RE: Atheist
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 6:11 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist On 25 July 2014 12:48, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: _ From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 4:49 PM Subject: Re: Atheist On 25 July 2014 11:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: And in any case 'natural selection' would just be replaced by 'cultural selection' - which is natural. What is 'cultural selection' ? An ape figures out how to insert a palm frond down into a termite nest and is able to harvest a bonanza of good termite protein... soon other apes in the vicinity begin mimicking the original creative ape... with some of them learning how to perform this new neat trick (others ignoring it and still others failing to master the new skill)... in time -- if compelling enough -- the idea spreads throughout the larger grouping of culturally inter-acting apes and many of the members of the larger inter-acting group learn the new valuable technique mother apes (who have mastered the termite feeding learned behavior) begin teaching their own offspring this new valuable survival skill. After some generations the culturally learned technique is firmly established in this particular ape sub-culture, while remaining absent in other ape sub-cultures of the same species that have not been exposed to this new cultural evolution. A successful *cultural innovation* will spread (or conversely fail to propagate) in a similar manner (through a different modality of course) as biologically encoded evolution. Good ideas -- i.e. those with high survival fitness -- will tend to spread through an interacting group of individuals in a given culture, who are in fairly close contact with each other. I agree that this would have been useful in a situation like that. Do you think this is still happening in Western culture? A lot of memes appear to not have any specific survival value, although some are undoubtedly useful. But the vast majority seem to just be what happens to be fashionable at the moment - which is often the result of the whole meme thing having been hijacked to benefit a few individuals. Yes, I think it goes on all the time. Fashion is fickle as they say; so sure fashion always happens – and is marketed in today’s global markets with billions of dollars being spent to push the product out the door. But what survives is Mozart. There is a natural organic process by which the best – survivable memes – make their way into the transmitted cultural DNA (transmogrified over time by the accidental history surrounding their genesis and evolution into cultural adoption) Of course gangsters will try to hijack any and all cultures to turn them to into captive systems working for their narrow interests. I agree with you that “mass culture” is a tool of the narrow interests who seek to centralize power into an exceedingly constricted elite of the very few. But culture evolves and in some ways it follows a Darwinian trajectory, which is not always evident to us mortal beings caught up as we are in the froth of existence. Sometimes bad ideas will spread, but it is rarer. I can think of a few which have negative reproductive / survival value but have nevertheless spread, especially religious ones. I agree… however if you look at some negative ideas; cultural forms imprinting on pre-existing forms (as for example Christianity or Islam has become grafted onto preexisting cultures in often bloody genocidal manners) Why did they survive? Because they confer survivability in some manner on groups (i.e. cultures) practicing them. Negative as we may both agree that they are. For example the ability of religious zealotry to brutalize human beings and transform them into slaughter machines for god is, from a military viewpoint a distinct advantage. A teeming army of heartless zealots is a terrible meta-monster to face. So, while I agree heartedly with you as to the negativity of the message, in practice zealotry has proven to be a most useful tool in the hands of dogmatic centralized power and this confers a certain Darwinian advantage. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
Re: Atheist
I agree to an extent, but this sort of argument tends to drift towards tautology. Whatever survives survives, and hence has survival value in some sense. But a meme that turns someone into a suicide bomber or celibate monk probably doesn't have much survival value for that person. My feeling is that memes favour *their own* survival, as Richard Dawkins suggested. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
after doing nothing in life. Christ is the best option. More on that sometime later 2014-07-18 11:52 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Therefor... my dear friends atheists, agnostics and deists The salvation vessel of monistic materialism, the theories of everything that predict infinite many universes with infinite physical laws, either arithmetical or mathemathical, are compatible with any metaphisical or theological position: metaphysical dualism, monotheism, politheism etc in a sense these theories not only give zero information in physical terms but also in metaphysical terms. So we can say that they are perfect non-theories. 2014-07-17 19:07 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com : Why I have to claim that? I claim that any monistic (scientific) theory that predict infinite many universes predict also infinite many minds with infinite many degrees of knowledge and mastering over their realities and the realities that they may create, that, assuming monistic materialism, can contain also other subordinate minds. Because we do not know our position in the hierarchy etc etc etc etc 2014-07-17 18:16 GMT+02:00, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: You cannot now claim, baring evidence, that we can change reality, even here on planet Earth, in a cogent way. It's like somebody falling off Mt. Evidence, in which we can have an opinion about our dilemma, but reversing gravity or dreaming up a parachute to use during our fall is not part of the world we all must live in. Give 10,000 years of future technology, and human survival, maybe then. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 12:02 pm Subject: Re: Atheist 2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. I really don't know what theories you refer too. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total
Re: Atheist
Memes cannot survive without a human brain. We are their vehicle, but are the our effluent, or our children? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Jul 25, 2014 3:47 am Subject: Re: Atheist I agree to an extent, but this sort of argument tends to drift towards tautology. Whatever survives survives, and hence has survival value in some sense. But a meme that turns someone into a suicide bomber or celibate monk probably doesn't have much survival value for that person. My feeling is that memes favour their own survival, as Richard Dawkins suggested. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Atheist
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 12:48 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist I agree to an extent, but this sort of argument tends to drift towards tautology. Whatever survives survives, and hence has survival value in some sense. But a meme that turns someone into a suicide bomber or celibate monk probably doesn't have much survival value for that person. My feeling is that memes favour their own survival, as Richard Dawkins suggested. It is important to be clear about the locus of the entity that is undergoing an evolutionary process in order to avoid confusion. Cultural evolution effects cultures. A meme may have no discernable evolutionary value for individuals per se – as you point out a celibate monk is not (as far as we know) spreading their genes. In many cases ideas however do have arguably beneficial effects for the individuals. However you bring up a valid point, which I think points to the dual level of action of cultural evolution. On the one hand it acts on the individuals who are adopting it, but it also has another dimension of action and that is upon the culture itself. Cultures – I would argue undergo a kind of Darwinian evolution, with more survivable cultures prevailing over less survivable cultures. To make my case consider pure altruism, which confers no survival advantage to the individual (and as has been demonstrated in game theory is in fact a measurable handicap) Geneticists have asked themselves why this behavioral trait has survived in our species. The explanation I have seen that makes most sense to me is that cultures that have high degrees of altruism (within their culture) have a far lower transactional cost than societies that have a much lower degree of altruistic behavior. In a society where everyone is for themselves even simple transactions become expensive as the individuals involved must invest energy in order to safeguard their interests. Whereas in the altruistic culture transactions can happen much more easily with a simple hand shake. When speaking of cultural evolution it is important to keep in mind that we are speaking mostly about the cultures themselves and less about the individual members of that culture. So to go back to those suicide bombers or celibate monks – agreed not very good for the individuals involved, but the culture to which these individuals belong may derive some benefit from their culturally driven behavior. The suicide bomber is a weapon for that culture; a celibate monk removes excess males (female nuns do for excess females) from competition for agricultural properties being handed down to first born sons (or dowries given to first born daughters) Not advocating for this medieval cultural model – far from it I much prefer modern scientific (experimental verification) humanism -- rather am trying to remain abstract and removed and look at human culture as any other evolving self-learning system. Do you think cultures can evolve? Not the individual members, but the culture as an entity. Chris -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 12:02 pm Subject: Re: Atheist 2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. I really don't know what theories you refer too. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. In certain sense materialism has given up without being conscious of it. That is because its foundation is metaphysical and metaphysics has experimented a regression to the stone age, or at least to the level previous to the greek phylosophy. That has begun since theology has been banished from academy, and replaced by a social sort of authorianism. It is normal for those wanting power to take over on the fundamental theories. It is bad and sad, but natural and usual. That's why we must be vigilant, and fight for a coming back to reason and observation in *all* fields, not just on God and health. Bruno 2014-07-09 22:12 GMT+02:00, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: I apologize for taking a new title for this over-discussed topic. Somebody (sounds like Bruno, the fonts look like Brent) wrote: ...let us do theology seriously instead of referring to fairy tales. You confirm what I said to John Clark. *Atheist* defend the God of the bible. Read Plotinus, forget the bible, unless you find some passage you like and which inspire you, but that is private, don't make that public. I refer to the generality about 'atheists' in the passage. I emphasize that I am no atheist in such a sense who IMO requires 'a god to deny' (my vocabulary includes the term as 'denying' instead of 'defending'). I simply exclude those facets which are beyond our reach at present. In speaking about Everything I think of an infinite complexity of components we cannot even understand (today) - nor the relations between them ALL. We include SOME into our 'model of the world' as of yesterday without knowing if we are right. In such sense even a (sane-minded) adilt can be an 'atheist'. John M
Re: Atheist
On 25 July 2014 10:21, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: Cultural determism is incompatible with natural selection. Pardon my ignorance, but what is cultural determinism? (Or what would it be, if there was such a thing?) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
Oh, OK, WIkipedia! (oops!) *Cultural determinism* is the belief that the culture in which we are raised determines who we are at emotional and behavioral levels. This supports the theory that environmental influences dominate who we are instead of biologically inherited traits. That sounds a bit like blank-slateism, the idea that humans are somehow divorced from their genetic inheritance and can be adapted to any purpose via acculturalism, if that's the word. I generally feel this is untrue, partly due to twin studies and so on, and partly because I'm not sure what it would mean if it was true... however, obviously culture has an *influence* on people. If you're born in 1930 you probably think the Beatles ruined popular music, or something. In 1940, you think the opposite. And so on. On 25 July 2014 10:37, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 July 2014 10:21, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: Cultural determism is incompatible with natural selection. Pardon my ignorance, but what is cultural determinism? (Or what would it be, if there was such a thing?) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
gravity or dreaming up a parachute to use during our fall is not part of the world we all must live in. Give 10,000 years of future technology, and human survival, maybe then. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 12:02 pm Subject: Re: Atheist 2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. I really don't know what theories you refer too. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. In certain sense materialism has given up without being conscious of it. That is because its foundation is metaphysical and metaphysics has experimented a regression to the stone age, or at least to the level previous to the greek phylosophy. That has begun since theology has been banished from academy, and replaced by a social sort of authorianism. It is normal for those wanting power to take over on the fundamental theories. It is bad and sad, but natural and usual. That's why we must be vigilant, and fight for a coming back to reason and observation in *all* fields, not just on God and health. Bruno 2014-07-09 22:12 GMT+02:00, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: I apologize for taking a new title for this over-discussed topic. Somebody (sounds like Bruno, the fonts look like Brent) wrote: ...let us do theology seriously instead of referring to fairy tales. You confirm what I said to John Clark. *Atheist* defend the God of the bible. Read Plotinus, forget the bible, unless you find some passage you like and which inspire you, but that is private, don't make that public. I refer to the generality about 'atheists' in the passage. I emphasize that I am no atheist in such a sense who IMO requires 'a god to deny' (my vocabulary includes the term as 'denying' instead
Re: Atheist
From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com And too much diversity syrup makes me vomit Seems you choose to do much of your vomiting on this list; is there some reason you feel so compelled to share your vomit? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
And in any case 'natural selection' would just be replaced by 'cultural selection' - which is natural. Brent On 7/24/2014 3:42 PM, LizR wrote: Oh, OK, WIkipedia! (oops!) *Cultural determinism*is the belief that the culture in which we are raised determines who we are at emotional and behavioral levels. This supports the theory that environmental influences dominate who we are instead of biologically inherited traits. That sounds a bit like blank-slateism, the idea that humans are somehow divorced from their genetic inheritance and can be adapted to any purpose via acculturalism, if that's the word. I generally feel this is untrue, partly due to twin studies and so on, and partly because I'm not sure what it would mean if it was true... however, obviously culture has an /influence/ on people. If you're born in 1930 you probably think the Beatles ruined popular music, or something. In 1940, you think the opposite. And so on. On 25 July 2014 10:37, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 July 2014 10:21, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com mailto:agocor...@gmail.com wrote: Cultural determism is incompatible with natural selection. Pardon my ignorance, but what is cultural determinism? (Or what would it be, if there was such a thing?) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 25 July 2014 11:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: And in any case 'natural selection' would just be replaced by 'cultural selection' - which is natural. What is 'cultural selection' ? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 4:49 PM Subject: Re: Atheist On 25 July 2014 11:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: And in any case 'natural selection' would just be replaced by 'cultural selection' - which is natural. What is 'cultural selection' ? An ape figures out how to insert a palm frond down into a termite nest and is able to harvest a bonanza of good termite protein... soon other apes in the vicinity begin mimicking the original creative ape... with some of them learning how to perform this new neat trick (others ignoring it and still others failing to master the new skill)... in time -- if compelling enough -- the idea spreads throughout the larger grouping of culturally inter-acting apes and many of the members of the larger inter-acting group learn the new valuable technique mother apes (who have mastered the termite feeding learned behavior) begin teaching their own offspring this new valuable survival skill. After some generations the culturally learned technique is firmly established in this particular ape sub-culture, while remaining absent in other ape sub-cultures of the same species that have not been exposed to this new cultural evolution. A successful *cultural innovation* will spread (or conversely fail to propagate) in a similar manner (through a different modality of course) as biologically encoded evolution. Good ideas -- i.e. those with high survival fitness -- will tend to spread through an interacting group of individuals in a given culture, who are in fairly close contact with each other. Sometimes bad ideas will spread, but it is rarer. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 25 July 2014 12:48, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: -- *From:* LizR lizj...@gmail.com *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Thursday, July 24, 2014 4:49 PM *Subject:* Re: Atheist On 25 July 2014 11:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: And in any case 'natural selection' would just be replaced by 'cultural selection' - which is natural. What is 'cultural selection' ? An ape figures out how to insert a palm frond down into a termite nest and is able to harvest a bonanza of good termite protein... soon other apes in the vicinity begin mimicking the original creative ape... with some of them learning how to perform this new neat trick (others ignoring it and still others failing to master the new skill)... in time -- if compelling enough -- the idea spreads throughout the larger grouping of culturally inter-acting apes and many of the members of the larger inter-acting group learn the new valuable technique mother apes (who have mastered the termite feeding learned behavior) begin teaching their own offspring this new valuable survival skill. After some generations the culturally learned technique is firmly established in this particular ape sub-culture, while remaining absent in other ape sub-cultures of the same species that have not been exposed to this new cultural evolution. A successful *cultural innovation* will spread (or conversely fail to propagate) in a similar manner (through a different modality of course) as biologically encoded evolution. Good ideas -- i.e. those with high survival fitness -- will tend to spread through an interacting group of individuals in a given culture, who are in fairly close contact with each other. I agree that this would have been useful in a situation like that. Do you think this is still happening in Western culture? A lot of memes appear to not have any specific survival value, although some are undoubtedly useful. But the vast majority seem to just be what happens to be fashionable at the moment - which is often the result of the whole meme thing having been hijacked to benefit a few individuals. Sometimes bad ideas will spread, but it is rarer. I can think of a few which have negative reproductive / survival value but have nevertheless spread, especially religious ones. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 7/24/2014 4:49 PM, LizR wrote: On 25 July 2014 11:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: And in any case 'natural selection' would just be replaced by 'cultural selection' - which is natural. What is 'cultural selection' ? I think there are two kinds. One comes from competition between cultures. Supplanting one culture by another - as Engish culture supplanted aboriginal culture in Australia. The other is the influence of a culture on the reproductive success of individuals, e.g. being a great rock singer is good for your reproductive success in modern America. Doesn't help in Saudi Arabia. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 25 July 2014 13:32, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/24/2014 4:49 PM, LizR wrote: On 25 July 2014 11:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: And in any case 'natural selection' would just be replaced by 'cultural selection' - which is natural. What is 'cultural selection' ? I think there are two kinds. One comes from competition between cultures. Supplanting one culture by another - as Engish culture supplanted aboriginal culture in Australia. The other is the influence of a culture on the reproductive success of individuals, e.g. being a great rock singer is good for your reproductive success in modern America. Doesn't help in Saudi Arabia. Yes, that seems reasonable. But it's mainly to do with relatively unusual situations, at least in our current society - cultural clashes and behavioural extremes. I'm not sure what the connection is with cultural determinism, which seems more to do with what is considered acceptable behaviour and suchlike - i.e. determining general day to day behaviour, rather than what happens in exceptional situations. This is however a subject with an awful lot of grey areas... -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Atheist
