subject:"Re\: Pluto bounces back\!"

2014-07-02 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:




 On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:14 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:






 Religion does not stand on the same footing as science. Religion
 overarches and encompasses everything, including science.


Which religion? How do you know? You still don't address the problem why
this book over all others? You perhaps confuse again advertising personal
faith with respectful exchange concerning theology.

If a theologian is honest with assumptions, shows how she/he reaches which
conclusion, so that others can (perhaps internally) verify them and derive
them on their own, and these conclusions are of real value to others to
continue the search, then this basic scientific attitude dissolves the
border between good science and theology.

And that's a problem for too many religious text: they make so many
assumptions, that it creates contradictions like: Be kind and merciful;
but we live in a world of violence, so we are forced to deal with the
contradiction between reality and the sacred book. If the practitioner
doesn't wrestle with these problems and just points towards faith, they
imply a lazy god who doesn't want his creation to learn to think, and to
stay stupid slaves of his will, finally.

That is why I bring up the example: Faust goes directly against the holy
scripture and its strict literal rules and meaning. Nonetheless the eternal
feminine principle embraces him because he chose to seek truth beyond the
rules and literal meaning of scripture.

So Faust answers, in his fictional universe, the problem of people abusing
a sacred text, by insisting it is true for all, beyond the personal level,
at all cost, at all time; our problem of blasphemy, in a way that the
quoted scripture in this thread fails to answer.

The eternal feminine principle in Faust's universe admits that the
scripture could never be as pure as the heart of the open, honest seeker,
even if he might do wrong in his search.

God admits here that the scripture about her could be wrong!

And this is, if you allow the universe of Faust to just exist poetically, a
theological result echoed by mystics, platonist, Text of Tao etc; a step
forward perhaps from the texts with the strict rules that imply a
tyrannical god that wants subjects to pray and repeat things without
question like: I believe in unchangeable G, so if x happens I do y, in any
case because this is god's true rule, even if I have to hurt, make
violence, preach, and kill, I believe in the holy Patati and I believe in
the holy Patata etc.

In Faust example therefore, the blasphemy problem is partially solved
though doubting the god's scripture and rules in search. This implies a god
so cool and loving, she doesn't have to play commander, enforcer of violent
and/or simplistic rules. It doesn't mean that it is true; but within Göthe
poetic universe, this is fact and true. And on this level, with this kind
of distance, theological/scientific exchange is possible if we can be nice
and non-patronizing.



 Inviting me to parse some ancient text for meaning is not equivalent to
 providing me with experimental evidence for this hypothesis of this alleged
 monotheist deity you are proposing exists.

 Can you provide such experimental evidence?


 No, nor do I attempt to. I believe the monotheistic deity I worship
 exists, but I do not expect others to embrace my faith. I am guessing that
 since I suggested that the Quranic statements are scientifically correct,
 and hence should be considered, the members on this list assume that I'm
 preaching Islam?


Yes, because you aim at scientifically correct fact of Quran statements,
but have not demonstrated in the quoted passages what the standards for
facts are that you work with. Because you do not demonstrate this in a
way that is shareable, that everybody, no matter culture or beliefs can
verify with their inner self, all that a reader can do is:

a) believe you repeating I believe patati-patata! Patati-Patata! Because
book says Patati-Patata, and because Patati is obviously true, patata must
be true. The Quran is factually accurate!

b) not believe you.

You then even asked what is fact?; which is a humbling, deep question
that should warn all of us about doing things like a), because it is
convincing only to people that think their faith is perfect/saves
them/gives them privilege in the eyes of god/creation/truth. It's a
theological trap because it results in suffering and separation of peoples.



 Is that why you ask for experimental evidence?






 I posted a selection of verses which contained info verifiable by today's
 science, PGC doesn't agree to their being as proofs of 'factual accuracy'.



 You presented some interesting perhaps, but inconsequential little
 tidbits that have nothing to do with the central hypothesis you are
 defending. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my impression that you are

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-07-02 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:




 On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:46 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:

 Dear Samiya: I don't argue with you (like PGC) I ask a question going
 back further than this entire discussion:
 you wrote:

  *I could say that as I studied and observed the beauty and the patterns
 in nature, the finest details, I became convinced that there had to be a
 Creator behind it, but that also only vindicated my belief... I could think
 that may be since I was born in the faith, perhaps that's why it was
 natural, but I was asking questions, and I must admit, sometimes even
 fantasising how it would have been to be born in another faith or
 culture... I can say that the trials and experiences of life brought me
 closer to God, made me study the faith earnestly, and helped me discover
 the endless patience and my loving God through it all. Yet, I think, the
 latent belief was there all along, it was only my conscious self which took
 its own sweet time to realise and appreciate it! Whatever may the reason
 be, I'm glad that I'm a believer, and I lovingly worship my Creator.*

 A simple question: Do you have any idea why and how you 'formulated' in
 your conscious self the idea of a god? You mention since I was born in the
 faith... - nonsense, nobody has been born in any thinking decision, a
 newborn gradually develops ideas about the world (god, or no god) and a
 fetus has even less thoughts. You were born without faith, or ideas of god,
 just as people are born pagan before they get circumcised, or baptised.
 You must have absorbed the first faith-related ideas from your mother as
 a little ignorant infant when she prayed. The rest comes from here. Once
 you started believing in 'GOD' it is but a small step to believe that (s)he
 wrote the scripts and all the rest religion*S *include. With
 Inquisition, Jihad, reincarnation etc.


 I do not know if a fetus does or does not have any thoughts or ideas at
 birth, maybe its as fearful of entering the world outside the womb as we
 are of the hereafter.
 Indeed, parents/family do have a keen impression on a child. Yes, I was
 born in a conservative, practicing muslim family, hence my earliest
 impressions must be from my mother. I do think my father's quest for truth
 had a more lasting and formative impression on my thinking and beliefs.
 When I was about ten, plus minus a couple of years, my father turned
 religious. About the same time, someone tried to convert my father to
 another faith. An elderly person, he started visiting us every weekend.
 Initially, my father would just listen to him out of courtesy, but
 eventually he realized that it is important to seek the truth. Hence, he
 started researching the scriptures, including the Old Testament, the New
 Testament, and the Quran, as well as other books. This opened up a whole
 new world where the conservatives are fearful of treading, lest they lose
 their way. Though it was much later that I would read them for myself, I
 learnt to be open to various faiths and belief systems, while still a
 child, by observing my father.


 And now the REAL question I want to ask:

 We (scientists? mainly) know about zillions of galaxies, zillions of
 starsystems in all of them, many planets with those z^z^n stars capable of
 supporting some *bio* of their own circumstances, many-many of them
 potentially leading to thinking units. Are we the ones selected from all
 those to be the sole God's Children, or *all* of them are entitled to
 Her care and particular fitting rules?


 We are all God's creations, not God's children.
 No, we are not 'selected from all those to be the sole God's Children ',
 but, according to the Quran, we have been selected above a greater part of
 creation. There exist other beings who are 'greater' than humans, such as
 the 'exalted assembly' mentioned in the Quran (37:8 and 38:69)
 All creation is, bio or non-bio, willing or unwilling, and in gratitude or
 not, under God's care and rule.


 But the question goes on: how about the animals? are they God's
 children as we are, or are they just fodder? and please, do not stop here:
 PLANTS have a similar DNA-based *bio* to ours and to most animals' so
 they may also claim to be God's Children? Some animals are hard to
 distinguish from humans, in certain characteristics. If we go into that:
 how about insects, and in-between life-forms? That would raise the
 originally counted (today) ~8 billion human 'souls' to z^z^z times over
 with life circumstances varying in uncanny varieties. Do they all have the
 same 1 God, or each kind a separate one?

 The same one God. If there were more than one, who would have ruled and
 who would have taken a back seat. Two kings can't rule a realm. How can
 there be more than one God?


 One word about reincarnation  I mentioned it and you questioned back.
 I am no expert in it, but the little what I read from the Sanskrit faith,



 You are referring

RE: Pluto bounces back!

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 2:00 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:14 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 8:54 PM

To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

On 02-Jul-2014, at 7:44 am, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias

Now I see why I am unable to answer you. Thanks for explaining! 

So, in principle, you are against any claims of factual accuracy from any 
person or religion, and therefore prejudiced against all scriptures?  

I apologize for interjecting… 

however questioning a faith’s claims to factual accuracy in support of its 
central tenets and dogma does not amount to prejudice. How is this prejudice? 

A faith can be held for deeply felt reasons, but can faith present its central 
dogmas in a manner that is falsifiable 

Science accepts the need for experiment  falsification; why shouldn’t religion?

Chris

Religion does accept the need for experiment  falsification. Rather, the Quran 
invites it's readers to think deeply and verify, as if this book was from other 
than God, it would have contained much discrepancy. 

This invitation to parse the text for some written truth with a capital T does 
not rise to the same level of experimental verification… e.g. religion does not 
stand on the same footing as science. 

Religion does not stand on the same footing as science. Religion overarches and 
encompasses everything, including science. 

It certainly makes the claim, but religion – including Islam -- is sadly 
deficient in providing an experimental proof. Science stands on a much more 
solid foundation than any faith, because it accepts that its propositions must 
stand up to experimental verification. The strength of science is that it is 
falsifiable.

All and any claims by any religion are suspect.

Inviting me to parse some ancient text for meaning is not equivalent to 
providing me with experimental evidence for this hypothesis of this alleged 
monotheist deity you are proposing exists. 

Can you provide such experimental evidence? 

No, nor do I attempt to. I believe the monotheistic deity I worship exists, but 
I do not expect others to embrace my faith. I am guessing that since I 
suggested that the Quranic statements are scientifically correct, and hence 
should be considered, the members on this list assume that I'm preaching Islam? 
Is that why you ask for experimental evidence?   

Yes, I am asking for experimental proof of the existence of your deity. If you 
can provide none; why then should I take your faith any more seriously than any 
other faith (which all also make overarching claims of infallibility and so 
forth)? You are welcome to hold your faith, but you cannot claim that it rises 
to the same level of self-correcting external validation that science does.

Science is superior to religion, because it is humble -- unlike (overarching) 
religion -- and demands that its propositions stand up to the test of 
experimental verification. 

Chris

I posted a selection of verses which contained info verifiable by today's 
science, PGC doesn't agree to their being as proofs of 'factual accuracy'. 

You presented some interesting perhaps, but inconsequential little tidbits that 
have nothing to do with the central hypothesis you are defending. Correct me if 
I am wrong, but it is my impression that you are proposing your brand of 
monotheism as being scientific and on equal footing. If this is indeed what you 
are attempting to state then I am going to respectfully disagree and challenge 
you to provide something more relevant to the core hypothesis, i.e. the 
existence of this particular monotheist deity. 

If a book contains no mistakes in the verifiable part, what chances are there 
of it being correct o the non-verifiable part? 

Plenty of chances. 

Samiya 

He asked for what the Quran says, so I quoted other verses explaining the 
faith, which obviously is non-verifiable. Hence, I asked what he was looking 
for. Perhaps 'prejudice' is too strong a word. I'll apologise to PGC. Thanks 
for interjecting :) 

Samiya faith is a matter for you to decide for yourself in your own heart… to 
hopefully quietly meditate upon it in solitude and reflection. You, I and each 
of us must decide ultimately for themselves on matters of faith. You have yours 
and you surely do believe in your faith, but your faith is not science.

No faith

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-07-02 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:12 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Samiya Illias
 *Sent:* Wednesday, July 02, 2014 2:00 AM

 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: Pluto bounces back!







 On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:14 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:





 This invitation to parse the text for some written truth with a capital T
 does not rise to the same level of experimental verification… e.g. religion
 does not stand on the same footing as science.


I would not be that quick. The level of experimental verification? Who's
experiment assuming what? Experiments to make plants more genetically
robust to withstand even more pesticide? That's science laced with poor
theology and high profit margin. I agree with Liz on this, we cannot NOT
assume/believe, for any reasoning to happen at all. But please make me
wrong by showing a line of reasoning that doesn't assume a single thing.

Brent has said things sounding like doesn't matter, whatever works who
cares how and why, to which my reply is: then we should completely ban all
ethical/theological consideration from scientific inquiry. But we can
expect more poison in our foods, and more justification for people to
suffer verdicts of science infallibility. That's just swapping overly
transcendental materialist theology with overly untranscendental
materialist theology; in both cases you'll end up with reductionism sharp
enough to justify hurting the other camp.

I'm sick of the camp business frankly.




 Religion does not stand on the same footing as science. Religion
 overarches and encompasses everything, including science.



 It certainly makes the claim, but religion – including Islam -- is sadly
 deficient in providing an experimental proof. Science stands on a much more
 solid foundation than any faith, because it accepts that its propositions
 must stand up to experimental verification. The strength of science is that
 it is falsifiable.


You pretend as if there were consensus on this, when threads of recent
weeks display the opposite. You don't even have to invoke different
standards between human and exact sciences; even in single domains there is
debate as to what constitutes valid proof and evidence.

I like the way Logician Julia Robertson apparently put it in one her logic
classes in 1969:
*A proof is a demonstration that will be accepted by any reasonable person
acquainted with the facts.*

Contrast/compare with R.L. Wilder:
*What is the role of proof? It seems only a testing process that we apply
to these suggestions of intuition. Obviously we don't possess, and probably
will never possess, any standard of proof that is independent of time, the
thing to be proved, or the person or school of thought using it.*


 All and any claims by any religion are suspect.


But as suspect only as the claims of any school of thought, sure.






 If a book contains no mistakes in the verifiable part, what chances are
 there of it being correct o the non-verifiable part?



 Plenty of chances.


In the 1st person private sense that could be wishful thinking in disguise,
yes. In the third person shareable sense, you might want to elaborate. PGC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!






 From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:12 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 
 
From:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 2:00 AM

To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!
 
 
 
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:14 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
 
 
This invitation to parse the text for some written truth with a capital T does 
not rise to the same level of experimental verification… e.g. religion does 
not stand on the same footing as science. 

I would not be that quick. The level of experimental verification? Who's 
experiment assuming what? Experiments to make plants more genetically robust 
to withstand even more pesticide? That's science laced with poor theology and 
high profit margin.

When anything becomes driven by the profit motive all other values become 
subordinated. Not disagreeing with that. What you describe is not science it is 
greed taking possession of scientific forms and perverting them to further its 
own narrow interests. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 I agree with Liz on this, we cannot NOT assume/believe, for any reasoning to 
 happen at all. But please make me wrong by showing a line of reasoning that 
 doesn't assume a single thing.

You are being a purist. We all begin with the assumption that an external 
reality actually exists. So on some level sure everything is based on 
assumptions. It is a question of degree.


Brent has said things sounding like doesn't matter, whatever works who cares 
how and why, to which my reply is: then we should completely ban all 
ethical/theological consideration from scientific inquiry.

Who is suggesting that ethics should play no role? WHo is suggesting that human 
activity dominated by the profit motive is science -- even when it is dressed 
up in the forms and language of science? Not me for sure. When big pharma does 
drug studies with scary NDAs and then buries all the results that do not 
support the profit driven desired results... this is not science in action. And 
I am NOT claiming that that kind of human activity is science. It is marketing 
perhaps, but it is not science.

But we can expect more poison in our foods, and more justification for people 
to suffer verdicts of science infallibility. 

We can expect that if people -- in their ignorance of the actual nature of 
science accept this kind of marketing -- that uses the langauge and forms of 
science to produce marketing materials for drugs etc. -- blindly accept 
anything that seems scientific as actually being science. When -- I think you 
clearly know -- it is not!

That's just swapping overly transcendental materialist theology with overly 
untranscendental materialist theology; in both cases you'll end up with 
reductionism sharp enough to justify hurting the other camp.


A blind acceptance of any claim made by someone wearing a white lab coat and 
producing some study written in scientific sounding language and employing 
scientific sounding methodologies would be a materialist theology. I am not 
proposing that however and apologies if you misunderstood me. 

I'm sick of the camp business frankly.


And I am sick of religion (or anything) demanding that I (we) take it seriously 
based on blind faith and ancient texts.. When we do not know, then we should 
have the courage of admitting that we do not know. Science (in the ideal at 
least) admits the bounds of its own ignorance; it has the humility to accept 
that it cannot provide an answer for many questions.
 
 
Religion does not stand on the same footing as science. Religion overarches 
and encompasses everything, including science. 
 
It certainly makes the claim, but religion – including Islam -- is sadly 
deficient in providing an experimental proof. Science stands on a much more 
solid foundation than any faith, because it accepts that its propositions must 
stand up to experimental verification. The strength of science is that it is 
falsifiable.

You pretend as if there were consensus on this, when threads of recent weeks 
display the opposite. 

I am not pretending anything. I feel that the experimental method is superior 
within the physically verifiable material realm than taking some ancient 
person's idealization of reality as literal TRUTH. 

You don't even have to invoke different standards between human and exact 
sciences; even in single domains there is debate as to what constitutes valid 
proof and evidence.

Sure and debate is integral to science. Science, unlike religion does not make 
absolute claims... there will always be debate and questioning in science. This 
is its strength.


I like the way Logician Julia Robertson apparently put it in one her logic 
classes in 1969

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-07-02 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

You make statements where the difference between science and theology is a
matter of degree:


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:32 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:



 You are being a purist.

 We all begin with the assumption that an external reality actually exists.
 So on some level sure everything is based on assumptions. It is a question
 of degree.


 Brent has said things sounding like doesn't matter, whatever works who
 cares how and why, to which my reply is: then we should completely ban all
 ethical/theological consideration from scientific inquiry.


Here ethics should play a role in science according to you. I would offer
that ethics finally is derived from humanism, religious views, flavors of
existentialism and other theological phenomena. I agree and think there is
merit in reflecting whether there is a fundamental difference at all.



 Who is suggesting that ethics should play no role? WHo is suggesting that
 human activity dominated by the profit motive is science -- even when it is
 dressed up in the forms and language of science? Not me for sure. When big
 pharma does drug studies with scary NDAs and then buries all the results
 that do not support the profit driven desired results... this is not
 science in action. And I am NOT claiming that that kind of human activity
 is science. It is marketing perhaps, but it is not science.

 But we can expect more poison in our foods, and more justification for
 people to suffer verdicts of science infallibility.

 We can expect that if people -- in their ignorance of the actual nature of
 science accept this kind of marketing -- that uses the langauge and forms
 of science to produce marketing materials for drugs etc. -- blindly accept
 anything that seems scientific as actually being science. When -- I think
 you clearly know -- it is not!

 That's just swapping overly transcendental materialist theology with
 overly untranscendental materialist theology; in both cases you'll end up
 with reductionism sharp enough to justify hurting the other camp.

 A blind acceptance of any claim made by someone wearing a white lab coat
 and producing some study written in scientific sounding language and
 employing scientific sounding methodologies would be a materialist
 theology. I am not proposing that however and apologies if you
 misunderstood me.


Agree on most points here.



 I'm sick of the camp business frankly.

 And I am sick of religion (or anything) demanding that I (we) take it
 seriously based on blind faith and ancient texts.. When we do not know,
 then we should have the courage of admitting that we do not know. Science
 (in the ideal at least) admits the bounds of its own ignorance; it has the
 humility to accept that it cannot provide an answer for many questions.


So what, should we build some camps now? You seem vexed... doughnut
perhaps?

I love camping though.





 Religion does not stand on the same footing as science. Religion
 overarches and encompasses everything, including science.

 It certainly makes the claim, but religion – including Islam -- is sadly
 deficient in providing an experimental proof. Science stands on a much more
 solid foundation than any faith, because it accepts that its propositions
 must stand up to experimental verification. The strength of science is that
 it is falsifiable.


 You pretend as if there were consensus on this, when threads of recent
 weeks display the opposite.

 I am not pretending anything. I feel that the experimental method is
 superior within the physically verifiable material realm than taking some
 ancient person's idealization of reality as literal TRUTH.


Then we can use that method to derive appropriate ethics/theology and share
the results. I don't see much of this happening.




 But as suspect only as the claims of any school of thought, sure.

 I disagree. The Laws of Gravity stand on much firmer ground than the
 Virgin Mary's alleged virgin birth. Are you really suggesting that these
 two claims have equivalent basis for being believable?


Now it no longer seems you are arguing for matter of degree; more like
fundamental difference reflecting truth (with your capital T).

It's perhaps double standard to claim pesticides are bad example, not
really science, don't be such literal purist... and then throw back some
relatively convenient example to debunk religion in such transparent
manner.

Easy to invert, what is more plausible: existence of dark energy or that
people fooling around, without intercourse, could still exchange genetic
material? This is as specious as your example perhaps.

It's definitely cherry picking truths with capital Ts, as non-confessional
theology is not about literal, fanatical interpretation of text in the
first place, just as science is not about merely wearing lab coat and
maximizing profit margin. I need a doughnut now. PGC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-07-02 Thread meekerdb


On 7/2/2014 9:46 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Brent has said things sounding like doesn't matter, whatever works who cares how and 
why, to which my reply is: then we should completely ban all ethical/theological 
consideration from scientific inquiry.


If you think I said science should not use ethics and theology evaluate which models work 
and which don't; you're right.  If you think I said scientists should not consider ethical 
implications in choosing what they study; you're wrong.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

 From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

You make statements where the difference between science and theology is a 
matter of degree:

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:32 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

You are being a purist. 

We all begin with the assumption that an external reality actually exists. So 
on some level sure everything is based on assumptions. It is a question of 
degree.

Brent has said things sounding like doesn't matter, whatever works who 
cares how and why, to which my reply is: then we should completely ban all 
ethical/theological consideration from scientific inquiry.

Here ethics should play a role in science according to you. I would offer that 
ethics finally is derived from humanism, religious views, flavors of 
existentialism and other theological phenomena. I agree and think there is 
merit in reflecting whether there is a fundamental difference at all.

Who is suggesting that ethics should play no role? WHo is suggesting that 
human activity dominated by the profit motive is science -- even when it is 
dressed up in the forms and language of science? Not me for sure. When big 
pharma does drug studies with scary NDAs and then buries all the results that 
do not support the profit driven desired results... this is not science in 
action. And I am NOT claiming that that kind of human activity is science. It 
is marketing perhaps, but it is not science.

But we can expect more poison in our foods, and more justification for 
people to suffer verdicts of science infallibility. 

We can expect that if people -- in their ignorance of the actual nature of 
science accept this kind of marketing -- that uses the langauge and forms of 
science to produce marketing materials for drugs etc. -- blindly accept 
anything that seems scientific as actually being science. When -- I think 
you clearly know -- it is not!

That's just swapping overly transcendental materialist theology with overly 
untranscendental materialist theology; in both cases you'll end up with 
reductionism sharp enough to justify hurting the other camp.

A blind acceptance of any claim made by someone wearing a white lab coat and 
producing some study written in scientific sounding language and employing 
scientific sounding methodologies would be a materialist theology. I am not 
proposing that however and apologies if you misunderstood me. 

Agree on most points here.

I'm sick of the camp business frankly.

And I am sick of religion (or anything) demanding that I (we) take it 
seriously based on blind faith and ancient texts.. When we do not know, then 
we should have the courage of admitting that we do not know. Science (in the 
ideal at least) admits the bounds of its own ignorance; it has the humility to 
accept that it cannot provide an answer for many questions.

So what, should we build some camps now? You seem vexed... doughnut perhaps? 

No, but that does not mean we should all accept claim's that arise from dogma 
either. Had, a free doughnut earlier (they bring them and usually I try to 
avoid them not wishing to become fat, but today, walking by the table and 
seeing them all laid out.. beckoning me as I was there holding a espresso 
coffee in my hand... impulse won out and I grabbed my 600 calorie bomb and 
quite enjoyed it, thank you)

I love camping though.

Me too -- some of the best camping on the planet in the region I live in.

Religion does not stand on the same footing as science. Religion overarches 
and encompasses everything, including science. 

It certainly makes the claim, but religion – including Islam -- is sadly 
deficient in providing an experimental proof. Science stands on a much more 
solid foundation than any faith, because it accepts that its propositions 
must stand up to experimental verification. The strength of science is that 
it is falsifiable.

You pretend as if there were consensus on this, when threads of recent weeks 
display the opposite. 

I am not pretending anything. I feel that the experimental method is superior 
within the physically verifiable material realm than taking some ancient 
person's idealization of reality as literal TRUTH. 

Then we can use that method to derive appropriate ethics/theology and share 
the results. I don't see much of this happening. 

