Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
free will, science, etc.
59 views
Skip to first unread message
Dale
Jun 13, 2012, 1:21:03 AM6/13/12
to
I no longer believe I have a free will, I believe I have a sole finite
will that sees the advantages of having a free will and is tempted by
the the current alpha spirit who has a free will to which we are beta to
have times of free will at the price of demise
I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia, so in this sense
I am an atheist, a spiritualist, but an atheist
I believe that the current alpha spirit may have started out on the
right track, but fell from the path, and needs straightened out, or replaced
I believe science will eventually prove these things
--
Dale
will that sees the advantages of having a free will and is tempted by
the the current alpha spirit who has a free will to which we are beta to
have times of free will at the price of demise
I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia, so in this sense
I am an atheist, a spiritualist, but an atheist
I believe that the current alpha spirit may have started out on the
right track, but fell from the path, and needs straightened out, or replaced
I believe science will eventually prove these things
--
Dale
Syamsu
Jun 13, 2012, 7:46:39 AM6/13/12
to
evidence for anything spiritual, science cannot prove these things,
just as science cannot prove what is beutiful and ugly.
The spirit chooses, in freedom, it realizes one alternative instead of
another. Therefore the spirit can only be identified by choosing. So
focus on the choice to create the universe or not, which choice turned
out that it was created, then choose, in freedom, between love and
hate in identifying the spirit which owns this choice.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Jun 13, 2012, 9:13:13 AM6/13/12
to
Also, in case I previously was too polite
to be understood, I am genuinely wondering
if perhaps you're mentally ill. Many people
are and it's nothing to be ashamed of, and
it doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't
right about the alpha spirit and the beta
spirits and all that, although I'd bet
against you on it.
wiki trix
Jun 13, 2012, 9:26:08 AM6/13/12
to
On Jun 13, 9:13�am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
Mental illness is an illusion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROidDySyiAQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROidDySyiAQ
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Jun 13, 2012, 9:44:25 AM6/13/12
to
wiki trix
Jun 13, 2012, 10:46:47 AM6/13/12
to
On Jun 13, 9:44�am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
Really? Well I think that Michel Foucault, Thomas Szasz and David
Rosenhan may have a point...
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipsychiatry
To wit:
"In 1972, psychologist David Rosenhan published the Rosenhan
experiment, a study questioning the validity of psychiatric diagnoses.
The study arranged for eight individuals with no history of
psychopathology to attempt admission into psychiatric hospitals. The
individuals included a graduate student, psychologists, an artist, a
housewife, and two physicians, including one psychiatrist. All eight
individuals were admitted with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar
disorder. Psychiatrists then attempted to treat the individuals using
psychiatric medication. All eight were discharged within 7 to 52 days.
In a later part of the study, psychiatric staff were warned that
pseudo-patients might be sent to their institutions, but none were
actually sent. Nevertheless, a total of 83 patients out of 193 were
believed by at least one staff member to be actors. The study
concluded that individuals without mental disorders were
indistinguishable from those suffering from mental disorders."
Rosenhan may have a point...
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipsychiatry
To wit:
"In 1972, psychologist David Rosenhan published the Rosenhan
experiment, a study questioning the validity of psychiatric diagnoses.
The study arranged for eight individuals with no history of
psychopathology to attempt admission into psychiatric hospitals. The
individuals included a graduate student, psychologists, an artist, a
housewife, and two physicians, including one psychiatrist. All eight
individuals were admitted with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar
disorder. Psychiatrists then attempted to treat the individuals using
psychiatric medication. All eight were discharged within 7 to 52 days.
In a later part of the study, psychiatric staff were warned that
pseudo-patients might be sent to their institutions, but none were
actually sent. Nevertheless, a total of 83 patients out of 193 were
believed by at least one staff member to be actors. The study
concluded that individuals without mental disorders were
indistinguishable from those suffering from mental disorders."
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Jun 13, 2012, 10:55:41 AM6/13/12
to
On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 3:46:47 PM UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
> "The study concluded that individuals
> without mental disorders were
> indistinguishable from those suffering
> from mental disorders."
Up until they produce the knife...
> "The study concluded that individuals
> without mental disorders were
> indistinguishable from those suffering
> from mental disorders."
Since the most common mental illness is
depression, they're most likely to use
the knife on themselves. But it's messy.
And I suppose I must acknowledge that
sometimes somebody who isn't officially
suffering a mental disorder will get a
knife out to underscore a point.
Also, it's probably easy, when you know
how, to /fake/ a mental disorder, and
convince a practitioner.
Also, almost nobody is entirely happy...
Regardless, do you really not think that
Dale is accing oddly?
Arkalen
Jun 13, 2012, 11:08:06 AM6/13/12
to
been using it I'm getting the feeling it isn't a word you made up, but a
term of art in some field I am completely unfamiliar with. Either way
would you mind explaining what you mean by those words ?
wiki trix
Jun 13, 2012, 11:12:44 AM6/13/12
to
On Jun 13, 10:55�am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
Well, if you put it that way... then... I guess I have to say yes. But
I still would love to hear him on a regular youtube channel. His words
have a certain beauty.
I still would love to hear him on a regular youtube channel. His words
have a certain beauty.
Arkalen
Jun 13, 2012, 11:17:24 AM6/13/12
to
On 13/06/12 15:55, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
I tend to agree with you but Dale doesn't come across as depressed or
suffering to me, and he does seem to be thinking about his beliefs and
engaging with a lot of the responses he gets. Given those things I don't
think his mental health is that relevant to us random people on the
internet.
suffering to me, and he does seem to be thinking about his beliefs and
engaging with a lot of the responses he gets. Given those things I don't
think his mental health is that relevant to us random people on the
internet.
Dale
Jun 13, 2012, 4:30:22 PM6/13/12
to
be an alpha spirit. Spirits may be the wills of those who have passed.
They may reside as memories in the alpha spirit.
--
Dale
Dale
Jun 13, 2012, 4:34:50 PM6/13/12
to
On 06/13/2012 09:13 AM, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
>
> Also, in case I previously was too polite
> to be understood, I am genuinely wondering
> if perhaps you're mentally ill.
I'm no danger to myself and others. I have some wild hypotheses, but
they are not as wild as many religions.
>Many people
> are and it's nothing to be ashamed of, and
> it doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't
> right about the alpha spirit and the beta
> spirits and all that, although I'd bet
> against you on it.
maybe, I'm just on a train of thought and rambling on about it.
>
>> I believe science will eventually prove these things
>
--
Dale
talk-o...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 6:21:03 AM UTC+1, Dale wrote:
>> I no longer believe I have a free will, I believe I have a sole finite
>> will that sees the advantages of having a free will and is tempted by
>> the the current alpha spirit who has a free will to which we are beta to
>> have times of free will at the price of demise
>>
>> I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
>> suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia, so in this sense
>> I am an atheist, a spiritualist, but an atheist
>>
>> I believe that the current alpha spirit may have started out on the
>> right track, but fell from the path, and needs straightened out, or replaced
>
> What do you intend to do about it?
it's beyond my resources, all I can do is hope.
> On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 6:21:03 AM UTC+1, Dale wrote:
>> I no longer believe I have a free will, I believe I have a sole finite
>> will that sees the advantages of having a free will and is tempted by
>> the the current alpha spirit who has a free will to which we are beta to
>> have times of free will at the price of demise
>>
>> I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
>> suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia, so in this sense
>> I am an atheist, a spiritualist, but an atheist
>>
>> I believe that the current alpha spirit may have started out on the
>> right track, but fell from the path, and needs straightened out, or replaced
>
> What do you intend to do about it?
>
> Also, in case I previously was too polite
> to be understood, I am genuinely wondering
> if perhaps you're mentally ill.
they are not as wild as many religions.
>Many people
> are and it's nothing to be ashamed of, and
> it doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't
> right about the alpha spirit and the beta
> spirits and all that, although I'd bet
> against you on it.
>
>> I believe science will eventually prove these things
>
Dale
Dale
Jun 13, 2012, 4:37:06 PM6/13/12
to
On 06/13/2012 10:55 AM, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
Wait a minute. I didn't threaten myself or anyone else. I merely said
the alpha spirit seems to be off track and needs straightened out.
--
Dale
Wait a minute. I didn't threaten myself or anyone else. I merely said
the alpha spirit seems to be off track and needs straightened out.
--
Dale
Dale
Jun 13, 2012, 4:37:50 PM6/13/12
to
> Regardless, do you really not think that
> Dale is accing oddly?
any more oddly than a religion?
> Dale is accing oddly?
--
Dale
Boikat
Jun 13, 2012, 4:52:16 PM6/13/12
to
shit loony, if they wanted too. Isn't that the basic plot of "One
Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"?
Boikat
Syamsu
Jun 13, 2012, 5:10:25 PM6/13/12
to
for subjectivity, expression of emotion, faith.
You well know that beauty is a matter of opinion, not fact, you well
know that beauty is only relevant with free will, therefore you well
know that the spirit is a matter of opinion not fact.
Again, you are killing your own emotions in a very direct way by
making the spirit into a matter of fact, instead of leaving it a
matter of opinion. It is very sinful, very disgraceful, you know
better than that.
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 13, 2012, 7:02:31 PM6/13/12
to
On 06/13/2012 01:21 AM, Dale wrote:
> I no longer believe I have a free will, I believe I have a sole finite
> will that sees the advantages of having a free will and is tempted by
> the the current alpha spirit who has a free will to which we are beta to
> have times of free will at the price of demise
Not sure where you are going with the alpha vs. beta thing, but saying
> I no longer believe I have a free will, I believe I have a sole finite
> will that sees the advantages of having a free will and is tempted by
> the the current alpha spirit who has a free will to which we are beta to
> have times of free will at the price of demise
there's a will that "sees" anything grants too much. You are attempting
to forcefit a homunculus or two where none exist.
> I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
> suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia, so in this sense
> I am an atheist, a spiritualist, but an atheist
concept, it's superfluous. One might feel spiritual, but this could be a
way our temporal lobes and other components of our brain dupe us.
Hallucinogenic drugs and temporal lobe epilepsy can do similar things.
> I believe that the current alpha spirit may have started out on the
> right track, but fell from the path, and needs straightened out, or
> replaced
>
> I believe science will eventually prove these things
Dale
Jun 13, 2012, 7:07:16 PM6/13/12
to
am left to rely on that
--
Dale
Dale
Jun 13, 2012, 8:11:29 PM6/13/12
to
On 06/13/2012 07:02 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
> If spirit doesn't reduce to neural processes that subserve a cultural
> concept, it's superfluous. One might feel spiritual, but this could be a
> way our temporal lobes and other components of our brain dupe us.
> Hallucinogenic drugs and temporal lobe epilepsy can do similar things.
yes, I believe the spirit or will reduces to neural processes, but I
>
> If spirit doesn't reduce to neural processes that subserve a cultural
> concept, it's superfluous. One might feel spiritual, but this could be a
> way our temporal lobes and other components of our brain dupe us.
> Hallucinogenic drugs and temporal lobe epilepsy can do similar things.
believe it can live on in memories, also neural processes, I believe the
will is the kernel of life
the question is, who has ALL the memories of a spirit or will necessary
for it to pass and continue, this is where I think the alpha spirit or
will comes in, or whatever replaces the alpha will in that cases
--
Dale
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 13, 2012, 8:50:55 PM6/13/12
to
there's the cultural aspect where a part of people lives on as long as
they are remembered, but that too requires a brain of another. And they
are remembered for their overt actions, where the subjective side (yes
Nando) goes away along with their private qualia. So only a simulacrum
of them is remembered. Does that qualify as spirit?
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 13, 2012, 9:07:10 PM6/13/12
to
On 06/13/2012 09:13 AM, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
What leads you to infer mental illness based on what Dale has posted?
Given a number of our past and present contributors here who are more
qualified I fail to see the problem. Dale might be a bit eccentric, but
mentally ill?
Given a number of our past and present contributors here who are more
qualified I fail to see the problem. Dale might be a bit eccentric, but
mentally ill?
Dale
Jun 13, 2012, 9:38:49 PM6/13/12
to
On 06/13/2012 08:50 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> So only a simulacrum of them is remembered. Does that qualify as spirit?
In a way, yes. I ought to try to use the word will rather than spirit.
> So only a simulacrum of them is remembered. Does that qualify as spirit?
Like I said many times before, I don't believe there is now an
All-Powerful benefactor, because there is no utopia, and suffering
exists which is not beneficial
but there may be an omniscient alpha will with which all wills live,
dead or alive, inside its' memory
sort of like the argument of whether dreams seems real when you are
dreaming, or whether perceptions and conceptions of perceptions are the same
--
Dale
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 13, 2012, 9:37:25 PM6/13/12
to
lobotomies, and ECT. And it's a far cry better than exorcism. But one
wonders if they misdiagnose and overprescribe. And a subset of the
homeless population in many areas aren't incapable of supporting
themselves due to recent economic issues, but mental illness.
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 13, 2012, 9:42:10 PM6/13/12
to
provoking. Compared to prawnster, Nando, and vowelboy he is a "god"send.
Oh and there's madman if you wanna go further back.
Syamsu
Jun 14, 2012, 3:49:28 AM6/14/12
to
owner of the choices, and that is a subjective issue.
A democracy may decide to put in place a public transport system, a
dictatorship may decide to put in place a public transport system. But
you well know that democracy and a dictatorship are very different
eventhough the result may be the same. By which I mean to say that the
result is much irrellevant, the way in which it is decided is more
relevant, because only agency really matters.
