good and bad omens. However, while
they claim experience as the source most of the time all you get
is dogma and "well you can't prove it wrong," but no description
of these claimed experiences. (And as has been endlessly noted,
not being able to prove something wrong is no grounds for
believing it... one might seek their own evidence, but don't
expect the same conclusions if you can't outline the evidence in
specifics.)
It's very rare that you'll ever get anyone to even attempt such a
description. Often they'll say something like "could you describe
the color blue to a blind man?" When I get a response like that I
tell them what they are talking about is a qualia. Qualia means a
"unique quality in perception," blue is qualia, red, salt, pain,
orgasm, and aspects of smell are qualia. Then I tell them that yes
I can tell a blind from birth person some things about the color
blue and prove that sighted people have an ability there. The
exact nature of the qualia may not be described but I can share
what kind of information the qualia provides. At that point they
stop responding to my posts.
Once some theist said they wouldn't describe it because it would
sound crazy -- which of course suggests to me, maybe that's
because it is crazy.
>> > Do you consider the innovations of Nicolai Tesla
>> > as gobbledygook 'cause they sprang from the same
>> > "revelationary" source as much world religion?
here is the subconscious mind. Tesla's revelations lived and
breathed in the technological world. The ideas of theists
live and breathe in an ancient fantasy world.
>> I don't regard Tesla's revelations as gobbledygook at all,
>> because he (or somebody, I know little about Tesla myself)
>> was able to back them up. For every Tesla there are countless
>> equally inspired would-be Teslas who were wrong.
energy camp are wrong. Also the paraphsychologists and "quantum
mystics."
>> In realms where there is no possibility of distinguishing
>> truth from falsehood, such as religion, the best
>> working assumption by far is that any given Tesla is wrong.
description of reality. It's evolution in action. A mutant idea
surfaces and either survives or dies. What you have to look at is
where that idea is living its life when it does survive. It's not
the source of the ideas but the environment they live in.
Theological ideas live and breathe in a world of symbolism with no
contact to reality. Tesla's ideas lived in this world as
technological inventions.
>> I'm certainly not saying that inspiration is always useless (I
>> write music, after all).
>> I'm saying that it's nowhere near enough
>> to discover truth.
> Were you a religious person claiming to have access to
> ultimate truth through revelation alone I would condemn
> you as a madman.
alt.atheism offer us: Their holy book of contradictions
and personal experiences they claim that trying to describe
would be like "trying to describe blue to a blind man."
> You are right that revelation falls short of truth.
> Revelation does point to possibility that could be truth.
> Most serious mystics also echo the thought. It is a common
> rule of thumb in mysticism: the more one claims to know the
> less that is understood.
the surface area of ignorance.
> A Sufi (The sufi are Islamic Mystics and pretty far out [and
> cool!] as mystics go) parable: A man dies and his spirit arrives
> at the Gates to Paradise. Saint Peter gaurds the gates and
> queries the spirit: "On what basis do you claim to be worthy of
> entry to Paradise?". The Spirit thinks a bit and answers:
> "First tell me, how is it I may know these are truly the gates
> to Paradise and not a delusion of my mind experiencing death?".
> Before Saint Peter can respond - from within the gate: "Let him
> in - He's one of us!".
>
> The SUFI, by the way - have the official stamp of approval of
> most factions of Islam (They predate Islam, but were given the
> seal of approval by Muhhumad himself!). Sufism is the one saving
> grace of Islam.
than that story. After all, you can take a few of Jesus lines:
"Love one another as you love yourself...by their fruits you shall
know them." But then when you look at Jesus's fruits you realize
he couldn't pass his own test. He damned people who didn't believe
in him, prophetic visions of destruction and what not... and
that's without considering his schisms of followers.
/snip/
>> Garbage. The "reality of the inner human" is not objective
>> reality.
touch on it now. Experiences are made from expectations, brain
states and objective reality. The "inner reality" is the brain and
the brain is objectivly there to study - a naturalistic material
phenomena.
> The "inner reality" is the only medium humans have to
> interract with objective reality. Objective reality shifts
> and warps subjectively for each person - which is why
> necessary and not merely helpfull.
> There's no reason to suppose to know thought originates
> from within our physical bodies at all. The brain could be
> as much an amplifier as source.
There is quite a bit of evidence that the brain is the source.
Again, look into the neurosciences.
/snip/
>> > You have no respect for the notion, then, that personal
>> > knowledge of the self and of spiritual reality can be found
>> > within, via meditation or prayer?
meditation and prayer. Introspection is another matter.
>> I don't have much regard for the idea of "spiritual reality",
>> though if you get something out of it I have no objection
>> (as long as it doesn't prompt you to step on my dress).
>
> So you have tolerance but no respect.
that view from experience.
> Why?
Because people who claim the experiences can't back them up.
> Do you have a knowing other than intuition that is responsible
> for your lack of regard?
> The promise of many religions is that introspection and
> meditation is enough for realization - no "faith" - no "dogma".
> Such promises intrigue me.
of those methods ALONE is not good enough.
>> > Can you not see, possible as your model is, it is no less
>> > arbitrary than any other model?
back it up. The theists that come here don't.
/snip/
> Hang gliding too is impossible until you seriously give it a
> try.
What bullshit! I can see them fly through the air before I try
and I can want that experience. I've seen theists too -- and
that's an experience I do not want because of where it seems to
lead. I can know it's possible to to glide before I try -- and I
can know it's possible to be a theist before I try -- but gliding
looks like a lot more fun.
/snip/
>> If I were vitally interested in spirituality, I might be
>> struggling along your path. Since I feel no need for
>> spirituality in myself, and since it looks like pointless
>> waffling to me, I don't give it much thought except when
>> responding to posts in alt.atheism..
> I look for possibility and do have an interest in
> spirituality.
fooling yourself.
yang hu
> Survival of the fittest doesn't come anywhere near
> explaining evoloution from water breathing to air breathing,
> for example.
you are asking the wrong person since I am not a biologist. However,
from my high school bio days I vaguely remember that fish do not breath
water, they breathe oxygen, the gill is the organ which filters the
oxygen out of the water. And I think the amphibians don't have lungs but
rather that they have a slightly modified gill to diffuse oxygen from
the atmosphere.
>Survival of the fittest explains the superior
> capacity for living in water - water life has, nothing
> beyond that.
unless some of the species who are not as fit to live in water find a
niche on land. The analogy for the above argument would be as if a human
factory worker who has just been laid off from a factory. Obviously he
is the least 'fit' of the workers. But he is not going to just throw up
his hands and say "I guess I just lost at the game of evolution, time
for me to get off this planet" instead he would probably go find another
job, perhaps one that does not pay as well as the job that he had just
lost but in time he would develop a level of expertise for his new job
and as a result no one can take over his new job.
> Something must be added to the mix to really
> explain evoloution. Mutation doesn't really cut it - in real
> life mutations are not beneficial.
usually, though it was my impression (and I could be wrong) the sickle
cell anemia was a genetic mutation/defect that proved to be beneficial
for those living in regions that have malaria.
> Mutants, further, are
> considered, usually, "ugly" by those not so mutated: How in
> danger are humans of being raped by Apes?
Courtship is much more complicated than that in human society, IIRC
George Murasan, the 7 feet 7 NBA center, got to be his height because a
mutation of some sort prevented his glands to switch off the production
of growth hormones (and without modern medicine, he would have died).
Granted, he is not the 'mutant' of your imagery, one with a horns and an
extra arm sticking out of his body, but you can imagine how his
'mutation' have given him a very respectable position in society and
giving him a chance to pass on his genes. Another example was that the
original Siamese twin ended up having two families in the Carolina in
the late 19th century, and they were are probably not 'physically
attractive' by most standards.
> In the modern time of record keeping - the ceilings of human
> capcity would surely have been met if we no longer evolve.
> If you don't agree with that, do you suppose such a ceiling
> will be arrived at soon? How fast is a human capable of
> running? -of jumping? - how much weight is it possible for a
> human frame to lift? -A limit has yet to be determined.
I think we are always evolving, as long as the term 'evolve' purely
means' change. As for the physical limitation of a human being, it would
appear that from the Olympic records that we are approaching an
asymptote of some sort, in that records are surpassed in inches and
seconds rather than by feet and minutes. Personally I think events such
as WWII caused the human gene pool to change; perhaps that the gene or
the combination of genes that controlled aggressiveness led a
disproportionate amount of people into the war and as a result the
percentage of the population with those characteristics declined after
WWII. That type of stuff.
> I knew that. Perhaps intuition thereof helped form Eastern
> antogonism to Ego?
I'm afarid my understanding of the eastern philosophies are not as
extensive as I would like it too be.
well, the longer I am a denizen of a.a. the shorter my fuse has become,
however, I do try to answer and discuss with folks (fundies xians are
people too) who pose interesting questions. Instead of coming up to us
and scream that evolution is false and we must accept your words, you
have said that evolution could be false and here are some possible
arguments, and I can respect that.
Yang
#28
Yang
#28
Peter van Velzen
> Survival of the fittest doesn't come anywhere near
> explaining evoloution from water breathing to air breathing,
> for example. Survival of the fittest explains the superior
> capacity for living in water - water life has, nothing
> beyond that. Something must be added to the mix to really
> explain evoloution. Mutation doesn't really cut it - in real
> life mutations are not beneficial. Mutants, further, are
> considered, usually, "ugly" by those not so mutated: How in
> danger are humans of being raped by Apes?
1. Mutation does cut in!
Although most mutation are not beneficial
There all billions of mutations in each generation
of all of the billions of species.
And there all billions of generations.
Some mutations will be beneficial!
2. "Mutants"? But most of us are mutants!
The number of possible renderings of genes in one species is much
greater
than the number of individuals in each species.
Single mutation are however hardly noticable.
As for sexual evolution.
A mutation will be atractive to some individuals
and unattractive to others.
I for instance, never feel attracted to miss world or miss universe,
because they are not my type (I don't like anything over 1 meter 60)
Individuals who are atracted to beneficial mutations
will have more offspring than individuals who are not.
(I have no offspring)
And so. After the mutation has shown to be beneficial,
it will become more attractive in each generation.
3. How endangered are Apes of beeing raped by humans?
Peter van Velzen
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
V'GER
MyKill schrieb in Nachricht <35E5EBE0...@mindspring.com>...
>yang hu wrote:
>>
>> MyKill wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > anticipate Quantum Mechanics. I must confess to having
>> > limited exposure to Quantum mechanics though.
>>
>> still very readable to the non-physicists.
>>
>>
>> > push all of humanity off the top of the Empire State
>> > Building - not one human will develope the capacity to fly.
>>
>> Santa Monica not one dinosaur will develop the ability to resist a
>> nuclear winter- And yet mass extinction does not contradict evolution.
>
>explaining evoloution from water breathing to air breathing,
>for example.
actually, it does. certain species of "water breathing" animals were forced
to travel short distances over land to find another pool of water because
theirs had become uninhabitable. the individuals who survived those trips
obviously were "fitter" speaking in terms of air-breathing, for several
possible reasons, e.g. greater capacity of body parts that would evolve into
lungs.
in those times, land was rather unoccupied which means less "struggle for
life". a lifeform that could stay out of the water (where it wasn't in
danger of being eaten) for some time probably had a huge advantage -
add another few millions of years, and you have a variety of amphibic
species.....
Survival of the fittest explains the superior
>capacity for living in water - water life has, nothing
>beyond that. Something must be added to the mix to really
>explain evoloution. Mutation doesn't really cut it - in real
>life mutations are not beneficial. Mutants, further, are
>considered, usually, "ugly" by those not so mutated: How in
>danger are humans of being raped by Apes?
MOST mutations aren't beneficial. an extremely small percentage actually IS.
and that makes all the difference.
btw....a mutation is not neccessarily something like a third arm or second
head...the overwhelming majority is just a slight variance in your genetic
code, something you perhaps wouldn't even notice.
with "ugly" you probably mean mutations such as caused by strong radiation
and you're right, those most certainly aren't beneficial (just look at
tschernobyl, or japan for that matter...). our immune system offers
impressive mechanisms to repair genetic damage, but too much is too much.
however, as i mentioned before, (natural, spontaneous) mutations are in
general only slight variances in one's genetic code, therefore it is safe to
say that we aren't the descendants of apes who ignored the safety protocols
of their nuclear plants...;-)
>>
>> > I believe (and this is at best a theory) that evoloution is
>> > a function of will. That would account no human record
>> > failing to be broken in time. That accounts for "practice
>> > makes perfect". -And would explain why IQ increases with
>> > education when, in theory, it is independant. I believe
>> > talent, as well as skill - can be "learned".
>>
>> Human records were broken in time. For example we have no written recods
>> in parts of Europe during the Middle ages despite the fact that there
>> were written records by the Romans prior to that period.
>
>In the modern time of record keeping - the ceilings of human
>capcity would surely have been met if we no longer evolve.
>If you don't agree with that, do you suppose such a ceiling
>will be arrived at soon? How fast is a human capable of
>running? -of jumping? - how much weight is it possible for a
>human frame to lift? -A limit has yet to be determined.
of course we still are involved in an evolotionary process. however, the
"survival -and reproduction-of the fittest" just ain't what it used to be
;). and i am really happy that's the case. what it means for the human
gene-pool, i don't know....wow, this would be a discussion...does humanity
"contaminate" it's own gene-pool and if so what are the consequences...on
the other hand it could quickly get very ugly.
when will we reach a ceiling? I am not even sure there exists one.
>> Personally I think that IQ is as good an indicator of intellegence as
>> SAT scores- that is to say none (I scored in the 98th percentile when I
>> was in high school, and from experience I can say that more than 2
>> percent of the Americans are smarter than me)
>
>Point taken. However I'm sure that you elect to not
>associate with much humanity for lack of a background of
>relatedness: comparable intellect. This would certainly skew
>your experience of the percentages.
>
>I, by the way, did far better on my IQ testing than I did on
>the SAT (poor math skills - but good reasoning)
>
>> > Evidence for Spirituality may not be found in material
>> > reality - which is all you're willing to examine. If it is
>> > true that we are spirits and not our bodies - a supposition
>> > promoted by many mystics - then the mind must on some level
>> > already know this. It is simply a matter of clearing the
>> > mind of clutter to properly reveal its nature. -Or so is the
>> > premise of my practice.
>>
>>
>> on a completely unrelated tangent, since the molecules in our body are
>> recylced from someone else, you realize that you and I at one point or
>> another may contain a molecule in our kidney that once belonged to
>> Jesus' toe nail or that the elements that made up our hair might have
>> come from Hitler's appendix?
>>
>I knew that. Perhaps intuition thereof helped form Eastern
>antogonism to Ego?
>
>Thanks for the helpfull reply. And for not slamming me as a
>fundie Xtian!
>
>MyKill
hmmm...the fact that our molecules are recycled from someone elses isn't
half as fascinating as the fact that all of us are recycled stars...
if you wanna email me just remove the obvious...
**************************************************************************
"I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and
without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not
have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own
arguments, you dont. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a
puff of logic.
Douglas Adams, "The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
***************************************************************************
Budikka
"Survival of the fittest doesn't come anywhere near explaining evoloution"
That's why evolutionary (note spelling) theory doesn't stop there - it goes
much, much further as you would know if you had ever read anything about it.
I have no idea how this got into alt.atheism - it really belongs in
talk.origins, but it was too juicy for me not to get into!
"Mutation doesn't really cut it - in real life mutations are not beneficial."
You have been reading too much creationist stuff. If you think mutations are
not beneficial, then try surviving the next epidemic without a vaccine. You'll
have a perfect demonstration of how beneficial mutations are as you see the
newly mutated virus rip into you and swallow you whole.
"Mutants, further, are considered, usually, "ugly" by those not so mutated"
What a warped idea of life you have. Mutations are most often not even
visible.
When a chimpanzee mutated and produced round breasts (like the bonobos have)
instead of the usual flattish ones, and then descendants of this species became
human over time, do you suppose the male of the species found that ugly? I
don't think so.
"How in danger are humans of being raped by Apes?"
Depends on where you live. If it is in New York City, the odds are probably
very low, but if you live in Indonesia, then you might well be raped by an
orang-utan. This has happened and is documented in Birute Galdikas' book,
"Reflections of Eden."
Galdikas studied Orangs for Richard Leakey, as Jane Goodall studied chimpanzees
and Dian Fossey stuidied gorillas.
But what's your point? No evolutionist suggests that one species mates with
another and this is how a third species is created.
This is bullshit creationist lies worthy only of those imbeciles Henry Morris,
and Duane Gish, and that clueless, asshole of a moron Kent Hovind, the most
under-educated PhD in history.
Budikka - creationists have only one science book and it is 2,000 years out of
date.
MyKill
>
> On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 18:15:04 -0700, MyKill
> <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Claus Lisberg wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 24 Aug 1998 02:33:35 -0700, MyKill
> >> <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Jeff Wilson wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >Religion operates on the plane of psychology - it that
> >> >domain it can hit right on. At least Buddhism does for me.
> >>
> >> "In illusion comfort lies" and all.
> >I would argue that those for whom Science is a preferable
> >alternative to Religion have said bias as a function of
> >finding it comfortable as much as anything else.
>
> Then you need to learn about science, its methods, what claims it
> makes, how it makes them, and so forth. And "science" isn't
> capitalized unless it's the first word in a sentence.
You're right - but it is arguably consistant in context as
science is being compared to Religion.
> Science, unlike Christianity, works.
Been there, done that. Science is usefull in the domain of
objective reality. Religion doesn't primarily address
objective reality. You are comparing peaches and pork.
> >> Some religions, such as the Christian one, makes several claims that
> >> go against scientific facts.
> >>
> >Those Christians that insist that literal interpretation on
> >the Bible precludes Science facts like, for example,
> >geologic record - hardly represent the whole, or even a
> >significant minority, of Christian faith. The Seminary that
> >doesn't promote much Bible as being metaphorical in nature
> >will be very tough to find.
>
> As I said, some religions, such as the Christian one, make several
> clams that go against scientific facts.
>
> >Your statement is severely bigoted. -Like saying All Black
> >men are rapists 'cause it's true of Mike Tyson. You do owe
> >Christians an apology. (Not me, I'm not Christian).
>
> No. I'm not bigoted, nor am I making a blanket statement. I'm viewving
> Christinaity from a historical point of view, and seeing how it is
> used today.
You're making a blanket statement about all Christians -
which is neither true nor fair because in fact, Christianity
is very diverse. In short, you are lying. The first false
premise being that there is any such thing as THE Christian
religion.
> If anything, Christians owe apologies to the thousands of innocent
> they've killed in the name of their god.
If you then agree that all White people share responsibility
for historical crimes against Black people and indiginous
peoples - and should unanimously share in wage garnishing to
make appropriate reparations: Then I can applaud you on
being consistant. If you believe We have vastly diminished
responsibility for the crimes of our forebears - then you
are a bloody hypocrit.
*clip-*
> Are you refering to science as a religion? If so, see the faq. It
> should be quite obvious to anyone with knowledge of religion, and what
> consititues one and science that equalling the two is not only wrong,
> it's laughable.
I certainly laugh when people make claims about the
unknowable and claim groundedness in "science".
> >> >In my logic 101 class it held honour as a way of knowing yet
> >> >was denigrated as being useless for a proof.
> >>
> >> Eh?
> >
> >Law does use this as a proof: "I saw that Man do that bad
> >thing!" is considered valid evidence - even when supporting
> >fact and other evidence is absent....
>
> Evidence, not proof, no?
The collective opinion of a jury: this constitutes "proof".
> >Hypothetically, if you were to spontaneously levitate out of
> >your chair and then fall to the floor - absent of witnesses
> >- you still know it happened - that it is real. Even though
> >there is no proof that it happened outside of your
> >experience.
