God - defining terms: faith

[frantheman]

One of the major problems in discussions between "believers" and
"atheists" over the existence of God is that both sides have not
agreed on common basic rules, definitions and terminologies. As a
result, arguments often tend to bypass each other and the result is
frequently confusion and frustration on both sides over the obduracy
of the other.

On a fundamental level it can even be asked whether both sides can, in
fact, have any meaningful dialogue at all. Wittgenstein's view of
"language games" in 'The Philosophical Investigations' is useful here.
He proposes that both sides are bound to misunderstand each other
because they are using a supposed common language while following
different rules for the use of that language. It's like a soccer team
playing against a rugby team with each team playing according to its
own rules. One is reminded of Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's
(himself a notable logician) 'Through the Looking Glass' saying: "When
I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean, no more and no
less."

Be that as it may, any meaningful dialogue can only take place in a
context in which both sides have agreed on common rules which clarify
the issues to be discussed. Or, as one of the basic postulates for
logical discourse puts it: First, define your terms.

Proponents of the religious view (in this case I am referring to
members of the three major monotheistic religions rather than Hindus
or Buddhists who approach the concept of "God" in a different manner)
claim that they believe in God and define an atheist as someone who
does not believe in God. And here is where the first major question
arises. What is meant, in this context, by "believe"? What is "faith"
and is it subject to discussion according to the laws of rational
discourse?

Now faith is a term which originates within the religious context. One
believes in things which cannot be proven. If I can prove something,
then I do not need to believe it. Or, as religious people often put
it, there is a difference between believing and knowing. In
traditional Christian scholastic theology (Aquinas et al.) one of the
major differences between angels and humans is that angels know God
directly, and therefore do not need to believe in him.

An atheist, on the other hand, can argue that the question of faith is
not applicable in a dialogue between him or herself and believers. The
basic atheistic position, as far as I understand it, is that an
atheist sees no compelling evidence, either rational or evidentiary
for the existence of God, and that the rational arguments and evidence
lead more to the conclusion that God does not exist. Faith doesn't
come into it.

In this position, the atheist is, at least in the Christian context
(and that's the one I know best), supported by the basic premises of
Christian theology. Christianity bases itself on the word of God,
culminating in his incarnation in Jesus Christ as "revealed" in the
Bible and accepted by the Christian in an act of faith. Furthermore, a
point stressed particularly by the Churches of the Reformation, this
faith itself is a gift of God. Consequently, no amount of preaching to
an atheist is going to change anything if God does not grant him this
gift of faith. (Of course, if God doesn't grant this gift of faith
then he's condemning the atheist to hell, but here we're getting into
the murky waters of predestination and that's a matter better left to
theology.)

Where does this leave me in my project of the definition of terms for
a dialogue? Basically, the issue of "faith" should be left aside, as
much as possible. In arguing from the premises of faith, the religious
proponent is using language rules which are not applicable to the non-
believer. The discussion should be carried out on the basis of
rational argument and evidence, rather than revelation and faith.

Before the dialogue can begin, however, more definition of terms is
necessary. What is meant by "God" anyway? Are faith and reason
complementary or incompatible? Maybe I'll get around to these points
some other time. Or maybe someone else would like to take them up?

[facilitator]

Well, lest anyone forget, God by definition is an Athiest.

[archytas]

We can go back to Hume on all this. Frantheman is right that Witters
would want to deconstruct the apparent differences to a point where
assumptions are the same and then look further as to whether language
is the actual problem. Facil could be wrong if we take him literally
as himorsheoritself could believe in himorsheoritself as a god, but
this would be a mistake in language. I would like to debate how much
that is clearly fable has so much impact, including making some people
believe in it as fact, and how some merely see this as part of
symbolic yet important and why some of us think the connection of
religions with war and so on is very disturbing. Many of us are not
bothered whether someone professes faith until they use it as
justification for honour killings, abortion of female foetuses and the
like. Blair making his peace with god rather than telling the
electorate the truth would be a classic. Many of us would not treat
anyone differently whether religious or not, some would burn
atheists. I can see no arguments beyond personal profession for any
particular god, but can see plenty of room for discussion about design
and creatiion and the nature and purpose of life. Persoanal
profession is fine, but limited as all sorts of crud can be professed
(I am Napoleon etc.) Witters also saw room for therapy. Even the
Islamic thinker Averoes could see reason to keep religious leaders out
of politics.

Neil

[facilitator]

Well no to pat myself on the back or anything but I thought at least
it would be a good starting point in defining "God".

[archytas]

I take it you know I think you are right Facil? I've spent time with
mullahs who agree - some very lovely men who colluded with my 'plans'
in Bahrain and elsewhere - usually to get some social provision by
stealth (I'd drink with the minister and his cronies suggesting
involvement in good work might get wives off their backs and be good
PR etc. in order to syphon some funds into special needs provision or
whatever). Some Wittgenstein in here, to say the least.
What worries me is not whether someone believes in god. I probably
sort of have one. It's poiticoes and the like being able to appeal to
ignorant faith and crass religion. If mullahs can engage in long,
brotherly hugs with this atheist infidel, genuinely pleased that a
school for disabled kids has opened, it's pretty pathetic that the
rest f us can't find sensible ways to air our differences, maybe as
Pat says celebrate them.

Neil

[Vamadevananda]

To define God, you need to define your self. Does that seem
reasonable ?

The humility I indicate is learnt from Voltaire, among others.

[bÄr]

On Dec 3, 3:14 pm, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> One of the major problems in discussions between "believers" and
> "atheists" over the existence of God is that both sides have not
> agreed on common basic rules, definitions and terminologies. As a
> result, arguments often tend to bypass each other and the result is
> frequently confusion and frustration on both sides over the obduracy
> of the other.

Very true. Which is why people often lay down the groundwork (with
definitions) or refer to someone whose work is well-defined, through
history (like Plato or Aristotle or Aquinas).

>
> On a fundamental level it can even be asked whether both sides can, in
> fact, have any meaningful dialogue at all.

If two people (much less two groups of people) have no shared
understanding of what words mean, all bets are off.

>Wittgenstein's view of
> "language games" in 'The Philosophical Investigations' is useful here.
> He proposes that both sides are bound to misunderstand each other
> because they are using a supposed common language while following
> different rules for the use of that language.

He's partly right. They could also have been taught different
understandings of words.

Or, as I suppose (the longer I'm alive and on usenet), people are
bound and determined to think that other people mean the opposite (or
near-opposite) of what *they* mean, by a word. The more controversial
or problematic the word (like "God"), the more people get into this
view that the Other Person doesn't know what they mean.

Or, that the Other Person means the same thing as they do, and that
the Other Person is wrong.

It's like a soccer team
> playing against a rugby team with each team playing according to its
> own rules. One is reminded of Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's
> (himself a notable logician) 'Through the Looking Glass' saying: "When
> I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean, no more and no
> less."

Yes, very much so.

>
> Be that as it may, any meaningful dialogue can only take place in a
> context in which both sides have agreed on common rules which clarify
> the issues to be discussed. Or, as one of the basic postulates for
> logical discourse puts it: First, define your terms.

You've already ventured into your own territory (for me) by specifying
"rules." How about a shifting nebulous raft-like structure in which
we agree to voyage?

There are no "rules" that can semantically or syntactically govern
such concepts as "Spirit" or "God." Hence, they are undescribable by
science or, even, ordinary language.

>
> Proponents of the religious view (in this case I am referring to
> members of the three major monotheistic religions rather than Hindus
> or Buddhists who approach the concept of "God" in a different manner)
> claim that they believe in God and define an atheist as someone who
> does not believe in God. And here is where the first major question
> arises. What is meant, in this context, by "believe"? What is "faith"
> and is it subject to discussion according to the laws of rational
> discourse?

You left out (interestingly) "God" itself.

The issue of what is meant by "belief" has a long history. No one
could possibly recapitulate it here.

>
> Now faith is a term which originates within the religious context. One
> believes in things which cannot be proven.

Then, by your definition, anything unproven which is believed is based
on faith.

"I believe he loves me."

That kind of thing. It's religious, right?

>If I can prove something,
> then I do not need to believe it.