So instead of looking for objective things to believe in, one can
better focus on ways of deciding, cultivate subjectivity in respect to
agency.
Boikat
Jun 14, 2012, 3:17:33 PM6/14/12
to
On Jun 14, 2:49 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> So instead of looking for objective things to believe in, one can
> better focus on ways of deciding, cultivate subjectivity in respect to
> agency.
Why? Are you getting lonely in your padded cell?
Boikat
<snip>
> So instead of looking for objective things to believe in, one can
> better focus on ways of deciding, cultivate subjectivity in respect to
> agency.
Boikat
SkyEyes
Jun 14, 2012, 6:32:46 PM6/14/12
to
On Jun 12, 10:21 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I no longer believe I have a free will, I believe I have a sole finite
> will that sees the advantages of having a free will and is tempted by
> the the current alpha spirit who has a free will to which we are beta to
> have times of free will at the price of demise
>
> I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
> suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia, so in this sense
> I am an atheist, a spiritualist, but an atheist
>
> I believe that the current alpha spirit may have started out on the
> right track, but fell from the path, and needs straightened out, or replaced
>
> I no longer believe I have a free will, I believe I have a sole finite
> will that sees the advantages of having a free will and is tempted by
> the the current alpha spirit who has a free will to which we are beta to
> have times of free will at the price of demise
>
> I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
> suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia, so in this sense
> I am an atheist, a spiritualist, but an atheist
>
> I believe that the current alpha spirit may have started out on the
> right track, but fell from the path, and needs straightened out, or replaced
>
> I believe science will eventually prove these things
>
> --
>
> Dale
Good grief. Is English not your native language?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
wiki trix
Jun 14, 2012, 7:20:08 PM6/14/12
to
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Jun 14, 2012, 9:42:57 PM6/14/12
to
On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:52:16 PM UTC+1, Boikat wrote:
> One could also conclude that reasonably intelligent people can act bat-
> shit loony, if they wanted too. Isn't that the basic plot of "One
> Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"?
I'm not very familiar with the book or the
> One could also conclude that reasonably intelligent people can act bat-
> shit loony, if they wanted too. Isn't that the basic plot of "One
> Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"?
show, but there's other evidence that
Jack Nicholson can act crazy at will -
_The Shining_ and _Batman_ for instance.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Jun 14, 2012, 9:46:31 PM6/14/12
to
On Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:07:10 AM UTC+1, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> What leads you to infer mental illness
> based on what Dale has posted?
Doesn't that answer itself? I just wanted
> What leads you to infer mental illness
> based on what Dale has posted?
to tell him that it's showing.
If he isn't certified crazy, then in any
case I believe it would be good for him
to talk to somebody personally sympathetic -
and that means, elsewhere than here.
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 14, 2012, 11:08:54 PM6/14/12
to
On 06/14/2012 09:46 PM, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
Ummm. You don't remember P.A.P. posts do you? *That* was scary. The
original twitter blog.
If you have to ask...don't.
original twitter blog.
If you have to ask...don't.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Jun 15, 2012, 1:33:25 AM6/15/12
to
Dale wrote:
[...]
> I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
> suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia
So when you inadvertently place your hand on a hot stove, you don't reckon
that the pain you suffer has any benefit?
[...]
> I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
> suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia
that the pain you suffer has any benefit?
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 15, 2012, 5:47:09 PM6/15/12
to
is a pretty good indicator that removing your hand is a good idea and
the suffering found amongst people that is a pretty good indicator that
if a god exists, it either doesn't care or is a real a-hole. Dale is
talking about the theodical arguments against a creator, not saying that
pain is a bad thing to ward off injury.
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 15, 2012, 5:48:51 PM6/15/12
to
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 15, 2012, 8:26:16 PM6/15/12
to
he talks about animism and how primitve relgions thought spirits were
inherent in everything (kinda like how Nando thinks today). If a volcano
has a spirit and so do humans, there could be an alpha vs. beta relation
between the two, as the human looks upward to the volcano and tries to
whatever it can to appease this greater being. So at least your alpha
vs. beta spirit dichotomy helped me make more sense of animistic beliefs.
http://www.amazon.com/Create-Spiritual-Brain-Peace-Thinking/dp/1878267736
But as you say above, if we are living in the memory of a beta spirit,
this is not unlike the idealism assumed by Bishop Berkeley, where
everything is grounded in an Absolute Mind, protecting us from an
ungrounded solipsism. But from Berkeley we can transcend to the
philosophy of Schopenhauer quite easily, via Kant.
jillery
Jun 16, 2012, 12:53:46 AM6/16/12
to
beyond the necessary negative reinforcement against damaging events,
and into the realm of unnecessary suffering, which is them used as
evidence against a caring god?
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Jun 16, 2012, 4:55:00 AM6/16/12
to
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 06/15/2012 01:33 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> Dale wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
>>> suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia
>>
>> So when you inadvertently place your hand on a hot stove, you don't
>> reckon that the pain you suffer has any benefit?
>>
>>
> There's a difference between the pain you feel from a hot stove, which
> is a pretty good indicator that removing your hand is a good idea and
> the suffering found amongst people that is a pretty good indicator
> that if a god exists, it either doesn't care or is a real a-hole.
*Tolerating* something does not necessarily equate to not caring.
> On 06/15/2012 01:33 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> Dale wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
>>> suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia
>>
>> So when you inadvertently place your hand on a hot stove, you don't
>> reckon that the pain you suffer has any benefit?
>>
>>
> There's a difference between the pain you feel from a hot stove, which
> is a pretty good indicator that removing your hand is a good idea and
> the suffering found amongst people that is a pretty good indicator
> that if a god exists, it either doesn't care or is a real a-hole.
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 16, 2012, 8:11:41 AM6/16/12
to
dying of the plague and survivors left to pick up the pieces. Is that
clear enough for you? At least the Holy Bible gives the survivors a
rationalization to hate the blamed outgroup so they can suffer too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death_persecutions
And from this persecuted outgroup comes the ultimate exercise in theodicy:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/godontrial/synopsis.html
If that doesn't make the distinction between pain and suffering, nothing
will.
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 16, 2012, 8:14:32 AM6/16/12
to
On 06/16/2012 04:55 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> On 06/15/2012 01:33 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>> Dale wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
>>>> suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia
>>>
>>> So when you inadvertently place your hand on a hot stove, you don't
>>> reckon that the pain you suffer has any benefit?
>>>
>>>
>> There's a difference between the pain you feel from a hot stove, which
>> is a pretty good indicator that removing your hand is a good idea and
>> the suffering found amongst people that is a pretty good indicator
>> that if a god exists, it either doesn't care or is a real a-hole.
>
> *Tolerating* something does not necessarily equate to not caring.
Why would an all powerful benefactor tolerate human suffering?
> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> On 06/15/2012 01:33 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>> Dale wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
>>>> suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia
>>>
>>> So when you inadvertently place your hand on a hot stove, you don't
>>> reckon that the pain you suffer has any benefit?
>>>
>>>
>> There's a difference between the pain you feel from a hot stove, which
>> is a pretty good indicator that removing your hand is a good idea and
>> the suffering found amongst people that is a pretty good indicator
>> that if a god exists, it either doesn't care or is a real a-hole.
>
> *Tolerating* something does not necessarily equate to not caring.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Jun 16, 2012, 8:30:21 AM6/16/12
to
bruising itself whilst learning to walk?
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 16, 2012, 8:46:46 AM6/16/12
to
in child development? And still you fail to draw the distinction between
pain and suffering. Minor bruises and scrapes are nothing compared
to...say...the child contracting scarlet fever and eventually dying
leaving the parent to mourn and wonder if such a young child would be
accepted into the highly selective kingdom of heaven.
I think a more apt analogy is would a parent stand by and do nothing as
they watch their kid grab a bottle of drain cleaner and start to drink
from it. Or would a parent be tempted by Satan to allow his/her child's
family and possessions to be destroyed as a test of faith only to appear
as a whirlwind later and act like a pompous ass toward their child?
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Jun 16, 2012, 9:46:39 AM6/16/12
to
perspective, not from a God perspective - much like a child unable to figure
out what appears to them as unreasonable behaviour by their parents.
jillery
Jun 16, 2012, 11:31:45 AM6/16/12
to
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 08:11:41 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
suffering. Apparently you consider the latter to be a specific
example of the vague "suffering found amongst people" which you
offered in your previous post. Still, you still haven't specified the
characteristics that you think are important that distinguish the two
extremes
> At least the Holy Bible gives the survivors a
>rationalization to hate the blamed outgroup so they can suffer too.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death_persecutions
>
>And from this persecuted outgroup comes the ultimate exercise in theodicy:
>
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/godontrial/synopsis.html
>
>If that doesn't make the distinction between pain and suffering, nothing
>will.
From your reaction above, you seem to assume the distinction is
self-evident. Such an assumption tends to inhibit rational argument,
which I consider to be a more effective method. YMMV.
Thank you for your reply.
<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 06/16/2012 12:53 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:47:09 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/15/2012 01:33 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>> Dale wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
>>>>> suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia
>>>>
>>>> So when you inadvertently place your hand on a hot stove, you don't reckon
>>>> that the pain you suffer has any benefit?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> There's a difference between the pain you feel from a hot stove, which
>>> is a pretty good indicator that removing your hand is a good idea and
>>> the suffering found amongst people that is a pretty good indicator that
>>> if a god exists, it either doesn't care or is a real a-hole. Dale is
>>> talking about the theodical arguments against a creator, not saying that
>>> pain is a bad thing to ward off injury.
>>
>>
>> So the question remains, what kind and/or level of suffering goes
>> beyond the necessary negative reinforcement against damaging events,
>> and into the realm of unnecessary suffering, which is them used as
>> evidence against a caring god?
>
>The temporary ouch of stubbing a toe versus a majority of a village
>dying of the plague and survivors left to pick up the pieces. Is that
>clear enough for you?
What you describe can be seen as two points on a continuum of
>On 06/16/2012 12:53 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:47:09 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/15/2012 01:33 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>> Dale wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
>>>>> suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia
>>>>
>>>> So when you inadvertently place your hand on a hot stove, you don't reckon
>>>> that the pain you suffer has any benefit?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> There's a difference between the pain you feel from a hot stove, which
>>> is a pretty good indicator that removing your hand is a good idea and
>>> the suffering found amongst people that is a pretty good indicator that
>>> if a god exists, it either doesn't care or is a real a-hole. Dale is
>>> talking about the theodical arguments against a creator, not saying that
>>> pain is a bad thing to ward off injury.
>>
>>
>> So the question remains, what kind and/or level of suffering goes
>> beyond the necessary negative reinforcement against damaging events,
>> and into the realm of unnecessary suffering, which is them used as
>> evidence against a caring god?
>
>The temporary ouch of stubbing a toe versus a majority of a village
>dying of the plague and survivors left to pick up the pieces. Is that
>clear enough for you?
suffering. Apparently you consider the latter to be a specific
example of the vague "suffering found amongst people" which you
offered in your previous post. Still, you still haven't specified the
characteristics that you think are important that distinguish the two
extremes
> At least the Holy Bible gives the survivors a
>rationalization to hate the blamed outgroup so they can suffer too.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death_persecutions
>
>And from this persecuted outgroup comes the ultimate exercise in theodicy:
>
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/godontrial/synopsis.html
>
>If that doesn't make the distinction between pain and suffering, nothing
>will.
self-evident. Such an assumption tends to inhibit rational argument,
which I consider to be a more effective method. YMMV.
Thank you for your reply.
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 16, 2012, 11:54:42 AM6/16/12
to
pain from a bad back (which argues against design and a benevolent
creator). But suffering could result from the lack of or absence of
something. Instead of a sensed hurt stemming from pain related receptors
and afferent nerves, one experiences an emotionally relevant loss. If
this loss is compounded across a population, the suffering is a
collective one, which is different than a toothache or hangnail.
And getting back to the original commentary that spawned this
discussion, why is the concept of suffering being likened to touching a
hot stove? There's not only a difference of degree there maybe likewise
be a difference in kind. Suffering could result from things other than
minor pain impulses and the resulting blister that heals and goes away.
One loses a loved one. That's different than touching a stove. And the
emotional scars may not ever heal. One watches their entire village
wiped away by marauding thugs and survives to feel the loss of loved
ones and suffer PTSD. They may not have felt any stove related pain
during the incident and if they stubbed a toe running away from danger,
that toe stub would likely have very little if anything to do with the
long-term psychic damage they will suffer. They might even be grazed by
a bullet. Would the injury and its pain add significantly to the overall
suffering of seeing others get slaughtered? It might even help them a
little, to reduce a sense of guilt of not having experienced the direct
physicality the others did. Maybe getting shot would make them feel
better in the long run as instead of escaping unharmed, they too had a
chance of succumbing but made it through.
And pain serves a function to an organism that senses it. It motivates
them to take action that alleviates the pain. Suffering, especially in
the context of arguing about the existence of a creator, is a completely
different animal altogether. Suffering seems pointless, unless the
creator was sadistic.
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 16, 2012, 11:58:36 AM6/16/12
to
(aka acts of God) does seem unreasonable to me. And many who die may
feel no pain as the incident is so sudden. And bystanders who see them
die feel no actual pain either. But the magnitude of the incident causes
much suffering for the survivors, namely the loss of families and homes.