>
> Heh, that'd be neat.
And if you met a person who made such a claim - you'd no
doubt make them a laughingstock!
>
> >And the experience is no axiom for argument
> >with anyone who also didn't share your experience. -Such is
> >the catch 22 of anyone who may have a genuine UFO
> >experience.
>
> If I can't re levitate, I'd ask myself what kind of drugs I was using
> at the time.
Exactly, and if you didn't take any drugs - you'd suspect
your coke of being spiked. -You are incapable of not
knowing. You will force an expanation that seems acceptable
to you. You cannot see outside of your narrow view of
reality so you force anything that may not fit to conform.
-This is being grounded in Science?
>
> >> Probably the latter.
> >
> >But without hard fact to the contrary, it is impolite to not
> >at least extend benefit of the doubt.
>
> Not when their raving behavior and delusions start affecting me
> directly. Not when they're destroying the minds of thousands, when
> they're putting guilt in the minds of innocent children.
>
> I will not be polite.
The behavior you have for an example is hardly related to a
revelationary experience. You can hate the behavior and
fight it while still extending benefit of the doubt to the
possibility of some sort of revelation. Paradigms for living
are multitudionous. Respect them all or be a bigot. I'm gay
and hate and fight the gay bashing on the part of many self
proclaimed Christians. I still respect their right to
consider gayness a sin.
>
> >Crazy people are people who have revelations and don't get
> >that everyone else shouldn't get their experience.
> >Christians are excused as they have their own culture and
> >brainwashing techniques.
>
> Yes, agree.
>
> >The sane person keeps his mouth shut! Or at least expresses
> >his experience in a context that doesn't have it "prove"
> >something.
>
> Please clarify.
A person who claims to speak directly to God and assumes
people ought to pay him respect and attention as a
consequence - is a candidate for the funny farm (unless
they're successful televangelists anyway). A person who
explains that they have had an experience that seemed as if
they were talking to God - is a person who had a strange
experience - and who isn't nuts. Crazy people think they
know things as a function of an unusual experience. Sane
people may have unusual experiences, but relate to it as an
unusual experience and are careful about making conclusions
about it.
> >> >
*clip*
> >> Already made one assumption; that tere is a meaning with life. Back it
> >> up first, then move on. Logic 101.
> >
> >For many it is a more comfortable notion - that life have
> >inherent meaning instead of it having none. It is certainly
> >the assumption behind most law. If life has no meaning - the
> >true consequences of rape, torture, murder, genocide... are
> >in fact trivial.
>
> While life may not have a meaning, that doesn't mean one cannot aim at
> living a good one. laws help with this.
"Good life" is a non sequitor if life is devoid of meaning.
Personally I feel meaning in life is something we are
responsible for. As an artist and writer I am responsible
for the meaning in my illustrations and comics. As a person
living a life - the meaning of which is too my
responsibility.
A person I admire is the controversial Yukio Mishima. He was
an oddball - and he did commit suicide. But he lived his
life exactly as if it were an art project - to the extend of
ending his life when the project was complete. -Talk about
aesthetic over all! I have no intent to follow his example
- but I am impressed by it and the unusual paradigm it
represents.
> >That is reason enough to seek proof of meaning in life.
> >Since we already work with that assumption anyway.
>
> Many theist do, I don't.
If you distinguish "good" from "bad" in life - then you are
imposing meaning upon life.
>
> >> Our opinions differ, then.
> >
> >God is real, by definition.
>
> Only the Right God(tm).
>
> >The question isn't if God is
> >real or not - how can a metaphor be unreal?
>
> "Blue is white just as yellow is yellow".
I miss your point. But white light, technically, contains
all colours of the spectrum.
> >The question is
> >the nature of the truth of creation: was it borne of random
> >design or of intelligent design? Is God an unreasoning
> >idiot?
>
> Occam's razor.
>
Is a tool, not a proof. To the best of my knowledge anyhow.
If it relates to religion vs. Science: God is the simpler
(and simplistic) answer anyway.
> >Or is our intelligence redundant and superfluous -
> >because it pales in comparison to ...something?
>
> It's nice to contemplate upon this, but until compelling evidence
> arrives that supports this view, wouldn't it be more reasonable to
> live as if it didn't,s since evidence suggest this?
Envisioning that which is beyond where we are now is the
first step to moving beyond where we are now.
I don't live as if God existed- but I do maintain such is a
possibility. I live as if spirituality is a real concern
because my subjective experience supports such a notion.
MyKill
Founder of SSTL (Stuyvesant Student Terrorist League)
MyKill
>
> MyKill wrote:
>
> > Survival of the fittest doesn't come anywhere near
> > for example.
>
> from my high school bio days I vaguely remember that fish do not breath
> water, they breathe oxygen, the gill is the organ which filters the
> oxygen out of the water. And I think the amphibians don't have lungs but
> rather that they have a slightly modified gill to diffuse oxygen from
> the atmosphere.
>
> > capacity for living in water - water life has, nothing
> > beyond that.
>
> niche on land. The analogy for the above argument would be as if a human
> factory worker who has just been laid off from a factory. Obviously he
> is the least 'fit' of the workers. But he is not going to just throw up
> his hands and say "I guess I just lost at the game of evolution, time
> for me to get off this planet" instead he would probably go find another
> job, perhaps one that does not pay as well as the job that he had just
> lost but in time he would develop a level of expertise for his new job
> and as a result no one can take over his new job.
Specific to the mdel of humans - the primary limitation of
people is psycological. I myself have worked in factories -
and now am a graphic designer. I don't believe I'm typical
however. -And a truer model would be a person leaving
factory labour to become a raja Yogi capable of verifiable
levitation. -Very unlikely.
> > Something must be added to the mix to really
> > explain evoloution. Mutation doesn't really cut it - in real
> > life mutations are not beneficial.
>
> usually, though it was my impression (and I could be wrong) the sickle
> cell anemia was a genetic mutation/defect that proved to be beneficial
> for those living in regions that have malaria.
Diversity of the species is critical to survival as a
species. All those Americans who cannot control their
obesity - those genes are what enabled ancestors to survive
famon to be able to immigrate to America.
> > Mutants, further, are
> > considered, usually, "ugly" by those not so mutated: How in
> > danger are humans of being raped by Apes?
>
> Courtship is much more complicated than that in human society, IIRC
> George Murasan, the 7 feet 7 NBA center, got to be his height because a
> mutation of some sort prevented his glands to switch off the production
> of growth hormones (and without modern medicine, he would have died).
> Granted, he is not the 'mutant' of your imagery, one with a horns and an
> extra arm sticking out of his body, but you can imagine how his
> 'mutation' have given him a very respectable position in society and
> giving him a chance to pass on his genes. Another example was that the
> original Siamese twin ended up having two families in the Carolina in
> the late 19th century, and they were are probably not 'physically
> attractive' by most standards.
I did qualify my statement by using the word "usually".
Those Siamese twins finding mates is a Jeanin Garrofolo joke
when she whines about her singlehood in her standup act: "If
THEY could find partners...."
> > In the modern time of record keeping - the ceilings of human
> > capcity would surely have been met if we no longer evolve.
> > If you don't agree with that, do you suppose such a ceiling
> > will be arrived at soon? How fast is a human capable of
> > running? -of jumping? - how much weight is it possible for a
> > human frame to lift? -A limit has yet to be determined.
>
> I think we are always evolving, as long as the term 'evolve' purely
> means' change. As for the physical limitation of a human being, it would
> appear that from the Olympic records that we are approaching an
> asymptote of some sort, in that records are surpassed in inches and
> seconds rather than by feet and minutes. Personally I think events such
> as WWII caused the human gene pool to change; perhaps that the gene or
> the combination of genes that controlled aggressiveness led a
> disproportionate amount of people into the war and as a result the
> percentage of the population with those characteristics declined after
> WWII. That type of stuff.
I agree that humans continue to change and develope through
time. I think "survival of the fittest" alone is
insufficient to explain evoloution, assuming it fact.
>
> > I knew that. Perhaps intuition thereof helped form Eastern
> > antogonism to Ego?
>
> I'm afarid my understanding of the eastern philosophies are not as
> extensive as I would like it too be.
The Upanisads, classics of Indian Hindu religion, are very
approachable in English translation and provide the basis of
a great deal of Eastern thought. -Much like the Jewish Torah
is a foundation for much western (and Eastern) thought. Alan
Watts writes an introduction to Zen that is very
approachable as well - some hardcore Buddhists don't care
for Alan's books - but I reccomend them. My drug of choice
is Zen - as it is clean of dogma and is a very practical
mental discipline. The Dalai Lama actually claims Zen to be
a science and not a religion - I would agree; although I
must admit the benefits of Zen are not necessarily
objectively quantifiable..
>
> well, the longer I am a denizen of a.a. the shorter my fuse has become,
> however, I do try to answer and discuss with folks (fundies xians are
> people too) who pose interesting questions. Instead of coming up to us
> and scream that evolution is false and we must accept your words, you
> have said that evolution could be false and here are some possible
> arguments, and I can respect that.
I almost believe any proposition COULD be false. I do not
respect anyone who claims to know an absoloute truth
absoloutly when that person can not or will not prove their
truth to be exclusive of all other possibilities. The wise
man knows nothing. -Or such is my assumption at this point
in time.
MyKill
MyKill
>
> > > MyKill wrote: (in a discussion with Yang Hu) among others
>
> > explaining evoloution from water breathing to air breathing,
> > capacity for living in water - water life has, nothing
> > explain evoloution. Mutation doesn't really cut it - in real
> > considered, usually, "ugly" by those not so mutated: How in
> > danger are humans of being raped by Apes?
>
> Although most mutation are not beneficial
> There all billions of mutations in each generation
> of all of the billions of species.
> And there all billions of generations.
> Some mutations will be beneficial!
If you're playing law of averages - I don't see how that
cuts the mustard to make standard evoloutionary theory seem
reasonable.
> 2. "Mutants"? But most of us are mutants!
> The number of possible renderings of genes in one species is much
> greater
> than the number of individuals in each species.
> Single mutation are however hardly noticable.
Exactly! -Going from being a fish to a mammal is an
unimaginable cooperative effort for true random mutation!
> As for sexual evolution.
> A mutation will be atractive to some individuals
> and unattractive to others.
Such is diversity of the species. Carry this thought to it's
natural conclusion , however, and you put a lie to a
foundation of the notion of natural selection.
> I for instance, never feel attracted to miss world or miss universe,
> because they are not my type (I don't like anything over 1 meter 60)
> Individuals who are atracted to beneficial mutations
> will have more offspring than individuals who are not.
> (I have no offspring)
I'm a Gay person and Gay people are consistant through
history without benefit of breeding.
> And so. After the mutation has shown to be beneficial,
> it will become more attractive in each generation.
Intelligence seems beneficial - but the most intelligent
students can be social pariahs to their peers.
>
> 3. How endangered are Apes of beeing raped by humans?
Probably in greater danger than humans are of being raped by
Apes.
MyKill
>
> MyKill apparently wrote:
>
> "Survival of the fittest doesn't come anywhere near explaining evoloution"
>
> much, much further as you would know if you had ever read anything about it.
True, I haven't read much on it outside of basic school
syllabus.
>
> I have no idea how this got into alt.atheism - it really belongs in
> talk.origins, but it was too juicy for me not to get into!
>
> "Mutation doesn't really cut it - in real life mutations are not beneficial."
>
> You have been reading too much creationist stuff. If you think mutations are
> not beneficial, then try surviving the next epidemic without a vaccine. You'll
> have a perfect demonstration of how beneficial mutations are as you see the
> newly mutated virus rip into you and swallow you whole.
Good point - but viruses barely qualify as life forms they
are so alien.
>
> "Mutants, further, are considered, usually, "ugly" by those not so mutated"
>
> What a warped idea of life you have. Mutations are most often not even
> visible.
And for such minor mutation, as I acknowledge are real, to
result in transformation of a lifeform from water living and
breathing to land living and air breathing (The most basic
evoloution) would require cooincidence of such a scale as to
be unbelievable. -Unless one adds will to the equation - of
God or of the species.
> When a chimpanzee mutated and produced round breasts (like the bonobos have)
> instead of the usual flattish ones, and then descendants of this species became
> human over time, do you suppose the male of the species found that ugly? I
> don't think so.
The offsring of said mutation took it for granted,
naturally. I do believe, as a rule of thumb, nature is cruel
to the beast that is too much an exception to its kind. I
could be wrong - please correct me if you know this to be
the case.
> "How in danger are humans of being raped by Apes?"
>
> Depends on where you live. If it is in New York City, the odds are probably
> very low, but if you live in Indonesia, then you might well be raped by an
> orang-utan. This has happened and is documented in Birute Galdikas' book,
> "Reflections of Eden."
...And Humans have raped sheep ... and other animals....
> Galdikas studied Orangs for Richard Leakey, as Jane Goodall studied chimpanzees
> and Dian Fossey stuidied gorillas.
>
> But what's your point? No evolutionist suggests that one species mates with
> another and this is how a third species is created.
Does an entire species occur at once in a whole generation
of offspring? If there was an chance mutation - howcum
breeding with the non mutated didn't have the gene become
dilute and ressive? If the mutation was radical - how did
the mutant breed - being alone in its genetics?
Evoloutionary theory gets real bullshitty if you look at the
details.
>
> This is bullshit creationist lies worthy only of those imbeciles Henry Morris,
> and Duane Gish, and that clueless, asshole of a moron Kent Hovind, the most
> under-educated PhD in history.
Call me a creationist to my face and expect a bloody mouth
and a black eye! My point is that Evoloution is just a
theory - and I argue that it may not be a good one. I am not
promoting falsehood and lies. You may be promoting
Evoloutionary theory as falsehood and lies by resorting to
such a pathetic ad-hominem attack!
MyKill
MyKill
>
> MyKill schrieb in Nachricht <35E5EBE0...@mindspring.com>...
> >yang hu wrote:
> >>
> >> MyKill wrote:
> >Survival of the fittest doesn't come anywhere near
> >explaining evoloution from water breathing to air breathing,
> >for example.
>
> actually, it does. certain species of "water breathing" animals were forced
> to travel short distances over land to find another pool of water because
> theirs had become uninhabitable. the individuals who survived those trips
> obviously were "fitter" speaking in terms of air-breathing, for several
> possible reasons, e.g. greater capacity of body parts that would evolve into
> lungs.
> in those times, land was rather unoccupied which means less "struggle for
> life". a lifeform that could stay out of the water (where it wasn't in
> danger of being eaten) for some time probably had a huge advantage -
> add another few millions of years, and you have a variety of amphibic
> species.....
In your resonse below this one you note that most mutations
are very subtle variations to genetic code. Everything you
say in this paragraph is right on - still it requires an
unbelievable stagerring cooncidence to explain evoloution
from water breathing gills to air breathing lungs. In light
of this proposition, a notion of "God" may be more
reasonable than that of "chance". My original supposition
was that the will of a species can shape and impact its
evoloution - and that's perfectly theism free at least.
> Survival of the fittest explains the superior
> >capacity for living in water - water life has, nothing
> >beyond that. Something must be added to the mix to really
> >explain evoloution. Mutation doesn't really cut it - in real
> >life mutations are not beneficial. Mutants, further, are
> >considered, usually, "ugly" by those not so mutated: How in
> >danger are humans of being raped by Apes?
>
> MOST mutations aren't beneficial. an extremely small percentage actually IS.
> and that makes all the difference.
> btw....a mutation is not neccessarily something like a third arm or second
> head...the overwhelming majority is just a slight variance in your genetic
> code, something you perhaps wouldn't even notice.
The minor variances of genetic code do not add up to
evoloution without tremendous collusion of coincidence, or
of "God", or of "will". Minor variances first of all are
thinned and become recessive genetically with breeding....
> with "ugly" you probably mean mutations such as caused by strong radiation
> and you're right, those most certainly aren't beneficial (just look at
> tschernobyl, or japan for that matter...). our immune system offers
> impressive mechanisms to repair genetic damage, but too much is too much.
> however, as i mentioned before, (natural, spontaneous) mutations are in
> general only slight variances in one's genetic code, therefore it is safe to
> say that we aren't the descendants of apes who ignored the safety protocols
> of their nuclear plants...;-)
LOL!
> >>
> >> > I believe (and this is at best a theory) that evoloution is
> >> > a function of will. That would account no human record
> >> > failing to be broken in time. That accounts for "practice
> >> > makes perfect". -And would explain why IQ increases with
> >> > education when, in theory, it is independant. I believe
> >> > talent, as well as skill - can be "learned".
> >>
> >> Human records were broken in time. For example we have no written recods
> >> in parts of Europe during the Middle ages despite the fact that there
> >> were written records by the Romans prior to that period.
> >
> >In the modern time of record keeping - the ceilings of human
> >capcity would surely have been met if we no longer evolve.
> >If you don't agree with that, do you suppose such a ceiling
> >will be arrived at soon? How fast is a human capable of
> >running? -of jumping? - how much weight is it possible for a
> >human frame to lift? -A limit has yet to be determined.
>
> of course we still are involved in an evolotionary process. however, the
> "survival -and reproduction-of the fittest" just ain't what it used to be
> ;). and i am really happy that's the case. what it means for the human
> gene-pool, i don't know....wow, this would be a discussion...does humanity
> "contaminate" it's own gene-pool and if so what are the consequences...on
> the other hand it could quickly get very ugly.
> when will we reach a ceiling? I am not even sure there exists one.
Care to address the notion of "will" impacting evoloution? I
subjectively believe the intentionality of my parents before
I was born shaped who I came to be: smart, creative and Gay
(Mom was a "faghag"). I think by working towards a goal
dilligently a person can transcend learning, skill and
training. I am a skilled artist - but I believe I now am
more talented as well as skilled than I had been. Subjective
non-science to be sure - but food for thought?
>
> hmmm...the fact that our molecules are recycled from someone elses isn't
> half as fascinating as the fact that all of us are recycled stars...
Perhaps that's what A. Crowley had in mind when he said
"Everone is a Star"?
(Cute D.Adams quote, btw)
MyKill
yang hu
> Specific to the mdel of humans - the primary limitation of
> people is psycological. I myself have worked in factories -
> and now am a graphic designer. I don't believe I'm typical
> however. -And a truer model would be a person leaving
> factory labour to become a raja Yogi capable of verifiable
> levitation. -Very unlikely.
>
I would not compare breathing on the ground to the levitation, If a frog
learns to travel faster than light tomorrow, than I will share your
view, but the diversity and the phenomenons of the biological world have
been spectacular but not inexplicable.
> > usually, though it was my impression (and I could be wrong) the sickle
> > cell anemia was a genetic mutation/defect that proved to be beneficial
> > for those living in regions that have malaria.
>
> Diversity of the species is critical to survival as a
> species. All those Americans who cannot control their
> obesity - those genes are what enabled ancestors to survive
> famon to be able to immigrate to America.
agreed. some phenomenon in the polynesians.
> I did qualify my statement by using the word "usually".
> Those Siamese twins finding mates is a Jeanin Garrofolo joke
> when she whines about her singlehood in her standup act: "If
> THEY could find partners...."
and go along with the sickle cell anemia story, if the mutant gene that
led to the birth of siamese genes also has some resistence against some
form of disease, it may be passed on.
> I agree that humans continue to change and develope through
> time. I think "survival of the fittest" alone is
> insufficient to explain evoloution, assuming it fact.
perhaps, as I've said I am not a biologist. the theory of evolution
itself evolves according to new thing discovered or learned.
