Religion is first and foremost about prayer and worship. There is no need for that but we must accept a morality code and adhere by it , there should be a feeling of love for one's fellow creatures and tolerance towards them.
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 8:41 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Given what they have done with some decent spiritual messages Allan, I > sometimes think of 'them' as Xstains. I was born into the tradition, > but thought it was twaddle by the time Sunday school was interfering > with soccer and cricket. I have no doubt we should focus more on > spirituality, fellowship, hospitality, goodwill and sensitivity to > others. I just don't want to base this on a pack of lies, banning > women from hierarchies, prejudicing gays and xenophobic stuff about > outsiders and being part of god's chosen. It's hard to think like > this without being prejudiced against the 'worshipers of the blue and > white striped rabbit' and purveyors of godswank. The inner danger is > becoming religiously anti-religious. I'm actually rather touched by > good aspects of some of the stuff. > I have no idea why we are clinging to this rock - but I don't want it > to be about being amused by Aussie pranksters making hoax calls or > murals celebrating vile killing such as one finds in the Vatican. > Science clearly provides us no answers to our spiritual plight and > religion as I witness it internally is largely about future memory > with less myth in it and less reason to take religion as we might > otherwise take opiates. > A colleague working in India is saying his students are reading Mein > Kampf - more or less replacing the word Jew with Muslim and agreeing > the plot entirely. We could do with some sensible religion and > economics to fill the void that leaves people this vulnerable. > Knowledge of thermodynamics or the biochemistry of life isn't going to > do that for us. > > On Dec 8, 10:01 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: >> xtian aka christianity >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:02 AM, rigs <[email protected]> wrote: >> > It depends on what religion you are referring to. Very funny line >> > about Pilate! :-) >> >> > On Dec 6, 4:09 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Sounds like something Pontius Pilate might have used. >> >> >> I guess that David Deutsch and constructor theory tries to get back to >> >> reminding science about its root guesses Allan. I take from >> >> 'Spartacus Ants' sacrificing themselves to destroy slaver ants that >> >> pre-human biology 'knows' something of survival instinct. >> >> >> Descartes had it that until we could get to a point of re-evaluating >> >> against his radical doubt one had to trust in a beneficent god. >> >> Whilst we can criticize his system, I think anti-religious science >> >> misses the beat on issues of how we can live until we know more. The >> >> spiritual thus has its place. There is plenty to avoid in its history >> >> of control fraud, abuse, sexism and war crimes - but plenty to learn >> >> in terms of grace and fellowship. >> >> >> On 6 Dec, 08:15, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > it is not for cleaning hands ,, it just gets rid of smell that you >> >> > can not get rid of no matter how much you wash.. you just wash after >> >> > youor hands are clean,, then the smell is gone. >> >> > Allan >> >> >> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:27 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > Hm, I have never thought of using a steel soap bar for cleaning my >> >> > > hands. I >> >> > > use it occasionally for my pots and pans. And for the more difficult >> >> > > dirt on >> >> > > my hands I use a pumice stone or lemon. And more and more often I wear >> >> > > gloves or buy frozen and precut garlic and onion. But thanks for the >> >> > > tip. >> >> > > I'm sure that one day I'll make use of it. Why not steel instead of >> >> > > stone, >> >> > > you're right. >> >> >> > > On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54:42 PM UTC+1, Allan Heretic wrote: >> >> >> > >> Well actually Gabby I have this stainless steel soap bar used for >> >> > >> getting rid of ordure off your hands things like onion, Garlic ,, >> >> > >> any strong ordure ,, just tried it on the epoxy smell left over >> >> > >> from >> >> > >> fixing my maxi egg coddler. >> >> >> > >> now one of the greatest mysteries of the universe,, how does it >> >> > >> work? >> >> > >> Allan >> >> >> > >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:38 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> > The pointlessness of the points' business. Like Lee, I find the God >> >> > >> > concept >> >> > >> > much more to the point. :) >> >> >> > >> > I don't follow Lee's sequencing model - first spirit, then matter - >> >> > >> > though. >> >> > >> > This sounds very man-made to me. ;) >> >> >> > >> > As for the storytelling aspect, yes, the Chronos story is much more >> >> > >> > vivid >> >> > >> > than the "God created (x) and saw it was good" story. That's true. >> >> > >> > But >> >> > >> > the >> >> > >> > children are less likely to have bad dreams at night. Which is >> >> > >> > really >> >> > >> > good. >> >> >> > >> > Sorry, Allan, I got carried away. What were you talking about? >> >> >> > >> > 2012/12/4 Allan H <[email protected]> >> >> >> > >> >> a series of creation is at best a wild guess with no supporting >> >> > >> >> evidence.. >> >> > >> >> Allan >> >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > You can pinpoint the beginning of this universe but not that of >> >> > >> >> > Creation with its series of universes. >> >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Allan H <[email protected]> >> >> > >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> That is not true the beginning can be pretty much pinpointed >> >> > >> >> >> .. as >> >> > >> >> >> for >> >> > >> >> >> parallel universes that is just a wild guess with nothing to >> >> > >> >> >> support >> >> > >> >> >> the >> >> > >> >> >> other than it sounds good. There is more evidence supporting >> >> > >> >> >> the >> >> > >> >> >> spiritual >> >> > >> >> >> realm than parallel universes >> >> > >> >> >> Allan >> >> >> > >> >> >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Dec 4, 2012 2:26 PM, "RP Singh" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >>> In my view there is no beginning to creation. There is >> >> > >> >> >>> beginning >> >> > >> >> >>> and >> >> > >> >> >>> end to universes There are infinite no. of universes in >> >> > >> >> >>> parallel >> >> > >> >> >>> and >> >> > >> >> >>> continuously many universes are being born and many are >> >> > >> >> >>> dying , >> >> > >> >> >>> but >> >> > >> >> >>> Creation which includes infinite universes in eternal time , >> >> > >> >> >>> just >> >> > >> >> >>> like >> >> > >> >> >>> the Spirit, is without beginning and without end. The >> >> > >> >> >>> difference is >> >> > >> >> >>> that the nature of creation is dualistic and the Spirit is >> >> > >> >> >>> non-dual. >> >> >> > >> >> >>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Lee Douglas >> >> > >> >> >>> <[email protected]> >> >> > >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >>> > Hello Andrew, >> >> >> > >> >> >>> > Heh I can envisage many things, but alas many of them are >> >> > >> >> >>> > not >> >> > >> >> >>> > true. >> >> > >> >> >>> > I >> >> > >> >> >>> > distinguish between two things, matter and spirit. Mattter >> >> > >> >> >>> > is >> >> > >> >> >>> > all >> >> > >> >> >>> > that >> >> > >> >> >>> > is >> >> > >> >> >>> > physical, which includes physical 'matter' and also energy. >> >> > >> >> >>> > To >> >> > >> >> >>> > me >> >> > >> >> >>> > there >> >> > >> >> >>> > is >> >> > >> >> >>> > no paradox of who created the creator. Before the begining >> >> > >> >> >>> > there >> >> > >> >> >>> > was >> >> > >> >> >>> > only >> >> > >> >> >>> > God, God