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 16, 2012, 12:36:47 PM6/16/12
to
On 06/16/2012 11:31 AM, jillery wrote:
that probably puts the obvious distinction between pain and suffering to
rest.
Back in the day when I took up working out I would train hard on my
chest or legs and these areas would be sore as hell for a couple days.
Yet as I kept doing this to myself, I noticed more muscle mass and more
definition and this improvement in body image gave be a greater
self-esteem. Where was the suffering in this short-term pain?
Likewise, when I first started doing heavy cardiovascular exercise on a
stationary bike or treadmill I had a hard time at first, until I broke
through the 20 minute wall and the endorphins kicked in and I started
floating on a opiate cloud. I also noticed more energy and less stress
as a result in my day to day life. Where was the suffering in this?
No pain, no gain, as they say. Thus pain is different from suffering.
Pain can be a component of suffering, especially if chronic, but there
are other components of suffering and pain can be absent from the
equation that produces suffering.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Jun 16, 2012, 2:52:58 PM6/16/12
to
applying it to religion in general but none of the mainstream religions -
the Christian ones at least - take that view.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Jun 16, 2012, 3:13:50 PM6/16/12
to
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
[...]
doesn't stand up. I took touching a hot stove as just one example to
demolish the generality of his claim. I could have taken others; you
yourself have given the athletic training example and the cardiac rehab
one - been there an bought that tee-shirt myself BTW. I went on to make the
point that when we as humans define suffering, we do so from a human
perspective which does not necessarily apply to a God perspective.
> There's not only a difference of degree there maybe
> likewise be a difference in kind. Suffering could result from things
> other than minor pain impulses and the resulting blister that heals
> and goes away. One loses a loved one. That's different than touching
> a stove. And the emotional scars may not ever heal. One watches their
> entire village wiped away by marauding thugs and survives to feel the
> loss of loved ones and suffer PTSD. They may not have felt any stove
> related pain during the incident and if they stubbed a toe running
> away from danger, that toe stub would likely have very little if
> anything to do with the long-term psychic damage they will suffer.
> They might even be grazed by a bullet. Would the injury and its pain
> add significantly to the overall suffering of seeing others get
> slaughtered? It might even help them a little, to reduce a sense of
> guilt of not having experienced the direct physicality the others
> did. Maybe getting shot would make them feel better in the long run
> as instead of escaping unharmed, they too had a chance of succumbing
> but made it through.
> And pain serves a function to an organism that senses it. It motivates
> them to take action that alleviates the pain. Suffering, especially in
> the context of arguing about the existence of a creator, is a
> completely different animal altogether. Suffering seems pointless,
> unless the creator was sadistic.
There is an expression used around here that I can't bring to mind jut now,
for people believing in God because they are overwhelmed by what they see
around them e.g. they look at the millions of stars in the sky or a new born
baby and say"this could not have happened by accident!" - it's something
like the God of Awe but that's not it, as a regular you probably know what
I'm talking about. Your argument that so much suffering means there can't be
a God seems to me like the mirror image of that argument.
[...]
>
> And getting back to the original commentary that spawned this
> discussion, why is the concept of suffering being likened to touching
> a hot stove?
Because the OP dismissed suffering in general as having no benefits which
> And getting back to the original commentary that spawned this
> discussion, why is the concept of suffering being likened to touching
> a hot stove?
doesn't stand up. I took touching a hot stove as just one example to
demolish the generality of his claim. I could have taken others; you
yourself have given the athletic training example and the cardiac rehab
one - been there an bought that tee-shirt myself BTW. I went on to make the
point that when we as humans define suffering, we do so from a human
perspective which does not necessarily apply to a God perspective.
> There's not only a difference of degree there maybe
> likewise be a difference in kind. Suffering could result from things
> other than minor pain impulses and the resulting blister that heals
> and goes away. One loses a loved one. That's different than touching
> a stove. And the emotional scars may not ever heal. One watches their
> entire village wiped away by marauding thugs and survives to feel the
> loss of loved ones and suffer PTSD. They may not have felt any stove
> related pain during the incident and if they stubbed a toe running
> away from danger, that toe stub would likely have very little if
> anything to do with the long-term psychic damage they will suffer.
> They might even be grazed by a bullet. Would the injury and its pain
> add significantly to the overall suffering of seeing others get
> slaughtered? It might even help them a little, to reduce a sense of
> guilt of not having experienced the direct physicality the others
> did. Maybe getting shot would make them feel better in the long run
> as instead of escaping unharmed, they too had a chance of succumbing
> but made it through.
> And pain serves a function to an organism that senses it. It motivates
> them to take action that alleviates the pain. Suffering, especially in
> the context of arguing about the existence of a creator, is a
> completely different animal altogether. Suffering seems pointless,
> unless the creator was sadistic.
for people believing in God because they are overwhelmed by what they see
around them e.g. they look at the millions of stars in the sky or a new born
baby and say"this could not have happened by accident!" - it's something
like the God of Awe but that's not it, as a regular you probably know what
I'm talking about. Your argument that so much suffering means there can't be
a God seems to me like the mirror image of that argument.
Dale
Jun 16, 2012, 10:10:39 PM6/16/12
to
On 06/16/2012 03:13 PM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> There is an expression used around here that I can't bring to mind jut now
argument from incredulity
> There is an expression used around here that I can't bring to mind jut now
--
Dale
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Jun 17, 2012, 2:55:07 AM6/17/12
to
Perseus
Jun 17, 2012, 3:44:03 AM6/17/12
to
On Jun 13, 3:46 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 13, 9:44 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 2:26:08 PM UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
> > > On Jun 13, 9:13 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> > > orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Also, in case I previously was too polite
> > > > to be understood, I am genuinely wondering
> > > > if perhaps you're mentally ill. Many people
> > > > are and it's nothing to be ashamed of, and
> > > > it doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't
> > > > right about the alpha spirit and the beta
> > > > spirits and all that, although I'd bet
> > > > against you on it.
>
> > > Mental illness is an illusion
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROidDySyiAQ
>
> > No it's not. But video is.
>
> Really? Well I think that Michel Foucault, Thomas Szasz and David
> Rosenhan may have a point...
>
> See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipsychiatry
>
> To wit:
>
> "In 1972, psychologist David Rosenhan published the Rosenhan
> experiment, a study questioning the validity of psychiatric diagnoses.
> The study arranged for eight individuals with no history of
> psychopathology to attempt admission into psychiatric hospitals. The
> individuals included a graduate student, psychologists, an artist, a
> housewife, and two physicians, including one psychiatrist. All eight
> individuals were admitted with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar
> disorder. Psychiatrists then attempted to treat the individuals using
> psychiatric medication. All eight were discharged within 7 to 52 days.
> In a later part of the study, psychiatric staff were warned that
> pseudo-patients might be sent to their institutions, but none were
> actually sent. Nevertheless, a total of 83 patients out of 193 were
> believed by at least one staff member to be actors. The study
> concluded that individuals without mental disorders were
> indistinguishable from those suffering from mental disorders."
there cannot be a clear divide between being crazy and normal.
All people can behave stupid a moment or other, and some crazy people
have moments that look normal. Then, there is a wide gap of "no man's
land" between being sane and demented. Let's asume that it is needed
a sort of statistical algorithm applied to the behavior of someone to
determine if he is insane or not. It must me like earthquakes. Some
earthquakes are so faint that only the most sensible instruments can
detect the tremor.
When heavy truck passes nearby, you can feel a sort of tremor under
your feet.
Perseus
> On Jun 13, 9:44 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 2:26:08 PM UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
> > > On Jun 13, 9:13 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> > > orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 6:21:03 AM UTC+1, Dale wrote:
> > > > > I no longer believe I have a free will, I believe I have a sole finite
> > > > > will that sees the advantages of having a free will and is tempted by
> > > > > the the current alpha spirit who has a free will to which we are beta to
> > > > > have times of free will at the price of demise
>
> > > > > I no longer believe I have a free will, I believe I have a sole finite
> > > > > will that sees the advantages of having a free will and is tempted by
> > > > > the the current alpha spirit who has a free will to which we are beta to
> > > > > have times of free will at the price of demise
>
> > > > > I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
> > > > > suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia, so in this sense
> > > > > I am an atheist, a spiritualist, but an atheist
>
> > > > > I believe that the current alpha spirit may have started out on the
> > > > > right track, but fell from the path, and needs straightened out, or replaced
>
> > > > What do you intend to do about it?
> > > > > I am an atheist, a spiritualist, but an atheist
>
> > > > > I believe that the current alpha spirit may have started out on the
> > > > > right track, but fell from the path, and needs straightened out, or replaced
>
>
> > > > Also, in case I previously was too polite
> > > > to be understood, I am genuinely wondering
> > > > if perhaps you're mentally ill. Many people
> > > > are and it's nothing to be ashamed of, and
> > > > it doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't
> > > > right about the alpha spirit and the beta
> > > > spirits and all that, although I'd bet
> > > > against you on it.
>
> > > Mental illness is an illusion
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROidDySyiAQ
>
> > No it's not. But video is.
>
> Really? Well I think that Michel Foucault, Thomas Szasz and David
> Rosenhan may have a point...
>
> See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipsychiatry
>
> To wit:
>
> "In 1972, psychologist David Rosenhan published the Rosenhan
> experiment, a study questioning the validity of psychiatric diagnoses.
> The study arranged for eight individuals with no history of
> psychopathology to attempt admission into psychiatric hospitals. The
> individuals included a graduate student, psychologists, an artist, a
> housewife, and two physicians, including one psychiatrist. All eight
> individuals were admitted with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar
> disorder. Psychiatrists then attempted to treat the individuals using
> psychiatric medication. All eight were discharged within 7 to 52 days.
> In a later part of the study, psychiatric staff were warned that
> pseudo-patients might be sent to their institutions, but none were
> actually sent. Nevertheless, a total of 83 patients out of 193 were
> believed by at least one staff member to be actors. The study
> concluded that individuals without mental disorders were
> indistinguishable from those suffering from mental disorders."
there cannot be a clear divide between being crazy and normal.
All people can behave stupid a moment or other, and some crazy people
have moments that look normal. Then, there is a wide gap of "no man's
land" between being sane and demented. Let's asume that it is needed
a sort of statistical algorithm applied to the behavior of someone to
determine if he is insane or not. It must me like earthquakes. Some
earthquakes are so faint that only the most sensible instruments can
detect the tremor.
When heavy truck passes nearby, you can feel a sort of tremor under
your feet.
Perseus
Perseus
Jun 17, 2012, 3:46:20 AM6/17/12
to
On Jun 13, 4:08 pm, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
any spirits existence.
Perseus
> On 13/06/12 06:21, Dale wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I no longer believe I have a free will, I believe I have a sole finite
> > will that sees the advantages of having a free will and is tempted by
> > the the current alpha spirit who has a free will to which we are beta to
> > have times of free will at the price of demise
>
> > I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
> > suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia, so in this sense
> > I am an atheist, a spiritualist, but an atheist
>
> > I believe that the current alpha spirit may have started out on the
> > right track, but fell from the path, and needs straightened out, or
> > replaced
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I no longer believe I have a free will, I believe I have a sole finite
> > will that sees the advantages of having a free will and is tempted by
> > the the current alpha spirit who has a free will to which we are beta to
> > have times of free will at the price of demise
>
> > I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
> > suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia, so in this sense
> > I am an atheist, a spiritualist, but an atheist
>
> > I believe that the current alpha spirit may have started out on the
> > right track, but fell from the path, and needs straightened out, or
> > replaced
>
> > I believe science will eventually prove these things
>
> I am sincerely curious as to what an "alpha spirit" is. The way you've
> been using it I'm getting the feeling it isn't a word you made up, but a
> term of art in some field I am completely unfamiliar with. Either way
> would you mind explaining what you mean by those words ?
let's see if he explains what an alpha spirit is. I am not aware of
>
> I am sincerely curious as to what an "alpha spirit" is. The way you've
> been using it I'm getting the feeling it isn't a word you made up, but a
> term of art in some field I am completely unfamiliar with. Either way
> would you mind explaining what you mean by those words ?
any spirits existence.
Perseus
Perseus
Jun 17, 2012, 4:20:47 AM6/17/12
to
On Jun 13, 9:30 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Dale
and what exactly is an spirit? So far, I have met so many people
speaking about "spirits" and "spiritual" that had started to think one
day about this matter. The dictionary did not helped me much, for
immaterial entities with capacity to act a way or another I never had
met or perceived any.
Then, as some people persists in taking about spirits, there must be a
base for the idea. From where did people take the concept of a
spirit?
Perhaps, it has some relation with the memories about people or
relatives that died. As humans can figure things with the help of
language, they can recreate in their mind absent things (not present),
or recreate imaginary beings, like a dog-sheep, by example. Or the
dog Cerberos of the Hades of Greeks, that had three threatening heads,
to guard the underworld entrance of not any spirit of the dead people
to come out.
Then, people can imagine things easily in his brain. I recall now a
short of story of Kafka about "in our synagogue we have a weird
animal, that is half cat and half lamb"; and he began to describe the
animal and a sort of instable perception depending on the distance we
are watching it, or even depending on the hour, and the light that
comes through the window late in the afternoon or near the sunset.
The Greeks and other ancient civilizations had myths about hybrid
animals. If we can figure imaginary hybrid animals and monsters, we
have not any problem to imagine other beings like the spirits of
relatives, or the gods, angels and all sort of monsters.
