Very true Neil, most of the times 'Hindu' = 'Dinesh', so it may appear as mutual disrespect in a debate on hinduism vs .... . Corrected in time, I think, disrespect vanishes, but if persistent it turns bitter. Any way I just wrote what I thought (Jesus being an example.).
Religion is not just the face as seen, it has rigid structure which is reinforced by people who put reason before religion. I don't claim much knowledge of most religion, but of what I know this certainly is true. Fortunately or unfortunately such people do not come to limelight. On Mar 22, 5:39 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I sympathise with what you are saying Pat, but also feel there are a > lot of 'pet rocks' about. One that strikes me as being amongst these > is the feeling that there is no god or explanation of purpose, itself > set in the solidity of stone. The paradox seems to be in what happens > when we feel the truth is that something deep set in others is just a > load of old toss and also know revealing this feeling will upset > others and that there is some kind of mannered expectation we should > respect it. How do we proceed in argument when to do so is likely > only to surface a kind of mutual disrespect rather than mutual > understanding? > I'm inclined to a position in which we need something before the god > questions, but this is extremely difficult when our politics is > primarily 'religious' and not based in argument that can be factual > rather than traditional-emotive. > > On 22 Mar, 11:00, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 12 Mar, 16:20, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ah, but I can feel the air and technically it can be seen because it > > > is full of micro particles, some of which we refer to as pollution; > > > you are familiar with the London Fog I'm sure. > > > Indeed. It was/is a famous brand name for trench coats. As for the > > old pea-green "London Fog", I never encountered it, as it was a 'smog' > > based on the over-use of coal-burning in the City. > > > > Playing God are we? Only the drips that you allow? lol Well then I > > > can only surmise from what you proffer and of course only use the > > > limited knowledge that is afforded me by the Him. > > > If you get so lucky as to be able to put all of that together, yes. > > However, the drips of data we get aren't always so easy to fit into > > patterns. > > > > Well I thought you believed in the Father Son Holy Ghost bit so that > > > would make big daddy the third party, being that two of them are one. > > > Yet I accept NO trinity. How can one be three? I realise that one > > can 'appear to be' a countless mutltitude but it cannot BE more than > > one. > > > > Test and then judge. Judge for what and for what reason? He doesn't > > > find it fun you say, and of course I guess you speak on behalf of the > > > judge. > > > If there is only one, for whom ELSE could you speak? We ALL speak on > > behalf of the one, it's just that most don't realise that's the case. > > > >What you don't see is that you are constantly trying to find > > > reason to support something that is simply a belief, one that remains > > > enigmatic, beyond reproach and without any course of proof or > > > disproof. > > > Oh I see that, but I don't see that as a problem. You might. I'm not > > constantly trying to find reasons, I've found them. More, I've passed > > along some answers. More, some are rejected as not seeming to fit > > someone's personal view that is taken from the same 'pool of > > evidence'. IF what I say is truly beyond reproach, then why seek to > > reproach it? For YOUR sake? For God's? Mine? None of those > > possibilities actually make any sense. So yet you incline yourself > > towards inclining yourself away from what I say, you do so for reasons > > that are no more or less reasonable than my own. > > > > I see everyone living in the same world with some, such as yourself, > > > attributing experiences, good or bad, to a deity, a creator who by > > > design places lives in atrocious living circumstance as a means of > > > testing and judging. Tell that to someone being cruelly tortured for > > > no purpose. > > > Find just one. And how do you measure 'purpose'? With what > > scientific tool? Who taught you how to use it and are you sure there > > isn't a left-handed model that might work better? > > > >One can find justification in anything by simply adopting > > > this externalization of human experience. I might feel entirely > > > different if it all came out of some new discovery that actually > > > established the existence of such a being. > > > Might? I think you know you'd feel entirely different. Yet when > > confronted with it, do you not think you'd feel awfully stupid? > > > >However, being that it is > > > based on ancient superstitions and myths of desert dwelling people > > > with limited knowledge and probably one of the few myths out of the > > > many that stayed the course of history, yet to be formally dispelled, > > > I would have to remain skeptical of it and keep it in the box of > > > fanciful figments of man's conjured conclusions to life's > > > wonderment. > > > Yeah, those prople who came up with algebra and chemistry were pretty > > uneducated compared to the Dark Age's man that had to re-learn from > > the Arabs what they'd forgotten. Simply because something has been > > believed for years without proof does not mean that the thing itself > > is 'unbelievable' simply because no proof