I plain don't get you. Some beliefs are more requiring of "proof"
than others (what do you mean by proof? You jumped ahead quite a bit,
I thought we were on "belief" and what is "faith" (and why is faith,
rather than something else, among your early topics?)

Or, as religious people often put
> it, there is a difference between believing and knowing.

Actually, I'd say that almost NO monotheistic religious people put it
that way (and would definitely prefer not to). If they bring this up,
it's only because they've been exposed to philosophy. You're now
arguing something for the religious that I believe needs proof.

>In
> traditional Christian scholastic theology (Aquinas et al.) one of the
> major differences between angels and humans is that angels know God
> directly, and therefore do not need to believe in him.

I'm certainly NOT going to agree that Aquinas (rather than any number
of others, including Hesiod, Aristotle, Plato, Pythagoras, and even
Homer) knew what "belief" meant as opposed to knowledge. I find his
argument (about what constitutes knowledge) spurious, circular and
already based in faith. In short, quote someone else.

>
> An atheist, on the other hand, can argue that the question of faith is
> not applicable in a dialogue between him or herself and believers. The
> basic atheistic position, as far as I understand it, is that an
> atheist sees no compelling evidence, either rational or evidentiary
> for the existence of God, and that the rational arguments and evidence
> lead more to the conclusion that God does not exist. Faith doesn't
> come into it.

Obviously, someone who moves from agnosticism to definite atheism has
come to some conclusion like this. And, since faith isn't necessary
to either belief OR knowledge, a person is not required to introduce
faith, if they find it impossible or contraindicated by history. In
this case, the knowledgeable atheiest (and I am not one) could
reasonably argue that faith is not only beside the point, but that
faith has misdirected people and urged them into inchoate, atavistic
activity.

>
> In this position, the atheist is, at least in the Christian context
> (and that's the one I know best), supported by the basic premises of
> Christian theology. Christianity bases itself on the word of God,

That's how you define it. Not only do I define it differently (for
myself) but I know dozens of others who do, as well. Indeed, with the
exception of my parents and a few others whose ideas I'm forced, more
or less, to listen to, no thinking Christian bases their views on the
Bible, if that's what you mean.

If by "word of God" you mean "still small spirit that speaks siliently
to individuals," then perhaps we can have a dialogue.

But the term "word of God," popularly received in 2007 means: The
Bible (and possibly, the preached word of men who stand in pulpits).
I think that's weak. Not only that, I think it's B.S., and counter to
the actual knowledge we have about Jesus of Nazareth's beliefs, as
well.

> culminating in his incarnation in Jesus Christ as "revealed" in the
> Bible and accepted by the Christian in an act of faith.

Nope. Only some Christians agree on this. You're talking SOME
Catholics, SOME Orthodox and most fundies. But not all Christians -
not by a long shot.

For example, I think Thomas (of the Gospels) relied on something
rather different. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be saying that Thomas
wasn't a Christian. Or would you?

Furthermore, a
> point stressed particularly by the Churches of the Reformation, this
> faith itself is a gift of God. Consequently, no amount of preaching to
> an atheist is going to change anything if God does not grant him this
> gift of faith. (Of course, if God doesn't grant this gift of faith
> then he's condemning the atheist to hell, but here we're getting into
> the murky waters of predestination and that's a matter better left to
> theology.)

All of this is, now, just your way of leaping into theology. No
thanks. And medieval theology, at that.

>
> Where does this leave me in my project of the definition of terms for
> a dialogue?

A long, long, long, long, long (etc.) way from any meaningful starting
point.

Basically, the issue of "faith" should be left aside, as
> much as possible.

According to whom? What role, then, is there for "religion" at all?
Or for spirit? Or, even, belief?

In arguing from the premises of faith, the religious
> proponent is using language rules which are not applicable to the non-
> believer. The discussion should be carried out on the basis of
> rational argument and evidence, rather than revelation and faith.

Good luck with that. I think you miss the whole point, but I
understand the pressure you're under.

>
> Before the dialogue can begin, however, more definition of terms is
> necessary. What is meant by "God" anyway? Are faith and reason
> complementary or incompatible? Maybe I'll get around to these points
> some other time. Or maybe someone else would like to take them up?

You're stuck, all right. I have to say that I haven't had the time,
myself, to devote to the heavy questions coming down in this board.
That's a good thing - the dialogue has been rich.

Frantheman, I think you can go further with this, you started out
well. I'm one of those who is willing to "dialogue" from either side,
although I definitely believe there is something ineffable, and
numinous, and beyond us.

But, I haven't had much time to post about any of that, lately.
Gettin' too old for this. Gotta go snip tile and feed the livestock.

bAr

[archytas]

Vam,
How do we share and cultivate this humility? I'm a very humble bloke
but also a smart-ass - seeing humility in this too. Voltaire could
crack me up with wit, but I suspect cultivated humility (not yours
which I always find comfrting).

Neil

> > it would be a good starting point in defining "God".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[bÄr]

On Dec 3, 8:59 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> We can go back to Hume on all this. Frantheman is right that Witters
> would want to deconstruct the apparent differences to a point where
> assumptions are the same and then look further as to whether language
> is the actual problem. Facil could be wrong if we take him literally
> as himorsheoritself could believe in himorsheoritself as a god, but
> this would be a mistake in language. I would like to debate how much
> that is clearly fable has so much impact, including making some people
> believe in it as fact,

a very worthy and important goal. Indeed, Frantheman has yet to
convince us that we should be discussing any other aspect than this
one.

and how some merely see this as part of
> symbolic yet important and why some of us think the connection of
> religions with war and so on is very disturbing. Many of us are not
> bothered whether someone professes faith until they use it as
> justification for honour killings, abortion of female foetuses and the
> like.

Good point, although I can think of many more issues or reasons where
the faith-profession comes into question, morally and ethically. Many
of them are much less obvious, as when a co-religionist decides to
hire a fellow co-religionist, or gives someone the benefit of a doubt,
on a jury, because they share "faith."

Blair making his peace with god rather than telling the
> electorate the truth would be a classic. Many of us would not treat
> anyone differently whether religious or not, some would burn
> atheists. I can see no arguments beyond personal profession for any
> particular god, but can see plenty of room for discussion about design
> and creatiion and the nature and purpose of life.

Why? Why do people need to discuss creation? (I'm just curious how
you'd state that, outside a faith-based context).

Why would anyone ask about purpose of life? Isn't that ultimately the
same as asking about God/Gods?

>Persoanal
> profession is fine, but limited as all sorts of crud can be professed
> (I am Napoleon etc.)

That's a snide and ridiculous thing to say.

Witters also saw room for therapy. Even the
> Islamic thinker Averoes could see reason to keep religious leaders out
> of politics.

Are you speaking of Wittgenstein, throughout, as Witters? Do you know
him well? Why are you invoking Islam at the very end of your post?

No reason, that I can see.

bAr

>
> Neil
>
> On Dec 4, 1:09 am, facilitator <scrtch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>

> > Well, lest anyone forget, God by definition is an Athiest.- Hide quoted text -

[facilitator]

Cogito ergo sum. There! Now that defining self is out of the way
lets talk
about ethereal vs temporal.

[Vamadevananda]

When I do not understand myself -- why I act a particular way, speak
particular words, assume particular attitude, think with particular
identity ... why I am attached with this body, with those objects or
possessions, with that knowledge ... why was ' I ' born at particular
time, to particular parents, in particular land and culture ... why
did I have those particular experiences, particular friends and foes,
those successes and failures ... why did I raise my hand... why am I
obsessed with ... what is all this I in truth have nothing to do
with, do not know ... do not understand in truth ... when I do not
understand myself in these terms, is it not specious to claim on the
attempt to ' define ' " God " ? !

It is from this realisation that humility springs.

And, yes, the humility I speak of cannot be cultivated.

What does Voltaire have to say about ' those politicians ' ?

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[frantheman]

Hello bÄr!

I don't want to start discussing things with you point for point
(frankly, I don't have the time, as I too have to go to work shortly
to earn my living :( ), but I would like to take up a few of the
comments you make and give my take on them more generally.