We should derive our ethical belief systems based on what works rather than 
based on ancient texts of dubious origin.

But as suspect only as the claims of any school of thought, sure.

I disagree. The Laws of Gravity stand on much firmer ground than the Virgin 
Mary's alleged virgin birth. Are you really suggesting that these two claims 
have equivalent basis for being believable?

Now it no longer seems you are arguing for matter of degree; more like

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-07-01 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:16 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:




  --
  *From:* Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Sent:* Wednesday, July 2, 2014 11:27 AM

 *Subject:* Re: Pluto bounces back!

 You make statements where the difference between science and theology is a
 matter of degree:


 On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:32 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:



 You are being a purist.

  We all begin with the assumption that an external reality actually
 exists. So on some level sure everything is based on assumptions. It is a
 question of degree.


 Brent has said things sounding like doesn't matter, whatever works who
 cares how and why, to which my reply is: then we should completely ban all
 ethical/theological consideration from scientific inquiry.


 Here ethics should play a role in science according to you. I would offer
 that ethics finally is derived from humanism, religious views, flavors of
 existentialism and other theological phenomena. I agree and think there is
 merit in reflecting whether there is a fundamental difference at all.



 Who is suggesting that ethics should play no role? WHo is suggesting that
 human activity dominated by the profit motive is science -- even when it is
 dressed up in the forms and language of science? Not me for sure. When big
 pharma does drug studies with scary NDAs and then buries all the results
 that do not support the profit driven desired results... this is not
 science in action. And I am NOT claiming that that kind of human activity
 is science. It is marketing perhaps, but it is not science.

 But we can expect more poison in our foods, and more justification for
 people to suffer verdicts of science infallibility.

 We can expect that if people -- in their ignorance of the actual nature of
 science accept this kind of marketing -- that uses the langauge and forms
 of science to produce marketing materials for drugs etc. -- blindly accept
 anything that seems scientific as actually being science. When -- I think
 you clearly know -- it is not!

 That's just swapping overly transcendental materialist theology with
 overly untranscendental materialist theology; in both cases you'll end up
 with reductionism sharp enough to justify hurting the other camp.

 A blind acceptance of any claim made by someone wearing a white lab coat
 and producing some study written in scientific sounding language and
 employing scientific sounding methodologies would be a materialist
 theology. I am not proposing that however and apologies if you
 misunderstood me.


 Agree on most points here.



 I'm sick of the camp business frankly.

 And I am sick of religion (or anything) demanding that I (we) take it
 seriously based on blind faith and ancient texts.. When we do not know,
 then we should have the courage of admitting that we do not know. Science
 (in the ideal at least) admits the bounds of its own ignorance; it has the
 humility to accept that it cannot provide an answer for many questions.


 So what, should we build some camps now? You seem vexed... doughnut
 perhaps?

 No, but that does not mean we should all accept claim's that arise from
 dogma either. Had, a free doughnut earlier (they bring them and usually I
 try to avoid them not wishing to become fat, but today, walking by the
 table and seeing them all laid out.. beckoning me as I was there holding a
 espresso coffee in my hand... impulse won out and I grabbed my 600 calorie
 bomb and quite enjoyed it, thank you)


Lol! I too got one today!

And because of Liz's recent article, I pondered, but of course didn't have
the balls, to walk up to the lady at the counter and say: I want nothing
organic full of weird toxins! To know at least what I get: show me the most
neon colored, artificially flavored, purely chemical calorie bomb that you
guys have ever made! But I chickenhawked on it of course, and just took a
violent looking neon blue one with weird topping, only to find that it was
filled with real blueberry. Meh!




 I love camping though.

 Me too -- some of the best camping on the planet in the region I live in.


On my list. Time's a bitch.







 Religion does not stand on the same footing as science. Religion
 overarches and encompasses everything, including science.

 It certainly makes the claim, but religion – including Islam -- is sadly
 deficient in providing an experimental proof. Science stands on a much more
 solid foundation than any faith, because it accepts that its propositions
 must stand up to experimental verification. The strength of science is that
 it is falsifiable.


 You pretend as if there were consensus on this, when threads of recent
 weeks display the opposite.

 I am not pretending anything. I feel that the experimental method is
 superior within the physically verifiable material realm than

RE: Pluto bounces back!

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias

 

Chris, 

I could respond in many ways, but none seems adequate. 

 

Samiya – matters of this nature are never easy to discuss… so no worries.

 

I could say that I believe because I find the Quran to be factually correct, 
but that only vindicated my belief... 

 

Good point.

 

I could say that as I studied and observed the beauty and the patterns in 
nature, the finest details, 

 

I too have studied the beauty and patterns in nature in detail… and am awed by 
the elegance of it all as well.

 

I became convinced that there had to be a Creator behind it, but that also only 
vindicated my belief... 

 

Could you’re a priori belief have caused you to become convinced?

 

I could think that may be since I was born in the faith, perhaps that's why it 
was natural, but I was asking questions, and I must admit, sometimes even 
fantasising how it would have been to be born in another faith or culture... I 
can say that the trials and experiences of life brought me closer to God, made 
me study the faith earnestly, and helped me discover the endless patience and 
my loving God through it all. 

 

You can say all these things, and I am sure that for you they did result in you 
becoming closer to your faith. But these same things you speak of had different 
outcomes in the hearts of different people. I am not trying to diminish your 
personal story, but making the point that the experience of life and the 
wonders of existence and nature has brought different meaning for different 
people.

Is their meaning less valid than yours?

 

 

Yet, I think, the latent belief was there all along, it was only my conscious 
self which took its own sweet time to realise and appreciate it! Whatever may 
the reason be, I'm glad that I'm a believer, and I lovingly worship my Creator. 
 

 

I can tell that you do. I am interested in finding out what it was – within you 
– that germinated your belief… or was it already there in you by having been 
born into the faith.

 

 

Perhaps this short video expresses it more eloquently: 
http://www.andiesisle.com/creation/magnificent.html 

 

Forgive me, but I am more interested in hearing what you think than in the 
expressions contained within some video.

Reagrds,

Chris

 

Regards,

Samiya 

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:41 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

Samiya…. May I ask you why you believe. It is obvious that you do believe, but 
why… and please not the canned answer supplied by dogma but the deep inner 
personal reasons that motivate you to believe?

Can we cut through all the bull shit and get straight at the core of the 
matter… with the simple direct question of why?

Not in the generic sense, but rather in the exquisitely personal dimension of 
your own innermost wellspring of being.. your own emergent self-awareness. 
(which you believe was given to you by your God)

Why?

What is your personal story. Dogma does not interest me in the least; personal 
stories I do however find fascinating.

Chris, in the Pacific Northwest (one of the best spots on the earth)

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2014 8:04 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com


Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

 

 

 

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

 

 

On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

 

 

On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

 

  

Another example: does the Quran allow for possibility that it could be wrong 
etc? PGC 

 

No, it doesn't, as explained above. It allows for human evaluation,

 

Which is pretty pointless, if the text is god's truth written large. This kind 
of fake advertising of scientific doubt is also present in the Bible; e.g. 
doubting apostle Thomas. As in yes, if you are the doubting type... we've 
reserved a place for you. 

My answer is: Sorry, you don't allow real doubt. Thomas and these figures can 
only doubt inside the book, not the book itself. Your doubt is false doubt.

 

and suggests parameters that we can use such as discrepancy, falsifiability, 
trying to write a similar book without God's help,

 

How can we even be sure the Quran, Bible, etc. are written with god's help? How 
can we be sure it is not a political tool of men, pretending to be god's voice 
simply, for obvious human reason?

 

etc., and repeatedly claims that this Book is without any crookedness, 

 

You do not address the problem of blaspheme raised and continue to make 
statements about him, even though you believe you cannot understand him. 

Apologies, but that is crooked to me.

 

errors or mistakes, and a guidance and blessing from the Lord of the Worlds

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-07-01 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:




 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:




 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 5:03 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 wrote:




 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:


 I respect a possible god's creation more than thinking it somebody's
 job to convert people. This makes god's magnificence, as you call it, very
 small. I still have no idea of whether you see the blaspheme problem here
 or not. PGC


 We agree that it is blasphemy to attribute to God or make statements on
 God's behalf what God hasn't stated. However, we also consider it blasphemy
 to deny God or God's communication, pretending that God hasn't sent any
 message, when God has indeed provided guidance for humans.


 I don't know this and I challenge you, the Quran, indeed anybody, to
 provide convincing evidence.


 Okay, challenge the Quran... read it and see if it answers you with
 convincing evidence.


But you have provided us with insights and the pleasure of some
translations, so I have been reading it, in an informal sense.

You made the claim about factual accuracy of Quran, therefore burden of
proof lies with you. I don't know how factually accurate the Quran is, nor
do I understand your particular interpretation of this.





 Your claim in this regard, could be the very blasphemy you speak of.


 You seem to think that the Message is for a particular culture, I tell
 you its for all humanity from the Lord of the Worlds.


 Cultures compete. War is our collective history.


 That's besides the point.


Not if you care about factual accuracy of history: You are saying our
cultural differences have no influence on religion/holy books/their
interpretation?

If you consider this a fact... then why do people with cultural roots from
Western Europe tend to be Christian? Same question for other religions and
their regions.



 If I grow up in Jewish or Christian background, this preselects me to be
 more accessible to Jewish or Christian theology/books/interpretations than
 to Quran.

 Ok, the Quran is for all culture; but then the Bible says the same. You
 still avoid the question of why the Quran above all other sacred books.


 Because it is the last in the series of revelations: the final revelation,
 and because it has been protected from changes. We Muslims are required to
 believe in all revelations, not just the Quran. Its an article of faith.
 And also because the prior scriptures foretell the coming of Prophet
 Muhammad.


Those are not factual or rational reasons to answer the question: Why this
book, and not others?

The book asserts a primary status. So why not ask this question?



 If this were a matter of personal religion, that would be private. But
 since you want factual accuracy, and to tie scientific/rational approach to
 Quran, the question is valid. Science, ability to doubt, question, and
 strive for accuracy in facts and descriptions belongs to all of us, no
 matter the religion.


 Agree


That's refreshing to see. That you can intuit a place, where we can
talk/reason beyond religion and about it. PGC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

What is your definition of factual accuracy? Kindly explain with some examples. 

Samiya 

 On 01-Jul-2014, at 5:46 pm, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
 
 On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 
 
 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 5:03 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 
 
 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 I respect a possible god's creation more than thinking it somebody's job 
 to convert people. This makes god's magnificence, as you call it, very 
 small. I still have no idea of whether you see the blaspheme problem here 
 or not. PGC
 
 We agree that it is blasphemy to attribute to God or make statements on 
 God's behalf what God hasn't stated. However, we also consider it 
 blasphemy to deny God or God's communication, pretending that God hasn't 
 sent any message, when God has indeed provided guidance for humans.
 
 I don't know this and I challenge you, the Quran, indeed anybody, to 
 provide convincing evidence.
 
 Okay, challenge the Quran... read it and see if it answers you with 
 convincing evidence.
  
 But you have provided us with insights and the pleasure of some translations, 
 so I have been reading it, in an informal sense.
 
 You made the claim about factual accuracy of Quran, therefore burden of proof 
 lies with you. I don't know how factually accurate the Quran is, nor do I 
 understand your particular interpretation of this.
 
 
 
  
 Your claim in this regard, could be the very blasphemy you speak of.
  
 You seem to think that the Message is for a particular culture, I tell you 
 its for all humanity from the Lord of the Worlds.
 
 Cultures compete. War is our collective history.
 
 That's besides the point.  
 
 Not if you care about factual accuracy of history: You are saying our 
 cultural differences have no influence on religion/holy books/their 
 interpretation?
 
 If you consider this a fact... then why do people with cultural roots from 
 Western Europe tend to be Christian? Same question for other religions and 
 their regions.
  
 
 If I grow up in Jewish or Christian background, this preselects me to be 
 more accessible to Jewish or Christian theology/books/interpretations than 
 to Quran. 
 
 Ok, the Quran is for all culture; but then the Bible says the same. You 
 still avoid the question of why the Quran above all other sacred books.
 
 Because it is the last in the series of revelations: the final revelation, 
 and because it has been protected from changes. We Muslims are required to 
 believe in all revelations, not just the Quran. Its an article of faith. And 
 also because the prior scriptures foretell the coming of Prophet Muhammad. 
 
 Those are not factual or rational reasons to answer the question: Why this 
 book, and not others?
 
 The book asserts a primary status. So why not ask this question?
 
  
 If this were a matter of personal religion, that would be private. But 
 since you want factual accuracy, and to tie scientific/rational approach to 
 Quran, the question is valid. Science, ability to doubt, question, and 
 strive for accuracy in facts and descriptions belongs to all of us, no 
 matter the religion.
 
 Agree
 
 That's refreshing to see. That you can intuit a place, where we can 
 talk/reason beyond religion and about it. PGC
  
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!



 On 01-Jul-2014, at 1:15 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
 
  
  
 From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
  
 Chris, 
 I could respond in many ways, but none seems adequate.
  
 Samiya – matters of this nature are never easy to discuss… so no worries.
  
 I could say that I believe because I find the Quran to be factually correct, 
 but that only vindicated my belief...
  
 Good point.
  
 I could say that as I studied and observed the beauty and the patterns in 
 nature, the finest details,
  
 I too have studied the beauty and patterns in nature in detail… and am awed 
 by the elegance of it all as well.
  
 I became convinced that there had to be a Creator behind it, but that also 
 only vindicated my belief...
  
 Could you’re a priori belief have caused you to become convinced? 

Maybe
  
 I could think that may be since I was born in the faith, perhaps that's why 
 it was natural, but I was asking questions, and I must admit, sometimes even 
 fantasising how it would have been to be born in another faith or culture... 
 I can say that the trials and experiences of life brought me closer to God, 
 made me study the faith earnestly, and helped me discover the endless 
 patience and my loving God through it all.
  
 You can say all these things, and I am sure that for you they did result in 
 you becoming closer to your faith. But these same things you speak of had 
 different outcomes in the hearts of different people.

Of course, perceptions vary and so do responses 

 I am not trying to diminish your personal story, but making the point that 
 the experience of life and the wonders of existence and nature has brought 
 different meaning for different people.
 Is their meaning less valid than yours?

Not for me to judge 

  
 Yet, I think, the latent belief was there all along, it was only my conscious 
 self which took its own sweet time to realise and appreciate it! Whatever may 
 the reason be, I'm glad that I'm a believer, and I lovingly worship my 
 Creator.  
  
 I can tell that you do. I am interested in finding out what it was – within 
 you – that germinated your belief… or was it already there in you by having 
 been born into the faith.
  
Maybe. Being born in a practicing family means God is remembered daily, not 
only in prayer but also in acts of charity and kindness. So whether you're 
doing things out of the love of God or out of fear of God, you do remember God. 

  
 Perhaps this short video expresses it more eloquently: 
 http://www.andiesisle.com/creation/magnificent.html 
  
 Forgive me, but I am more interested in hearing what you think than in the 
 expressions contained within some video. 

Ah, but I'm very find of this one: I believe, just like a child... 

Regards, 
Samiya 

 Reagrds,
 Chris
  
 Regards,
 Samiya 
 
 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:41 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
 Samiya…. May I ask you why you believe. It is obvious that you do believe, 
 but why… and please not the canned answer supplied by dogma but the deep 
 inner personal reasons that motivate you to believe?
 Can we cut through all the bull shit and get straight at the core of the 
 matter… with the simple direct question of why?
 Not in the generic sense, but rather in the exquisitely personal dimension of 
 your own innermost wellspring of being.. your own emergent self-awareness. 
 (which you believe was given to you by your God)
 Why?
 What is your personal story. Dogma does not interest me in the least; 
 personal stories I do however find fascinating.
 Chris, in the Pacific Northwest (one of the best spots on the earth)
  
 From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
 Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2014 8:04 PM
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 
 Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!
  
  
  
 
 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
  
  
 
 On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
  
  
 
 On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
  
   
 Another example: does the Quran allow for possibility that it could be wrong 
 etc? PGC 
  
 No, it doesn't, as explained above. It allows for human evaluation,
  
 Which is pretty pointless, if the text is god's truth written large. This 
 kind of fake advertising of scientific doubt is also present in the Bible; 
 e.g. doubting apostle Thomas. As in yes, if you are the doubting type... 
 we've reserved a place for you.
 
 My answer is: Sorry, you don't allow real doubt. Thomas and these figures 
 can only doubt inside the book, not the book itself. Your doubt is false 
 doubt.
  
  
 and suggests parameters that we can use such as discrepancy, falsifiability, 
 trying to write a similar book

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-07-01 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

 What is your definition of factual accuracy? Kindly explain with some
 examples.


You posted on this list bringing up factual accuracy regarding the Quran,
if I remember correctly. This is why I posed the question in a variety of
ways.

But if I were to answer this in a strong technical sense of some domain, I
might be making the same mistake, blasphemy or crookedness that I sense
in the quoted/translated passages we discuss.

Perhaps it is part of things that we cannot prove to each other and perhaps
this means that faith in this point, requires that we wrestle with,
question, doubt this kind of phenomenon or problem, of which there seem to
be many, and never, in our present kind of form at least, become
comfortable with it.

Following this kind of line, perhaps nobody can answer this for anybody
else, or not even for ourselves. Some people say we are the answer; but
this is a bit too easy for me, although I can relate to the thought.

Sometimes this gives me vertigo or makes me feel empty, and at other times
I feel like the emptiness is just more space to fill with joy, fascination,
wonder, and negation of pain, that we can share; if we stay polite, honest,
maintain peace, stay alert, learn to reason with more distance, and
appropriacy, tame our bestiality to minimize harming creation, and lust for
control etc.

This means distancing ourselves enough from our own strict theology and
learning from our inner self and creation more directly, which is
difficult, but the only way I can parse, that would stop us from calling
ourselves names, fighting, waging war to hide our insecurity. Our personal
theology gives us security but takes away what little control we may have.
Our insecurity and our fears however, is something we share across all
religions. Maybe we should question them more directly, rather than
reciting our best verses, every time we can't find a good answer.

You'll find many answers in many texts and some contributions on this list.
Whether they satisfy/convince you, or whether they can do so in principle
or not, is a different question.

It is in any case a good constant question to wrestle with, learn from, and
read about for the theological search beyond and underneath the strong/loud
interpretation of strict confessional religion, cultural programs, and
authoritative misuse of science, religion, and history. It points also to
the question of the relation between theology/science, and the question of
possible abuse (e.g. prohibition).

So you see, I can't really answer your question, but you said you could...
;-) PGC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-07-01 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

Now I see why I am unable to answer you. Thanks for explaining!
So, in principle, you are against any claims of factual accuracy from any
person or religion, and therefore prejudiced against all scriptures?  Given
that I am convinced about the Quran being the truth from God, and you
convinced that nobody can have anything from God, I don't see if there is a
point in continuing this debate. Thanks for indulging me and letting me
express my point of view. I pray that God blesses all those who earnestly
seek with assured faith. Amen.
Samiya


On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:




 On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 What is your definition of factual accuracy? Kindly explain with some
 examples.


 You posted on this list bringing up factual accuracy regarding the
 Quran, if I remember correctly. This is why I posed the question in a
 variety of ways.

 But if I were to answer this in a strong technical sense of some domain, I
 might be making the same mistake, blasphemy or crookedness that I sense
 in the quoted/translated passages we discuss.

 Perhaps it is part of things that we cannot prove to each other and
 perhaps this means that faith in this point, requires that we wrestle with,
 question, doubt this kind of phenomenon or problem, of which there seem to
 be many, and never, in our present kind of form at least, become
 comfortable with it.

 Following this kind of line, perhaps nobody can answer this for anybody
 else, or not even for ourselves. Some people say we are the answer; but
 this is a bit too easy for me, although I can relate to the thought.

 Sometimes this gives me vertigo or makes me feel empty, and at other times
 I feel like the emptiness is just more space to fill with joy, fascination,
 wonder, and negation of pain, that we can share; if we stay polite, honest,
 maintain peace, stay alert, learn to reason with more distance, and
 appropriacy, tame our bestiality to minimize harming creation, and lust for
 control etc.

 This means distancing ourselves enough from our own strict theology and
 learning from our inner self and creation more directly, which is
 difficult, but the only way I can parse, that would stop us from calling
 ourselves names, fighting, waging war to hide our insecurity. Our personal
 theology gives us security but takes away what little control we may have.
 Our insecurity and our fears however, is something we share across all
 religions. Maybe we should question them more directly, rather than
 reciting our best verses, every time we can't find a good answer.

 You'll find many answers in many texts and some contributions on this
 list. Whether they satisfy/convince you, or whether they can do so in
 principle or not, is a different question.

 It is in any case a good constant question to wrestle with, learn from,
 and read about for the theological search beyond and underneath the
 strong/loud interpretation of strict confessional religion, cultural
 programs, and authoritative misuse of science, religion, and history. It
 points also to the question of the relation between theology/science, and
 the question of possible abuse (e.g. prohibition).

 So you see, I can't really answer your question, but you said you could...
 ;-) PGC


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-07-01 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Now I see why I am unable to answer you. Thanks for explaining!
 So, in principle, you are against any claims of factual accuracy from any
 person or religion, and therefore prejudiced against all scriptures?


That would be too quick. I think most religions make good points, if we
handle them respectfully and carefully, instead of them handling us to be
short.


  Given that I am convinced about the Quran being the truth from God, and
 you convinced that nobody can have anything from God,


A supreme entity is possible. And a privately fruitful relationship with
personal theology as well. I'm just unsure that some people have the right
to force other people on this matter; or to convert them to do or think
anything beyond their personal, unprovable relationship to such a possible
incomprehensible god. Especially when people fight, label other people to
wage war, or cause suffering.

An example of theology in written word or scripture I appreciate:

According to Goethe's Faust (ending of second part), a work of fiction, god
also takes care of those who doubt, because they believe more passionately
in searching the creation than merely believing in it, which allows the
doubting mystic Faust to exercise greater mercy and love (having searched
and question creation and god more, he learned to do gods work better by
loving more truly...).

Gretchen, the innocent feminine principle, whom Faust has wronged
intervenes in the heavenly court: He might have done wrong. But his search
was sincere. The eternal feminine principle in the judging role, grants
Faust's into her heaven, despite his profound mistakes and sins.

I try to enjoy and be inspired by many good scriptures, exemplars, and
science. But I don't know about their truth and don't care about forcing
these on others. This is because I have faith in that people's relation to
their theology is untouchable, should not be violated, sacred if you will;
with the problematic exception that we sometimes cause pain and suffering
with its clash with reality and our violent histories. I have faith in
seeking and doubting honestly, so that we can learn how to continuously
better ourselves and our inseparable relation to, in your words, creation,
reality, truth, and other people.

So if Quran mentions respect and search positively, I agree for example. I
tend to disagree with the stuff that commands us about our personal
relation to god, what god is, what not to search (prohibition), to fight
for god etc.

Samiya

 I don't see if there is a point in continuing this debate.


I see it more as a questioning exchange. I don't intend to win anything
here :-) but ok, of course. PGC


 Thanks for indulging me and letting me express my point of view. I pray
 that God blesses all those who earnestly seek with assured faith. Amen.




On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:




 On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 What is your definition of factual accuracy? Kindly explain with some
 examples.


 You posted on this list bringing up factual accuracy regarding the
 Quran, if I remember correctly. This is why I posed the question in a
 variety of ways.

 But if I were to answer this in a strong technical sense of some domain, I
 might be making the same mistake, blasphemy or crookedness that I sense
 in the quoted/translated passages we discuss.

 Perhaps it is part of things that we cannot prove to each other and
 perhaps this means that faith in this point, requires that we wrestle with,
 question, doubt this kind of phenomenon or problem, of which there seem to
 be many, and never, in our present kind of form at least, become
 comfortable with it.

 Following this kind of line, perhaps nobody can answer this for anybody
 else, or not even for ourselves. Some people say we are the answer; but
 this is a bit too easy for me, although I can relate to the thought.

 Sometimes this gives me vertigo or makes me feel empty, and at other times
 I feel like the emptiness is just more space to fill with joy, fascination,
 wonder, and negation of pain, that we can share; if we stay polite, honest,
 maintain peace, stay alert, learn to reason with more distance, and
 appropriacy, tame our bestiality to minimize harming creation, and lust for
 control etc.