But I do not favor the idea of the Plato's cavern, where were stored
the ideas. If one has an idea is that it exists in some part. He has
reason if he means his brain. If we have a brain, we can figure
anything that will look like something real, at least in part. And by
doing a composite image of several things real, we can produce inside
our brain or draw in a paper the image of something inexistent.
Perseus
> On 06/13/2012 11:08 AM, Arkalen wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 13/06/12 06:21, Dale wrote:
> >> I no longer believe I have a free will, I believe I have a sole finite
> >> will that sees the advantages of having a free will and is tempted by
> >> the the current alpha spirit who has a free will to which we are beta to
> >> have times of free will at the price of demise
>
> >> I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
> >> suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia, so in this sense
> >> I am an atheist, a spiritualist, but an atheist
>
> >> I believe that the current alpha spirit may have started out on the
> >> right track, but fell from the path, and needs straightened out, or
> >> replaced
>
> >> I believe science will eventually prove these things
>
> > I am sincerely curious as to what an "alpha spirit" is. The way you've
> > been using it I'm getting the feeling it isn't a word you made up, but a
> > term of art in some field I am completely unfamiliar with. Either way
> > would you mind explaining what you mean by those words ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 13/06/12 06:21, Dale wrote:
> >> I no longer believe I have a free will, I believe I have a sole finite
> >> will that sees the advantages of having a free will and is tempted by
> >> the the current alpha spirit who has a free will to which we are beta to
> >> have times of free will at the price of demise
>
> >> I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
> >> suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia, so in this sense
> >> I am an atheist, a spiritualist, but an atheist
>
> >> I believe that the current alpha spirit may have started out on the
> >> right track, but fell from the path, and needs straightened out, or
> >> replaced
>
> >> I believe science will eventually prove these things
>
> > I am sincerely curious as to what an "alpha spirit" is. The way you've
> > been using it I'm getting the feeling it isn't a word you made up, but a
> > term of art in some field I am completely unfamiliar with. Either way
> > would you mind explaining what you mean by those words ?
>
> It's a connotation I came up with. There are alpha animals, there might
> be an alpha spirit. Spirits may be the wills of those who have passed.
> They may reside as memories in the alpha spirit.
>
> --
> be an alpha spirit. Spirits may be the wills of those who have passed.
> They may reside as memories in the alpha spirit.
>
> Dale
and what exactly is an spirit? So far, I have met so many people
speaking about "spirits" and "spiritual" that had started to think one
day about this matter. The dictionary did not helped me much, for
immaterial entities with capacity to act a way or another I never had
met or perceived any.
Then, as some people persists in taking about spirits, there must be a
base for the idea. From where did people take the concept of a
spirit?
Perhaps, it has some relation with the memories about people or
relatives that died. As humans can figure things with the help of
language, they can recreate in their mind absent things (not present),
or recreate imaginary beings, like a dog-sheep, by example. Or the
dog Cerberos of the Hades of Greeks, that had three threatening heads,
to guard the underworld entrance of not any spirit of the dead people
to come out.
Then, people can imagine things easily in his brain. I recall now a
short of story of Kafka about "in our synagogue we have a weird
animal, that is half cat and half lamb"; and he began to describe the
animal and a sort of instable perception depending on the distance we
are watching it, or even depending on the hour, and the light that
comes through the window late in the afternoon or near the sunset.
The Greeks and other ancient civilizations had myths about hybrid
animals. If we can figure imaginary hybrid animals and monsters, we
have not any problem to imagine other beings like the spirits of
relatives, or the gods, angels and all sort of monsters.
But I do not favor the idea of the Plato's cavern, where were stored
the ideas. If one has an idea is that it exists in some part. He has
reason if he means his brain. If we have a brain, we can figure
anything that will look like something real, at least in part. And by
doing a composite image of several things real, we can produce inside
our brain or draw in a paper the image of something inexistent.
Perseus
Perseus
Jun 17, 2012, 4:34:20 AM6/17/12
to
On Jun 13, 10:10 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> for subjectivity, expression of emotion, faith.
>
> You well know that beauty is a matter of opinion, not fact, you well
> know that beauty is only relevant with free will, therefore you well
> know that the spirit is a matter of opinion not fact.
>
> Again, you are killing your own emotions in a very direct way by
> making the spirit into a matter of fact, instead of leaving it a
> matter of opinion. It is very sinful, very disgraceful, you know
> better than that.
the spirit is nothing more than the program a person has to act in its
life. An animal whatever, wither herbivore or a carnivore, has a
program to act in various ways, to feed themselves, to drink water, to
rest, to fight or to flee. Bugs and microbes also have a program to
act and feed themselves. Even microbes try to avoid some dangerous or
undesirable substance or effect. Many animal avoid the heat looking
for some shade, or burying themselves underground, etc.
They have a program to behave in a proper manner to maximize their
probabilities of survival. When people talks about a spirit are
basing their postulates in this programs of living beings. So, they
can imagine invisible beings that behave in a similar way as humans
and animals do. So, god in the Genesis is walking in the fresh of the
late afternoon, and it is talking about "us" versus the humans they
had created, etc. He even rest after creating the heavens and the
earth in six days. God talk among them, there are several gods
talking, and tells "it is not a good thing that the man is alone, let
us make a companion for him."
So, people can imagine nonexistent beings and make them to behave like
humans, or animals.
Perseus
> On Jun 13, 10:30 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 06/13/2012 11:08 AM, Arkalen wrote:
>
> > > On 13/06/12 06:21, Dale wrote:
> > >> I no longer believe I have a free will, I believe I have a sole finite
> > >> will that sees the advantages of having a free will and is tempted by
> > >> the the current alpha spirit who has a free will to which we are beta to
> > >> have times of free will at the price of demise
>
> > >> I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
> > >> suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia, so in this sense
> > >> I am an atheist, a spiritualist, but an atheist
>
> > >> I believe that the current alpha spirit may have started out on the
> > >> right track, but fell from the path, and needs straightened out, or
> > >> replaced
>
> > >> I believe science will eventually prove these things
>
> > > I am sincerely curious as to what an "alpha spirit" is. The way you've
> > > been using it I'm getting the feeling it isn't a word you made up, but a
> > > term of art in some field I am completely unfamiliar with. Either way
> > > would you mind explaining what you mean by those words ?
>
> > It's a connotation I came up with. There are alpha animals, there might
> > be an alpha spirit. Spirits may be the wills of those who have passed.
> > They may reside as memories in the alpha spirit.
>
> > --
> > Dale
>
> Again, that is heresy. By objectifying the spirit you leave no room
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 06/13/2012 11:08 AM, Arkalen wrote:
>
> > > On 13/06/12 06:21, Dale wrote:
> > >> I no longer believe I have a free will, I believe I have a sole finite
> > >> will that sees the advantages of having a free will and is tempted by
> > >> the the current alpha spirit who has a free will to which we are beta to
> > >> have times of free will at the price of demise
>
> > >> I still believe there is not now an All-Powerful benefactor, since
> > >> suffering exists and it is not beneficial or a utopia, so in this sense
> > >> I am an atheist, a spiritualist, but an atheist
>
> > >> I believe that the current alpha spirit may have started out on the
> > >> right track, but fell from the path, and needs straightened out, or
> > >> replaced
>
> > >> I believe science will eventually prove these things
>
> > > I am sincerely curious as to what an "alpha spirit" is. The way you've
> > > been using it I'm getting the feeling it isn't a word you made up, but a
> > > term of art in some field I am completely unfamiliar with. Either way
> > > would you mind explaining what you mean by those words ?
>
> > It's a connotation I came up with. There are alpha animals, there might
> > be an alpha spirit. Spirits may be the wills of those who have passed.
> > They may reside as memories in the alpha spirit.
>
> > --
> > Dale
>
> for subjectivity, expression of emotion, faith.
>
> You well know that beauty is a matter of opinion, not fact, you well
> know that beauty is only relevant with free will, therefore you well
> know that the spirit is a matter of opinion not fact.
>
> Again, you are killing your own emotions in a very direct way by
> making the spirit into a matter of fact, instead of leaving it a
> matter of opinion. It is very sinful, very disgraceful, you know
> better than that.
the spirit is nothing more than the program a person has to act in its
life. An animal whatever, wither herbivore or a carnivore, has a
program to act in various ways, to feed themselves, to drink water, to
rest, to fight or to flee. Bugs and microbes also have a program to
act and feed themselves. Even microbes try to avoid some dangerous or
undesirable substance or effect. Many animal avoid the heat looking
for some shade, or burying themselves underground, etc.
They have a program to behave in a proper manner to maximize their
probabilities of survival. When people talks about a spirit are
basing their postulates in this programs of living beings. So, they
can imagine invisible beings that behave in a similar way as humans
and animals do. So, god in the Genesis is walking in the fresh of the
late afternoon, and it is talking about "us" versus the humans they
had created, etc. He even rest after creating the heavens and the
earth in six days. God talk among them, there are several gods
talking, and tells "it is not a good thing that the man is alone, let
us make a companion for him."
So, people can imagine nonexistent beings and make them to behave like
humans, or animals.
Perseus
Burkhard
Jun 17, 2012, 5:30:36 AM6/17/12
to
On Jun 15, 6:33 am, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
The pain itself no. The learning from the pain yes. Which makes it
moot I think as far as Dale is concerned - there are other ways we
could be made to learn that avoid suffering. It really is just the
usual theodicy agument
moot I think as far as Dale is concerned - there are other ways we
could be made to learn that avoid suffering. It really is just the
usual theodicy agument
Burkhard
Jun 17, 2012, 5:35:04 AM6/17/12
to
(curtsey of an Ian Banks short story) you argue that pain and
suffering gives rise to great literature about pain and suffering,
which we obviously could not have without pain and suffering (in his
story, a citizen of the Culture voluntarily reinstates his pain
sensors ect to live amongst humans an appreciate French 19th century
literature)
jillery
Jun 17, 2012, 7:01:49 AM6/17/12
to
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:54:42 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
From your follow-up post:
>I have to head out for a while, but I just thought of another example
>that probably puts the obvious distinction between pain and suffering to
>rest.
>
>Back in the day when I took up working out I would train hard on my
>chest or legs and these areas would be sore as hell for a couple days.
>Yet as I kept doing this to myself, I noticed more muscle mass and more
>definition and this improvement in body image gave be a greater
>self-esteem. Where was the suffering in this short-term pain?
>
>Likewise, when I first started doing heavy cardiovascular exercise on a
>stationary bike or treadmill I had a hard time at first, until I broke
>through the 20 minute wall and the endorphins kicked in and I started
>floating on a opiate cloud. I also noticed more energy and less stress
>as a result in my day to day life. Where was the suffering in this?
>
>No pain, no gain, as they say. Thus pain is different from suffering.
>Pain can be a component of suffering, especially if chronic, but there
>are other components of suffering and pain can be absent from the
>equation that produces suffering.
First, I want to thank you for your rational argument above. From it,
I understand you are saying in paraphrase the distinction you make
between pain and suffering is that pain is associated with physical
cause and material consequence, ie blistered fingers and strained
muscles. While suffering is associated with the lingering emotional
trauma, not just from pain, but also from loss, death of a loved one
and PTSD. And suffering can apply across populations which share
common traumatic events, ie plagues and the Holocaust. And
elsethread you mention natural disasters as another source of
suffering.
And you acknowledge there exists chronic, lingering pain, ie from a
bad back. But, even though physical pain necessarily includes
emotional suffering, you recognize pain's utility as a negative
consequence to avoid future physical trauma. In contrast, you argue
that emotional suffering without physical pain offers no equivalent
utility and would not exist if God existed.
In summary, even though you imply that I claim there is no difference
between pain and suffering, for purposes of this discussion I agree
you identify a real distinction.
Having said that, I would like to now state my case.
You recognize the benefit of pain, to avoid future physical trauma.
But how would that benefit work if we didn't vividly recall the pain
of past events? It is that very recollection which reminds us of the
events which caused them, and so we avoid that pain in the future,
either by avoiding similar events, or better, by mitigating the
pain-causing details.
It's not that we just remember an event caused pain, but that we
remember how much pain that event caused, vividly and in detail, as if
we were reliving it. ISTM reliving a past painful event in vivid
detail is a good description of suffering.
Suffering, whether from physical pain or emotional trauma, provides
the same utility as that which you claim for pain. As with pain,
suffering also negatively reinforces the behaviors which cause it.
Without pain and suffering, combined, we would not learn to avoid
those behaviors which cause them. Both pain and suffering provide
emotional animals similar and necessary utility.
Suffering is an emotional response. Theoretically, one way to
eliminate suffering is to eliminate all emotions. Are you willing to
give up joy, love, happiness, and ecstasy, in order to avoid their
opposites? ISTM the better solution is to control our emotional
reactions, and apply our reasoning to increase positive experiences
and reduce negative ones.
If humans evolved, we necessarily evolved emotions, and emotions
necessarily include suffering. So how does suffering relate to the
existence of God? ISTM not at all.
<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>I have to head out for a while, but I just thought of another example
>that probably puts the obvious distinction between pain and suffering to
>rest.
>
>Back in the day when I took up working out I would train hard on my
>chest or legs and these areas would be sore as hell for a couple days.
>Yet as I kept doing this to myself, I noticed more muscle mass and more
>definition and this improvement in body image gave be a greater
>self-esteem. Where was the suffering in this short-term pain?