You're right, of course, I haven't even defined "God" yet. As I wrote
at the end of my contribution, that's another of the tasks necessary
in the definition of terms. The problem in this whole area is, of
course, that everything is conceptually connected to everything else
and it would probably take a book to tease it all out. Which I won't
be writing any time soon, unless some publisher spontaneously contacts
me and offers me a fat advance!

One of the ideas-complex you address is the "belief/faith/knowledge"
thing. Maybe I need to clarify myself here. Firstly, for the sake of
this discussion I see the terms "belief" and "faith" as synonymous.
Secondly, I certainly don't want to denegrate the concept in any way.
It's vitally important in many areas of life, as you point out. Of
course, in a relationship, I have to believe that I am loved. In this
context, faith is closely connected with trust. And, of course, faith/
belief can be more or less founded, grounded, in experience and/or
facts. Yet, even in this context, faith is still that which cannot be
proved. Or can you "prove" that you love someone, or that someone
loves you?
What is knowing/knowledge? Ah, here we're into the heart of
epistemology, something philosophers continually discuss and argue
about. I don't want to get into the nyriad thorny issues involved in
this area here. I was using "knowledge" here in the sense of clearly
argued, rational premises, which lead to conclusions, based on
evidence and/or logical progression. That's about as well as I can do
at the moment, and there are schools of philosophy which would argue
that, with this assertion, I am already swinging my ass right over a
very deep void!

You seem to take issue with my statement that Christianity bases
itself on the word of God, culminating in his incarnation in Jesus

Christ as "revealed" in the Bible and accepted by the Christian in an

act of faith. I don't know how else one could define Christianity.
Maybe you could help me here. The basis of the three classicial
monotheistic religions is written revelation, either Torah, New and
Old Testaments, or the Koran. And that which is written is held by all
believers to be, in some sense, the "word of God". The point is, of
course, in what sense? Arguments about that have led to the numerous
divisions in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That said, all of them
claim their holy writings as the basis of their belief-systems, and
all their main-stream movements have problems with direct, private
revelation (to give just some examples: Gnosticism in Christianity,
Cabbalism in Judaism, Sufism in Islam).

Two final small points: Practically everything we know about Jesus of
Nazareth comes through Christian sources so that it is very difficult,
if not impossible, to get to the unadorned "historical" Jesus.
Secondly, I don't know that I would call Thomas a Christian. I assume,
given our context, that you are referring to the incident recorded in
John 20. "... blessed are those who have not seen and have
believed ... (etc.)" In this context, Thomas is an apostle, a
character in the gospel(s) and so predates Christianity. About his
career after Jesus there is little which can be historically proved -
although I find the India legend nice (Ooooh, I can feel it already,
I'm gonna be crucified for that!). And I'm certainly not getting into
the debate on the Gospel of Thomas, gnosticism and all that stuff
here.

LOL!

[archytas]

Witters died in 1951, 2 years before my birth and the publication of
the first flawed translation of the Investigations (1953), cured in
the 2nd edition of 1958. I have read him, of him, around him. He is
ine of the few I would have liked to meet. He would know the language
game of 'Witters' and its vagueness.

Neil

> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -

[frantheman]

Greetings from another Witters enthusiast! When I studied philosophy
in Dublin at the beginning of the 80s he was a real revelation for me,
in a philosphy department swinging in some confusion (then) between
Catholic scholasticism, British analytic philophophy and post-
Heideggerian European existentialism (and all that came from that).
Wittgenstein gave me hope and inspiration - a tortured, very human
genius. My copy of the Philosophical Investigations has accompanied me
ever since. To use the title of a recent film about another thinker,
"a beutiful mind".

> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr >>- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

[archytas]

Francis,
I think it was picking up the Tractatus years ago that started my
wonder. I tend to regard it as a 'tome' despite its size. I used to
look at a wall of books about it at Lancaster. Never got to grips
with it, other than to wonder if it was a poem or a shaggy dog story.
The later stuff fit more with my science background, including his
lecture of ethics. I've written about him in terms of
ethnomethodology and what paradigm might mean if we take a technical
view on language-games without the over-linguistic turn. IN class, I
used to invent science fiction scenarios to simmulate what games might
mean when we have to invent language because there is nothing ready-to-
hand. This was in the context of business strategy and research. I
tend to seee as not about relativism, cultural or otherwise, but
patient and tolerant in trying to bring views to life for the hard
work of mutual understanding. One can, of course, do this work other
than in words alone. I have massive problems with text-faith simply
because major language-games involve lies and deception. Witters
still leaves room for speculative languages and this is where I think
religion has its place, possibly in developing intuition.

Neil

[Felix McPhee]

Who is this Witters  I don't know please ?

2007/12/5, frantheman <franci...@googlemail.com>:

[bÄr]

On Dec 4, 9:19 pm, facilitator <scrtch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Cogito ergo sum. There! Now that defining self is out of the way
> lets talk
> about ethereal vs temporal.

Did you know that Descartes never wrote any such thing? (as cogito
ergo sum)

If he did, let me know where - as Descartes actually wrote the
meditations...in French. IIRC.

bAr

>
> On Dec 4, 10:59 pm, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > To define God, you need to define your self. Does that seem

> > reasonable ?- Hide quoted text -

[facilitator]

Not sure why you are telling me this?
I am slow but I can catch up if you elaborate.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[donnadonne]

Check this one: www.witters.be

On 5 Dez., 23:08, "Felix McPhee" <felixmcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Who is this Witters I don't know please ?
>

> 2007/12/5, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>:

> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr >>

[bÄr]

On Dec 5, 10:10 pm, facilitator <scrtch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not sure why you are telling me this?
> I am slow but I can catch up if you elaborate.

No, you're not slow. I'm just tangential. I wasn't sure how
Descartes got into a discussion about individual identity.

Anyway, I got sidetracked. Descartes did write "cogito ergo sum," but
I still can't understand why the English translation is as it is.

In French, Descartes wrote it: je pense, je suis. Not that it
matters.

Carry on, ignore me.

bAr

[archytas]

Your Witters is defo a star donna. He can Linux my Hibernation
anytime zzzzzzzzz! I always think of Wittgenstein being asked, "I say
Witters, pass the crusted port old chap" by some Cambridge old fogey -
at least whilst he wasn't attacking Popper with a poker (Popper being
saved by the pacifist Russell - no doubt wounded by an ex-wife's claim
his problem was he couldn't keep it up long enough), or recruiting for
the KGB as 'The Apostle' - Philby, MacClean, Burgess, Blunt etc. - or
being generally homosexual all over the place. It's said that his
Tractatus was dictated to his supervisor Moore in the WWI trenches,
though Witters would have been in their trenches and much of the rest
of his work is from student notes, his life lived from riches to rags
whilst his family committed suicide in droves. He is the Jew of Lenz,
in the same school photo as Hitler and thus responsible for his anti-
semitism, the designer of a really silly house and a lover of ffiords
and quiet spots in Ireland.

Je pens, je suis - well bAr this is much chewed over in any basic text
on Descartes and in many directions - Russell believing his definition
of thinking included feeling, willing and other such non-rational
wandering. I rather like his letters to friends, saying he won't
publish Le Monde - look what happened to Gallileo he says, and he was
an Italian, just think what they would do to a Frenchman! He even got
his Jesuit teachers to leave him in bed in the mornings! One should,
in some way, get to 'know' these characters. Descartes probably
smoked dope.

Neil

[Pat]

On 5 Dec, 03:55, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I take it you know I think you are right Facil? I've spent time with
> mullahs who agree - some very lovely men who colluded with my 'plans'
> in Bahrain and elsewhere - usually to get some social provision by
> stealth (I'd drink with the minister and his cronies suggesting
> involvement in good work might get wives off their backs and be good
> PR etc. in order to syphon some funds into special needs provision or
> whatever). Some Wittgenstein in here, to say the least.
> What worries me is not whether someone believes in god. I probably
> sort of have one. It's poiticoes and the like being able to appeal to
> ignorant faith and crass religion. If mullahs can engage in long,
> brotherly hugs with this atheist infidel, genuinely pleased that a
> school for disabled kids has opened, it's pretty pathetic that the
> rest f us can't find sensible ways to air our differences, maybe as
> Pat says celebrate them.
>
> Neil
>

Viva la difference!