 This means distancing ourselves enough from our own strict theology and
 learning from our inner self and creation more directly, which is
 difficult, but the only way I can parse, that would stop us from calling
 ourselves names, fighting, waging war to hide our insecurity. Our personal
 theology gives us security but takes away what little control we may have.
 Our insecurity and our fears however, is something we share across all
 religions. Maybe we should question them more directly, rather than
 reciting our best verses, every time we can't find a good answer.

RE: Pluto bounces back!

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias

 

Now I see why I am unable to answer you. Thanks for explaining! 

So, in principle, you are against any claims of factual accuracy from any 
person or religion, and therefore prejudiced against all scriptures?  

 

I apologize for interjecting… 

however questioning a faith’s claims to factual accuracy in support of its 
central tenets and dogma does not amount to prejudice. How is this prejudice? 

A faith can be held for deeply felt reasons, but can faith present its central 
dogmas in a manner that is falsifiable 

Science accepts the need for experiment  falsification; why shouldn’t religion?

Chris

 

Given that I am convinced about the Quran being the truth from God, and you 
convinced that nobody can have anything from God, I don't see if there is a 
point in continuing this debate. Thanks for indulging me and letting me express 
my point of view. I pray that God blesses all those who earnestly seek with 
assured faith. Amen. 

Samiya 

 

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

 

 

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

What is your definition of factual accuracy? Kindly explain with some examples. 

 

You posted on this list bringing up factual accuracy regarding the Quran, if 
I remember correctly. This is why I posed the question in a variety of ways.

But if I were to answer this in a strong technical sense of some domain, I 
might be making the same mistake, blasphemy or crookedness that I sense in 
the quoted/translated passages we discuss. 

Perhaps it is part of things that we cannot prove to each other and perhaps 
this means that faith in this point, requires that we wrestle with, question, 
doubt this kind of phenomenon or problem, of which there seem to be many, and 
never, in our present kind of form at least, become comfortable with it. 

Following this kind of line, perhaps nobody can answer this for anybody else, 
or not even for ourselves. Some people say we are the answer; but this is a 
bit too easy for me, although I can relate to the thought.

Sometimes this gives me vertigo or makes me feel empty, and at other times I 
feel like the emptiness is just more space to fill with joy, fascination, 
wonder, and negation of pain, that we can share; if we stay polite, honest, 
maintain peace, stay alert, learn to reason with more distance, and 
appropriacy, tame our bestiality to minimize harming creation, and lust for 
control etc. 

This means distancing ourselves enough from our own strict theology and 
learning from our inner self and creation more directly, which is difficult, 
but the only way I can parse, that would stop us from calling ourselves names, 
fighting, waging war to hide our insecurity. Our personal theology gives us 
security but takes away what little control we may have. Our insecurity and our 
fears however, is something we share across all religions. Maybe we should 
question them more directly, rather than reciting our best verses, every time 
we can't find a good answer.

You'll find many answers in many texts and some contributions on this list. 
Whether they satisfy/convince you, or whether they can do so in principle or 
not, is a different question.

 

It is in any case a good constant question to wrestle with, learn from, and 
read about for the theological search beyond and underneath the strong/loud 
interpretation of strict confessional religion, cultural programs, and 
authoritative misuse of science, religion, and history. It points also to the 
question of the relation between theology/science, and the question of possible 
abuse (e.g. prohibition). 

So you see, I can't really answer your question, but you said you could... ;-) 
PGC

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group,

Re: Pluto bounces back!



 On 02-Jul-2014, at 7:44 am, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
 
  
  
 From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
  
 Now I see why I am unable to answer you. Thanks for explaining! 
 So, in principle, you are against any claims of factual accuracy from any 
 person or religion, and therefore prejudiced against all scriptures?  
  
 I apologize for interjecting…
 however questioning a faith’s claims to factual accuracy in support of its 
 central tenets and dogma does not amount to prejudice. How is this prejudice?
 A faith can be held for deeply felt reasons, but can faith present its 
 central dogmas in a manner that is falsifiable
 Science accepts the need for experiment  falsification; why shouldn’t 
 religion?
 Chris

Religion does accept the need for experiment  falsification. Rather, the Quran 
invites it's readers to think deeply and verify, as if this book was from other 
than God, it would have contained much discrepancy. I posted a selection of 
verses which contained info verifiable by today's science, PGC doesn't agree to 
their being as proofs of 'factual accuracy'. He asked for what the Quran says, 
so I quoted other verses explaining the faith, which obviously is 
non-verifiable. Hence, I asked what he was looking for. Perhaps 'prejudice' is 
too strong a word. I'll apologise to PGC. Thanks for interjecting :) 
Samiya 

  
 Given that I am convinced about the Quran being the truth from God, and you 
 convinced that nobody can have anything from God, I don't see if there is a 
 point in continuing this debate. Thanks for indulging me and letting me 
 express my point of view. I pray that God blesses all those who earnestly 
 seek with assured faith. Amen. 
 Samiya 
  
 
 On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
  
  
 
 On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
 What is your definition of factual accuracy? Kindly explain with some 
 examples. 
  
 You posted on this list bringing up factual accuracy regarding the Quran, 
 if I remember correctly. This is why I posed the question in a variety of 
 ways.
 
 But if I were to answer this in a strong technical sense of some domain, I 
 might be making the same mistake, blasphemy or crookedness that I sense in 
 the quoted/translated passages we discuss. 
 
 Perhaps it is part of things that we cannot prove to each other and perhaps 
 this means that faith in this point, requires that we wrestle with, question, 
 doubt this kind of phenomenon or problem, of which there seem to be many, and 
 never, in our present kind of form at least, become comfortable with it. 
 
 Following this kind of line, perhaps nobody can answer this for anybody else, 
 or not even for ourselves. Some people say we are the answer; but this is a 
 bit too easy for me, although I can relate to the thought.
 
 Sometimes this gives me vertigo or makes me feel empty, and at other times I 
 feel like the emptiness is just more space to fill with joy, fascination, 
 wonder, and negation of pain, that we can share; if we stay polite, honest, 
 maintain peace, stay alert, learn to reason with more distance, and 
 appropriacy, tame our bestiality to minimize harming creation, and lust for 
 control etc. 
 
 This means distancing ourselves enough from our own strict theology and 
 learning from our inner self and creation more directly, which is difficult, 
 but the only way I can parse, that would stop us from calling ourselves 
 names, fighting, waging war to hide our insecurity. Our personal theology 
 gives us security but takes away what little control we may have. Our 
 insecurity and our fears however, is something we share across all religions. 
 Maybe we should question them more directly, rather than reciting our best 
 verses, every time we can't find a good answer.
 
 You'll find many answers in many texts and some contributions on this list. 
 Whether they satisfy/convince you, or whether they can do so in principle or 
 not, is a different question.
  
 It is in any case a good constant question to wrestle with, learn from, and 
 read about for the theological search beyond and underneath the strong/loud 
 interpretation of strict confessional religion, cultural programs, and 
 authoritative misuse of science, religion, and history. It points also to the 
 question of the relation between theology/science, and the question of 
 possible abuse (e.g. prohibition). 
 
 So you see, I can't really answer your question, but you said you could... 
 ;-) PGC
  
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-28 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List



 On 02-Jul-2014, at 7:31 am, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
 
 On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
 Now I see why I am unable to answer you. Thanks for explaining! 
 So, in principle, you are against any claims of factual accuracy from any 
 person or religion, and therefore prejudiced against all scriptures?
 
 That would be too quick.

I apologise! 

 I think most religions make good points, if we handle them respectfully and 
 carefully, instead of them handling us to be short.
  
  Given that I am convinced about the Quran being the truth from God, and you 
 convinced that nobody can have anything from God,
 
 A supreme entity is possible. And a privately fruitful relationship with 
 personal theology as well. I'm just unsure that some people have the right to 
 force other people on this matter; or to convert them to do or think anything 
 beyond their personal, unprovable relationship to such a possible 
 incomprehensible god. Especially when people fight, label other people to 
 wage war, or cause suffering. 

In my mind, these are two separate issues: (1) personal belief and conviction 
of the veracity of a scripture, (2) the practice of it by those who profess to 
be its adherents. 
I may disagree with the interpretation and application of the scripture by some 
Muslims, but that in no way reduces my belief in God, the Quran or the 
Hereafter. 
  
 An example of theology in written word or scripture I appreciate: 
 
 According to Goethe's Faust (ending of second part), a work of fiction, god 
 also takes care of those who doubt, because they believe more passionately in 
 searching the creation than merely believing in it, which allows the 
 doubting mystic Faust to exercise greater mercy and love (having searched and 
 question creation and god more, he learned to do gods work better by loving 
 more truly...). 
 
 Gretchen, the innocent feminine principle, whom Faust has wronged intervenes 
 in the heavenly court: He might have done wrong. But his search was 
 sincere. The eternal feminine principle in the judging role, grants Faust's 
 into her heaven, despite his profound mistakes and sins. 

Of course God loves and guides all who seek earnestly and sincerely. We cannot 
peep into each other's hearts, but God knows us better than we know ourselves. 
Each of us is born in different circumstances and with a unique exam. Only God 
truly knows what we are dealing with and how sincerely are we seeking the 
truth. I also believe that God is the Most Appreciating, as well as Most Just, 
and that nobody will be wronged in the least. God is keeping a careful account 
of all things, and being Most Merciful, God keeps forgiving our mistakes. Of 
course, I cannot proof any of this, but this is part of my faith. 

 
 I try to enjoy and be inspired by many good scriptures, exemplars, and 
 science. But I don't know about their truth and don't care about forcing 
 these on others.

I'm not trying to force it either. I only suggest that this is a book worth 
studying, and am willing to try answering the questions 

 This is because I have faith in that people's relation to their theology is 
 untouchable, should not be violated, sacred if you will; with the problematic 
 exception that we sometimes cause pain and suffering with its clash with 
 reality and our violent histories. I have faith in seeking and doubting 
 honestly, so that we can learn how to continuously better ourselves and our 
 inseparable relation to, in your words, creation, reality, truth, and other 
 people. 

'inseparable relation' :) 

 
 So if Quran mentions respect and search positively, I agree for example. I 
 tend to disagree with the stuff that commands us about our personal relation 
 to god, what god is, what not to search (prohibition), to fight for god etc. 

If someday you become convinced that this book is indeed from God, you will 
naturally abandon doubt and take guidance from God about personal and social 
matters willingly. And when you see religion being abused for social ends, you 
will be able to distinguish between God's commands and peoples' actions. 
Remember, each of us came to this earth alone, and each us returns alone, with 
our own beliefs and deeds. 
Samiya 

  
 Samiya 
 I don't see if there is a point in continuing this debate.
 
 I see it more as a questioning exchange. I don't intend to win anything here 
 :-) but ok, of course. PGC
  
 Thanks for indulging me and letting me express my point of view. I pray that 
 God blesses all those who earnestly seek with assured faith. Amen. 
 
 
 
 On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
 On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 What is your definition of factual accuracy? Kindly explain with some 
 examples. 
 
 You posted on this list bringing up factual accuracy regarding the Quran, 
 if I

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-07-01 Thread LizR

Just a thought. If I was god, and I was in communication with the puny
beings I had created, given free will, threatened with eternal damnation
but then said they had a chance at salvation as long as they lick my
metaphorical boots with regular prayers and so on, which I think is a
perfectly reasonable request, even supreme beings need a bit of ego massage
- and as long as they accepted my word, as dictated to my chosen prophet,
*then* I would have shown my all-merciful nature by flicking ahead a few
thousand years and seeing a series of future predestined events (because
free will only gets you so far, after all), and I would then have dictated
a series of prophecies that I would state in the language of the future,
explaining to my chosen ones how to write it all down. And then I would
have checked back regularly throughout future history that no one had
inadvertantly made any mistakes in transcription, like saying stuff about
virgins when I'd quite clearly stated woman of high birth or camels and
needles when I originally said rope, and so on. And if any such changes
crept in, well a quick cut and paste would put it right, on the books and
my minion's memories. So there would be no excuse for disbelief when I'd
predicted thousands of years in advance that human beings would one day
fly, walk on the Moon, split the atom and so on. Hell (as it were), just to
show my divine beneficence, I might even throw in the real TOE somewhere in
the Book of Revelations. (Or whatever the equivalent is in the Torah or
Quran or I Ching or Norse Eddas or whatever.)

But I guess that would take all the fun out of condemning people to eternal
hellfire because they didn't believe stuff written in obscure, cryptic
language 3000 years previously.

Anyway, as Brent was saying, quoting someone, we have no way of knowing
whether we have got the good or evil god on this particular kalpa. But I
can make a pretty shrewd guess. (Hahahahahaaha! Oops sorry ignore the
laughter it just slipped out...)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-30 Thread Samiya Illias

Chris,
I could respond in many ways, but none seems adequate. I could say that I
believe because I find the Quran to be factually correct, but that only
vindicated my belief... I could say that as I studied and observed the
beauty and the patterns in nature, the finest details, I became convinced
that there had to be a Creator behind it, but that also only vindicated my
belief... I could think that may be since I was born in the faith, perhaps
that's why it was natural, but I was asking questions, and I must admit,
sometimes even fantasising how it would have been to be born in another
faith or culture... I can say that the trials and experiences of life
brought me closer to God, made me study the faith earnestly, and helped me
discover the endless patience and my loving God through it all. Yet, I
think, the latent belief was there all along, it was only my conscious self
which took its own sweet time to realise and appreciate it! Whatever may
the reason be, I'm glad that I'm a believer, and I lovingly worship my
Creator.
Perhaps this short video expresses it more eloquently:
http://www.andiesisle.com/creation/magnificent.html
Regards,
Samiya

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:41 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 Samiya…. May I ask you why you believe. It is obvious that you do believe,
 but why… and please not the canned answer supplied by dogma but the deep
 inner personal reasons that motivate you to believe?

 Can we cut through all the bull shit and get straight at the core of the
 matter… with the simple direct question of why?

 Not in the generic sense, but rather in the exquisitely personal dimension
 of your own innermost wellspring of being.. your own emergent
 self-awareness. (which you believe was given to you by your God)

 Why?

 What is your personal story. Dogma does not interest me in the least;
 personal stories I do however find fascinating.

 Chris, in the Pacific Northwest (one of the best spots on the earth)



 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Samiya Illias
 *Sent:* Saturday, June 28, 2014 8:04 PM
 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com

 *Subject:* Re: Pluto bounces back!







 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:





 On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 wrote:





 On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:





 Another example: does the Quran allow for possibility that it could be
 wrong etc? PGC



 No, it doesn't, as explained above. It allows for human evaluation,



 Which is pretty pointless, if the text is god's truth written large. This
 kind of fake advertising of scientific doubt is also present in the Bible;
 e.g. doubting apostle Thomas. As in yes, if you are the doubting type...
 we've reserved a place for you.

 My answer is: Sorry, you don't allow real doubt. Thomas and these figures
 can only doubt inside the book, not the book itself. Your doubt is false
 doubt.



 and suggests parameters that we can use such as discrepancy,
 falsifiability, trying to write a similar book without God's help,



 How can we even be sure the Quran, Bible, etc. are written with god's
 help? How can we be sure it is not a political tool of men, pretending to
 be god's voice simply, for obvious human reason?



 etc., and repeatedly claims that this Book is without any crookedness,



 You do not address the problem of blaspheme raised and continue to make
 statements about him, even though you believe you cannot understand him.

 Apologies, but that is crooked to me.



 errors or mistakes, and a guidance and blessing from the Lord of the
 Worlds.



 If I may suggest, keep asking questions and doubting,



 I do such with or without Quran.



 and at the same time, also read through the entire text of the Quran.



 I think I've had enough for some time: the way you present it in these
 quotes, Allah is vain, boastful (needs a book and people to do advertising
 for him), vengeful and cruel tester of creation he despises (why test and
 punish? why cultural preferences?), and the crooked move of writing about
 god when you admit that nothing can be said about god.

 For today, that is enough for me and it looks from your quotes like the
 book wants to convert people in typical manipulation through fear
 mechanism. I'm sure there are deeper ways to comprehend Quran, but today
 and through these quotes I don't see them.

 And since I can hypnotize myself to like almost anything, given enough
 time, I'm sure I could do it with Quran as well. But today I choose to
 doubt + it doesn't look much fun from the scripture quoted here; like I
 have to run around and convert people to some book that tells them to be
 frightened if they don't read it, and if they doubt, I just repeat them to
 keep reading.

 I respect a possible god's creation

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-30 Thread Samiya Illias

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:




 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 5:03 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 wrote:




 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:


 I respect a possible god's creation more than thinking it somebody's job
 to convert people. This makes god's magnificence, as you call it, very
 small. I still have no idea of whether you see the blaspheme problem here
 or not. PGC


 We agree that it is blasphemy to attribute to God or make statements on
 God's behalf what God hasn't stated. However, we also consider it blasphemy
 to deny God or God's communication, pretending that God hasn't sent any
 message, when God has indeed provided guidance for humans.


 I don't know this and I challenge you, the Quran, indeed anybody, to
 provide convincing evidence.


Okay, challenge the Quran... read it and see if it answers you with
convincing evidence.



 Your claim in this regard, could be the very blasphemy you speak of.


 You seem to think that the Message is for a particular culture, I tell
 you its for all humanity from the Lord of the Worlds.


 Cultures compete. War is our collective history.


That's besides the point.


 If I grow up in Jewish or Christian background, this preselects me to be
 more accessible to Jewish or Christian theology/books/interpretations than
 to Quran.

 Ok, the Quran is for all culture; but then the Bible says the same. You
 still avoid the question of why the Quran above all other sacred books.


Because it is the last in the series of revelations: the final revelation,
and because it has been protected from changes. We Muslims are required to
believe in all revelations, not just the Quran. Its an article of faith.
And also because the prior scriptures foretell the coming of Prophet
Muhammad.


 If this were a matter of personal religion, that would be private. But
 since you want factual accuracy, and to tie scientific/rational approach to
 Quran, the question is valid. Science, ability to doubt, question, and
 strive for accuracy in facts and descriptions belongs to all of us, no
 matter the religion.


Agree




 God doesn't need us or our service, it is we who need God and God's
 guidance, since it is our future that depends on our beliefs and actions.


 If God had wanted an army of slaves, he would not allow them to think and
 doubt. He could build an army of robot zombies, that he wouldn't even need
 to test. This testing idea, and why a supreme being would engage in
 testing a perfect creation, makes no sense to me.


Yes, its difficult to rationalize, if at all. But, once one is convinced
about the existence of God, and the scriptures being God's message, then to
accept things which our minds cannot understand is just a matter of faith


 It seems it could be misused to frighten and control people. If a writing
 can be used to control people, to manipulate them dishonestly, to blaspheme
 god's name for violence, how perfect is this writing/book? Wouldn't a
 perfect writing stop this from happening?


When student are taking an exam, does the professor intervene and correct
the mistakes? Life is an open-book exam, but it is the student's job to
study and use it properly.



 Just as we have no choice over our own self's birth and death, similarly
 we have no choice in being resurrected for an immortal life.


 How do you know God has stated this as fact? Yes, some people state this
 in some books. But perhaps these are statements that, in your words,
 constitute blasphemy to attribute to God or make statements on God's
 behalf what God hasn't stated. Yes, it could be god's greatness, but it
 could also be people trying to control others through fear.


We'll find out, all in good time

Samiya



 Our future well-being depends on the sincerity of our thoughts and
 actions in the present!


 On this we agree. PGC


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-30 Thread John Mikes

Dear Samiya: I don't argue with you (like PGC) I ask a question going back
further than this entire discussion:
you wrote:

 *I could say that as I studied and observed the beauty and the patterns in
nature, the finest details, I became convinced that there had to be a
Creator behind it, but that also only vindicated my belief... I could think
that may be since I was born in the faith, perhaps that's why it was
natural, but I was asking questions, and I must admit, sometimes even
fantasising how it would have been to be born in another faith or
culture... I can say that the trials and experiences of life brought me
closer to God, made me study the faith earnestly, and helped me discover
the endless patience and my loving God through it all. Yet, I think, the
latent belief was there all along, it was only my conscious self which took
its own sweet time to realise and appreciate it! Whatever may the reason
be, I'm glad that I'm a believer, and I lovingly worship my Creator.*

A simple question: Do you have any idea why and how you 'formulated' in
your conscious self the idea of a god? You mention since I was born in the
faith... - nonsense, nobody has been born in any thinking decision, a
newborn gradually develops ideas about the world (god, or no god) and a
fetus has even less thoughts. You were born without faith, or ideas of god,
just as people are born pagan before they get circumcised, or baptised.
You must have absorbed the first faith-related ideas from your mother as a
little ignorant infant when she prayed. The rest comes from here. Once you
started believing in 'GOD' it is but a small step to believe that (s)he
wrote the scripts and all the rest religion*S *include. With Inquisition,
Jihad, reincarnation etc.

And now the REAL question I want to ask:

We (scientists? mainly) know about zillions of galaxies, zillions of
starsystems in all of them, many planets with those z^z^n stars capable of
supporting some *bio* of their own circumstances, many-many of them
potentially leading to thinking units. Are we the ones selected from all
those to be the sole God's Children, or *all* of them are entitled to Her
care and particular fitting rules?

But the question goes on: how about the animals? are they God's children
as we are, or are they just fodder? and please, do not stop here: PLANTS
have a similar DNA-based *bio* to ours and to most animals' so they may
also claim to be God's Children? Some animals are hard to distinguish from
humans, in certain characteristics. If we go into that: how about insects,
and in-between life-forms? That would raise the originally counted (today)
~8 billion human 'souls' to z^z^z times over with life circumstances
varying in uncanny varieties. Do they all have the same 1 God, or each kind
a separate one?

One word about reincarnation  I mentioned it and you questioned back.
I am no expert in it, but the little what I read from the Sanskrit faith,
 people can (re)incarnate in any 'living' creature-form and vice versa. So
'they' provide a wider variety for gathering merits-sins than during a
single-term human life-span.
In my agnostic worldview, however, death means a decomposition of a
*living?* complexity (person) with functioning 'chunks' surviving with/in
other complexities (a hint to seers/dreamers with personal fragments
showing up). Such idea - of course - opposes the judgemental-day
recombination into the original person to be judged. But I never claimed my
ideas to be correct.

So: when and how did a recognisable God first talk to you and/or disclose
Herself?  (I accept no must be, consequently - or obviously).
In due time is a threat.

Please read carefully my text: I never denied the existence of God, did not
place words in Her speaking, did not denigrate faith or followers. A
student I am

John Mikes




On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:




 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:




 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 5:03 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 wrote:




 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:


 I respect a possible god's creation more than thinking it somebody's
 job to convert people. This makes god's magnificence, as you call it, very
 small. I still have no idea of whether you see the blaspheme problem here
 or not. PGC


 We agree that it is blasphemy to attribute to God or make statements on
 God's behalf what God hasn't stated. However, we also consider it blasphemy
 to deny God or God's communication, pretending that God hasn't sent any
 message, when God has indeed provided guidance for humans.


 I don't know this and I challenge you, the Quran, indeed anybody, to
 provide convincing evidence.


 Okay, challenge the Quran... read it and see if it answers you with
 convincing evidence.



 Your claim in this regard, could be the very blasphemy you speak of.


 You seem to think that the

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-29 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 5:03 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:




 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:


 I respect a possible god's creation more than thinking it somebody's job
 to convert people. This makes god's magnificence, as you call it, very
 small. I still have no idea of whether you see the blaspheme problem here
 or not. PGC


 We agree that it is blasphemy to attribute to God or make statements on
 God's behalf what God hasn't stated. However, we also consider it blasphemy
 to deny God or God's communication, pretending that God hasn't sent any
 message, when God has indeed provided guidance for humans.


I don't know this and I challenge you, the Quran, indeed anybody, to
provide convincing evidence. Your claim in this regard, could be the very
blasphemy you speak of.


 You seem to think that the Message is for a particular culture, I tell you
 its for all humanity from the Lord of the Worlds.


Cultures compete. War is our collective history.

If I grow up in Jewish or Christian background, this preselects me to be
more accessible to Jewish or Christian theology/books/interpretations than
to Quran.

Ok, the Quran is for all culture; but then the Bible says the same. You
still avoid the question of why the Quran above all other sacred books.
If this were a matter of personal religion, that would be private. But
since you want factual accuracy, and to tie scientific/rational approach to
Quran, the question is valid. Science, ability to doubt, question, and
strive for accuracy in facts and descriptions belongs to all of us, no
matter the religion.


 God doesn't need us or our service, it is we who need God and God's
 guidance, since it is our future that depends on our beliefs and actions.