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 10:47 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist On 7/19/2014 10:08 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 8:27 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I would describe it as a societal paradigm… this unspoken rule that all should respect religion. Yes, but why does religion and only religion get this special treatment? Nobody thinks that all political ideas deserve respect, or economic ideas or scientific ideas or artistic ideas; some ideas deserve contempt, UNLESS it's a religious idea, and then you're supposed to respect it no matter how imbecilic or evil it is. My question is why. John K Clark Perhaps because most people are mortally afraid of facing the inevitability of their own personal death experience. This primal visceral fear is – for most – offloaded and “answered”, re-packaged and served up as religion. Perhaps the unspoken rule that religion be respected might be driven by this very widespread and common dread of actually facing the true core motive force that gives rise to the need to come up with a religion in the first place. Maybe it is not respect, but dread fear masquerading as respect. Riffing here – have no research to back this speculative thought up with. As Kurt Vonnegut has one of his characters say, If you don't 'truth' me, I won't 'truth' you. Nice quote…. Kurt Vonnegut sure nailed that on the head J Chris Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 19 Jul 2014, at 22:08, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: Well sure... life is more pleasant when people have a live and let live attitude. As you point out respect needs mutuality. Respecting an institution that does not respect anyone that does not adopt their dogma is a one way flow of respect that leads to a distorted situation. Religion - for the most part - does not respect anything that is not in accordance with its dogma, therefore it should not expect to be respected. No machine can't respect a religious dogmatic institution and stay self-referentially correct. But that comes from its own religion, and I don't see why I should not respect that. I think it is better to avoid a confusion between religion and dogmatic religion (which is the case for most conevntioanl institutionalized religions, for obvious political and non-religious reasons). You mean institutionalized religion, I guess. I prefer to distinguish religion, which concerns the realtion between machine and transcendent truth, and their local contingent institutionalization, which in the comp religion are provably necessarily betraying religion. It is a theorem of sort: religion (if comp is true) is just not institutionalizable, at least in the sense of asserting truth/false, or good/evil, etc. people can met and dance and do many religious things if they want to, but it is more like singing, dancing, taking drugs, or whatever. It is not normative neither in the beliefs, nor in the actions. The root of the word is the Latin verb ligo, which becomes religo, to tie or bind over again, to make more fast. For me this implies a re-binding of many into a single organized - allegedly correct -- belief system. A mystic interpretation of the word religo is also possible, with the re-binding root of the word pointing to the re- binding of the disconnected soul to some larger meta-soul. The word resonates with me when taken in the second sense of the meaning... in the first sense of re-binding many into a single faith I find it abhorrent. So we are quite close on this. The organized practice of religion based on following the interpretation of some dead dogma is the antithesis of the enlivening act of experiencing living spiritual existence. That is why those defending dogma will forbid personal research, and condemn the mystics, and worse, recuperate and deforms their message after they died. Religion is a useful tool to power structures (when it is not the power structure itself); I agree, alas. I would say that it is in the nature of religion to easily be confused with the 3p structure which might try to represent it. That is why the basic of the mystics is negative, they often say only: no it is not this, nor that, neither this nor ... Neoplatonist theologies reflects this in being negative theologies. But that's the fate of anything near a Protagorean virtue. Not just the Churches, also the Trade Unions, for a different example. The very goal of the Trade Unions is morally positive, as it defends the employees on possible employer abuses. But an old Trade Union can become a machine defending the interest of the Trade Unioners only, up to the point as being a problem for both the employer and the employees. The same for money. At first it makes it possible to share the products of works, and speculate about the futures, but then it can be used for its own sake, perverting its distribution and speculation role. Fake or lies based powers quickly speculate only on how long they can lie. In no case should we throw the baby with the bath water. All positive thing which are related to a protagorean virtues are on the risk, when implemented, to be perverted by its name or social representation. I agree all human institutions become captured eventually by small classes of people who rig the system - any system -- to favor their own. Once the cockroaches manage to worm their way into power within any institution it is almost impossible to rid the institution of their influence. OK. religion serves the interests of central authority. Emperor Constantine and the Roman imperial elites of the time have as much (or more perhaps some argue) than any mythical prophet, to do with the evolution of a loose set of scattered stories into an organized imperial state religion united under the crucifix (and conveniently the emperor as well). When a religion is institutionalized at the level of the state; not only politics will get inconsistent and authorianists, but the religion itself will become a mockery of itself. Also, at such a level (an Empire), it can take *many* centuries to recover. All insitutions become means for enforcing an uneven playing field for the benefit of a favored elite class. Yes, but some institutions are needed, like academies, government,
Re: Atheist
On 20 Jul 2014, at 02:21, meekerdb wrote: On 7/14/2014 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Now, if you are interested in experiencing the (rather common) God hallucination, there are technic for that (fasting, sleep deprivation, magic mushrooms, LSD, salvia, near death experiences, etc.). Really? That will allow me to see the unprovable truths of arithmetic? Not to see them as true, but to conceive them as possibly true, and thus more consistent than you might have thought. I'll be able to see whether the twin-primes conjecture is among them? There are few chances, unless you met Ramanujan's goddess, Namagiri, who seem able to leak some of that kind of terrestrial information, according to Ramanujan (and actually some others). I guess you were just joking. Bruno Great. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 20 Jul 2014, at 03:00, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:21 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/14/2014 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Now, if you are interested in experiencing the (rather common) God hallucination, there are technic for that (fasting, sleep deprivation, magic mushrooms, LSD, salvia, near death experiences, etc.). Really? That will allow me to see the unprovable truths of arithmetic? I'll be able to see whether the twin-primes conjecture is among them? Great. Of course you have a point: 1p unprovable arithmetic truth can be bogus and tacky at times, Arithmetical truth are true, by definition. There are also non refutable falsities, and Eric solved the problem I gave him, to prove that [PA + some consistent but false proposition in arithmetic] can augment the ability of PA to prove some true arithmetic statement, which explains why even evolution, not just the government, can lie. Bruno which is assumed in the notion... but also nice at other times, like songs, good jokes, steering some fast vehicle or bike etc. PGC Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 20 Jul 2014, at 05:26, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I would describe it as a societal paradigm... this unspoken rule that all should respect religion. Yes, but why does religion and only religion get this special treatment? Nobody thinks that all political ideas deserve respect, or economic ideas or scientific ideas or artistic ideas; some ideas deserve contempt, UNLESS it's a religious idea, and then you're supposed to respect it no matter how imbecilic or evil it is. My question is why. Because we have separated science from theology, or theology from science, which is a way to give a right for the absence of rigor in the human affairs, and that idea is loved by all those who want to use authoritarian powers to control others. We are encouraged to respect the bullshit of others to better swallow our own bullshit. I agree with you, that is very sad. Unfortunately, atheism, the strong form that you seem to defend, is de facto an ally of the religious bullshit, by mocking systematically the attempts of being serious in theology. very often, the atheists are the one pleading for the respect of religion. They don't see that they make apology of dogma, sometimes their own, in the process. Bruno 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 03:00, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:21 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/14/2014 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Now, if you are interested in experiencing the (rather common) God hallucination, there are technic for that (fasting, sleep deprivation, magic mushrooms, LSD, salvia, near death experiences, etc.). Really? That will allow me to see the unprovable truths of arithmetic? I'll be able to see whether the twin-primes conjecture is among them? Great. Of course you have a point: 1p unprovable arithmetic truth can be bogus and tacky at times, Arithmetical truth are true, by definition. I was referring to possible 1st person experience, and if my memory serves me, not all of Ramanujan's visions were proven true. Of course his success rate is tremendous (interesting question in itself, this number...) and his presence on our historical map should represent a firm argument for searching altered states and greater liberality and humility facing others' pursuit of personal theology, whoever the gods. Whenever I read posts condemning some religious practice as obviously ridiculous vs. the paradigms that I hold dear and the smart huffing, puffing, and flattery between similar position, I just shrug and think that this just shows falling into quite obvious trap. There are also non refutable falsities, and Eric solved the problem I gave him, to prove that [PA + some consistent but false proposition in arithmetic] can augment the ability of PA to prove some true arithmetic statement, which explains why even evolution, not just the government, can lie. Nice, but not the best news somehow... consistent but false. So we can congratulate politician for upholding prohibition because it's only education? Also is Eric's work you refer to on your site or online? PGC -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 20 Jul 2014, at 16:32, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 03:00, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:21 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/14/2014 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Now, if you are interested in experiencing the (rather common) God hallucination, there are technic for that (fasting, sleep deprivation, magic mushrooms, LSD, salvia, near death experiences, etc.). Really? That will allow me to see the unprovable truths of arithmetic? I'll be able to see whether the twin-primes conjecture is among them? Great. Of course you have a point: 1p unprovable arithmetic truth can be bogus and tacky at times, Arithmetical truth are true, by definition. I was referring to possible 1st person experience, and if my memory serves me, not all of Ramanujan's visions were proven true. OK. When false, it is no more in arithmetical truth. You are right. Amazingly, some crazy formula by Ramanujan are were false. Some remains unproved and unrefuted, and many have been proved, some with Ramanujan help. Of course his success rate is tremendous (interesting question in itself, this number...) and his presence on our historical map should represent a firm argument for searching altered states and greater liberality and humility facing others' pursuit of personal theology, whoever the gods. Agreed. Whenever I read posts condemning some religious practice as obviously ridiculous vs. the paradigms that I hold dear and the smart huffing, puffing, and flattery between similar position, I just shrug and think that this just shows falling into quite obvious trap. Yes. In the same spirit I usually answer only post where I find a disagreement, unless the fact that I do agree can add something (in case people have some reason to think I will disagree for example). Now I certainly do condemn some religious practice, like some form of African mutilation done on some woman, and deprived them for a normal sexual life. I condemn all religious practice leading to violence or hurting people. But that is a bit like I condemn the use of hard drugs for the pilot of planes. It is common sense. There are also non refutable falsities, and Eric solved the problem I gave him, to prove that [PA + some consistent but false proposition in arithmetic] can augment the ability of PA to prove some true arithmetic statement, which explains why even evolution, not just the government, can lie. Nice, but not the best news somehow... consistent but false. Yes. the most typical example is PA is inconsistent. This is typically false, but PA cannot refute it, as PA cannot prove []f -f (I am inconsistent leads to false; PA would then prove its own consistency, contradicting Gödel second I. theorem). So we can congratulate politician for upholding prohibition because it's only education? May be we need to that kind of error to just learn that it is erroneous, but I doubt so. I just said that inconsistency might be needed to prove true theorem, but it is not clear if we have to go through this. What happens is that we can expect some lies from nature, like when spider makes bird believing they are ants. But this is what Platonist expect, as they are willing to believe that we are most of the type lied about the appearances. Also is Eric's work you refer to on your site or online? PGC No, alas. And Eric was used to explain things on tram tickets) or toilet paper, or anything in place of a diary or computer memory. But I should have it in some of my own diary. I will look for it. Bruno -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 12:02 pm Subject: Re: Atheist 2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. I really don't know what theories you refer too. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. In certain sense materialism has given up without being conscious of it. That is because its foundation is metaphysical and metaphysics has experimented a regression to the stone age, or at least to the level previous to the greek phylosophy. That has begun since theology has been banished from academy, and replaced by a social sort of authorianism. It is normal for those wanting power to take over on the fundamental theories. It is bad and sad, but natural and usual. That's why we must be vigilant, and fight for a coming back to reason and observation in *all* fields, not just on God and health. Bruno 2014-07-09 22:12 GMT+02:00, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: I apologize for taking a new title for this over-discussed topic. Somebody (sounds like Bruno, the fonts look like Brent) wrote: ...let us do theology seriously instead of referring to fairy tales. You confirm what I said to John Clark. *Atheist* defend the God of the bible. Read Plotinus, forget the bible, unless you find some passage you like and which inspire you, but that is private, don't make that public. I refer to the generality about 'atheists' in the passage. I emphasize that I am no atheist in such a sense who IMO requires 'a god to deny' (my vocabulary includes the term as 'denying' instead of 'defending'). I simply exclude those facets which are beyond our reach at present. In speaking about Everything I think of an infinite complexity of components we cannot even understand (today) - nor the relations between them ALL. We include SOME into our 'model of the world' as of yesterday without knowing if we are right. In such sense even a (sane-minded) adilt can be an 'atheist'. John M -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything- list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe
Re: Atheist
of action, paths in life. And as social being we need plans to live with people according with them. There is no alternative. No problem, except that leaders might be contingent to humans and mammals, and does not play a role in the origin of physics, except with the leader truth, supposed to be independent of us. That is why when Jesuschrist say: I´m the Way, the Truth and the Life says something very deep in psychological, metaphisical and religious terms at the same time. That looks like authorianism to me. Why Jesus? Why not Mohammed? why not Ganesh? As eartly minds with bodies in charge of, you have to follow someone, or you may try to be one that others may follow, or you may do nothing and stay in dilettant and sterile nothingness for life. The latter seems the non-path of modernity. And you and your people for sure will vanish under people that DO have a path in life, that follows a leader. You worry me a little bit. Leaders are contingent to mammals. I have only one leader: God, or truth (in the sense of searching it, not pretending knowing it). Alternatively, you can follow a earthy leader. That is very dangerous, OK. Good. Phew! as you know if you read history books. Almost as dangerous and destructive as not following anyone at all and vanish after doing nothing in life. Christ is the best option. More on that sometime later OK. I have taken a lot of time to study christianism, and I let you know that I am not sure if there are any relationships between christianism before and after the closure of Plato academy. Once a religion accepts earthly leaders, I abandon it, as my religion, like you say yourself actually, consider earthly leader as always fake. There are politicians in disguise. Bruno 2014-07-18 11:52 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Therefor... my dear friends atheists, agnostics and deists The salvation vessel of monistic materialism, the theories of everything that predict infinite many universes with infinite physical laws, either arithmetical or mathemathical, are compatible with any metaphisical or theological position: metaphysical dualism, monotheism, politheism etc in a sense these theories not only give zero information in physical terms but also in metaphysical terms. So we can say that they are perfect non-theories. 2014-07-17 19:07 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Why I have to claim that? I claim that any monistic (scientific) theory that predict infinite many universes predict also infinite many minds with infinite many degrees of knowledge and mastering over their realities and the realities that they may create, that, assuming monistic materialism, can contain also other subordinate minds. Because we do not know our position in the hierarchy etc etc etc etc 2014-07-17 18:16 GMT+02:00, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: You cannot now claim, baring evidence, that we can change reality, even here on planet Earth, in a cogent way. It's like somebody falling off Mt. Evidence, in which we can have an opinion about our dilemma, but reversing gravity or dreaming up a parachute to use during our fall is not part of the world we all must live in. Give 10,000 years of future technology, and human survival, maybe then. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 12:02 pm Subject: Re: Atheist 2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you
Re: Atheist
control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 12:02 pm Subject: Re: Atheist 2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. I really don't know what theories you refer too. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. In certain sense materialism has given up without being conscious of it. That is because its foundation is metaphysical and metaphysics has experimented a regression to the stone age, or at least to the level previous to the greek phylosophy. That has begun since theology has been banished from academy, and replaced by a social sort of authorianism. It is normal for those wanting power to take over on the fundamental theories. It is bad and sad, but natural and usual. That's why we must be vigilant, and fight for a coming back to reason and observation in *all* fields, not just on God and health. Bruno 2014-07-09 22:12 GMT+02:00, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: I apologize for taking a new title for this over-discussed topic. Somebody (sounds like Bruno, the fonts look like Brent) wrote: ...let us do theology seriously instead of referring to fairy tales. You confirm what I said to John Clark. *Atheist* defend the God of the bible. Read Plotinus, forget the bible, unless you find some passage you like and which inspire you, but that is private, don't make that public. I refer to the generality about 'atheists' in the passage. I emphasize that I am no atheist in such a sense who IMO requires 'a god to deny' (my vocabulary includes the term as 'denying' instead of 'defending'). I simply exclude those facets which are beyond our reach at present. In speaking about Everything I think of an infinite complexity of components we cannot even understand (today) - nor the relations between them ALL. We include SOME into our 'model of the world' as of yesterday without knowing if we are right. In such sense even a (sane-minded) adilt can be an 'atheist'. John M -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http
RE: Atheist