>
>Likewise, when I first started doing heavy cardiovascular exercise on a
>stationary bike or treadmill I had a hard time at first, until I broke
>through the 20 minute wall and the endorphins kicked in and I started
>floating on a opiate cloud. I also noticed more energy and less stress
>as a result in my day to day life. Where was the suffering in this?
>
>No pain, no gain, as they say. Thus pain is different from suffering.
>Pain can be a component of suffering, especially if chronic, but there
>are other components of suffering and pain can be absent from the
>equation that produces suffering.
I understand you are saying in paraphrase the distinction you make
between pain and suffering is that pain is associated with physical
cause and material consequence, ie blistered fingers and strained
muscles. While suffering is associated with the lingering emotional
trauma, not just from pain, but also from loss, death of a loved one
and PTSD. And suffering can apply across populations which share
common traumatic events, ie plagues and the Holocaust. And
elsethread you mention natural disasters as another source of
suffering.
And you acknowledge there exists chronic, lingering pain, ie from a
bad back. But, even though physical pain necessarily includes
emotional suffering, you recognize pain's utility as a negative
consequence to avoid future physical trauma. In contrast, you argue
that emotional suffering without physical pain offers no equivalent
utility and would not exist if God existed.
In summary, even though you imply that I claim there is no difference
between pain and suffering, for purposes of this discussion I agree
you identify a real distinction.
Having said that, I would like to now state my case.
You recognize the benefit of pain, to avoid future physical trauma.
But how would that benefit work if we didn't vividly recall the pain
of past events? It is that very recollection which reminds us of the
events which caused them, and so we avoid that pain in the future,
either by avoiding similar events, or better, by mitigating the
pain-causing details.
It's not that we just remember an event caused pain, but that we
remember how much pain that event caused, vividly and in detail, as if
we were reliving it. ISTM reliving a past painful event in vivid
detail is a good description of suffering.
Suffering, whether from physical pain or emotional trauma, provides
the same utility as that which you claim for pain. As with pain,
suffering also negatively reinforces the behaviors which cause it.
Without pain and suffering, combined, we would not learn to avoid
those behaviors which cause them. Both pain and suffering provide
emotional animals similar and necessary utility.
Suffering is an emotional response. Theoretically, one way to
eliminate suffering is to eliminate all emotions. Are you willing to
give up joy, love, happiness, and ecstasy, in order to avoid their
opposites? ISTM the better solution is to control our emotional
reactions, and apply our reasoning to increase positive experiences
and reduce negative ones.
If humans evolved, we necessarily evolved emotions, and emotions
necessarily include suffering. So how does suffering relate to the
existence of God? ISTM not at all.
Perseus
Jun 17, 2012, 8:00:59 AM6/17/12
to
On Jun 16, 2:46 pm, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
we cannot figure what is the perspective of god, for we are not god.
So, we can figure our own personal perspective, and to a certain
degree we can presume the perspective of other human beings.
Sometimes we cannot understand the motivations of other humans.
Then, if barely we can understand the reasons for the behavior of some
people, more difficult would be to understand the reasons of a god;
specially if it is a god we never had met, or chat with while drinking
a beer.
then all those holy books that pretend to know the wheelings and
dealings of god, are nothing but bullshit.
Perseus
So, we can figure our own personal perspective, and to a certain
degree we can presume the perspective of other human beings.
Sometimes we cannot understand the motivations of other humans.
Then, if barely we can understand the reasons for the behavior of some
people, more difficult would be to understand the reasons of a god;
specially if it is a god we never had met, or chat with while drinking
a beer.
then all those holy books that pretend to know the wheelings and
dealings of god, are nothing but bullshit.
Perseus
jillery
Jun 17, 2012, 9:51:47 AM6/17/12
to
> Your argument that so much suffering means there can't be
>a God seems to me like the mirror image of that argument.
jillery
Jun 17, 2012, 11:32:06 AM6/17/12
to
make sure, are you defining the word in the same way as Hemidactylus?
Burkhard
Jun 17, 2012, 11:44:38 AM6/17/12
to
it), yes
> Just to
> make sure, are you defining the word in the same way as Hemidactylus?
more carefully and then come back on this
James Beck
Jun 17, 2012, 12:10:26 PM6/17/12
to
satisfies the norm or it doesn't. Finding that most behavior is
abnormal or that most people exhibit some abnormal behavior doesn't
change that; however, it should alert you that you need to understand
the basis of the norm.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Jun 17, 2012, 12:35:46 PM6/17/12
to
jillery wrote:
[...]
<nod of appreciation to Dale for figuring it out>
[...]
>> There is an expression used around here that I can't bring to mind
>> jut now, for people believing in God because they are overwhelmed by
>> what they see around them e.g. they look at the millions of stars in
>> the sky or a new born baby and say"this could not have happened by
>> accident!" - it's something like the God of Awe but that's not it,
>> as a regular you probably know what I'm talking about.
>
>
> Natural theology?
No, argument from incredulity
>> jut now, for people believing in God because they are overwhelmed by
>> what they see around them e.g. they look at the millions of stars in
>> the sky or a new born baby and say"this could not have happened by
>> accident!" - it's something like the God of Awe but that's not it,
>> as a regular you probably know what I'm talking about.
>
>
> Natural theology?
<nod of appreciation to Dale for figuring it out>
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Jun 17, 2012, 12:40:46 PM6/17/12
to
and cannot understand the "wheelings and dealings" of God, that the Bible
gives so some insight into them but only in a very limited way as full
understanding is beyond our limited human capacity to grasp ... that's why
religious belief is based on faith, not science.
Free Lunch
Jun 17, 2012, 12:49:09 PM6/17/12
to
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:40:46 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
And they ignore the fact that no evidence at all supports the claim that
God exists.
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
God exists.
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 17, 2012, 1:49:15 PM6/17/12
to
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 17, 2012, 1:56:27 PM6/17/12
to
spiritual transcendence. Some have referred to a "god gene", but that's
too simplistic. But spirituality could serve an adaptive purpose in
humans that has often been co-opted by the unscrupulous and channelled
toward mind control and social coercion via religions.
I am just about to finish one of the greatest books I have ever read:
http://www.amazon.com/Create-Spiritual-Brain-Peace-Thinking/dp/1878267736
ed wolf
Jun 17, 2012, 2:04:18 PM6/17/12
to
Am Mittwoch, 13. Juni 2012 22:37:50 UTC+2 schrieb Dale:
> On 06/13/2012 10:55 AM, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> talk-o...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
> > Regardless, do you really not think that
> > Dale is accing oddly?
>
> any more oddly than a religion?
>
>
> --
> Dale
If you are as mad as a religion, but all alone in it without
the support of say 50000 equally deluded companions or more,
you will be called a madman by many people. Sanity is defined
by the ruling posse, or any powerful group that can regulate
your life. Since what is sane is socially and historically
changing all the time, its pretty hard to define sanity
without stating where and when and what you are. (If a
banker suddenly develops ideas like a union man, he is
a madman)
ed wolf
> On 06/13/2012 10:55 AM, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> talk-o...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
> > Regardless, do you really not think that
> > Dale is accing oddly?
>
> any more oddly than a religion?
>
>
> --
> Dale
If you are as mad as a religion, but all alone in it without
the support of say 50000 equally deluded companions or more,
you will be called a madman by many people. Sanity is defined
by the ruling posse, or any powerful group that can regulate
your life. Since what is sane is socially and historically
changing all the time, its pretty hard to define sanity
without stating where and when and what you are. (If a
banker suddenly develops ideas like a union man, he is
a madman)
ed wolf
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 17, 2012, 2:05:52 PM6/17/12
to
> Then, people can imagine things easily in his brain. I recall now a
> short of story of Kafka about "in our synagogue we have a weird
> animal, that is half cat and half lamb"; and he began to describe the
> animal and a sort of instable perception depending on the distance we
> are watching it, or even depending on the hour, and the light that
> comes through the window late in the afternoon or near the sunset.
yard. I analyzed it and knew it was an illusion created by moonlight,
but it looked convincingly real.
> The Greeks and other ancient civilizations had myths about hybrid
> animals. If we can figure imaginary hybrid animals and monsters, we
> have not any problem to imagine other beings like the spirits of
> relatives, or the gods, angels and all sort of monsters.
> But I do not favor the idea of the Plato's cavern, where were stored
> the ideas. If one has an idea is that it exists in some part.
and Popper's resultant evolutionary epistemology that spirals toward
"truth".
> He has
> reason if he means his brain. If we have a brain, we can figure
> anything that will look like something real, at least in part. And by
> doing a composite image of several things real, we can produce inside
> our brain or draw in a paper the image of something inexistent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManBearPig
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 17, 2012, 2:11:41 PM6/17/12
to
would be the alpha spirit and humans would be the appeasing beta spirit.
If memory serves, Freud thought the Jews leaving Egypt had adopted a
volcano god along the way. That may have been about the time they killed
Moses and felt guilty about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_and_Monotheism
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 17, 2012, 2:22:32 PM6/17/12
to
torpedoes)...
Suffering makes sense in an evolutionary perspective because we contrast
the suboptimal with the optimal. There is no Panglossian best of all
worlds condition, but by recognizing and alleviating suffering we can at
least try to improve our lot. Optimization is an ideal that exists in
our head.
In theology suffering becomes a theodical issue as, unlike evolution by
amoral selection, God is supposed to be moral and just. An all-powerful
and all-knowing benevolent deity should create the best of all possible
worlds and suboptimality has no place. Suboptimality call God's motives
into question. Why does evil exist?
OK I've probably botched it up a bit, ...
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 17, 2012, 2:31:00 PM6/17/12
to
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 17, 2012, 2:32:11 PM6/17/12
to
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Jun 17, 2012, 4:52:52 PM6/17/12
to
Free Lunch wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:40:46 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:40:46 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>> Every mainstream Christian denomination that I know teaches that we
>> do not and cannot understand the "wheelings and dealings" of God,
>> that the Bible gives so some insight into them but only in a very
>> limited way as full understanding is beyond our limited human
>> capacity to grasp ... that's why religious belief is based on faith,
>> not science.
>>
> And they ignore the fact that no evidence at all supports the claim
> that God exists.
Err ... what part of " based on faith, not science" do you not understand?
>> do not and cannot understand the "wheelings and dealings" of God,
>> that the Bible gives so some insight into them but only in a very
>> limited way as full understanding is beyond our limited human
>> capacity to grasp ... that's why religious belief is based on faith,
>> not science.
>>
> And they ignore the fact that no evidence at all supports the claim
> that God exists.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Jun 17, 2012, 4:54:57 PM6/17/12
to
founded.
Syamsu
Jun 17, 2012, 5:30:26 PM6/17/12
to
evidence for you as the owner of your choices, as a matter of logic.
What decides in freedom can only be identified in freedom. You deny
freedom hence you treat agency as a matter of fact, for logical
consistency. But freedom is real and therefore agency is a matter of
opinion not fact, that is logically consistent.
Boikat
Jun 17, 2012, 5:39:22 PM6/17/12
to
Boikat
Free Lunch
Jun 17, 2012, 8:03:56 PM6/17/12
to
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:52:52 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
None of it. I have no problem with religions that accept all scientific
discoveries, even if I don't accept the faith they preach. I do have a
problem with all religions that preach things that have been
demonstrated through the evidence to be false.
There is a big difference between believing in things that are not so
and things that may or may not be so.
discoveries, even if I don't accept the faith they preach. I do have a
problem with all religions that preach things that have been
demonstrated through the evidence to be false.
There is a big difference between believing in things that are not so
and things that may or may not be so.
jillery
Jun 18, 2012, 1:13:12 AM6/18/12
to
a fine job ;-P
Assuming there is a consensus, that suffering is an emotional response
to external events, and like other emotions, results from evolution
and not something that God visits upon us, I would like to now reply
to your above comments.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that God is supposed to be moral
and just, as you suggest. But morality and justice are not absolutes.
They are human constructs, and defined by humans, more often than not
to justify their self-serving ends.
If God exists, and if He is moral and just, then He is necessarily
going to apply standards of morality and justice different from those
of humans or humanity. After all, He has the whole Universe and all
of Eternity to consider. At the very least, He is not going to use
standards of justice and morality based on our limited perspectives
and self-interests. The point I'm making here is not that the mind of
God is unknowable, but that the premise itself is unfalsifiable. If
that is the case, then the entire argument is meaningless, either to
show that God exists or to show that God does not exist.
As for evil, how do you define it objectively? Is evil that which
maximizes suffering? But suffering is a subjective emotion. The same
event that causes suffering in one organism causes satisfaction in
another, ie a predator's successful hunt.
Then is evil that which increases collective suffering? But even if
we could quantify aggregate suffering at any particular time, that
would be insufficient. There are many events which cause great
suffering for the moment, but their unfolding consequences yield great
long-term satisfaction. A trivial example; people suffer years of
relative deprivation and effort in order to earn advanced degrees, so
that they may pursue future profitable and productive interests. More
profound examples; the suffering of American patriots yielded a nation
free of monarchies. The suffering of millions of Jews yielded a Jewish
nation after 2000 years.
And what of natural disasters? Was the 2004 Christmas Tsunami evil?