If God had wanted an army of slaves, he would not allow them to think and
doubt. He could build an army of robot zombies, that he wouldn't even need
to test. This testing idea, and why a supreme being would engage in
testing a perfect creation, makes no sense to me.

It seems it could be misused to frighten and control people. If a writing
can be used to control people, to manipulate them dishonestly, to blaspheme
god's name for violence, how perfect is this writing/book? Wouldn't a
perfect writing stop this from happening?


 Just as we have no choice over our own self's birth and death, similarly
 we have no choice in being resurrected for an immortal life.


How do you know God has stated this as fact? Yes, some people state this
in some books. But perhaps these are statements that, in your words,
constitute blasphemy to attribute to God or make statements on God's
behalf what God hasn't stated. Yes, it could be god's greatness, but it
could also be people trying to control others through fear.


 Our future well-being depends on the sincerity of our thoughts and actions
 in the present!


On this we agree. PGC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-28 Thread LizR

On 1 June 2014 10:15, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 Dr. Marchal, you should ask about the Ahmadi sect of Islam who are hated
 by most of the Sunni and Shia

 Didn't they divorce in 1975?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-28 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:



 On 27-Jun-2014, at 3:50 pm, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:




 On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Okay, let’s leave aside whether this is a book about God by humans, or a
 book from God about humans.


 Why? It makes a claim that god is beyond comprehension; and goes on to
 tell us what is good and evil based on this. Please explain how this ties
 in with factual accuracy? Last I checked, what is beyond comprehension is
 what it is and does itself explain this. Invoking such would be a type of
 blasphemy to an ultimate entity beyond comprehension.


 Why can God not comprehend Himself,


I don't know whether some hypothetical entity/object responsible for
reality, Quran based or not, possesses self-referential ability; or what
form that would take. Self? In relation to what other one would be
inclined to ask. But then one stumbles on one part of the problem: if such
god is all that is, how could that god possess a self that requires an
other/background/universe to contrast against?

This is part of why I wouldn't know whether god could have a self, in the
sense that I can understand.


 and what's stopping God from communicating with His creations?


I'm not saying god doesn't, but I don't know that god does either. Why
would he if his creation is according to his taste?


 He created the physical laws and all creation is bound by them. He created
 us, gave us free-will and is testing us with some dos and don'ts.


Again you make god some sort of insecure tester of his own creation. Is
god a he by the way? Do you understand the blaspheme problem in this
context? That this hardly fits with saying god is incomprehensible?

I'm not so sure we can talk about hard facts on such a basis.


 If God can create everything from the cosmologically largest to the
 tiniest string or whatever is smaller than that, if God created our DNA and
 our neuronal and other networks with such precision, what's stopping or
 limiting God from sending a book which we can read and take guidance from?
 Do you consider God anything less than magnificently amazing?


I don't know if god has a need to display himself as magnificently
amazing. Humans and certain animals do this for variety of reason, but I
don't think god has a need to show off. What would god have to prove to
whom? Why would God create something already known to him and then want to
test that?






 Let’s discuss the factual accuracy part first. You ask “how we can study
 something factually, with so many authoritative arguments and divine
 authority getting in the way?” The authoritative arguments and divine
 authority are only for those who consider the Quran from God.

 ?


 I mean in the sense of what religion we profess to belong to in this
 world, not in the absolute sense. For all we know, you might be right and I
 may be wrong. If what the scriptures foretell is correct, then however the
 content of the scriptures will be applicable to all in the final judgement.


But there are billions of scriptures written by billions of humans. You've
never answered my question concerning why God would limit his influence by
writing the holy book correctly for only one culture? That seems like
cheating the test; making it easier for some students than others. And if
hypothetical god were his own student, why would he want to win by such
cheating method? I don't like winning a chess game by cheating; I don't
even like winning, if the opponent or me looses by too trivial error,
because the game quickly gets boring.



 For all others, its just book giving warnings and glad tidings about a
 future (hereafter) we cannot know of otherwise. It explains giving many
 examples and similitudes, and those explanations draw the reader’s
 attention to much that we can verify for factual accuracy.

 Well, if you ignore the kind of elephant in the room question that I keep
 posing, then indeed, you can focus on anything you like. But calling this
 process factually accurate, I don't understand.


 I don't think I understand your question then. You asked how the Quran
 handled it,


I asked whether and how the Quran handles overly literal interpretation
leading to human suffering, as we can see with much religion and politics.


 so I quoted the verses, and explained that Book from God about Humans
 concept.


Then you asked how does it lead to factual accuracy, so I explained through
 a few examples. Now, you say that I'm ignoring the question. I don't
 comprehend your question...


Semi-fictional example:

Say I grow up without religion in my education and I enjoy the music of the
band Queen. As I grow up, I read more about the band, the music, the
people, the histories, and I learn all the lyrics of all the songs by
heart. Become a total expert and follower. At some point I will look at the
world and myself, and see everything as

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-28 Thread Samiya Illias

On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 27-Jun-2014, at 3:50 pm, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

Okay, let’s leave aside whether this is a book about God by humans, or a
book from God about humans.

Why? It makes a claim that god is beyond comprehension; and goes on to
tell us what is good and evil based on this. Please explain how this ties
in with factual accuracy? Last I checked, what is beyond comprehension is
what it is and does itself explain this. Invoking such would be a type of
blasphemy to an ultimate entity beyond comprehension.

Why can God not comprehend Himself,

I don't know whether some hypothetical entity/object responsible for
reality, Quran based or not, possesses self-referential ability; or what
form that would take. Self? In relation to what other one would be
inclined to ask. But then one stumbles on one part of the problem: if such
god is all that is, how could that god possess a self that requires an
other/background/universe to contrast against?

This is part of why I wouldn't know whether god could have a self, in the
sense that I can understand.

All that is, you mean the Creator part of the creation, as in the
emergent property article posted in another thread? No, we believe God to
be independent and outside creation, whatever that may be.

and what's stopping God from communicating with His creations?

I'm not saying god doesn't, but I don't know that god does either. Why
would he if his creation is according to his taste?

I cannot answer that. I believe God has a good reason for it, but we've
only been informed that its due to a prior event according to which The
Human took the Trust, but breaks the Covenant, and therefore must be
judged. Again, similar questions to what you've repeatedly posed can be
asked, but they really don't lead to any answers, not because there are no
answers, but rather because we humans, or at least I, do not have the
answers to it.

He created the physical laws and all creation is bound by them. He
created us, gave us free-will and is testing us with some dos and don'ts.

Again you make god some sort of insecure tester of his own creation.

Insecure? No, we believe that God knows exactly what each creation is, and
could have sorted us without testing, but God gives us a chance to make the
right choices, or establish for ourselves where we belong.

Is god a he by the way? Do you understand the blaspheme problem in this
context? That this hardly fits with saying god is incomprehensible?

God created the genders and is above that. However, its common (natural?)
human practice to speak of unknown in the generic masculine tense (even I
have been referred to as he / him by a number of people on this list :).
Moreover, in the scriptures, the masculine pronoun is used. The Quran gives
introduces the idea that God is the Spiritual Light (Nur) of the Heavens
and Earth, and explains it through a parable in Chapter 24, Verse 35.
To quote Dr. Zakir Naik (http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/conceptofGod.htm
):

*The most concise definition of God in Islam is given in the four verses of
Surah Ikhlas which is Chapter 112 of the Qur’an:Say: He is Allah, The One
and Only.Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.He begets not, nor is He
begotten.And there is none like unto Him.
[Al-Qur’an 112:1-4]The word ‘Assamad’ is difficult to translate. It means
‘absolute existence’, which can be attributed only to Allah (swt), all
other existence being temporal or conditional. It also means that Allah
(swt) is not dependant on any person or thing, but all persons and things
are dependant on Him. *
You may also wish to read this answer:
http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-about-islam/faith-and-worship/islamic-creed/168624-is-god-male-or-female.html

I'm not so sure we can talk about hard facts on such a basis.

May be your questions will be better answered by former non-muslims who
have accepted Islam, especially Europeans or Americans, who can perhaps
better relate to your questions. Some of them are well-known
scholars/preachers of Islam and have web presence and videos on YouTube. I
was able to find this list on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Islam

If God can create everything from the cosmologically largest to the
tiniest string or whatever is smaller than that, if God created our DNA and
our neuronal and other networks with such precision, what's stopping or
limiting God from sending a book which we can read and take guidance from?
Do you consider God anything less than magnificently amazing?

I don't know if god has a need to display himself as magnificently
amazing.

God doesn't need to. God's magnificence and amazing-ness is evident through

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-28 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:




 On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:




 Another example: does the Quran allow for possibility that it could be
 wrong etc? PGC


 No, it doesn't, as explained above. It allows for human evaluation,


Which is pretty pointless, if the text is god's truth written large. This
kind of fake advertising of scientific doubt is also present in the Bible;
e.g. doubting apostle Thomas. As in yes, if you are the doubting type...
we've reserved a place for you.

My answer is: Sorry, you don't allow real doubt. Thomas and these figures
can only doubt inside the book, not the book itself. Your doubt is false
doubt.


  and suggests parameters that we can use such as discrepancy,
 falsifiability, trying to write a similar book without God's help,


How can we even be sure the Quran, Bible, etc. are written with god's help?
How can we be sure it is not a political tool of men, pretending to be
god's voice simply, for obvious human reason?


 etc., and repeatedly claims that this Book is without any crookedness,


You do not address the problem of blaspheme raised and continue to make
statements about him, even though you believe you cannot understand him.

Apologies, but that is crooked to me.


 errors or mistakes, and a guidance and blessing from the Lord of the
 Worlds.

 If I may suggest, keep asking questions and doubting,


I do such with or without Quran.


  and at the same time, also read through the entire text of the Quran.


I think I've had enough for some time: the way you present it in these
quotes, Allah is vain, boastful (needs a book and people to do advertising
for him), vengeful and cruel tester of creation he despises (why test and
punish? why cultural preferences?), and the crooked move of writing about
god when you admit that nothing can be said about god.

For today, that is enough for me and it looks from your quotes like the
book wants to convert people in typical manipulation through fear
mechanism. I'm sure there are deeper ways to comprehend Quran, but today
and through these quotes I don't see them.

And since I can hypnotize myself to like almost anything, given enough
time, I'm sure I could do it with Quran as well. But today I choose to
doubt + it doesn't look much fun from the scripture quoted here; like I
have to run around and convert people to some book that tells them to be
frightened if they don't read it, and if they doubt, I just repeat them to
keep reading.

I respect a possible god's creation more than thinking it somebody's job to
convert people. This makes god's magnificence, as you call it, very small.
I still have no idea of whether you see the blaspheme problem here or not.
PGC


 Some very good resources on the web give multiple translations in many
 languages, as well as Arabic text, and lexicon. I think you'll find that
 the Quran addresses many of your questions and doubts in a much clearer and
 direct way. Just a few minutes every morning, it just might be worth it!

 Samiya






 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-28 Thread Samiya Illias

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:




 On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 wrote:




 On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:




 Another example: does the Quran allow for possibility that it could be
 wrong etc? PGC


 No, it doesn't, as explained above. It allows for human evaluation,


 Which is pretty pointless, if the text is god's truth written large. This
 kind of fake advertising of scientific doubt is also present in the Bible;
 e.g. doubting apostle Thomas. As in yes, if you are the doubting type...
 we've reserved a place for you.

 My answer is: Sorry, you don't allow real doubt. Thomas and these figures
 can only doubt inside the book, not the book itself. Your doubt is false
 doubt.


  and suggests parameters that we can use such as discrepancy,
 falsifiability, trying to write a similar book without God's help,


 How can we even be sure the Quran, Bible, etc. are written with god's
 help? How can we be sure it is not a political tool of men, pretending to
 be god's voice simply, for obvious human reason?


 etc., and repeatedly claims that this Book is without any crookedness,


 You do not address the problem of blaspheme raised and continue to make
 statements about him, even though you believe you cannot understand him.

 Apologies, but that is crooked to me.


 errors or mistakes, and a guidance and blessing from the Lord of the
 Worlds.

 If I may suggest, keep asking questions and doubting,


 I do such with or without Quran.


  and at the same time, also read through the entire text of the Quran.


 I think I've had enough for some time: the way you present it in these
 quotes, Allah is vain, boastful (needs a book and people to do advertising
 for him), vengeful and cruel tester of creation he despises (why test and
 punish? why cultural preferences?), and the crooked move of writing about
 god when you admit that nothing can be said about god.

 For today, that is enough for me and it looks from your quotes like the
 book wants to convert people in typical manipulation through fear
 mechanism. I'm sure there are deeper ways to comprehend Quran, but today
 and through these quotes I don't see them.

 And since I can hypnotize myself to like almost anything, given enough
 time, I'm sure I could do it with Quran as well. But today I choose to
 doubt + it doesn't look much fun from the scripture quoted here; like I
 have to run around and convert people to some book that tells them to be
 frightened if they don't read it, and if they doubt, I just repeat them to
 keep reading.

 I respect a possible god's creation more than thinking it somebody's job
 to convert people. This makes god's magnificence, as you call it, very
 small. I still have no idea of whether you see the blaspheme problem here
 or not. PGC


We agree that it is blasphemy to attribute to God or make statements on
God's behalf what God hasn't stated. However, we also consider it blasphemy
to deny God or God's communication, pretending that God hasn't sent any
message, when God has indeed provided guidance for humans. You seem to
think that the Message is for a particular culture, I tell you its for all
humanity from the Lord of the Worlds. God doesn't need us or our service,
it is we who need God and God's guidance, since it is our future that
depends on our beliefs and actions. Just as we have no choice over our own
self's birth and death, similarly we have no choice in being resurrected
for an immortal life. Our future well-being depends on the sincerity of our
thoughts and actions in the present!

Samiya




 Some very good resources on the web give multiple translations in many
 languages, as well as Arabic text, and lexicon. I think you'll find that
 the Quran addresses many of your questions and doubts in a much clearer and
 direct way. Just a few minutes every morning, it just might be worth it!

 Samiya






 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List

RE: Pluto bounces back!

Samiya…. May I ask you why you believe. It is obvious that you do believe, but 
why… and please not the canned answer supplied by dogma but the deep inner 
personal reasons that motivate you to believe?

Can we cut through all the bull shit and get straight at the core of the 
matter… with the simple direct question of why?

Not in the generic sense, but rather in the exquisitely personal dimension of 
your own innermost wellspring of being.. your own emergent self-awareness. 
(which you believe was given to you by your God)

Why?

What is your personal story. Dogma does not interest me in the least; personal 
stories I do however find fascinating.

Chris, in the Pacific Northwest (one of the best spots on the earth)

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2014 8:04 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

 

 

 

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

 

 

On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

 

 

On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

 

  

Another example: does the Quran allow for possibility that it could be wrong 
etc? PGC 

 

No, it doesn't, as explained above. It allows for human evaluation,

 

Which is pretty pointless, if the text is god's truth written large. This kind 
of fake advertising of scientific doubt is also present in the Bible; e.g. 
doubting apostle Thomas. As in yes, if you are the doubting type... we've 
reserved a place for you. 

My answer is: Sorry, you don't allow real doubt. Thomas and these figures can 
only doubt inside the book, not the book itself. Your doubt is false doubt.

 

and suggests parameters that we can use such as discrepancy, falsifiability, 
trying to write a similar book without God's help,

 

How can we even be sure the Quran, Bible, etc. are written with god's help? How 
can we be sure it is not a political tool of men, pretending to be god's voice 
simply, for obvious human reason?

 

etc., and repeatedly claims that this Book is without any crookedness, 

 

You do not address the problem of blaspheme raised and continue to make 
statements about him, even though you believe you cannot understand him. 

Apologies, but that is crooked to me.

 

errors or mistakes, and a guidance and blessing from the Lord of the Worlds.  

 

If I may suggest, keep asking questions and doubting,

 

I do such with or without Quran. 

 

and at the same time, also read through the entire text of the Quran. 

 

I think I've had enough for some time: the way you present it in these quotes, 
Allah is vain, boastful (needs a book and people to do advertising for him), 
vengeful and cruel tester of creation he despises (why test and punish? why 
cultural preferences?), and the crooked move of writing about god when you 
admit that nothing can be said about god.

For today, that is enough for me and it looks from your quotes like the book 
wants to convert people in typical manipulation through fear mechanism. I'm 
sure there are deeper ways to comprehend Quran, but today and through these 
quotes I don't see them.

And since I can hypnotize myself to like almost anything, given enough time, 
I'm sure I could do it with Quran as well. But today I choose to doubt + it 
doesn't look much fun from the scripture quoted here; like I have to run around 
and convert people to some book that tells them to be frightened if they don't 
read it, and if they doubt, I just repeat them to keep reading.

I respect a possible god's creation more than thinking it somebody's job to 
convert people. This makes god's magnificence, as you call it, very small. I 
still have no idea of whether you see the blaspheme problem here or not. PGC

 

We agree that it is blasphemy to attribute to God or make statements on God's 
behalf what God hasn't stated. However, we also consider it blasphemy to deny 
God or God's communication, pretending that God hasn't sent any message, when 
God has indeed provided guidance for humans. You seem to think that the Message 
is for a particular culture, I tell you its for all humanity from the Lord of 
the Worlds. God doesn't need us or our service, it is we who need God and God's 
guidance, since it is our future that depends on our beliefs and actions. Just 
as we have no choice over our own self's birth and death, similarly we have no 
choice in being resurrected for an immortal life. Our future well-being depends 
on the sincerity of our thoughts and actions in the present!  

 

Samiya 

  

 

Some very good resources on the web give multiple translations in many 
languages, as well as Arabic text, and lexicon. I think you'll find that the 
Quran addresses many of your questions and doubts in a much clearer and direct 
way. Just a few minutes every morning, it just might be worth

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-27 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:




 On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Okay, let’s leave aside whether this is a book about God by humans, or a
 book from God about humans.


 Why? It makes a claim that god is beyond comprehension; and goes on to
 tell us what is good and evil based on this. Please explain how this ties
 in with factual accuracy? Last I checked, what is beyond comprehension is
 what it is and does itself explain this.


does NOT explain this: typo

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-27 Thread LizR

On 27 June 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Okay, let’s leave aside whether this is a book about God by humans, or a
 book from God about humans.

 Let’s discuss the factual accuracy part first. You ask “how we can study
 something factually, with so many authoritative arguments and divine
 authority getting in the way?” The authoritative arguments and divine
 authority are only for those who consider the Quran from God. For all
 others, its just book giving warnings and glad tidings about a future
 (hereafter) we cannot know of otherwise.

 Not true. Some people, many who are alive today, are able to communicate
 with the dead, and have knowledge of the hereafter.
 Our home was a half-way house for Cambodian refugees (until Reagan stopped
 them from coming here) and speaking with the dead is much more common in
 that culture than western culture. One lady for example would consult with
 her dead brothers when buying a car and they would come and check it out.
 Westerners find all that unbelievable but I can assure you that I have had
 personal experience of the same. By the way, none (to my knowledge) heard
 from god.

 I can call forth spirits from the vasty deep!

Why, so can I, and so can any man; but do they come when you do call them?

(Shakespeare, I'm not sure which play offhand, or who said it ... or if I
quoted it accurately ... but I'm sure you get the point).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-27 Thread David Nyman

On 27 June 2014 12:24, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 I can call forth spirits from the vasty deep!

 Why, so can I, and so can any man; but do they come when you do call them?

 (Shakespeare, I'm not sure which play offhand, or who said it ... or if I
 quoted it accurately ... but I'm sure you get the point).

It was Hotspur, in response to Glendower's boasting (Henry IV Part 1).
I must say I've always considered it a very apposite riposte!

David

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-27 Thread meekerdb


On 6/27/2014 4:24 AM, LizR wrote:

On 27 June 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com 
mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
mailto:samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

Okay, let’s leave aside whether this is a book about God by humans, or 
a book
from God about humans.

Let’s discuss the factual accuracy part first. You ask “how we can study
something factually, with so many authoritative arguments and divine 
authority
getting in the way?” The authoritative arguments and divine authority 
are only
for those who consider the Quran from God. For all others, its just 
book giving
warnings and glad tidings about a future (hereafter) we cannot know of 
otherwise.

Not true. Some people, many who are alive today, are able to communicate 
with the
dead, and have knowledge of the hereafter.



Except it's never anything useful; like is string theory on the right track or where did 
Uncle Fred stash his money?





Our home was a half-way house for Cambodian refugees (until Reagan stopped 
them from
coming here) and speaking with the dead is much more common in that culture 
than
western culture. One lady for example would consult with her dead brothers 
when
buying a car and they would come and check it out. Westerners find all that
unbelievable but I can assure you that I have had personal experience of 
the same.
By the way, none (to my knowledge) heard from god.

I can call forth spirits from the vasty deep!

Why, so can I, and so can any man; but do they come when you do call them?

(Shakespeare, I'm not sure which play offhand, or who said it ... or if I quoted it 
accurately ... but I'm sure you get the point).


Quite accurate, from Henry IV Part 1.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-27 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 6/27/2014 4:24 AM, LizR wrote:

  On 27 June 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

   On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  Okay, let’s leave aside whether this is a book about God by humans, or
 a book from God about humans.

 Let’s discuss the factual accuracy part first. You ask “how we can
 study something factually, with so many authoritative arguments and divine
 authority getting in the way?” The authoritative arguments and divine
 authority are only for those who consider the Quran from God. For all
 others, its just book giving warnings and glad tidings about a future
 (hereafter) we cannot know of otherwise.

  Not true. Some people, many who are alive today, are able to
 communicate with the dead, and have knowledge of the hereafter.


 Except it's never anything useful; like is string theory on the right
 track or where did Uncle Fred stash his money?


In my case the communication with the dead prompted me to reveal that
Reagan's Missile shield was inherently vulnerable,
something that was well known in BMD research but being kept a secret. Greg
Canavan, the co-inventor of Brilliant Pebbles along with Teller, told me
that BP was in response to my protest with Henry Kendall and the UCS. But I
think I have already mentioned that on this list.
Richard





 Our home was a half-way house for Cambodian refugees (until Reagan
 stopped them from coming here) and speaking with the dead is much more
 common in that culture than western culture. One lady for example would
 consult with her dead brothers when buying a car and they would come and
 check it out. Westerners find all that unbelievable but I can assure you
 that I have had personal experience of the same. By the way, none (to my
 knowledge) heard from god.

I can call forth spirits from the vasty deep!

  Why, so can I, and so can any man; but do they come when you do call
 them?

  (Shakespeare, I'm not sure which play offhand, or who said it ... or if
 I quoted it accurately ... but I'm sure you get the point).


 Quite accurate, from Henry IV Part 1.

 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-26 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 24 Jun 2014, at 17:34, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

What about this Irish Times article? It seems to be out of the box  
thinking. I don't know, if true, that it has any value for the human  
species? But it might in my imagination. My imagination, plus 3.50,  
can get me a coffee latte. Any thoughts, condemnatory or laudatory.



http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/what-if-god-were-part-of-the-natural-order-1.1836816


A platonist believes more in god (truth, universal mind) than in  
nature (a collective stable hallucination brought by the confluence of  
relative stable number dream).


To naturalize god is basically a word play, if not the same sort of  
blaspheme than pretending some human are god.


Bruno





-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 3:39 am
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!


On 23 Jun 2014, at 18:39, Richard Ruquist wrote:





On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:

Dear John,

 it is wasted time and effort to argue who is right in a  
question that raises 2 billion children in a 'faith' they will  
live by - AND such 'faith' does include the killing of  
'infidels' (meaning: who do not share their faith to the last  
comma) and many more peculiarities which our part of the world  
would not accept anymore. There is no question about 'truth',  
believability, oracles and supernatural wisdom, there is a 1500  
year old power over billions of people with no questions asking  
and willing to do whatever they believe has to be done.


It is the same problem with christianism, but such structure has  
shown to be able to evolve a bit. Then I would differentiate  
muslims, literalist muslim, and fanatics. Only the later are  
dangerous.


I think that Samiya is open to discussion, even if it is not clear  
how far she is to doubt the literal Quran, which of course is  
necessary at the start if only to see if it contains anything  
scientific (in physics, biology, ... but also theology).


This hides the real roots of fundamentalism which is that we have  
forbid the use of science (that is the skeptical spirit since well,  
indeed 1500 years.



