Craig - it is very difficult to get down to evaluation once one is speaking to those who claim 'the golden salamander has ridden'. One would guess from the very small numbers who change religion that much evaluation is not possible by adherents. Confronted by bad guys with guns, I guess we both shoot the bad guys. I've talked idiots with guns down, but have shot bad people threatening others. It is not wise to waste time on golden salamanders in such situations, though one of my mates did once beat an idiot wielding a Samurai sword senseless with a holy organ pipe - it was all there was to hand and I don't remember the organ sounding any worse for having the pipe ripped out. We shoot the bad guys Craig, not the space next to them the "monster" lurks in. I doubt there is any real argument between believers and non-believers in gods, much as there is so little between Muslim and Xtian until power-politics intervenes, of issues of personal harems and so on. Problems generally emerge from those who project their own problems and fetish-needs onto others, won't listen and can't believe there is more to see than their own point of view. Judges are rather prone to this and lawyers in general even more so. I'd like to think we wouldn't have shot that Brazilian guy at Stockwell if it has been our watch Craig, or at least sensibly blown him away without warning if we thought he really was a bomber. The guys on watch panicked and then lied about a warning they would never have given had the situation been "real". If god is decent enough, she might well want to explain herself to those of us who can't swallow the salamander, yet know it is difficult to ground knowledge in progression to origins. I am not sure you are agile enough in dialogue to spot the bad guys (the real questions and internal prejudices).
You and I might use "religious" brain functions in different ways Craig. There is little more disgustingly religious as an atheist horde expressing its disgust for those who have swallowed the golden salamander - this ludicrous belief in the impossible hardly seems a good start for morality to those of us who have worked hard to understand science and broader critical reasoning. Yet even South Park managers to show golden salamander swallowers (evaluating many religions as it has) in the reasonable light of people who just do what they do because fetish capitalism is so crap and a bit of fellowship hardly harms anyone. To the atheist, the religious are cowardly, not able to front up to what we can know of the world - and, of course, eventually heretic as we too are too dumb to remember how religion works on a soul to hate those not so profound and saintly as it. It's more complicated than the rot you put out to convince juries Craig. I have always found atheist standards much higher than those of religious jerk-offs (the godswanking), and almost precisely the same as those of decent people who have religion based in fellowship and tolerance. One can found values empirically, but this is not simply about soaking up the external world. This is actually generally the case, in that poor sods brought up by drug-taking shits are usually moral than those more fortunate - though this is not simple and the middle class just hide their crimes better. The rich, by the way, are just a crime. We should dispense with them as surely as we would hurl the Jabberwock from our town. Whatever Craig, nice to see you active. There is, apparently, more than one way to skin a cat - though I have no empirical evidence, no doubt as the cat remains too quick for me! I believe, incidentally, that our societies are now ridden with dishonesty, our souls governed by fetish-trivia and utterly decadent (one might say, as someone did in Harvard Law Review - that the Lakatosian legal-economic paradigm has become decadent). Time for fire and brimstone old man! I fancy a return of The Shakers. Let god know what I feel Gruff, should she be out there in your desert. On 21 Jan, 02:05, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > Even if theists are dupes, does that preclude atheists from being > dupes? > > On Jan 20, 1:43 pm, "Chris Jenkins" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > By measuring the selfish as individuals, and by measuring the relative > > selfish as "Quality of Life" as members of a society. > > This is why you are a Law guy and not a sociologist. ;) > > > However, that's entirely a different question from whether or not theists > > are dupes. That's a question for the philosophers. > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Kierkecraig <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > On Jan 20, 12:41 am, manfraco FranktheElder <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > Hi Neil > > > > > Yes, you can say that it is a matter of morality; but it is also of > > > > guidance, because religion guides most of the unfortunate people who > > > > have not been educated and some of them are not able to think clearly > > > > for themselves, so religion gives them some ideas how to live. > > > > And exactly what standard to atheists use in knowing how to live? > > > What experience have they received from the external world that would > > > tell them how to live? Are theists they only dupes on the block? > > > > > What I have said in my last post may seem perhaps exaggerated today, > > > > and perhaps, I have gone forward too far and too fast in saying what I > > > > have said, so, it might seem to you a bit out of touch with realities; > > > > but this theory of mine is how it very well might happen in the > > > > future. > > > > I don't know really what to think when this entire staff comes from > > > > you educated people of this world who have so much knowledge and you > > > > are able to express yourself so well as fast as lightning and I salute > > > > you for that. > > > > > But may I say this; please don't continue to put too much pressure on > > > > the believers of God about their beliefs, and above all about > > > > providing proof of the existence of God, since this proof is very hard > > > > to find for anybody, and even harder for them because a large number > > > > of them are not as lucky and educated as you are. > > > > I presume your being a bit sarcastic here, but still, I will respond > > > as if not. I only point out that you are assuming that religion is > > > teaching something to the dupes that would be good. Can you really > > > speak in such generalities? Wouldn't we have to judge each religion > > > on its own merits? > > > > > So, may I suggest that you save some of your energy in asking for > > > > proof of the existence of God and search for the existence of God by > > > > yourself, as you are in a better position to understand the complexity > > > > of these things? > > > > You may start with believing in God yourself, as