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 3:08 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist On 17 Jul 2014, at 20:24, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:25 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist On 17 Jul 2014, at 10:33, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:20 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist Salman Rushdie wrote: religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable language of respect. What is there to respect in any of this, or in any of the crimes now being committed almost daily around the world in religion's dreaded name? It is the liberal consensus that we should always respect all religious beliefs regardless of how stupid or cruel it is; for example tune into just about any international news broadcast and you will probably see at least one story about religious violence somewhere in the world, but the media won't call it that, the media will call it sectarian violence. As for me I think there is a point beyond which a euphemism becomes a lie. John K Clark I would describe it as a societal paradigm. this unspoken rule that all should respect religion. It dominates both the political right as well as the left. I think it is more the general and positive idea of respecting the others. But sometimes people forget that this rule is limited to those who respect you. If you respect those who does not respect you, you lose dignity and eventually life. Well sure. life is more pleasant when people have a live and let live attitude. As you point out respect needs mutuality. Respecting an institution that does not respect anyone that does not adopt their dogma is a one way flow of respect that leads to a distorted situation. Religion - for the most part - does not respect anything that is not in accordance with its dogma, therefore it should not expect to be respected. You mean institutionalized religion, I guess. I prefer to distinguish religion, which concerns the realtion between machine and transcendent truth, and their local contingent institutionalization, which in the comp religion are provably necessarily betraying religion. It is a theorem of sort: religion (if comp is true) is just not institutionalizable, at least in the sense of asserting truth/false, or good/evil, etc. people can met and dance and do many religious things if they want to, but it is more like singing, dancing, taking drugs, or whatever. It is not normative neither in the beliefs, nor in the actions. The root of the word is the Latin verb ligo, which becomes religo, to tie or bind over again, to make more fast. For me this implies a re-binding of many into a single organized - allegedly correct -- belief system. A mystic interpretation of the word religo is also possible, with the re-binding root of the word pointing to the re-binding of the disconnected soul to some larger meta-soul. The word resonates with me when taken in the second sense of the meaning. in the first sense of re-binding many into a single faith I find it abhorrent. The organized practice of religion based on following the interpretation of some dead dogma is the antithesis of the enlivening act of experiencing living spiritual existence. Religion is a useful tool to power structures (when it is not the power structure itself); I agree, alas. I would say that it is in the nature of religion to easily be confused with the 3p structure which might try to represent it. That is why the basic of the mystics is negative, they often say only: no it is not this, nor that, neither this nor ... Neoplatonist theologies reflects this in being negative theologies. But that's the fate of anything near a Protagorean virtue. Not just the Churches, also the Trade Unions, for a different example. The very goal of the Trade Unions is morally positive, as it defends the employees on possible employer abuses. But an old Trade Union can become a machine defending the interest of the Trade Unioners only, up to the point as being a problem for both the employer and the employees. The same for money. At first it makes it possible to share the products of works, and speculate about the futures, but then it can be used for its own sake, perverting its distribution and speculation role. Fake or lies based powers quickly speculate only on how long they can lie. In no case should we throw the baby with the bath water
Re: Atheist
On 7/14/2014 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Now, if you are interested in experiencing the (rather common) God hallucination, there are technic for that (fasting, sleep deprivation, magic mushrooms, LSD, salvia, near death experiences, etc.). Really? That will allow me to see the unprovable truths of arithmetic? I'll be able to see whether the twin-primes conjecture is among them? Great. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:21 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/14/2014 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Now, if you are interested in experiencing the (rather common) God hallucination, there are technic for that (fasting, sleep deprivation, magic mushrooms, LSD, salvia, near death experiences, etc.). Really? That will allow me to see the unprovable truths of arithmetic? I'll be able to see whether the twin-primes conjecture is among them? Great. Of course you have a point: 1p unprovable arithmetic truth can be bogus and tacky at times, which is assumed in the notion... but also nice at other times, like songs, good jokes, steering some fast vehicle or bike etc. PGC Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I would describe it as a societal paradigm… this unspoken rule that all should respect religion. Yes, but why does religion and only religion get this special treatment? Nobody thinks that all political ideas deserve respect, or economic ideas or scientific ideas or artistic ideas; some ideas deserve contempt, UNLESS it's a religious idea, and then you're supposed to respect it no matter how imbecilic or evil it is. My question is why. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 20 Jul 2014, at 10:21 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/14/2014 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Now, if you are interested in experiencing the (rather common) God hallucination, there are technic for that (fasting, sleep deprivation, magic mushrooms, LSD, salvia, near death experiences, etc.). Really? That will allow me to see the unprovable truths of arithmetic? I'll be able to see whether the twin-primes conjecture is among them? Great. Brent Well listen, let's just say that I can think of a few less-interesting ways to spend a Saturday evening K -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Atheist
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 8:27 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I would describe it as a societal paradigm… this unspoken rule that all should respect religion. Yes, but why does religion and only religion get this special treatment? Nobody thinks that all political ideas deserve respect, or economic ideas or scientific ideas or artistic ideas; some ideas deserve contempt, UNLESS it's a religious idea, and then you're supposed to respect it no matter how imbecilic or evil it is. My question is why. John K Clark Perhaps because most people are mortally afraid of facing the inevitability of their own personal death experience. This primal visceral fear is – for most – offloaded and “answered”, re-packaged and served up as religion. Perhaps the unspoken rule that religion be respected might be driven by this very widespread and common dread of actually facing the true core motive force that gives rise to the need to come up with a religion in the first place. Maybe it is not respect, but dread fear masquerading as respect. Riffing here – have no research to back this speculative thought up with. Chris -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 7/19/2014 10:08 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: *From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Clark *Sent:* Saturday, July 19, 2014 8:27 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Atheist On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I would describe it as a societal paradigm… this unspoken rule that all should respect religion. Yes, but why does religion and only religion get this special treatment? Nobody thinks that all political ideas deserve respect, or economic ideas or scientific ideas or artistic ideas; some ideas deserve contempt, UNLESS it's a religious idea, and then you're supposed to respect it no matter how imbecilic or evil it is. My question is why. John K Clark Perhaps because most people are mortally afraid of facing the inevitability of their own personal death experience. This primal visceral fear is – for most – offloaded and “answered”, re-packaged and served up as religion. Perhaps the unspoken rule that religion be respected might be driven by this very widespread and common dread of actually facing the true core motive force that gives rise to the need to come up with a religion in the first place. Maybe it is not respect, but dread fear masquerading as respect. Riffing here – have no research to back this speculative thought up with. As Kurt Vonnegut has one of his characters say, If you don't 'truth' me, I won't 'truth' you. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 17 Jul 2014, at 18:02, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. I really don't know what theories you refer too. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, Not if mechanism is correct. It is less incorrect to say that mind produce matter (if we want to be short). thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. In which non-comp theory? Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. Same question. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. Square circle remains impossible. Your statement are too vague, as you seem to assume some non-comp theory of mind, as it is need to provide a matter-consciousness relation. With mechanism, matter is an appearance in the glued dreams of the number, not an ontological entity. Bruno In certain sense materialism has given up without being conscious of it. That is because its foundation is metaphysical and metaphysics has experimented a regression to the stone age, or at least to the level previous to the greek phylosophy. That has begun since theology has been banished from academy, and replaced by a social sort of authorianism. It is normal for those wanting power to take over on the fundamental theories. It is bad and sad, but natural and usual. That's why we must be vigilant, and fight for a coming back to reason and observation in *all* fields, not just on God and health. Bruno 2014-07-09 22:12 GMT+02:00, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: I apologize for taking a new title for this over-discussed topic. Somebody (sounds like Bruno, the fonts look like Brent) wrote: ...let us do theology seriously instead of referring to fairy tales. You confirm what I said to John Clark. *Atheist* defend the God of the bible. Read Plotinus, forget the bible, unless you find some passage you like and which inspire you, but that is private, don't make that public. I refer to the generality about 'atheists' in the passage. I emphasize that I am no atheist in such a sense who IMO requires 'a god to deny' (my vocabulary includes the term as 'denying' instead of 'defending'). I simply exclude those facets which are beyond our reach at present. In speaking about Everything I think of an infinite complexity of components we cannot even understand (today) - nor the relations between them ALL. We include SOME into our 'model of the world' as of yesterday without knowing if we are right. In such sense even a (sane-minded) adilt can be an 'atheist'. John M -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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,
Re: Atheist
Therefor... my dear friends atheists, agnostics and deists The salvation vessel of monistic materialism, the theories of everything that predict infinite many universes with infinite physical laws, either arithmetical or mathemathical, are compatible with any metaphisical or theological position: metaphysical dualism, monotheism, politheism etc in a sense these theories not only give zero information in physical terms but also in metaphysical terms. So we can say that they are perfect non-theories. 2014-07-17 19:07 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Why I have to claim that? I claim that any monistic (scientific) theory that predict infinite many universes predict also infinite many minds with infinite many degrees of knowledge and mastering over their realities and the realities that they may create, that, assuming monistic materialism, can contain also other subordinate minds. Because we do not know our position in the hierarchy etc etc etc etc 2014-07-17 18:16 GMT+02:00, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: You cannot now claim, baring evidence, that we can change reality, even here on planet Earth, in a cogent way. It's like somebody falling off Mt. Evidence, in which we can have an opinion about our dilemma, but reversing gravity or dreaming up a parachute to use during our fall is not part of the world we all must live in. Give 10,000 years of future technology, and human survival, maybe then. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 12:02 pm Subject: Re: Atheist 2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. I really don't know what theories you refer too. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. In certain sense materialism has given up without being conscious of it. That is because its foundation is metaphysical and metaphysics has experimented a regression to the stone age, or at least to the level previous to the greek phylosophy. That has begun since theology has been banished from academy, and replaced by a social sort of authorianism
Re: Atheist
On 17 Jul 2014, at 20:24, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:25 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist On 17 Jul 2014, at 10:33, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:20 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist Salman Rushdie wrote: religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable language of respect. What is there to respect in any of this, or in any of the crimes now being committed almost daily around the world in religion's dreaded name? It is the liberal consensus that we should always respect all religious beliefs regardless of how stupid or cruel it is; for example tune into just about any international news broadcast and you will probably see at least one story about religious violence somewhere in the world, but the media won't call it that, the media will call it sectarian violence. As for me I think there is a point beyond which a euphemism becomes a lie. John K Clark I would describe it as a societal paradigm... this unspoken rule that all should respect religion. It dominates both the political right as well as the left. I think it is more the general and positive idea of respecting the others. But sometimes people forget that this rule is limited to those who respect you. If you respect those who does not respect you, you lose dignity and eventually life. Well sure... life is more pleasant when people have a live and let live attitude. As you point out respect needs mutuality. Respecting an institution that does not respect anyone that does not adopt their dogma is a one way flow of respect that leads to a distorted situation. Religion - for the most part - does not respect anything that is not in accordance with its dogma, therefore it should not expect to be respected. You mean institutionalized religion, I guess. I prefer to distinguish religion, which concerns the realtion between machine and transcendent truth, and their local contingent institutionalization, which in the comp religion are provably necessarily betraying religion. It is a theorem of sort: religion (if comp is true) is just not institutionalizable, at least in the sense of asserting truth/ false, or good/evil, etc. people can met and dance and do many religious things if they want to, but it is more like singing, dancing, taking drugs, or whatever. It is not normative neither in the beliefs, nor in the actions. Religion is a useful tool to power structures (when it is not the power structure itself); I agree, alas. I would say that it is in the nature of religion to easily be confused with the 3p structure which might try to represent it. That is why the basic of the mystics is negative, they often say only: no it is not this, nor that, neither this nor ... Neoplatonist theologies reflects this in being negative theologies. But that's the fate of anything near a Protagorean virtue. Not just the Churches, also the Trade Unions, for a different example. The very goal of the Trade Unions is morally positive, as it defends the employees on possible employer abuses. But an old Trade Union can become a machine defending the interest of the Trade Unioners only, up to the point as being a problem for both the employer and the employees. The same for money. At first it makes it possible to share the products of works, and speculate about the futures, but then it can be used for its own sake, perverting its distribution and speculation role. Fake or lies based powers quickly speculate only on how long they can lie. In no case should we throw the baby with the bath water. All positive thing which are related to a protagorean virtues are on the risk, when implemented, to be perverted by its name or social representation. I agree all human institutions become captured eventually by small classes of people who rig the system - any system -- to favor their own. Once the cockroaches manage to worm their way into power within any institution it is almost impossible to rid the institution of their influence. OK. religion serves the interests of central authority. Emperor Constantine and the Roman imperial elites of the time have as much (or more perhaps some argue) than any mythical prophet, to do with the evolution of a loose set of scattered stories into an organized imperial state religion united under the crucifix (and conveniently the emperor as well). When a religion is institutionalized
Re: Atheist
On 18 Jul 2014, at 11:52, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Therefor... my dear friends atheists, agnostics and deists The salvation vessel of monistic materialism, the theories of everything that predict infinite many universes with infinite physical laws, either arithmetical or mathemathical, are compatible with any metaphisical or theological position: metaphysical dualism, monotheism, politheism etc in a sense these theories not only give zero information in physical terms but also in metaphysical terms. So we can say that they are perfect non-theories. ? The question is: do you think possible that brains and bodies obeys computable laws? If not, what is your theory of mind? If yes, then, the point I make is that there is no other alternatives than to derive the physical laws from specific glueing conditions on our computationally accessible consistent extensions. Contrary to what you say, this leads to a precise theory of mind, including a theory of observable, which leads to experimentally testable predications. You seem to not have studied neither UDA, nor AUDA. Both are develop here, http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html or here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2013.03.014 and Kim sent to the list a typo and english corrected version of that last publication. Ask any question if you have any difficulty. I am aware that it can be hard to understand for people who believes religiously in a primitive physical universe, or in the Aristotelian notion of primary matter. Thousands and thousands of excellent publication on cannabis seems to take time to help people to understand that the big danger of the cannabis was propaganda. For the consequence of comp, we face worst, both 1500 years of propaganda, and millions of years of implicit programming by nature and the survival goal. So take it easy. I am not proposing a new theory. I just show that two basic principles are incompatible: mechanism and materialism (UDA), and that we can already interview (in a quite literal sense) machines about this. Bruno 2014-07-17 19:07 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Why I have to claim that? I claim that any monistic (scientific) theory that predict infinite many universes predict also infinite many minds with infinite many degrees of knowledge and mastering over their realities and the realities that they may create, that, assuming monistic materialism, can contain also other subordinate minds. Because we do not know our position in the hierarchy etc etc etc etc 2014-07-17 18:16 GMT+02:00, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: You cannot now claim, baring evidence, that we can change reality, even here on planet Earth, in a cogent way. It's like somebody falling off Mt. Evidence, in which we can have an opinion about our dilemma, but reversing gravity or dreaming up a parachute to use during our fall is not part of the world we all must live in. Give 10,000 years of future technology, and human survival, maybe then. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 12:02 pm Subject: Re: Atheist 2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. I really don't know what theories you refer too. Any
Re: Atheist
What is the point in the last paragraphs written by me in which you do not agree?. 2014-07-18 18:57 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 18 Jul 2014, at 11:52, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Therefor... my dear friends atheists, agnostics and deists The salvation vessel of monistic materialism, the theories of everything that predict infinite many universes with infinite physical laws, either arithmetical or mathemathical, are compatible with any metaphisical or theological position: metaphysical dualism, monotheism, politheism etc in a sense these theories not only give zero information in physical terms but also in metaphysical terms. So we can say that they are perfect non-theories. ? The question is: do you think possible that brains and bodies obeys computable laws? If not, what is your theory of mind? If yes, then, the point I make is that there is no other alternatives than to derive the physical laws from specific glueing conditions on our computationally accessible consistent extensions. Contrary to what you say, this leads to a precise theory of mind, including a theory of observable, which leads to experimentally testable predications. You seem to not have studied neither UDA, nor AUDA. Both are develop here, http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html or here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2013.03.014 and Kim sent to the list a typo and english corrected version of that last publication. Ask any question if you have any difficulty. I am aware that it can be hard to understand for people who believes religiously in a primitive physical universe, or in the Aristotelian notion of primary matter. Thousands and thousands of excellent publication on cannabis seems to take time to help people to understand that the big danger of the cannabis was propaganda. For the consequence of comp, we face worst, both 1500 years of propaganda, and millions of years of implicit programming by nature and the survival goal. So take it easy. I am not proposing a new theory. I just show that two basic principles are incompatible: mechanism and materialism (UDA), and that we can already interview (in a quite literal sense) machines about this. Bruno 2014-07-17 19:07 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Why I have to claim that? I claim that any monistic (scientific) theory that predict infinite many universes predict also infinite many minds with infinite many degrees of knowledge and mastering over their realities and the realities that they may create, that, assuming monistic materialism, can contain also other subordinate minds. Because we do not know our position in the hierarchy etc etc etc etc 2014-07-17 18:16 GMT+02:00, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: You cannot now claim, baring evidence, that we can change reality, even here on planet Earth, in a cogent way. It's like somebody falling off Mt. Evidence, in which we can have an opinion about our dilemma, but reversing gravity or dreaming up a parachute to use during our fall is not part of the world we all must live in. Give 10,000 years of future technology, and human survival, maybe then. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 12:02 pm Subject: Re: Atheist 2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic
Re: Atheist