Regarding skepticism, the High Holy Days service of Judaism  
contains a prayer for the value of doubt. Not sure how far back the  
origin of that prayer is in time, but it certainly contributes to  
regard that Jews have for science.


Interesting. In fact judaism; like taoism, and branches of buddhism  
encourage the comments to the sacred texts, and allow a sort of  
jurisprudence making possible some notion of amendment, and favorize  
the non literal reading of texts.




Google does not seem to know of its existence.


The net does not know everything, and contains a lot of propaganda  
of many kinds.


Bruno





Richard



There were argumentations a millennium ago, but the sword answered.
Wars and wars.
We have different vocabularies and both sides understand things  
differently.


Those are political, if not economical war, disguised in religious  
war.






I do not say which part is 'better-or-worse' I am just sorry for  
an advanced worldview getting erased by a violent ancient force  
that overwhelms our civilisation. (Q: are WE civil, indeed?)


An ancient force like fire can erase in few weeks what needed an  
incredibly long/deep history like a tree or a forest.


It is in the nature of wiseness and advanced mind to be the easy  
prey for violence.


Are we civil? Well, officially, the US is no more since the 31  
december 2011 (NDAA 12).  But the bad seed comes from something  
older than Kennedy's assassination.


There is a problem with radical islamism, but the real problem is  
in the exploitation of that problem by bandits to hide their  
lucrative criminal activities.


The war on drugs and the war on terror are de facto non stopping  
wars which constantly create and fuel its enemy.


The value of money is based on trust which needs *fair*  
competition, and a notion of genuine use, but the society get a  
cancer when money is used to create fake money, based on lies or  
on problems created for that purpose.


Bandits might be a progress compared to dictator using god to  
justify its job. So we are not civil, but still can become.


Virgin lôbian number seem civil at the start. Uncivilness seems to  
be only a bad habit, a passage similar to some dilemmas in game  
theory, when you can make a very big win by ceasing cooperation.  
May be that's a devil's temptation, or the fall from sane egoism  
into psychopathic or paranoid egocentrism.


Bruno



John M


On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 29 May 2014, at 05:33, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes  
te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:



Ok, so let's talk some specifics.

Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic  
expression

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-26 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 25 Jun 2014, at 06:46, meekerdb wrote:


On 6/24/2014 12:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



Google does not seem to know of its existence.


The net does not know everything, and contains a lot of propaganda  
of many kinds.


Bruno




Have you read Scott Aaronson's latest blog in which he discusses the  
application of Google technology to the problem to defining morality  
and improving democracy?


http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/



I am a bit skeptical on improving democracy by such means, and a lot  
more skeptical for defining morality. I have not studied the details  
of the paper though (for reason of lack of time).


Bruno





Eigenmorality
June 18th, 2014

This post is about an idea I had around 1997, when I was 16 years  
old and a freshman computer-science major at Cornell.  Back then, I  
was extremely impressed by a research project called CLEVER, which  
one of my professors, Jon Kleinberg, had led while working at IBM  
Almaden.  The idea was to use the link structure of the web itself  
to rank which web pages were most important, and therefore which  
ones should be returned first in a search query.  Specifically,  
Kleinberg defined hubs as pages that linked to lots of  
authorities, and authorities as pages that were linked to by  
lots of hubs.  At first glance, this definition seems hopelessly  
circular, but Kleinberg observed that one can break the circularity  
by just treating the World Wide Web as a giant directed graph, and  
doing some linear algebra on its adjacency matrix.

...


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-26 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List


Brent, far be it from me to defend the RC, but its also a matter of how far 
back you wish to go in history, or even care to look? Look at Syria, look at 
Nigeria, look at Iraq, look at Afghanistan. You know what's going on there and 
you know why. It's not animists, or Zen Buddhists, who are doing the nasty 
today. Maybe they will change in 25 years and maybe things will get worse ithis 
area. As for birth control, yes we need more. If you look to the 20th century, 
you will note that the 70 million dead from the biggest Atheists on the planet, 
so much so that they had put in on their party doctrine, back in the 19th 
century. Yeah, not all Atheists are Marxists, but almost all Marxists are 
atheists, and they were easy, on the Sovs, the Chinese, North Kor, and 
Kampuchea, during their class purging. Not a bad case of 'catch up' to the 
RC, I'd say! And why zing the RC when the fire burns all over the world from 
another source?

Well there are those who murder abortion doctors. But lucrativecriminal 
acts includes a lot more than murderous martydom.  TheCatholic Church has 
probably condemned more children to starvationby outlawing contraception 
than the Islamist ever will.

Brent


 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 12:58 pm
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!


  

On 6/25/2014 4:34 AM, spudboy100 via  Everything List wrote:


Brent, Jesuspeople don't become murdering martyr's anymore, 

Well there are those who murder abortion doctors. But lucrative
criminal acts includes a lot more than murderous martydom.  TheCatholic 
Church has probably condemned more children to starvationby outlawing 
contraception than the Islamist ever will.

Brent


so let'sfocus where the problem is. Look at Nigeria, Sudan, Syria,a and 
   Iraq, and draw together the facts. If it was Buddhists setting
off bombs in subways' one could concede your point. Also, I amnot a 
Jesus person, and don't hate em. If ya want to beat up JCwhy not this 
quote, I come not to bring peace but with asword. And the Christians 
surely did, right into the 20thcentury, but no longer.

  
This is  naive.  Bandits do lucrative criminal acts to get money
  which can purchase goods, luxury, women, power.  So why do
  suppose that no one uses religion to get goods, luxury,  women, 
power,..?  You just want to excuse religion and  blame it all on 
some criminal acts.  What is a crime is  often defined by 
religion and it often includes  questioning the priesthood and the 
official dogma.  Sothe problem is not just radical Islam; it is 
any Islam,and any religion, which has a dogma and requires belief 
inthat dogma to avoid sanctions and punishment in this life or  
  a putative afterlife...that is to say 90% of all religions.

Brent
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign
over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
   --- Jesus, Luke 19:27 





-Original  Message-
  From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
  To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
  Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 9:57 pm
  Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!
  
  

  
On 6/23/2014 7:47 AM, BrunoMarchal wrote:
  
  
There is a problem with radicalislamism, but the real problem 
is in the exploitation ofthat problem by bandits to hide their 
lucrative criminalactivities.
  
  This isnaive.  Bandits do lucrative criminal acts 
to get moneywhich can purchase goods, luxury, women, power.  So 
whydo suppose that no one uses religion to get goods,   
 luxury, women, power,..?  You just want to excusereligion 
and blame it all on some criminal acts.  Whatis a crime is 
often defined by religion and it oftenincludes questioning the 
priesthood and the officialdogma.  So the problem is not just 
radical  Islam; it is any Islam, and any religion, which has a
  dogma and requires belief in that dogma to avoid sanctions
  and punishment in this life or a putative afterlife...that  is to 
say 90% of all religions.
  
  Brent
  But those mine enemies, which would not that I should
  reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
 --- Jesus, Luke 19

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-26 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 25 Jun 2014, at 18:34, meekerdb wrote:


On 6/25/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



  What is a crime is often defined by religion


That makes sense in primitive society, but religion might have  
nothing to say on the terrestrial plane. You confuse religion, and  
the institutionalization of religion.




and it often includes questioning the priesthood and the official  
dogma.


That is the way of bandits. If theology would have remained a  
science, we might have just forbid the institutionalization of any  
religion.


Don't confuse religion and what the human do with them


On the contrary, it is you who confuse mysticism with religion.   
Religion IS by definition an institution.  You can't have a  
religion by yourself.  You can have a philosophy and maybe even a  
theology by yourself - but not a religion.  Religion comes from a  
latin root meaning to bind together.


Religion is supposed to bind together people sharing experience. I  
agree that religion is mystic at its roots, but as you know I am large  
on mystical. I define it by everything a machine can produce as  
true, yet with some possibly high degree of non-justifiability.  
Consciousness can be considered has the zero mystical state, that  
is, the first most basic one (which many people take for granted).


Then, institutionalization of a religion can develop more or less  
naturally, but indeed will very often be perverted into a political  
power.


That's life.

It makes not religion false, but like a forest it is fragile and can  
be burned by lower level, simpler but still potent, entities (like  
fire for forest, and lies for the mind).


And some Pope gave me some confidence that Church can progress, and I  
have some quite good books on Plotinus written by Christians, etc.


I am,  as scientist, agnostic, both on god and matter, Brent. I take  
only the bibles, Quran and Alice in Wonderland as evidences that  
humans can intuit something weird and counter-intuitive. I only take  
seriously the theologians, and among them obviously those making sense  
to me, and there are many, in many culture. I read all reports of  
experience, a bit like I study the self-referentially correct report  
of the universal machine looking inward in the sense made utterly  
precise by Gödel and followers.


I intuit something in common in all those discourse, which can protect  
the soul, or the first person, from easy reduction.


It is an humbling sort of intuition.  It can also give a metaphysical  
vertigo. But then Hubble's galaxies too.

Awesomeness is not yet illegal, OK?

Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-25 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 25 Jun 2014, at 03:57, meekerdb wrote:


On 6/23/2014 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is a problem with radical islamism, but the real problem is  
in the exploitation of that problem by bandits to hide their  
lucrative criminal activities.


This is naive.  Bandits do lucrative criminal acts to get money  
which can purchase goods, luxury, women, power.


I agree.


So why do suppose that no one uses religion to get goods, luxury,  
women, power,..?


I did not suppose that. Exactly the contrary. I insist that this is  
the weakness of religion and the theological, but also the health,  
fields. They are used by bandits who exploits them; But the religion  
is not the problem, it is the bandits who exploit them, and we should  
not confuse them.





You just want to excuse religion and blame it all on some criminal  
acts.


Yes. To criticize religion for that would be like criticizing money  
for the stealing of money, or criticizing blood for the feeding of  
cancer.







  What is a crime is often defined by religion


That makes sense in primitive society, but religion might have  
nothing to say on the terrestrial plane. You confuse religion, and the  
institutionalization of religion.




and it often includes questioning the priesthood and the official  
dogma.


That is the way of bandits. If theology would have remained a science,  
we might have just forbid the institutionalization of any religion.


Don't confuse religion and what the human do with them.




So the problem is not just radical Islam; it is any Islam, and any  
religion, which has a dogma and requires belief in that dogma to  
avoid sanctions and punishment in this life or a putative  
afterlife...that is to say 90% of all religions.


In occident. After theology has been abandoned to politics and  
bandits. I use religion in the original sense. For me there is just no  
relation between, even just christianity, and what followed its roman  
institutionalization.


Only by coming back to seriousness in theology, we will be able to  
fight against the religious institutions. Mocking religion and  
theology only profits to the (fake) religions and to its  
authoritarianism.


Bruno






Brent
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over  
them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

   --- Jesus, Luke 19:27

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-25 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

I always thought the Organian (was that the blond kid in the toga?) looked like 
he should've been serving crudites' in a fine restaurant. It wasn't the Gorn, 
ss! Or the light globes betting 10 Qwat-loo's? Anyways, God, as a mind 
emerging from the universe, gets us away from Aquinas' view or Rabbi, Ben Bag 
Bag (a name I treasure for some reason?).  Your quote is Shemer's last law, 
which I am real good with. It doesn't pimp-slap me, one way or another. 

This has been exploited by explorers meeting primitive peoples, at least in 
fiction but probably in reality too. Plus Captain Kirk used to come across them 
with monotonous regularity - the Organians and all that.




-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 9:28 pm
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!



On 25 June 2014 03:34, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

What about this Irish Times article? It seems to be out of the box thinking. I 
don't know, if true, that it has any value for the human species? But it might 
in my imagination. My imagination, plus 3.50, can get me a coffee latte. Any 
thoughts, condemnatory or laudatory. 

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/what-if-god-were-part-of-the-natural-order-1.1836816



Any sufficiently advanced alien is indistinguishable from God.


This has been exploited by explorers meeting primitive peoples, at least in 
fiction but probably in reality too. Plus Captain Kirk used to come across them 
with monotonous regularity - the Organians and all that.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-25 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Brent, Jesus people don't become murdering martyr's anymore, so let's focus 
where the problem is. Look at Nigeria, Sudan, Syria,a and Iraq, and draw 
together the facts. If it was Buddhists setting off bombs in subways' one could 
concede your point. Also, I am not a Jesus person, and don't hate em. If ya 
want to beat up JC why not this quote, I come not to bring peace but with a 
sword. And the Christians surely did, right into the 20th century, but no 
longer.

This is naive.  Bandits  do lucrative criminal acts to get money which can 
purchase goods,  luxury, women, power.  So why do suppose that no one uses 
religion  to get goods, luxury, women, power,..?  You just want to excuse   
   religion and blame it all on some criminal acts.  What is a  crime is 
often defined by religion and it often includes  questioning the priesthood 
and the official dogma.  So theproblem is not just radical Islam; it is 
any Islam, and anyreligion, which has a dogma and requires belief in that 
dogma toavoid sanctions and punishment in this life or a putative
afterlife...that is to say 90% of all religions.

Brent
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign overthem, 
bring hither, and slay them before me.
   --- Jesus, Luke 19:27 




-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 9:57 pm
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!


  

On 6/23/2014 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


There is a problem with radical islamism, but the real  problem is in the 
exploitation of that problem by bandits to hide  their lucrative criminal 
activities.

This is naive.  Bandits  do lucrative criminal acts to get money which 
can purchase goods,  luxury, women, power.  So why do suppose that no one 
uses religion  to get goods, luxury, women, power,..?  You just want to 
excuse  religion and blame it all on some criminal acts.  What is a  
crime is often defined by religion and it often includes  questioning the 
priesthood and the official dogma.  So theproblem is not just radical 
Islam; it is any Islam, and anyreligion, which has a dogma and requires 
belief in that dogma toavoid sanctions and punishment in this life or a 
putativeafterlife...that is to say 90% of all religions.

Brent
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign overthem, 
bring hither, and slay them before me.
   --- Jesus, Luke 19:27 
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-25 Thread meekerdb


On 6/25/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



  What is a crime is often defined by religion


That makes sense in primitive society, but religion might have nothing to say on the 
terrestrial plane. You confuse religion, and the institutionalization of religion.





and it often includes questioning the priesthood and the official dogma.


That is the way of bandits. If theology would have remained a science, we might have 
just forbid the institutionalization of any religion.


Don't confuse religion and what the human do with them


On the contrary, it is you who confuse mysticism with religion.  Religion IS by 
definition an institution.  You can't have a religion by yourself.  You can have a 
philosophy and maybe even a theology by yourself - but not a religion.  Religion comes 
from a latin root meaning to bind together.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-25 Thread meekerdb


On 6/25/2014 4:34 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Brent, Jesus people don't become murdering martyr's anymore, 


Well there are those who murder abortion doctors. But lucrative criminal acts includes a 
lot more than murderous martydom.  The Catholic Church has probably condemned more 
children to starvation by outlawing contraception than the Islamist ever will.


Brent

so let's focus where the problem is. Look at Nigeria, Sudan, Syria,a and Iraq, and draw 
together the facts. If it was Buddhists setting off bombs in subways' one could concede 
your point. Also, I am not a Jesus person, and don't hate em. If ya want to beat up JC 
why not this quote, I come not to bring peace but with a sword. And the Christians 
surely did, right into the 20th century, but no longer.


This is naive.  Bandits do lucrative criminal acts to get money which can 
purchase
goods, luxury, women, power.  So why do suppose that no one uses religion 
to get
goods, luxury, women, power,..?  You just want to excuse religion and blame 
it all
on some criminal acts.  What is a crime is often defined by religion and 
it often
includes questioning the priesthood and the official dogma. So the problem 
is not
just radical Islam; it is any Islam, and any religion, which has a dogma 
and
requires belief in that dogma to avoid sanctions and punishment in this 
life or a
putative afterlife...that is to say 90% of all religions.

Brent
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, 
bring
hither, and slay them before me.
   --- Jesus, Luke 19:27 





-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 9:57 pm
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

On 6/23/2014 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is a problem with radical islamism, but the real problem is in the exploitation 
of that problem by bandits to hide their lucrative criminal activities.


This is naive.  Bandits do lucrative criminal acts to get money which can purchase 
goods, luxury, women, power.  So why do suppose that no one uses religion to get goods, 
luxury, women, power,..?  You just want to excuse religion and blame it all on some 
criminal acts.  What is a crime is often defined by religion and it often includes 
questioning the priesthood and the official dogma. So the problem is not just radical 
Islam; it is any Islam, and any religion, which has a dogma and requires belief in that 
dogma to avoid sanctions and punishment in this life or a putative afterlife...that is 
to say 90% of all religions.


Brent
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, 
and slay them before me.

   --- Jesus, Luke 19:27
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-25 Thread John Mikes

Didn't the thugs call themselves Jesus' people who killed the abortion
doctor? was he not a martyr?
JM


On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:34 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 Brent, Jesus people don't become murdering martyr's anymore, so let's
 focus where the problem is. Look at Nigeria, Sudan, Syria,a and Iraq, and
 draw together the facts. If it was Buddhists setting off bombs in subways'
 one could concede your point. Also, I am not a Jesus person, and don't hate
 em. If ya want to beat up JC why not this quote, I come not to bring peace
 but with a sword. And the Christians surely did, right into the 20th
 century, but no longer.

 This is naive.  Bandits do lucrative criminal acts to get money which can
 purchase goods, luxury, women, power.  So why do suppose that no one uses
 religion to get goods, luxury, women, power,..?  You just want to excuse
 religion and blame it all on some criminal acts.  What is a crime is
 often defined by religion and it often includes questioning the priesthood
 and the official dogma.  So the problem is not just radical Islam; it
 is any Islam, and any religion, which has a dogma and requires belief in
 that dogma to avoid sanctions and punishment in this life or a putative
 afterlife...that is to say 90% of all religions.

 Brent
 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them,
 bring hither, and slay them before me.
--- Jesus, Luke 19:27




 -Original Message-
 From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 9:57 pm
 Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

  On 6/23/2014 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 There is a problem with radical islamism, but the real problem is in the
 exploitation of that problem by bandits to hide their lucrative criminal
 activities.


 This is naive.  Bandits do lucrative criminal acts to get money which can
 purchase goods, luxury, women, power.  So why do suppose that no one uses
 religion to get goods, luxury, women, power,..?  You just want to excuse
 religion and blame it all on some criminal acts.  What is a crime is
 often defined by religion and it often includes questioning the priesthood
 and the official dogma.  So the problem is not just radical Islam; it
 is any Islam, and any religion, which has a dogma and requires belief in
 that dogma to avoid sanctions and punishment in this life or a putative
 afterlife...that is to say 90% of all religions.

 Brent
 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them,
 bring hither, and slay them before me.
--- Jesus, Luke 19:27
  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-25 Thread LizR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organian

On 25 June 2014 23:29, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

I always thought the Organian (was that the blond kid in the toga?) looked
like he should've been serving crudites' in a fine restaurant. It wasn't
the Gorn, ss! Or the light globes betting 10 Qwat-loo's? Anyways, God,
as a mind emerging from the universe, gets us away from Aquinas' view or
Rabbi, Ben Bag Bag (a name I treasure for some reason?). Your quote is
Shemer's last law, which I am real good with. It doesn't pimp-slap me, one
way or another.

This has been exploited by explorers meeting primitive peoples, at least
in fiction but probably in reality too. Plus Captain Kirk used to come
across them with monotonous regularity - the Organians and all that.

-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 9:28 pm
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

On 25 June 2014 03:34, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

What about this Irish Times article? It seems to be out of the box
thinking. I don't know, if true, that it has any value for the human
species? But it might in my imagination. My imagination, plus 3.50, can get
me a coffee latte. Any thoughts, condemnatory or laudatory.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/what-if-god-were-part-of-the-natural-order-1.1836816

Any sufficiently advanced alien is indistinguishable from God.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-25 Thread LizR

On 26 June 2014 04:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 6/25/2014 4:34 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

 Brent, Jesus people don't become murdering martyr's anymore,


 Well there are those who murder abortion doctors. But lucrative criminal
 acts includes a lot more than murderous martydom.  The Catholic Church has
 probably condemned more children to starvation by outlawing contraception
 than the Islamist ever will.


A recent discovery in (I think) Ireland bears this out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-24 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 23 Jun 2014, at 18:39, Richard Ruquist wrote:





On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:

Dear John,

 it is wasted time and effort to argue who is right in a question  
that raises 2 billion children in a 'faith' they will live by - AND  
such 'faith' does include the killing of 'infidels' (meaning: who  
do not share their faith to the last comma) and many more  
peculiarities which our part of the world would not accept anymore.  
There is no question about 'truth', believability, oracles and  
supernatural wisdom, there is a 1500 year old power over billions  
of people with no questions asking and willing to do whatever they  
believe has to be done.


It is the same problem with christianism, but such structure has  
shown to be able to evolve a bit. Then I would differentiate  
muslims, literalist muslim, and fanatics. Only the later are  
dangerous.


I think that Samiya is open to discussion, even if it is not clear  
how far she is to doubt the literal Quran, which of course is  
necessary at the start if only to see if it contains anything  
scientific (in physics, biology, ... but also theology).


This hides the real roots of fundamentalism which is that we have  
forbid the use of science (that is the skeptical spirit since well,  
indeed 1500 years.



Regarding skepticism, the High Holy Days service of Judaism contains  
a prayer for the value of doubt. Not sure how far back the origin of  
that prayer is in time, but it certainly contributes to regard that  
Jews have for science.


Interesting. In fact judaism; like taoism, and branches of buddhism  
encourage the comments to the sacred texts, and allow a sort of  
jurisprudence making possible some notion of amendment, and favorize  
the non literal reading of texts.




Google does not seem to know of its existence.


The net does not know everything, and contains a lot of propaganda of  
many kinds.


Bruno





Richard



There were argumentations a millennium ago, but the sword answered.
Wars and wars.
We have different vocabularies and both sides understand things  
differently.


Those are political, if not economical war, disguised in religious  
war.






I do not say which part is 'better-or-worse' I am just sorry for an  
advanced worldview getting erased by a violent ancient force that  
overwhelms our civilisation. (Q: are WE civil, indeed?)


An ancient force like fire can erase in few weeks what needed an  
incredibly long/deep history like a tree or a forest.


It is in the nature of wiseness and advanced mind to be the easy  
prey for violence.


Are we civil? Well, officially, the US is no more since the 31  
december 2011 (NDAA 12).  But the bad seed comes from something  
older than Kennedy's assassination.


There is a problem with radical islamism, but the real problem is in  
the exploitation of that problem by bandits to hide their lucrative  
criminal activities.


The war on drugs and the war on terror are de facto non stopping  
wars which constantly create and fuel its enemy.


The value of money is based on trust which needs *fair* competition,  
and a notion of genuine use, but the society get a cancer when money  
is used to create fake money, based on lies or on problems created  
for that purpose.


Bandits might be a progress compared to dictator using god to  
justify its job. So we are not civil, but still can become.


Virgin lôbian number seem civil at the start. Uncivilness seems to  
be only a bad habit, a passage similar to some dilemmas in game  
theory, when you can make a very big win by ceasing cooperation. May  
be that's a devil's temptation, or the fall from sane egoism into  
psychopathic or paranoid egocentrism.


Bruno



John M


On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 29 May 2014, at 05:33, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes  
te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:



Ok, so let's talk some specifics.

Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic  
expression. Famously on Salman Rushdie for writing a book, and  
several people for drawing Mohammed. When I was living in Paris,  
the building of a small publication was bombed for publishing a  
drawing of Mohammed.


The Quran advises us (6:68,69) to remove ourselves from the  
company of those who blaspheme, till they do not change to another  
topic. It does not prescribe any of the above forms of punishment.


OK.






Women in Islamic societies are frequently punished for being  
raped, their husbands are allowed to beat them (against their  
will, I have nothing against consensual BDSM), they are sentenced  
to stoning to death for adultery (even when they were raped),  
they have to dress in a certain way and can be publicly lashed  
for not doing so and they are prevented from going to school.  
Even recently, young girls were attacked for attending school.



The Quran prescribes (24:1-14) 100 public lashes for

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-24 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List


What about this Irish Times article? It seems to be out of the box thinking. I 
don't know, if true, that it has any value for the human species? But it might 
in my imagination. My imagination, plus 3.50, can get me a coffee latte. Any 
thoughts, condemnatory or laudatory. 
 
 
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/what-if-god-were-part-of-the-natural-order-1.1836816
 

-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 3:39 am
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!