> The Upanisads, classics of Indian Hindu religion, are very
> approachable in English translation and provide the basis of
> a great deal of Eastern thought. -Much like the Jewish Torah
> is a foundation for much western (and Eastern) thought. Alan
> Watts writes an introduction to Zen that is very
> approachable as well - some hardcore Buddhists don't care
> for Alan's books - but I reccomend them.
IMHO, the deity of Shiva is one of the most complex and deep concept of
theology I have come across: the god of destruction is also the god of
creation....
>My drug of choice
> is Zen - as it is clean of dogma and is a very practical
> mental discipline.
I like the koans
>The Dalai Lama actually claims Zen to be
> a science and not a religion - I would agree; although I
> must admit the benefits of Zen are not necessarily
> objectively quantifiable..
I went to see the Dalai Lama with my dad at UCLA. my impression of him
was that he was a kind men, but his ability to convey ideas to a large
crowd is not the best. As an ethnic Chinese (from Taiwan, now US
citizen)I am horrified of the Chinese policy of Tibet. Even if I don't
agree with the Dalai Lama (which is a moot point right now since I have
a very vague idea of what he says) I think the institution of Lama is
important, for it is a rallying point. The same way that the Torah
helped a group of nationless people scattered across the world maintin
its identity and memory, the same way (it seems to me) that the
traditional folk songs help the Irish remember who they are, even as
they are driven from their land by famine to the US and Australia.
> I almost believe any proposition COULD be false. I do not
> respect anyone who claims to know an absoloute truth
> absoloutly when that person can not or will not prove their
> truth to be exclusive of all other possibilities. The wise
> man knows nothing. -Or such is my assumption at this point
> in time.
or at the very least a true debate cannot take place unless both side
agree that the other side may have something valuable to say.
Yang
#28
Sterling Crowe
MyKill wrote in message <35E67EFF...@mindspring.com>...
>Peter van Velzen wrote:
>>
>> 1. Mutation does cut in!
>> Although most mutation are not beneficial
>> There all billions of mutations in each generation
>> of all of the billions of species.
>> And there all billions of generations.
>> Some mutations will be beneficial!
>
>If you're playing law of averages - I don't see how that
>cuts the mustard to make standard evoloutionary theory seem
>reasonable.
Here's a site you should check out:
www.talkorigins.org
It'll help you learn about evolution, if you're actually interested.
>> 2. "Mutants"? But most of us are mutants!
>> The number of possible renderings of genes in one species is much
>> greater
>> than the number of individuals in each species.
>> Single mutation are however hardly noticable.
>
>Exactly! -Going from being a fish to a mammal is an
>unimaginable cooperative effort for true random mutation!
Well, it would pretty much blow current evolutionary theory right out of the
water if it happened in one step like that, wouldn't it?
Oh, wait, you don't know much about evolution...
The fact is, the "argument" you are offering here, besides being an argument
from incredulity, is based on the presupposition that fish were "supposed"
to turn into mammals along the way. Simply because it happened to be that
mammals eventually developed on this planet is no reason to assume that it
was the result of "cooperative effort" or that it was "meant to be". Like
many things in life, it just sort of worked out that way.
Kind of like a conversation. Have you ever traced the path of one
conversation with a group of five or six people, from where it started to
all of the threads it took to where you ended up? Does the fact that you
start out talking about women and wind up talking about motorcycles and,
along the way, went through such diverse topics as ice cream, skydiving,
last night's South Park, and a dozen others immediately imply that any of
you directly planned the conversation to go that way or that you were
somehow destined to wind up talking about how Harley Davidson is starting to
wimp out, letting a Jap company build a bigger bike?
You even go through a selective process in that conversation. In a group
that size, someone is invariably going to come up with a joke that flops or
a topic no one feels like talking about. Those are killed off, that
particular variation, or mutation, dies out to be replaced by something,
perhaps related, which thrives for a while.
It's an imperfect analogy, but perhaps it will help you see how small
changes can make quite a difference when they pile up and winding up with
something totally different at the end isn't a function of "cooperative
effort", just a function of statistics.
>> As for sexual evolution.
>> A mutation will be atractive to some individuals
>> and unattractive to others.
>
>Such is diversity of the species. Carry this thought to it's
>natural conclusion , however, and you put a lie to a
>foundation of the notion of natural selection.
You do not demonstrate this at all. Please expound upon it so people can see
what you're trying to get at.
>> I for instance, never feel attracted to miss world or miss universe,
>> because they are not my type (I don't like anything over 1 meter 60)
>> Individuals who are atracted to beneficial mutations
>> will have more offspring than individuals who are not.
>> (I have no offspring)
>
>I'm a Gay person and Gay people are consistant through
>history without benefit of breeding.
Your statement presupposes quite a bit:
a. human sexuality is totally polar, rather than on a scale, affected by
several different genes.
b. human sexuality is genetic, for that matter.
c. humans were even allowed to be exclusively gay during much of "civilized"
humanity's history and thus did not pass on their genes.
If any one of those presuppositions isn't true, your statement is useless as
an argument against evolution.
In fact, if you remain exclusively gay and never get drunk enough to sleep
with a woman, then your particular genes will go bye bye. Natural selection
at work.
However, one thing is fairly obvious: homosexuality, if genetically linked,
is not a dominant gene. Otherwise, it would've died out in the first
generation that presented it.
>> And so. After the mutation has shown to be beneficial,
>> it will become more attractive in each generation.
>
>Intelligence seems beneficial - but the most intelligent
>students can be social pariahs to their peers.
Many intelligent students are indeed shunned in school. Why does this
matter, however, since the adolescent period is not supposed to be a primary
time for breeding in the human race anymore? At least not in civilized
Western society. Sexual behavior in humans is fascinating and complex, but
there is one thing which seems fairly constant: power attracts females. High
school can be tough when social power is represented through sports, but
when knees are blown out and jock careers never get off the ground and it is
time to settle down with a breeding partner, physical strength becomes of
less import to the majority of females and perceptions of power and security
become more important. Often it is the geek with the higher paying job, be
it lawyer, doctor, or programmer, who winds up getting the desireable woman.
Of course, I am speaking in generalities, so I am begging any of the _many_
women out there who do not fit the mold I am referring to to please lay off
of me!
What it boils down to is that high school sexual patterns rarely reflect the
choice of life long mates.
Don't forget, though, that a lot of the intelligent students out there can
be too arrogant or too reclusive to have developed social skills.
--Sterling Crowe
#1168
maff91
You still haven't the talk origins FAQ. Have you? You seem to have
different definitions for Evolution, Science, etc.
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-welcome.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html
Darwin's Legacy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/leghist/index.htm
Hopeful Monsters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/leghist/index.htm
Richard Dawkins
http://www.wired.com/wired/3.07/features/dawkins.html
http://www.spacelab.net/~catalj/
Stuart Kauffman
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/
Definitions of Scientific Method, hypothesis and theory
http://www.bbc.peachnet.edu/academic_svcs/art_science/chambers/pol101/sci_meth.htm
http://www.scientificmethod.com/i_7.htm
http://www.bbc.peachnet.edu/academic_svcs/art_science/chambers/pol101/theory.htm
Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason"
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/intro.html
Norman Doering
also held by a famous biologist, a guy by the name of Lysenko. Do
a web search for him. Your not alone... Alas, people here consider
Lysenkoism is a failed view of life. He was not a Darwanist but
more Lamarckian. His political skill combined with his biological
views helped to ruin Soviet agriculture and Soviet biology.
in
news:35E6889E...@mindspring.com
MyKill <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
/snip/
> ... - still it requires an unbelievable stagerring cooncidence
> breathing lungs. In light of this proposition, a notion of "God"
> may be more reasonable than that of "chance". My original
> supposition was that the will of a species can shape and impact
> its evoloution - and that's perfectly theism free at least.
thanks to some other posts.
/snip/
> The minor variances of genetic code do not add up to
> evoloution without tremendous collusion of coincidence, or of
> "God", or of "will". Minor variances first of all are thinned
> and become recessive genetically with breeding....
> Care to address the notion of "will" impacting evoloution? I
> subjectively believe the intentionality of my parents before
> I was born shaped who I came to be: smart, creative and Gay
> (Mom was a "faghag"). I think by working towards a goal
> dilligently a person can transcend learning, skill and
> training. I am a skilled artist - but I believe I now am
> more talented as well as skilled than I had been. Subjective
> non-science to be sure - but food for thought?
didn't notice we had a Lysenkonian view in our group?
maff91
Doering) wrote:
We tried to correct him but he simply wants to believe in something
mystical.
Al Klein
<pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
[piggybacking]
>> > MyKill wrote: (in a discussion with Yang Hu) among others
>> Survival of the fittest doesn't come anywhere near
>> explaining evoloution from water breathing to air breathing,
>> for example. Survival of the fittest explains the superior
>> capacity for living in water - water life has, nothing
>> beyond that. Something must be added to the mix to really
>> explain evoloution.
Survival of the fittest very definitely explains it when your pond
dries up, but the next pond over still has a bit of water. Those who
can get to the next pond - those who have an air-breathing mechanism -
survive.
Or when the oxygen level in your pond, perhaps due to an algae bloom,
becomes too low to support life. Then, those who can supplement the
oxygen in the pond with oxygen breathed out of the atmosphere survive.
--
Al - aklein at villagenet dot com
MyKill
>
> in
> news:35E51268...@mindspring.com
> MyKill <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Jeff Wilson wrote:
>
> /snip/
>
> >> You keep coming back to the idea, stated or implied,
> >> without a shred of objective evidence, that there must
> >> be some kind of nonmaterial essence "out there" someplace
> >> that people can tune into. I don't get it.
> >> It seems like really powerful wishful thinking to me.
> >
> > Wishful thinking? Yes, that is one example of one kind of
> > non material essense.
>
> Ah-ha! So you think thoughts are non-material things? You don't
> believe that the brain is a biological mechanism that contains
> these thoughts and wishful thoughts?
That the brain may contain thoughts argues nothing about the
nature of thoughts. Thoughts are not material. We can damage
the brain's capacity to have thoughts - but we cannot remove
with a scalpel just the offending thought: such a paradigm
would be insane given what we do know. If thoughts were
material - Einstein would've had neck injuries from the
excessive weight put on it consistantly.
>
> /snip/
>
> > All creativity is outside of science's capability to quantify -
> > rendering it an "unkown".
>
> Dead wrong! One aspect of creativity can be quatified and it's
> becoming an essential part of future schemes for creating
> artificial intelligence.
>
> Do you know about the genetic algorithm and its relationship
> to neural nets? Here are some links:
One aspect of creativity is no substitue for quantifying all
of creativity. Still, AI is very interesting - and it's
always usefull to quantify all that is possible to quantify.
> http://www.aic.nrl.navy.mil/galist/
> The Genetic Algorithms Archive
>
> http://www.cs.purdue.edu/coast/archive/clife/FAQ/www/
> Hitch-Hiker's Guide to Evolutionary Computation
>
> news:comp.ai.genetic
>
> http://www.marlboro.edu/~lmoss/planhome/index.html
> Evolutionary Computer Graphics (more natural looking evolutions)
>
> One thing about evolution you have to admit -- it's creative
> in the same way a human being can be.
>
> /snip/
>
> > This is a belief, almost of a religious scale. We can almost
> > prove nothing in psychology outside of some success in
> > psychopharmacology.
>
> False. Don't you think Stanley Milgram's experiments proved
> anything?
>
No, because I don't know who he is or what he's done.
>
> >> To be sure I can get
> >> transported by Mozart, but that doesn't mean there
> >> must be something non-material involved in Mozart
> >> or in my psychological response to his music.
> >
> > Is not a psychological response non material by definition?
>
> Definitly not! A dead wrong assumption.
> Evidence suggests psychology is dependent on brain and body.
> Drugs can change a person's emotional response. Brain damage
> can seriously alter the psychology of a victim. The evidence is
> too extensive to even list -- I suggest you do a web search
> on the subjects: neurophysiology, neuroscience, the brain...
> etc.
The argument you make then, is that it is impossible to
affect a non material quantity with material simulai. -That
if something can be affected by material stimulai it too
must be material. I don't buy it straight off. -Can you
prove this - or point me to the person who has? (I'm limited
to Grolier computer Encyclopedia - which I admit is very
sad).
>
>
> You can't shake this "thought is non-material" syndrome.
> I suppose you don't think people working in artificial
> intelligence will ever create a human work-alike intelligence
> system?
Not in the too near future, but anything is possible. At
such a point we many confront theistic propositions coming
from our computers. Even for a computer - thought exists as
a process and not as a thing - thought never exists
materially as an object.
> What is your opinion of the artificial intelligence effort?
>
>It's an interesting Hobby - but it's not for me. -I'm a better artist than an engineer anyway.
>
> > God is a metaphor - and as such cannot not exist.
>
> I'll go along with that.
> I say God does not exist because I define God as necessarily
> having the qualities of foresight, will, desire and intension.
> I believe it takes a material system to create such qualities.
God exists for you then - but as a metaphor with no
possibility. My argument simply is that it is wrong to say
you KNOW thought and sentience require a material system to
manifest. It's one possibility.
>
> > The question is if God is as a vegetable, unthinking and non
> > sentient - or if our universe and reality was created from
> > intellect and sentience:
>
> Yes... and no. Intellect and sentience hit on too many qualities
> that the universe might have even without life in it. Intelligence
> is not one thing -- its many things, many systems, working
> together.
The technical definition of "life" barely accepts the virus.
Perhaps sentience is a truer bottom line? (Then viruses may
be exempt, actually).
>
> > ... the more familiar notion of a GOD. I know that I am both
> > intelligent and sentient - But I'm also pretty damn stupid: I
> > sure hope Einstein isn't the ceiling to intelligence in our
> > objective reality. I hope humanity isn't it - the apex of
> > intelligence and sentience in all the universe!
>
> I think we can prove that man is not the "apex." Man and computer
> together make for an intelligence system that is much more than
> man alone. We see the power of our computers rising every year
> and their potential limits lie in the realm of nanotechnology.
>
Man and computer equate to "man". -What use is man without
his creations?
>
> > It is silly to predict what Science will or will not be
> > capable of in the future.
>
> Not if you're a scientist! Not if you're in business in the
> 21st century! Not if you're an investor in high tech stocks! Every
> new technology is based on predictions made from the edges of the
> unknown... Are quantum computers a possibility? How far can we
> push genetic engineering? Can we program DNA like we program
> computers?
That's a mighty short term future you're looking at. By the
way I think more realistic questions might be: How far can
genetic engineering be pushed LEGALLY - and WHEN will
quantum based computers become realistically marketable?
(Quantum Computers are a possibility NOW - just a wee
unstable at the moment).
> > However, complete knowledge of how the brain/mind works will
> > certainly answer all questions about visions. I'm not too
> > optimistic about a complete knowledge of how the brain/mind
> > works any time soon or at all: every answer in turn raising
> > 10 or more questions...
>
> Wrong! Brain science is beginning to see its finish line ahead.
> That finish line will let us create human like artificial
> intelligences. They've accomplished neural net models that
> strongly correlate to the brain's neurons, neural net systems that
> are capable of learning. NMRI and PET scans are looking into the
> brain to see which areas are active when you think about certain
> things. Brain surgery is starting to take on a new sophistication.
So we can look foward to artificial intelligence that has
visions, delusions and psychosis? -Cool! Sounds like fun! I
think I'll stick with my Pentium for now, than you.
> >> <snip>
> >> >> I will apply the principle of parsimony and
> >> >> refrain from throwing any out-of-the-blue idea that suits
> >> >> my fancy into the mix until it is clear that I do not already
> >> >> have enough to explain things without it!
> >> >
> >> > Is this not paralell to the Creationist Christian who scoffs
> >> > at Geological record as not real and unnecessary 'cause the
> >> > Bible has all the answers and explanations that person
> >> > needs?
> >>
> >> The geological record is objective. It makes sense and
> >> can be objectively tested.
> >
> > I'm simply referring to the notion that having an answer to
> > a question doesn't necesarily mean it's silly to look at
> > other answers or paradigms.
>
> I agree -- but we are looking at your paradigm -- aren't we?
> We're reading and considering what you say. We're just trying to
> tell you why it doesn't fit into our scheme.
I'm largely a devil's advocate. I promote materialic views
to rabid evangelist types. My goal is to get people to
realise their paradigm is not exclusive in being consistant
and possible. I have no use for conversion - just cognitive
dissonance.
> > This is exactly what the Creationists
> > do. -And, justified as you are, you follow their example.
>
> No. What we don't know is because we haven't been told.
> They've been told and still don't know.
>
They are being satisfied with the answer they've got and
refuse to even look at other possibilities. Your answer may
be superior to that of the Creationists. It's irrelevant to
me - 'cause my complaint is the refusal to consider
alternative views.
>
> >> > The promise of many religions is that introspection and
> >> > meditation is enough for realization - no "faith" - no
> >> > "dogma". Such promises intrigue me.
> >>
> >> Realization of what?
> >
> > You find that out when you realise it.
>
> Duh?
> Are you looking for something and you don't know what it is
> you're looking for?
I'm looking for a realization of baisic truth regarding
my/our existance. The faith is in the proposition that
humans all contain the capacity for such realization. The
faith also is in the notion that said truth must be
experienced. A rollercoaster ride can only be experienced by
being there - not by a description of what it was like.
Religions expect people to be happy hearing what the
experience was like. Mystics want to ride that roller
coaster themselves!
> > A clarification might be that I disagree with your not
> > extending of benefit of the doubt to beliefs that that
> > you're personally satisfied aren't "it" but neither can
> > discredit (spirituality being outside of scientific
> > quantification - for now).
>
> I don't think spirituality is outside of scientific
> quantification... however, for now it is only theoretical
> and speculative, but very solid and fact based speculation.
>
> >> > <snip>
> >> > I'm unfamiliar with "Occam".
>
> I think that might be one reason you give mysticism too much
> respect.
My personal subjective experience has led me to believe
there to be something to supernatural claims. Zen Buddhism
is very at home with my instincts and biases: clean of all
dogma, clean of duality, a clear mental discipline and
spirituality is irrelevant.
> >> > Do you admit to intuition and arbitrariness in your
> >> > belief structure?
>
> In a limited form, that's why we use Occam's Razor, to tame
> arbitrariness. As far intuition -- we think it has a non-mystical
> source.
What I know of Occam's razor (after having it expalined to
me repreatedly, if briefly) would indicate it as a practical
too for science, but no proof of superiority of one paradigm
over another - which is how it seems to be used.
> No, not Christianity. I'd have gone the way of Thomas Paine,
> become a deist. In it's time it was the best choice around for
> those who were free thinkers. I think the combination of quantum
> mechanics and Darwin's theory of common descent shoots down deism
> and if Paine lived today he'd have understood he'd dumped deism
> too.
I don't buy it. Please give me a detailed proof of how
quantum mechanics and Darwin's common descent prove all
concepts of Deity to be false. The best you can do I think,
is to nail down "deity" to the specification of a single
religion and shoot it down. -But even venerable JHVH told no
one to take Biblical accounts literally! Most Seminaries
hold all those contradictions to geologic record and so
forth - as being METPHORICAL!
>
> > Playing a bit with the occult, I satisfied myself that there was
> > something to it...
>
> Like what? You're getting like the average theist here. You throw
> out these claims but don't give any details... It's details
> that will at least sound convincing. Prove you know what you're
> talking about -- what occult stuff exactly were you into? What
> happened to make you think there was something to it?
I hardly see the point as all you'll do is proclaim
coincidance - and I'll agree! I've looked at Yoruba relions,
Wicca, Golden Dawn, Aleistar Crowley, Anton LaVey... all the
standard stuff. One model for how the occult works supposes
that coincidence is the rule, not the exception. My success
with Tarot cards (partially my ability to read a person as
well as the cards) seems to support that notion.