etc etc etc etc 2014-07-17 18:16 GMT+02:00, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: You cannot now claim, baring evidence, that we can change reality, even here on planet Earth, in a cogent way. It's like somebody falling off Mt. Evidence, in which we can have an opinion about our dilemma, but reversing gravity or dreaming up a parachute to use during our fall is not part of the world we all must live in. Give 10,000 years of future technology, and human survival, maybe then. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 12:02 pm Subject: Re: Atheist 2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. I really don't know what theories you refer too. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. In certain sense materialism has given up without being conscious of it. That is because its foundation is metaphysical and metaphysics has experimented a regression to the stone age, or at least to the level previous to the greek phylosophy. That has begun since theology has been banished from academy, and replaced by a social sort of authorianism. It is normal for those wanting power to take over on the fundamental theories. It is bad and sad, but natural and usual. That's why we must be vigilant, and fight for a coming back to reason and observation in *all* fields, not just on God and health. Bruno 2014-07-09 22:12 GMT+02:00, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: I apologize for taking a new title for this over-discussed topic. Somebody (sounds like Bruno, the fonts look like Brent) wrote: ...let us do theology seriously instead of referring to fairy tales. You confirm what I said to John Clark. *Atheist* defend the God of the bible. Read Plotinus, forget the bible, unless you find some passage you like and which inspire you, but that is private, don't make that public. I refer to the generality about 'atheists' in the passage. I emphasize that I am no atheist in such a sense who IMO requires 'a god to deny' (my vocabulary includes the term as 'denying' instead of 'defending'). I simply exclude
Re: Atheist
infinite many universes with infinite physical laws, either arithmetical or mathemathical, are compatible with any metaphisical or theological position: metaphysical dualism, monotheism, politheism etc in a sense these theories not only give zero information in physical terms but also in metaphysical terms. So we can say that they are perfect non-theories. 2014-07-17 19:07 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Why I have to claim that? I claim that any monistic (scientific) theory that predict infinite many universes predict also infinite many minds with infinite many degrees of knowledge and mastering over their realities and the realities that they may create, that, assuming monistic materialism, can contain also other subordinate minds. Because we do not know our position in the hierarchy etc etc etc etc 2014-07-17 18:16 GMT+02:00, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: You cannot now claim, baring evidence, that we can change reality, even here on planet Earth, in a cogent way. It's like somebody falling off Mt. Evidence, in which we can have an opinion about our dilemma, but reversing gravity or dreaming up a parachute to use during our fall is not part of the world we all must live in. Give 10,000 years of future technology, and human survival, maybe then. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 12:02 pm Subject: Re: Atheist 2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. I really don't know what theories you refer too. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. In certain sense materialism has given up without being conscious of it. That is because its foundation is metaphysical and metaphysics has experimented a regression to the stone age, or at least to the level previous to the greek phylosophy. That has begun since theology has been banished from academy, and replaced by a social sort of authorianism. It is normal for those wanting
Re: Atheist
. The latter seems the non-path of modernity. And you and your people for sure will vanish under people that DO have a path in life, that follows a leader. Alternatively, you can follow a earthy leader. That is very dangerous, as you know if you read history books. Almost as dangerous and destructive as not following anyone at all and vanish after doing nothing in life. Christ is the best option. More on that sometime later 2014-07-18 11:52 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Therefor... my dear friends atheists, agnostics and deists The salvation vessel of monistic materialism, the theories of everything that predict infinite many universes with infinite physical laws, either arithmetical or mathemathical, are compatible with any metaphisical or theological position: metaphysical dualism, monotheism, politheism etc in a sense these theories not only give zero information in physical terms but also in metaphysical terms. So we can say that they are perfect non-theories. 2014-07-17 19:07 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Why I have to claim that? I claim that any monistic (scientific) theory that predict infinite many universes predict also infinite many minds with infinite many degrees of knowledge and mastering over their realities and the realities that they may create, that, assuming monistic materialism, can contain also other subordinate minds. Because we do not know our position in the hierarchy etc etc etc etc 2014-07-17 18:16 GMT+02:00, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: You cannot now claim, baring evidence, that we can change reality, even here on planet Earth, in a cogent way. It's like somebody falling off Mt. Evidence, in which we can have an opinion about our dilemma, but reversing gravity or dreaming up a parachute to use during our fall is not part of the world we all must live in. Give 10,000 years of future technology, and human survival, maybe then. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 12:02 pm Subject: Re: Atheist 2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. I really don't know what theories you refer too. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under
Re: Atheist
On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. I really don't know what theories you refer too. In certain sense materialism has given up without being conscious of it. That is because its foundation is metaphysical and metaphysics has experimented a regression to the stone age, or at least to the level previous to the greek phylosophy. That has begun since theology has been banished from academy, and replaced by a social sort of authorianism. It is normal for those wanting power to take over on the fundamental theories. It is bad and sad, but natural and usual. That's why we must be vigilant, and fight for a coming back to reason and observation in *all* fields, not just on God and health. Bruno 2014-07-09 22:12 GMT+02:00, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: I apologize for taking a new title for this over-discussed topic. Somebody (sounds like Bruno, the fonts look like Brent) wrote: ...let us do theology seriously instead of referring to fairy tales. You confirm what I said to John Clark. *Atheist* defend the God of the bible. Read Plotinus, forget the bible, unless you find some passage you like and which inspire you, but that is private, don't make that public. I refer to the generality about 'atheists' in the passage. I emphasize that I am no atheist in such a sense who IMO requires 'a god to deny' (my vocabulary includes the term as 'denying' instead of 'defending'). I simply exclude those facets which are beyond our reach at present. In speaking about Everything I think of an infinite complexity of components we cannot even understand (today) - nor the relations between them ALL. We include SOME into our 'model of the world' as of yesterday without knowing if we are right. In such sense even a (sane-minded) adilt can be an 'atheist'. John M -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Atheist
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:20 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist Salman Rushdie wrote: religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable language of respect. What is there to respect in any of this, or in any of the crimes now being committed almost daily around the world in religion's dreaded name? It is the liberal consensus that we should always respect all religious beliefs regardless of how stupid or cruel it is; for example tune into just about any international news broadcast and you will probably see at least one story about religious violence somewhere in the world, but the media won't call it that, the media will call it sectarian violence. As for me I think there is a point beyond which a euphemism becomes a lie. John K Clark I would describe it as a societal paradigm… this unspoken rule that all should respect religion. It dominates both the political right as well as the left. Religion is a useful tool to power structures (when it is not the power structure itself); religion serves the interests of central authority. Emperor Constantine and the Roman imperial elites of the time have as much (or more perhaps some argue) than any mythical prophet, to do with the evolution of a loose set of scattered stories into an organized imperial state religion united under the crucifix (and conveniently the emperor as well). You would probably describe me as being liberal, but I certainly do not ascribe to any dictum that I respect the institution of or practice of religion. Quite frankly I do not. Especially organized religion, which is a lot like organized crime IMO, sharing with it many of the same characteristics and practices. A few examples of some shared characteristics: murdering (or shunning) those who attempt to leave; murdering (or marginalizing) the competition (very mob like behavior); demanding protection money from those under its control – the tithes to the church are they really that different from protection money to the local gang boss. I could go on, the ways in which religion and organized crime operate is quite numerous. Chris -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
Both the right and left? Naw! The Left respects useful tools practicing religion for the cause. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, are the most prominent and successful, for the 'cause.' The cause is ideological, a faith movement, sans, religion. as such. Is religion bloodthirsty? For sure. Worldwide, its generally not Christians or Hindus starting the wars. It may simply be a 'phase' like the Jesus people from 325 AD thru 1914? Perhaps, the Jihad will mellow out soon? The primo motivation for the slaughters done by Christians, and now done by Islamists, is the afterlife thing. Until we come up with that, somehow, the fun will continue. I would describe it as a societal paradigm… this unspoken rule that all should respect religion. It dominates both the political right as well as the left. -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 4:33 am Subject: RE: Atheist From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:20 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist Salman Rushdie wrote: religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable language of respect. What is there to respect in any of this, or in any of the crimes now being committed almost daily around the world in religion's dreaded name? It is the liberal consensus that we should always respect all religious beliefs regardless of how stupid or cruel it is; for example tune into just about any international news broadcast and you will probably see at least one story about religious violence somewhere in the world, but the media won't call it that, the media will call it sectarian violence. As for me I think there is a point beyond which a euphemism becomes a lie. John K Clark I would describe it as a societal paradigm… this unspoken rule that all should respect religion. It dominates both the political right as well as the left. Religion is a useful tool to power structures (when it is not the power structure itself); religion serves the interests of central authority. Emperor Constantine and the Roman imperial elites of the time have as much (or more perhaps some argue) than any mythical prophet, to do with the evolution of a loose set of scattered stories into an organized imperial state religion united under the crucifix (and conveniently the emperor as well). You would probably describe me as being liberal, but I certainly do not ascribe to any dictum that I respect the institution of or practice of religion. Quite frankly I do not. Especially organized religion, which is a lot like organized crime IMO, sharing with it many of the same characteristics and practices. A few examples of some shared characteristics: murdering (or shunning) those who attempt to leave; murdering (or marginalizing) the competition (very mob like behavior); demanding protection money from those under its control – the tithes to the church are they really that different from protection money to the local gang boss. I could go on, the ways in which religion and organized crime operate is quite numerous. Chris -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 16 Jul 2014, at 19:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-16 19:22 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 15 Jul 2014, at 22:14, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-15 22:10 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 17:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should
you believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail
that you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or
hallucinating.
That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or
not believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ?
Just to clear things up, I use the common part of all analytical
definition of belief theory and knowledge theory, and in
particular (knowing p) - (believing p).
If you know that there is milk in the fridge, you believe that
there is milk in the fridge.
The key difference is that the reciprocal is false. If you believe
there is milk in the fridge , you can still not know it.
Well I can accept such language in mathematics where you make clear
what is meant, not in every day use when someone says he
*believes* in god,
I use believe in the same mundane sense that I believe that there
is orange juice in the fridge,
I believe in *god* is not like I believe there is orange juice in
the fridge.
What is the difference?
and later like in I believe in the axiom of elementary arithmetic
and in its first order logical consequence, or in I don't believe
the machine k will stop on the input j.
that's not what he meant... That's what I don't like in your
approach to insist using everyday word in everyday language *but*
with your own mathematical meaning. It's misleading you should see
it.
I use belief in the doxastic sense of the analytical philosophers.
Iuse belief in the sense of Theaetetus, Gerson, etc.
You use those words in a misleading way... You do what you want of
course... but you're clearly totally misunderstood when you talk to
a believer.
I am probably misunderstood by the blind-faith type of believers,
like the strong atheists I met from time to time (like John Clark to
give the nearest example). But as John Clark illustrates very well,
they need a high dose of irrationalism, and as my works has
illustrated, changing the vocabulary does not help.
In interdisciplinary work, my strategy consists in using the terms on
which each each discipline has the greatest consensus over. I am aware
that this cannot satisfy everybody, but then in science we don't waste
time in vocabulary discussion. If something is unclear about the use
of some term, we just ask to remind the current used definition.
Bruno
Quentin
Bruno
Quentin
Bruno
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but
because it fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see
the set {0, 1, 2, ...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt
that it makes sense, as it explains a lot of other things in which
I already tend to believe (like the non existence of a bigger
prime, or the existence of universal numbers, the real numbers,
etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.
This would also include political science, arts, gender
studies, french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and
make what doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be
learned as a podcast?Sauce for the goose, sauce for
the gander. Dump them all. Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature.
I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-
list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at
Re: Atheist
2014-07-17 17:04 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 16 Jul 2014, at 19:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-16 19:22 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 15 Jul 2014, at 22:14, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-15 22:10 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 17:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should you
believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that
you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating.
That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not
believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ?
Just to clear things up, I use the common part of all analytical
definition of belief theory and knowledge theory, and in particular
(knowing p) - (believing p).
If you know that there is milk in the fridge, you believe that there is
milk in the fridge.
The key difference is that the reciprocal is false. If you believe there
is milk in the fridge , you can still not know it.
Well I can accept such language in mathematics where you make clear what
is meant, not in every day use when someone says he *believes* in god,
I use believe in the same mundane sense that I believe that there is
orange juice in the fridge,
I believe in *god* is not like I believe there is orange juice in the
fridge.
What is the difference?
It imply faith, dogma. It imply an ontology about the world, the reality.
and later like in I believe in the axiom of elementary arithmetic and in
its first order logical consequence, or in I don't believe the machine k
will stop on the input j.
that's not what he meant... That's what I don't like in your approach to
insist using everyday word in everyday language *but* with your own
mathematical meaning. It's misleading you should see it.
I use belief in the doxastic sense of the analytical philosophers. Iuse
belief in the sense of Theaetetus, Gerson, etc.
You use those words in a misleading way... You do what you want of
course... but you're clearly totally misunderstood when you talk to a
believer.
I am probably misunderstood by the blind-faith type of believers,
That means 99% of the persons who say openly they believe in god.
like the strong atheists
I've never met such kind of atheist.
I met from time to time (like John Clark to give the nearest example).
He surely doesn't believe in abrahamic god... And I quite agree that using
that word for first cause type of explanation is bound to be misunderstood.
God has too much history to be used in the sense you use it.
Quentin
But as John Clark illustrates very well, they need a high dose of
irrationalism, and as my works has illustrated, changing the vocabulary
does not help.
In interdisciplinary work, my strategy consists in using the terms on
which each each discipline has the greatest consensus over. I am aware that
this cannot satisfy everybody, but then in science we don't waste time in
vocabulary discussion. If something is unclear about the use of some term,
we just ask to remind the current used definition.
Bruno
Quentin
Bruno
Quentin
Bruno
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but because
it fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see the set {0, 1, 2,
...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt that it makes sense, as it
explains a lot of other things in which I already tend to believe (like the
non existence of a bigger prime, or the existence of universal numbers, the
real numbers, etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
*So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.*
This would also include political science, arts, gender studies,
french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't
build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce
for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've
run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at
Re: Atheist
This illustrated video might be of interest:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151781219163852
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
2014-07-17 17:04 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 16 Jul 2014, at 19:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-16 19:22 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 15 Jul 2014, at 22:14, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-15 22:10 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 17:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should you
believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that
you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating.
That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not
believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ?
Just to clear things up, I use the common part of all analytical
definition of belief theory and knowledge theory, and in particular
(knowing p) - (believing p).
If you know that there is milk in the fridge, you believe that there is
milk in the fridge.
The key difference is that the reciprocal is false. If you believe
there is milk in the fridge , you can still not know it.
Well I can accept such language in mathematics where you make clear what
is meant, not in every day use when someone says he *believes* in god,
I use believe in the same mundane sense that I believe that there is
orange juice in the fridge,
I believe in *god* is not like I believe there is orange juice in the
fridge.
What is the difference?
It imply faith, dogma. It imply an ontology about the world, the reality.
and later like in I believe in the axiom of elementary arithmetic and in
its first order logical consequence, or in I don't believe the machine k
will stop on the input j.
that's not what he meant... That's what I don't like in your approach to
insist using everyday word in everyday language *but* with your own
mathematical meaning. It's misleading you should see it.
I use belief in the doxastic sense of the analytical philosophers.
Iuse belief in the sense of Theaetetus, Gerson, etc.
You use those words in a misleading way... You do what you want of
course... but you're clearly totally misunderstood when you talk to a
believer.
I am probably misunderstood by the blind-faith type of believers,
That means 99% of the persons who say openly they believe in god.
like the strong atheists
I've never met such kind of atheist.
I met from time to time (like John Clark to give the nearest example).
He surely doesn't believe in abrahamic god... And I quite agree that using
that word for first cause type of explanation is bound to be misunderstood.
God has too much history to be used in the sense you use it.
Quentin
But as John Clark illustrates very well, they need a high dose of
irrationalism, and as my works has illustrated, changing the vocabulary
does not help.
In interdisciplinary work, my strategy consists in using the terms on
which each each discipline has the greatest consensus over. I am aware that
this cannot satisfy everybody, but then in science we don't waste time in
vocabulary discussion. If something is unclear about the use of some term,
we just ask to remind the current used definition.