On 23 Jun 2014, at 18:39, Richard Ruquist wrote:







On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
Dear John,




 it is wasted time and effort to argue who is right in a question that raises 
2 billion children in a 'faith' they will live by - AND such 'faith' does 
include the killing of 'infidels' (meaning: who do not share their faith to the 
last comma) and many more peculiarities which our part of the world would not 
accept anymore. There is no question about 'truth', believability, oracles and 
supernatural wisdom, there is a 1500 year old power over billions of people 
with no questions asking and willing to do whatever they believe has to be 
done. 
 



It is the same problem with christianism, but such structure has shown to be 
able to evolve a bit. Then I would differentiate muslims, literalist muslim, 
and fanatics. Only the later are dangerous. 
 


I think that Samiya is open to discussion, even if it is not clear how far she 
is to doubt the literal Quran, which of course is necessary at the start if 
only to see if it contains anything scientific (in physics, biology, ... but 
also theology).
 


This hides the real roots of fundamentalism which is that we have forbid the 
use of science (that is the skeptical spirit since well, indeed 1500 years. 





 

Regarding skepticism, the High Holy Days service of Judaism contains a prayer 
for the value of doubt. Not sure how far back the origin of that prayer is in 
time, but it certainly contributes to regard that Jews have for science. 




Interesting. In fact judaism; like taoism, and branches of buddhism encourage 
the comments to the sacred texts, and allow a sort of jurisprudence making 
possible some notion of amendment, and favorize the non literal reading of 
texts.






Google does not seem to know of its existence.




The net does not know everything, and contains a lot of propaganda of many 
kinds.


Bruno









 
Richard 






 
 

There were argumentations a millennium ago, but the sword answered. 
Wars and wars. 
We have different vocabularies and both sides understand things differently. 

 



Those are political, if not economical war, disguised in religious war.










 I do not say which part is 'better-or-worse' I am just sorry for an advanced 
worldview getting erased by a violent ancient force that overwhelms our 
civilisation. (Q: are WE civil, indeed?) 

 



An ancient force like fire can erase in few weeks what needed an incredibly 
long/deep history like a tree or a forest. 


It is in the nature of wiseness and advanced mind to be the easy prey for 
violence.
 


Are we civil? Well, officially, the US is no more since the 31 december 2011 
(NDAA 12).  But the bad seed comes from something older than Kennedy's 
assassination. 


There is a problem with radical islamism, but the real problem is in the 
exploitation of that problem by bandits to hide their lucrative criminal 
activities.
 


The war on drugs and the war on terror are de facto non stopping wars which 
constantly create and fuel its enemy. 


The value of money is based on trust which needs *fair* competition, and a 
notion of genuine use, but the society get a cancer when money is used to 
create fake money, based on lies or on problems created for that purpose.
 


Bandits might be a progress compared to dictator using god to justify its job. 
So we are not civil, but still can become.


Virgin lôbian number seem civil at the start. Uncivilness seems to be only a 
bad habit, a passage similar to some dilemmas in game theory, when you can 
make a very big win by ceasing cooperation. May be that's a devil's temptation, 
or the fall from sane egoism into psychopathic or paranoid egocentrism. 
 


Bruno




 


John M





On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 


On 29 May 2014, at 05:33, Samiya Illias wrote:


 



On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:



 
Ok, so let's talk some specifics.


Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic expression. Famously on 
Salman Rushdie for writing a book, and several people for drawing Mohammed. 
When I was living in Paris, the building of a small publication was bombed for 
publishing a drawing of Mohammed. 
 


The Quran advises us (6:68,69) to remove ourselves from the company of those 
who blaspheme, till they do not change to another

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-24 Thread John Mikes

Mich: as long as the Faithful think of God in their (natural) mind the God
they think of IS natural. We cannot think of a supernatural with our
natural
mentality and limitations. Anything WE think about God is within the
(our!) natural order. Limited into our model of knowables.
We can TALK about supernatural - it is TALK (Blah Blah). Contentless.

Whoever 'created' - H E L L - was planning on uncontrollable sinners to
populate it. If it has been created for humans, our kind is imperfect and
uncontrollable and the 'final' judgement must be non-forgiving to put them
into Hell. Or is it a contract with Satan?
JM

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:34 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/what-if-god-were-part-of-the-natural-order-1.1836816

-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 3:39 am
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

On 23 Jun 2014, at 18:39, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

Dear John,

it is wasted time and effort to argue who is right in a question
that raises 2 billion children in a 'faith' they will live by - AND such
'faith' does include the killing of 'infidels' (meaning: who do not share
their faith to the last comma) and many more peculiarities which our part
of the world would not accept anymore. There is no question about 'truth',
believability, oracles and supernatural wisdom, there is a 1500 year old
power over billions of people with no questions asking and willing to do
whatever they believe has to be done.

It is the same problem with christianism, but such structure has shown
to be able to evolve a bit. Then I would differentiate muslims, literalist
muslim, and fanatics. Only the later are dangerous.

I think that Samiya is open to discussion, even if it is not clear how
far she is to doubt the literal Quran, which of course is necessary at the
start if only to see if it contains anything scientific (in physics,
biology, ... but also theology).

This hides the real roots of fundamentalism which is that we have
forbid the use of science (that is the skeptical spirit since well, indeed
1500 years.

Regarding skepticism, the High Holy Days service of Judaism contains
a prayer for the value of doubt. Not sure how far back the origin of that
prayer is in time, but it certainly contributes to regard that Jews have
for science.

Interesting. In fact judaism; like taoism, and branches of buddhism
encourage the comments to the sacred texts, and allow a sort of
jurisprudence making possible some notion of amendment, and favorize the
non literal reading of texts.

Google does not seem to know of its existence.

The net does not know everything, and contains a lot of propaganda of
many kinds.

Bruno

Richard

There were argumentations a millennium ago, but the sword answered.
Wars and wars.
We have different vocabularies and both sides understand things
differently.

Those are political, if not economical war, disguised in religious war.

I do not say which part is 'better-or-worse' I am just sorry for an
advanced worldview getting erased by a violent ancient force that
overwhelms our civilisation. (Q: are WE civil, indeed?)

An ancient force like fire can erase in few weeks what needed an
incredibly long/deep history like a tree or a forest.

It is in the nature of wiseness and advanced mind to be the easy prey
for violence.

Are we civil? Well, officially, the US is no more since the 31 december
2011 (NDAA 12). But the bad seed comes from something older than Kennedy's
assassination.

There is a problem with radical islamism, but the real problem is in
the exploitation of that problem by bandits to hide their lucrative
criminal activities.

The war on drugs and the war on terror are de facto non stopping wars
which constantly create and fuel its enemy.

The value of money is based on trust which needs *fair* competition,
and a notion of genuine use, but the society get a cancer when money is
used to create fake money, based on lies or on problems created for that
purpose.

Bandits might be a progress compared to dictator using god to justify
its job. So we are not civil, but still can become.

Virgin lôbian number seem civil at the start. Uncivilness seems to be
only a bad habit, a passage similar to some dilemmas in game theory, when
you can make a very big win by ceasing cooperation. May be that's a devil's
temptation, or the fall from sane egoism into psychopathic

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-24 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List


Yeah, I get the thing about religion and all that. This is a bit different 
since it speaks to inception (a decent movie) of the Hubble volume, and why 
things seem just so. I also like Everett's MWI. Maybe Hell was out-sourced to 
Bulgaria? I am guessing that God might be really good to talk with, if we can 
ever locate him/her, (sans prayer), because where'd he come up with the ideas, 
and how did It manage to do this? 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 4:23 pm
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!


Mich: as long as the Faithful think of God in their (natural) mind the God they 
think of IS natural. We cannot think of a supernatural with our natural 
 mentality and limitations. Anything   WE  think about God is within the 
(our!) natural order. Limited into our model of knowables. 
We can TALK about supernatural - it is TALK (Blah Blah). Contentless.


Whoever 'created'  -  H E L L  -  was planning on uncontrollable sinners to 
populate it. If it has been created for humans, our kind is imperfect and 
uncontrollable and the 'final' judgement must be non-forgiving to put them into 
Hell. Or is it a contract with Satan? 
JM




On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:34 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

What about this Irish Times article? It seems to be out of the box thinking. I 
don't know, if true, that it has any value for the human species? But it might 
in my imagination. My imagination, plus 3.50, can get me a coffee latte. Any 
thoughts, condemnatory or laudatory. 
 
 
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/what-if-god-were-part-of-the-natural-order-1.1836816
 
 

-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be

To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 3:39 am
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!






On 23 Jun 2014, at 18:39, Richard Ruquist wrote:







On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
Dear John,




 it is wasted time and effort to argue who is right in a question that raises 
2 billion children in a 'faith' they will live by - AND such 'faith' does 
include the killing of 'infidels' (meaning: who do not share their faith to the 
last comma) and many more peculiarities which our part of the world would not 
accept anymore. There is no question about 'truth', believability, oracles and 
supernatural wisdom, there is a 1500 year old power over billions of people 
with no questions asking and willing to do whatever they believe has to be 
done. 
 



It is the same problem with christianism, but such structure has shown to be 
able to evolve a bit. Then I would differentiate muslims, literalist muslim, 
and fanatics. Only the later are dangerous. 
 


I think that Samiya is open to discussion, even if it is not clear how far she 
is to doubt the literal Quran, which of course is necessary at the start if 
only to see if it contains anything scientific (in physics, biology, ... but 
also theology).
 


This hides the real roots of fundamentalism which is that we have forbid the 
use of science (that is the skeptical spirit since well, indeed 1500 years. 





 

Regarding skepticism, the High Holy Days service of Judaism contains a prayer 
for the value of doubt. Not sure how far back the origin of that prayer is in 
time, but it certainly contributes to regard that Jews have for science. 




Interesting. In fact judaism; like taoism, and branches of buddhism encourage 
the comments to the sacred texts, and allow a sort of jurisprudence making 
possible some notion of amendment, and favorize the non literal reading of 
texts.






Google does not seem to know of its existence.




The net does not know everything, and contains a lot of propaganda of many 
kinds.


Bruno









 
Richard 






 
 

There were argumentations a millennium ago, but the sword answered. 
Wars and wars. 
We have different vocabularies and both sides understand things differently. 

 



Those are political, if not economical war, disguised in religious war.










 I do not say which part is 'better-or-worse' I am just sorry for an advanced 
worldview getting erased by a violent ancient force that overwhelms our 
civilisation. (Q: are WE civil, indeed?) 

 



An ancient force like fire can erase in few weeks what needed an incredibly 
long/deep history like a tree or a forest. 


It is in the nature of wiseness and advanced mind to be the easy prey for 
violence.
 


Are we civil? Well, officially, the US is no more since the 31 december 2011 
(NDAA 12).  But the bad seed comes from something older than Kennedy's 
assassination. 


There is a problem with radical islamism, but the real problem is in the 
exploitation of that problem by bandits to hide their lucrative criminal 
activities.
 


The war on drugs and the war on terror are de facto non stopping wars which 
constantly create

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-24 Thread LizR

On 25 June 2014 03:34, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 What about this Irish Times article? It seems to be out of the box
 thinking. I don't know, if true, that it has any value for the human
 species? But it might in my imagination. My imagination, plus 3.50, can get
 me a coffee latte. Any thoughts, condemnatory or laudatory.

 http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/what-if-god-were-part-of-the-natural-order-1.1836816

 Any sufficiently advanced alien is indistinguishable from God.

This has been exploited by explorers meeting primitive peoples, at least in
fiction but probably in reality too. Plus Captain Kirk used to come across
them with monotonous regularity - the Organians and all that.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-24 Thread meekerdb


On 6/23/2014 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is a problem with radical islamism, but the real problem is in the exploitation of 
that problem by bandits to hide their lucrative criminal activities.


This is naive.  Bandits do lucrative criminal acts to get money which can purchase goods, 
luxury, women, power.  So why do suppose that no one uses religion to get goods, luxury, 
women, power,..?  You just want to excuse religion and blame it all on some criminal 
acts.  What is a crime is often defined by religion and it often includes questioning the 
priesthood and the official dogma. So the problem is not just radical Islam; it is any 
Islam, and any religion, which has a dogma and requires belief in that dogma to avoid 
sanctions and punishment in this life or a putative afterlife...that is to say 90% of all 
religions.


Brent
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and 
slay them before me.

   --- Jesus, Luke 19:27

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-24 Thread meekerdb

On 6/24/2014 12:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Google does not seem to know of its existence.

The net does not know everything, and contains a lot of propaganda of many
kinds.

Bruno

Have you read Scott Aaronson's latest blog in which he discusses the application of Google
technology to the problem to defining morality and improving democracy?

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/

Eigenmorality
June 18th, 2014

This post is about an idea I had around 1997, when I was 16 years old and a freshman
computer-science major at Cornell. Back then, I was extremely impressed by a research
project called CLEVER, which one of my professors, Jon Kleinberg, had led while working at
IBM Almaden. The idea was to use the link structure of the web itself to rank which web
pages were most important, and therefore which ones should be returned first in a search
query. Specifically, Kleinberg defined hubs as pages that linked to lots of
authorities, and authorities as pages that were linked to by lots of hubs. At first
glance, this definition seems hopelessly circular, but Kleinberg observed that one can
break the circularity by just treating the World Wide Web as a giant directed graph, and
doing some linear algebra on its adjacency matrix.

...

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-24 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 9:46 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

On 6/24/2014 12:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Google does not seem to know of its existence.

The net does not know everything, and contains a lot of propaganda of many
kinds.

Bruno

Have you read Scott Aaronson's latest blog in which he discusses the
application of Google technology to the problem to defining morality and
improving democracy?

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/

Eigenmorality
June 18th, 2014

This post is about an idea I had around 1997, when I was 16 years old and a
freshman computer-science major at Cornell.  Back then, I was extremely
impressed by a research project called CLEVER, which one of my professors,
Jon Kleinberg, had led while working at IBM Almaden.  The idea was to use
the link structure of the web itself to rank which web pages were most
important, and therefore which ones should be returned first in a search
query.  Specifically, Kleinberg defined hubs as pages that linked to lots
of authorities, and authorities as pages that were linked to by lots of
hubs.  At first glance, this definition seems hopelessly circular, but
Kleinberg observed that one can break the circularity by just treating the
World Wide Web as a giant directed graph, and doing some linear algebra on
its adjacency matrix. 
...

Wow you were a very young freshman. Funny. small world kind of thing, in
2000 I worked for a while at a software startup in Santa Monica, CA (the
digital coast as they call it down there)- most modestly deciding to call
itself - The Brain. We were using directed graphs to dynamically evolve
topic maps through the link usage as well, but using semantic linkage as the
arc as opposed to address linking as in a uri. It was not an attempt to map
the internet as in your case, but to provide an intuitive topic centric user
interface. When you clicked on one of the topic nodes is expanded and
centered itself on the screen pulling in related topics. The layout
positioning of the rendered topic webs also mattered, with peer being
lateral and parent child layed out in a vertically oriented hierarchy. We
were actually getting kind of sophisticated, for example tracking meta data
for each single arc and weighting individual arcs, based on dynamic factors,
rendering the more prominent arcs with greater thickness and z-order stack
ranking. Branch pruning was a challenge in order to avoid combinatorial
explosion.

But the name. could never quite get past that name. The Brain; I think it is
still around by the way, but it never did stick as the next big UX paradigm.

Cheers,

Chris

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-23 Thread Bruno Marchal


Dear John,

 it is wasted time and effort to argue who is right in a question  
that raises 2 billion children in a 'faith' they will live by - AND  
such 'faith' does include the killing of 'infidels' (meaning: who do  
not share their faith to the last comma) and many more peculiarities  
which our part of the world would not accept anymore. There is no  
question about 'truth', believability, oracles and supernatural  
wisdom, there is a 1500 year old power over billions of people with  
no questions asking and willing to do whatever they believe has to  
be done.


It is the same problem with christianism, but such structure has shown  
to be able to evolve a bit. Then I would differentiate muslims,  
literalist muslim, and fanatics. Only the later are dangerous.


I think that Samiya is open to discussion, even if it is not clear how  
far she is to doubt the literal Quran, which of course is necessary at  
the start if only to see if it contains anything scientific (in  
physics, biology, ... but also theology).


This hides the real roots of fundamentalism which is that we have  
forbid the use of science (that is the skeptical spirit since well,  
indeed 1500 years.






There were argumentations a millennium ago, but the sword answered.
Wars and wars.
We have different vocabularies and both sides understand things  
differently.


Those are political, if not economical war, disguised in religious war.





I do not say which part is 'better-or-worse' I am just sorry for an  
advanced worldview getting erased by a violent ancient force that  
overwhelms our civilisation. (Q: are WE civil, indeed?)


An ancient force like fire can erase in few weeks what needed an  
incredibly long/deep history like a tree or a forest.


It is in the nature of wiseness and advanced mind to be the easy prey  
for violence.


Are we civil? Well, officially, the US is no more since the 31  
december 2011 (NDAA 12).  But the bad seed comes from something older  
than Kennedy's assassination.


There is a problem with radical islamism, but the real problem is in  
the exploitation of that problem by bandits to hide their lucrative  
criminal activities.


The war on drugs and the war on terror are de facto non stopping wars  
which constantly create and fuel its enemy.


The value of money is based on trust which needs *fair* competition,  
and a notion of genuine use, but the society get a cancer when money  
is used to create fake money, based on lies or on problems created  
for that purpose.


Bandits might be a progress compared to dictator using god to justify  
its job. So we are not civil, but still can become.


Virgin lôbian number seem civil at the start. Uncivilness seems to be  
only a bad habit, a passage similar to some dilemmas in game theory,  
when you can make a very big win by ceasing cooperation. May be that's  
a devil's temptation, or the fall from sane egoism into psychopathic  
or paranoid egocentrism.


Bruno



John M


On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 29 May 2014, at 05:33, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com  
wrote:



Ok, so let's talk some specifics.

Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic  
expression. Famously on Salman Rushdie for writing a book, and  
several people for drawing Mohammed. When I was living in Paris,  
the building of a small publication was bombed for publishing a  
drawing of Mohammed.


The Quran advises us (6:68,69) to remove ourselves from the company  
of those who blaspheme, till they do not change to another topic.  
It does not prescribe any of the above forms of punishment.


OK.






Women in Islamic societies are frequently punished for being  
raped, their husbands are allowed to beat them (against their  
will, I have nothing against consensual BDSM), they are sentenced  
to stoning to death for adultery (even when they were raped), they  
have to dress in a certain way and can be publicly lashed for not  
doing so and they are prevented from going to school. Even  
recently, young girls were attacked for attending school.



The Quran prescribes (24:1-14) 100 public lashes for adulterers



Is that not a blaspheme? Using the 'Name' as authority in the  
temporal moral code realm.


If two person decide to live together and promise to God maintaining  
fidelity, say for 500 years, and one betrayed the other, it is only   
the other, and God which have to handle this. Not the friends, not  
the family, not the Government. Just each others, the person  
involved, and, if they need, the helps of shamans and wise or  
spiritual persons.


I don't think that any humans or group of humans, can intentionally  
harm other humans without consent (with rare exception like the  
legitimate defense).


The problem comes only from the literalist interpretation.

We can vote for laws, and nobody should forbid you to consult sacred  
books or God, if

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-23 Thread Bruno Marchal


Samiya,

On 21 Jun 2014, at 10:17, Samiya Illias wrote:


Bruno,
Thanks for the advise! I never intended to be not humble or not  
modest, but perhaps I've not been very clear in expressing myself  
and my beliefs.


Thanks, I might have been a bit rude. Sorry.

But at some point we will have to even discuss about what we mean by  
the term belief, which has already a different sense in religion  
and in epistemology.


The main difference between knowledge and belief is that knowledge  
cannot be false, when belief can.





When I speak of faith being God's gift, it doesn't mean necessarily  
being a Muslim.


Nice!



In Quran, 2:62, we read: 'Lo! Those who believe (in that which is  
revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and  
Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last  
Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and  
there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they  
grieve.' [Translator: Pickthall]


Is it a different Lord?

What about eastern or central african religion?

I hope this is going to the tolerance of any religion, as long as it  
does not use violence and respect the laws, the environment, etc.


In the US sects are more easily made legal. In Europa they are  
forbidden, which does not make them disappear. IMO, there is a degree  
of responsibility of the state in protecting the kids from abuse of  
religion.




I don't know if you wish to have a discussion, hence I'm not  
responding to rest of the email. If there is any specific point that  
you would like me to answer, please feel free to ask. I will try to  
answer as lucidly as possible.


I am just a bit uneasy by your literalist interpretation of an  
unmovable text (unless seen as a poem).


And, independently of the truth or untruth that it has been dictated  
by God, in the comp theology, this is a sort of authoritative  
argument, no matter what.


Machine's 'theology' is full of truth which cannot be asserted by the  
machine.




Many people have posted their opinions and comments about the way  
they perceive Islam from the outside. I suppose there is too much  
fear and disgust, and till those emotions are not allayed, they will  
not be willing to consider or discuss faith on its own merit, or  
wonder why we still maintain that God is loving and kind. However,  
since nobody is asking these questions, I am not responding, lest  
they think I'm preaching my religion.


My problem is not Islam per se, but the post-Maimonides  
aristotelianisation of religion, which has influenced Judaism,  
Christianity and Islam. That was certainly useful for progress, but  
today it is an unconscious dogma which prevents the progress. At  
least, in the middle-east, platonism and neo-platonism survived 5  
centuries more than in occident.







Also, there have been very few questions about the scientific clues  
we find in the Quran. I assume that largely people are not  
interested in looking at the text of the scripture or evaluating it  
for factual accuracy.


I have followed your dialog with Liz with interest. I think she made  
the point, though.





That's fine. We have a free-will and its each individual's own  
choice. As Quran 2:186 reads: 'When My servants ask thee concerning  
Me, I am indeed close (to them): I listen to the prayer of every  
suppliant when he calleth on Me: Let them also, with a will, Listen  
to My call, and believe in Me: That they may walk in the right  
way.' [Translator: Yusuf Ali]


That is a nice quote.

I worry more when you seem to believe that the Lord would have said to  
cut the hands of the thieves ... literally, in a context where some  
muslims applies it today.


The god of the book(s) seem to be easily angry and I might prefer the  
beatitude of some eastern divinities. I am also shocked by the  
representation of gods under torture of the christians.


To me the idea that we have to fear God is self-contradictory,  
although I can understand its appeal for anyone wanting to manipulate  
and control others.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-23 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Dear John,

  it is wasted time and effort to argue who is right in a question that
 raises 2 billion children in a 'faith' they will live by - AND such 'faith'
 does include the killing of 'infidels' (meaning: who do not share their
 faith to the last comma) and many more peculiarities which our part of the
 world would not accept anymore. There is no question about 'truth',
 believability, oracles and supernatural wisdom, there is a 1500 year old
 power over billions of people with no questions asking and willing to do
 whatever they believe has to be done.


 It is the same problem with christianism, but such structure has shown to
 be able to evolve a bit. Then I would differentiate muslims, literalist
 muslim, and fanatics. Only the later are dangerous.

 I think that Samiya is open to discussion, even if it is not clear how far
 she is to doubt the literal Quran, which of course is necessary at the
 start if only to see if it contains anything scientific (in physics,
 biology, ... but also theology).

 This hides the real roots of fundamentalism which is that we have forbid
 the use of science (that is the skeptical spirit since well, indeed 1500
 years.


 Regarding skepticism, the High Holy Days service of Judaism contains a
prayer for the value of doubt. Not sure how far back the origin of that
prayer is in time, but it certainly contributes to regard that Jews have
for science. Google does not seem to know of its existence.
Richard



 There were argumentations a millennium ago, but the sword answered.
 Wars and wars.
 We have different vocabularies and both sides understand things
 differently.


 Those are political, if not economical war, disguised in religious war.




 I do not say which part is 'better-or-worse' I am just sorry for an
 advanced worldview getting erased by a violent ancient force that
 overwhelms our civilisation. (Q: are WE civil, indeed?)


 An ancient force like fire can erase in few weeks what needed an
 incredibly long/deep history like a tree or a forest.

 It is in the nature of wiseness and advanced mind to be the easy prey for
 violence.

 Are we civil? Well, officially, the US is no more since the 31 december
 2011 (NDAA 12).  But the bad seed comes from something older than Kennedy's
 assassination.

 There is a problem with radical islamism, but the real problem is in the
 exploitation of that problem by bandits to hide their lucrative criminal
 activities.