It certainly caused much suffering; almost a quarter of a million
people died from its direct effects. Yet the tsunami was the result
of tectonic movement. And a consequence of tectonic movement is that
resources that fall into the ocean sink are recycled back into the
biosphere, a consequence upon which most extant life depends. If we
label the immediate suffering of tectonic forces as evil, we must
logically label the long-term benefits as evil as well. That doesn't
make any sense to me.
jillery
Jun 18, 2012, 1:17:10 AM6/18/12
to
side says that suffering and evil exists in the word, therefore God
does not exist. It's the same record and the same bullshit.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Jun 18, 2012, 2:40:00 AM6/18/12
to
Free Lunch wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:52:52 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:40:46 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
>>> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>>> Every mainstream Christian denomination that I know teaches that we
>>>> do not and cannot understand the "wheelings and dealings" of God,
>>>> that the Bible gives so some insight into them but only in a very
>>>> limited way as full understanding is beyond our limited human
>>>> capacity to grasp ... that's why religious belief is based on
>>>> faith, not science.
>>>>
>>> And they ignore the fact that no evidence at all supports the claim
>>> that God exists.
>>
>> Err ... what part of " based on faith, not science" do you not
>> understand?
>>
> None of it. I have no problem with religions that accept all
> scientific discoveries, even if I don't accept the faith they preach.
Can you give me one example of a mainstream Christian denomination and a
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:52:52 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:40:46 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
>>> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>>> Every mainstream Christian denomination that I know teaches that we
>>>> do not and cannot understand the "wheelings and dealings" of God,
>>>> that the Bible gives so some insight into them but only in a very
>>>> limited way as full understanding is beyond our limited human
>>>> capacity to grasp ... that's why religious belief is based on
>>>> faith, not science.
>>>>
>>> And they ignore the fact that no evidence at all supports the claim
>>> that God exists.
>>
>> Err ... what part of " based on faith, not science" do you not
>> understand?
>>
> None of it. I have no problem with religions that accept all
> scientific discoveries, even if I don't accept the faith they preach.
scientific discovery that they don't accept?
> I do have a problem with all religions that preach things that have
> been demonstrated through the evidence to be false.
preaches anything that has been demonstrated through the evidence to be
false?
Perseus
Jun 18, 2012, 8:40:14 AM6/18/12
to
On Jun 17, 5:40 pm, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
yeah, but pastors behave as if the bible had enough arguments to know
what god thinks about this or that. And that is clearly false if you
know a little bit the mentioned bible. I cannot argue about the Koran
or the Vedas.
You only need to know the bible, just a little bit, to disqualify it
as a source of morality.
Well, it is also enough to hear a preacher to disqualify him as a
source of morality.
Perseus
what god thinks about this or that. And that is clearly false if you
know a little bit the mentioned bible. I cannot argue about the Koran
or the Vedas.
You only need to know the bible, just a little bit, to disqualify it
as a source of morality.
Well, it is also enough to hear a preacher to disqualify him as a
source of morality.
Perseus
Perseus
Jun 18, 2012, 8:44:46 AM6/18/12
to
On Jun 17, 6:49 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/17/2012 12:10 PM, James Beck wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 00:44:03 -0700 (PDT), Perseus
> > <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/17/2012 12:10 PM, James Beck wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 00:44:03 -0700 (PDT), Perseus
Atheism is abnormal; at least, in a mathematical sense. What is
normal is to behave as the local religion or god were something
serious and true. But if you dig enough in the mind of most people,
you can detect they do not believe any of this.
Only is atheist, the person that persists in declaring that he does
not believe in god. Then, most people do not dare to do that, but
neither believe it.
Perseus
Perseus
Jun 18, 2012, 8:52:17 AM6/18/12
to
I arrived to the idea that to accept a religion whatever is nothing
but a submission to authority, and as such to the probability of being
punished. You can see this submission in social animals, that submit
to a leader.
Many historical grounds for the establishment of a new religion passed
by the conversion of a king, or whatever was ruling the place. In the
Roman Empire Emperor Constantin declare Christianity the religion of
the state, and forbade other religions. The Islam was imposed mostly
by wars of conquest. Then, the submission to an authority is a part
of survival for most people. It is also among chimps, and among
other social animals.
Perseus
Perseus
Jun 18, 2012, 8:35:42 AM6/18/12
to
(that is, refers to its frequency).
When a behavior occurs withing the boundaries of normalcy is normal.
Then the qualification of not normal behaviors (in a mathematical
sense) depends on the problems that a behavior causes, or if the
abnormal behavior incapacitates the person to work, or to being
accepted by other people.
And this former condition depends much on how the people in general is
conditioned to accept inoffensive not normal behaviors, like a nervous
tick, by example.
Perseus
*Hemidactylus*
Jun 18, 2012, 11:21:06 AM6/18/12
to
Perseus
Jun 18, 2012, 11:55:16 AM6/18/12
to
If you, by example, had not learned to speak Chinese Mandarin, you
cannot speak this language. The same is valid for other behavior like
playing the piano or tennis. Then, our freedom is nothing more than
a result of the behaviors we had previously learned. To learn
something we are rewarded with praises, and sometimes, we are rewarded
with the results of our behavior, as when we discovers masturbation,
to put an example. By playing with our penis, we discover any series
of pleasant phenomena, and at any moment we have not anything better
to do, we can play with the pee appendix. Eventually, we can discover
many pleasant properties of that thing.
So, when we are choosing, we are opting for any of the many pleasant
things we had learned to do. To drink or to eat is also an option
that we learn very early in life. The forager men, go everyday to
look for food. They had learned to this since childhood, so it is a
matter of necessity to eat, and to look for food everyday. Or even to
hunt, if the occasion is good for it. But if someone cut you both
hands, it is very difficult to play the piano again, even if many
times you feel the desire to do it.
When I had been considering the idea of "free will" it had come to my
mind the situation in which some authority is forcing me, "to act as
it orders" by telling, "you have free will, if you act as I order, I
will be pleased. But if you do not obey me, I will make your life a
hell." Then, "free will to me, is to act as an authority orders, but
not doing what I really want to do." So, in a way "free will" is
"forced will", but not free at all.
The real free will is to do something among the many pleasant things
we had learned to do. One needs from time some gratification, it is
a discharge of neurotransmitters over some neurons in pleasure center
of our brain. Then, if you had learn to get some rewards by playing
the piano, sometimes you want to play the piano, and so on with other
sort of behaviors. You only want to do what is probably giving you
some rewards for acting.
It is not predictable but in statistical grounds. By example, giving
the time it day, for a concrete person, you can predict what is the
probability that he could start to play the piano. Then, depending on
the person, the probability could zero, or 80% in the next six hours.
For different pianists, the probability changes, depending if he plays
a lot the piano, or very little. If a person does not play ever the
piano, the probability is zero.
Defining "playing the piano" as to play an easy or difficult piece of
music for a period of time, longer than ten seconds.
Then, all this shit about feelings... feelings are a sort of "hidden
behavior" within our mind. By feeling love, you have to recreate in
your mind the image of the loved person, and paint yourself at
caressing it, at feeling her body body, etc. And "hating someone" is
also a hidden behavior in which you portrait yourself insulting or
punishing or denigrating the person you hate.
Then, any acts about love or hate, is to make real, that is in a
visible mode, those acts of love, or hate I mentioned before.
All this shit has nothing to do with the soul, but with our mind, that
has the capacity of simulate mentally actions that do not occur
overtly in real life. So, we can be thinking, that is merely
"speaking within our own mind", speaking to ourselves, or speaking
with other imagined or real persons, but in a virtual manner. So, our
virtual (imaginary) actions, are not visible from outside, for it is
an inner hidden behavior.
I read about an experiment, in which some sensors put in our neck, the
front part of our neck, and it was possible to read the currents, and
to decipher them, in a way that could be determined what the people is
thinking he is saying. Anyway, as I am rather skeptical, I am not
sure if this technique exists really or is a mere bullshit, or a
theory about developing such a technique.
Perseus
Perseus
Jun 18, 2012, 12:06:00 PM6/18/12
to
and evil; a god that would not move a finger to stop a tsunami or an
earthquake. A god that did not move a finger to stop the Nazis to kill
all those Jews, children included. He did not stopped the contagious
sickness the Spanish conquistadors brought to New World, or the
slaughtering of wars of religion in Europe, or the Black Pest, etc.
So, it makes not any sense to my intelligence to expend a milliwatt of
energy thinking about such a god. Then, the most sensible attitude I
could take is to think that such a god does not exist at all.
Perseus
Perseus
Jun 18, 2012, 12:17:22 PM6/18/12
to
On Jun 18, 7:40 am, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
demonstrated, like the age of the world, by example. There are
religious freaks that purport the earth is only 6,000 years old. By
what we know of physics, and geology, it looks the earth is some
millions of years old, and perhaps, some four or five billion years
old.
Nothing is demonstrable. It is in trials where we pretend to
demonstrate someone is guilty and we kill or put in prison this
person. But this sort of demonstrations, sometimes are false and we
put in prison some innocent person.
We can have some doubts about some matters science say, but humans in
general, en holy books in particular, are telling a huge load of
dubious stories. Stories that look as false as human stories can be,
no more than that.
As Plato said in the Republic, about people being made unequal by
nature, do you believe this. The other said not. And Plato, that it
is. But if we keep telling this for years and years, our children
would still have serious doubts, but our grandchildren would believe
this fable. The same is valid for religions. When you establish a
new religion, many people do not believe in it. But after several
generations, it would look as if everybody believe this or that shit.
Specially if you burn in a stake some unbelievers from time to time.
Perseus
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Free Lunch wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:52:52 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
> Free Lunch wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:52:52 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
>
> >> Free Lunch wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:40:46 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
> >>> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
> >> Free Lunch wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:40:46 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
>
> >>>> Every mainstream Christian denomination that I know teaches that we
> >>>> do not and cannot understand the "wheelings and dealings" of God,
> >>>> that the Bible gives so some insight into them but only in a very
> >>>> limited way as full understanding is beyond our limited human
> >>>> capacity to grasp ... that's why religious belief is based on
> >>>> faith, not science.
>
> >>> And they ignore the fact that no evidence at all supports the claim
> >>> that God exists.
>
> >> Err ... what part of " based on faith, not science" do you not
> >> understand?
>
> > None of it. I have no problem with religions that accept all
> > scientific discoveries, even if I don't accept the faith they preach.
>
> Can you give me one example of a mainstream Christian denomination and a
> scientific discovery that they don't accept?
>
> > I do have a problem with all religions that preach things that have
> > been demonstrated through the evidence to be false.
>
> Can you give me one example of a mainstream Christian denomination that
> preaches anything that has been demonstrated through the evidence to be
> false?
nothing is really demonstrated. It looks like some questions seemed
> >>>> Every mainstream Christian denomination that I know teaches that we
> >>>> do not and cannot understand the "wheelings and dealings" of God,
> >>>> that the Bible gives so some insight into them but only in a very
> >>>> limited way as full understanding is beyond our limited human
> >>>> capacity to grasp ... that's why religious belief is based on
> >>>> faith, not science.
>
> >>> And they ignore the fact that no evidence at all supports the claim
> >>> that God exists.
>
> >> Err ... what part of " based on faith, not science" do you not
> >> understand?
>
> > None of it. I have no problem with religions that accept all
> > scientific discoveries, even if I don't accept the faith they preach.
>
> Can you give me one example of a mainstream Christian denomination and a
> scientific discovery that they don't accept?
>
> > I do have a problem with all religions that preach things that have
> > been demonstrated through the evidence to be false.
>
> Can you give me one example of a mainstream Christian denomination that
> preaches anything that has been demonstrated through the evidence to be
> false?
demonstrated, like the age of the world, by example. There are
religious freaks that purport the earth is only 6,000 years old. By
what we know of physics, and geology, it looks the earth is some
millions of years old, and perhaps, some four or five billion years
old.
Nothing is demonstrable. It is in trials where we pretend to
demonstrate someone is guilty and we kill or put in prison this
person. But this sort of demonstrations, sometimes are false and we
put in prison some innocent person.
We can have some doubts about some matters science say, but humans in
general, en holy books in particular, are telling a huge load of
dubious stories. Stories that look as false as human stories can be,
no more than that.
As Plato said in the Republic, about people being made unequal by
nature, do you believe this. The other said not. And Plato, that it
is. But if we keep telling this for years and years, our children
would still have serious doubts, but our grandchildren would believe
this fable. The same is valid for religions. When you establish a
new religion, many people do not believe in it. But after several
generations, it would look as if everybody believe this or that shit.
Specially if you burn in a stake some unbelievers from time to time.
Perseus
Syamsu
Jun 18, 2012, 5:01:33 PM6/18/12
to
left. The question what decides this must be answered with a choice.
So only answers that are chosen are right, and answers forced by
evidence are wrong.This is called subjectivity, expressing an opinion,
as distinct from objectivity, measuring facts.
So to philosophically validate subjectivity, the expression of
emotion, one must posit an entity which 1 choses 2 can only be
identified through a way of choosing, a spiritual domain. To make it a
matter of fact automatically makes it objective, and therefor
subjectivity, the expression of emotioj, remains unvalidated.
When you argue against religion, then you need to show how
subjectivity can be validatee without a spiritual domain. Or you must
argue that expressing an emotioj is wrong.
jillery
Jun 18, 2012, 6:57:40 PM6/18/12
to
cause human suffering, And that a god which does nothing to stop
these events isn't worth thinking about. Therefore such a god does
not exist.
