Bruno: Also, to be sure, I know Christians who are real atheists. They keep the label by solidarity with the community or the family or tradition....I let God counts the genuine believers :)
Richard: A too friendly priest told me that I was an atheist when I was in college and I agreed. I stopped going to church and he got in trouble. I remained an atheist for almost two decades, mainly because I could not see anyway I could have an afterlife, until I read about OBE. So then I came to believe in the supernatural- that's all background. Now coming from atheism, no one religion seemed just right for me although the eastern religions, even the atheistic ones, were most appealing. But by then I had married a former jewess and conversion to Judaism seemed most appropriate, you know, for the family. So I began 3 years of study in a Reform Temple under a wannabe-orthodox rabbi a couple of towns away. The point of this little story is that when I and my wife joined the Reform Temple in our home town (Lexington, Massachusetts) my new friends were amazed, esp since I was a "rocket scientist", that I was a believer (in the supernatural-not necessarily god). Turns out that the entire membership was atheistic as far as I could tell, although it was not PC to mention it. On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 02 Dec 2013, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote: > > On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> wants to be worshiped, judges people and rewards and punishes them. >>>> >>> >>> That's a legend used to put people in place so that they will be >>> worshiped, so that they can judged other people, reward and punish them. >>> >>> Why do you credit such things. Why can you believe that we should listen >>> to them? You are the one giving them importance, and by arguing against a >>> scientific approach to "God, souls, afterlife, meaning, etc." you will >>> maintain the current fairy tale aspect in theology, and you will contribute >>> in maintaining them in power. >>> >> >> I don't credit such things. >> > > So why do you come back on it? Why not abstract ourself from the fairy > tales, once and for all, if we don't credit them. > > > But the idea is important because so many people believe it >> > > And they are wrong on many things, but perhaps not on everything, so why > not try to show them a less naive approach? Their own theologian are not > that naïve. And their are many approaches and conception of God, Gods, and > Goddesses, It or That. > > Also, to be sure, I know Christians who are real atheists. They keep the > label by solidarity with the community or the family or tradition. > > I let God counts the genuine believers :) > > > > > > - and you are the one that gives them support by writing that God is >> really an important rational concept, using the name of the bearded man in >> the sky they believe in when you really mean something completely different. >> > > Only the "fairy tale" aspect is different, but if you read the > theologians, you might revise that opinion. > > > > > So it is important to say the idea is a fairy tale. >> > > Not the idea of God, as used by theologians., only the idea of God, as > used in "don't ask" by the demagogs. > > If your read the theologian or the mystics, you get a different picture. > Probably different of what those using religion to control people want you > to not see at all. > > For you religion connotes with Jesus, the Churches, etc. To me it is more > a probably sumerian idea, (?), Pythagorus, Plato, Plotinus, and it did not > end but lives dissipates in a large part of the abramanic religion, and > then looks close to what the self-referentially correct told us about the > possible truth about themselves. > > > > >> The scientific approach to "Gods" is to say they are a failed hypothesis >> - not to redefine the word. >> > > > Only retarded creationists would use God as an hypothesis to explain the > facts, as God is usually considered as what we can understand the less. To > refute creationism is like to answer to a spam. > > Like consciousness, god is not useful as a starting hypothesis. > > The god = matter failed to. You might define God by the reality beyond or > behind matter. Then it is interesting that when you do the math in the comp > theory we understand that the overlap is big with the talk of theologians, > even if the fairy tales disappear completely (the same with salvia, despite > it has its own fairy tales). > > > > > I realize that science redefines common words too, like "energy", but >> those new definitions subsume the common terms. >> > > Which means almost abstract from the popular misconceptions. > > > > > Your "God" has no overlap with the common usage of the Big Daddy in the >> sky. >> > > I think it has enough common points, I think, especially from the points > of view of comparative theology. > > Of course it is an open problem if it is a Daddy or a Mommy or even if > that question makes sense. With comp, it is not clear if X can be a person, > or can be conceive by a machine as being a person. > > The common points are, that God is a X such that > > - X has no name, no description, > - X is responsible for your life and lives, the biology, the psychology, > the physics, > - If X get a name, Lies happen and its name multiplies, > - X is not computable, > - X is not arithmetical, > - X attracts or repulse Souls, > - etc. > > Then we can look in arithmetic, and around, if something match and try > questioning the (Löbian) machine, like "is God competent (like in Plotinus, > and most religion) or is God incompetent (like with the Gnostics)?". And > many other questions. > > Cantor took the pain to explain to the Pope that, if he did indeed give > name to infinities, he was still unable to name the infinity of infinities, > and that he was not naming God. I don't think he meant a "big Daddy in the > sky". > > Scientist modesty in machine theology forces us into agnosticism and > cautious, about the relation between Truth and Machines. > > A TOE is necessary a theology, as it must let open or decide if there is > 0, or 1, or 2, ... gods, with this or that definition of gods. > > You can call it theonomy (by the assocation theonomy/theology being > "astronomy/astrology"). But that would be a sort of error similar to > lifting the theology of the correct machine on ourself, like if we could > know publicly that we are correct. > > Changing the vocabulary would be like taking the words too much seriously. > > > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