Bruno
Quentin
Bruno
Quentin
Bruno
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but because
it fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see the set {0, 1, 2,
...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt that it makes sense, as it
explains a lot of other things in which I already tend to believe (like
the
non existence of a bigger prime, or the existence of universal numbers,
the
real numbers, etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
*So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.*
This would also include political science, arts, gender studies,
french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't
build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce
for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've
run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
Re: Atheist
2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. I really don't know what theories you refer too. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. In certain sense materialism has given up without being conscious of it. That is because its foundation is metaphysical and metaphysics has experimented a regression to the stone age, or at least to the level previous to the greek phylosophy. That has begun since theology has been banished from academy, and replaced by a social sort of authorianism. It is normal for those wanting power to take over on the fundamental theories. It is bad and sad, but natural and usual. That's why we must be vigilant, and fight for a coming back to reason and observation in *all* fields, not just on God and health. Bruno 2014-07-09 22:12 GMT+02:00, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: I apologize for taking a new title for this over-discussed topic. Somebody (sounds like Bruno, the fonts look like Brent) wrote: ...let us do theology seriously instead of referring to fairy tales. You confirm what I said to John Clark. *Atheist* defend the God of the bible. Read Plotinus, forget the bible, unless you find some passage you like and which inspire you, but that is private, don't make that public. I refer to the generality about 'atheists' in the passage. I emphasize that I am no atheist in such a sense who IMO requires 'a god to deny' (my vocabulary includes the term as 'denying' instead of 'defending'). I simply exclude those facets which are beyond our reach at present. In speaking about Everything I think of an infinite complexity of components we cannot even understand (today) - nor the relations between them ALL. We include SOME into our 'model of the world' as of yesterday without knowing if we are right. In such sense even a (sane-minded) adilt can be an 'atheist'. John M -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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
Re: Atheist
You cannot now claim, baring evidence, that we can change reality, even here on planet Earth, in a cogent way. It's like somebody falling off Mt. Evidence, in which we can have an opinion about our dilemma, but reversing gravity or dreaming up a parachute to use during our fall is not part of the world we all must live in. Give 10,000 years of future technology, and human survival, maybe then. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 12:02 pm Subject: Re: Atheist 2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. I really don't know what theories you refer too. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. In certain sense materialism has given up without being conscious of it. That is because its foundation is metaphysical and metaphysics has experimented a regression to the stone age, or at least to the level previous to the greek phylosophy. That has begun since theology has been banished from academy, and replaced by a social sort of authorianism. It is normal for those wanting power to take over on the fundamental theories. It is bad and sad, but natural and usual. That's why we must be vigilant, and fight for a coming back to reason and observation in *all* fields, not just on God and health. Bruno 2014-07-09 22:12 GMT+02:00, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: I apologize for taking a new title for this over-discussed topic. Somebody (sounds like Bruno, the fonts look like Brent) wrote: ...let us do theology seriously instead of referring to fairy tales. You confirm what I said to John Clark. *Atheist* defend the God of the bible. Read Plotinus, forget the bible, unless you find some passage you like and which inspire you, but that is private, don't make that public. I refer to the generality about 'atheists' in the passage. I emphasize that I am no atheist in such a sense who IMO requires 'a god to deny' (my vocabulary includes the term as 'denying' instead of 'defending'). I simply exclude those facets which are beyond our reach at present. In speaking about Everything I think of an infinite complexity of components we cannot even understand
Re: Atheist
On 17 Jul 2014, at 10:33, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:20 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist Salman Rushdie wrote: religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable language of respect. What is there to respect in any of this, or in any of the crimes now being committed almost daily around the world in religion's dreaded name? It is the liberal consensus that we should always respect all religious beliefs regardless of how stupid or cruel it is; for example tune into just about any international news broadcast and you will probably see at least one story about religious violence somewhere in the world, but the media won't call it that, the media will call it sectarian violence. As for me I think there is a point beyond which a euphemism becomes a lie. John K Clark I would describe it as a societal paradigm... this unspoken rule that all should respect religion. It dominates both the political right as well as the left. I think it is more the general and positive idea of respecting the others. But sometimes people forget that this rule is limited to those who respect you. If you respect those who does not respect you, you lose dignity and eventually life. Religion is a useful tool to power structures (when it is not the power structure itself); I agree, alas. I would say that it is in the nature of religion to easily be confused with the 3p structure which might try to represent it. That is why the basic of the mystics is negative, they often say only: no it is not this, nor that, neither this nor ... Neoplatonist theologies reflects this in being negative theologies. But that's the fate of anything near a Protagorean virtue. Not just the Churches, also the Trade Unions, for a different example. The very goal of the Trade Unions is morally positive, as it defends the employees on possible employer abuses. But an old Trade Union can become a machine defending the interest of the Trade Unioners only, up to the point as being a problem for both the employer and the employees. The same for money. At first it makes it possible to share the products of works, and speculate about the futures, but then it can be used for its own sake, perverting its distribution and speculation role. Fake or lies based powers quickly speculate only on how long they can lie. In no case should we throw the baby with the bath water. All positive thing which are related to a protagorean virtues are on the risk, when implemented, to be perverted by its name or social representation. religion serves the interests of central authority. Emperor Constantine and the Roman imperial elites of the time have as much (or more perhaps some argue) than any mythical prophet, to do with the evolution of a loose set of scattered stories into an organized imperial state religion united under the crucifix (and conveniently the emperor as well). When a religion is institutionalized at the level of the state; not only politics will get inconsistent and authorianists, but the religion itself will become a mockery of itself. Also, at such a level (an Empire), it can take *many* centuries to recover. You would probably describe me as being liberal, but I certainly do not ascribe to any dictum that I respect the institution of or practice of religion. Quite frankly I do not. Especially organized religion, which is a lot like organized crime IMO, sharing with it many of the same characteristics and practices. I agree 100%. This makes me only anticlerical, though. Not against religion. (Nor religious communities, nor even religious state/ country, as religion can be taught through example. But it cannot be installed by force, nor even by votes. In fact religion like science can develop through practice, research, and exemplary behaviors (yet never named as such). A few examples of some shared characteristics: murdering (or shunning) those who attempt to leave; murdering (or marginalizing) the competition (very mob like behavior); demanding protection money from those under its control - the tithes to the church are they really that different from protection money to the local gang boss. I could go on, the ways in which religion and organized crime operate is quite numerous. Totally agree. But the culprit is not the religion, nor money, nor the trade union, etc. the culprit is in the humans, who for special short term interest pervert the original thing. A bit like in a cancer, the culprit is not the blood cells which feed the tumor, but the cancerous cell which perverts the sanguine
Re: Atheist
Why I have to claim that? I claim that any monistic (scientific) theory that predict infinite many universes predict also infinite many minds with infinite many degrees of knowledge and mastering over their realities and the realities that they may create, that, assuming monistic materialism, can contain also other subordinate minds. Because we do not know our position in the hierarchy etc etc etc etc 2014-07-17 18:16 GMT+02:00, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: You cannot now claim, baring evidence, that we can change reality, even here on planet Earth, in a cogent way. It's like somebody falling off Mt. Evidence, in which we can have an opinion about our dilemma, but reversing gravity or dreaming up a parachute to use during our fall is not part of the world we all must live in. Give 10,000 years of future technology, and human survival, maybe then. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 12:02 pm Subject: Re: Atheist 2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. I really don't know what theories you refer too. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. In certain sense materialism has given up without being conscious of it. That is because its foundation is metaphysical and metaphysics has experimented a regression to the stone age, or at least to the level previous to the greek phylosophy. That has begun since theology has been banished from academy, and replaced by a social sort of authorianism. It is normal for those wanting power to take over on the fundamental theories. It is bad and sad, but natural and usual. That's why we must be vigilant, and fight for a coming back to reason and observation in *all* fields, not just on God and health. Bruno 2014-07-09 22:12 GMT+02:00, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: I apologize for taking a new title for this over-discussed topic. Somebody (sounds like Bruno, the fonts look like Brent) wrote: ...let us do theology seriously instead of referring to fairy tales. You confirm what I said to John Clark. *Atheist* defend the God
Re: Atheist
On 17 Jul 2014, at 17:09, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-07-17 17:04 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 16 Jul 2014, at 19:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-07-16 19:22 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 15 Jul 2014, at 22:14, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-07-15 22:10 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 14 Jul 2014, at 17:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com: Why do you need to see God to believe in God? Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should you believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ? Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating. That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ? Just to clear things up, I use the common part of all analytical definition of belief theory and knowledge theory, and in particular (knowing p) - (believing p). If you know that there is milk in the fridge, you believe that there is milk in the fridge. The key difference is that the reciprocal is false. If you believe there is milk in the fridge , you can still not know it. Well I can accept such language in mathematics where you make clear what is meant, not in every day use when someone says he *believes* in god, I use believe in the same mundane sense that I believe that there is orange juice in the fridge, I believe in *god* is not like I believe there is orange juice in the fridge. What is the difference? It imply faith, dogma. It imply an ontology about the world, the reality. Only by humans who use authorianism. But we agree at the start that they are not doing science. I use the term god and theology in the sense of wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology I use atheism in the narrower sense defined in the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism And frankly most people I know and claim to be atheist uses it in the narrower sense. In fact, on the rubric agnosticism, my use of the vocabulary matches the one by William L Rowe (that I did not read): According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas atheist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2] in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism and later like in I believe in the axiom of elementary arithmetic and in its first order logical consequence, or in I don't believe the machine k will stop on the input j. that's not what he meant... That's what I don't like in your approach to insist using everyday word in everyday language *but* with your own mathematical meaning. It's misleading you should see it. I use belief in the doxastic sense of the analytical philosophers. Iuse belief in the sense of Theaetetus, Gerson, etc. You use those words in a misleading way... You do what you want of course... but you're clearly totally misunderstood when you talk to a believer. I am probably misunderstood by the blind-faith type of believers, That means 99% of the persons who say openly they believe in god. Then why the tea pot argument, and why qualifying, and re- appropriating the 'agnostic as coward atheist, like some atheists wrote in some books? I will look for one. If you believe that all atheists are not strong atheists, then you believe that all atheists are agnostic, and the term atheism lost a lot of its meaning. Here too, most people, including many atheists around me, do agree that atheism is []~g, and agnosticism is ~[]g. We are taken back in an old vocabulary issue (which is a non stopping thread even on wikipedia). like the strong atheists I've never met such kind of atheist. Onfray wrote a treatise of atheology, which was a success, and he wrote (I remember, but don't find my exemplary for now) that agnosticism is coward atheism (that is people who would pretend ~[]g, for being polite, but who would think in their heart that []~g), and if you have been to ULB, and did not meet a strong atheist (using the narrower sense described in the wiki, and justified in the whole rubric) then you are incredibly lucky. I will not cite name here. I met from time to time (like John Clark to give the nearest example). He surely doesn't believe in abrahamic god... From what I understood, he *believes* in the non existence of the abrahamic god. He *believes* it is a contradictory notion. Actually John Clark asserted more than once that he believes that notion like God (not just the abramanic one), nor free will could make *any* sense. And I quite
RE: Atheist
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:25 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist On 17 Jul 2014, at 10:33, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:20 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist Salman Rushdie wrote: religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable language of respect. What is there to respect in any of this, or in any of the crimes now being committed almost daily around the world in religion's dreaded name? It is the liberal consensus that we should always respect all religious beliefs regardless of how stupid or cruel it is; for example tune into just about any international news broadcast and you will probably see at least one story about religious violence somewhere in the world, but the media won't call it that, the media will call it sectarian violence. As for me I think there is a point beyond which a euphemism becomes a lie. John K Clark I would describe it as a societal paradigm. this unspoken rule that all should respect religion. It dominates both the political right as well as the left. I think it is more the general and positive idea of respecting the others. But sometimes people forget that this rule is limited to those who respect you. If you respect those who does not respect you, you lose dignity and eventually life. Well sure. life is more pleasant when people have a live and let live attitude. As you point out respect needs mutuality. Respecting an institution that does not respect anyone that does not adopt their dogma is a one way flow of respect that leads to a distorted situation. Religion - for the most part - does not respect anything that is not in accordance with its dogma, therefore it should not expect to be respected. Religion is a useful tool to power structures (when it is not the power structure itself); I agree, alas. I would say that it is in the nature of religion to easily be confused with the 3p structure which might try to represent it. That is why the basic of the mystics is negative, they often say only: no it is not this, nor that, neither this nor ... Neoplatonist theologies reflects this in being negative theologies. But that's the fate of anything near a Protagorean virtue. Not just the Churches, also the Trade Unions, for a different example. The very goal of the Trade Unions is morally positive, as it defends the employees on possible employer abuses. But an old Trade Union can become a machine defending the interest of the Trade Unioners only, up to the point as being a problem for both the employer and the employees. The same for money. At first it makes it possible to share the products of works, and speculate about the futures, but then it can be used for its own sake, perverting its distribution and speculation role. Fake or lies based powers quickly speculate only on how long they can lie. In no case should we throw the baby with the bath water. All positive thing which are related to a protagorean virtues are on the risk, when implemented, to be perverted by its name or social representation. I agree all human institutions become captured eventually by small classes of people who rig the system - any system -- to favor their own. Once the cockroaches manage to worm their way into power within any institution it is almost impossible to rid the institution of their influence. religion serves the interests of central authority. Emperor Constantine and the Roman imperial elites of the time have as much (or more perhaps some argue) than any mythical prophet, to do with the evolution of a loose set of scattered stories into an organized imperial state religion united under the crucifix (and conveniently the emperor as well). When a religion is institutionalized at the level of the state; not only politics will get inconsistent and authorianists, but the religion itself will become a mockery of itself. Also, at such a level (an Empire), it can take *many* centuries to recover. All insitutions become means for enforcing an uneven playing field for the benefit of a favored elite class. You would probably describe me as being liberal, but I certainly do not ascribe to any dictum that I respect the institution of or practice of religion. Quite frankly I do not. Especially organized religion, which is a lot like organized crime IMO, sharing with it many of the same characteristics and practices. I agree 100%. This makes me only anticlerical, though. Not against religion. (Nor religious communities, nor even religious state/country
Re: Atheist
Dear John, Thank you for sharing your amazing life story! You ask: 'Allow me please one more question: how is it balanced with the Day of the Divine Final Sentencing that people die now and some go to Heaven and some to Hell? (I am referring to the 72 virgins vs. the fire-created Satan-helpers torture in Hell).' I am not too clear on what exactly is the question, but let me share my understanding of trial and retribution, and please feel free to ask again if this does not meet your query. This life on Earth is a trial for each human, we each have a unique set of questions, situations, backgrounds, aptitudes, etc, and we all have a potential for good and evil, as well as the free-will to choose and intend. The trial ends with death. Everything that we think, do, believe, wish, hope, desire, imagine, etc., is all being continuously recorded. God is ever-present and witness to everything (including the trials set forth for each one), and never forgets. Further, God has arranged for it all to be recorded, and there are angels recording everything, which will be presented as a scroll, so completely detailed that we ourselves will be able to evaluate ourselves and know whether we belong in Heaven or Hell. The operating principle about Divine Judgement is that nobody will be wronged in the least. I think that includes God, since ascribing partners to God is stated as the greatest and most unforgivable wrong. Hell is something over which all will have to pass (Quran 19:70, 71). It is imagined as a bridge which each one must cross to make it to Heaven. There are many suggested prayers in the Quran to ask for protection from the fire. However, Heaven is only mentioned as a reward and final destination for those whom God blesses with His Approval. Those who are blessed by God, will be able to pass over the bridge upon Hell, and reach Heaven. Those who have earned Hell will fall therein. Those whose scales are neither titled in favour of Heaven or Hell will be assigned either Heaven or Hell in God's infinite wisdom and knowledge, the operating principle again being that none will be wronged in the least. According to a scholar, there are three categories upon death: (1) the large general category who will remain in a state of sleep till resurrection and will then face their deeds. (2) the few who have lived their lives so well that they have earned God's approval and are greeted by angels with the good news of Heaven, and continue to live (in another world veiled from us, not reincarnation here) or dream in a state of bliss till resurrection (3) the few who have earned and incurred divine wrath and will endure torture and suffering from the moment they die till the day of resurrection when they will finally enter Hell I do not find the count of 72 virgins in the Quran. Yes, other books do refer to such things and attribute such sayings as explanations from the Prophet. If I may borrow your phrase: I dunno :) What I do know is that the Quran says so many things and gives so many analogies and similitudes of Paradise. It speaks of a magnificent realm, gardens with subterranean rivers, moderate weather and shades, plentiful and delicious fruits and meats, milk and honey, and non-intoxicating drinks in crystalline silver goblets, fine clothing of silk and gold, family, pairs or spouses (soul-mates?), fulfilment of all desires, such peace and serenity that no one would ever desire any change of state, ... and it also mentions 'hurs' or virgins with beautiful eyes, but as I've mentioned in an earlier exchange, the word itself is neuter gender, so again, I dunno. Another thing that is mentioned in the Quran, and which makes a lot of sense to me in terms of the widely differing trials and lifestyles of the haves and have-nots in this world, is that good things in the life of this world are actually for the good people to expect and know what awaits them in a better, more excellent, perfected form in Heaven, and deprivation and suffering is also a preview of a much more intense form of what will be given as punishment in Hell. However, please note that what we enjoy or endure in this life is neither reward nor punishment, it's just our question paper, and the easier it seems, the more sternly will it be judged. We will be questioned about all the good that we are given, including all comforts, conveniences and abilities, and will have to account for how we used them. Does the above address your question? Samiya On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:31 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Samiya, thanks unlimitedly for your kind and information-laden response that opens eyes (mine included). I fell into political turmoil at an early age (WWII) and struggled to learn how to make a living in science/technology. I learned Latin and Gothic alphabets at 4-5 (on my own), Cyrillic and Hebrew at 7, Greek a bit later. Learned 2 mother-tongues at ~3, Latin for 8 years, French over 4+, English for 2, speak a little Italian
Re: Atheist
PGC, I do not assume that you don't read religious text. I do get the feeling though that you do not hold them in esteem, due to the reasons you cite against them, particularly the blasphemy point you keep raising. Also, I do not think the Quran is yet on your reading list. Is that correct? If anything, I get the feeling that you are not merely having an intellectual debate, but rather seeking earnestly in your own way. No, I haven't read Søren Kierkegaard, and just looked up on Wikipedia. Sounds interesting, so thanks, will try to read up some of his works. Coming back to the blasphemy issue you raise, in my estimation, I'm convinced that the Quran is not a human work and has been compiled and revealed by Divine Decree. When read from cover to cover, it addresses and explains many general and recurring issues of good and evil, and sets a certain moral and ethical framework of values that should be the basis of addressing the real-life problems of good and evil. Of course, we do not know everything, and with our limited knowledge and given the complexity of our mind-heart (rational thinking-inclinations-hopes-desires-loves-lusts-hates and so on), we are definitely going to be indecisive, and falter and fail at times, while at other times transcend our lower selves and realise our potential for good. Perhaps I'm blaspheming by considering Quran to be from God, but I do so in earnestness and sincerity, as I find the historical and natural world references in it to be accurate, and the moral and ethical fibre of the message based upon good and justice. I think looking for theology in works of fiction or philosophy, which we know are human works, is a faulty premise to start with, hence I do not take my theology from such books. Since you categorise Quran and other scriptures as human works as well, hence I agree in principle, but differ in detail. Samiya On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Your statements presuppose that you have solved the problem of evil. Let us suppose for argument's sake, that we indeed can distinguish good from evil. Even so, for every evil act, one can find some higher religious purpose or belief to justify the supposedly evil act. Take murder, for example. Was it evil of Stauffenberg to try to murder Hitler? What if god had personally appeared to him, and told him to act? Could we see this from the outside? How can we judge something as evil, when we never have all the information, perhaps pertaining to a higher cause we do not see/comprehend? And if we believe that we can easily tell the difference, do we not run the risk of seeing what we wish of the world, instead of its truth? How can we know this beyond our inner selves, for others? Søren Kierkegaard, a Christian, was extremely critical of how Christian faith was practiced: just acting the religion and abusing faith for comfort to abandon the search for what evil really means and how to cope with it. He saw it as a deep and confusing problem that religious practice ignores, and questions how we could ever know to do god's work if we are not brave enough to admit our ignorance and attack the problem. I don't want to suggest in any way that you read him, and merely use this example to point out, that what your statements suppose to know, nature of good and evil, is the huge problem of ethics linked with theology, and that its complexity, is orders of magnitude removed, from this is good and this is evil statements in Bible, Quran etc. , and that thousands of mystics, shaman, thinkers, scientists, theologian have wrestled with this problem with no clear answer in sight. How do you reconcile this problem with the absolute certainty invoked in the literal interpretation of sacred scripture that says lying is bad... when somebody can lie to save lives, for example? How can we tell good religious and deeds from the opposite? Does evil even exist, and why would a god create it, if he were not an evil tester? A loving parent would not create or wish such for its children. Why would a possible god do so? You assume I don't read religious text. This is false. I just restrict my reading of text concerning fundamental search to text that can attack the kinds of question and problems I have raised with you. But I don't want to mention them or influence anybody's search. So if you have solved the problem of evil, as your statements suggest, you could elaborate on this if you feel comfortable doing so. Mere prescriptions this is good/god's will, and this is bad don't count beyond our personal horizon. Theology has a problem here, regardless of particular religion. The effect is more general. PGC On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:10 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Samiya Illias
Re: Atheist
On 15 Jul 2014, at 22:05, meekerdb wrote: On 7/15/2014 12:27 PM, John Clark wrote: Yes, the Bible contains its own sadistic lunacy--but the above quotations can be fairly said to convey the central message of the Qur'an--and of Islam at nearly every moment in its history. The Qur'an does not contain anything like a Sermon on the Mount. Nor is it a vast and self-contradictory book like the Old Testament, in which whole sections (like Leviticus and Deuteronomy) can be easily ignored and forgotten. The result is a unified message of triumphalism, otherworldliness, and religious hatred that has become a problem for the entire world. And the world still waits for moderate Muslims to speak honestly about it. The political discourse matters, and explains a good deal. But there's something beneath it, something we don't want to look in the face: namely, that in India, as elsewhere in our darkening world, religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable language of respect. What is there to respect in any of this, or in any of the crimes now being committed almost daily around the world in religion's dreaded name? How well, with what fatal results, religion erects totems, and how willing we are to kill for them! And when we've done it often enough, the deadening of affect that results makes it easier to do it again. So India's problem turns out to be the world's problem. What happened in India has happened in God's name. The problem's name is God. --- Salman Rushdie 2002 I don't think so. the problem is not God. The problem is the human use of God's name to terrestrial power. That's not God, that's mote like the devil. That would not happen if theology, in the original scientific sense of the Ancients would have been kept in the academy. All children today would know that nobody can invoke publicly God to justify any terrestrial decision. Bruno -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 15 Jul 2014, at 22:14, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-15 22:10 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 17:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should
you believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail
that you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or
hallucinating.
