Hi John, If you are a materialist, rejecting God is a perfectly sensible thing to do. But materialism is bad philosophy, since it ignores the ontological firewall between mind and matter. Naturally, it cannot solve the mind/body problem, and has no clue what mind or God is, but demands proof of any religious statement or concept. Is that hypocracy or what ?
Roger Clough, [email protected] 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 16:12:13 Subject: Re: Stephen and Bruno Hi John, I have well functioning delete and spam filter buttons that I can use if things get out of hand on my end. ;-) On 8/22/2012 3:23 PM, John Mikes wrote: Stephen, my stance as well on (even controversial) argumentation. HOWEVER (isn't one everywhere?) the 'advancement' one achieves by certain explanations might 'color' one's own ideas into shades unwanted. If you read a well formulated argument it inevitably sticks in your mind and later is hard to separate. A reason why most religious people cannot accept logical (scientific) refutation and fall back into old meme superstition. I appreciate Roger's knowledgeability in ancient (mostly idealistic) theories but his fundamental color is biblical FAITH. I know him from another (nonreligious) list, where I asked the moderator to curtail the amount of those overwhelmingly religious postings - and he did. Roger is still on, but hiding some of his true colors (mostly). (A reason why I refrained from responding to his posts. I want to keep friendly to that other list, too.) You are absolutely right about the topical invigorating by the deluge of posts - add to it that Roger starts from a one-sided position only. Most discussions on the Everything list are also one-sided, but as in the past - from ANOTHER side. (Bruno is close to faithfulness, not a formal religion though, but his mind-body is close to a 'soul' belief.) I used to be a Catholic, then reincarnationalistic (Ouija-board fan), now I can't include into my ongoing worldview (agnosticism, based on the 'infinite complexity', - to us unknowable in toto) WHAT may remain after death of our (human? with trillion microbial biomes) complexity that is destroyed - reshaped AS a memory of ourselves. Which part would 'remember' and 'respond' to a destroyed complexity (us) after "we are gone"? - Surviving parts MAY connect to different complexities and 'live'(?) as such. It is a pity that Adam and Eve are not 'real'. And do not forget my distinction for the physical world (as we pretend to know it): a figment of yesterday's stance. Leibnitz etc.? I respect those oldies of those (their) times. Best to you John On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Stephen P. King <[email protected]> wrote: On 8/21/2012 11:02 AM, John Mikes wrote: Dear Roger, (re: Brent's post below) Brent wrote it superbly. You, with your immense educational thesaurus (lit, thinking, writing skills etc.) 'occupied' this list now for some weeks in the controversy by a (I wish I had a better distinction) religious(?) faith-based mindset vs. the well established and decades-long working ensemble of the list - on other grounds. The participants on this list are strong minds and well established, you have little chance to convert them - although some of us linger into close-to-religious belief systems, which may be a definitional problem (e.g. Bruno's theology and god, etc.). You could be more accepted and happier on another list where the majority is closer to your own belief system. YET: Maybe you do seek controversy? I could understand that, but your posting fervor is taking over our list. Have mercy! Please, consider this a friendly remark. John Mikes Dear John, I think that is is sometimes a good thing to have use shaken out of our doldrums! I like Roger's contributions! They have already helped be make some great advances in my own work. ;-) On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:00 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: On 8/20/2012 5:16 AM, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno and Stephen I want to inform you that you are wrong in all of your writings. Please understand how very incorrect you are about everything you post! Why are you so wrong. Roger I (am?) glad Roger cleared that up. :-) Brent "Shut up he explained." --- Ring Lardner -- Onward! Stephen "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