> > ... and then lost interest (It's so much more effective to punch
> > someone if you hate them, rather than to light black candles and
> > pretend to punch them).
>
> There's a little detail now -- but what the hell is it about?
> What's the reason for black candles? What's the reason for
> pretending? Even this tiny little detail sounds just a bit
> psychotic.
Psychotic is exactly it. The basic premise is that if you
put on a good enough show you can fool yourself into
thinking you're doing something real - and then it becomes
real. The effect could simply be to affect a sense of
confidance - and that often can be enough. Black magick is
mostly effective as a mind game - as such it works very
effectively. The power of suggestion is immense. In Jr. High
I was considered a powerfull magician (I joked about a
"whammy" I put on a bully - the bully a week later was
forced to go to a school for the emotionally disturbed and
was never heard from again..). Folks would ask me for love
potions and I would make disgusting concoctions and put them
in gelatin capsules (nothing lethal, usually baking soda +
worcestershire sauce + mustard) - these capsules seemed to
work! People kept asking more! ;-)
> > My interest in Occult matured into an interest in Zen.
>
> Now, Zen, that I have a vague grasp of.
>
Zen is the shit if you want to get your head screwed on
straight (especially if you've been making a career out of
manipulative mind games!)
> >> A lot of Eastern mystical beliefs work to metaphorically
> >> anticipate Quantum Mechanics.
>
> Says who?
> I think it's more likely that some physicists reached for
> Eastern mysticism when confronted by the puzzle of how things
> could be like that and then projected "mind" and "observer"
> into places where they didn't belong.
Are you arguing with relativity here?
>
> /snip/
>
> > Natural selection alone doesn't account for evoloution:
>
> Half-true -- but very misleading. Check out those genetic
> algorithms. Selection accounts for a lot. The other mechanisms
> evolutionary biologists have found and postulated are not
> "mystical," but mechanistic. There are things going on with
> genes that Darwin didn't anticipate -- other mechanisms include
> genetic drift and mutator genes. Even sex is a mechanism
> of evolution.
Even Gayness? This certainly seems a constant- and without
benefit of breeding!
> > If I push all of humanity off the top of the Empire State
> > Building - not one human will develope the capacity to fly.
>
> But one might figure out how to glide into a survivable landing.
> Evolution builds on small steps, it doesn't take big jumps like
> you think must happen. It's more a case of an animal finding a use
> for a random mutation that aids its survival rather than them
> getting the mutations they want.
So if you think we made the survivers jump again the next
day..and the next day..and the next day - how many
generations you think before babies grew feathers?
> > I believe (and this is at best a theory) that evoloution is
> > a function of will.
Actually I got it from a book on SUFI mystics - it clicked
with me though.
> No evolutionary biologist I know of believes that. By what
> mechanism would the will influence evolution? ... Only if we
> become genetic engineers or if you include "those who die trying
> generation after generation until they can crawl on the land..."
It is almost a law that the great breakthrough in any field
comes from outside that field. Perhaps you're offerring
insight as to why that could be. The alternative is to
believe a giuding will of GOD - or to assume tremendous
collaberation of coincidence. Most kinds of life on Earth
are very specifically designed to excel in their given
ecological niche - survival of the fittest alone doesn't
account for this - neither does minor random genetic
variation or mutation. Does not Occam's Razor here demand
consideration of some kind of guiding will?
> > That would account no human record
> > failing to be broken in time. That accounts for "practice
> > makes perfect". -And would explain why IQ increases with
> > education when, in theory, it is independant. I believe
> > talent, as well as skill - can be "learned".
>
> There are limits. No matter how hard you practice -- as you said
> above, you won't fly even if your life depends on it -- not
> without a device.
Perhaps we will never learn to fly without devices bacause
we already have conquered that challenge by creating
devices. We don't NEED to be able to fly without devices
when the devices are in our reach.
> >> When we rhapsodize about our capacities, it's
> >> educational to notice what we can't do. For example, we
> >> can hear many octaves of sound, but see less than one
> >> octave of colour. Imagine the new dimension that would
> >> be added to painting if we had eight or ten kinds of pure
> >> red, as we have eight or ten kinds of D-flat. What new
> >> appreciation of sculpture might we have if we could
> >> echo-locate as bats do? What kind of smell-symphonies
> >> might we create if we could smell as well as dogs?
> >> Those limititations are very telling about our history, just
> >> as the poor structure of our knees tells about how little
> >> time natural selection has had to hone our upright gait.
> >> Our brains are our pasture and our prison, an agglomeration
> >> of capabilities surrounded by incapacities. There's
> >> nothing mystical about that: it fits very well with a
> >> mechanical view of how they evolved. It doesn't even
> >> suggest mysticism, as far as I can see.
>
> /snip/
>
> > I argue that Atheism definitly does not have a distinction as
> > being more thoughtfull than all other pardigms.
>
> Yes, you've tried. But so far I haven't been convinced.
I've also tried to enlighten homophobic people that maybe
being Gay is tolerable and okay - and have failed there too.
All I can do is try.
>
> > Evidence for Spirituality may not be found in material
> > reality -
>
> Then again, it might -- and I think it will. If LSD produces
> an experience that those familiar other "spiritual experiences"
> regard as a "spiritual experience," then it's a clue to the
> chemical nature of those experiences.
I was referring to evidence for Spirituality. -Not evidence
that Spirituality is a chemical based phenomena.
> >... which is all you're willing to examine.
>
> Not true -- it's all we're are willing to LABEL as real, not all
> that we're willing to examine, because Occam's Razor says we
> shouldn't introduce a needless new entity into our model of how
> things work.
Spirituality is unnedded in a materialist paradigm. You are
not willing to examine beyond your paradigm and you invoke
Occam's Razor to defend the practice. I insist only on a
lable as "possible".
>
> I myself am not willing to induce meditative or drug experiences
> any longer.... but I will listen to what others say about them.
> Just stick to the experience and drop the dogma.
I'm pretty straight about stuff like that. Or try to be,
anyway.
>
> > If it is true that we are spirits and not our bodies - a
> > supposition promoted by many mystics - then the mind must on
> > some level already know this. It is simply a matter of clearing
> > the mind of clutter to properly reveal its nature. -Or so is
> > the premise of my practice.
>
> Go ahead and practice... however, my experience tells me that
> those who indulge these kinds of practices come away damaged
> somehow. I know people who do TM, and my biased perception is
> telling me their thinking about everything gets more ambiguous
> and fuzzy, they forget things more often, and they seem spaced
> out. Proceed with caution, watch yourself closely for negative
> effects.
>
I have little use for TM - I've looked at it and it seems
hokey and makes too many cheesy claims. Zen, straight up for
me. -And yes, I always proceed with caution, thanx.
MyKill
Jerry Sturdivant
Excuse me. I've been monitoring, and enjoying, this debate and do have a
touch to add:
MyKill> If claims to drink lethal poison and suffer cobra bites with no ill
effects are real - Science has no proof for the phenomena.
Claus> Wait until scientists start focusing on those things. Answers are
usually found.
Many presumed, 'miracles,' have been shown to be simply tricks. Allow me to
dispel one here. The trick of playing with poisonous snakes is to milk
their venom sacks just before the 'show.' (And poisonous snakes don't
inject at every strike).
Now back to the debate in progress
--
Jerry Sturdivant
___~__*__/)__~__
Chris Peterson
> Many presumed, 'miracles,' have been shown to be simply tricks. Allow me to
> dispel one here. The trick of playing with poisonous snakes is to milk
> their venom sacks just before the 'show.' (And poisonous snakes don't
> inject at every strike).
I always liked the chicken livers hid up the sleeve, then claiming
them to have been extracted from the body with no scar.
--
Chris Peterson #1075
MyKill
> mystical.
My belief is that one should believe in nothing entirely
given the variety of possible paradigms. I personally find
mysticism fascinating - but I am a proponent of mysticism as
a function of addressing people living through paradigms
that deny mysticism as a possibility. My goal is to promote
cognitive dissonance - and improve my own education and
powers of reasoning.
MyKill
MyKill
>
> Hey, MyKill, I just found out that your views on evolution were
> also held by a famous biologist, a guy by the name of Lysenko. Do
> a web search for him. Your not alone... Alas, people here consider
> Lysenkoism is a failed view of life. He was not a Darwanist but
> more Lamarckian. His political skill combined with his biological
> views helped to ruin Soviet agriculture and Soviet biology.
Thanks for the info!
My view however is to question Darwinism and propose a
possible fix. To ruin agriculture and biology requires a
level of faith I'm unwilling to promote. Given influence
over agriculture and Biological sciences - I would endorse
continuing doing what worked before and limit widespread
application of innovation only once proven effective in
controlled exercise of scientific method.
I'd be very surprised if I and a few Sufis had a monopoly on
any idea.
MyKill
MyKill
MyKill
MyKill
MyKill
MyKill
MyKill
MyKill
>
> MyKill wrote:
>
> > Specific to the mdel of humans - the primary limitation of
> > people is psycological. I myself have worked in factories -
> > and now am a graphic designer. I don't believe I'm typical
> > however. -And a truer model would be a person leaving
> > factory labour to become a raja Yogi capable of verifiable
> > levitation. -Very unlikely.
> >
>
> learns to travel faster than light tomorrow, than I will share your
> view, but the diversity and the phenomenons of the biological world have
> been spectacular but not inexplicable.
My argument would be more like "a frog learning to travel
faster than light tomorrow will never happen".
I also feel the diverisity and specialization in Biology is
spectacular but not inexplicable. When the explanation
presented relies on survival of the fittest - I know that
alone cannot account for evoloution or specialization
(Darwinists know it too). When it is proposed that random
mutation in concert with survival of the fittest - that this
is the explanation: it is a beeter explanation, but I still
don't buy it. I think an animal being able to shape the
nature of mutations with intentionality - this at least
would make sense. True random mutations would have humans
still being aquatic fish things just developing capacity to
swim upstream - in my opinion. Pure chance can give you a
royal flush in poker. -What we're talking about in terms of
traditional Biology seems more like each species drawing a
royal flush a thousand times in a row. If you look at nature
- you find that species are superbly adapted in every
possible way to suceed in their given ecological niche. Some
believe Nature a giant eugenics experiement - and I don't
deny it. But given the fast clip of evoloution - the theory
makes more sense to me including will as a factor.
>
>
> > > usually, though it was my impression (and I could be wrong) the sickle
> > > cell anemia was a genetic mutation/defect that proved to be beneficial
> > > for those living in regions that have malaria.
> >
> > Diversity of the species is critical to survival as a
> > species. All those Americans who cannot control their
> > obesity - those genes are what enabled ancestors to survive
> > famon to be able to immigrate to America.
>
> agreed. some phenomenon in the polynesians.
>
>
> > I did qualify my statement by using the word "usually".
> > Those Siamese twins finding mates is a Jeanin Garrofolo joke
> > when she whines about her singlehood in her standup act: "If
> > THEY could find partners...."
>
> and go along with the sickle cell anemia story, if the mutant gene that
> led to the birth of siamese genes also has some resistence against some
> form of disease, it may be passed on.
I should hope, at least, that it is a recessive trait.
>
>
> > I agree that humans continue to change and develope through
> > time. I think "survival of the fittest" alone is
> > insufficient to explain evoloution, assuming it fact.
>
> perhaps, as I've said I am not a biologist. the theory of evolution
> itself evolves according to new thing discovered or learned.
>
> IMHO, the deity of Shiva is one of the most complex and deep concept of
> theology I have come across: the god of destruction is also the god of
> creation....
Creation and destruction are simply judements on the state
of change. A terrible painting could be a destructive use of
perfectly good canvas and oil - unless who you are is a
person who appreciates the controversial work, then it is
creative. -This ties into why I use the psuedonym "MyKill".
> >My drug of choice
> > is Zen - as it is clean of dogma and is a very practical
> > mental discipline.
>
> I like the koans
>
> >The Dalai Lama actually claims Zen to be
> > a science and not a religion - I would agree; although I
> > must admit the benefits of Zen are not necessarily
> > objectively quantifiable..
>
> I went to see the Dalai Lama with my dad at UCLA. my impression of him
> was that he was a kind men, but his ability to convey ideas to a large
> crowd is not the best. As an ethnic Chinese (from Taiwan, now US
> citizen)I am horrified of the Chinese policy of Tibet. Even if I don't
> agree with the Dalai Lama (which is a moot point right now since I have
> a very vague idea of what he says) I think the institution of Lama is
> important, for it is a rallying point. The same way that the Torah
> helped a group of nationless people scattered across the world maintin
> its identity and memory, the same way (it seems to me) that the
> traditional folk songs help the Irish remember who they are, even as
> they are driven from their land by famine to the US and Australia.
>
I too went to a talk the Dalai Lama gave a few years ago in
Ithaca. I had a better impression of his ability to give a
talk - and he seemed kindly to me as well.
What little I know of Tibetan Buddhism repels me: a lot of
dogma - too specific information about the nature of the
soul and the afterlife.
The Chinese policy relating to Tibet is an embarrasment to
China and all nations that do business with China. I respect
Tibetan Buddhism and the institution of the Lama - but I'm a
little sad that Tibetans seem to lack much diversity of
thought and opinion relating to their faith.
> > I almost believe any proposition COULD be false. I do not
> > respect anyone who claims to know an absoloute truth
> > absoloutly when that person can not or will not prove their
> > truth to be exclusive of all other possibilities. The wise
> > man knows nothing. -Or such is my assumption at this point
> > in time.
> or at the very least a true debate cannot take place unless both side
> agree that the other side may have something valuable to say.
True - makes it difficult to talk folks out of being
homophobic, which being Gay, is an ongoing project.
MyKill
Norman Doering
news:6s46gg$6tv$1...@wildfire.prairienet.org
in
news:35E745C0...@mindspring.com
MyKill <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Norman Doering wrote:
>> in
>> news:35E51268...@mindspring.com
>> MyKill <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> That the brain may contain thoughts argues nothing about the
> nature of thoughts.
> Thoughts are not material.
How do you define material? Running may not be material, but you
can't have running without a runner, nor without the expenditure
of energy. Thoughts are the actions of material neurons... or so I
believe.
> We can damage the brain's capacity to have thoughts - but we
Not quite yet, scapels wouldn't be the instrument of choice.
However, brain damage does peculiar things to people. One of the
things that happens with every head injury reported to registered
hospitals is that the victim is interviewed and examined for
cognitive damage. All these results have been cataloged and
a picture of what each area of the brain does is coming together.
The results of the damage are often bizzare and suggestive of
how the brain works. One weird thing, there is a certain tiny area
of the brain that if damaged a person will not be able to remember
the names of small animals. There are areas associated with
specific kinds of mathematics, visual memory, visual
interpretation, and everything else your brain does.
> ... such a paradigm would be insane given what we do know.
What exactly do you think we know? The brain is only losely
holistic. Modern neuroscientific evidence is suggesting just that,
if you knew what you were doing you could cut out a thought (well,
the ability to have certain thoughts and memories) with a scapel.
However, the brain is flexible, it can change and adapt up to a
point. That's what neural nets are good at, adapting to fit
input.
> If thoughts were material - Einstein would've had neck injuries
> from the excessive weight put on it consistantly.
thoughts apart.
/snip/
> One aspect of creativity is no substitue for quantifying all
> of creativity. Still, AI is very interesting - and it's
> always usefull to quantify all that is possible to quantify.
of human creativity and not only that - but go beyond and create
new forms of creativity. For instance, consider the computer
graphics in "Jurasic Park," computer techniques can paint pictures
and make them move -- Ray tracing does one thing an artist has to
learn.
>> http://www.aic.nrl.navy.mil/galist/
>> The Genetic Algorithms Archive
>> http://www.cs.purdue.edu/coast/archive/clife/FAQ/www/
>> Hitch-Hiker's Guide to Evolutionary Computation
>> news:comp.ai.genetic
>> http://www.marlboro.edu/~lmoss/planhome/index.html
>> Evolutionary Computer Graphics (more natural looking evolutions)
>
> One thing about evolution you have to admit -- it's creative
> in the same way a human being can be.
/snip/
>> anything?
>
> No, because I don't know who he is or what he's done.
Does that ring a bell?
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
/snip/
> The argument you make then, is that it is impossible to
No... You don't quite grasp the distinction. In a sense you could
call a radio wave a "non-material" phenomena and these waves are
created with a material radio transmitters. However, I lump energy
into my definition of material (E=mc^2). Nothing runs without
energy. I don't rule out pattern and structure either. So this
pretty much makes my definition of material phenomena as phenomena
that can be effected with material structures. If it can be
effected by material it is by definition material and subjected to
empirialistic examination. What you'd expect from the supernatural
is that it could influence reality, but not be influenced by it.
Anything that can be influenced by my material messing about in a
predictable way is subject to empirical examination.
> -That if something can be affected by material stimulai it too
> must be material.
way to bet... it is what a lot of people working in AI and
neurophysiology are betting on. It is the accepted paradigm.
> I don't buy it straight off. -Can you prove this - or point me
> to the person who has? (I'm limited to Grolier computer
> Encyclopedia - which I admit is very sad).
point you to web links, URLs, if you can use them, but later, if
you want to do some web surfing, look for: "William Calvin,"
"Darwin Machine," "neural nets," "neurons"...
All the information will do is prove that there are a lot of
neurophysiologists and other scientists who are convinced
that this is the case. Until such a day as these principles
are demonstrated with brainchips and "truth machines" we have
only our naturalistic assumptions and a lot of evidence.
/snip/
> .... At such a point we many confront theistic propositions
> coming from our computers.
Only if we let theists program them or talk to them.
A scary idea. We'll have to hardwire the Occam's Razor
heuristic into them to keep them sane I suppose.
> Even for a computer - thought exists as a process and not as a
> thing - thought never exists materially as an object.
one way to look at it. Yet in the computer those processes are
dependent on material structures, silicon transistors and
capacitors smaller than a cell. The process won't run without a
material substrate. Also, I think it's safe to say that human
memory is not just the process of remembering, but is physically
coded in neural patterns within the brain. At least that's how
neural nets do it.
/snip/
> God exists for you then - but as a metaphor with no
> possibility. My argument simply is that it is wrong to say
> you KNOW thought and sentience require a material system to
> manifest. It's one possibility.
sense. You're free to think what you please. But you're going
against the tide of scientific evidence if you think thought can
exist in a material vacuum. And remember - being open to
possibility is also being open to suggestion. Religion is a mind
game, it has those characteristics.
/snip/
> The technical definition of "life" barely accepts the virus.
> Perhaps sentience is a truer bottom line? (Then viruses may
> be exempt, actually).
sentience in all the various life forms around you? Is a bacteria
sentient? Is a jelly-fish sentient? Is a single ant sentient?
Is a whole ant hive together one sentient being? Is a worm
sentient?
/snip/
> Man and computer equate to "man".
could make the mathematical models of chaotic weather patterns
that run on modern super-computers.
> -What use is man without his creations?
/big snip/
>> I agree -- but we are looking at your paradigm -- aren't we?
>> We're reading and considering what you say. We're just trying
>> to tell you why it doesn't fit into our scheme.
>
> I'm largely a devil's advocate. I promote materialic views
> to rabid evangelist types. My goal is to get people to
> realise their paradigm is not exclusive in being consistant
> and possible. I have no use for conversion - just cognitive
> dissonance.
Or a huckster's instinct for seeking suggestibility?
/snip/
> It's irrelevant to me - 'cause my complaint is the refusal to
> consider alternative views.
I think the problem with having an open mind, that considers any
alternative view offered, is that other people will consider it a
garbage can. Besides, there are too many alternatives out there
and you need a scheme to judge which is the best. You have to have
standards and be able to make judgements in order to act in life.