> On Dec 5, 1:49 am, facilitator <scrtch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well no to pat myself on the back or anything but I thought at least

> > it would be a good starting point in defining "God".- Hide quoted text -

[facilitator]

Coptically cryptic!


> Viva la difference!

[archytas]

Even more so Facil - coptically criptic from an ex-cop! bAr has hit
on an essential Cartesian issue - cogito ergo sum is as intellectual
as I think therefore IBM and other advertsing slogans. I rather like
what I know of the coptic gospels. I always find myself somewhat agog
with people's veneration of old texsy though. Mst of what is written
today is fantasy - howcome old fantasies get to be so religious in
uptake? What morphs that? Surely the poin5t is we ain't crystals
doing it just because it's what's been done?

Neil

On Dec 8, 2:09 pm, facilitator <scrtch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Coptically cryptic!
>
>
>
> > Viva la difference!- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

Pat,
It's an old argument I'm putting forward - yet it ain't properly
established and we have a lot of trouble enjoying it.

Neil

On Dec 8, 2:09 pm, facilitator <scrtch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Coptically cryptic!
>
>
>

> > Viva la difference!- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 8 Dec, 14:09, facilitator <scrtch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Coptically cryptic!
>
>

Coptically? Did I suddenly, scurriously slip into Sudanese? On a
relatively unrelated note, "Coptically" could means "as seen through
the eyes of the police" as a portmanteau of cop and optically. And,
as we've had a recent world's view through the eyes of Sudanese police
and how they prefer their teddy bear's to be named, there's a whole
NEW level of meaning to the word 'Coptically'.


>
> > Viva la difference!- Hide quoted text -

[donnadonne]

Funny, I just had the computer read an article on Stockhausen's death
to me. Only few words were mispronounced. I assume it wouldn't have
had problems with coptically, whereas I would have pronounced the -ly
as lie.

The thing about new levels is that ground level is very hard to top.
Obviously the identification of the two-fold portmanteau word doesn't
keep you warm enough to protect you against the old four-fold -s
morpheme in your "means" at the wrong place.

[archytas]

After recent dealings with the Greater Manchester Poliars I know just
what you mean Donna, honestlie. No one is warm these days - it's
against the law.

Neil

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[chazwin]

What happens on this NG, as it does on others is that any attempt to
start by defining one's terms is met with argumetns about what
criteria are necessary for defining one's terms. The arguement then
revolves aroound peripheral issues which are in turn the sources of
other arguments.
Christians haven't got the first clue as to how to define god. It
turns out that there are as many definitions as there are Christians.
Then they cherry-pick from "The Word of God" those things that they
think they can cope with in order to achieve their personal view of
salvation: just a little bit of denial and a lot of self satisfaction.
For example they might deny themsleves sex before marriage, deny in
others the chance to abort an unwanted foetus, deny the possibility
for others to live their own lives as they see fit, deny science
certain areas of investigation, deny another his/her own choice in
their view of "god". Their self satisfaction relies on the delusion
that their personal definition and meaning of "god's message" is
fulfilled by their actions and think themsleves privaledged to be
honoured with God's mercy and eventual reward. Those that walk the
path are not qualified to prognosticate on clear definitions as they
are in a fantasy of their own creation.

On Dec 3, 11:14 pm, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> One of the major problems in discussions between "believers" and
> "atheists" over the existence of God is that both sides have not
> agreed on common basic rules, definitions and terminologies. As a
> result, arguments often tend to bypass each other and the result is
> frequently confusion and frustration on both sides over the obduracy
> of the other.
>

> On a fundamental level it can even be asked whether both sides can, in

> fact, have any meaningful dialogue at all. Wittgenstein's view of

> "language games" in 'The Philosophical Investigations' is useful here.
> He proposes that both sides are bound to misunderstand each other
> because they are using a supposed common language while following

> different rules for the use of that language. It's like a soccer team

> playing against a rugby team with each team playing according to its
> own rules. One is reminded of Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's
> (himself a notable logician) 'Through the Looking Glass' saying: "When
> I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean, no more and no
> less."
>

> Be that as it may, any meaningful dialogue can only take place in a
> context in which both sides have agreed on common rules which clarify
> the issues to be discussed. Or, as one of the basic postulates for
> logical discourse puts it: First, define your terms.
>

> Proponents of the religious view (in this case I am referring to
> members of the three major monotheistic religions rather than Hindus
> or Buddhists who approach the concept of "God" in a different manner)
> claim that they believe in God and define an atheist as someone who
> does not believe in God. And here is where the first major question
> arises. What is meant, in this context, by "believe"? What is "faith"
> and is it subject to discussion according to the laws of rational
> discourse?
>

> Now faith is a term which originates within the religious context. One

> believes in things which cannot be proven. If I can prove something,
> then I do not need to believe it. Or, as religious people often put
> it, there is a difference between believing and knowing. In

> traditional Christian scholastic theology (Aquinas et al.) one of the
> major differences between angels and humans is that angels know God

> directly, and therefore do not need to believe in him.

>
> An atheist, on the other hand, can argue that the question of faith is
> not applicable in a dialogue between him or herself and believers. The
> basic atheistic position, as far as I understand it, is that an
> atheist sees no compelling evidence, either rational or evidentiary
> for the existence of God, and that the rational arguments and evidence

> lead more to the conclusion that God does not exist. Faith doesn't
> come into it.
>

> In this position, the atheist is, at least in the Christian context

> (and that's the one I know best), supported by the basic premises of

> Christian theology. Christianity bases itself on the word of God,

> culminating in his incarnation in Jesus Christ as "revealed" in the

> Bible and accepted by the Christian in an act of faith. Furthermore, a

> point stressed particularly by the Churches of the Reformation, this
> faith itself is a gift of God. Consequently, no amount of preaching to
> an atheist is going to change anything if God does not grant him this
> gift of faith. (Of course, if God doesn't grant this gift of faith
> then he's condemning the atheist to hell, but here we're getting into
> the murky waters of predestination and that's a matter better left to
> theology.)
>

> Where does this leave me in my project of the definition of terms for

> a dialogue? Basically, the issue of "faith" should be left aside, as
> much as possible. In arguing from the premises of faith, the religious

> proponent is using language rules which are not applicable to the non-
> believer. The discussion should be carried out on the basis of
> rational argument and evidence, rather than revelation and faith.
>

[chazwin]

On Dec 5, 3:59 am, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> To define God, you need to define your self. Does that seem
> reasonable ?

Why do you say that?
The self being the source of all interpretation sensation and
percpetion is the only thing that is indefinable. Though I can move
from the object of the table and the lamp to see what defines them as
objects, the self moves with me. There is no position from which we
are enabled to see oursleves, as Burn's put it "as others see us".
The need to do the impossible (define self) is not a prerequisite to
define an imaginary being. Defining an imaginary being is easy enough:
make it up as you go along, every other Theist does so.

>
> The humility I indicate is learnt from Voltaire, among others.

From your other postings it is clear that you have lost touch with any
sense of humility, but you have given in to your heart felt delusions
and are smug and self satisfied.

>
> On Dec 5, 6:49 am, facilitator <scrtch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well no to pat myself on the back or anything but I thought at least

> > it would be a good starting point in defining "God".- Hide quoted text -

[frantheman]

I thought "coptic" was a policeman with Tourette's Syndrome.

On 8 Dez., 17:19, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > - Show quoted text -- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

[archytas]

LOL Francis - met plenty of them including yours truly in moments of
despair! critical reasoning is in very short supply Chazwin and the
Xtians still think they are neat for inventing the Xmas card. It
could be that people choose this murlarky because it's not true rather
than because it is. The world has not faired well through clever
bastards and people have a lot of trouble sorting out ones who tell
the truth and the ones who are just the next power-sleazers. I
believe there are some very interestggn questions that could be posed
about the slack-jawed religious - questions about power relations.

Neil

> > - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- Hide quoted text -

[donnadonne]

And the ally gets forgotten. That's how it works.
Sorry computer, you wouldn't have.