in spirit, and God created the creation out of the >> >> > >> >> >>> > spirt >> >> > >> >> >>> > of >> >> > >> >> >>> > God. >> >> > >> >> >>> > That is all matter comes from spirit. >> >> >> > >> >> >>> > On Friday, 30 November 2012 18:32:43 UTC, andrew vecsey >> >> > >> >> >>> > wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> Lee, I can see where all matter has to have an energy >> >> > >> >> >>> >> component >> >> > >> >> >>> >> to >> >> > >> >> >>> >> it >> >> > >> >> >>> >> because matter is manifested as atoms which have motion in >> >> > >> >> >>> >> them. >> >> > >> >> >>> >> But I >> >> > >> >> >>> >> could >> >> > >> >> >>> >> also envision pure motion without involving any >> >> > >> >> >>> >> atoms...like a >> >> > >> >> >>> >> vibration in >> >> > >> >> >>> >> the fabric of space, >> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> On Friday, November 30, 2012 5:53:26 PM UTC+1, Lee Douglas >> >> > >> >> >>> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >>> >>> Heh except of course that when it comes right down to >> >> > >> >> >>> >>> it.energy >> >> > >> >> >>> >>> is >> >> > >> >> >>> >>> matter >> >> > >> >> >>> >>> and matter is energy. >> >> > >> >> >>> >>> On Friday, 30 November 2012 11:22:14 UTC, andrew vecsey >> >> > >> >> >>> >>> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> The paradoxical dilemma of who created the creator can be >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> circumnavigated by the possibility that the original >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> creator >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> was >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> not >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> matter, >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> but energy. Just like thinking of anything is much >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> faster and >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> much >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> easier >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> than building it, it becomes conceivable that energy >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> patterns >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> could >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> have >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> evolved in a random chance way and finely tuned by >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> selective >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> processes to >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> reach intelligence similar to how most scientists >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> believe that >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> patterns of >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> atoms and molecules evolved to form intelligent life. >> >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> Energy patterns could have evolved to a point that they >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> manipulated >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> atoms to desired patterns and forms to code the >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> information >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> required >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> for >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> life and to allow them to evolve on their own to complex >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> intelligent >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> beings >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> able to wonder at and eventually to solve the riddle of >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> where >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> they >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> came >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> from, where they are going and why they are alive. >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> Meaning and >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> purpose could >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> then be given to our fleeting moment of existence. >> >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:55:05 PM UTC+1, archytas >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> ....... All we have in respect of this is to posit >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> creation, begging the question of what created that in >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> an >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> infinite >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> regress. .....We might get to an intelligent state in >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> which >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> creation >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> myths are replaced by something more plausible and Truth >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> comes >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> closer. >> >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> On 29 Nov, 01:41, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > Neil , even after re-transposition how long could the >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > brain >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > live >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > --1000 years , 10000years or maybe as long as the >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > universe >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > ,but >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > ultimately it will die or be destroyed at the end - >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > time of >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > the >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > universe. What survives is the Truth behind life and >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > nothing >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > else. >> >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:33 AM, archytas >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > <[email protected]> >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > What survives is the gene - subject to mutations >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > etc. We >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > are >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > already >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > 'Borg' in the sense of mass assimilation. One's >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > mind >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > could >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > be >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > transposed to another substrate (nearish future) - >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > our >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > bodies >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > are >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > currently replaced every 5 years or so- and the new >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > substrate >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > could >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > have nanobots that would allow minds to outlive >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > Lee's >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > 'hope'. >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > Such >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > substrated minds might link in super-intelligence >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > and be >> >> ... >> >> read more ยป > > -- > > > --
