On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Ultimate reality? What would make one reality more real than another? >> > > > Ultimate, primary, fundamental means that it is assumed in the axioms, > and not derivable from logically simpler axioms. >
If you had said "fundamental reality" I would not have objected, but the foundations of a skyscraper are not more real than the upper stories. >> The open question is rather mundane, it is what the English 3 letter >> word "G-O-D" means. >> > > > But it is a simple and mudane facts that it means quite different things > according to time, place, culture > So is there any time place or culture where you would be willing to say in a loud clear unequivocal voice "I do not believe in God"? Could you ever say those words with no ifs, ands, or buts, or would the words always stick in your throat? > Only Fundamentalist christians, fundamentalist muslims and bigot > atheists [...] > You've called me a "bigot atheist" before so I asked myself if it was true. Well, a bigot is a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions than ones own, so am I intolerant of religious people in general? No, I may have contempt for those particular ideas but don't want people who hold them killed or imprisoned or punished in any way, except perhaps by being given a tongue lashing by me on the Everything List. I am however intolerant of certain religious forces of cruelty imbecility and ignorance as exemplified by the recent murders of 12 people in Paris because Muslim dimwits didn't like the cartoons they drew. I am also intolerant of those who murdered 132 children and 16 of their teachers in a school in Pakistan a few weeks ago because they didn't like the religious views of their parents; the radio conversation between the Muslim child murderers and their bosses were overheard, "We have killed all the children in the auditorium. What do we do now?", the answer was "Waite for the army to arrive, kill them, and then blow yourself up", and that is exactly what they did. I am intolerant of that sort of behavior even if it was caused by religious belief, and if that makes be a bigot then so be it. > In my personal opinion if you mean something that is not omniscient not >> omnipotent not omnipresent not conscious is as dumb as a stump and is not >> even a being it would only be good manners to use a word other than God as >> that word is already taken for something else >> > > > Sorry, but here even the wiki agrees with me, like all book on > comparative theology. the word God was used by the pre-christians > platonist, also, to which I clearly refer. > And those pre-Christians performed sacrifices, human and otherwise, to gain the favor of their "God", and they built temples to their "God", and they built statues of their "God" that was supposed to show what "God" looked like. In some cases the statues seems to have actually become their "God". But how do you build a statue of the inflation field? Does the inflation field have a beard? Where are all these God believers who built no temples, made no statues, performed no sacrifices and said no prayers that you keep talking about? Where are all the leaders who say they did NOT hear God's voice telling them what to do? Where are all the nations or city-states or tribes who say God is NOT on our side in this war? John K Clark -- 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/d/optout.