[chazwin]

No, no,no . a Coptic is a policeman with dyslexia. Apoliceman with
Tourette's syndrome is a "fuck,fucking PIG!!!"

On Dec 9, 2:01 pm, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

We stand corrected Chaz! It might be better to refer to the filth as
coptic cunts - on the grounds this might not constitute a public order
offence - the word fuck being the only non-religious blaspheming in
English Law. o doubt the coptics would lie and say you said fuck
anyway.
I want a world withour allies. I'm tired of this stuff, seeing all
kinds of miscreants doing the political dances. Critical thinking
should be enough, along with move towards genune hosptality and
ethical intergrity.

I never invoke Islam - it can be as foolish as any other religion., as
well as having kept insight and thinking going at times. Invocation
is in the minds of invokers, those who can't see the flaws, don't read
real history and so on. I am on all fours with any religion,
believing in none, interested in their use, with some notion that our
lack of purpose may be resolvable someday by hard work and
understanding of our interaction in a world based on exploration
rather than chanting and liturgy. I have met pepople fropm many
religions who understand this. They have learned not to take offence
at the drop of a religious rabbit.

Neil

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[chazwin]

I reject all forms of religion, wherever I recognise them. Forgive the
conditional clause as it might be argued that I am infected with a
religion I do not yet recognise. I must never forget that there aint
no Sanity Claus so I can't be 100% certain that something I beleive in
could be construed as a religion by myself at a later date!
Let us reflect: If there is an almighty being, how reasonable it it to
suspect that his/her/its wrath might be so enflamed as to wish a
cuddly middle-aged teacher from England should be put to death for
naming a little "teddy Bear" Mohammed? Does this makes sense? Would
an almighty Being be worthy of our worship and praise? I mean can't
the fucker take a joke?

[archytas]

Cuddly? She was a Scowser - would have had your wallet in the first
feel. We should have blessed these Sudanese in the first steps of
their plan to rid us of Liverpool. I think we should be taking
religon on more directly. It mostly sickens me - but I don't want to
lose people who care, wherever their religious thoughts lie. National
Geographic is doing ancient astronauts - ffsake, why do I have to put
up with this horseshit? Mend ressing up in long gowns - I mean ffs,
OK at the gay club at weekend - but to commune with god - please!

Neil

[facilitator]

Nothing wrong with religion whatsoever. Everyone has the god given
right to be ignorant.

[Vamadevananda]

Chaz !

What one is determines one's understanding of God. And there is no
end to what one is !

The process of knowing the self also reveals the understanding of God
corresponding to that self.

This is the start of one's spiritual journey. For reasons already
informed, I'm not discussing the rest of it with you as of now, no
disrespect intended.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[restless]

When you declare emphatically that there is no God. Are you not being
as closed minded as those who do believe in God. You can never know
for sure until you die. So how does it benefit to be so rigid in your
thinking. You find those who choose to believe in something higher, a
greater meaning to life than if there is no God. How does it benefit
you to think you may wind up as energy that is sucked into the outlet.
Another belief that once gone thats it, nothingness prevails. Why even
continue in the madness of humanity if nothing else is waiting at the
end of the day. Its all just a meaningless exercise in futility that
would indeed put a gun to the mouth.

[restless]

You can never prove God does not exist. Not even scientifically. There
is nothing you can base your case upon, one can simply say man is
infallible and all texts were written by man. Thus said you cannot
compare anything scientifically against mans written word. God exists
in a realm you cannot reach. How do you go about proving the existence
of something that is invisible. In another dimension you can
postulate, without anything to base concrete evidence on. You can
decide by the evidence at hand but you cannot measure it or prove it
true or false.

[donnadonne]

On 10 Dez., 00:38, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
I want a world withour allies. I'm tired of this stuff, seeing all

kinds of ...

WITHour, WIThour - a great composition in a great context. And now
open your eyes (or sleep more) ... :-)

[Vamadevananda]

On Dec 10, 12:12 am, restless <lisa.2...@gmail.com> wrote:
< When you declare emphatically that there is no God. Are you not
being as closed minded as those who do believe in God. You can never
know for sure until you die. So how does it benefit to be so rigid in
your thinking. >

I have not declared, emphatically or otherwise, that there is no God.
In fact, I have no reason nor inclination to publicly share my
personal knowledge in this regard.

And, really, I do not see how one will know for sure if there is God
or not when one dies. What one may then perceive may be mere
imagination rooted in and projected by one's own gathered karmic
impressions. On the other hand, not perceiving Him may be because He
chooses not to reveal Himself.

As to rigidity or not in my thinking, it is your perception and you
will have to find its cause within yourself. The only rigidity I
permit myself is regarding the knowledge I have about my self. That, I
assure you, is no different from your own rigidity regarding the truth
of the equation 2 + 2 = 4.

< You find those who choose to believe in something higher, a greater
meaning to life than if there is no God.>

I am all for people looking for the knowledge of the true nature of
their own self. So, the correct adjective will be truer, not higher or
greater. To me, there is no other meaning of life.

< How does it benefit you to think you may wind up as energy that is
sucked into the outlet.>

What benefit do you have in mind ? The energy part is best addressed
to Pat, if you know.

> > Another belief that once gone thats it, nothingness prevails.>

Depends upon what have you spiritually attained in life. For most of
us, our desires will prevail ( upon us ). For the self - realised
soul, freedom absolute will prevail, coincident with the unchanging
homogeneous truth infinite.

< Why even continue in the madness of humanity if nothing else is
waiting at the end of the day.>

I do not see why I should not continue. I am not waiting for anything
at the end of the day, even if ' something ' is.

< Its all just a meaningless exercise in futility that would indeed
put a gun to the mouth.>

People have done that, and I am not judging their act.

On Dec 10, 1:35 pm, restless <lisa.2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can never prove God does not exist. Not even scientifically. There is nothing you can base your case upon, >

I am not here to prove anything either way, scientifically or
otherwise. I just do not have a case whatsoever.

< one can simply say man is infallible and all texts were written by
man. Thus said you cannot compare anything scientifically against mans
written word.>

I do not understand what you have stated. It just does not make sense
enough.

< God exists in a realm you cannot reach.>

How do you know that ? In fact, for all you know, I might have seen
Him more really than the food you see on the table. But what is all
that to you ?

Actually, if I read it right, you are making an enormous, last - ditch
effort to convince yourself of your own belief in this regard.

Let me offer that you are welcome to do that. I will continue to
respond to your address to the best of my ability, as honestly as I am
capable of.

How do you go about proving the existence of something that is
invisible. In another dimension you can postulate, without anything to
base concrete evidence on. You can decide by the evidence at hand but
you cannot measure it or prove it true or false. >

So, there you are. It situation still begs for a resolution. But carry
your self - discourse on. I will interact if you want me to.

Kind regards.

[Pat]

On 10 Dec, 00:40, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I reject all forms of religion, wherever I recognise them. Forgive the
> conditional clause as it might be argued that I am infected with a
> religion I do not yet recognise. I must never forget that there aint
> no Sanity Claus so I can't be 100% certain that something I beleive in
> could be construed as a religion by myself at a later date!
> Let us reflect: If there is an almighty being, how reasonable it it to
> suspect that his/her/its wrath might be so enflamed as to wish a
> cuddly middle-aged teacher from England should be put to death for
> naming a little "teddy Bear" Mohammed? Does this makes sense? Would
> an almighty Being be worthy of our worship and praise? I mean can't
> the fucker take a joke?
>

Well, you see. It's people who can't take jokes...not God. God
in His omni-like ways, probably finds EVERYTHING funny in some
respect. Which will be looked on by some people as cruel and
irreverent. Not that I want to stress His quality of "universal
hilarity" or argue whether or not such a point of view could be had
(By God OR men) but, rather, to state that "when people view God
through human eyes; it will invariably mar your vision". I.e., most
people don't understand God, so they tend to warp Him into their own
views (thus, man creates God in his image) and, so, people's lack of
humour gets projected onto God. I'm sure that there are people out
there (right-wing Christians) who took great offence at the name of
Bart Simpson's dog, "Santa's Little Helper", without stopping to TRY
to see a funny side.