 The war on drugs and the war on terror are de facto non stopping wars
 which constantly create and fuel its enemy.

 The value of money is based on trust which needs *fair* competition, and a
 notion of genuine use, but the society get a cancer when money is used to
 create fake money, based on lies or on problems created for that purpose.

 Bandits might be a progress compared to dictator using god to justify its
 job. So we are not civil, but still can become.

 Virgin lôbian number seem civil at the start. Uncivilness seems to be only
 a bad habit, a passage similar to some dilemmas in game theory, when you
 can make a very big win by ceasing cooperation. May be that's a devil's
 temptation, or the fall from sane egoism into psychopathic or paranoid
 egocentrism.

 Bruno


 John M


 On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 29 May 2014, at 05:33, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 wrote:

 Ok, so let's talk some specifics.

 Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic expression.
 Famously on Salman Rushdie for writing a book, and several people for
 drawing Mohammed. When I was living in Paris, the building of a small
 publication was bombed for publishing a drawing of Mohammed.


 The Quran advises us (6:68,69) to remove ourselves from the company of
 those who blaspheme, till they do not change to another topic. It does not
 prescribe any of the above forms of punishment.


 OK.




 Women in Islamic societies are frequently punished for being raped, their
 husbands are allowed to beat them (against their will, I have nothing
 against consensual BDSM), they are sentenced to stoning to death for
 adultery (even when they were raped), they have to dress in a certain way
 and can be publicly lashed for not doing so and they are prevented from
 going to school. Even recently, young girls were attacked for attending
 school.

 The Quran prescribes (24:1-14) 100 public lashes for adulterers



 Is that not a blaspheme? Using the 'Name' as authority in the temporal
 moral code realm.

 If two person decide to live together and promise to God maintaining
 fidelity, say for 500 years, and one betrayed the other, it is only  the
 other, and God which have to handle this. Not the friends, not the family,
 not the Government. Just each others, the person involved, and, if they
 need, the helps of shamans and wise or spiritual persons.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-22 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

The blasphemy problem concerning religious text that was brought up by
Bruno in this thread, is present in Christianity/bible. What I have
difficulty understanding is how people who know that their God has
irreducible attributes that we cannot begin to comprehend, stick so close
to a text, that uses God's name in vain by telling us how to comprehend
the world, the role of humans, and God. A text about God itself violates
the greatness of its own god (if god were something we can comprehend, we
can write about god... if not, why not remain silent and do the work?).

The only theologians that I respect therefore, are the ones that tend to be
not overly literal: they read other books, the books of the competition,
even listen to the devil if that principle presents itself... if only to
keep the pledge that one does not perceive any book or voice to be the
book of answers, and in so doing blaspheme one's god in personal vanity,
advertising them in vulgar fashion everywhere, and therefore pretend to
know what we cannot.

I can therefore relate to preference therefore of old mystics, shamans,
negative theologies like Neo-Platonists, Buddhists etc, because they have
this safety switch, that prevents using some interpretation of God, as
weapon against others and to cause pain in good clothing.

My question to you Samiya: How does Quran meet this problem? Does it meet
the problem of overly literal interpretation, and all the pain that can
cause? PGC


On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Dear John,
 According to what I read in the Quran and my understanding of it, all of
 us humans, men and women, are in pledge for our beliefs and our deeds
 (Quran 52:21), and will benefit from our truthfulness (Quran 5:119). We are
 all being tested, and all those who pass this terrestrial exam and get
 accepted in Heaven, will find their reward, far above and beyond their
 expectations and imagination (Quran 32:17), awaiting them! God is keeping
 an accurate account of all thoughts and deeds, and the record doesn't leave
 out a single thing (Quran 18:49).
 In Quran, 66:10-12, God gives the example of four women: two who
 disbelieved (the wife of Noah and and wife of Lot) who will not be able to
 enter Heaven in spite of having been married to righteous persons in this
 world, and God gives the example of two believing women (Aasiya, the queen
 of Pharoah, and Maryam, the daughter of Imran / mother of Jesus) who will
 enter Heaven because of their righteousness.
 While many verses speak of fair and just reward for all believing men and
 women, 'huris' are mentioned in only four of the 6000+ verses of the Quran.
 Mostly 'huris' are understood to be females, but I'm not too sure about
 that, as the word itself is neuter gender in Arabic. Whether we humans will
 retain our genders or not in Heaven and if there will be sex / procreation
 in Heaven is also subject to speculation. Honestly, I don't know, but I
 trust that all those who are accepted in Heaven, will be in a perfect state
 of joy, comfort, happiness and pleasure. When I dwell upon the various
 verses of the Quran giving a preview of Heaven, I think the human soul's
 yearning for the perfect person, its soulmate, will be fulfilled.
 As regards the terrestrial portion of your question, men and women are but
 two types of humans, one of whom is responsible for the financial and
 security needs of the family (the man), while the other (the woman) has the
 domestic responsibility. In many ways, women enjoy a privileged position. I
 attempted to answer a similar question some years ago, you may wish to read
 this:
 http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2008/11/to-be-or-not-to-be-equal-comments-on.html

 I hope I've answered your main question. Please feel free to ask further.
 Reproduced below are few relevant verses:
 5:119 Allah will say, This is the Day when the truthful will benefit from
 their truthfulness. For them are gardens [in Paradise] beneath which
 rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever, Allah being pleased with
 them, and they with Him. That is the great attainment. [Translator: Sahih
 International]
 6:32 And the worldly life is not but amusement and diversion; but the home
 of the Hereafter is best for those who fear Allah , so will you not reason?
 [Translator: Sahih International]
 9:71 The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They
 enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give
 zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Those - Allah will have mercy upon
 them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise. [Translator: Sahih
 International]
 18:49 And the record [of deeds] will be placed [open], and you will see
 the criminals fearful of that within it, and they will say, Oh, woe to us!
 What is this book that leaves nothing small or great except that it has
 enumerated it? And they will find what they did present [before them]. And
 your Lord does injustice to no one.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-21 Thread Samiya Illias

Bruno,
Thanks for the advise! I never intended to be not humble or not modest, but
perhaps I've not been very clear in expressing myself and my beliefs. When
I speak of faith being God's gift, it doesn't mean necessarily being a
Muslim. In Quran, 2:62, we read: 'Lo! Those who believe (in that which is
revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and
Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right -
surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon
them neither shall they grieve.' [Translator: Pickthall]
I don't know if you wish to have a discussion, hence I'm not responding to
rest of the email. If there is any specific point that you would like me to
answer, please feel free to ask. I will try to answer as lucidly as
possible.
Many people have posted their opinions and comments about the way they
perceive Islam from the outside. I suppose there is too much fear and
disgust, and till those emotions are not allayed, they will not be willing
to consider or discuss faith on its own merit, or wonder why we still
maintain that God is loving and kind. However, since nobody is asking these
questions, I am not responding, lest they think I'm preaching my religion.
Also, there have been very few questions about the scientific clues we find
in the Quran. I assume that largely people are not interested in looking at
the text of the scripture or evaluating it for factual accuracy. That's
fine. We have a free-will and its each individual's own choice. As Quran
2:186 reads: 'When My servants ask thee concerning Me, I am indeed close
(to them): I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he calleth on Me:
Let them also, *with a will*, Listen to My call, and believe in Me: That
they may walk in the right way.' [Translator: Yusuf Ali]
Samiya



On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 2:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 29 May 2014, at 05:33, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

 Ok, so let's talk some specifics.

 Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic expression.
 Famously on Salman Rushdie for writing a book, and several people for
 drawing Mohammed. When I was living in Paris, the building of a small
 publication was bombed for publishing a drawing of Mohammed.


 The Quran advises us (6:68,69) to remove ourselves from the company of
 those who blaspheme, till they do not change to another topic. It does not
 prescribe any of the above forms of punishment.


 OK.




 Women in Islamic societies are frequently punished for being raped, their
 husbands are allowed to beat them (against their will, I have nothing
 against consensual BDSM), they are sentenced to stoning to death for
 adultery (even when they were raped), they have to dress in a certain way
 and can be publicly lashed for not doing so and they are prevented from
 going to school. Even recently, young girls were attacked for attending
 school.

 The Quran prescribes (24:1-14) 100 public lashes for adulterers



 Is that not a blaspheme? Using the 'Name' as authority in the temporal
 moral code realm.

 If two person decide to live together and promise to God maintaining
 fidelity, say for 500 years, and one betrayed the other, it is only  the
 other, and God which have to handle this. Not the friends, not the family,
 not the Government. Just each others, the person involved, and, if they
 need, the helps of shamans and wise or spiritual persons.

 I don't think that any humans or group of humans, can intentionally harm
 other humans without consent (with rare exception like the legitimate
 defense).

 The problem comes only from the literalist interpretation.

 We can vote for laws, and nobody should forbid you to consult sacred books
 or God, if you can, or divine subaltern in Heaven (in case you found a two
 way shortcut) before voting, but the laws should not refer to It, and I
 think cannot, refer to It without blaspheming.

 A famous another example of such blaspheme. is Genghis Khan's statement
 I am the punishment of God. If you had not committed great sins, God
 would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.

 The good guy get a sadist impulse? He believes in God, so he take it as a
 sign that he has a right to hurt someone, as his divine pleasure assures
 him that its victim has necessarily committed great sin, that God allows a
 good fellow like him/her to torture.





 (not rape victim);  for that 4 witnesses of the crime are required, and if
 the witnesses are found to be lying, then 80 lashes for the persons who
 give false witness, and they are to be banned from bearing witness in any
 other case.

 Regarding beating by husbands, you refer to 4:15. I think the
 interpretation of the word d-r-b is incorrect, and it is separation which
 is advised, not beating. However, most translators and scholars insist it
 means beating. I disagree.


 I am glad you disagree, and I appreciate that

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-21 Thread John Mikes

Dear Samiya:
I was raised a 'believer' and studied several religions to end up as a
scientific agnostic who does not know the 'why'-s and 'how'-s but asks
questions about items other people believe in.
Many yeas ago on a different list I engaged in a discussion when an irate
'believer' bursted out: who gave you the audacity to feel so much
'smarter' than the rest of us? so now I keep my mouth shut. - As far as I
can (??). Then again on another kind of list I asked a female Muslim US
professor about Huris and what happens to human females after death? the
answer was: it is not so simple. Nothing more.

Do you have a solution to (human) women whether they go straight to hell,
or to heaven? What happens to them THERE(?) ?

The other day I heard a cute solution for nonbelievers on TV (it was a
stupid soap opera): a priest said to a nonbeliever: God offers solace to
the universe for those who believe. Why to the universe? otherwise it is
OK.

I do not bother you with more of my questions but am interested in the
solution for the womenfolk (both terresstrial and afterwordian).

Best regards

John Mikes


On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Bruno,
 Thanks for the advise! I never intended to be not humble or not modest,
 but perhaps I've not been very clear in expressing myself and my beliefs.
 When I speak of faith being God's gift, it doesn't mean necessarily being a
 Muslim. In Quran, 2:62, we read: 'Lo! Those who believe (in that which is
 revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and
 Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right -
 surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon
 them neither shall they grieve.' [Translator: Pickthall]
 I don't know if you wish to have a discussion, hence I'm not responding to
 rest of the email. If there is any specific point that you would like me to
 answer, please feel free to ask. I will try to answer as lucidly as
 possible.
 Many people have posted their opinions and comments about the way they
 perceive Islam from the outside. I suppose there is too much fear and
 disgust, and till those emotions are not allayed, they will not be willing
 to consider or discuss faith on its own merit, or wonder why we still
 maintain that God is loving and kind. However, since nobody is asking these
 questions, I am not responding, lest they think I'm preaching my religion.
 Also, there have been very few questions about the scientific clues we
 find in the Quran. I assume that largely people are not interested in
 looking at the text of the scripture or evaluating it for factual accuracy.
 That's fine. We have a free-will and its each individual's own choice. As
 Quran 2:186 reads: 'When My servants ask thee concerning Me, I am indeed
 close (to them): I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he calleth
 on Me: Let them also, *with a will*, Listen to My call, and believe in
 Me: That they may walk in the right way.' [Translator: Yusuf Ali]
 Samiya



 On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 2:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 29 May 2014, at 05:33, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 wrote:

 Ok, so let's talk some specifics.

 Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic expression.
 Famously on Salman Rushdie for writing a book, and several people for
 drawing Mohammed. When I was living in Paris, the building of a small
 publication was bombed for publishing a drawing of Mohammed.


 The Quran advises us (6:68,69) to remove ourselves from the company of
 those who blaspheme, till they do not change to another topic. It does not
 prescribe any of the above forms of punishment.


 OK.




 Women in Islamic societies are frequently punished for being raped, their
 husbands are allowed to beat them (against their will, I have nothing
 against consensual BDSM), they are sentenced to stoning to death for
 adultery (even when they were raped), they have to dress in a certain way
 and can be publicly lashed for not doing so and they are prevented from
 going to school. Even recently, young girls were attacked for attending
 school.

 The Quran prescribes (24:1-14) 100 public lashes for adulterers



 Is that not a blaspheme? Using the 'Name' as authority in the temporal
 moral code realm.

 If two person decide to live together and promise to God maintaining
 fidelity, say for 500 years, and one betrayed the other, it is only  the
 other, and God which have to handle this. Not the friends, not the family,
 not the Government. Just each others, the person involved, and, if they
 need, the helps of shamans and wise or spiritual persons.

 I don't think that any humans or group of humans, can intentionally harm
 other humans without consent (with rare exception like the legitimate
 defense).

 The problem comes only from the literalist interpretation.

 We can vote for laws, and nobody should

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-21 Thread Samiya Illias

Dear John,
According to what I read in the Quran and my understanding of it, all of us
humans, men and women, are in pledge for our beliefs and our deeds (Quran
52:21), and will benefit from our truthfulness (Quran 5:119). We are all
being tested, and all those who pass this terrestrial exam and get accepted
in Heaven, will find their reward, far above and beyond their expectations
and imagination (Quran 32:17), awaiting them! God is keeping an accurate
account of all thoughts and deeds, and the record doesn't leave out a
single thing (Quran 18:49).
In Quran, 66:10-12, God gives the example of four women: two who
disbelieved (the wife of Noah and and wife of Lot) who will not be able to
enter Heaven in spite of having been married to righteous persons in this
world, and God gives the example of two believing women (Aasiya, the queen
of Pharoah, and Maryam, the daughter of Imran / mother of Jesus) who will
enter Heaven because of their righteousness.
While many verses speak of fair and just reward for all believing men and
women, 'huris' are mentioned in only four of the 6000+ verses of the Quran.
Mostly 'huris' are understood to be females, but I'm not too sure about
that, as the word itself is neuter gender in Arabic. Whether we humans will
retain our genders or not in Heaven and if there will be sex / procreation
in Heaven is also subject to speculation. Honestly, I don't know, but I
trust that all those who are accepted in Heaven, will be in a perfect state
of joy, comfort, happiness and pleasure. When I dwell upon the various
verses of the Quran giving a preview of Heaven, I think the human soul's
yearning for the perfect person, its soulmate, will be fulfilled.
As regards the terrestrial portion of your question, men and women are but
two types of humans, one of whom is responsible for the financial and
security needs of the family (the man), while the other (the woman) has the
domestic responsibility. In many ways, women enjoy a privileged position. I
attempted to answer a similar question some years ago, you may wish to read
this:
http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2008/11/to-be-or-not-to-be-equal-comments-on.html

I hope I've answered your main question. Please feel free to ask further.
Reproduced below are few relevant verses:
5:119 Allah will say, This is the Day when the truthful will benefit from
their truthfulness. For them are gardens [in Paradise] beneath which
rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever, Allah being pleased with
them, and they with Him. That is the great attainment. [Translator: Sahih
International]
6:32 And the worldly life is not but amusement and diversion; but the home
of the Hereafter is best for those who fear Allah , so will you not reason?
[Translator: Sahih International]
9:71 The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They
enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give
zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Those - Allah will have mercy upon
them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise. [Translator: Sahih
International]
18:49 And the record [of deeds] will be placed [open], and you will see the
criminals fearful of that within it, and they will say, Oh, woe to us!
What is this book that leaves nothing small or great except that it has
enumerated it? And they will find what they did present [before them]. And
your Lord does injustice to no one. [Translator: Sahih International]
24:26 Vile women are for vile men, and vile men for vile women. Good women
are for good men, and good men for good women; such are innocent of that
which people say: For them is pardon and a bountiful provision.
[Translator: Pickthall]
32:17 And no soul knows what has been hidden for them of comfort for eyes
as reward for what they used to do. [Translator: Sahih International]
33:35 Indeed, the Muslim men and Muslim women, the believing men and
believing women, the obedient men and obedient women, the truthful men and
truthful women, the patient men and patient women, the humble men and
humble women, the charitable men and charitable women, the fasting men and
fasting women, the men who guard their private parts and the women who do
so, and the men who remember Allah often and the women who do so - for them
Allah has prepared forgiveness and a great reward. [Translator: Sahih
International]
33:58 And those who harm believing men and believing women for [something]
other than what they have earned have certainly born upon themselves a
slander and manifest sin. [Translator: Sahih International]
47:19 Know thou therefore that there is no god but God, and ask forgiveness
for thy sin, and for the believers, men and women. God knows your going to
and fro, and your lodging. [Translator: Arberry]
52:21 And those who believed, and their seed followed them in belief, We
shall join their seed with them, and We shall not defraud them of aught of
their work; every man shall be pledged for what he earned. [Translator:
Arberry]
57:18 Indeed, the men who

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-20 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 29 May 2014, at 05:33, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com  
wrote:



Ok, so let's talk some specifics.

Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic expression.  
Famously on Salman Rushdie for writing a book, and several people  
for drawing Mohammed. When I was living in Paris, the building of a  
small publication was bombed for publishing a drawing of Mohammed.


The Quran advises us (6:68,69) to remove ourselves from the company  
of those who blaspheme, till they do not change to another topic. It  
does not prescribe any of the above forms of punishment.


OK.






Women in Islamic societies are frequently punished for being raped,  
their husbands are allowed to beat them (against their will, I have  
nothing against consensual BDSM), they are sentenced to stoning to  
death for adultery (even when they were raped), they have to dress  
in a certain way and can be publicly lashed for not doing so and  
they are prevented from going to school. Even recently, young girls  
were attacked for attending school.



The Quran prescribes (24:1-14) 100 public lashes for adulterers



Is that not a blaspheme? Using the 'Name' as authority in the temporal  
moral code realm.


If two person decide to live together and promise to God maintaining  
fidelity, say for 500 years, and one betrayed the other, it is only   
the other, and God which have to handle this. Not the friends, not the  
family, not the Government. Just each others, the person involved,  
and, if they need, the helps of shamans and wise or spiritual persons.


I don't think that any humans or group of humans, can intentionally  
harm other humans without consent (with rare exception like the  
legitimate defense).


The problem comes only from the literalist interpretation.

We can vote for laws, and nobody should forbid you to consult sacred  
books or God, if you can, or divine subaltern in Heaven (in case you  
found a two way shortcut) before voting, but the laws should not refer  
to It, and I think cannot, refer to It without blaspheming.


A famous another example of such blaspheme. is Genghis Khan's  
statement I am the punishment of God. If you had not committed great  
sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.


The good guy get a sadist impulse? He believes in God, so he take it  
as a sign that he has a right to hurt someone, as his divine pleasure  
assures him that its victim has necessarily committed great sin, that  
God allows a good fellow like him/her to torture.






(not rape victim);  for that 4 witnesses of the crime are required,  
and if the witnesses are found to be lying, then 80 lashes for the  
persons who give false witness, and they are to be banned from  
bearing witness in any other case.


Regarding beating by husbands, you refer to 4:15. I think the  
interpretation of the word d-r-b is incorrect, and it is separation  
which is advised, not beating. However, most translators and  
scholars insist it means beating. I disagree.


I am glad you disagree, and I appreciate that honest statement.

In the comp 'fairy tale, it is said that if you kill all the humans  
for your own pleasure, well, you have still some chance to go to  
heaven, but if you hurt a fly's leg and justify the act with the name  
of the unnameable, there is much less hope.






Quran advises (24:31) women the covering of  their bosoms with  
scarf; head covering is not explicitly stated but it's traditional  
in almost all religions. Mother Mary's statues all show her head  
covered. Muslims did not make those statues. Also, till about a  
century ago, almost all people, men and women, used to wear some  
sort of headgear, in most cultures.
The Quran also advises (33:59) draping a cloak over the body, when  
going out, if one fears for her safety. Is that good advise?



Homosexuality is considered a crime.

Yes, the people of Sodom received divine punished for it. Verse 4:16  
contains guidance for how to deal with this crime.


See above.










Limb amputation is considered an acceptable punishment.

Quran (5:38) prescribes cutting off the hand of the thief. I believe  
it is implemented in Saudi Arabia where theft incidences are very  
low. However, I have heard scholars argue that such laws can only be  
implemented in an ideal Islamic welfare society where excuses /  
rationale for theft are almost non-existent, and thereby stealing is  
a pure crime, not borne of any need for survival.









So, my question to you is this: do you condemn these actions? If  
so, do you claim that they stem from a misunderstanding of the Quran?


I am a Muslim. I believe the Quran to be divine guidance. Therefore,  
I accept everything in it, and try to understand the best meaning  
thereof.


It is hidden, it can't be literal. (provably so assuming comp + some  
simple definition, and even in comp the G/G* theory cannot be taken  
literally.


Humans

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-20 Thread John Mikes

Dear Bruno,

 it is wasted time and effort to argue who is right in a question that
raises 2 billion children in a 'faith' they will live by - AND such 'faith'
does include the killing of 'infidels' (meaning: who do not share their
faith to the last comma) and many more peculiarities which our part of the
world would not accept anymore. There is no question about 'truth',
believability, oracles and supernatural wisdom, there is a 1500 year old
power over billions of people with no questions asking and willing to do
whatever they believe has to be done.

There were argumentations a millennium ago, but the sword answered.
Wars and wars.
We have different vocabularies and both sides understand things
differently.

I do not say which part is 'better-or-worse' I am just sorry for an
advanced worldview getting erased by a violent ancient force that
overwhelms our civilisation. (Q: are WE civil, indeed?)

John M


On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 29 May 2014, at 05:33, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

 Ok, so let's talk some specifics.

 Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic expression.
 Famously on Salman Rushdie for writing a book, and several people for
 drawing Mohammed. When I was living in Paris, the building of a small
 publication was bombed for publishing a drawing of Mohammed.


 The Quran advises us (6:68,69) to remove ourselves from the company of
 those who blaspheme, till they do not change to another topic. It does not
 prescribe any of the above forms of punishment.


 OK.




 Women in Islamic societies are frequently punished for being raped, their
 husbands are allowed to beat them (against their will, I have nothing
 against consensual BDSM), they are sentenced to stoning to death for
 adultery (even when they were raped), they have to dress in a certain way
 and can be publicly lashed for not doing so and they are prevented from
 going to school. Even recently, young girls were attacked for attending
 school.

 The Quran prescribes (24:1-14) 100 public lashes for adulterers



 Is that not a blaspheme? Using the 'Name' as authority in the temporal
 moral code realm.

 If two person decide to live together and promise to God maintaining
 fidelity, say for 500 years, and one betrayed the other, it is only  the
 other, and God which have to handle this. Not the friends, not the family,
 not the Government. Just each others, the person involved, and, if they
 need, the helps of shamans and wise or spiritual persons.

 I don't think that any humans or group of humans, can intentionally harm
 other humans without consent (with rare exception like the legitimate
 defense).

 The problem comes only from the literalist interpretation.

 We can vote for laws, and nobody should forbid you to consult sacred books
 or God, if you can, or divine subaltern in Heaven (in case you found a two
 way shortcut) before voting, but the laws should not refer to It, and I
 think cannot, refer to It without blaspheming.

 A famous another example of such blaspheme. is Genghis Khan's statement
 I am the punishment of God. If you had not committed great sins, God
 would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.

 The good guy get a sadist impulse? He believes in God, so he take it as a
 sign that he has a right to hurt someone, as his divine pleasure assures
 him that its victim has necessarily committed great sin, that God allows a
 good fellow like him/her to torture.





 (not rape victim);  for that 4 witnesses of the crime are required, and if
 the witnesses are found to be lying, then 80 lashes for the persons who
 give false witness, and they are to be banned from bearing witness in any
 other case.