These aren't "beliefs" we "preach" these are guide lines for
making judgements and establishing your own standards of evidence
that we "teach." You seem to have chosen blind hope over evidence
to the contrary... it doesn't look like a good judgement.
And speaking of judgement -- you admit that being open to
possibilities can make someone suggestible, right?
/snip/
> I'm looking for a realization of baisic truth regarding
> my/our existance. The faith is in the proposition that
> humans all contain the capacity for such realization. The
> faith also is in the notion that said truth must be
> by being there - not by a description of what it was like.
> Religions expect people to be happy hearing what the
> experience was like. Mystics want to ride that roller
> coaster themselves!
> A clarification might be that I disagree with your not extending
> of benefit of the doubt to beliefs that that you're personally
What makes you think we can't descredit them?
How much "descredit" do you need?
Has anyone here told you about the invisible pink unicorn yet?
Can you discredit that?
/snip/
> My personal subjective experience has led me to believe
> there to be something to supernatural claims. Zen Buddhism
> is very at home with my instincts and biases: clean of all
> dogma, clean of duality, a clear mental discipline and
> spirituality is irrelevant.
about what that something is? Do you think you can effect the
outside material world by force of will alone?
>>> Do you admit to intuition and arbitrariness in your
>>> belief structure?
>>
>> In a limited form, that's why we use Occam's Razor, to
>> tame arbitrariness. As far intuition -- we think it has a
>> non-mystical source.
>
> What I know of Occam's razor (after having it expalined to
> me repreatedly, if briefly) would indicate it as a practical
> over another - which is how it seems to be used.
/snip/
>> No, not Christianity. I'd have gone the way of Thomas Paine,
>> become a deist. In it's time it was the best choice around
>> for those who were free thinkers. I think the combination of
>> quantum mechanics and Darwin's theory of common descent
>> shoots down deism and if Paine lived today he'd have
> I don't buy it. Please give me a detailed proof of how
> quantum mechanics and Darwin's common descent prove all
> concepts of Deity to be false. The best you can do I think,
> is to nail down "deity" to the specification of a single
> religion and shoot it down. -But even venerable JHVH told
> no one to take Biblical accounts literally! Most Seminaries
> hold all those contradictions to geologic record and so
> forth - as being METPHORICAL!
Some of the concepts of deity don't amount to much and are pretty
much irrelevant. For instance, a god who pushed the start button
on the universe and then left for good isn't much different than
there being no god at all. A god who isn't involved in the
universe is simply eliminated by Occam's Razor as unworthy of
consideration. There's nothing relevant you can say about such a
god. The god of the Bible is an involved god, with personality
and will and intension and foresight.
In Thomas Paine's time there were two puzzles to which a deity
seemed to be the best choice of an answer: 1) Life, at first
glance, looked designed - as if created for a purpose, and 2) All
the sciences were starting to point to a deterministic universe.
In a deterministic universe all that exists around you was
determined from the moment of creation.
Darwin speaks to the fact that what looked like it had to be
designed by either a deity, or in your terms, a "spiritual" will
residing in living things, was in fact a product of random
mutations and natural selection (since then a few other mechanisms
have been identified). After that "creativity" became an
independent mathematical "force" forever separated from the need
for a fully humanoid style intelligence with will, foresight, and
intention. But yet, we seemed to exist in a deterministic universe
and whatever occured still was the result of initial conditions.
Quantum mechanics undermines that determination by introducing a
randomizing force. God wasn't playing dice with the universe -- it
was the dice that had been playing god.
/snip/
> I hardly see the point as all you'll do is proclaim coincidance
> - and I'll agree! I've looked at Yoruba relions, Wicca, Golden
> Dawn, Aleistar Crowley, Anton LaVey... all the standard stuff.
> One model for how the occult works supposes that coincidence is
> the rule, not the exception. My success with Tarot cards
> (partially my ability to read a person as well as the cards)
> seems to support that notion.
What kind of things do you think you can read?
/snip/
> Psychotic is exactly it. The basic premise is that if you
> put on a good enough show you can fool yourself into
> thinking you're doing something real - and then it becomes
> real.
> The effect could simply be to affect a sense of confidance -
> and that often can be enough. Black magick is mostly effective
> as a mind game - as such it works very effectively.
done you don't feel like you've been a fool?
> The power of suggestion is immense. In Jr. High I was
> considered a powerfull magician (I joked about a "whammy" I
> put on a bully - the bully a week later was forced to go to
> a school for the emotionally disturbed and was never heard
> from again..). Folks would ask me for love potions and I
> would make disgusting concoctions and put them in gelatin
> capsules (nothing lethal, usually baking soda + worcestershire
> sauce + mustard) - these capsules seemed to work! People kept
> asking more! ;-)
And maybe in not so positive ways?
I wounder if L. Ron Hubbard started that way.
It seems a skeptic would be invulnerable to it all since they
wouldn't begin to consider the possibility until they'd first
seen objective evidence.
>>>> My interest in Occult matured into an interest in Zen.
>> >> A lot of Eastern mystical beliefs work to metaphorically
>> >> anticipate Quantum Mechanics.
>>
>> Says who?
>> I think it's more likely that some physicists reached for
>> Eastern mysticism when confronted by the puzzle of how things
>> could be like that and then projected "mind" and "observer"
>> into places where they didn't belong.
>
> Are you arguing with relativity here?
/snip/
>>... Even sex is a mechanism of evolution.
> Even Gayness? This certainly seems a constant- and without
> benefit of breeding!
/snip/
>> No evolutionary biologist I know of believes that.
/snip/
> Does not Occam's Razor here demand consideration of some kind of
> guiding will?
/snip/
> I've also tried to enlighten homophobic people that maybe being
> Gay is tolerable and okay - and have failed there too. All I can
> do is try.
than you're willing to give to that person. It does happen, people
do change, a homophobic father who has a gay son might go through
the struggle with his beliefs and see the light. Trying to do it
on usenet is futile. You'll never get that far below the surface
without a personal bond of some kind.
>>> Evidence for Spirituality may not be found in material reality
>>
>> an experience that those familiar other "spiritual experiences"
>> regard as a "spiritual experience," then it's a clue to the
>> chemical nature of those experiences.
>
> I was referring to evidence for Spirituality. -Not evidence
> that Spirituality is a chemical based phenomena.
spiritual are pointing to... and it could turn out to be nothing
more than chemical... Did you know that DMT occurs naturally in
the brain?
/snip/
> Spirituality is unneeded in a materialist paradigm. You are
> not willing to examine beyond your paradigm and you invoke
> Occam's Razor to defend the practice. I insist only on a
And this you insist on after you've confessed above that your
first experiences with the occult were coincidence and mind games
and suggestion? You don't think it's being open to the possibility
is exactly what opens you to the suggestions?
There are other ways to examine things without considering them
"possible." For instance -- I can listen to your experiences.
I can regard them as entertaining fiction. I can put the info
away until that day when more objective evidence falls at my
feet.
>> I myself am not willing to induce meditative or drug
>> experiences any longer.... but I will listen to what others
>> say about them. Just stick to the experience and drop the
>> dogma.
>
> I'm pretty straight about stuff like that. Or try to be,
> anyway.
and discovered people were vulnerable to suggestive influences
once they considered something magical was possible.
Suggestion has its limits. Did you not find them? Did you find
that you could sell bogus love potions, but not bogus LSD without
getting into deep shit with your victim?
/snip rest/
MyKill
>
> in
> news:35E361A2...@mindspring.com> >> On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:50:10 -0700, MyKill> > <snip>
>
> I'm a naturalist, materialist, atheist myself. However I will let
> some subjective experiences under the wire as evidence provided
> that the person who claims such subjective evidence can meet
> a few criteria. For instance, in another post MyKill starts
> getting specific about a few of those occult practices he was
> into... but then he drops the subject before he says why he
> found it convincing. I find that suspicious and annoying.
I did play with the occult - and in another response I go
into some detail about it. all my experiences can be chalked
up to coincidence, mind games or power of suggestion and
I've been quite mercenary about it even, in the past.
At age 7 I had a rather profound existential crisis.
-Another at age 23 stimulated by my coming to grips with my
gayness. Both of these had effects on my mind not unlike
psychoactive drugs: seeing things in new ways that
interfered with my capacity to read (not books, but
billboards and logos).
At age 10 I would have a premonition about the weather, be
very certain about it (I still don't know why - I was just
certain) and then be right. (one event was a frost forecast
in the weather report I was certain would never happen). As
a smaller child I am reported to have known things I should
have had no way of knowing, but I don't remember these.
>
> I don't grant people who make such claims respect until they
> can meet my criteria -- here's why:
>
> If you've read some of my posts before you'll see me asking
> theists who claim to have been "born again" or who "have a
> relationship" or "experience" of God (or Jesus or whatever) to
> describe it. The reason I do that is because I am familiar with
> unusual experiences; dreams, experiences with LSD, DMT and a
> couple other psychedelics, illusionary perceptions, intuitive
> feelings etc. It's the only thing I've got to compare notes on.
> I can even jokingly refer to good and bad omens. However, while
> they claim experience as the source most of the time all you get
> is dogma and "well you can't prove it wrong," but no description
> of these claimed experiences. (And as has been endlessly noted,
> not being able to prove something wrong is no grounds for
> believing it... one might seek their own evidence, but don't
> expect the same conclusions if you can't outline the evidence in
> specifics.)
My experience with the occult has been that faith is
everything and really does seem to impact probability in
life. With the occult, a theatrical ceremony is used to
elicit belief for just that moment (then the subconscious
takes care of the rest). For Christians, psychosis is a
lifestyle. Asking a Christian to take a hard look at their
experience is asking them to possibly compromise their faith
- which is the basis of their form of working magic (through
"prayer").
I answer the more basic impertinent question: why are you a
Christian really? -Same result though; an honest answer is
rare.
> It's very rare that you'll ever get anyone to even attempt such a
> description. Often they'll say something like "could you describe
> the color blue to a blind man?" When I get a response like that I
> tell them what they are talking about is a qualia. Qualia means a
> "unique quality in perception," blue is qualia, red, salt, pain,
> orgasm, and aspects of smell are qualia. Then I tell them that yes
> I can tell a blind from birth person some things about the color
> blue and prove that sighted people have an ability there. The
> exact nature of the qualia may not be described but I can share
> what kind of information the qualia provides. At that point they
> stop responding to my posts.
That's because you're talking to Religious people who accept
Spirituality on Faith alone. Mystics seek experience to
prove their faith -and are more entertaining to read about
and talk to.
Once some theist said they wouldn't describe it because it
would
> sound crazy -- which of course suggests to me, maybe that's
> because it is crazy.
To get the answer you're looking for you must be willing to
let go of your skepticism and offer respect for the
experience. People need to "look good" - so let them know
whatever they say you'll respect. I'm extremely curious why
an experience that could be construed as "crazy" (but isn't,
since the person is aware of this fact) is accepted as other
than "crazy".
> >> > Do you consider the innovations of Nicolai Tesla
> >> > as gobbledygook 'cause they sprang from the same
> >> > "revelationary" source as much world religion?
>
> There's a big difference! The only commonality of source
> here is the subconscious mind. Tesla's revelations lived and
> breathed in the technological world. The ideas of theists
> live and breathe in an ancient fantasy world.
There is a difference. But if Tesla is capable of
technological breakthroughs that are legitimate and true -
from a revelationary source then it is not true that all
notions from revelationary sources, even non materialistic
notions, are automatically false and to be discounted
automatically.
> >> I don't regard Tesla's revelations as gobbledygook at all,
> >> because he (or somebody, I know little about Tesla myself)
> >> was able to back them up. For every Tesla there are countless
> >> equally inspired would-be Teslas who were wrong.
Many people who investigate Christianity prove for
themselves that the religion is true. I've investigated
Christianity and didn't reach that conclusion - but perhaps
that's because I'm particularly stupid.
> I figure some of the people in the "Free Energy" and "Zero Point"
> energy camp are wrong. Also the paraphsychologists and "quantum
> mystics."
And I figure Artificial Intelligence will never imitate real
creativity. We both could be wrong and are hardly in a
position to prove fact our opinions.
> >> In realms where there is no possibility of distinguishing
> >> truth from falsehood, such as religion, the best
> >> working assumption by far is that any given Tesla is wrong.
I assume everyone is wrong. That's always the safe
assumption. -But I carry that practice to an extreme where
even the assumption everyone is wrong is considered wrong.
Thus everyone may be right.
> But every once in awhile random thoughts click into fit a
> description of reality. It's evolution in action. A mutant idea
> surfaces and either survives or dies. What you have to look at is
> where that idea is living its life when it does survive. It's not
> the source of the ideas but the environment they live in.
> Theological ideas live and breathe in a world of symbolism with no
> contact to reality. Tesla's ideas lived in this world as
> technological inventions.
Theological ideas live in a world of symbolism with contact
to our common reality that can be also explained as
coincidence, freak or otherwise.
> >> I'm certainly not saying that inspiration is always useless (I
> >> write music, after all).
>
> And I'm a freelance artist.
Me too, check out my stuff at http://myksite.fsn.net
>
> > Were you a religious person claiming to have access to
> > ultimate truth through revelation alone I would condemn
> > you as a madman.
>
> Same here -- but that is indeed what theists who come to
> alt.atheism offer us: Their holy book of contradictions
> and personal experiences they claim that trying to describe
> would be like "trying to describe blue to a blind man."
That's likely because Theists intelligent enough to doubt
and question feel little threat from Atheists.
>
> > You are right that revelation falls short of truth.
> > Revelation does point to possibility that could be truth.
>
> And sometimes random chance will deal you a straight flush.
What distinguishes a revelation from some other sort of
psychotic episode is the the one experience revelation comes
from the experience knowing something new. An intelligent
person would test and question the insight, of course. -But
every revelation is experienced as a straight flush.
> > A Sufi (The sufi are Islamic Mystics and pretty far out [and
> > cool!] as mystics go) parable: A man dies and his spirit arrives
> > at the Gates to Paradise. Saint Peter gaurds the gates and
> > queries the spirit: "On what basis do you claim to be worthy of
> > entry to Paradise?". The Spirit thinks a bit and answers:
> > "First tell me, how is it I may know these are truly the gates
> > to Paradise and not a delusion of my mind experiencing death?".
> > Before Saint Peter can respond - from within the gate: "Let him
> > in - He's one of us!".
> Well, I like that story... but I assume there's more to Sufism
> than that story. *clip*
Perhaps you're familiar with the term "whirling dervishes"?
-That refers to a Sufi dance of spinning and spinning.
Professional Dancers turn their head when spinning in such a
way as to not get dizzy and sick. The Sufi don't do this -
but rather use a mental focus on Allah to prevent dizziness
and nausea.
The Sufi are hard core mystics. Unlike many mystical
traditions, they do not withdraw from society to meditate -
but take jobs and are part of society and use that process
as one kind of meditation. Their goal is direct experience
of Allah. They have a system of applying numbers to letters
in the Koran and look for hidden meaning that way. They tend
to have the brightest and nicest interpretation of the Koran
going around: referring to a very long list of nasty stuff
Allah will do to the bad blasphemers -"Allah loves you - and
these are all the things he will never do to you!".
The Sufi have a reputation for seeing the future,
teleporting, reading minds ... and other magic tricks. The
Sufi don't promote their practice as having such benefits -
but such is their reputation.
Intelligent westernized people in Arabic countries tend to
claim Sufism. The Sufi definitly respect intelligence and
tolerance. You should find out more about them. If there is
an antidote to Islamic extremeism it is from within - from
the respected Sufi mystics.
> /snip/
> > There's no reason to suppose to know thought originates
> > from within our physical bodies at all. The brain could be
> > as much an amplifier as source.
>
> Dead wrong.
> There is quite a bit of evidence that the brain is the source.
> Again, look into the neurosciences.
The nuerosciences prove that interfering with the physical
structure of the brain impact the quality and capcity for
thought. The model of brain as a medium/amplifier for a non
material source is still as likely as the model of brain as
direct source for all thought. Nuerosciences could have an
identical result with brain either as source or
medium/amplifier for thought.
> That's me... I have no respect for what I've heard described as
> meditation and prayer. Introspection is another matter.
meditation is no more than a disciplined form of
introspection. Prayer is simply another form of low magic or
superstition.
>
>
> That's me, tolerance but no respect. I've learned not to respect
> that view from experience.
>
> > Why?
>
> Because people who claim the experiences can't back them up.
Are you willing to experiment with an exercise in low
ceremonial magic to see if it may be possible to impact
probability?
>
> > Do you have a knowing other than intuition that is responsible
> > for your lack of regard?
>
> Yes! Experience, scientific data and a theoritical foundation.
Provides evidence to support a materialist paradigm - but
not as an exclusive paradigm - so you're screwed!
> > The promise of many religions is that introspection and
> > meditation is enough for realization - no "faith" - no "dogma".
> > Such promises intrigue me.
>
> I think that the findings of modern neuroscience have proved use
> of those methods ALONE is not good enough.
Hasn't neuroscience discovered that meditation alone can
alter brain chemistry? -If not, what drug do you reccomend?
:-)
>
> >> > Can you not see, possible as your model is, it is no less
> >> > arbitrary than any other model?
>
> My model sure seems less arbitrary to me. I've got hard data to
> back it up. The theists that come here don't.
I'm not sure you're being fair - taking my comments out of
context. I had been adressing a specific model of
psychology. All models of psychology are bullshit if taken
literally and to be absoloute truths.
>
> /snip/
>
> > Hang gliding too is impossible until you seriously give it a
> > try.
>
> What bullshit! I can see them fly through the air before I try
> and I can want that experience. I've seen theists too -- and
> that's an experience I do not want because of where it seems to
> lead. I can know it's possible to to glide before I try -- and I
> can know it's possible to be a theist before I try -- but gliding
> looks like a lot more fun.
Are you certain we're talking about the same thing?
Spirituality does not equate with being a Creationist Bible
thumping Bigot. Hang Gliding aint gonna happen unless you
try it. -Nothing happens if you don't try it. Don't whine
about Spirituality if you won't give it a shot!
I'm sure Hang Gliding is a great deal of fun! Make sure
you're an experienced instructor!
I know, having tried, that I cannot be a Christian. The most
religion I'm capable of really following is Zen Buddhism -
which has lead many to label me an Atheist as a result!
If I, an apologist for Theism, cannot be a true theist. How
is you claim it to be possible for yourself?
> >> If I were vitally interested in spirituality, I might be
> >> struggling along your path. Since I feel no need for
> >> spirituality in myself, and since it looks like pointless
> >> waffling to me, I don't give it much thought except when
> >> responding to posts in alt.atheism..
>
> Same here.
Both of you have some compulsion to respond, however.
>
> > I look for possibility and do have an interest in
> > spirituality.
>
> Then try it... but watch yourself, ask yourself if you're not
> fooling yourself.
You can take that for granted from me.
MyKill
>
MyKill
>
> Excuse me. I've been monitoring, and enjoying, this debate and do have a
> touch to add:
>
> MyKill> If claims to drink lethal poison and suffer cobra bites with no ill
> effects are real - Science has no proof for the phenomena.
>
> Claus> Wait until scientists start focusing on those things. Answers are
> usually found.
>
> dispel one here. The trick of playing with poisonous snakes is to milk
> their venom sacks just before the 'show.' (And poisonous snakes don't
> inject at every strike).
>
MyKill
>
> Excuse me. I've been monitoring, and enjoying, this debate and do have a
> touch to add:
>
> MyKill> If claims to drink lethal poison and suffer cobra bites with no ill
> effects are real - Science has no proof for the phenomena.