[Pat]

On 10 Dec, 01:47, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Cuddly? She was a Scowser - would have had your wallet in the first
> feel. We should have blessed these Sudanese in the first steps of
> their plan to rid us of Liverpool. I think we should be taking
> religon on more directly. It mostly sickens me - but I don't want to
> lose people who care, wherever their religious thoughts lie. National
> Geographic is doing ancient astronauts - ffsake, why do I have to put
> up with this horseshit? Mend ressing up in long gowns - I mean ffs,
> OK at the gay club at weekend - but to commune with god - please!
>
> Neil
>

In my best-written Scouse accent: Calm down...calm down.

[Pat]

On 10 Dec, 03:33, facilitator <scrtch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nothing wrong with religion whatsoever. Everyone has the god given
> right to be ignorant.
>

It's just a shame that so many feel obligated to express that
right. ;-)

[Pat]

On 10 Dec, 11:00, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 12:12 am, restless <lisa.2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> < When you declare emphatically that there is no God. Are you not
> being as closed minded as those who do believe in God. You can never
> know for sure until you die. So how does it benefit to be so rigid in
> your thinking. >
>
> I have not declared, emphatically or otherwise, that there is no God.
> In fact, I have no reason nor inclination to publicly share my
> personal knowledge in this regard.
>

I think she'd actually intended that for Chaz.

> And, really, I do not see how one will know for sure if there is God
> or not when one dies. What one may then perceive may be mere
> imagination rooted in and projected by one's own gathered karmic
> impressions. On the other hand, not perceiving Him may be because He
> chooses not to reveal Himself.
>
> As to rigidity or not in my thinking, it is your perception and you
> will have to find its cause within yourself. The only rigidity I
> permit myself is regarding the knowledge I have about my self. That, I
> assure you, is no different from your own rigidity regarding the truth
> of the equation 2 + 2 = 4.
>

I've already soled that one. 2+2=4 only in base 5 or higher and the
"2+2" part is only available to bases 3 and higher. I.e., In binary,
for example, the equation looks like this: "10+10=100". Pure
mathematics recognises no 'purity' in the truth of "2+2=4".

> < You find those who choose to believe in something higher, a greater
> meaning to life than if there is no God.>
>
> I am all for people looking for the knowledge of the true nature of
> their own self. So, the correct adjective will be truer, not higher or
> greater. To me, there is no other meaning of life.
>
> < How does it benefit you to think you may wind up as energy that is
> sucked into the outlet.>
>
> What benefit do you have in mind ? The energy part is best addressed
> to Pat, if you know.
>

My answer: Energy transforms. What ever benefits or detriments we
see, we can rest assured we haven't sen the lot. And what we choose
to see is an even smaller amount of the whole.

[facilitator]

Well me thinks people equate the freedom of speech with the right to
be heard!

[restless]

I havent even read it yet except for the first line I apologize it
wasnt directed at anyone person just to the general public.
sorry.

[Pat]

On 10 Dec, 16:15, restless <lisa.2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I havent even read it yet except for the first line I apologize it
> wasnt directed at anyone person just to the general public.
> sorry.
>

I do agree with you. Agnosticism is, by far, the most
intellectually honest approach to the question of God's existence.
But it also depends on one's definition of God. If, for example, I
declare that my definition of God is "the set of all energy", then I
can rest assured that THAT God exists, as there is no way that the set
of all energy cannot exist. So, although at one level, we cannot
prove or disprove God as He's defined by Abrahamic organised
religions, that doesn't mean that God can't be defined in such a way
as to be completely non-falsifiable. That is, through our intellect,
we can define a God that can be assured to exist, yet that surety
provides us with no real advantages and, for all practical purposes,
leaves us with STILL having to live our lives as we best see.

> > Kind regards.- Hide quoted text -

[restless]

This is interesting, people have taken what I said as personal attacks
and chose to attack me I am sorry that has happened. I do not mind
being equated as ignorant in regards to my faith. I have said before
my thoughts on God being pure energy has not changed I was referring
to mindless electrical energy that has no function other than to run
my coffee pot. There are indeed some who believe God not choosing to
reveal himself after one dies is worse than hell itself. I am not here
to convert anyone,, you are big boys, who by all intents and purposes
do not need others to tell you what to think and to feel. No one has
to reveal anything they are not inclined to. I feel as if I should
apologize for something although am not quite sure what it is. Perhaps
I am mistaken in thinking this is a forum to express your ideas. Mine
at present are limited to my small world I take part in daily being a
grandma, working to provide for my family and now that my children are
grown I am in college to learn more about the world, that I was not
able to do when I was younger. I do not have the benefit of years of
higher education at the moment as many of you have had. I have not
really used my grey matter in along time and it is a joy for me now. I
am handicapped at the moment,, in regards to most of your
conversations. I take comfort in knowing my I.Q thus I have no doubts
to my capacity. I am here because I do not want to just be educated
thru text books but want to delve into critical thinking and
alternative ideas.
I cannot attest to any one persons experiences with God I was not
referring to personal experiences only in a general sense of the
meaning.
Unless I was prone to hallucinations as a child and thru the years, I
have had many experiences with the spiritual world, the evil that
exists and the good. As Vam is prone to saying { I have no intention
on expounding on those experiences.}
Furthermore I am not here to learn about English compositon. If I type
a sentence wrong, do not put a period where it belongs or a comma,
misspell I would hope that the content of what I am saying would be
enough to overlook the mistakes.
As far as a sense of humour goes, it seems to be missing in regards to
my text. I usually get, when someone is being a bit sarcastic or
biting, and making light of what others write which is not to be taken
in any serious way. it profits no one to become emotionally involved
in the thoughts of others. Reasoning should not be coloured by
emotions.
There are subjects that are emotionally charged such as paedophillia,
one would hope that it would invoke an emotional response such as
disgust and loathing.

On Dec 10, 8:15 am, restless <lisa.2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I havent even read it yet except for the first line I apologise it

> > Kind regards.- Hide quoted text -

[restless]

Yes Pat that is what I was saying, you can believe that about God,
your definition cannot be proved nor disproved, as with anyone else's
own personal interpretation of what God is. You cannot disprove my
interpretation, and if you say you know for a fact that what you
interpret is the truth because God spoke to you etc. Then it is left
for the person listening to decide if you are a liar. I do not mean
you personally, generally speaking. admitting that person to the
loony bin to run a battery of tests will still not prove it did or
didnt happen. We have all defined God or at least attempt to do so. If
one attempts to define God that is an admission he exists. Even if we
define God as not existing.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[chazwin]

SHit I t5hought she was from Manchester - I bet she stole the fu**ing
teddy-bear in the first place!!

On Dec 10, 1:47 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Cuddly? She was a Scowser - would have had your wallet in the first
> feel. We should have blessed these Sudanese in the first steps of
> their plan to rid us of Liverpool. I think we should be taking
> religon on more directly. It mostly sickens me - but I don't want to
> lose people who care, wherever their religious thoughts lie. National
> Geographic is doing ancient astronauts

What do you mean Nat Geo doing Van Daniken stuff - are you kidding?

[facilitator]

There is no reason to be apologetic.
But I would hope that you would find it comforting to know that people
are least responding to what you have to say. That means, albeit
briefly, that they scanned your response. If I post something,
than I am by proxy, inviting others to:
Criticize ,mock, challenge , disagree, agree, ignore etc, etc.
There are no rules of engagement here. Expecting them I think that it
is, is presumptous. (Not saying you in particular expect that). I
know everyone else here is less intelligent than I, so I expect to
temper those responses knowing that ahead of time.
This is only a forum and only cyber at best.
So you are part of the contribution process and I encourage you to
continue to stand up for what you believe. No one here, (i
suspect), wants the least common denominator to rule!
Diversity of thought is a strength not a weakness. (see
totalitarian)

[frantheman]

I wouldn't think you've got anything to apologise for, Lisa. Typos and
eventual grammar mistakes are common to everyone here as far as I can
see. Sometimes the discussion can be a bit hefty, but it's usually
concentrated on the subject in question and isn't usually personally
insulting. It's one of the reasons I like this group - most of the
other groups I've looked at have a discussion culture that's so deep
in the sewer that I have no interest in involving myself with them.
There's enough shit in real life! Just hang in there!

