On Sat, Sep 8, 2012  Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You call yourself an atheist,

I do, but that's only because I also have the rather old fashioned belief
that words should mean something.

> which means you reject every notion of God, of any religion, does it not?

Apparently not. If we live in a world where words mean whatever Jason Resch
wants them to mean then I'm not sure if I'm a atheist or not. However I do
know that the idea of a omnipotent omniscient being who created the
universe is brain dead dumb. And I do know that I have never heard any
religion express a single deep idea that a scientist or mathematician
hadn't explained first and done so much much better. You tell me if that's
good enough to make me a atheist or not.

> you cannot simply reject the weakest idea, ignore the stronger ones,

That is just about the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard in my
life! The key to wisdom is to reject weak ideas and embrace strong ones
regardless of where they originated.

> rejecting the idea of Santa Clause won't make you an atheist

I am a Santa Clause atheist and you are a Thor atheist, and in fact you are
a atheist for nearly all of the thousands and thousands of Gods that the
Human race has created over the centuries, I just go one God further than
you do.

> In my post, I showed that the notion of God as eternal, immutable,
> unlimited, self-existent truth appears in many religions. Do you reject
> this concept of God?

No, I don't reject that true things are true, and I don't reject that a
being that was eternal and knew everything that was true would have
superpowers, and I don't reject that Superman in the comics had X ray
vision or that Harry Potter was good at magic. Perhaps you find this sort
of  fantasy role-playing philosophically enlightening but I don't.

> I have studied some of the beliefs of other religions.

So have I and I've concluded that to a first approximation one religious
franchise is about as idiotic as another.

> I am showing the common themes: "self-existent" and "cause of existence"

Just saying that God caused Himself to exist without even giving a hint as
to how He managed to accomplish that interesting task is as vacuous as
saying the Universe cause itself to exist with no attempt at a explanation
of how it works.

>> The following sentence has identical informational content: "in the
>> beginning was stuff, and the stuff was with stuff, and stuff was stuff".
>> Funny ASCII characters do not make things more profound.
> > Logos is not a meaningless term,

Logos has more meanings than you can shake a stick at, none of them
profound; "Logos" can mean a reason or a speech or a word or a opinion or a
wish or a cause or a account or a explanation or many other things; when
religion says "in the beginning there was logos" it means "stuff"; but I do
admit that "logos" sounds cooler than "stuff" and is more impressive to the

> and therefore the above expresses a meaningful idea about the notion of
> god,

Yes, the sentence "at the beginning of stuff there was stuff" is not only
meaningful it is also without question true, its just not very deep. Oh
well, you got 2 out of 3.

> which is almost word-for-word identical to Keppler's quote below.

If God is geometry like Kepler thought then I'm not a atheist. If God is an
ashtray then I'm not a atheist either.

> mathematics is a form of theologh.

OK two can play this silly word game, theology is the study of the
gastrointestinal tract.

> > Only a fool would say truth does not exist so with that definition God
>> certainly exists.
> > Ahh, so you are not an atheist after all.

In the English language I'm a atheist but In the Jasonresch language I am
not, the definition of "God" in that language is whatever it takes to be
able to say "I believe in God". The important thing is to be able to chant
those 4 words in your mantra, what the words actually mean is of only
secondary importance.

> This is not re-inventing language to keep the ASCII letters "God", this
> concept of God has existed in Hinduism for thousands of years.

I might be impressed if only you had bothered to say what "this" is.

> I had quotes from religions texts saying that "The infinite truth is the
> source of Brahman",

So the Brahman has infinite truth because He is omniscient and He is
omniscient because He has infinite truth; and a black dog is a dog that is
black and a dog that is black is a black dog. This is the level of
profundity that I've come to expect from religion.

> and "Brahman is the totality of what exists".

If Brahman and Universe are synonyms then Brahman certainly exists, but I
am not impressed by the depth of Indian religious thought.

> This is Platonism before Plato, and not so easy to refute.

That is absolutely true, it would be very very difficult to refute that the
totality of existence exists; but I'm not sure that proves that the ancient
Indian philosophers were deep thinkers.

> Do you really see no connection at all between the notions of
> mathematical truth and some of the ideas found in these religions?

I think that saying "God is mathematics" does not help in the slightest
degree in figuring out how the world works and provides zero philosophical
value; although is sounds nice as long as you don't think about it.

> I see you ignored the names of God in Islam,

Names? What the hell difference would it make if God's name was Seymour
Butts or I P Daily?

> as well as the Sikh mantra, which are very clear on this. "There is one
> creator whose name is truth", and among Islam's names: "The Eternal,
> Immutable, Truth".

Do you really care what these jackasses sing in their mindless mantras? I

> Platonism is the most common viewpoint of modern mathematicians, and this
> leads to the existence of infinity.

OK, there is no largest integer. What does that have to do with a
omnipotent omniscient conscious being who created the universe?

> many religions already profess that God is the infinite:

Crossword puzzles are more fun than this sort of silly wordplay.

> "Everything that is", "Totality of Existence",

So everything is everything. Wake me up when religion says something

  John K Clark

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