That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or
not believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ?
Just to clear things up, I use the common part of all analytical
definition of belief theory and knowledge theory, and in particular
(knowing p) - (believing p).
If you know that there is milk in the fridge, you believe that there
is milk in the fridge.
The key difference is that the reciprocal is false. If you believe
there is milk in the fridge , you can still not know it.
Well I can accept such language in mathematics where you make clear
what is meant, not in every day use when someone says he
*believes* in god,
I use believe in the same mundane sense that I believe that there
is orange juice in the fridge, and later like in I believe in the
axiom of elementary arithmetic and in its first order logical
consequence, or in I don't believe the machine k will stop on the
input j.
that's not what he meant... That's what I don't like in your
approach to insist using everyday word in everyday language *but*
with your own mathematical meaning. It's misleading you should see it.
I use belief in the doxastic sense of the analytical philosophers.
Iuse belief in the sense of Theaetetus, Gerson, etc.
Bruno
Quentin
Bruno
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but
because it fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see
the set {0, 1, 2, ...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt
that it makes sense, as it explains a lot of other things in which
I already tend to believe (like the non existence of a bigger
prime, or the existence of universal numbers, the real numbers,
etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.
This would also include political science, arts, gender studies,
french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what
doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as
a podcast? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them
all. Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature.
I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All
Re: Atheist
2014-07-16 19:22 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 15 Jul 2014, at 22:14, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-15 22:10 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 17:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should you
believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that
you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating.
That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not
believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ?
Just to clear things up, I use the common part of all analytical
definition of belief theory and knowledge theory, and in particular
(knowing p) - (believing p).
If you know that there is milk in the fridge, you believe that there is
milk in the fridge.
The key difference is that the reciprocal is false. If you believe there
is milk in the fridge , you can still not know it.
Well I can accept such language in mathematics where you make clear what
is meant, not in every day use when someone says he *believes* in god,
I use believe in the same mundane sense that I believe that there is
orange juice in the fridge,
I believe in *god* is not like I believe there is orange juice in the
fridge.
and later like in I believe in the axiom of elementary arithmetic and in
its first order logical consequence, or in I don't believe the machine k
will stop on the input j.
that's not what he meant... That's what I don't like in your approach to
insist using everyday word in everyday language *but* with your own
mathematical meaning. It's misleading you should see it.
I use belief in the doxastic sense of the analytical philosophers. Iuse
belief in the sense of Theaetetus, Gerson, etc.
You use those words in a misleading way... You do what you want of
course... but you're clearly totally misunderstood when you talk to a
believer.
Quentin
Bruno
Quentin
Bruno
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but because it
fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see the set {0, 1, 2,
...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt that it makes sense, as it
explains a lot of other things in which I already tend to believe (like the
non existence of a bigger prime, or the existence of universal numbers, the
real numbers, etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
*So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.*
This would also include political science, arts, gender studies,
french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't
build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce
for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've
run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
Re: Atheist
On 15 Jul 2014, at 22:17, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com Well I can accept such language in mathematics where you make clear what is meant, not in every day use when someone says he *believes* in god, that's not what he meant... That's what I don't like in your approach to insist using everyday word in everyday language *but* with your own mathematical meaning. It's misleading you should see it. Quentin I am confused as well when words such as god that have powerful well known and widely used meanings become used to mean something very different than the commonly understood meaning What makes you know it is that different? A lot of Christian, Jewish, Muslims (at least in the past and still among sufis) love Plotinus and neoplatonism. before christinism get trapped in secular power, a large proportion of Chirstian theologian, or student in theology, were knowing vey well Greek theology. And there are many people thinking that Plotinus, and its own master perhaps, were influenced by Indians. I guess it is not really plausible that the God of the neoplatonist comp looks like a male with a beard, nor a female with wings, but as a scientist I am agnostic before some progress is made. I use god in the sense used by all comparative theologians. You might read Aldous Huxley philosophia perennis. I think that using another nickname, at this stage, might be quite misleading. My own understanding of Plotinus came with the help of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian theologians. We just don't know. Bruno Chris -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
Salman Rushdie wrote: religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable language of respect. What is there to respect in any of this, or in any of the crimes now being committed almost daily around the world in religion's dreaded name? It is the liberal consensus that we should always respect all religious beliefs regardless of how stupid or cruel it is; for example tune into just about any international news broadcast and you will probably see at least one story about religious violence somewhere in the world, but the media won't call it that, the media will call it sectarian violence. As for me I think there is a point beyond which a euphemism becomes a lie. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
Samiya, I can be no more appreciative to all I learned from you about the Islamic issues during my entire life. I will not change my ways of thinking now, after 92 years, but I still like to learn. So live well, have a good life (wherever it will take you) - you got a friend in me. So please do not reply my parting question anymore, which pertains to your approval-or-not of the cruelties of Sharia law and whether you accept ANY advancement of humanity over 1500 years at all. With respect John Mikes PS I found on Google a picture with your name, a gorgeous bride-face. I hope it is yours. JM On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Dear John, Thank you for sharing your amazing life story! You ask: 'Allow me please one more question: how is it balanced with the Day of the Divine Final Sentencing that people die now and some go to Heaven and some to Hell? (I am referring to the 72 virgins vs. the fire-created Satan-helpers torture in Hell).' I am not too clear on what exactly is the question, but let me share my understanding of trial and retribution, and please feel free to ask again if this does not meet your query. This life on Earth is a trial for each human, we each have a unique set of questions, situations, backgrounds, aptitudes, etc, and we all have a potential for good and evil, as well as the free-will to choose and intend. The trial ends with death. Everything that we think, do, believe, wish, hope, desire, imagine, etc., is all being continuously recorded. God is ever-present and witness to everything (including the trials set forth for each one), and never forgets. Further, God has arranged for it all to be recorded, and there are angels recording everything, which will be presented as a scroll, so completely detailed that we ourselves will be able to evaluate ourselves and know whether we belong in Heaven or Hell. The operating principle about Divine Judgement is that nobody will be wronged in the least. I think that includes God, since ascribing partners to God is stated as the greatest and most unforgivable wrong. Hell is something over which all will have to pass (Quran 19:70, 71). It is imagined as a bridge which each one must cross to make it to Heaven. There are many suggested prayers in the Quran to ask for protection from the fire. However, Heaven is only mentioned as a reward and final destination for those whom God blesses with His Approval. Those who are blessed by God, will be able to pass over the bridge upon Hell, and reach Heaven. Those who have earned Hell will fall therein. Those whose scales are neither titled in favour of Heaven or Hell will be assigned either Heaven or Hell in God's infinite wisdom and knowledge, the operating principle again being that none will be wronged in the least. According to a scholar, there are three categories upon death: (1) the large general category who will remain in a state of sleep till resurrection and will then face their deeds. (2) the few who have lived their lives so well that they have earned God's approval and are greeted by angels with the good news of Heaven, and continue to live (in another world veiled from us, not reincarnation here) or dream in a state of bliss till resurrection (3) the few who have earned and incurred divine wrath and will endure torture and suffering from the moment they die till the day of resurrection when they will finally enter Hell I do not find the count of 72 virgins in the Quran. Yes, other books do refer to such things and attribute such sayings as explanations from the Prophet. If I may borrow your phrase: I dunno :) What I do know is that the Quran says so many things and gives so many analogies and similitudes of Paradise. It speaks of a magnificent realm, gardens with subterranean rivers, moderate weather and shades, plentiful and delicious fruits and meats, milk and honey, and non-intoxicating drinks in crystalline silver goblets, fine clothing of silk and gold, family, pairs or spouses (soul-mates?), fulfilment of all desires, such peace and serenity that no one would ever desire any change of state, ... and it also mentions 'hurs' or virgins with beautiful eyes, but as I've mentioned in an earlier exchange, the word itself is neuter gender, so again, I dunno. Another thing that is mentioned in the Quran, and which makes a lot of sense to me in terms of the widely differing trials and lifestyles of the haves and have-nots in this world, is that good things in the life of this world are actually for the good people to expect and know what awaits them in a better, more excellent, perfected form in Heaven, and deprivation and suffering is also a preview of a much more intense form of what will be given as punishment in Hell. However, please note that what we enjoy or endure in this life is neither reward nor punishment, it's just our question paper, and the easier it seems, the more
Re: Atheist
The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. In certain sense materialism has given up without being conscious of it. That is because its foundation is metaphysical and metaphysics has experimented a regression to the stone age, or at least to the level previous to the greek phylosophy. 2014-07-09 22:12 GMT+02:00, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: I apologize for taking a new title for this over-discussed topic. Somebody (sounds like Bruno, the fonts look like Brent) wrote: ...let us do theology seriously instead of referring to fairy tales. You confirm what I said to John Clark. *Atheist* defend the God of the bible. Read Plotinus, forget the bible, unless you find some passage you like and which inspire you, but that is private, don't make that public. I refer to the generality about 'atheists' in the passage. I emphasize that I am no atheist in such a sense who IMO requires 'a god to deny' (my vocabulary includes the term as 'denying' instead of 'defending'). I simply exclude those facets which are beyond our reach at present. In speaking about Everything I think of an infinite complexity of components we cannot even understand (today) - nor the relations between them ALL. We include SOME into our 'model of the world' as of yesterday without knowing if we are right. In such sense even a (sane-minded) adilt can be an 'atheist'. John M -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
As someone said... Man created God in his own image: Intolerant, sexist, homophobic, and violent. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/female-scientists-quit-2014071588582 -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
Poor you. It must be very hard to live with such insane hate against men. It must hurt you a lot. You need help. 2014-07-15 13:05 GMT+02:00, LizR lizj...@gmail.com: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/female-scientists-quit-2014071588582 -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
May I suggest you try water instead of corona ? Or maybe coconut water ? it may help you to climb faster... 2014-07-15 13:44 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Poor you. It must be very hard to live with such insane hate against men. It must hurt you a lot. You need help. 2014-07-15 13:05 GMT+02:00, LizR lizj...@gmail.com: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/female-scientists-quit-2014071588582 -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
That is atheistic humor? Perhaps too much atheism can endanger the cognitive hability for creating good jokes. I don´t know. Or it may be the consequences of too much exposition to this particular atheists affirmation group. Some controlled experiments are necessary. 2014-07-15 13:49 GMT+02:00, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: May I suggest you try water instead of corona ? Or maybe coconut water ? it may help you to climb faster... 2014-07-15 13:44 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Poor you. It must be very hard to live with such insane hate against men. It must hurt you a lot. You need help. 2014-07-15 13:05 GMT+02:00, LizR lizj...@gmail.com: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/female-scientists-quit-2014071588582 -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
2014-07-15 14:06 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: That is atheistic humor? Not at all it is humor for stupid... Maybe I should try humor for fascist homophobic mysoginistic christian asshole ? It would certainly be better suited for the kind of marvelous coconut climber your are. Perhaps too much atheism can endanger the cognitive hability for creating good jokes. I don´t know. Or it may be the consequences of too much exposition to this particular atheists affirmation group. Some controlled experiments are necessary. 2014-07-15 13:49 GMT+02:00, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: May I suggest you try water instead of corona ? Or maybe coconut water ? it may help you to climb faster... 2014-07-15 13:44 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Poor you. It must be very hard to live with such insane hate against men. It must hurt you a lot. You need help. 2014-07-15 13:05 GMT+02:00, LizR lizj...@gmail.com: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/female-scientists-quit-2014071588582 -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
This new joke is even worse Try burning something. You are sick of hate, and you also are badly in need of help. 2014-07-15 14:24 GMT+02:00, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: 2014-07-15 14:06 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: That is atheistic humor? Not at all it is humor for stupid... Maybe I should try humor for fascist homophobic mysoginistic christian asshole ? It would certainly be better suited for the kind of marvelous coconut climber your are. Perhaps too much atheism can endanger the cognitive hability for creating good jokes. I don´t know. Or it may be the consequences of too much exposition to this particular atheists affirmation group. Some controlled experiments are necessary. 2014-07-15 13:49 GMT+02:00, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: May I suggest you try water instead of corona ? Or maybe coconut water ? it may help you to climb faster... 2014-07-15 13:44 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Poor you. It must be very hard to live with such insane hate against men. It must hurt you a lot. You need help. 2014-07-15 13:05 GMT+02:00, LizR lizj...@gmail.com: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/female-scientists-quit-2014071588582 -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
2014-07-15 14:39 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: This new joke is even worse Try burning something. Hmm good idea, are you free for dinner ? You are sick of hate, and you also are badly in need of help. 2014-07-15 14:24 GMT+02:00, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: 2014-07-15 14:06 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: That is atheistic humor? Not at all it is humor for stupid... Maybe I should try humor for fascist homophobic mysoginistic christian asshole ? It would certainly be better suited for the kind of marvelous coconut climber your are. Perhaps too much atheism can endanger the cognitive hability for creating good jokes. I don´t know. Or it may be the consequences of too much exposition to this particular atheists affirmation group. Some controlled experiments are necessary. 2014-07-15 13:49 GMT+02:00, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: May I suggest you try water instead of corona ? Or maybe coconut water ? it may help you to climb faster... 2014-07-15 13:44 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Poor you. It must be very hard to live with such insane hate against men. It must hurt you a lot. You need help. 2014-07-15 13:05 GMT+02:00, LizR lizj...@gmail.com: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/female-scientists-quit-2014071588582 -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
That is better. Congrats! 2014-07-15 14:50 GMT+02:00, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: 2014-07-15 14:39 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: This new joke is even worse Try burning something. Hmm good idea, are you free for dinner ? You are sick of hate, and you also are badly in need of help. 2014-07-15 14:24 GMT+02:00, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: 2014-07-15 14:06 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: That is atheistic humor? Not at all it is humor for stupid... Maybe I should try humor for fascist homophobic mysoginistic christian asshole ? It would certainly be better suited for the kind of marvelous coconut climber your are. Perhaps too much atheism can endanger the cognitive hability for creating good jokes. I don´t know. Or it may be the consequences of too much exposition to this particular atheists affirmation group. Some controlled experiments are necessary. 2014-07-15 13:49 GMT+02:00, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: May I suggest you try water instead of corona ? Or maybe coconut water ? it may help you to climb faster... 2014-07-15 13:44 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Poor you. It must be very hard to live with such insane hate against men. It must hurt you a lot. You need help. 2014-07-15 13:05 GMT+02:00, LizR lizj...@gmail.com: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/female-scientists-quit-2014071588582 -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