[archytas]

Well said Francis. Seems to me Restless often gets to the point and
that works for me. I doubt rationality exists without colour and we
should just be more honest about that, rather than manipulating people
through 'soft skills'. When I see so para-expert on National
Geographic holding a deformed human skull claiming it's an alien I
just can't stand it. This is all said in an 'objective' voice.
There's very little of that miserable spite in here that screws up
chat rooms, and in any case Chaz acts like our Jupiter in attracting
the asteroids!

I've spent many years now in Higher Education, but only ended up in it
because of disability. It's a dreadful place trhese days - very
little learning going on. Lisa mentioned something about not having
this experience and she may well be the better for missing it. We
sort of bully through erudition. I really don't mean to, but still do
from time to time. Often, I'm responding to mean, selfish, twerpish
adolescents who seem determined to practise ignorance to extremes and
my patience breaks. This said, I feel academe is stealing their very
lives, and my sinecure is based in this corruption. Teaching has
convinced me argument diesn't work - largely because we don't
encourage any. Assignments are all the same - regurgiate chapter
(insert number) as though you aren't copying it. Seven pages of
padding will be put round this, because we are really teaching people
to be bureaucrats.

In the last few weeks, my uni's admin has issued assignments with the
model answers left in, the wrong actual assignments in the seven pages
of padding three times and one set of the seven pages of dross with a
blank page as the assignment. The assignments are so easy any
literate person could do them and my friend who teaches at our local
primary school let me teach some basic finance to her final year class
(10-11). Well over half of them got the hang of the sums, which were
the basis of the undergraduate assignment. We need sweeping changes
and an attitude that understands education is not necessarily good and
often a punishment.

Neil

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Vamadevananda]

There is nothing to apologise for, Restless !

My response may seem rigorous but is without the least malice or
disdain. You are what you are, and that is as uniquely complete and
potentially infinite as any other person in the world. It is just that
I noticed your struggle and chose to offer a detailed response.

In fact, it is me who should apologise for pushing you on the
defensive. But break through it, make the most, and move on.

> > Kind regards.- Hide quoted text -

[chazwin]

DO you have a web based reference for the Nat Geo thing on aliens?

> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

Sorry Chaz - it was called ancient astronauts and on around 3 a.m. It
was too arse to watch.

Neil

[chazwin]

I managed to catch up with a little of it on the Internet.
The skull looks really interesting. Shame it is in the hands of a
kook. Anyway it has human mDNA so he contradicts himself by saying it
is not human. He think sit is an alien/ human hybrid/ I'm sure they
will get to the bottom of it: probably a natural mutation.
All the space cadets will be declaring first contact though: god help
us!

[restless]

I thank all of you for your responses. I did not mean to come across
as whining, I do apologise for that. I do not like insulting others
deliberately I do enough of it unintentionally as it is in real life.
I was distressed that Vam thought I was taking a swipe at him. I
usually post using the last poster without thought, not realizing they
may take it as aimed at them. I enjoy reading all of your posts, I
would hate for anyone to tiptoe around mine for fear of offending. I
prefer truth and substance over erroneous tripe.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 10 Dec, 17:43, restless <lisa.2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes Pat that is what I was saying, you can believe that about God,
> your definition cannot be proved nor disproved, as with anyone else's
> own personal interpretation of what God is. You cannot disprove my
> interpretation, and if you say you know for a fact that what you
> interpret is the truth because God spoke to you etc. Then it is left
> for the person listening to decide if you are a liar. I do not mean
> you personally, generally speaking. admitting that person to the
> loony bin to run a battery of tests will still not prove it did or
> didnt happen. We have all defined God or at least attempt to do so. If
> one attempts to define God that is an admission he exists. Even if we
> define God as not existing.
>

Well, yes, in that, by thinking of God, you can rest assured that
that abstract view of God exists. But that, then, to the thinking
mind, begs the question: "So, where do little abstracts live?" Most
religions would defer that to "The Mind of God", whereas I say that
half the Calabi-Yau space is dedicated to the retention of abstract
information. Personally, I think it's two ways of saying the same
thing.

[Pat]

On 11 Dec, 05:01, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Well said Francis. Seems to me Restless often gets to the point and
> that works for me. I doubt rationality exists without colour and we
> should just be more honest about that, rather than manipulating people
> through 'soft skills'. When I see so para-expert on National
> Geographic holding a deformed human skull claiming it's an alien I
> just can't stand it. This is all said in an 'objective' voice.
> There's very little of that miserable spite in here that screws up
> chat rooms, and in any case Chaz acts like our Jupiter in attracting
> the asteroids!
>
> I've spent many years now in Higher Education, but only ended up in it
> because of disability. It's a dreadful place trhese days - very
> little learning going on. Lisa mentioned something about not having
> this experience and she may well be the better for missing it. We
> sort of bully through erudition. I really don't mean to, but still do
> from time to time. Often, I'm responding to mean, selfish, twerpish
> adolescents who seem determined to practise ignorance to extremes and
> my patience breaks. This said, I feel academe is stealing their very
> lives, and my sinecure is based in this corruption. Teaching has
> convinced me argument diesn't work - largely because we don't
> encourage any. Assignments are all the same - regurgiate chapter
> (insert number) as though you aren't copying it. Seven pages of
> padding will be put round this, because we are really teaching people
> to be bureaucrats.
>

Sounds to me like you're calling for a move back to the Ancient
Greek school. Specifically encouraging discussion and argument about
topics. I would agree. I think I would have flourished in a school
that focussed on discussing topics and demonstrating concepts. AND
the examination process should be an on-going process that doesn't
hinge on one 3-hour period.

> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -

[Vamadevananda]

There is book called Ashtavakra Gita, in which the Teacher of the
knowledge of the self examines the student's realised perfection. I
've always visualised it as an operatic play of two characters. That's
some examination.

> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[donnadonne]

Pat is perfect. A monist realeys (Crowley) itself as one character.
Whatever you do - as long as you survive you pass the test. If not,
someone else in the big bee hive called experience will do your job.
No stress, please, it only gives you headaches. And monists can be
cool about anything.

> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr >>

[archytas]

Often wondered how these UFO arsists cope with the dna test Chaz.
There is a lot of proper explanation of skulls like this one - much
around that last "new diffy human-midget species" crap not long ago
from Indonesia. You could get to a lot of that via google. Anyway,
Vam is recommending a book, no doubt some navel gazing tome from
distant past, before you had to clock on and off to go to the bog.
I'm sure my masters will not give me time to read it.
There is potentially an important deabte to be had in here to do with
upsetting each other. I used to get this more or less everyday
supervising graduate students. It is incredibly difficult not just to
say "fuck off and read more" (this is more complex than it sounds) or
dole out some relevant papers. Reading more of the books would
actually help students realise the world isn't in a mess because of a
lack of ideas, or waiting for the next messiah (them). I used to have
the time to go through their own thinking, point out where it only
stopped because of what they did not know and books could take them
further or a deciding experiment could be done. Sometimes they would
actually be on to something, sometimes so hopeless I can hardly
describe them. Now they are likely to be Chinese, studying strategic
management and not know who Michael Porter is, let alone why we might
criticise his work (Porter is the hub of undergraduate teaching but
almost entirely truist or wrong). The only certainty is that they
will pass, never needing to learn real argument. Academics everywhere
have been tamed like this. It is not a matter of kowing the books and
the words. It is knowing how useless this kind of knowing is that is
needed - this could be very positive, showing us that something not
very clever is suppressing us. and needs understanding in its own
terms. Some of the argument in here suggests we should forget the
books, that somehow one can only preach from them, be an erudite bully
and other such crap. This touchiness to one's own ignorance is easily
mistaken and projected onto others. The books have answers to much
that people think they are arguing afresh - they might be a bit like a
memoir written to help us in the future - all academcis in the real
sense have perished amongst the vampires.
I try to teach as an 'unreliable', though it will be me that marks
work on time and so on. The first idea is not to be a fount of
wisdom, the second that learning is voluntary and the third that all I
can teach is that you can fuck off and find out annything. The
'swear' words are purposeful. If you are going to know anything you
need to approach the sacred and kicjk it around until it breaks. This
does not amount to going around foul-mouting everyone, but does mean
you have to be prepared to upset others and yourself in thinking that
may be painful. Good argument may well lie around these ways in which
we upset others (or they just upset themselves and project this onto
someone else), get upset and in a lot of very ordinary language. We
ain't good at this.

