Dear Roger,
I tried to keep out from your 'everything' but now you address me and I do
not run away;
No, I am not a materialist and do not 'reject' god - I simply cannot find
that concept identifiable in my (present) world view. So I do not call
myself an 'atheist'.
 Unfortunately with the other 'John' (Clark) who replied, we are not in
concert about all, although I value his thinking a lot.
I appreciate the figment 'physical world' and most ideas that pertain(ed)
to it, including conventional (and newer) physical branches, except the
bio-conclusions based on so little we think we know about.
You have lots of good replies, people inclined to join the belief system
you represent may accept many of them.
You are right, I have no idea what 'mind' might be, (nor matter, for that
matter, the ultimate dissection of which is providing totally non-matterly
ingredients - unless you call non particulate items particles and think
that simply means matter).
I do not intend to repeat my former post, - you did - so that is all I want
to reply now.
I believe one thing for sure: we do not know more than we do. We gather
additional knowledge over the millennia and do that still, not knowing
whether our explanations fit the explanatee at all. We use our 'mind'
(logic of it) and THINK that is accurate in the 'matter'.

Have a good time

JohnM




On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  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
> 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 <stephe...@charter.net>
> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> *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 <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.
>>>
>>> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to