exists FOR it, as no proof > > against it exists either. > > > >I might add that the monotheist religious persuasions > > > all originated in the same region and have striking similarities. > > > Yes, you would thinkg the the God of Abraham would read/sound a lot > > like the God of Abraham. > > > > Natives in the jungle are no less fervent believers of totem gods than > > > you are of yours and the "Thousands" of others out there including > > > spiritualists and cultists. What you choose to believe is no more > > > valid than pet rocks. > > > Nice. So my life's work is, for all you care, pet rocks. Fair > > enough, I never once expected everyone to be bowled over with it, and, > > if you expect me to be terribly upset because one individual wants to > > stick his fingers in his ears and say, "La-La-La-La-La...", don't hold > > your breath; some doom themselves in many different ways and no one > > has ever changd that aspect of life. But I bet you wish that whole > > 'Pet Rock' idea was something YOU'D done, as you value it enough to > > remark on their surprising (to you) popularity amongst the people and > > a fortune was had. He always laughs last. > > > >Truth is I could spend a few hours putting > > > together my own religion and probably get followers willing to do > > > anything to appease my god of all gods. I'll call it Chimpsky. lol > > > Yup. Probably. And, you would have that inner gut feeling that you'd > > led them all astray and you'd damn yourself for it. Not worth doing, > > then, is it? Trouble is, you couldn't do such a thing because your > > own God-given ethics prevent you from it, yet you can deny their > > origins in the same breath as proclaiming that which no person gave > > you is from yourself. > > > > On Mar 12, 3:41 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 12 Mar, 02:26, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Alternatively, you've got the cart before the horse. We humans > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > knowledge because a subset of God's all-encompassing knowledge > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > afforded us by Him. <<Pat > > > > > > > > Supposition entirely and from where you proceed in order to > > > > > > > construct > > > > > > > the rest of the design. Knowledge 'afforded' us would in that > > > > > > > account > > > > > > > be more uniform, unilateral without discrepancy or the conflict of > > > > > > > false knowledge and true knowledge as in the case of Gallileo and > > > > > > > reveal itself to be more so, instinctive knowledge. <<Slip > > > > > > > Not if you aren't afforded that. And galileo was afforded what he > > > > > > was > > > > > > afforded. <<Pat > > > > > > Again your basing your response totally on your own supposition that > > > > > the only way we can gain knowledge is by the doling out of allowed > > > > > levels of understanding and ability to learn by some imaginary deity. > > > > > <<Slip > > > > > > > >We have in record > > > > > > > perceived and calculated knowledge by experience, subsequently > > > > > > > failing > > > > > > > at times to perceive actual truths and bounding forward on faulty > > > > > > > conjecture until, through alternate experience, truth > > > > > > > emerged.<<Slip > > > > > > > Therefore demonstrating our limited knowledge.<< Pat > > > > > > You are saying absolutely nothing here. It demonstrates how we have > > > > > struggled along on our own since our primordial beginnings, how we > > > > > accumulated knowledge from experience and discovery. There is no > > > > > indication that we were allowed to have some knowledge or the > > > > > limitation of knowledge. <<Slip > > > > > You've assumed, without proof, that we are alone and that God is not > > > > with us. Just because you cannot see God with your eyes, doesn't mean > > > > He's not present. You don't see the air around you. > > > > > > > >We > > > > > > > can't simply dismiss or disregard thousands of years of > > > > > > > floundering on > > > > > > > myths and notions in an attempt to establish the Harrington > > > > > > > Theorem of > > > > > > > deity knowledge which postulates an imparting of human knowledge > > > > > > > by a > > > > > > > third party source presented as the gate keeper of all knowledge. > > > > > > > Slip > > > > > > > Which is not my postulate. Rather, I postulate that the One created > > > > > > us as third party items where He is the one reality that holds the > > > > > > lot > > > > > > and that lot exceed the addition of our allotments. <<Pat > > > > > > It is so your postulate, it is exactly what you keep reiterating. > > > > > Allotments? Its the same as before with a new word. Now your saying > > > > > we were created as imbeciles who would receive little tokens of > > > > > knowledge every once in a while? Like God's assistant runs over and > > > > > says: "God, the humans are very cold and freezing, what should we > > > > > do?" and God answers "Give them the knowledge of how to start fire, > > > > > but nothing more, I want them to suffer for my pleasure, I enjoy > > > > > seeing those little creatures I created suffer". Slip > > > > > LOL!! It's always nice to be told what I think by someone who has > > > > never met me. You don't know the whole of my theory, only the drips > > > > that I give you. Do you think God treats you differently than I do? > > > > What I objected to as "not a part of my theory" was your reference > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