Neil

[restless]

In response to earlier comments I have made. I was in no way
indicating that books have no value how else do we learn and acquire a
basis to progress on, to make intellectual statements of fact or
inquiry. I am in no way touchy. I know my academic limitations at
present. I was simply saying I do not have the academic tools
presently to put forward my arguments and thoughts as I would like. I
may well be projecting insecure in my own lack of knowledge. I am not
asking anyone to dumb down for me either. I can struggle on to
understand what is being said and try to assimilate it. I have no
doubts that all has been said before thousands of times but for me it
is new. I have never been one to pretend to know what I do not. I ask
questions otherwise I assume and that is of no benefit. I can well
imagine invoking irritation in some that feel I should come back when
I know more {more projecting} I am not a patient person. I am but an
infant in some areas. When I question it is because a of genuine
willingness to learn.

[archytas]

Lisa?
We are at cross purposes here, I think. There is a book of life and
within that books. Many of the books are simply fables, whether
religious or academic. I tend to exclude most scientific books from
being fables - they have quite direct application in the real world I
know. Not much from the human sciences would get in there. We are
doomed to repeat much that has been written about - academics do it
for a living these days - little has any original quality. What we
have failed at entirely is moving the way all of us can express our
lives and work within notions of improving life within some new
rules. This stuff has been around too long to be 'clever'. What you
talk about has all the qualities in argument I would look for and
which I often have to try to teach through books and casestudies
because my students don't have experience to draw on. I can asssure
you though that the books do (sometimes) cope with political
difficulties and actual human nature quite well.
Some (but not that much) academic work is well done and does expose
common sense as often just masked stupidity, though the reverse can be
true too. You seem tough enough to cope, though I suspect we are all
touchy really.

Neil

[restless]

I am just having a bad day archytas, marked depression and pain. I
guess I was shouldering your comment. My head wasnt clear at that
moment and unfortunately in my other post struggled to define common
sense. I wasnt making any sense to myself so went and took a nap.

[valtermar]

Hello, Lisa

<I have never been one to pretend to know what I do not. I ask questions,
(...).>

To me, that seems to be the right thing to do.

<I am but an infant in some areas.>

I think we all are. Up to today I haven't found anyone who knew everything.
Besides that, I feel that since words can mean different things to different
people, one should be careful and check about the meaning of certain words
used, specially those that are central to the ideas being communicated.

<When I question it is because a of genuine willingness to learn.>

I think it is good that you have emphasized that point, anyway.

Bye!

ValterMar

[archytas]

I enjoy your posts Restless, if I've forgotten to make this clear. My
life seems swamped in cruddy paperwork just now, which makes me
crabby. You aren't getting anyone's goat, if that phrase transfers
across the pond. And we ain't that learned either. I teach
management, which is so boring and thin I have to wander off
elsewhere. One of the few things I do believe from the management
angle is teams - in the sense we need each other's experience and
expertise - and as importantly, this means we have to put up with each
others allowable weaknesses. One of mine can be unfettered
smartarsing though I mean to help! I'm not some kind of rationalist
meddler who thinks bringing ideas to action is where it's at.
Practice is something else and we can't leave it to utopian fools.

Neil

> willingness to learn.- Hide quoted text -

[Vamadevananda]

" ... Anyway, Vam is recommending a book, no doubt some navel gazing
tome from distant past, ... "

The book I recalled starts with the question : How is one to acquire
knowledge ? How is one to attain liberation ? And how is one to
reach dispassion ? Tell me this, sir.

It is not even remotely naval gazing. And, I am not recommending
anything ... I have nothing to recommend, really !

[Vamadevananda]

" ... Some of the argument in here suggests we should forget the

books, that somehow one can only preach from them, be an erudite bully
and other such crap. "

No, Neil, that is not my position at all. The point I wish to make is
that books contain crap, information, opinion or knowledge, in that
exponentially decreasing order. As readers of those books, we need to
go beyond names - dropping. We should be able to dump all crap for
what it is ; procees information received, to form our own take on
the matter ; judge opinions encountered, for what it is in our
view ; and, allow knowledge to grow within us, so that it then
becomes our own knowledge.

Thus, it is not about forgetting the books but going beyond them.

Is that expecting too much from erudition ?

On Dec 13, 10:45 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:

[restless]

Morning all.
Yesterday I had no business posting at all. I wasnt in the right frame
of mind. That is no one's fault but mine.

[Lonlaz]

I find that talking about God is usually a meaningless action. Mostly
because of the reason this whole discussion was posted, what is God?
Are we trying to find the 'true' definition of God, are we trying to
catagorize the different conceptions of God?

I believe in God, but at the moment my attempt of putting the concept
in some sort of framework is beyond me. When I say that I believe in
God it usually means something entirely different to me than to the
person I am 'communicating' with. As far as belief in the old man
with the beard who designed all of creation, it would be more accurate
to call me an athiest than a theist, though only by a small margin.

God to me is a placeholder of something to aspire to head towards, a
symbol.

[Pat]

On 13 Dec, 08:31, donnadonne <donnado...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pat is perfect. A monist realeys (Crowley) itself as one character.
> Whatever you do - as long as you survive you pass the test. If not,
> someone else in the big bee hive called experience will do your job.
> No stress, please, it only gives you headaches. And monists can be
> cool about anything.
>

LOL!! The trouble with that, though, is "what is survival?" On one
level, it's impossible and on another level, it's guaranteed.

[donnadonne]

lalalala, sous le pont d´Avignon, ... and now guess why they changed
it to sur le pont d'Avignon, ... *laughing*

> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr >>

[Pat]

On 14 Dec, 23:01, donnadonne <donnado...@gmail.com> wrote:
> lalalala, sous le pont d´Avignon, ... and now guess why they changed
> it to sur le pont d'Avignon, ... *laughing*
>

There was a flood?

[Pat]

On 13 Dec, 04:54, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is book called Ashtavakra Gita, in which the Teacher of the
> knowledge of the self examines the student's realised perfection. I
> 've always visualised it as an operatic play of two characters. That's
> some examination.
>

This seems to be a good translation: http://www.allspirit.co.uk/ashtavakra.html

I'm about halfway through. Great stuff!! Cheers!!

[archytas]

I note we have moved some way from Francis' suggestion that we dfeploy
Wittgensteinian language-games and that I have even descended to
teasing my friend Vam into a little passion in his dispassion. I'm
off on a working holiday next week and with two of whatever Pat is on
inside me will no doubt be rolling around Portugal singing 'Frerer
Jacquer'.

One bit of postmodernism I did get the hang of was that one should be
incredulous towards the meatnarrative of seriousness, but not dance on
people's graves. There is, rather strangely, a history of grave
dancing, involving naked virgins and vampires - chacun a son gout as
it were... the only virginity I ever appreciated being that of the new
ball in cricket. This is a strange old world. A woman actually
bothered to chat me up last night, dreamy eyes, that kind of stuff.
Very pleasant way to waste an hour or so. My extensive,
contemporaneous notes, are available, fully referenced to
transactional analysis and in depth Wittgensteinian deconstruction at
www.whatasadpuppyyoumust be.org. Pat may find our trip to the 10th
dminesion particularly fulfilling! The Earth shook and dust fell off
my unopened copy of Mystic Oriental Philosophy for Dullards. Th
Bolton Evening News will report on the explosion at our local gas
station later ...

Neil

[donnadonne]

There were floods that deconstructed the bridge, that's right. But the
song was reconstructed for marketing reasons. Sous le pont were the
pleasure gardens and the prostitutes. Sur le pont clearly had more pop
song qualities.

Those were the days.

> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr >>

[Vamadevananda]

Did you find yourself contemplating on what is stated in the work ?

Were you able to finish it ?