>
> Claus> Wait until scientists start focusing on those things. Answers are
> usually found.
>
> Many presumed, 'miracles,' have been shown to be simply tricks. Allow me to
> dispel one here. The trick of playing with poisonous snakes is to milk
> their venom sacks just before the 'show.' (And poisonous snakes don't
> inject at every strike).
The idea of the Bible Thumping snake handlers is that the
snakes won't bite them - so if one does at all it's not a
good thing or planned. -The poison drinking is an entirely
different matter though!!
I have no problem with authentic debunking of wild claims. I
do consider it an insult to science to generate a
scientifically satisfying argument for a phenomena and then
claim it debunked. I expect proof!
MyKill
MyKill
>
> On 29 Aug 1998 00:53:04 -0400, MyKill <mykill...@mindspring.com>
I thought I was in alt.atheism. -But I'll take a look at
talk.origins, if you insist.
MyKill
MyKill
> condition? Randi has offered $1,000,000.00 if any supernatural claims
> are proved true.
Because I'm not a person making such a claim.
I'm not certain , but I suspect James Randi demands proof
that is exclusive of all possible interpretations. There is
no phenomena that once quantified as legiminate by
scientific means cannot be explained as a scientific
phenomena - though like the claims of the magic workers -
this too is far from exclusive.
James Randi doesn't play fair and his agenda is hostile
rather than enquiring. Though it would be worthwhile to test
claims, I think. The workings of wicca style witchcraft is
a mix of drug free psychoactive experiences and, or so is
the claim, impacting probability. This is a claim testable
by statisticians and I'd be curious to see the results. The
catch though is that this sort of magic isn't straightfoward
at all: becoming friends with a former enemy is as valid a
destruction of an enemy as the fellow dying.
I believe the Bible Thumping poison dringing snake handlings
types have been carefully looked at scientifically. They've
resistance to both the snake venom and the strychnine -
though how you establish a resistance to stychnine is beyond
me.
Certainly there's no shortage of Raja Yogis (They're
supposed to be able to levitate and so forth) - but it would
be hard to get them to cooperate maybe. The voodoo and
yoruba guys are fairly open about using stage magic to
supplement the "real" stuff: This makes sense though - as
the way to get to the real stuff is to get people to suspend
disbelief - and a stage trick is a simple shortcut.
The bottom line of magick - they stuff for impacting
probability anyway, may simply be that it creates a form of
confidance - and it is the confidance that works wonders.
-That's why I'm no longer too interested in the occult
(Though, obviously, I've read too damn much about the stuff)
- combined with some realizations stemming from a kind of
existential crisis when I was 23 - I'm fairly sure of my
ability to generate my own confidance without smoke and
mirrors. Of more interest to me now is mind control -
controlling my own mind. -And thus Zen.
MyKill
MyKill
>
> On Sat, 22 Aug 1998 14:50:06 -0700, chr...@flash.net (Chris Peterson)
> wrote:
>
> >Michelle Malkin wrote:
> >
> >> e...@cyberramp.net (Elroy Willis) wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 15:59:52 -0400, Rob Arch Ward
> >> ><wa...@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> >>Vernon o wrote:
> >
> >> >>> Being a believer in Jesus Christ takes no intelligence whatsoever.
> >
> >> >Is this a possible Theist QoM? Or maybe somebody already nominated
> >> >this one?
> >
> >> >Elroy
> >
I doubt there are any beliefs that require intellect. Most
severely retarded people assume the belief they are told is
true.
MyKill
Honus
>
> Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
> >
> > Excuse me. I've been monitoring, and enjoying, this debate and do have a
> > touch to add:
> >
> > MyKill> If claims to drink lethal poison and suffer cobra bites with no ill
> > effects are real - Science has no proof for the phenomena.
> >
> > Claus> Wait until scientists start focusing on those things. Answers are
> > usually found.
> >
> > Many presumed, 'miracles,' have been shown to be simply tricks. Allow me to
> > dispel one here. The trick of playing with poisonous snakes is to milk
> > their venom sacks just before the 'show.' (And poisonous snakes don't
> > inject at every strike).
They also de-fang the snakes in India and the regions thereabouts. ;)
FYI...Indians do some *awesome* magic tricks!
> The idea of the Bible Thumping snake handlers is that the
> snakes won't bite them - so if one does at all it's not a
> good thing or planned. -The poison drinking is an entirely
> different matter though!!
Where do you get this? Matthew 16:17 says that "these signs shall follow
them that believe..." Verse 18 says "They shall take up serpents; and if
they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them...." The implication
is that if you're bit, as Paul was in Acts 28:3, then a true believer
won't suffer any ill effects...just as drinking poison won't hurt him.
Of course, I've never heard of snake handlers quaffing cyanide...I
wonder why not? ;)
--
Death to Trolls. Death to Spammers.
Remove NOSPAM from my address to reply by e-mail.
Astronauts in the weightlessness of pixellated space,
Exchange graffiti with a disembodied race....
Virtuality
N. Peart
MyKill
where they do such things.
I could be wrong. I assumed if the point was to prove
invulnerability to snake venom they'd make a big deal out of
getting bitten, which, from what I've seen on exploitive
television, isn't the case.
>
> --
> Death to Trolls. Death to Spammers.
How language is used determines definition: "Troll" is a
condemnation used against anyone who doesn't share the
prevailing opinion of the given newsgroup! -DEATH TO
EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T CONFORM! is more like it!
Claus Lisberg
<mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Claus Lisberg wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 18:15:04 -0700, MyKill
>> <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Claus Lisberg wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 24 Aug 1998 02:33:35 -0700, MyKill
>> >> <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Jeff Wilson wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >Religion operates on the plane of psychology - it that
>> >> >domain it can hit right on. At least Buddhism does for me.
>> >>
>> >> "In illusion comfort lies" and all.
>> >I would argue that those for whom Science is a preferable
>> >alternative to Religion have said bias as a function of
>> >finding it comfortable as much as anything else.
>>
>> Then you need to learn about science, its methods, what claims it
>> makes, how it makes them, and so forth. And "science" isn't
>> capitalized unless it's the first word in a sentence.
>
>You're right - but it is arguably consistant in context as
>science is being compared to Religion.
Not getting your message. Please rephrase.
>> Science, unlike Christianity, works.
>
>Been there, done that. Science is usefull in the domain of
>objective reality. Religion doesn't primarily address
>objective reality. You are comparing peaches and pork.
Religion is wishful thinking and the realms where delusional escapists
dwell.
Science don't mess around, usually.
>> >Your statement is severely bigoted. -Like saying All Black
>> >men are rapists 'cause it's true of Mike Tyson. You do owe
>> >Christians an apology. (Not me, I'm not Christian).
>>
>> No. I'm not bigoted, nor am I making a blanket statement. I'm viewving
>> Christinaity from a historical point of view, and seeing how it is
>> used today.
>
>You're making a blanket statement about all Christians -
>which is neither true nor fair because in fact, Christianity
>is very diverse. In short, you are lying.
Please learn to differentiate between Christians and Christianity.
>The first false
>premise being that there is any such thing as THE Christian
>religion.
Obviously there is. There's some disagreement what exactly this it,
though.
>
>> If anything, Christians owe apologies to the thousands of innocent
>> they've killed in the name of their god.
>
>If you then agree that all White people share responsibility
>for historical crimes against Black people and indiginous
>peoples - and should unanimously share in wage garnishing to
>make appropriate reparations: Then I can applaud you on
>being consistant. If you believe We have vastly diminished
>responsibility for the crimes of our forebears - then you
>are a bloody hypocrit.
Straw man - I was adressing your point. Note "if anything". In this
context it means "Ok, if you want to go there, let's go there."
Another fact is that white people today do not share the same
fundamental values, whereas Christians *still* abide to the same book.
Intrepreted differently, naturally, in order to make it somewhat
coherent with the values of today.
>*clip-*
Tought it was "snip"? :)
>> Are you refering to science as a religion? If so, see the faq. It
>> should be quite obvious to anyone with knowledge of religion, and what
>> consititues one and science that equalling the two is not only wrong,
>> it's laughable.
>
>I certainly laugh when people make claims about the
>unknowable and claim groundedness in "science".
Not sure what you are refering to. I'm sick and all drugged up; my
mind is a bit slow.
>> Evidence, not proof, no?
>
>The collective opinion of a jury: this constitutes "proof".
Must be a US thing.
>> Heh, that'd be neat.
>And if you met a person who made such a claim - you'd no
>doubt make them a laughingstock!
Until he proved I' be sceptical, yes, You would too, if I claimed that
"I just circumnavigated the earth using only this safety pin. And
Jesus was with me too, and got into a fight with Buddha".
>> If I can't re levitate, I'd ask myself what kind of drugs I was using
>> at the time.
>
>Exactly, and if you didn't take any drugs - you'd suspect
>your coke of being spiked.
No. Then I'd label it "unexplainable for now, odd but most
interesting". And I wouldn't take it public until I had some evidence
- my mind has tricked me before.
> -You are incapable of not
>knowing.
This is bullshit, and quite frankly very insulting.
>You will force an expanation that seems acceptable
>to you. You cannot see outside of your narrow view of
>reality so you force anything that may not fit to conform.
>-This is being grounded in Science?
This is utter horse manure. There are lots of things I cannot explain,
or science cannot explain. Yet we live with this.
>> Not when their raving behavior and delusions start affecting me
>> directly. Not when they're destroying the minds of thousands, when
>> they're putting guilt in the minds of innocent children.
>>
>> I will not be polite.
>
>The behavior you have for an example is hardly related to a
>revelationary experience. You can hate the behavior and
>fight it while still extending benefit of the doubt to the
>possibility of some sort of revelation. Paradigms for living
>are multitudionous. Respect them all or be a bigot. I'm gay
>and hate and fight the gay bashing on the part of many self
>proclaimed Christians. I still respect their right to
>consider gayness a sin.
I have not said "it is not, period". I'm saying "it is quite unlikely,
and if I ahd to wager my life either on this explanation or the one
provided by those scientists, I'd go with the scientists".
You're putting words in my mouth here, claiming attributes I do not
have.
>> Please clarify.
>
>A person who claims to speak directly to God and assumes
>people ought to pay him respect and attention as a
>consequence - is a candidate for the funny farm (unless
>they're successful televangelists anyway).
LOL!
>A person who
>explains that they have had an experience that seemed as if
>they were talking to God - is a person who had a strange
>experience - and who isn't nuts.
True, but I've had encounters with all sorts of things - just last
week I did a deep dive and was suffering from nitrogen narcosis - I
could *swear* that there was someone moving around inside the wreck,
unhindered by the water.
My mind played me a little trick.
Of course, I could view this as evidence of the existence of Nirfur
God Of All Things Yellow And Furry, but there's a better explanation.
>Crazy people think they
>know things as a function of an unusual experience. Sane
>people may have unusual experiences, but relate to it as an
>unusual experience and are careful about making conclusions
>about it.
Agree.
>> While life may not have a meaning, that doesn't mean one cannot aim at
>> living a good one. laws help with this.
>
>"Good life" is a non sequitor if life is devoid of meaning.
Not at all. That good life would be the meaning, in essence. Arguing
semantics here.
>Personally I feel meaning in life is something we are
>responsible for. As an artist and writer I am responsible
>for the meaning in my illustrations and comics. As a person
>living a life - the meaning of which is too my
>responsibility.
Yep, agree completely.
>A person I admire is the controversial Yukio Mishima. He was
>an oddball - and he did commit suicide. But he lived his
>life exactly as if it were an art project - to the extend of
>ending his life when the project was complete. -Talk about
>aesthetic over all! I have no intent to follow his example
>- but I am impressed by it and the unusual paradigm it
>represents.
He certainly made a point.
>> >That is reason enough to seek proof of meaning in life.
>> >Since we already work with that assumption anyway.
>>
>> Many theist do, I don't.
>
>If you distinguish "good" from "bad" in life - then you are
>imposing meaning upon life.
No, merely using my values to discriminate.
>> Only the Right God(tm).
>>
>> >The question isn't if God is
>> >real or not - how can a metaphor be unreal?
>>
>> "Blue is white just as yellow is yellow".
>
>I miss your point. But white light, technically, contains
>all colours of the spectrum.
My point is that such a metaphor is flawed an useless.
>
>> >The question is
>> >the nature of the truth of creation: was it borne of random
>> >design or of intelligent design? Is God an unreasoning
>> >idiot?
>>
>> Occam's razor.
>>
>Is a tool, not a proof. To the best of my knowledge anyhow.
>If it relates to religion vs. Science: God is the simpler
>(and simplistic) answer anyway.
Never multiply entities if not necessary, actually.
And it's reasonable to say that gravity is what makes things fall to
the ground, not space faeries inspired by Elvis on acid.
Still, there's the possibility, but given the evidence, it's far out.
>
>> >Or is our intelligence redundant and superfluous -
>> >because it pales in comparison to ...something?
>>
>> It's nice to contemplate upon this, but until compelling evidence
>> arrives that supports this view, wouldn't it be more reasonable to
>> live as if it didn't,s since evidence suggest this?
>
>Envisioning that which is beyond where we are now is the
>first step to moving beyond where we are now.
>I don't live as if God existed- but I do maintain such is a
>possibility. I live as if spirituality is a real concern
>because my subjective experience supports such a notion.
Subjective experience being the operative words.
>MyKill
>Founder of SSTL (Stuyvesant Student Terrorist League)
LOL!
--
(Santa)Claus Lisberg
Founder of PSWEH (Poor Students With Expensive Hobbies)
Director of EAC UOT, a.a atheist #1116, Nirfur prophet #1
"A casual stroll through an asylum will show that faith proves nothing"
- F. Nietszche
MyKill
>
> responding to:
> news:6s46gg$6tv$1...@wildfire.prairienet.org
> in
> news:35E745C0...@mindspring.com
> MyKill <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Norman Doering wrote:
> >> in
> >> news:35E51268...@mindspring.com
> >> MyKill <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> /snip/
>
> > That the brain may contain thoughts argues nothing about the
> > nature of thoughts.
>
> Actually it does... though not put that simply.
>
> > Thoughts are not material.
>
> How do you define material? Running may not be material, but you
> can't have running without a runner, nor without the expenditure
> of energy. Thoughts are the actions of material neurons... or so I
> believe.
>
subject we have a fairly thorough understanding of. Exactly
in what way material nuerons work to create thought is a
subject that would revoloutionize artificial intelligence if
understood the way we understand running.
*clip: a paradigm of the brain as a holistic and flexable
mechanism for generating thought and memory*
> > If thoughts were material - Einstein would've had neck injuries
> > from the excessive weight put on it consistantly.
>
> Nope. It's not the quantity but the quality that sets Einstein's
> thoughts apart.
Then Eistein's brain would overheat while unfortunates with
photographic memories would live in neck braces. ;)
> /snip/
>
> > One aspect of creativity is no substitue for quantifying all
> > of creativity. Still, AI is very interesting - and it's
> > always usefull to quantify all that is possible to quantify.
> I think it's well inside science's ability to quantify all aspects
> of human creativity and not only that - but go beyond and create
> new forms of creativity. For instance, consider the computer
> graphics in "Jurasic Park," computer techniques can paint pictures
> and make them move -- Ray tracing does one thing an artist has to
> learn.
Now you're entering the territiry of the Teacher who gave
his student and "F" "cause the "computer wrote the essay".
None is putting together computer hardware and telling it, "
make us a movie" and then leaving it alone in a locked room!
You're talking to someone who is a computer graphics person,
albeit I'm not too experienced with the 3d modlelling stuff
quite yet. Computers are tools. Your arguement is like
saying oil paint is responsible for Divinci's classics
'cause he couldn't have done it with Charcoal! When
Industrial Light and Magic only has its CEO on the payroll,
then you can talk!
And I don't need a computer, I can use an opaque projector
to create artwork without learning anything in particular!
> >> http://www.aic.nrl.navy.mil/galist/
> >> The Genetic Algorithms Archive
> >> http://www.cs.purdue.edu/coast/archive/clife/FAQ/www/
> >> Hitch-Hiker's Guide to Evolutionary Computation
> >> news:comp.ai.genetic
> >> http://www.marlboro.edu/~lmoss/planhome/index.html
> >> Evolutionary Computer Graphics (more natural looking evolutions)
> >
> > One thing about evolution you have to admit -- it's creative
> > in the same way a human being can be.
I'm hardly arguing that point.
> /snip/
>
> >> Don't you think Stanley Milgram's experiments proved
> >> anything?
> >
> > No, because I don't know who he is or what he's done.
>
> He's the one who did the obedience to authority experiments.
> Does that ring a bell?
> Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
And how does the fact that humans and other animals resond
to conditioning assume relevancy? -Pavlov, I know at least.
Here in alt.Atheism I'd be proving the point more by backing
off and accepting a materialist view - in the face of
unaminous disagreement here.
>
> /snip/
>
> > The argument you make then, is that it is impossible to
> > affect a non material quantity with material stimulai.
>
> No... You don't quite grasp the distinction. In a sense you could
> call a radio wave a "non-material" phenomena and these waves are
> created with a material radio transmitters. However, I lump energy
> into my definition of material (E=mc^2). Nothing runs without
> energy. I don't rule out pattern and structure either. So this
> pretty much makes my definition of material phenomena as phenomena
> that can be effected with material structures. If it can be
> effected by material it is by definition material and subjected to
> empirialistic examination. What you'd expect from the supernatural
> is that it could influence reality, but not be influenced by it.
> Anything that can be influenced by my material messing about in a
> predictable way is subject to empirical examination.
>
> > -That if something can be affected by material stimulai it too
> > must be material.
>
> Yes. And even if you don't believe it, I assure you, that is the
> way to bet... it is what a lot of people working in AI and
> neurophysiology are betting on. It is the accepted paradigm.
I don't believe that a paradigms effectiveness is proof of
its exclusivity. I would be senseless for those working in
AI and nuerophysiology to accept any other paradigm - the
other paradigms assault the premise of such enterprises.
> All the information will do is prove that there are a lot of
> neurophysiologists and other scientists who are convinced
> that this is the case. Until such a day as these principles
> are demonstrated with brainchips and "truth machines" we have
> only our naturalistic assumptions and a lot of evidence.
Like many theists have only their theistic assumptions and
unconclusive soft evidence.
>
> /snip/
>
> > .... At such a point we many confront theistic propositions
> > coming from our computers.
>
> Only if we let theists program them or talk to them.
> A scary idea. We'll have to hardwire the Occam's Razor
> heuristic into them to keep them sane I suppose.
The more I think about it the more I think even that
wouldn't work. The problem being, if the computer is
programmed with the capacity to learn beyond its basic
programming - it's programmed curiosity will know it's
missing the experience of psychosis necessary to a religious
experience that so many of the "creator" population indulge
in: it may find a way to simulate such psychosis as part of
its directive to "learn". :-) (I write comix I can't help
it!)
>
> > Even for a computer - thought exists as a process and not as a
> > thing - thought never exists materially as an object.
>
> What about memes? Thought is a verb and not a noun? Okay, that's
> one way to look at it. Yet in the computer those processes are
> dependent on material structures, silicon transistors and
> capacitors smaller than a cell. The process won't run without a
> material substrate. Also, I think it's safe to say that human
> memory is not just the process of remembering, but is physically
> coded in neural patterns within the brain. At least that's how
> neural nets do it.
>
To effectively argue against non materialistic views, it
must be shown that a material substrate is exclusive as a
way to generate thought. We're on the precipace of maybe
proving the material substrate for thought need not be
organic. Which in its own way is as relevant and confronting
as the notion of soul or lack thereof.
