...oh, and embrace theology too.
On Oct 24, 2:43 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
> There was no confusion Archy. I didn't mean Dawkins and his ilk at
> all. There exists ontological schools that embrace science,
> interaction including argumentation etc., logic and base the divine
> upon the structure of mind itself,
>
> On Oct 24, 1:48 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I would agree if I had meant that Orn. No, I don't mean that dreadful
> > Cardinal Dawkins and his disciples. You perhaps, but my meaning lies
> > in the idea of something religious with the fact-base and genuine
> > argumentation taken into account. I have a friend who is deeply Roman
> > Catholic. Not noticed it affecting his chemistry or regard of the
> > Clergy in respect of condoms, family-planning and so on. He's as RC
> > as I am card-carrying Rugby Leaguer, and a stem-cell researcher. His
> > route (like almost all?) is not via belief in drivel scripture or
> > lunatic infallibility. I think science is affected-afflicted still by
> > having to deny the power of the church. This may have been a
> > practical necessity, but is now a spiritual failing.
>
> > On 24 Oct, 07:26, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > “…we are in need of a religion of this…[logic & scientific
> > > knowledge?]” – Archy
>
> > > Seems to me this already exists; however, there are many atheists
> > > about it too.
>
> > > On Oct 23, 7:53 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Logic, in as far as I admit to any, gets me only as far as that I
> > > > cannot disprove god. History tells me humans have been inventing
> > > > stuff that isn't true since before we have reliable record. God and
> > > > prophet stories have remarkable similarity. Eye witness evidence is
> > > > unreliable - most people are not good at it and most will go with
> > > > whatever story someone else relates before them, and are very
> > > > prejudiced. We are easily misled by sleight-of-hand. People lie to
> > > > others and themselves. We all do this.
> > > > Scientific theories are under-determined by evidence and change -
> > > > often the evidence for later theories is available when other, less
> > > > efficient and explanatory theories hold sway. Many theories cannot be
> > > > disproved and scepticism about any knowledge cannot be disproved.
> > > > Generally, for knowledge we proceed by minimised epistemic risk - not
> > > > believing what we cannot prove and demonstrate. We seek to make our
> > > > scientific knowledge reliable against all other knowledge. We can lay
> > > > out where this leaves us. It's hard work and avoided by most. Many
> > > > are not capable of it and need much more than what passes as education
> > > > to achieve informed and reasonable decisions. I'd go as far as to say
> > > > we are in need of a religion of this.
>
> > > > On 24 Oct, 02:52, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > I always start by wondering what I would think if ordinary Joe told me
> > > > > the stories and also about the way I am easily conned by magic before
> > > > > (and often after) I see the way the trick is done. I'm also inclined
> > > > > to think copying and plagiarism is rife and was then. I notice much
> > > > > talk of heroes is elaborated, so why am I expected to think
> > > > > differently of religious stuff. Lies, illusions and fantasies can be
> > > > > found daily - some modern Freudians even say they don't help clients
> > > > > find the truth even if this is what they are looking for, but offer a
> > > > > better organisation of their fections (I'll leave this in memory of
> > > > > Father Ted!).
> > > > > Personally, I doubt Jesus is a historical figure - more likely there
> > > > > were many. I'd say the key issue is how we come to believe what is
> > > > > mostly snake oil (the satanic abuse scandals in the UK make
> > > > > fascinating reading on how phoney experts from abroad can influence
> > > > > apparently sane cops and social workers) and how we are so influenced
> > > > > today. I have no problem with wandering cynics seeking to change
> > > > > society, and like many Greeks before me, have a sign saying they are
> > > > > welcome above my door. The question as to whether Jesus owned his
> > > > > clothes is a good one whether one needs to believe in him as the son
> > > > > of God or not.
>
> > > > > On 23 Oct, 23:02, Manfraco Frank the Elder <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hi allan and others!
> > > > > > Allan, your post could be very interesting for me and I am going to
> > > > > > follow it very closely, I know I am not very learned like some of
> > > > > > you;
> > > > > > but I have got my own ideas or religious beliefs which need to be
> > > > > > tuned in before I can express them more openly. I am sure that if
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > takes away parts of the stories which only embellish the gospels it
> > > > > > may have very different meanings; but you have to be very careful
> > > > > > about that if you believe in anything at all; you see you have to
> > > > > > defy
> > > > > > your own religious beliefs and be strong enough to change the
> > > > > > gospel.
> > > > > > Please, read the very end of the Bible, where there is a sort of
> > > > > > curse
> > > > > > if anyone changes anything. Are you willing to chance that?
> > > > > > Send you all my regards
> > > > > > Manfraco
>
> > > > > > On Oct 24, 4:57 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I have often wondered what the new testament of the bible would
> > > > > > > be like if
> > > > > > > you removed the parts that are in reality are made up short
> > > > > > > stories used to
> > > > > > > sell a bill of goods. An example(s) being the nativity stories,
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > resurrection (misunderstood,) the writings of Saul Of Tarsus
> > > > > > > the book of
> > > > > > > revelations. to name a few
>
> > > > > > > I wonder if a book (it would probably be very short) getting rid
> > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > exact interpretation but rather trying to expressed express the
> > > > > > > ideas that
> > > > > > > Jesus the man best wanted to express. I look at our group and
> > > > > > > the atheists
> > > > > > > and agnostics have a very valuable role in working out that
> > > > > > > validity of what
> > > > > > > is being said. There is a definite need to counter balance my
> > > > > > > own beliefs
> > > > > > > and those of other fanatics.
>
> > > > > > > To tell the truth this would be a total dream for me. There is an
> > > > > > > event
> > > > > > > astronomically that can be dated like a total solar eclipse over
> > > > > > > Jerusalem
> > > > > > > in 33 CE. I do know that there are religious fanatics in the
> > > > > > > Philippines
> > > > > > > that are crucified (literally) and they regularly survive it. I
> > > > > > > think these
> > > > > > > things need to be taken into account, from what I understand it
> > > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > takes several days to die that way.
>
> > > > > > > Here I have to admit I am jealous of the sheer enlightenment of
> > > > > > > spiritual
> > > > > > > knowledge Francis and other members of this group possess. I am
> > > > > > > hoping they
> > > > > > > will take to this idea.
> > > > > > > Allan
>
> > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > I_D Allan- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