RE: Atheist
You are sick of hate, and you also are badly in need of help. I see Alberto is in a helping mood this morning. Such a pious man. Bravo Alberto! -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 14 Jul 2014, at 18:06, Samiya Illias wrote: On 14-Jul-2014, at 11:08 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:09, Samiya Illias wrote: Why do you need to see God to believe in God? Good point, especially coming from a literalist :) :) I agree that God, actually like a Universe, is not seeable. at least not by temporary mortal beings such as the human body we are (in) now To see a universe, you would need to send photons, or some thing, to it, and see how that is reflected. Interesting point. Since God is described as Noor (spiritual light) in the Quran, I suppose we can't really see light by shining light on it, especially if both are colourless, or same colour... It is a complex subject which can lead us in another topic. Light behaves in the quantum way, and nowadays we can see an object in the total darkness by shining light somewhere else, and this in parallel universes. Those type of beings are either inferred in some 3p way, or intuited in some 1p way, and not only we can't prove them to exist or to make sense, but we cannot provide any 3p exhaustive description. It is the same for arithmetical truth, and provably so if we assume that we are Turing emulable. I do think we might be able to awake the God in us, but that leads to a first person experience, which, like consciousness, cannot belong to a publicly available set of genuine scientific sharable evidences. Agree, such experiences are deeply personal and they cannot be proved. OK. However, there has to be some way of examining whether such experience is genuinely a God experience or something else. It is plausible (and makes sense with computationalism) that the 1p- experience of God exists, and share with consciousness that it is undoubtable, but it is doubtful that this can be asserted, communicated, verifiable, examined in any third person communicable way. If that existed, it would be possible to fake it, and religion would become parroting. If God, while creating everything, has paid attention to the finest detail such as DNA coding and quarks and strings, then why is it so difficult or impossible that God would also give us a user manual (guide/scripture) along with this trial (life)? With computationalisme, God has no choice in the matter of matter (sorry for the pun). matter is more like a symptom that God might be a little sleepy from time to time. My feeling here is that anthropomorphize God to much, like if you have completed the research. St-Thomas already argued convincingly (imo) that God cannot be omnipotent and omniscient. With comp God can trade of between the outer God, quasi-omniscient but quasi without any power, and the inner God, quasi-omnipotent (indeed Turing universal at least), but with few knowledge left, indeed incarnated in a seemingly finite body and history. And that's the harmonic state (concerning truth, belief and knowledge). By its lack of knowledge, the inner God can fall asleep and dream, forget its divine roots, and unlike most animals, behave accordingly. That leads to quanta and qualia and the *physical/ sensible* reality, which hurts (the non harmonic state, concerning the observational and the suffering). Such theology has some advantage for solving the problem of evil, as it would come from a justifiable difficulty for universal machines to recognize themselves, or their inner god, and from giving too much easily names/descriptions to unnameable things. Bruno Samiya Yet, such experiences can still be personally life changing, like with near death experiences, or with LSD, or salvia, etc. Bruno On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Sure: Do you believe in a theist god? I'd like to. So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic departments that have no subject. This would also include political science, arts, gender studies, french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right? I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from
Re: Atheist
To tell the truth is the most friendly and helpful. Truth make you free. first the truth, then, love. If you have friends that don´t tell you the naked and painful truth then they are not real friends. They lie you to make you useful for them, to enslave you. Truth in the other side, empowers you to take well founded decisions. If you are surrounded by interested lies and good words, you act for the interests of others. That is why truth make you free. Believe people that have no interest into making you happy. that are not interested into display things that you like. People not interested into appearing, educated, progressive, or nice to you, Chris. May God bless you. 2014-07-15 17:51 GMT+02:00, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: You are sick of hate, and you also are badly in need of help. I see Alberto is in a helping mood this morning. Such a pious man. Bravo Alberto! -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: most people choose the religion of their parents, as part of culture and are comfortable confirming to social norms, instead of honest intellectual inquiry and search. Yes, all the people in the middle east didn't conduct a honest intellectual inquiry and search for the truth and then virtually all of them conclude that Islam was the best religion and it was just a coincidence that it was the same religion as their parents; and all the people in the Americas didn't conduct a honest intellectual inquiry and search for the truth and then virtually all of them conclude that Christianity is the best religion and it was just a coincidence that it was the same religion as their parents. Millions of Muslims and millions of Christians are so certain that their religion is the one true religion that they are happy to die for it; but certainty of that magnitude never comes from a honest intellectual inquiry, it comes because mommy and daddy told them so. Blind following of parental faith is condemned in the Quran. I don't think so. The Quran says that anyone who changes their religion from Islam to some slightly different form of idiocy such as Christianity should be put to death regardless of if they did so because of honest intellectual inquiry and search or not. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 9:24 AM Subject: Re: Atheist To tell the truth is the most friendly and helpful. Truth make you free. first the truth, then, love. If you have friends that don´t tell you the naked and painful truth then they are not real friends. They lie you to make you useful for them, to enslave you. Truth in the other side, empowers you to take well founded decisions. If you are surrounded by interested lies and good words, you act for the interests of others. That is why truth make you free. Believe people that have no interest into making you happy. that are not interested into display things that you like. People not interested into appearing, educated, progressive, or nice to you, Chris. May God bless you. May God bless you Alberto... I will pray for your worthless sinning soul. Your brother in Christ Chris 2014-07-15 17:51 GMT+02:00, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: You are sick of hate, and you also are badly in need of help. I see Alberto is in a helping mood this morning. Such a pious man. Bravo Alberto! -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 15-Jul-2014, at 12:57 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: most people choose the religion of their parents, as part of culture and are comfortable confirming to social norms, instead of honest intellectual inquiry and search. Yes, all the people in the middle east didn't conduct a honest intellectual inquiry and search for the truth and then virtually all of them conclude that Islam was the best religion and it was just a coincidence that it was the same religion as their parents; and all the people in the Americas didn't conduct a honest intellectual inquiry and search for the truth and then virtually all of them conclude that Christianity is the best religion and it was just a coincidence that it was the same religion as their parents. Millions of Muslims and millions of Christians are so certain that their religion is the one true religion that they are happy to die for it; but certainty of that magnitude never comes from a honest intellectual inquiry, it comes because mommy and daddy told them so. Blind following of parental faith is condemned in the Quran. I don't think so. The Quran says that anyone who changes their religion from Islam to some slightly different form of idiocy such as Christianity should be put to death regardless of if they did so because of honest intellectual inquiry and search or not. John K Clark The Quran does not prescribe the death penalty for conversion from Islam to another religion. However, mainstream Islam does, i.e. Muslims do believe and try to implement it. This understanding is based on non-Quranic sources. According to the Quran, these matters are for God to judge and not left to the hands of humans. Consider the following verses regarding faith, leaving the faith and blasphemy: 2:256 There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower. 4:137 Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them on the way. 10:99 If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! 16:93 If Allah so willed, He could make you all one people: But He leaves straying whom He pleases, and He guides whom He pleases: but ye shall certainly be called to account for all your actions. In that background, the question that arises is does the Most Compassionate prescribe death sentence for blasphemy? I search the Quran and come across the following verses. If I understand correctly, the Most Compassionate only directs the believers to abstain from the company of blasphemers till they stop blaspheming. We are enjoined to keep sharing the message of faith to all who are willing to listen, to share the verses of the Quran and let people take their own decisions, as only willing submission is required. 6: 68 When thou seest men engaged in vain discourse about Our signs, turn away from them unless they turn to a different theme. If Satan ever makes thee forget, then after recollection, sit not thou in the company of those who do wrong. 6:69 On their account no responsibility falls on the righteous, but (their duty) is to remind them, that they may (learn to) fear Allah. 4:155 (They have incurred divine displeasure): In that they broke their covenant; that they rejected the signs of Allah. that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right; that they said, Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah’s Word; We need no more);- Nay, Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their blasphemy, and little is it they believe;- 4:156 That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge; 5: 64 The Jews say: (Allah)'s hand is tied up. Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He giveth and spendeth (of His bounty) as He pleaseth. But the revelation that cometh to thee from Allah increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, Allah doth extinguish it; but they (ever) strive to do mischief on earth. And Allah loveth not those who do mischief. And also consider: 43:33 And were it not that (all) men might become of one (evil) way of life, We would provide, for everyone that blasphemes against ((Allah)) Most Gracious, silver roofs for their houses and (silver) stair-ways on which to go up, 43:34 And (silver) doors to their houses, and thrones (of silver) on which they could recline, 43:35 And also adornments
Re: Atheist
The following is from the Sam Harris book The End Of Faith. Open the Koran, which is perfect in its every syllable, and simply read it with the eyes of faith. You will see how little compassion need be wasted on those whom God himself is in the process of “mocking,” “cursing,” “shaming,” “punishing,” “scourging,” “judging,” “burning,” “annihilating,” “not forgiving,” and “not reprieving.” God, who is infinitely wise, has cursed the infidels with their doubts. He prolongs their life and prosperity so that they may continue heaping sin upon sin and all the more richly deserve the torments that await them beyond the grave. In this light, the people who died on September 11 were nothing more than fuel for the eternal fires of God’s justice. To convey the relentlessness with which unbelievers are vilified in the text of the Koran, I provide a long compilation of quotations below, in order of their appearance in the text. This is what the Creator of the universe apparently has on his mind (when he is not fussing with gravitational constants and atomic weights): “It is the same whether or not you forewarn them [the unbelievers], they will have no faith” (2:6). “God will mock them and keep them long in sin, blundering blindly along” (2:15). A fire “whose fuel is men and stones” awaits them (2:24). They will be “rewarded with disgrace in this world and with grievous punishment on the Day of Resurrection” (2:85). “God’s curse be upon the infidels!” (2:89). “They have incurred God’s most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits [them]” (2:90). “God is the enemy of the unbelievers” (2:98). “The unbelievers among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], and the pagans, resent that any blessing should have been sent down to you from your Lord” (2:105). “They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter” (2:114). “Those to whom We [God] have given the Book, and who read it as it ought to be read, truly believe in it; those that deny it shall assuredly be lost” (2:122). “[We] shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate” (2:126). “The East and the West are God’s. He guides whom He will to a straight path” (2:142). “Do not say that those slain in the cause of God are dead. They are alive, but you are not aware of them” (2:154). “But the infidels who die unbelievers shall incur the curse of God, the angels, and all men. Under it they shall remain for ever; their punishment shall not be lightened, nor shall they be reprieved” (2:162). “They shall sigh with remorse, but shall never come out of the Fire” (2:168). “The unbelievers are like beasts which, call out to them as one may, can hear nothing but a shout and a cry. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they understand nothing” (2:172). “Theirs shall be a woeful punishment” (2:175). “How steadfastly they seek the Fire! That is because God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about it are in extreme schism” (2:176). “Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . f they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers”(2:190–93). “Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not” (2:216). “They will not cease to fight against you until they force you to renounce your faith—if they are able. But whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing in this world and in the world to come. Such men shall be the tenants of Hell, wherein they shall abide forever. Those that have embraced the Faith, and those that have fled their land and fought for the cause of God, may hope for God’s mercy” (2:217–18). “God does not guide the evil-doers” (2:258). “God does not guide the unbelievers” (2:264). “The evil-doers shall have none to help them” (2:270). “God gives guidance to whom He will” (2:272). Those that deny God’s revelations shall be sternly punished; God is mighty and capable of revenge” (3:5). “As for the unbelievers, neither their riches nor their children will in the least save them from God’s judgment. They shall become fuel for the Fire” (3:10). “Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell—an evil resting place!’” (3:12). “The only true faith in God’s sight is Islam. . . . He that denies God’s revelations should know that swift is God’s reckoning” (3:19). “Let the believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful—he that does this has nothing to hope for from God—except in self-defense” (3:28). “Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare
Re: Atheist
On 7/15/2014 12:27 PM, John Clark wrote: Yes, the Bible contains its own sadistic lunacy—but the above quotations can be fairly said to convey the central message of the Qur’an—and of Islam at nearly every moment in its history. The Qur’an does not contain anything like a Sermon on the Mount. Nor is it a vast and self-contradictory book like the Old Testament, in which whole sections (like Leviticus and Deuteronomy) can be easily ignored and forgotten. The result is a unified message of triumphalism, otherworldliness, and religious hatred that has become a problem for the entire world. And the world still waits for moderate Muslims to speak honestly about it. The political discourse matters, and explains a good deal. But there's something beneath it, something we don't want to look in the face: namely, that in India, as elsewhere in our darkening world, religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable language of respect. What is there to respect in any of this, or in any of the crimes now being committed almost daily around the world in religion's dreaded name? How well, with what fatal results, religion erects totems, and how willing we are to kill for them! And when we've done it often enough, the deadening of affect that results makes it easier to do it again. So India's problem turns out to be the world's problem. What happened in India has happened in God's name. The problem's name is God. --- Salman Rushdie 2002 -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 14 Jul 2014, at 17:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should
you believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail
that you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or
hallucinating.
That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or
not believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ?
Just to clear things up, I use the common part of all analytical
definition of belief theory and knowledge theory, and in particular
(knowing p) - (believing p).
If you know that there is milk in the fridge, you believe that there
is milk in the fridge.
The key difference is that the reciprocal is false. If you believe
there is milk in the fridge , you can still not know it.
Bruno
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but
because it fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see the
set {0, 1, 2, ...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt that it
makes sense, as it explains a lot of other things in which I already
tend to believe (like the non existence of a bigger prime, or the
existence of universal numbers, the real numbers, etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.
This would also include political science, arts, gender studies,
french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what
doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a
podcast? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them
all. Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature.
I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at
Re: Atheist
2014-07-15 22:10 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 17:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should you
believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that
you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating.
That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not
believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ?
Just to clear things up, I use the common part of all analytical
definition of belief theory and knowledge theory, and in particular
(knowing p) - (believing p).
If you know that there is milk in the fridge, you believe that there is
milk in the fridge.
The key difference is that the reciprocal is false. If you believe there
is milk in the fridge , you can still not know it.
Well I can accept such language in mathematics where you make clear what is
meant, not in every day use when someone says he *believes* in god,
that's not what he meant... That's what I don't like in your approach to
insist using everyday word in everyday language *but* with your own
mathematical meaning. It's misleading you should see it.