 Regarding beating by husbands, you refer to 4:15. I think the
 interpretation of the word d-r-b is incorrect, and it is separation which
 is advised, not beating. However, most translators and scholars insist it
 means beating. I disagree.


 I am glad you disagree, and I appreciate that honest statement.

 In the comp 'fairy tale, it is said that if you kill all the humans for
 your own pleasure, well, you have still some chance to go to heaven, but if
 you hurt a fly's leg and justify the act with the name of the unnameable,
 there is much less hope.




 Quran advises (24:31) women the covering of  their bosoms with scarf; head
 covering is not explicitly stated but it's traditional in almost all
 religions. Mother Mary's statues all show her head covered. Muslims did not
 make those statues. Also, till about a century ago, almost all people, men
 and women, used to wear some sort of headgear, in most cultures.
 The Quran also advises (33:59) draping a cloak over the body, when going
 out, if one fears for her safety. Is that good advise?

 Homosexuality is considered a crime.

 Yes, the people of Sodom received divine punished for it. Verse 4:16
 contains guidance for how to deal

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-20 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

 From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

On 29 May 2014, at 05:33, Samiya Illias wrote:

On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

Ok, so let's talk some specifics.

Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic expression. Famously 
on Salman Rushdie for writing a book, and several people for drawing 
Mohammed. When I was living in Paris, the building of a small publication was 
bombed for publishing a drawing of Mohammed. 
The Quran advises us (6:68,69) to remove ourselves from the company of those 
who blaspheme, till they do not change to another topic. It does not prescribe 
any of the above forms of punishment. 

OK.

Women in Islamic societies are frequently punished for being raped, their 
husbands are allowed to beat them (against their will, I have nothing against 
consensual BDSM), they are sentenced to stoning to death for adultery (even 
when they were raped), they have to dress in a certain way and can be 
publicly lashed for not doing so and they are prevented from going to school. 
Even recently, young girls were attacked for attending school.

The Quran prescribes (24:1-14) 100 public lashes for adulterers 

Is that not a blaspheme? Using the 'Name' as authority in the temporal moral 
code realm. 

If two person decide to live together and promise to God maintaining fidelity, 
say for 500 years, and one betrayed the other, it is only  the other, and God 
which have to handle this. Not the friends, not the family, not the Government. 
Just each others, the person involved, and, if they need, the helps of shamans 
and wise or spiritual persons.

I don't think that any humans or group of humans, can intentionally harm other 
humans without consent (with rare exception like the legitimate defense).

The problem comes only from the literalist interpretation. 

We can vote for laws, and nobody should forbid you to consult sacred books or 
God, if you can, or divine subaltern in Heaven (in case you found a two way 
shortcut) before voting, but the laws should not refer to It, and I think 
cannot, refer to It without blaspheming.

A famous another example of such blaspheme. is Genghis Khan's statement I am 
the punishment of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have 
sent a punishment like me upon you. 

The good guy get a sadist impulse? He believes in God, so he take it as a sign 
that he has a right to hurt someone, as his divine pleasure assures him that 
its victim has necessarily committed great sin, that God allows a good fellow 
like him/her to torture.

(not rape victim);  for that 4 witnesses of the crime are required, and if the 
witnesses are found to be lying, then 80 lashes for the persons who give false 
witness, and they are to be banned from bearing witness in any other case. 

Regarding beating by husbands, you refer to 4:15. I think the interpretation 
of the word d-r-b is incorrect, and it is separation which is advised, not 
beating. However, most translators and scholars insist it means beating. I 
disagree. 

I am glad you disagree, and I appreciate that honest statement.

In the comp 'fairy tale, it is said that if you kill all the humans for your 
own pleasure, well, you have still some chance to go to heaven, but if you hurt 
a fly's leg and justify the act with the name of the unnameable, there is much 
less hope.

Quran advises (24:31) women the covering of  their bosoms with scarf; head 
covering is not explicitly stated but it's traditional in almost all 
religions. Mother Mary's statues all show her head covered. Muslims did not 
make those statues. Also, till about a century ago, almost all people, men and 
women, used to wear some sort of headgear, in most cultures. 
The Quran also advises (33:59) draping a cloak over the body, when going out, 
if one fears for her safety. Is that good advise? 

Homosexuality is considered a crime.

Yes, the people of Sodom received divine punished for it. Verse 4:16 contains 
guidance for how to deal with this crime. 

See above.

Limb amputation is considered an acceptable punishment.

Quran (5:38) prescribes cutting off the hand of the thief. I believe it is 
implemented in Saudi Arabia where theft incidences are very low. However, I 
have heard scholars argue that such laws can only be implemented in an ideal 
Islamic welfare society where excuses / rationale for theft are almost 
non-existent, and thereby stealing is a pure crime, not borne of any need for 
survival. 

So, my question to you is this: do you condemn these actions? If so, do you 
claim that they stem from a misunderstanding of the Quran? 

I am a Muslim. I believe the Quran to be divine guidance. Therefore, I accept 
everything in it, and try to understand the best meaning thereof. 

It is hidden, it can't be literal

Re: Pluto bounces back!


I absolutely agree! But my point was that these folks are not true pacifists 
by merely anti-Americans calling themselves pacifists. These types genuflect to 
M-L ideology as a parishioner does in Church on Sundays. It's like a religion 
(ideology) because they're faith-based. You'd have figured that after the 20th 
century failures, and slaughter these types would have withered away as Marx 
and Engels called the state to do, but they are here in the 21st century, and 
have adopted for survival. Again, the are not pacifists, simply protesters. :-)

I think you'll find pacifists are against anyone going to war

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Jun 15, 2014 10:00 pm
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!



On 16 June 2014 00:09, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

I style myself as informed about the aggressor. The clash of civilizations is 
already here, and has been here, off and on for a few decades, in its 
contemporary form. I do point out that many of the elites side with Saudi 
royals and accept donations from them, and many are liberals, the liberal 
elites, like the Clintons, and on the conservative side, the Bushes. To fight 
back against the Islamist imperialism takes foresight and determination. It 
also is good to know what you stand for and what you stand against? When people 
are anti-war, in the US, it invariably means they are against the US. It is 
never, ever, against the Islamists going to war. Now, I ask, rhetorically, why 
this is? 


I think you'll find pacifists are against anyone going to war. 




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!


China 89 was a different idea, because they were pragmatists and not 
ideologues. They were true pacifists, however unreasonable that is. What brings 
stability between China and everyone else, is the capability for other nations 
to leverage things that China doesn't want to do without. The anti-war types in 
the US 90% not Quaker, but instead, liberals, progressives, maxists, whatever 
the call themselves. For example, none of them protested against the Soviet 
invasions of Poland and Afghanistan. And, back in 39, this group suspended all 
criticism of Hitler, after the Pact of Steel was signed in August 39. The 
restarted their criticism of adolf only after May 41, when the Nazis invaded. I 
can cite other patterns for this, but why give Liz eye strain? 

Oh, and the reason people in the US protest against the US military is because 
they're in the US, and in a position to do so. Generally people who protest are 
only able to do so in their own country. The people in Tiananmen Square 
protested in their country, too. No doubt there were people asking why they 
only protested against their government, too.

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Jun 15, 2014 10:07 pm
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!



On 16 June 2014 14:00, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:



On 16 June 2014 00:09, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

I style myself as informed about the aggressor. The clash of civilizations is 
already here, and has been here, off and on for a few decades, in its 
contemporary form. I do point out that many of the elites side with Saudi 
royals and accept donations from them, and many are liberals, the liberal 
elites, like the Clintons, and on the conservative side, the Bushes. To fight 
back against the Islamist imperialism takes foresight and determination. It 
also is good to know what you stand for and what you stand against? When people 
are anti-war, in the US, it invariably means they are against the US. It is 
never, ever, against the Islamists going to war. Now, I ask, rhetorically, why 
this is? 



I think you'll find pacifists are against anyone going to war. 




Oh, and the reason people in the US protest against the US military is because 
they're in the US, and in a position to do so. Generally people who protest are 
only able to do so in their own country. The people in Tiananmen Square 
protested in their country, too. No doubt there were people asking why they 
only protested against their government, too.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-16 Thread Richard Ruquist

Hitler supporters, at least the ones that actually gave financial support,
were mainly rich conservatives like Prescott Bush.
Richard


On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:05 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 China 89 was a different idea, because they were pragmatists and not
 ideologues. They were true pacifists, however unreasonable that is. What
 brings stability between China and everyone else, is the capability for
 other nations to leverage things that China doesn't want to do without. The
 anti-war types in the US 90% not Quaker, but instead, liberals,
 progressives, maxists, whatever the call themselves. For example, none of
 them protested against the Soviet invasions of Poland and Afghanistan. And,
 back in 39, this group suspended all criticism of Hitler, after the Pact of
 Steel was signed in August 39. The restarted their criticism of adolf only
 after May 41, when the Nazis invaded. I can cite other patterns for this,
 but why give Liz eye strain?

 Oh, and the reason people in the US protest against the US military is
 because they're in the US, and in a position to do so. Generally people who
 protest are only able to do so in their own country. The people in
 Tiananmen Square protested in their country, too. No doubt there were
 people asking why they only protested against their government, too.




 -Original Message-
 From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Sun, Jun 15, 2014 10:07 pm
 Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

   On 16 June 2014 14:00, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

   On 16 June 2014 00:09, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 I style myself as informed about the aggressor. The clash of
 civilizations is already here, and has been here, off and on for a few
 decades, in its contemporary form. I do point out that many of the elites
 side with Saudi royals and accept donations from them, and many are
 liberals, the liberal elites, like the Clintons, and on the conservative
 side, the Bushes. To fight back against the Islamist imperialism takes
 foresight and determination. It also is good to know what you stand for and
 what you stand against? When people are anti-war, in the US, it invariably
 means they are against the US. It is never, ever, against the Islamists
 going to war. Now, I ask, rhetorically, why this is?

  I think you'll find pacifists are against *anyone *going to war.

   Oh, and the reason people in the US protest against the US military is
 because they're in the US, and in a position to do so. Generally people who
 protest are only able to do so in their own country. The people in
 Tiananmen Square protested in their country, too. No doubt there were
 people asking why they only protested against their government, too.
   --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-16 Thread ghibbsa





On Monday, June 16, 2014 1:49:08 AM UTC+great feat saying that one is 
anti-war, when they claimed is merely, anti-American military. This is 
clear today, it was clear three decades ago, when anti-war protesters, 
protested only against Pershing missiles in west Europe, and then years 
before this, during the Vietnam war, where they were against American 
involvement, but said absolutely nothing about the Khmer Rouge slaying a 
million Kampucheans. It's just not their world-wide, and what the Soviets 
did was ok fine. So it was never war they were and are against. Nowadays 
the same people are against US involvement, but Islamist warfare, is 
something that they have zero comment over. Rhetorically, speaking, I 
wonder why? But we both know, really. People can often never be in favor of 
an idea or a policy, but there is a always the certainty of hated, that 
quickness the blood, and defines who they are. It's an old game, after all.

What is the standard for authentic patriotism in the camp you're in? You 
are talking about Islamic warfare...there isn't a lot of that on the 
American continent. So where do you envisage this war talking place, next? 
Are you able to list what interests the American people have in the region 
you mention, and what is the dollar cost, you think, for what military 
objective? How will success or failure be measured?

What value has the American people accrued from the Iraq war? It cost about 
a trillion and half. That's enough to have retooled American industry into 
a knock down competitive force. American might have had a very different 
last decade. 

A lot of people in America are poor, increasing numbers have job 
insecurity. What is your equation that fighting another war in the middle 
east (presumably) at presumably another trillion dollars, is a good way to 
spend those Americans taxes? 

Or is it a case of, guys that advocate for wars, in a time when vast 
resources have been poured down the toilet for similar wars with zero value 
as a result for American people, are by definition good patriots? I 
mean...what if your motivations aren't patriotic? What's the standard? How 
can anyone tell?





ginal Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com 
javascript:
To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
Sent: 15-Jun-2014 14:58:21 +
Subject: RE: Pluto bounces back!

  

  

 *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [
 mailto:ever...@googlegroups.com javascript:] 

  

 I style myself as informed about the aggressor. 

  

 Then I take it you have never ever lived in or even visited a Muslim 
 country… you probably do not know any Arabs or other Muslims on a personal 
 level, and have never shared food with them. And yet you consider yourself 
 informed. Strange way of getting informed. 

  

  The clash of civilizations is already here, and has been here, off and 
 on for a few decades, in its contemporary form.

  

 Yes… I can see that this is what you have concluded, based on second and 
 third hand accounts, written by propagandists with axes to grind.  You are 
 so sure of all of your conclusions, without ever having  actually been to a 
 Muslim country, without ever having actually met and lived amongst Arabs or 
 other Muslims. You are sure because you read it somewhere, or more likely 
 heard some talking head rave on about this “clash of civilizations”.

 This does not seem all that rigorous to me; actually it seems rather more 
 like the weak gruel of a regurgitated diet of cherry picked sound bites.

  

 I do point out that many of the elites side with Saudi royals and 
 accept donations from them, and many are liberals, the liberal elites, like 
 the Clintons, and on the conservative side, the Bushes. To fight back 
 against the Islamist imperialism takes foresight and determination. It also 
 is good to know what you stand for and what you stand against? When people 
 are anti-war, in the US, it invariably means they are against the US. It is 
 never, ever, against the Islamists going to war. Now, I ask, rhetorically, 
 why this is? 

  

 Haha – are you suggesting that calling into question your extremist and 
 ill-informed world views is a form of anti-American treasonous activity? 
 Typical, and exactly what I expected from an armchair general such as 
 yourself. You have never actually seen war; you do not know what war really 
 is; you are prejudiced and you pine for a genocidal clash of civilizations 
 – but a bloody hell, for other people to go die in and kill for…. because I 
 don’t see you volunteering, chickenhawk!

 It is cowards, who demand war from the safety of their living rooms.

 Chris

  

 A few questions. Have you ever been to Afghanistan? Have you ever been to 
 any Muslim country at all? 

 I ask, because you seem to style yourself an expert on the thinking and 
 inner mind of people in the Middle East. So naturally I am curious about 
 the nature of your

Re: Pluto bounces back!


Richard, I do know the history of the Bush regime, and all that. To be 
consistent, my point again is that the comies, liberals, and so forth were 
against Hitler because he railed against the 'Bolshevism' of Comrade Stalin. 
When Stalin and Dolf did the pact of steel, they were best buds to the point of 
trading raw materials and tech with each other before May 1941. So, for 
example, Pete Seeger, USA Stalin sympathizer and folk singer, requested that 
purchasers of a anti-hitler song, from early 1939, be returned, because it 
might offend Comrade Stalin's new buddy. In summer of 41, the record was 
re-issued. This is how the Left thinks, its a faith movement that is not often 
subject to reason and evidence. Which highlights my assertion that 
anti-protesters, are not pacifists, but loyal activists to the cause. One 
priciple of this cause is a hatred of the nation-state, founded in the later 
18th century. 


 aHitler supporters, at least the ones that actually gave financial support, 
were mainly rich conservatives like Prescott Bush.

Richard

 
 Yes, Prescott Bush and Joe Kennedy felated the Nazis indeed. They were 
essential traitors as far as I am concerned. To your point, it was the German 
Industrialists like Krupp, created the Hitler Fund in 1927, and yes, they were 
extreme, conservative, racists, no doubt. The Communist Party of Germany during 
Weimar, were not pacifists either. 
 
-Original Message-
From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 1:40 pm
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!


Hitler supporters, at least the ones that actually gave financial support, were 
mainly rich conservatives like Prescott Bush.
Richard




On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:05 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

China 89 was a different idea, because they were pragmatists and not 
ideologues. They were true pacifists, however unreasonable that is. What brings 
stability between China and everyone else, is the capability for other nations 
to leverage things that China doesn't want to do without. The anti-war types in 
the US 90% not Quaker, but instead, liberals, progressives, maxists, whatever 
the call themselves. For example, none of them protested against the Soviet 
invasions of Poland and Afghanistan. And, back in 39, this group suspended all 
criticism of Hitler, after the Pact of Steel was signed in August 39. The 
restarted their criticism of adolf only after May 41, when the Nazis invaded. I 
can cite other patterns for this, but why give Liz eye strain? 

Oh, and the reason people in the US protest against the US military is because 
they're in the US, and in a position to do so. Generally people who protest are 
only able to do so in their own country. The people in Tiananmen Square 
protested in their country, too. No doubt there were people asking why they 
only protested against their government, too.

 
 
 

-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sun, Jun 15, 2014 10:07 pm
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!




On 16 June 2014 14:00, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:



On 16 June 2014 00:09, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

I style myself as informed about the aggressor. The clash of civilizations is 
already here, and has been here, off and on for a few decades, in its 
contemporary form. I do point out that many of the elites side with Saudi 
royals and accept donations from them, and many are liberals, the liberal 
elites, like the Clintons, and on the conservative side, the Bushes. To fight 
back against the Islamist imperialism takes foresight and determination. It 
also is good to know what you stand for and what you stand against? When people 
are anti-war, in the US, it invariably means they are against the US. It is 
never, ever, against the Islamists going to war. Now, I ask, rhetorically, why 
this is? 



I think you'll find pacifists are against anyone going to war. 





Oh, and the reason people in the US protest against the US military is because 
they're in the US, and in a position to do so. Generally people who protest are 
only able to do so in their own country. The people in Tiananmen Square 
protested in their country, too. No doubt there were people asking why they 
only protested against their government, too.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group

Re: Pluto bounces back!


1. 9-11 in the US answered all questions regarding the Islamists as fair as I 
am concerned. 
 
2. The applied standard for patriotism is doing actions that help the US 
survive long enough until the genuine AI is achieved, or Jesus returns, as the 
Christians desire. Until then, we need to seek to survive and thrive. That's my 
criteria. 
 
3. I heard that it was closer to 2 trillion dollars in national wealth wasted 
on the Saddam war. I would have gone into Pakistan, and pursed Bin Laden, and 
his protectors in the ISI. They would have deposed Musharef, our, Pakistani 
chum, and would have sought the annihilation of Al Qaeda and affiliated orgs. 
Bush was buds with the Saudis and that is no mistake, and explains much about 
the previous administrations decisions. 

4. The economic complaint is bogus, in light of BHO's anti-jobs policies 
economically. He and his party do not believe in job creation that is not 
affiliated with the democrat party. So he is good with teachers unions, state 
workers, and federal employees, and trade unions, that funnel cash into 
democrat pacs. Small businesses provide little for his party, and he has no use 
for people who 'slow down the process.' Hence, this is why the US joblessness 
rate has been so high, even after the 09 market crash. Obama has much more 
crony capitalist contributors then Bush ever had, Koch's not with standing. The 
trillions would have gone into the pockets of his billionaires, his unions, as 
it did from 2009 forward. Wall Street loves him-contrary to Marxist prop. The 
poor get free phones and snap cards. 

5. Sure, war is a waste, and a terrible one at that. But its somewhat better 
then seeing yourself or your buds, conquered and killed, which can be a bummer, 
sometimes. 

Let me ask you this? How many protesters do we see world-wide, against the 
Putin's incursions in the Ukraine, or protesting the war in Syria, the ISIS 
murders in Iraq?? The streets, had the US did something would have 
protesters-but! That's not the party way. Protestors are merely anti-US and not 
pacifists. 


-Original Message-
From: ghibbsa ghib...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 2:05 pm
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!





On Monday, June 16, 2014 1:49:08 AM UTC+great feat saying that one is anti-war, 
when they claimed is merely, anti-American military. This is clear today, it 
was clear three decades ago, when anti-war protesters,  protested only 
against Pershing missiles in west Europe, and then years before this, during 
the Vietnam war, where they were against American involvement, but said 
absolutely nothing about the Khmer Rouge slaying a million Kampucheans. It's 
just not their world-wide, and what the Soviets did was ok fine. So it was 
never war they were and are against.  Nowadays the same people are against US 
involvement, but Islamist warfare, is something that they have zero comment 
over. Rhetorically, speaking, I wonder why?  But we both know, really. People 
can often never be in favor of an idea or a policy, but there is a always the 
certainty of hated, that quickness the blood, and defines who they are. It's an 
old game, after all.


What is the standard for authentic patriotism in the camp you're in? You are 
talking about Islamic warfare...there isn't a lot of that on the American 
continent. So where do you envisage this war talking place, next? Are you able 
to list what interests the American people have in the region you mention, and 
what is the dollar cost, you think, for what military objective? How will 
success or failure be measured?


What value has the American people accrued from the Iraq war? It cost about a 
trillion and half. That's enough to have retooled American industry into a 
knock down competitive force. American might have had a very different last 
decade. 


A lot of people in America are poor, increasing numbers have job insecurity. 
What is your equation that fighting another war in the middle east (presumably) 
at presumably another trillion dollars, is a good way to spend those Americans 
taxes? 


Or is it a case of, guys that advocate for wars, in a time when vast resources 
have been poured down the toilet for similar wars with zero value as a result 
for American people, are by definition good patriots? I mean...what if your 
motivations aren't patriotic? What's the standard? How can anyone tell?









ginal Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com
To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com
Sent: 15-Jun-2014 14:58:21 +
Subject: RE: Pluto bounces back!




 
 
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ever...@googlegroups.com] 
 
I style myself as informed about the aggressor. 
 
Then I take it you have never ever lived in or even visited a Muslim country… 
you probably do not know any Arabs or other Muslims on a personal level, and 
have never shared food with them. And yet you

Re: Pluto bounces back!

2014-06-16 Thread ghibbsa



On Monday, June 16, 2014 7:53:07 PM UTC+1, spudb...@aol.com wrote:

 1. 9-11 in the US answered all questions regarding the Islamists as fair 
 as I am concerned. 
  
 2. The applied standard for patriotism is doing actions that help the US 
 survive long enough until the genuine AI is achieved, or Jesus returns, as 
 the Christians desire. Until then, we need to seek to survive and thrive. 
 That's my criteria. 
  
 3. I heard that it was closer to 2 trillion dollars in national wealth 
 wasted on the Saddam war. I would have gone into Pakistan, and pursed Bin 
 Laden, and his protectors in the ISI. They would have deposed Musharef, 
 our, Pakistani chum, and would have sought the annihilation of Al Qaeda and 
 affiliated orgs. Bush was buds with the Saudis and that is no mistake, and 
 explains much about the previous administrations decisions. 
  
 4. The economic complaint is bogus, in light of BHO's anti-jobs policies 
 economically. He and his party do not believe in job creation that is not 
 affiliated with the democrat party. So he is good with teachers unions, 
 state workers, and federal employees, and trade unions, that funnel cash 
 into democrat pacs. Small businesses provide little for his party, and he 
 has no use for people who 'slow down the process.' Hence, this is why the 
 US joblessness rate has been so high, even after the 09 market crash. Obama 
 has much more crony capitalist contributors then Bush ever had, Koch's not 
 with standing. The trillions would have gone into the pockets of his 
 billionaires, his unions, as it did from 2009 forward. Wall Street loves 
 him-contrary to Marxist prop. The poor get free phones and snap cards. 
  
 5. Sure, war is a waste, and a terrible one at that. But its somewhat 
 better then seeing yourself or your buds, conquered and killed, which can 
 be a bummer, sometimes. 
  
 Let me ask you this? How many protesters do we see world-wide, against the 
 Putin's incursions in the Ukraine, or protesting the war in Syria, the ISIS 
 murders in Iraq?? The streets, had the US did something would have 
 protesters-but! That's not the* party* way. Protestors are merely anti-U 
 and not pacifists. 

l
 
If I was an American I would be totally against any more wars that cost 
American soldier lives and drain the we th of the country, based on what 
you are saying above.firstly for military reasons. You have spoken of 
the need to fight wars, but not actually said who against. Not in terms a 
military campaign can be planned around. I mean I'm not saying you need to 
decide an actual strategy

But there are generic questions that need to be answered by anyone who 
things a war should happen. Like...for you.you want to send soldiers 
into harms way. What goal are hundreds or thousands of those young 
Americans laying down their lives for? The answer to that is not principle, 
what is the situation on the ground in the wake of war, and what are the 
reasons why that situation + the realignment of local power structures, is 
worth those lives and the cost? , 

What you said above, the Jesus/AI line: Firstly it doesn't seem like the US 
needs to fight these distant wars. Theres no problem on the American 
continent and the US has oceans either side. What is this survival threat, 
and what sort of calculations are you doing that you believe young soldiers 
should die by the hundred or thousand to secure? What is the payback? 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!