On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 11:59:09 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
> Quentin,
>  
> I agree with you, if that's what religion is.
> But it is not generally like that. 
> Instead, you are talking about a cult. 
>  
>

The distinction is questionable. I would say that all religions begin as 
cults and that all cults become religions given enough time and popularity. 
Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. Same with religions that become 
popular too suddenly.

Craig
 

>  
>  
>
> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
> *From:* Bruno Marchal <javascript:> 
> *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> 
> *Time:* 2013-02-05, 11:42:46
> *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
>
>  
>  On 05 Feb 2013, at 15:04, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
> <allc...@gmail.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>    
> I do not believe in any *personified* gods, and in any *dogmas*, so in 
> that settings I would call myself an atheist. I'm agnostic about what I 
> could call an existential force, a reality "maker"... Religions does not 
> allows doubt, questionning, religions is about dogmas. I would side with 
> John in saying that wanting to use god for something else than the accepted 
> meaning (which means a super *being*/*person*) is wrong. I can accept the 
> notion of the One (which is not a person), the one is not a *god* in that 
> sense.
>
> But when you talk with religious zealot, saying you're agnostic means to 
> them that they could enrol you in their dogma, and so to them I really 
> prefer saying I'm an atheist, because really I don't believe their BS, I 
> don't want to believe, I want to doubt, question, search answers, religions 
> gives non-questionable "answers", religions are not about seeking truth, it 
> is just "shut up and believe".
>
>
> My point is there are various levels of sophistication in understanding. 
>  A three-year-old might have some concept of numbers, and so does a PhD 
> mathematician. Their understandings may be incomparable, but you could say 
> they both have some belief in numbers.  The fact that many people might 
> have little understanding in certain field is not an appropriate reason to 
> say there is nothing of any interest in that field.
>
>
>
> I agree. And to reject a notion because of a common misunderstanding can 
> only maintain and spread the misconception.
> It remains typical that atheists are so few inclined to accept that we 
> tackle theology with the scientific method. 
>
> I have used the term "theology" because I have been qualified as such, by 
> vindicative strong atheists, and this when I said things like "I am 
> interested in the question 'could a machine be conscious" (answer: that's 
> theology), or even just "I am interested in modal logic" (comment: that's 
> theology). Eventually I think there were right, and to prevent such easy 
> dismissal I have called that theology. 
> Another reason, is that I want prevent the statement "science has shown 
> that we are machine", and a big part of what I have done should explain why 
> this is not a scientific statement, and why saying "yes" to the doctor asks 
> fro some act of faith. Then the theory of consciousness makes it a basic 
> and common mystical experience, which takes the form of an automated or 
> instinctive bet on a reality.
>
> No scientist get any trouble with this. But I made my old atheists, and 
> marxist, and philosophers, ex-friends quite unhappy. May be they were just 
> jealous or something, but the persistence of the problem that atheists seem 
> to have with the use of the scientific attitude in theology makes me 
> suspects that they were perhaps more serious in their religious dogma "no 
> God!". In fact they meant probably no ""God"", (with quotes), but they did 
> not say, as they know this is only vocabulary. The idea that "matter" is an 
> hypothesis makes also some people nervous. But in science we should never 
> make any ontological commitment, not a single one. Ontological commitment 
> are private matter.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>  
> Jason
>  
>
>  
> Regards,
> Quentin
>
>    
>
>  then 70% of people use that same meaning.   If there's some
> other notion,
> why not call it something else.
>
> The discordians have their own notion of Pope, as do the Catholics.
> Who is anyone to say there is only one meaning of Pope?
>
>
> That's not two different meanings any more that king is two different 
> notions because there is more than one king.
>
>
> They have different properties though.  As is the case between Gods of 
> various religions.  There are some nearly universal characteristics, but no 
> two are identical.  You could even say, every Christian has a different 
> understanding and view point of what God is.  Perhaps there are Gods in 
> some religions which are not only consistent or probable, but real.  Should 
> science not have some interest in their investigation (especially if they 
> are part of reality)?
>  
>  
>
> Why then,
> should there be only one meaning of God?
>
>
> Because then we wouldn't know what "God" meant.  Of course like many words 
> it may refer to more than one thing and there may be some variations. 
>  "Automobile" refers to lots of different things, but they all have wheels, 
> motive power, and carry people over surfaces.  That doesn't mean you can 
> call an aircraft carrier and automobile.
>
>
> So then what are the universal properties of God?  You seem to shy away 
> from them and prefer your own overly specific, self-inconsistent 
> definition, because it is the one you can most comfortably admit you 
> disbelieve in.  This is trivial though and I think we can do better.  It is 
> like a mathematician proving there are no numbers that are prime and even 
> and greater than 2, so the mathematician decides he has proven all there is 
> to prove and gives up deciding to advance the field by proving anything 
> else.
>
> In showing that an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God cannot 
> exist, you end up doing science and advancing the field of theology.  You 
> could prove logically some possible properties of God are mutually 
> inconsistent (e.g., God cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient, or both 
> omnipotent and omnibenevolent).  And with that advancement in understanding 
> you gain new insight into what God can be and can alter the notion of it, 
> just as the notion of Earth as a flat plane has changed.
>   
>
>
>
>
> This is not to say the word is meaningless.  There are commonalities
> between different religions and belief systems.  In nearly all, it can
> be said that God serves the role as an ultimate explanation.  Whether
> it is the Platonic God,
>
> Can you cite Plato referring to such a being?
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge
>   
>
>
>
> the Hindu God, the Sikh God, or the Arbrahamic
> God, this property is almost universal.  In this respect, it is
> perfectly natural for Bruno to say under the arithmetical/CTM belief
> system, God (the ultimate explanation) is arithmetical truth.  Under
> Aristotelianism, the ultimate explanation is matter (The buck stops
> there), and so matter is the God of Aristotelianism.
>
>
> Except that all 
>
> ...

-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to