Quentin
Bruno
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but because it
fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see the set {0, 1, 2,
...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt that it makes sense, as it
explains a lot of other things in which I already tend to believe (like the
non existence of a bigger prime, or the existence of universal numbers, the
real numbers, etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
*So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.*
This would also include political science, arts, gender studies,
french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't
build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce
for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've
run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more
Re: Atheist
From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com Well I can accept such language in mathematics where you make clear what is meant, not in every day use when someone says he *believes* in god, that's not what he meant... That's what I don't like in your approach to insist using everyday word in everyday language *but* with your own mathematical meaning. It's misleading you should see it. Quentin I am confused as well when words such as god that have powerful well known and widely used meanings become used to mean something very different than the commonly understood meaning Chris -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
I like men. Well, most men. (There are bad apples in every barrel...) On 15 July 2014 23:44, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: Poor you. It must be very hard to live with such insane hate against men. It must hurt you a lot. You need help. 2014-07-15 13:05 GMT+02:00, LizR lizj...@gmail.com: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/female-scientists-quit-2014071588582 -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 14 Jul 2014, at 19:59, meekerdb wrote: On 7/14/2014 7:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jul 2014, at 15:09, David Nyman wrote: On 12 July 2014 20:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Of course they wouldn't because 17 is a prime number is a tautology. It's true simply in virtue of it's meaning like x is x. But is it a fact about the world or just a fact about language? I must confess to being somewhat flabbergasted that we're still debating the semantics and metaphysical provenance of numbers as if it were in any way relevant to the fundamental topics under discussion. Agreed. especially that for numbers (or any Turing-complete theory), we know that if we assume less, we don't get them. In fact numbers are assumed in all (scientific) theories, and people nitpicking on them introduce useless metaphysics about them. I don't know of any scientific theory that usese infinitely many integers. String theory. Not only it uses infinitely many integers, but it uses an infinite weird sum on them, or if you prefer zeta(-1). Comp theory. To define the notion of computation. To enunciate Church thesis. Quantum theory. To get the infinite dimensional hilbert spaces, or the von Neuman algebra. Those using the theory don't need to use infinitely many integers, but the theory used refers and has to refer to all of them to remain consistent (and simple). Bruno Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
Dear Samiya, thanks unlimitedly for your kind and information-laden response that opens eyes (mine included). I fell into political turmoil at an early age (WWII) and struggled to learn how to make a living in science/technology. I learned Latin and Gothic alphabets at 4-5 (on my own), Cyrillic and Hebrew at 7, Greek a bit later. Learned 2 mother-tongues at ~3, Latin for 8 years, French over 4+, English for 2, speak a little Italian and Russian, so Scripture etc. was suppressed in the fertile age. I am a learned classical pianist, did public performances over 75 years (parallel to a technical career with 38 patents to my name). I love Iqbal's maxim. I wrote books and papers, lectured on 3 continents. I am a natural scientist by training and still cannot position a Creator into the terms of that short-lived creature (humans) on this tiny mud-ball of a negligible star in a negligible galaxy of the infinite totality we got a glimpse of lately. Also with the billions of years now accountable it seems unrealistic to collect-or-not salvation, or hell, for people with so diverse potentials and lifespans. This prompted my reference to reincarnation, not the Indian 2 versions, but in diverse worlds different and unrestricted. We have no idea how diversified and big the totality may be. You wrote to the Guitarist Cowboy: *... When the entire known creation are bound by the laws of nature, then how can it be that humans are not bound by anything. This free-will, ability to harness power, this so to say dominance over the Earth, how can it all come to humans only, and not some other creation? And if we humans are blessed with some unique privileges, there has to be some responsibility and accountability attached to such freedom of action. What do you think?* ... I think you are right. There is (IMO) -NO- free will, there is the infinite complexity and it's pressures that push us. We, humans, cannot harness power, have no dominance over Earth (look at the climate-change or a possible cool-off of the Sun) and we are rookies here (10M years of the 13 bllion years of THIS galaxy) doomed to extiction by various reasons - soon. Our privileges are devilish. We kill. Against religion, for religion, by religion and without religion. Shoot, behead, stone, etc. We are malicious and evil. Allow me please one more question: how is it balanced with the Day of the Divine Final Sentencing that people die now and some go to Heaven and some to Hell? (I am referring to the 72 virgins vs. the fire-created Satan-helpers torture in Hell). You see, I wanted to abstain from such discussions. Your kind words, however, did it to me. On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Dear John, On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 5:25 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Samiya, people ask the wrong questions. Maybe, or maybe I need to study and reflect much more before I can answer properly Why and HOW did you pick the Quran as the SOURCE of your answers, if not because you grew up in a family/society where you heard about it day in and day out? In our society, Arabic is not a spoken/understood language. Children are taught to read the Arabic script, i.e. pronounce the words, without being taught the language. The Arabic script is similar to the Urdu script (the language spoken in Pakistan), so its easy to learn to read even if you cannot understand. Traditionally, people think its a means of earning blessings to recite, hence many recite without understanding the scripture. I used to think that was a flaw in our Muslim, Pakistani society, but Hindus in Pakistan and India also similarly recite their scriptures in Sanskrit. I suppose its a traditional / cultural thing of the Indo-Pak subcontinent, who started and who followed, I don't know. I started studying the Quran with meaning when I was in my late teens, comparing different translations, as when reading just one translator, some verses' translations just didn't make sense (partly due to my lack of knowledge, and partly due to the translation and partly due to my ideas of how I wanted the scripture to be). My interest in science also helped me in critically reading the scripture, looking for the correct explanation. However, reading various translations gave me the confidence that when we can't understand something, we need to look harder, not just write-off the scripture. I grew up in a different society and did not even 'think' of checking for 'truth' in the Quran (especially not in old Arabic language of which I really knew nothing) but was advised other 'books' for 'truth(?)'. I went through several ones of those, liked none of them. So I became agnostic. (=I dunno) I did my schooling at a Convent school, from age 5 till high school, so I was exposed to Christianity since an early age. Christians and Hindus are also a substantial part of the Pakistani society, so there was this exposure to and
Re: Atheist
Why do you need to see God to believe in God? On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Sure: Do you believe in a theist god? I'd like to. So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic departments that have no subject. This would also include political science, arts, gender studies, french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right? I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com: Why do you need to see God to believe in God? Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should you believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ? Quentin On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Sure: Do you believe in a theist god? I'd like to. *So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic departments that have no subject.* This would also include political science, arts, gender studies, french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right? I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
Obviously you never seen Justin Beiber performing live. I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god. Brent -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jul 14, 2014 2:14 am Subject: Re: Fwd: Atheist On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Sure: Do you believe in a theist god? I'd like to. So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic departments that have no subject. This would also includepolitical science, arts, gender studies, french literature.Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't buildbridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast?Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right? I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 13 Jul 2014, at 15:09, David Nyman wrote: On 12 July 2014 20:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Of course they wouldn't because 17 is a prime number is a tautology. It's true simply in virtue of it's meaning like x is x. But is it a fact about the world or just a fact about language? I must confess to being somewhat flabbergasted that we're still debating the semantics and metaphysical provenance of numbers as if it were in any way relevant to the fundamental topics under discussion. Agreed. especially that for numbers (or any Turing-complete theory), we know that if we assume less, we don't get them. In fact numbers are assumed in all (scientific) theories, and people nitpicking on them introduce useless metaphysics about them. Of course we can use the the vocabulary of numbers in everyday terms as a proxy for whatever practical grasp of mathematics has been achieved by humans as a product of their evolutionary engagement with their bodies and the wider environment. Many years ago I read a fascinating little book called The Psychology of Learning Mathematics, on that very topic. But I can't see in what way this is relevant to their role in the explanatory ontology of comp. What we call physical theory boils down, I guess, to the view that a particular, restricted class of *special* mathematical relations can ultimately be shown sufficient to derive all subsequent phenomena that require explanation. Comp, on the other hand, postulates that this apparently special class can be shown, more fundamentally, to be a spectrum of epistemological phenomena ultimately derivable from the implications of number relations alone. Of course, in either case, everything depends on the can be shown part and the extent to which this is achievable is the extent, in the end, to which anyone should take the putative ontologies seriously. Can be shown? Perhaps. But UDA shows that it *must* be shown, and if it can't, then comp is refuted. Then the AUDA shows that a quantum quantization obeying Quantum logic (as far as we know for now) appears exactly where UDA says that it must appear (the logic of the measure 1). Perhaps it's a little ironical that, these days, both cosmological and micro-physical theorising (at least in certain circles) seem to be converging. like comp, on a species of observer-selection as a means of justifying their putatively special class (or now classes) of ultimate physical relations. Only comp, AFAICT, has focused specifically on the *mechanics of observation* as central in such selection, or on number relations simpliciter as its ultimately sufficient combinatorial ontology. But my point remains, that in any other respects than those stated above, arguments over the metaphysical provenance of numbers, just like those over that of material stuff, are beside the point. OK. Bruno David -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 14 Jul 2014, at 08:14, meekerdb wrote: On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Sure: Do you believe in a theist god? I'd like to. So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic departments that have no subject. This would also include political science, arts, gender studies, french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right? I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god. I have never seen a number, either, nor Arithmetical Truth (Comp's notion of the outer god, or Plotinus' one). Nor did I ever seen a physical universe. I can see objects here and there, but not *a* physical universe. But I might conceive one, perhaps. Besides, for a platonist seeing is not a proof of existence, only a proof of a personal hallucination, which might, or not, have a relation with some possible reality. I can see pink elephant sometimes :) God, for a platonist, is only a nickname for a transcendental concept capable of justifying and unifying everything, a bit like the class of all sets in set theory. You don't need to see that to conceive it might make sense, and that many question in theology are just open problems. Now, if you are interested in experiencing the (rather common) God hallucination, there are technic for that (fasting, sleep deprivation, magic mushrooms, LSD, salvia, near death experiences, etc.). To hallucinate the outer God is rather rare, but to get the feeling of awakening of the Inner God is quite common through such technics. Again, I insist, such hallucinations are neither proof, nor evidence, but can be a sufficiently overwhelming experience as making an atheist doubting (that is: becoming scientific on that question). You will see many reports relating this on Erowid, for example. Bruno Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:09, Samiya Illias wrote: Why do you need to see God to believe in God? Good point, especially coming from a literalist :) I agree that God, actually like a Universe, is not seeable. To see a universe, you would need to send photons, or some thing, to it, and see how that is reflected. Those type of beings are either inferred in some 3p way, or intuited in some 1p way, and not only we can't prove them to exist or to make sense, but we cannot provide any 3p exhaustive description. It is the same for arithmetical truth, and provably so if we assume that we are Turing emulable. I do think we might be able to awake the God in us, but that leads to a first person experience, which, like consciousness, cannot belong to a publicly available set of genuine scientific sharable evidences. Yet, such experiences can still be personally life changing, like with near death experiences, or with LSD, or salvia, etc. Bruno On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Sure: Do you believe in a theist god? I'd like to. So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic departments that have no subject. This would also include political science, arts, gender studies, french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right? I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should
you believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that
you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating.
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but because
it fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see the set {0,
1, 2, ...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt that it makes
sense, as it explains a lot of other things in which I already tend to
believe (like the non existence of a bigger prime, or the existence of
universal numbers, the real numbers, etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.
This would also include political science, arts, gender studies,
french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what
doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a
podcast? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all.
Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature.
I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should you
believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that you
know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating.
That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not
believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ?
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but because it
fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see the set {0, 1, 2,
...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt that it makes sense, as it
explains a lot of other things in which I already tend to believe (like the
non existence of a bigger prime, or the existence of universal numbers, the
real numbers, etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
*So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.*
This would also include political science, arts, gender studies, french
literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't build
bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce for the
goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run
a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 14-Jul-2014, at 11:25 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should you
believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that you
know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating.
That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not
believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ?
because, if there is more than just this terrestrial life, your eternity might
depend upon your belief, motives and consequent actions
Samiya
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but because it
fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see the set {0, 1, 2,
...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt that it makes sense, as it
explains a lot of other things in which I already tend to believe (like the
non existence of a bigger prime, or the existence of universal numbers, the
real numbers, etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.
This would also include political science, arts, gender studies, french
literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't build
bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce for
the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run
a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger
Hauer)
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
2014-07-14 17:50 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
On 14-Jul-2014, at 11:25 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should you
believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that
you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating.
That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not
believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ?
because, if there is more than just this terrestrial life, your eternity
might depend upon your belief, motives and consequent actions
Why should it depend if I believe or not ??
Samiya
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but because it
fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see the set {0, 1, 2,
...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt that it makes sense, as it
explains a lot of other things in which I already tend to believe (like the
non existence of a bigger prime, or the existence of universal numbers, the
real numbers, etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
*So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.*
This would also include political science, arts, gender studies,
french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't
build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce
for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've
run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like
Re: Atheist
On 14-Jul-2014, at 11:08 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:09, Samiya Illias wrote: Why do you need to see God to believe in God? Good point, especially coming from a literalist :) :) I agree that God, actually like a Universe, is not seeable. at least not by temporary mortal beings such as the human body we are (in) now To see a universe, you would need to send photons, or some thing, to it, and see how that is reflected. Interesting point. Since God is described as Noor (spiritual light) in the Quran, I suppose we can't really see light by shining light on it, especially if both are colourless, or same colour... Those type of beings are either inferred in some 3p way, or intuited in some 1p way, and not only we can't prove them to exist or to make sense, but we cannot provide any 3p exhaustive description. It is the same for arithmetical truth, and provably so if we assume that we are Turing emulable. I do think we might be able to awake the God in us, but that leads to a first person experience, which, like consciousness, cannot belong to a publicly available set of genuine scientific sharable evidences. Agree, such experiences are deeply personal and they cannot be proved. However, there has to be some way of examining whether such experience is genuinely a God experience or something else. If God, while creating everything, has paid attention to the finest detail such as DNA coding and quarks and strings, then why is it so difficult or impossible that God would also give us a user manual (guide/scripture) along with this trial (life)? Samiya Yet, such experiences can still be personally life changing, like with near death experiences, or with LSD, or salvia, etc. Bruno On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Sure: Do you believe in a theist god? I'd like to. So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic departments that have no subject. This would also include political science, arts, gender studies, french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right? I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 7/14/2014 7:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jul 2014, at 15:09, David Nyman wrote: On 12 July 2014 20:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Of course they wouldn't because 17 is a prime number is a tautology. It's true simply in virtue of it's meaning like x is x. But is it a fact about the world or just a fact about language? I must confess to being somewhat flabbergasted that we're still debating the semantics and metaphysical provenance of numbers as if it were in any way relevant to the fundamental topics under discussion. Agreed. especially that for numbers (or any Turing-complete theory), we know that if we assume less, we don't get them. In fact numbers are assumed in all (scientific) theories, and people nitpicking on them introduce useless metaphysics about them. I don't know of any scientific theory that usese infinitely many integers. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Why do you need to see God to believe in God? You don't. To believe in God all that is needed in 99 times out of 100 is for your mommy and daddy to tell you that there is a God. Not only that but your mommy and daddy will tell you which particular God franchise is the one true franchise and the chances are overwhelming that is the one you will belong to for your entire life. Why else do you think geography has so much to do with religious belief? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:00 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Why do you need to see God to believe in God? You don't. To believe in God all that is needed in 99 times out of 100 is for your mommy and daddy to tell you that there is a God. Not only that but your mommy and daddy will tell you which particular God franchise is the one true franchise and the chances are overwhelming that is the one you will belong to for your entire life. Why else do you think geography has so much to do with religious belief? That is because most people choose the religion of their parents, as part of culture and are comfortable confirming to social norms, instead of honest intellectual inquiry and search. Blind following of parental faith is condemned in the Quran. Samiya 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 14-Jul-2014, at 12:00 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-07-14 17:50 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
On 14-Jul-2014, at 11:25 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should you
believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that you
know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating.
That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not
believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ?
because, if there is more than just this terrestrial life, your eternity
might depend upon your belief, motives and consequent actions
Why should it depend if I believe or not ??
That would depend who is making the rules and what the rules are. If it is for
us humans to make rules, given our limited knowledge, desires, hopes and
wishes, we would probably do away with the need to believe. If the rules are
made by a superior intelligence who knows human potential: past, present and
future, then we really do not have a choice in the matter. Since we can flavour
a mixed bag of good and bad, happy and sad, fulfilment and deprivation,
intelligence and ignorance, great wealth and comfort in contrast with abject
poverty and misery, and so on, what makes us so comfortable that this cannot be
repeated, and that also in greater degree, indefinitely, perpetually? Don't you
think it is being very bold and perilous to oneself to be agnostic or atheist
on such a thing?
Samiya
Samiya
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but because it
fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see the set {0, 1, 2,
...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt that it makes sense, as it
explains a lot of other things in which I already tend to believe (like
the non existence of a bigger prime, or the existence of universal
numbers, the real numbers, etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.
This would also include political science, arts, gender studies,
french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what
doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a
podcast? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all.
Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature.
I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in