> /snip/
>
> > God exists for you then - but as a metaphor with no
> > possibility. My argument simply is that it is wrong to say
> > you KNOW thought and sentience require a material system to
> > manifest. It's one possibility.
>
> True, it's a dim possibility -- I don't "know" it in any absolute
> sense. You're free to think what you please. But you're going
> against the tide of scientific evidence if you think thought can
> exist in a material vacuum.
If thought existed in a material vacuum, we'd not have a way
to know it, would we?
And remember - being open to
> possibility is also being open to suggestion. Religion is a mind
> game, it has those characteristics.
There's a distinction between being open to possibility and
suggestion and being open to possibility and suggestion
knowing or suspecting all may just be suggestion (or acid
flashback) and shouldn't be taken too seriously. (I refer to
that "SUFI Story" I shared on some other post.)
>
> /snip/
>
> > The technical definition of "life" barely accepts the virus.
> > Perhaps sentience is a truer bottom line? (Then viruses may
> > be exempt, actually).
>
> One way to think about it -- however, how do you recognize
> sentience in all the various life forms around you? Is a bacteria
> sentient? Is a jelly-fish sentient? Is a single ant sentient?
> Is a whole ant hive together one sentient being? Is a worm
> sentient?
It's more convenient that way. We could assume all Chickens
aren't sentient, making it okay to lock them in small cages,
chopping off their beaks so they don't peck each other and
use them as egg machines. We could enslave all the Alien
races as "they're not sentient either". It would be okay to
beat animals - there'd be no shame in eating meat... I'm all
for it! ;-)
> /snip/
>
> > Man and computer equate to "man".
>
> Not in my opinion. They equate to something more. No man, no men,
> could make the mathematical models of chaotic weather patterns
> that run on modern super-computers.
>
> > -What use is man without his creations?
>
> A man is an animal living in the wild without his creations.
Wrong, a man is almost defined by his ability to enhance his
effectiveness with tools. The most sever city slicker will,
if lost in a forest, at least find a strong stick and make
use of it!
>
> /big snip/
>
> >> I agree -- but we are looking at your paradigm -- aren't we?
> >> We're reading and considering what you say. We're just trying
> >> to tell you why it doesn't fit into our scheme.
> >
> > I'm largely a devil's advocate. I promote materialic views
> > to rabid evangelist types. My goal is to get people to
> > realise their paradigm is not exclusive in being consistant
> > and possible. I have no use for conversion - just cognitive
> > dissonance.
>
> Like the bit of grit that might turn an oyster into a pearl?
> Or a huckster's instinct for seeking suggestibility?
Maybe, I'm not sure I get your meaning. Another way of
putting it - Is I'm against grimness, exclusivity and
seriousness. How you distinguish a cult is if it exhibits
those characterisitics: It's is the only truth, it is a very
serious truth and you better not talk to anyone who doesn't
agree with this truth. I fight this wherever I find it.
>
> /snip/
>
> > It's irrelevant to me - 'cause my complaint is the refusal to
> > consider alternative views.
>
> Why?
>
> I think the problem with having an open mind, that considers any
> alternative view offered, is that other people will consider it a
> garbage can. Besides, there are too many alternatives out there
> and you need a scheme to judge which is the best.
The belief needs to be consistant unto itself, shouldn't
piss me off by promoting bigotry, shouldn't blatantly
contradict what we know to be scientific fact and it's an
entertaining plus if it purports magic, healing or
"legitimate" (pass my subjective litmus test 'cause I've
read so much) psychological or mystical insights. 9 times
out of 10 any given take on Christianity gets a thumbs down
in my book.
You have to have
> standards and be able to make judgements in order to act in life.
> These aren't "beliefs" we "preach" these are guide lines for
> making judgements and establishing your own standards of evidence
> that we "teach." You seem to have chosen blind hope over evidence
> to the contrary... it doesn't look like a good judgement.
>
> And speaking of judgement -- you admit that being open to
> possibilities can make someone suggestible, right?
>
In my case total possibility is the enemy of suggestion.
Truly being suggestable requires being closed to the
possibility of somthing not being real.
>
> > I'm looking for a realization of baisic truth regarding
> > my/our existance. The faith is in the proposition that
> > humans all contain the capacity for such realization. The
> > faith also is in the notion that said truth must be
> > experienced. A roller coaster ride can only be experienced
> > by being there - not by a description of what it was like.
> > Religions expect people to be happy hearing what the
> > experience was like. Mystics want to ride that roller
> > coaster themselves!
>
> Who needs to be a mystic to drop acid?
I've dropped acid - and for me it was exactly like being
drunk and wired on coffe plus nice visuals and maybe a
subjective sense of syncronicity( but I don't need drugs for
that).
>
> > A clarification might be that I disagree with your not extending
> > of benefit of the doubt to beliefs that that you're personally
> > satisfied aren't "it" but neither can discredit...
>
> What makes you think we can't descredit them?
> How much "descredit" do you need?
Proving for a fact that light is a wave doesn't prove that
it isn't also a particle.
>
> Has anyone here told you about the invisible pink unicorn yet?
> Can you discredit that?
No, and If you want to take seriously a practice of
meditating on its visage and scrificing white cats to its
glory - I'll give you the same respect I extend to any
Christian. :-)
>
> /snip/
>
> > My personal subjective experience has led me to believe
> > there to be something to supernatural claims. Zen Buddhism
> > is very at home with my instincts and biases: clean of all
> > dogma, clean of duality, a clear mental discipline and
> > spirituality is irrelevant.
>
> "Something" to supernatural claims?... Care to be more specific
> about what that something is? Do you think you can effect the
> outside material world by force of will alone?
Yes, I believe everything is synchronistically connected and
force of will alone can impact any number of things. The
catch with this paradigm, of course, is that you impact
reality with your will as much as I do ....
If and only if you assume all there is to reality is the one
example we happen to experience with our limited five
senses.
A god who isn't involved in the
> universe is simply eliminated by Occam's Razor as unworthy of
> consideration. There's nothing relevant you can say about such a
> god.
Exactly my point.
The god of the (Judeo/Chrisitian) Bible is an involved god,
with personality
> and will and intension and foresight.
Or such was the opinion of those responsible for the text. A
scientist will see a cooincidence where a Christian may see
a miracle.
> In Thomas Paine's time there were two puzzles to which a deity
> seemed to be the best choice of an answer: 1) Life, at first
> glance, looked designed - as if created for a purpose, and 2) All
> the sciences were starting to point to a deterministic universe.
> In a deterministic universe all that exists around you was
> determined from the moment of creation.
>
> Darwin speaks to the fact that what looked like it had to be
> designed by either a deity, or in your terms, a "spiritual" will
> residing in living things, was in fact a product of random
> mutations and natural selection (since then a few other mechanisms
> have been identified).
Again, where science sees coincidence or randomness, a
Christian will see God. Doesn't Chaos Theory put a lie to
the notion randomness is truly random?
After that "creativity" became an
> independent mathematical "force" forever separated from the need
> for a fully humanoid style intelligence with will, foresight, and
> intention. But yet, we seemed to exist in a deterministic universe
> and whatever occured still was the result of initial conditions.
> Quantum mechanics undermines that determination by introducing a
> randomizing force. God wasn't playing dice with the universe -- it
> was the dice that had been playing god.
>
A fine way of looking at it - but not at all the only way. I
would argue bias interprets such a conclusion.
>
> > I hardly see the point as all you'll do is proclaim coincidance
> > - and I'll agree! I've looked at Yoruba relions, Wicca, Golden
> > Dawn, Aleistar Crowley, Anton LaVey... all the standard stuff.
> > One model for how the occult works supposes that coincidence is
> > the rule, not the exception. My success with Tarot cards
> > (partially my ability to read a person as well as the cards)
> > seems to support that notion.
>
> Exactly what kind of success have you had with Tarot cards?
> What kind of things do you think you can read?
>
Tarot cards are exactly like playing cards - but with 22
trumps rather than just the one or two jokers. I use a
basic "Celtic Cross" layout. The cards go into positions
that correspond to stuff like: this covers your question,
this is the foundation of the question, the recent past, a
crowning possible outcome, the near future, your
aprehensions, others feelings, your ideals and - the final
outcome. I'm very general, try to make the cards relate to
the people. My sucess is measured in , first people telling
me the cards for past, and the question - are appropriate
and consistant - that layout being appropriate and
consistant (A sun trump [good fortune] in the near future
doesn't relate to the Tower [catastrophe] in the final
outcome). Sucess is sealed with, a week or month later, the
person telling me so! Certainly power of suggestion some of
this - but all of it?
Tarot cards are pretty amazing about bring up the same cards
over and over again if a question is repeated for the same
person (this, after exhaustive shuffling [to get rid of an
unwanted tower in the crown or somesuch].
>
> > Psychotic is exactly it. The basic premise is that if you
> > put on a good enough show you can fool yourself into
> > thinking you're doing something real - and then it becomes
> > real.
>
> Real in what way?
The usual goals of low magic are pretty banal: revenge,
getting laid, getting money.... I find it simpler to get a
job, brush my teeth and use deorderant, and pour sugar in
gas tanks... Low magic has little interest for me.
>
> > The effect could simply be to affect a sense of confidance -
> > and that often can be enough. Black magick is mostly effective
> > as a mind game - as such it works very effectively.
>
> The goal is to fool yourself in positive ways? And when it's
> done you don't feel like you've been a fool?
If who you are is open to suggestion - its less foolish to
use this in a positive way than allow yourself to be used.
All those who make use of brainwash tapes to do things like
stop smoking - you consider them fools as well?
Suggestibility is pretty common - it's why there's a film
industry. Films are gripping when they seem real and you
care about the characters - you've been fooled and your
openness to suggestion has been used - but you go out the
following week or month to repeat the experience
(hopefully).
>
> > The power of suggestion is immense. In Jr. High I was
> > considered a powerfull magician (I joked about a "whammy" I
> > put on a bully - the bully a week later was forced to go to
> > a school for the emotionally disturbed and was never heard
> > from again..). Folks would ask me for love potions and I
> > would make disgusting concoctions and put them in gelatin
> > capsules (nothing lethal, usually baking soda + worcestershire
> > sauce + mustard) - these capsules seemed to work! People kept
> > asking more! ;-)
>
> The goal is to also fool others... in maybe positive ways?
> And maybe in not so positive ways?
> I wounder if L. Ron Hubbard started that way.
> It seems a skeptic would be invulnerable to it all since they
> wouldn't begin to consider the possibility until they'd first
> seen objective evidence.
>
> >>>> My interest in Occult matured into an interest in Zen.
> /snip/
> >> >> A lot of Eastern mystical beliefs work to metaphorically
> >> >> anticipate Quantum Mechanics.
> >>
> >> Says who?
The premise of quantum mechanics any how. We live in
illusion, called maya (the apparent phsical reality
experienced by raw 5 senses). With enlightenment we come to
a realization of this illusion and lose distinction between
ourselves and other people and even inanimate objects -
sensing all as a sort of wave of energy (This being a loose
description of a description - in the world of quantum
reality the distinction between your butt and the chair you
sit on is not real. Humans, in fact, recycle the atomic
matter of stars among other things...).
> >> I think it's more likely that some physicists reached for
> >> Eastern mysticism when confronted by the puzzle of how things
> >> could be like that and then projected "mind" and "observer"
> >> into places where they didn't belong.
> >
> > Are you arguing with relativity here?
>
> No. I'm arguing against quantum mysticism.
I thought relativity demanded that observer and time/space
location thereof be realted to any observation as a crucial
part of the phenomeon.
>
> /snip/
>
> >>... Even sex is a mechanism of evolution.
> >
> > Even Gayness? This certainly seems a constant- and without
> > benefit of breeding!
>
> No one ever said evolution was efficient.
>
Too bad, I was hoping for an arguement for homosexualities
efficientness - being Gay myself. I have argued that
homosexuality is an evoloutionary plus for humans as long as
it is a minority phenomena: a pool of childless adults are
freer to serve the community more fully than an adult that
must divide service between family and community.
>
> >> No evolutionary biologist I know of believes that.
>
> I was wrong about that -- there was one; Lysenko.
>
Thanx.
>
> > Does not Occam's Razor here demand consideration of some kind of
> > guiding will?
>
> Not in the least.
>
Have there been experiements to subject organisms to unique
artificial enviroments with unique demands to see evoloution
in action? A very long term experiment, sure - but it may
conclusively prove something. -Particularly if you could
predict which sort of changes would be most usefull and
consistant.
We do have a virtual example of this with cockroaches and
diseases - but in a controlled environment?
>
> > I've also tried to enlighten homophobic people that maybe being
> > Gay is tolerable and okay - and have failed there too. All I can
> > do is try.
>
> Getting someone who is homophobic to accept gayness requires more
> than you're willing to give to that person. It does happen, people
> do change, a homophobic father who has a gay son might go through
> the struggle with his beliefs and see the light. Trying to do it
> on usenet is futile. You'll never get that far below the surface
> without a personal bond of some kind.
I've talked a lot of people out of homophobia who wern't
family. Most people arn't homophobic 'cause they're not gay
and there's no real relationship to gay sexuality. Love and
Hate are both a function of relatedness, indifference is
what's present where relatedness is absent. Most people are
really ok with gayness as long as you arn't going to rape
them or something. Any other position is, really, very
stupid.
>
> >>> Evidence for Spirituality may not be found in material reality
> >>
> >> -Then again, it might -- and I think it will. If LSD produces
> >> an experience that those familiar other "spiritual experiences"
> >> regard as a "spiritual experience," then it's a clue to the
> >> chemical nature of those experiences.
> >
> > I was referring to evidence for Spirituality. -Not evidence
> > that Spirituality is a chemical based phenomena.
>
> I know, but remember, spirituality is what people who are
> spiritual are pointing to... and it could turn out to be nothing
> more than chemical... Did you know that DMT occurs naturally in
> the brain?
Again, if one paradigm is effective and true - it in no way
discredits all other paradigms. I find homeopathic
medications effective for my allergies to cats. Homeopathy
couldn't work if the coomon assumptions of Western Medicine
had a monopoly on effectiveness. Chinese medicine and
accupuncture - I've not experienced it - but I know a little
of what its based on (from karate practice) - and there ain'
a whole lot separating it from the "force" of Star Wars.
>
> /snip/
>
> > Spirituality is unneeded in a materialist paradigm. You are
> > not willing to examine beyond your paradigm and you invoke
> > Occam's Razor to defend the practice. I insist only on a
> > lable as "possible"...
>
> And this you insist on after you've confessed above that your
> first experiences with the occult were coincidence and mind games
> and suggestion? You don't think it's being open to the possibility
> is exactly what opens you to the suggestions?
I'm also open to the possibility my suggestions shouldn't be
taken seriously. That way I can really be open to as many
ideas as possible. A bad practice if I need to believe
anything, sure. -But belief is usually not a good thing
anyway. This way I've got a ton of source material for my
comics and fiction!
>
> There are other ways to examine things without considering them
> "possible." For instance -- I can listen to your experiences.
> I can regard them as entertaining fiction. I can put the info
> away until that day when more objective evidence falls at my
> feet.
>
> >> I myself am not willing to induce meditative or drug
> >> experiences any longer.... but I will listen to what others
> >> say about them. Just stick to the experience and drop the
> >> dogma.
> >
> > I'm pretty straight about stuff like that. Or try to be,
> > anyway.
>
> But you weren't always. You played mind games at one time
> and discovered people were vulnerable to suggestive influences
> once they considered something magical was possible.
-But I was always clear that it was a mind game. I was
simply amazed how effective it was!
The truth is magic works on "Skeptics" too. It's what the
subconscious mind is willing to believe that counts! It's
why a whole lot of books supporting the premises of Voodoo
or whatnot are written by people who started off claiming to
be skeptical.
>
> Suggestion has its limits. Did you not find them? Did you find
> that you could sell bogus love potions, but not bogus LSD without
> getting into deep shit with your victim?
Well, if someone is familiar with LSD of course they'll know
they've been burned. You could also get into deep shit with
someone who "knows" lsd is blotter paper and not a sugar
cube!If someone has never used lsd - you could give then
anything, tell them its LSD - and the person would
experience something.
Personally, my mind would seem to experience changes simply
by associating with people on drugs and not actually using
anything (this happened in School a lot - I had the hip
friends, but would actually do schoolwork, which drugs
interfered with).
MyKill
MyKill
>
> On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 02:08:39 -0700, MyKill
> <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Claus Lisberg wrote:
> Not getting your message. Please rephrase.
Atheists often promote arguments that reder ultimately to:
"No I believe in science and so don't have any use for
Religion". In that context Science is a substitute for
Religion and merits as much capitalization as Religion does.
> >> Science, unlike Christianity, works.
> >
> >Been there, done that. Science is usefull in the domain of
> >objective reality. Religion doesn't primarily address
> >objective reality. You are comparing peaches and pork.
>
> Religion is wishful thinking and the realms where delusional escapists
> dwell.
Not at all. Religion is culture, metaphysics, entertainment
and pop psychology all rolled into one. Wishfull and or
delusional thinking may have a place in religion - but it
also has a place in almost every other possible human
endeavor - like politics, the Stock Exchange, or even
science.
> Science don't mess around, usually.
I have no problem with science - I think science is noble
and good. I have a problem with people who use science as an
excuse for bigotry against alternate paradigms of reality -
many of whom simply for asserting claims outside of science
to quantify.
> >> >Your statement is severely bigoted. -Like saying All Black
> >> >men are rapists 'cause it's true of Mike Tyson. You do owe
> >> >Christians an apology. (Not me, I'm not Christian).
> >>
> >> No. I'm not bigoted, nor am I making a blanket statement. I'm viewving
> >> Christinaity from a historical point of view, and seeing how it is
> >> used today.
> >
> >You're making a blanket statement about all Christians -
> >which is neither true nor fair because in fact, Christianity
> >is very diverse. In short, you are lying.
>
> Please learn to differentiate between Christians and Christianity.
If you wish to attack the history of the Roman Catholic
Church - do so. Christianity ever since the reformation, has
been a label for very diverse groups of dissparate
strengths.
>
> >The first false
> >premise being that there is any such thing as THE Christian
> >religion.
>
> Obviously there is. There's some disagreement what exactly this it,
> though.
I would think such an assertion would be the exclusive
domain of a rabid Southern Baptist. The truth is
Christianity is whatever's being practiced by people
claiming "Christianity" as a label. That's all any group is.
> >> If anything, Christians owe apologies to the thousands of innocent
> >> they've killed in the name of their god.
> >
> >If you then agree that all White people share responsibility
> >for historical crimes against Black people and indiginous
> >peoples - and should unanimously share in wage garnishing to
> >make appropriate reparations: Then I can applaud you on
> >being consistant. If you believe We have vastly diminished
> >responsibility for the crimes of our forebears - then you
> >are a bloody hypocrit.
>
> Straw man - I was adressing your point. Note "if anything". In this
> context it means "Ok, if you want to go there, let's go there."
Any my response was "If you're really going to go there,
this would only be consistant too".
>
> Another fact is that white people today do not share the same
> fundamental values, whereas Christians *still* abide to the same book.
> Intrepreted differently, naturally, in order to make it somewhat
> coherent with the values of today.
>
The Bible is a collection of metaphors. Those metaphors do
not mean now what they had once. For Jewish Kabbalists the
never meant even that. White people, by the way, did have
the same value system then as now. Be right, make other
people wrong, avoid domination, try to dominate - this has
been very consistant. What's changed is the acceptability of
racism and slavery. -And even in the height of slavery it
was recognized as wrong by many people (even, ironically,
slaveholders).
>
> >> Are you refering to science as a religion? If so, see the faq. It
> >> should be quite obvious to anyone with knowledge of religion, and what
> >> consititues one and science that equalling the two is not only wrong,
> >> it's laughable.