Your argument makes an implicit assumption that a god, regardless of
motivation, is obliged to stop events that we feel cause us suffering.
But if such a god exists, it would be obliged to consider the entire
universe and all eternity, not just us in the here and now. What if
the events which cause us suffering benefits some other part of the
Universe? What if the events which cause us suffering now benefits us
in the future? Or vice versa? We don't know any of that, but such a
god would.
But let's assume for argument's sake that your implicit assumption is
correct, that a god is obliged to eliminate human suffering. How do
you expect such a god to accomplish this? Do you expect it to arrange
the Universe strictly and entirely for our convenience, so that no
suffering *can* happen, even in principle? Or do you expect it to
actively violate natural laws on a case-by-case basis? I hope that
both sound as silly to you as they do to me. ISTM the only way for a
god to eliminate all human suffering is to scrap our rational universe
and replace it with a magical one.
And what of the cases where this clan feels that other clan is making
them suffer? How would such a god take sides in the politics of men?
On what basis would it choose?
Please note that I haven't raised the concept of suffering being good
for us in principle. Nor have I raised the possibility that a god is
intervening right now, keeping the Universe from causing even more
human suffering that it does. Please note that I haven't raisded them
because I don't need to, and they're just as nonsensical as your
implicit assumption.
My point being that your implicit assumption, that a god is obliged to
eliminate human suffering, has no solution, even for a god. And so
your argument, that a god's failure to eliminate human suffering
somehow proves its nonexistence, is false. As I noted before, I don't
say that gods exist. I say that your argument doesn't prove they
don't exist.
Free Lunch
Jun 18, 2012, 7:10:52 PM6/18/12
to
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 07:40:00 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
Christians who belong to church bodies that reject common ancestry of
all life on earth.
>> I do have a problem with all religions that preach things that have
>> been demonstrated through the evidence to be false.
>
>Can you give me one example of a mainstream Christian denomination that
>preaches anything that has been demonstrated through the evidence to be
>false?
>
Try this LC-MS attempt to dismiss what we know about evolution.
<http://lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=1103> It was written by
someone who knows almost no science and appears not to care.
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:52:52 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
>> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:40:46 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
>>>> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>>
>>>>> Every mainstream Christian denomination that I know teaches that we
>>>>> do not and cannot understand the "wheelings and dealings" of God,
>>>>> that the Bible gives so some insight into them but only in a very
>>>>> limited way as full understanding is beyond our limited human
>>>>> capacity to grasp ... that's why religious belief is based on
>>>>> faith, not science.
>>>>>
>>>> And they ignore the fact that no evidence at all supports the claim
>>>> that God exists.
>>>
>>> Err ... what part of " based on faith, not science" do you not
>>> understand?
>>>
>> None of it. I have no problem with religions that accept all
>> scientific discoveries, even if I don't accept the faith they preach.
>
>Can you give me one example of a mainstream Christian denomination and a
>scientific discovery that they don't accept?
What do you consider mainstream? There are millions of supposed
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:52:52 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
>> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:40:46 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
>>>> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>>
>>>>> Every mainstream Christian denomination that I know teaches that we
>>>>> do not and cannot understand the "wheelings and dealings" of God,
>>>>> that the Bible gives so some insight into them but only in a very
>>>>> limited way as full understanding is beyond our limited human
>>>>> capacity to grasp ... that's why religious belief is based on
>>>>> faith, not science.
>>>>>
>>>> And they ignore the fact that no evidence at all supports the claim
>>>> that God exists.
>>>
>>> Err ... what part of " based on faith, not science" do you not
>>> understand?
>>>
>> None of it. I have no problem with religions that accept all
>> scientific discoveries, even if I don't accept the faith they preach.
>
>Can you give me one example of a mainstream Christian denomination and a
>scientific discovery that they don't accept?
Christians who belong to church bodies that reject common ancestry of
all life on earth.
>> I do have a problem with all religions that preach things that have
>> been demonstrated through the evidence to be false.
>
>Can you give me one example of a mainstream Christian denomination that
>preaches anything that has been demonstrated through the evidence to be
>false?
>
<http://lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=1103> It was written by
someone who knows almost no science and appears not to care.
James Beck
Jun 18, 2012, 10:29:20 PM6/18/12
to
Possibly you didn't understand what I told you. 'Normative' does not
mean 'normally distributed,' though people often conflate the two. In
classical psychology, rationality is a normative constraint on
consistency and coherence. The distribution of rationality in the
population is irrelevant; rationality is the norm. The fact that
people act on their hallucinations does not imply that they are
rational. Likewise, in a global sense, rationality may be maladaptive
if it violates a local group norm.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Jun 19, 2012, 1:56:48 AM6/19/12
to
represents just over 50% of all Christians in the world; it also has the
most centralised teaching. You could also look at Anglican, Presbyterian or
Methodist.
> There are millions of supposed
> Christians
>who belong to church bodies that reject common ancestry of
> all life on earth.
accepts evolution.
>
>>> I do have a problem with all religions that preach things that have
>>> been demonstrated through the evidence to be false.
>>
>> Can you give me one example of a mainstream Christian denomination
>> that preaches anything that has been demonstrated through the
>> evidence to be false?
>>
> Try this LC-MS attempt to dismiss what we know about evolution.
>
> <http://lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=1103> It was written by
> someone who knows almost no science and appears not to care.
fundamentalist church confined to Missouri? The fact that you have to turn
to such an example highlights the paucity of your argument.
nick_keigh...@hotmail.com
Jun 19, 2012, 4:23:54 AM6/19/12
to
On Monday, June 18, 2012 1:44:46 PM UTC+1, Perseus wrote:
> > >> On Jun 13, 3:46 pm, wiki trix<wikit...@gmail.com> �wrote:
<snip>
> > >>> Really? Well I think that Michel Foucault, Thomas Szasz and David
> > >>> Rosenhan may have a point...
> >
> > >>> See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipsychiatry
> >
> > >>> To wit:
> >
> > >>> "In 1972, psychologist David Rosenhan published the Rosenhan
> > >>> experiment, a study questioning the validity of psychiatric diagnoses.
> > >>> The study arranged for eight individuals with no history of
> > >>> psychopathology to attempt admission into psychiatric hospitals. The
> > >>> individuals included a graduate student, psychologists, an artist, a
> > >>> housewife, and two physicians, including one psychiatrist. All eight
> > >>> individuals were admitted with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar
> > >>> disorder. Psychiatrists then attempted to treat the individuals using
> > >>> psychiatric medication. All eight were discharged within 7 to 52 days.
> > >>> In a later part of the study, psychiatric staff were warned that
> > >>> pseudo-patients might be sent to their institutions, but none were
> > >>> actually sent. Nevertheless, a total of 83 patients out of 193 were
> > >>> believed by at least one staff member to be actors. The study
> > >>> concluded that individuals without mental disorders were
> > >>> indistinguishable from those suffering from mental disorders."
the conclusion is wrong. What it showed is the difficulty of distinguising people with mental health problems from people pretending to have them. Have you ever met someone with a diagnosis of schitzophrenia?
> > >> there cannot be a clear divide between being crazy and normal.
> >
> > > Why can't there be? Classical psychology is normative. Behavior either
> > > satisfies the norm or it doesn't. Finding that most behavior is
> > > abnormal or that most people exhibit some abnormal behavior doesn't
> > > change that; however, it should alert you that you need to understand
> > > the basis of the norm.
> >
> > Atheism is abnormal. The basis of the norm itself is nuts.
sanity is not statistical. Mental health problems are about the inability to function in the real world. To be able to distinguish reality from hallucination. To perform in a rational manner.
> of course.
> Atheism is abnormal; at least, in a mathematical sense. What is
> normal is to behave as the local religion or god were something
> serious and true. But if you dig enough in the mind of most people,
> you can detect they do not believe any of this.
I don't think this is so.
> Only is atheist, the person that persists in declaring that he does
> not believe in god. Then, most people do not dare to do that, but
> neither believe it.
I object to religious people doing this sort of mind reading "of course dep down everyone really believes in God!" so I'm going to object to you doing it too.
> On Jun 17, 6:49�pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 06/17/2012 12:10 PM, James Beck wrote:
> > > On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 00:44:03 -0700 (PDT), Perseus
> > > <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> �wrote:
> > On 06/17/2012 12:10 PM, James Beck wrote:
> > > On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 00:44:03 -0700 (PDT), Perseus
> > >> On Jun 13, 3:46 pm, wiki trix<wikit...@gmail.com> �wrote:
> > >>> On Jun 13, 9:44 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> > >>> orig...@moderators.isc.org"<rja.carne...@excite.com> �wrote:
<snip>
> > >>> Really? Well I think that Michel Foucault, Thomas Szasz and David
> > >>> Rosenhan may have a point...
> >
> > >>> See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipsychiatry
> >
> > >>> To wit:
> >
> > >>> "In 1972, psychologist David Rosenhan published the Rosenhan
> > >>> experiment, a study questioning the validity of psychiatric diagnoses.
> > >>> The study arranged for eight individuals with no history of
> > >>> psychopathology to attempt admission into psychiatric hospitals. The
> > >>> individuals included a graduate student, psychologists, an artist, a
> > >>> housewife, and two physicians, including one psychiatrist. All eight
> > >>> individuals were admitted with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar
> > >>> disorder. Psychiatrists then attempted to treat the individuals using
> > >>> psychiatric medication. All eight were discharged within 7 to 52 days.
> > >>> In a later part of the study, psychiatric staff were warned that
> > >>> pseudo-patients might be sent to their institutions, but none were
> > >>> actually sent. Nevertheless, a total of 83 patients out of 193 were
> > >>> believed by at least one staff member to be actors. The study
> > >>> concluded that individuals without mental disorders were
> > >>> indistinguishable from those suffering from mental disorders."
> > >> there cannot be a clear divide between being crazy and normal.
> >
> > > Why can't there be? Classical psychology is normative. Behavior either
> > > satisfies the norm or it doesn't. Finding that most behavior is
> > > abnormal or that most people exhibit some abnormal behavior doesn't
> > > change that; however, it should alert you that you need to understand
> > > the basis of the norm.
> >
> > Atheism is abnormal. The basis of the norm itself is nuts.
> of course.
> Atheism is abnormal; at least, in a mathematical sense. What is
> normal is to behave as the local religion or god were something
> serious and true. But if you dig enough in the mind of most people,
> you can detect they do not believe any of this.
> Only is atheist, the person that persists in declaring that he does
> not believe in god. Then, most people do not dare to do that, but
> neither believe it.
walksalone
Jun 19, 2012, 5:32:38 AM6/19/12
to
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:r38vt7dcun8d5tcs7...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:06:00 -0700 (PDT), Perseus
> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 18, 6:17 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 05:00:59 -0700 (PDT), Perseus
>>> <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >On Jun 16, 2:46 pm, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
>>> ><alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> >> > On 06/16/2012 08:30 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>> >> >> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> >> >>> On 06/16/2012 04:55 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>> >> >>>> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> >> >>>>> On 06/15/2012 01:33 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>> Dale wrote:
>>>
snip confusion
> IIUC you're saying in paraphrase there are events that happen which
> cause human suffering, And that a god which does nothing to stop
> these events isn't worth thinking about. Therefore such a god does
> not exist.
Maybe not. If you are effering to a generic god, one that is simply
there, then you might be in error. OTOH, if you are reffering to a
specfic claim for a god, such as the revealed godss of tgeh desert, then
that is a logical conclusion.
This is based on claims made by the believers™, as wewll as some of the
claims made my the writers of those scriptures.
> Your argument makes an implicit assumption that a god, regardless of
> motivation, is obliged to stop events that we feel cause us suffering.
I suspect you may be right.
> But if such a god exists, it would be obliged to consider the entire
> universe and all eternity, not just us in the here and now. What if
The magic world of what if.
If humanity was a creation of a particular god, then ethically that god
has obligations towards humanity.
OTOH, if like the revealed gods of the desrt, a god shows up After events
are already in progress, then no, it is not ethically obliged.
OTOH, if that god claims it is the creator of humanity, then it has
accepted the ethical obligations that Dale seems copnfused about.
Its obligations towards the universe are not a concern to me at this
point, for the universe has yet to inform me as to what it thinks. I
suspect it never will.
> the events which cause us suffering benefits some other part of the
> Universe? What if the events which cause us suffering now benefits us
> in the future? Or vice versa? We don't know any of that, but such a
> god would.
Only if it was omni-sentient. Which removes any free will or change in
the future. Again, this is only true beyond reasonable doubt if the god
involved is one of those like the revealed gods of the desert.
> But let's assume for argument's sake that your implicit assumption is
> correct, that a god is obliged to eliminate human suffering. How do
> you expect such a god to accomplish this? Do you expect it to arrange
> the Universe strictly and entirely for our convenience, so that no
If you are familiar with the US & its fascination with entertainment, you
may recall a tv series called bewitched. All the god in question has to
do is wiggle its nose. Hey, it was good enough for the US. :::)))
Like with the gods, I saw no lasting effect from that procedure either.
> suffering *can* happen, even in principle? Or do you expect it to
> actively violate natural laws on a case-by-case basis? I hope that
> both sound as silly to you as they do to me. ISTM the only way for a
> god to eliminate all human suffering is to scrap our rational universe
> and replace it with a magical one.
Isn't that what gods do, magic?
> And what of the cases where this clan feels that other clan is making
> them suffer? How would such a god take sides in the politics of men?
> On what basis would it choose?
