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, rclo...@verizon.net
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

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> 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 <meeke...@verizon.net> 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.


I (am?) glad Roger cleared that up.  :-)

"Shut up he explained."
    --- Ring Lardner



"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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to