On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote:
I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or
Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An,
Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu,
Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal,
Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia
Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres,
Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh,
Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin,
Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil,
Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna,
Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb,
Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor,
Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera,
Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei,
Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris,
Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah,
Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu,
Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir,
Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia,
Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras,
Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse,
Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag,
Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi,
Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon,
Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama,
Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set),
Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona,
Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos,
Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime,
Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu,
Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal,
Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see
no reason to believe any of them exist.
Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can
exist.
Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that
how you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in
whatever anyone conceives of or else provide a disproof?
Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist,
No, I said I see no reason to believe in them.
That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic =
~[]g (& ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g.
You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to
disbelieve in God.
Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical
universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. "God"
points on an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it
takes some Fairy tale into account. The God of comp is the God of the
Parmenides, which is the base of the neoplatonist theology (Plotinus,
Proclus). Such a conception is close to Augustin and the christian
mystics, the Soufis, the Kabbala, and the East spirituallity.
I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can
say you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what
you are denying.
That's my exact point.
so you are the one pretending having a clear referent for each of
the name above, and you are the one acting like if you knew that
none exist.
Right. Of course I don't have clear referent of each one, but
someone did. They were worshiped and prayed to and sacrificed for.
But being able to conceive of them is what makes it possible say I
don't believe in them - otherwise I wouldn't know what I was failing
to believe. It doesn't make it harder to disbelieve; it makes it
*possible*.
We have been naive on thunder, sun, moon, and many things. Obviously
we have been naive on God too, but that is not a reason to abandon the
idea, which is basically the idea that the physical universe has a non
physical reason.
Atheists, like fundamentalists often talk like if they were not
ignorant in those matter. but in science, not only we are ignorant,
but the very subject is denied by some scientists (when atheists).
People like Gödel and Einstein where pissed of by "free-thinkers"
and "atheists", because they were quite aware of their dogmatic
attitude. I would have read them about that subject, I would have
been less naive, and probably run away from them.
Atheism and fundamentalist theism is really the same. Same God,
same Matter. And same violent responses against the doubter and the
agnostics. Same visceral negative attitude against the application
of the scientific attitude in the theological field.
I'm fine with applying the scientific attitude to the theological
field.
That is my only point here, besides the study of machine's or number's
theology (G* minus G).
And it is characteristic of science that it does not confirm
theories, but sometimes refutes or makes theories very improbable.
The theory that the world was created by a superperson who cares
about humans and judges them and will reward or punish them and
answer prayers, the theory known as "theism", has been tested and
found false.
If that is true, we abandon that notion of God, and then we can come
back to the original scientific conception of God: the Unknown origin
of the Universe. It is discussed in many books, including many
treatise written by theologian, in most traditions. Of course such
theologians have problems with the religious institutions. But that is
a point in their favor, as most institutions perpetuates authoritative
arguments.
But the ONE is not anyone of those, as it has no name.
A god, with a name, that might be a comp reason to disbelieve in
it, or to try to look who is hiding beyond the name.
Exactly! And "God" is a name.
It is a NickName, pointing on the one without name, and in
theology, it is the most common term used. To change its name would
be to give an importance of the name. It is the axiom one about
God, "It has no name", a bit like the tao, which once named is no
more the tao.
No it's not a nickname, that's why it is capitalized.
It is capitalized because it is unique, and a name of something very
often conceive as a person. With comp, the "person" character of the
outer God is an open problem. But the inner God *is* a person.
You just like to use it because some atheists gave you a hard time.
Otherwise you could call it "reality" or "the tao" or something else
not implying theism (see definition above).
Not at all. I use it because all the theologians I read use it, and
this in many variate cultures. If I was using TAO, most people would
believe that I defend specifically Taoism, but what I defend is more
general than that, and closer to the Greek notion explained in Plato
and Neoplatonism.
The problem I got with atheists came before I use any term from
theology, as they were oppose the word "mind", "consciousness", AI,
and even "computer" for many. I still don't know if the problem was
ideological at the start, but apparently it has become ideological.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