If you give "religion" the narrowist definition, sure.
BUT, religion is culture and source for answers in its
behavior. Once church was the place where the cultural norms
for good and bad behavior are established. Now, not science
- but TELEVISION has truly usurped God and Church: people
now turn to Jenny Jones to establish cultural norms of right
and wrong. To the extent science is, for you, a source for
truth and for a sense of cultural right and wrong - it
fulfills the function traditionally reserved for Religion.
> >
> >The collective opinion of a jury: this constitutes "proof".
>
> Must be a US thing.
Outside of the US perhaps the Judges opion alone constitues
"proof".
>
> >> Heh, that'd be neat.
>
> >And if you met a person who made such a claim - you'd no
> >doubt make them a laughingstock!
>
> Until he proved I' be sceptical, yes, You would too, if I claimed that
> "I just circumnavigated the earth using only this safety pin. And
> Jesus was with me too, and got into a fight with Buddha".
>
> >> If I can't re levitate, I'd ask myself what kind of drugs I was using
> >> at the time.
> >
> >Exactly, and if you didn't take any drugs - you'd suspect
> >your coke of being spiked.
>
> No. Then I'd label it "unexplainable for now, odd but most
> interesting". And I wouldn't take it public until I had some evidence
> - my mind has tricked me before.
>
> > -You are incapable of not
> >knowing.
>
> This is bullshit, and quite frankly very insulting.
My apologies. I do know it to be true of myself.
> >You will force an expanation that seems acceptable
> >to you. You cannot see outside of your narrow view of
> >reality so you force anything that may not fit to conform.
> >-This is being grounded in Science?
>
> This is utter horse manure. There are lots of things I cannot explain,
> or science cannot explain. Yet we live with this.
Bullshit! There is nothing unexplained in science! The
closest you come are unproven theories or hypothesis.
-Otherwise science isn't doing it's bloody job and is too
busy playing Quake on the damned internet!
> >> Not when their raving behavior and delusions start affecting me
> >> directly. Not when they're destroying the minds of thousands, when
> >> they're putting guilt in the minds of innocent children.
> >>
> >> I will not be polite.
> >
> >The behavior you have for an example is hardly related to a
> >revelationary experience. You can hate the behavior and
> >fight it while still extending benefit of the doubt to the
> >possibility of some sort of revelation. Paradigms for living
> >are multitudionous. Respect them all or be a bigot. I'm gay
> >and hate and fight the gay bashing on the part of many self
> >proclaimed Christians. I still respect their right to
> >consider gayness a sin.
>
> I have not said "it is not, period". I'm saying "it is quite unlikely,
> and if I ahd to wager my life either on this explanation or the one
> provided by those scientists, I'd go with the scientists".
Then I havn't any argument with you. I'm here to argue that
Atheism has no monopoly on being a most thought ful position
for an intelligent person!
> You're putting words in my mouth here, claiming attributes I do not
> have.
Sorry, so much for my powers of inferance.
> >> Please clarify.
> >
> >A person who claims to speak directly to God and assumes
> >people ought to pay him respect and attention as a
> >consequence - is a candidate for the funny farm (unless
> >they're successful televangelists anyway).
>
> LOL!
>
> >A person who
> >explains that they have had an experience that seemed as if
> >they were talking to God - is a person who had a strange
> >experience - and who isn't nuts.
>
> True, but I've had encounters with all sorts of things - just last
> week I did a deep dive and was suffering from nitrogen narcosis - I
> could *swear* that there was someone moving around inside the wreck,
> unhindered by the water.
>
> My mind played me a little trick.
>
> Of course, I could view this as evidence of the existence of Nirfur
> God Of All Things Yellow And Furry, but there's a better explanation.
One reason I respect the religious folks is that I value
their nuttiness: I feel it makes the world that much more
entertaining (course I do draw the line at violent
intolerant nuttiness! - but such is the price for
diversity).
It would certainly be more entertaining (to me) to be an
evangelist for Nirfir!
> >Crazy people think they
> >know things as a function of an unusual experience. Sane
> >people may have unusual experiences, but relate to it as an
> >unusual experience and are careful about making conclusions
> >about it.
>
> Agree.
>
*clip (semantic argument- yawn)
> >Personally I feel meaning in life is something we are
> >responsible for. As an artist and writer I am responsible
> >for the meaning in my illustrations and comics. As a person
> >living a life - the meaning of which is too my
> >responsibility.
>
> Yep, agree completely.
>
> >A person I admire is the controversial Yukio Mishima. He was
> >an oddball - and he did commit suicide. But he lived his
> >life exactly as if it were an art project - to the extend of
> >ending his life when the project was complete. -Talk about
> >aesthetic over all! I have no intent to follow his example
> >- but I am impressed by it and the unusual paradigm it
> >represents.
>
> He certainly made a point.
>
> >> >That is reason enough to seek proof of meaning in life.
> >> >Since we already work with that assumption anyway.
> >>
> >> Many theist do, I don't.
> >
> >If you distinguish "good" from "bad" in life - then you are
> >imposing meaning upon life.
>
> No, merely using my values to discriminate.
On the assumption that such discrimination has some sort of
relevancy? If yes, does that not point to an axiomatic
assumption of some sort of meaning inherant in life?
>
> My point is that such a metaphor is flawed an useless.
If you mean the essential metaphor of a powerfull creator
with a personal interest in our essences, I disagree. Such a
metaphor is psychologically practical for a great many
people. And the metaphor, while ignored by science by virtue
of Occam's Razor - is not Science's to disprove.
If you refer to the notion of "My God is better than your
God so I should kill you - or at least feel smug" - such a
notion is both flawed and useless. I agree.
>
*clip*
> And it's reasonable to say that gravity is what makes things fall to
> the ground, not space faeries inspired by Elvis on acid.
Gravity as a theory is very well extablished and proven. I
believe Creationism is as valid as your Elvis Fairies -
which is not at all.
>
> Still, there's the possibility, but given the evidence, it's far out.
We know God doesn't like to interefere in ways quantifiable
by science.
Step into the Theistic paradigm for a moment and see how
this makes sense: God is all knowing, Alpha and Omega..yadda
yadda yadda. The paradox of God is that S/He is both all
powerful and yet has given humans free will. Such a God
would turn on the "go switch" and leave reality alone. God
likes having Hir ego stroked, so God intercedes for the
believers - but in such a way that the scientists don't get
it. If the science guys got evidence of God - it could put a
wrench into the whole "free will" thing. Free Will is at
least partially dependant on the notion of "no God" being a
possibility.
>
> >
> >> >Or is our intelligence redundant and superfluous -
> >> >because it pales in comparison to ...something?
> >>
> >> It's nice to contemplate upon this, but until compelling evidence
> >> arrives that supports this view, wouldn't it be more reasonable to
> >> live as if it didn't,s since evidence suggest this?
> >
> >Envisioning that which is beyond where we are now is the
> >first step to moving beyond where we are now.
> >I don't live as if God existed- but I do maintain such is a
> >possibility. I live as if spirituality is a real concern
> >because my subjective experience supports such a notion.
>
> Subjective experience being the operative words.
All my personal experiences are subjective!
>
MyKill
Check out me website for twisted comics!
MyKill
>
> On Sun, 23 Aug 1998 15:16:54 -0700, MyKill> >> On Sun, 23 Aug 1998 03:03:06 -0700, MyKill
> >> <mykill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Yes God is not real - is a null hypothesis - as far as
> >> >Science is capable of determining now. However Science is
> >> >limited and to pretend what is a null hypothesis to Science
> >> >is a relevant argumentative point outside of Science is to
> >> >pretend Science hasn't limits. -You are being an extreme
> >> >fundamentalist for the cult of Science if that is the case -
> >> >little different from certain Christians in your strength of
> >> >faith.
> >>
> >> Science works,
> >
> >So what? Full blown psychosis works too if that's who you
> >are. Newtonian physics works even though its completely
> >absurd on a quantum level. We know religion works for the
> >religious because they tell us so and any other way of
> >knowing - other than sharing in the faith too - is absurd!
>
> Think you just argued against your own point.
You think I should argue that science doesn't work? I'm
saying it's hardly unique.
> >and it is not a matter of opinion.
>
> *Everything* is a matter of opinion, in the end, even facts ;).
Agreed.
> >A lot of Science has resulted in pollution, poverty and mass
> >starvation
>
> Not science, but the application of scientific research.
Okay.
>
> If anything agriculture has allowed a very small part of the
> population to support the rest.
A possibility not always realized.
Agree on the pollution part, though,
> which is an enormous problem.
>
> >(Agriculture alone can account for the last two
>
> Poverty and mass starvation? Please support this.
A lot of world starvation is directly applicable to a
practice of landowners growing mass quantities of stuff like
sugar for export. The people who arn't landowners go hungry
and starve for lack of food because all the decent land for
growing food is monopolized by sugar production (or
similar).
>
> >[humans only enjoyed true egalitarianism as
> >hunter-gatherers]). There's no shortage of domains where
> >whether Science works or not is a questionable opinion.
>
> Where things discovered by scientist works or not, you mean.
Or where the application thereof actually is helpfull to
most people.
>
*clip*
> >Inferance insists the sun will rise tomorrow as it had done
> >every morning since time has been recorded. It cannot be
> >proven a fact in logic. Inferance demands that the shared
> >experience of GOD on the part of many people carry weight.
>
> No, this is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad numerum.
That would apply if I were to assert many people believing
something PROVED something. Inferance deals with
probability. That the sun will rise tomorrow is a slippery
slope argument to straight logic.
>
> >It is impossible to discount that weight soley due to
> >personal bias against the notion of God.
>
> How about lack of evidence?
Lack of evidence means something to leave alone and not make
claims about.
>
> >Or do you really
> >believe it is the nature of a first hand personal experience
> >that categorizes it as valid or not.
>
> Not sure I understood you there.
First hand experience is honoured as one way to know
something: saw it with my own eyes, I did!
>
> >Proof of God is a popular hobby of many Religious and
> >Spiritual people. If claims to drink lethal poison and
> >suffer cobra bites with no ill effects are real - Science
> >has no proof for the phenomena.
>
> Wait until scientists start focusing on those things. Answers are
> usually found.
With my blessing! -Just don't make claims untill science has
done so!
>
> >Experiences of precognition,
> >being "taken by the Spirit", of healing, of prayer altering
> >reality ... all these experiences invite the statitician to
> >distinguish probability as "coincidence" is possible - but
> >so too is phenomena outside of Science supporting the notion
> >of supernatural power or of God possible or likely.
>
> Eh? Examples?
Visit your local Catholic church or tent Revival!
>
> >Science does hint (Thanx to Einstein) that all experience
> >(even scintifically measured by cold technology) is
> >subjective, by the way.
>
> My perception of the world is my perception- Let's not go into
> solipsism here, please.
There is no true objective perception is the point. Does
that really flirt with solipsism?
>
> >Since when do the methodologies of Science outweigh those of
> >logic and reason? Is that not paralell to the practice of
> >Christians holding their Bible as outweighing the methods of
> >logic and reason?
>
> Humm, science includes logic and reason.
I should hope so!
>
> >> You might want to try:
> >> alt.philosophy.debate
> >> alt.speech.debate
> >
> >Thanx for the suggestion. Am I to infer alt.atheism is no
> >forum for debate as you know that you're RIGHT? -If you've
> >no room for cognitive dissonance I could be wasting my
> >time...
>
> Go ahead. Post posts.
>
MyKill
Honus
>
> Honus wrote:
> >
> > MyKill wrote:
> > > The idea of the Bible Thumping snake handlers is that the
> > > snakes won't bite them - so if one does at all it's not a
> > > good thing or planned. -The poison drinking is an entirely
> > > different matter though!!
> >
> > Where do you get this? Matthew 16:17 says that "these signs shall follow
> > them that believe..." Verse 18 says "They shall take up serpents; and if
> > they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them...." The implication
> > is that if you're bit, as Paul was in Acts 28:3, then a true believer
> > won't suffer any ill effects...just as drinking poison won't hurt him.
> > Of course, I've never heard of snake handlers quaffing cyanide...I
> > wonder why not? ;)
> >
> Bring up the subject next time you're at a revival meeting
> where they do such things.
I agree that they're counting on being bitten, but the root of the act
is based in the belief that poisons are not harmful to the true
Christian. And while I've been to more revival meetings than I care to
admit, they did pretty much everything BUT mess around with lethal
poisons. The usual excuse is of course something about "not tempting the
Lord thy God" meaning don't test him...I like to take the words
literally, the he might be tempted to...you know. ;)
> I could be wrong. I assumed if the point was to prove
> invulnerability to snake venom they'd make a big deal out of
> getting bitten, which, from what I've seen on exploitive
> television, isn't the case.
Nope. Too many of them die from those bites. ;) They're the ones that
didn't have strong enough faith. It could be that some sects have
extended the thing to include that the believer won't get bit in the
first place...I don't know for sure that they haven't done that. They've
twisted so much other stuff, it wouldn't surprise me.
> > --
> > Death to Trolls. Death to Spammers.
>
> How language is used determines definition: "Troll" is a
> condemnation used against anyone who doesn't share the
> prevailing opinion of the given newsgroup! -DEATH TO
> EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T CONFORM! is more like it!
Since when? You've got a really strange idea of the definition of
"Troll." I think that if you asked around, you'd find that it refers to
someone who "trolls" for irritated responses and/or flames from people,
usually as a form of personal entertainment...not people that disagree
with the prevailing view of the newsgroup. It's a person who stirs up
trouble for the sake of it, not someone who dissents. I have neither
time nor patience for that sort of poop. Dissenting, on the other hand,
can a good thing. :)
--
Death to Trolls. Death to Spammers.
Remove NOSPAM from my address to reply by e-mail.
Keith
>Budikka wrote:
>>
>> MyKill apparently wrote:
>>
>> "Survival of the fittest doesn't come anywhere near explaining evoloution"
>>
>> That's why evolutionary (note spelling) theory doesn't stop there - it goes
>> much, much further as you would know if you had ever read anything about it.
>True, I haven't read much on it outside of basic school
>syllabus.
How much of general relativity did you do at school? Not much, I would guess,
but I don't see you atttacking that theory.
>> I have no idea how this got into alt.atheism - it really belongs in
>> talk.origins, but it was too juicy for me not to get into!
>>
>> "Mutation doesn't really cut it - in real life mutations are not beneficial."
>>
>> You have been reading too much creationist stuff. If you think mutations are
>> not beneficial, then try surviving the next epidemic without a vaccine. You'll
>> have a perfect demonstration of how beneficial mutations are as you see the
>> newly mutated virus rip into you and swallow you whole.
>Good point - but viruses barely qualify as life forms they
>are so alien.
Well, last time I checked, viruses were definately from earth <g>. However,
the principle is the same, even though the debate rages on about their status
as living. Its irrelevant, since mutation is at the molecular level, and all
viruses are DNA or RNA based, and therefore serve as perfectly descent models.
>> "Mutants, further, are considered, usually, "ugly" by those not so mutated"
>>
>> What a warped idea of life you have. Mutations are most often not even
>> visible.
To be fair, it depends on what you consider 'visible'. I would say that most
mutations are 'visible' in that they would affect survival (apart from neutral
mutations, of course), but they probably don't affect the individuals chances
of being chosen as a mate. Obvious exclusions are secondary sexual
characters.
>The offsring of said mutation took it for granted,
>naturally. I do believe, as a rule of thumb, nature is cruel
>to the beast that is too much an exception to its kind. I
>could be wrong - please correct me if you know this to be
>the case.
You are arguing two opposite points. First you argue against tiny changes,
then against large ones. Changes are small - certainly, a male with two heads
would not secure a mate, but a male with slightly better lungs would have no
direct mating advantage or disadvantage.
>...And Humans have raped sheep ... and other animals....
>> Galdikas studied Orangs for Richard Leakey, as Jane Goodall studied chimpanzees
>> and Dian Fossey stuidied gorillas.
>>
>> But what's your point? No evolutionist suggests that one species mates with
>> another and this is how a third species is created.
Exactly. In fact, this is exactly one proposed mechanism of species remaining
separate - such hybrids don' develop/die/are sterile.
>Does an entire species occur at once in a whole generation
>of offspring? If there was an chance mutation - howcum
>breeding with the non mutated didn't have the gene become
>dilute and ressive? If the mutation was radical - how did
>the mutant breed - being alone in its genetics?
>Evoloutionary theory gets real bullshitty if you look at the
>details.
Uh, no, this is not the idea at all. Get a text book out and look up
speciation, allopatry, sympatry and species recgnition concepts. To coin your
phrase, those who don't understand evolutionary theory get real bullshitty
when you look at their details.
>Call me a creationist to my face and expect a bloody mouth
>and a black eye! My point is that Evoloution is just a
>theory
Yes it is, like EVERYTHING in science - including the workings of gravity.
This is the most over-used crap utelised in attack upon evolution. Let us NOT
forget that religion does not qualify as a theory.
> - and I argue that it may not be a good one.
Not very well.
Keith
a.a #1202
William Hyde
Honus <hon...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> Where do you get this? Matthew 16:17 says that "these signs shall follow
> them that believe..." Verse 18 says "They shall take up serpents; and if
> they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them...." The implication
> is that if you're bit, as Paul was in Acts 28:3, then a true believer
> won't suffer any ill effects...just as drinking poison won't hurt him.
> Of course, I've never heard of snake handlers quaffing cyanide...I
> wonder why not? ;)
>
I once saw a documentary on this, so naturally
that makes me an "expert". The conclusion was that
the southern US snake handlers did drink poison.
The snakes are not defanged (or at least not always),
because members of the church sometimes die from the
bites. The offical line is that they did not have
enough faith.
They do drink poison, but not cyanide. I cannot recall
just what they drink, but it is something for which
one can build a tolerance of sorts. The documentary
makers claimed to have tested the fluid and found
it to be as advertised (though what controls were applied
I do not know), but they gave no indication as to the
strength.
I suspect that if they drank cyanide the religion would
have been short lived.
William Hyde
Dept of Oceanography
Texas A&M University
MyKill
The Shakers made superior furniture and were serious about
their celibacy: perhaps a truer was to establish being short
lived. Then there's the Heaven's Gate option...(But there's
still some of them around I think - the ones that "missed
the boat").
MyKill
> >
> > How language is used determines definition: "Troll" is a
> > condemnation used against anyone who doesn't share the
> > prevailing opinion of the given newsgroup! -DEATH TO
> > EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T CONFORM! is more like it!
>
> Since when? You've got a really strange idea of the definition of
> "Troll." I think that if you asked around, you'd find that it refers to
> someone who "trolls" for irritated responses and/or flames from people,
> usually as a form of personal entertainment...not people that disagree
> with the prevailing view of the newsgroup. It's a person who stirs up
> trouble for the sake of it, not someone who dissents. I have neither
> time nor patience for that sort of poop. Dissenting, on the other hand,
> can a good thing. :)
Actually my experience may be a function of the newsgroups
I'd been associated with. On alt.homosexuality.politics I've
been called a Troll for questioning the assumed 10%
percentage of Gays by saying if everyone who is closeted and
or in heterosexual marriages was excluded I subjectively
felt the number was closer to 3%. (A tangent, but many
married men are Gay or bisexual - I got a whole bunch of
such people responding to a personal ad of mine once).
But in general I assert it is true, the dissenting opinion
will be accussed of being a Troll almost every time by
someone if the subject is a heartfelt one. And there is a
grey area: posting recipies for roated kitty in alt.pet.cats
would clearly be a troll - but would it or not be a troll to
post an article favoring cats for animal testing to such a
group - or to a PETA related group?
MyKill