this is the only way > > > > to find him. > > > > You see it is like when you want to login or sign in for the Internet > > > > and you don't know the username and password therefore you will never > > > > be able to find what you want. So, in a parallel way you will never be > > > > able to find God and the proof of its existence unless you believe in > > > > God first. > > > > > Regards > > > > > Manfraco. > > > > > On Jan 19, 1:16 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > One can have cake and not eat it Manfraco. I think we may have > > > > > problems with proof rather than God/s. Most of us don't travel the > > > > > universe much, but tend to believe the magicians who tell us their > > > > > theories indicate a very big one, or several - perhaps because they > > > > > give us trinkets like radios and televisions as colonists once traded > > > > > beads and hair grips for women and gold. I deeply suspect "science" > > > > > is part of the same kind of power relation as many understand it. > > > > > These arguments are bedevilled with thoughts on one side that one > > > > > cannot be moral without a religion and people like me who wonder how > > > > > you can have a morality based on daft stories. We could all eat rice > > > > > from the same bowl peacefully if we worked out the morality. > > > > > > On 18 Jan, 05:31, manfraco FranktheElder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Greetings to all those that follow Minds Eye group, > > > > > > > I would like to have my say in this post and state what I believe > > > > > > about God; my point of view about this post is that both sides stick > > > > > > to their existing views, perhaps this is done just for argument > > > > > > sake, > > > > > > so that they keep arguing and enjoy themselves in doing so. > > > > > > > But, have they ever thought that there might really be a God? And if > > > > > > there is a god what is this god like? Is this god like the Abraham > > > god > > > > > > in the Bible? Or, could it be that there is a different god > > > > > > altogether? > > > > > > > I have thought a lot about this matter and at the moment I have come > > > > > > to this conclusion; whish is that there is a god in the universe and > > > > > > one day I am going to write about my new found beliefs about this > > > god; > > > > > > that is when my beliefs become more defined and it is easier for me > > > to > > > > > > write them down. > > > > > > But now I want just to describe this god in the shortest way > > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > I believe that God is life and life is God itself > > > > > > Therefore one can not exist without the other > > > > > > And if there wasn't a God we would not exist or be dead. > > > > > > > Greeting to you all > > > > > > > Manfraco > > > > > > > On Jan 18, 12:21 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > We are beginning to cross threads here and I would rather discuss > > > it > > > > > > > within the intended thread. So we can move on with it I > > > > > > > say........... > > > > > > > > Why don't you just watch and listen for the 20 minutes? Perhaps > > > > > > > it > > > is > > > > > > > like watching a bad movie but "Scanning" through only indicates > > > > > > > "Predisposition". > > > > > > > > I don't have a problem with that, but simply stated, I would think > > > it > > > > > > > best that those who have no interest in participating should not > > > > > > > participate and further not waste the time to state that they have > > > no > > > > > > > interest in participating. This of course is more the waste of > > > time > > > > > > > than actually watching the video. > > > > > > > > I can see now that it is in fact a very revealing thread in more > > > ways > > > > > > > than one. > > > > > > > > Jan 17, 7:35 pm, ornamentalmin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "...but of course you couldn't possibly know that, could you? > > > lol" - > > > > > > > > SD > > > > > > > > > Of course I could. In fact, even though I may not have said so, > > > > > > > > I > > > did > > > > > > > > scan through most of it. I saw what the pictures were and > > > listened to > > > > > > > > about a second or so of the audio...all the way to the end. I > > > rest my > > > > > > > > case. > > > > > > > > > On Jan 17, 3:55 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Biggles would have believed in God - but then he didn't exist > > > either. > > > > > > > > > > On 17 Jan, 22:49, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > My comment was meant to be a bit facetious and just as a > > > > > > > > > > rib! > > > > > > > > > > > However, fran has a point that you really could not watch > > > > > > > > > > the > > > first > > > > > > > > > > few minutes of the video and deduce the entire content, as > > > one could > > > > > > > > > > easily do with the Proofs site. The beginning of the video, > > > the > > > > > > > > > > middle and the end are different, but of course you couldn't > > > possibly > > > > > > > > > > know that, could you? lol > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 17, 4:32 pm, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > uhh, fran, what I meant to imply was that his entire > > > comment (I didn't > > > > > > > > > > > read the whole thing because after the first few, through > > > deductive > > > > > > > > > > > reasoning, I got the gist of the entire piece. lol ) is > > > what I could > > > > > > > > > > > have used as justification for not watching his entire > > > movie. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 17, 10:51 am, frantheman < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > er ... Orn ... "Slip's" video wasn't paticularly strong > > > on deductive > > > > > > > > > > > > reasoning ... :-) In fact, I was reminded of it while > > > reading some of > > > > > > > > > > > > the so-called proofs for the existence of God! > > > > > > > > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 17 Jan., 19:24, ornamentalmind < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "... through deductive reasoning,..." - SD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why didn't I just say that about your video? :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 17, 6:21 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't read the whole thing because after the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first > > > few, through > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deductive reasoning, I got the gist of the entire > > > piece. lol > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 17, 12:19 am, ornamentalmind < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They brought it back!!! > > > >http://www.godlessgeeks.com:80/LINKS/GodProof.htm-Hidequotedtext- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