Easy, arrange it so the clans never think like that. BTW, I agree, good
luck with that when humans are involved. We are a greedy lot & easily
led in some cases.
> Please note that I haven't raised the concept of suffering being good
> for us in principle. Nor have I raised the possibility that a god is
> intervening right now, keeping the Universe from causing even more
> human suffering that it does. Please note that I haven't raisded them
> because I don't need to, and they're just as nonsensical as your
> implicit assumption.
When it comes to discussing the gods of humanity, all one can do is
discuss the claims for those gods.
As to suffering, never known it to be good for the individual, even if
they did learn from it. At the time, it hurts & hurts deep. Or it did
in my case. Of course, YMWV.
I prefer to recall a Mark Twain comment when suffering is involved.
Paraphrase:
If a cat jumps on a hot stove it will not stay there. The sad part is
the cat will never jump on a stove again.
I'm not so sure a cat not jumping on my stove is a thing to be missed or
mourned.
> My point being that your implicit assumption, that a god is obliged to
> eliminate human suffering, has no solution, even for a god. And so
> your argument, that a god's failure to eliminate human suffering
> somehow proves its nonexistence, is false. As I noted before, I don't
> say that gods exist. I say that your argument doesn't prove they
> don't exist.
It really depends on the god involved, or so I think. If a god pretends
that it is benevolent, then suffering is out. Short of claiming one can
not know mind of a god, but one can know what its adherents claim, there
is no way to even evaluate the question. & of course, they are so ill
defined. I've only found one requirement, & thjat can be waived for
certain classes of gods. Here is my list of what gods are. Should you
see a carerogory, other than imaginary, feel free to add to it.
What is a god, a short & incomplete list.
Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other
divinities of the human species. [Incomplete]
Anthropomorphic
A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared] B: May
or may not be able to have a visible body [Zeus & the Greek
pantheon as an example]
C: May or may not interfere in human activity or destiny. D: May or
may not be good, evil, or apathetic where humans are concerned.
E: May or may not be a divine through their own will, may be a
victim of apotheosis [the Chinese pantheon is a good example of
these types ofgods.]
Demons: Now there is a thought, Demons as gods. Indeed, they are,
lessor gods to be sure, but more powerful than some gods, less powerful
than others.
Dwarves &/or Elves: Though two distinct races, dwarves are
found in worldwide mythology as well as European. Elves, tend to be
Nordic & Germanic in origin. Fates: They are common to the classical
myths as well as the European ones.
Fairies, or the wee folk: A class of gods that include everything from
Brownies to Knockers & beyond. Some are good, & some like Red Hat, are
not.
Giants: though supernatural as understood in the myths of the world, they
are not necessary known to have god like powers as most understand the
term.
Gods & goddesses: I hope this class does not need more explanation.
Spirits: are all supernatural, even those that are the spirits of humans
or animals that have not went on to where good spirits are entitled to
go.
Animistic, all living creatures, including plant life
Astral/solar All heavenly bodies
walksalone who is not to keen on philisophical questions, the words but,
if, & maybe are to frequently visitors. Mythology is not that much
better, yet it holds my interest. What strange critters we humans are.
Why be born again, when you can just grow up?
news:r38vt7dcun8d5tcs7...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:06:00 -0700 (PDT), Perseus
> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 18, 6:17 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 05:00:59 -0700 (PDT), Perseus
>>> <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >On Jun 16, 2:46 pm, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
>>> ><alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> >> > On 06/16/2012 08:30 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>> >> >> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> >> >>> On 06/16/2012 04:55 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>> >> >>>> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> >> >>>>> On 06/15/2012 01:33 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>> Dale wrote:
>>>
> IIUC you're saying in paraphrase there are events that happen which
> cause human suffering, And that a god which does nothing to stop
> these events isn't worth thinking about. Therefore such a god does
> not exist.
there, then you might be in error. OTOH, if you are reffering to a
specfic claim for a god, such as the revealed godss of tgeh desert, then
that is a logical conclusion.
This is based on claims made by the believers™, as wewll as some of the
claims made my the writers of those scriptures.
> Your argument makes an implicit assumption that a god, regardless of
> motivation, is obliged to stop events that we feel cause us suffering.
> But if such a god exists, it would be obliged to consider the entire
> universe and all eternity, not just us in the here and now. What if
If humanity was a creation of a particular god, then ethically that god
has obligations towards humanity.
OTOH, if like the revealed gods of the desrt, a god shows up After events
are already in progress, then no, it is not ethically obliged.
OTOH, if that god claims it is the creator of humanity, then it has
accepted the ethical obligations that Dale seems copnfused about.
Its obligations towards the universe are not a concern to me at this
point, for the universe has yet to inform me as to what it thinks. I
suspect it never will.
> the events which cause us suffering benefits some other part of the
> Universe? What if the events which cause us suffering now benefits us
> in the future? Or vice versa? We don't know any of that, but such a
> god would.
the future. Again, this is only true beyond reasonable doubt if the god
involved is one of those like the revealed gods of the desert.
> But let's assume for argument's sake that your implicit assumption is
> correct, that a god is obliged to eliminate human suffering. How do
> you expect such a god to accomplish this? Do you expect it to arrange
> the Universe strictly and entirely for our convenience, so that no
may recall a tv series called bewitched. All the god in question has to
do is wiggle its nose. Hey, it was good enough for the US. :::)))
Like with the gods, I saw no lasting effect from that procedure either.
> suffering *can* happen, even in principle? Or do you expect it to
> actively violate natural laws on a case-by-case basis? I hope that
> both sound as silly to you as they do to me. ISTM the only way for a
> god to eliminate all human suffering is to scrap our rational universe
> and replace it with a magical one.
> And what of the cases where this clan feels that other clan is making
> them suffer? How would such a god take sides in the politics of men?
> On what basis would it choose?
luck with that when humans are involved. We are a greedy lot & easily
led in some cases.
> Please note that I haven't raised the concept of suffering being good
> for us in principle. Nor have I raised the possibility that a god is
> intervening right now, keeping the Universe from causing even more
> human suffering that it does. Please note that I haven't raisded them
> because I don't need to, and they're just as nonsensical as your
> implicit assumption.
discuss the claims for those gods.
As to suffering, never known it to be good for the individual, even if
they did learn from it. At the time, it hurts & hurts deep. Or it did
in my case. Of course, YMWV.
I prefer to recall a Mark Twain comment when suffering is involved.
Paraphrase:
If a cat jumps on a hot stove it will not stay there. The sad part is
the cat will never jump on a stove again.
I'm not so sure a cat not jumping on my stove is a thing to be missed or
mourned.
> My point being that your implicit assumption, that a god is obliged to
> eliminate human suffering, has no solution, even for a god. And so
> your argument, that a god's failure to eliminate human suffering
> somehow proves its nonexistence, is false. As I noted before, I don't
> say that gods exist. I say that your argument doesn't prove they
> don't exist.
that it is benevolent, then suffering is out. Short of claiming one can
not know mind of a god, but one can know what its adherents claim, there
is no way to even evaluate the question. & of course, they are so ill
defined. I've only found one requirement, & thjat can be waived for
certain classes of gods. Here is my list of what gods are. Should you
see a carerogory, other than imaginary, feel free to add to it.
What is a god, a short & incomplete list.
Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other
divinities of the human species. [Incomplete]
Anthropomorphic
A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared] B: May
or may not be able to have a visible body [Zeus & the Greek
pantheon as an example]
C: May or may not interfere in human activity or destiny. D: May or
may not be good, evil, or apathetic where humans are concerned.
E: May or may not be a divine through their own will, may be a
victim of apotheosis [the Chinese pantheon is a good example of
these types ofgods.]
Demons: Now there is a thought, Demons as gods. Indeed, they are,
lessor gods to be sure, but more powerful than some gods, less powerful
than others.
Dwarves &/or Elves: Though two distinct races, dwarves are
found in worldwide mythology as well as European. Elves, tend to be
Nordic & Germanic in origin. Fates: They are common to the classical
myths as well as the European ones.
Fairies, or the wee folk: A class of gods that include everything from
Brownies to Knockers & beyond. Some are good, & some like Red Hat, are
not.
Giants: though supernatural as understood in the myths of the world, they
are not necessary known to have god like powers as most understand the
term.
Gods & goddesses: I hope this class does not need more explanation.
Spirits: are all supernatural, even those that are the spirits of humans
or animals that have not went on to where good spirits are entitled to
go.
Animistic, all living creatures, including plant life
Astral/solar All heavenly bodies
walksalone who is not to keen on philisophical questions, the words but,
if, & maybe are to frequently visitors. Mythology is not that much
better, yet it holds my interest. What strange critters we humans are.
Why be born again, when you can just grow up?
Free Lunch
Jun 19, 2012, 7:09:28 PM6/19/12
to
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 06:56:48 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
I agree. The vast majority of evolution deniers are part of the
evangelical and fundamentalist sects of American Christianity. Their
influence is being felt, and Benedict seems quite willing to roll the
RCC back to the 16th Century, so who knows what they will be teaching
next week.
evangelical and fundamentalist sects of American Christianity. Their
influence is being felt, and Benedict seems quite willing to roll the
RCC back to the 16th Century, so who knows what they will be teaching
next week.
Forrest Cameranesi
Jun 20, 2012, 1:34:06 AM6/20/12
to
restricted entirely to the statistical sense; in fact, that is if
anything the more derivative sense of the term.
Its original sense was geometric, and meant straight or orthogonal, as
in "norma", Greek for a carpenter's square (a tool to measure right
angles, that is, 90 degree angles). This sense is preserved today in
geometric terms like "surface normals" or more generally "normal
vectors".
From the sense of "straight" it came to mean "correct", as in in
accordance with some rule -- another term with dual geometric and
normative meanings, like right and norm. Ruler as in straightedge,
ruler as in king, right as in correct, right as in 90 degrees, normal
as in correct, normal as in 90 degrees; for that matter, "straight"
and "regal" (and "regulation" and, foreshadowing here, "regular") both
derive from the same root as "right" with similar dual meanings. Greek
"ortho" and Latin "ordo" have a similar split as well, seen in
"orthodox" (correct belief) and "orthogonal" (right-angled),
"ordinal", "order" and "ordinary".
This is the sense where the current terms "normative" and "norm" come
from. Synonyms for "normative" include "prescriptive" and
"imperative"; a normative statement is a statement that something
*ought* to be, *should* be, that it would be *good* and *right* for it
to be. "A norm" is to a normative statement as a fact is to a factual
(descriptive, indicative) statement: that is what it puts forth should
be, ought to be, would be good or right if it was. Normative
statements propose norms. Factual statements propose facts. Either may
be correct or incorrect.
Only from the common assumptions of average people that the way people
typically behave is the right, correct, good way to behave did
"normal" acquire its present common meaning of "common", "typical" or
"average", and "the norm" come to mean the common, typical, or average
way for something to be. Strictly speaking, in the older sense of the
term, that is not a given; it is entirely possible that most, even all
people are not normal, and that nobody follows the norm(s).
It is only from that last, already twice-derivative usage, that a
statistically "normal" distribution, as in a gaussian distribution, a
bell curve, gets its name, as in an average distribution, one where
the mean, mode, and median are the same.
James was using "normative" in the second, correct, sense, the one
that means "prescriptive" or "imperative". Classical psychology made
statements about the way that people should think, not merely
statements about the way people on average do think. And it's possible
that almost nobody does think as they should think; that most people
are abnormal.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Jun 20, 2012, 2:39:00 AM6/20/12
to
Free Lunch wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 06:56:48 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
[...]
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 06:56:48 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>>> Can you give me one example of a mainstream Christian denomination
>>>> and a scientific discovery that they don't accept?
>>>
>>> What do you consider mainstream?
>>
>> The Catholic Church would be a good start seeing that on its own it
>> represents just over 50% of all Christians in the world; it also has
>> the most centralised teaching. You could also look at Anglican,
>> Presbyterian or Methodist.
>>
>>> There are millions of supposed
>>> Christians
>>
>> We were talking about Christians, not "supposed" Christians.
>>
>>> who belong to church bodies that reject common ancestry of
>>> all life on earth.
>>
>> And there's over a billion in the Catholic Church alone which
>> explicitly accepts evolution.
>>
> I agree. The vast majority of evolution deniers are part of the
> evangelical and fundamentalist sects of American Christianity. Their
> influence is being felt, and Benedict seems quite willing to roll the
> RCC back to the 16th Century, so who knows what they will be teaching
> next week.
what they actaully *do* teach to what they *might* teach next week ...
<rolls eyes>
[...]
Walter Bushell
Jun 20, 2012, 11:47:37 AM6/20/12
to
In article
<5335aa35-c657-4bb0...@t8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
orthogonal.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
<5335aa35-c657-4bb0...@t8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Forrest Cameranesi <for...@geekofalltrades.org> wrote:
> Its original sense was geometric, and meant straight or orthogonal, as
> in "norma", Greek for a carpenter's square (a tool to measure right
> angles, that is, 90 degree angles). This sense is preserved today in
> geometric terms like "surface normals" or more generally "normal
> vectors".
And this has been generalized so that functions can be called
> Its original sense was geometric, and meant straight or orthogonal, as
> in "norma", Greek for a carpenter's square (a tool to measure right
> angles, that is, 90 degree angles). This sense is preserved today in
> geometric terms like "surface normals" or more generally "normal
> vectors".
orthogonal.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages