Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/5/2013 1:30 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/5 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 12/5/2013 8:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: No, because there is no absolute measure to decrease to begin with. The thing is, doing dangerous thing *increase* likeliness to experience being crippled, that's what is more likely. So what was your measure before you were born? I don't think it has any meaning... but what do you think ? I think you (and me) is a coarse grained concept and we only exist in a statistical mechanics kind of way. So our measure was essentially zero before we were born and will be again after we die. Brent I'm not afraid of dying. I just don't want to be there when it happens. --- Woody Allen -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/5/2013 8:53 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: I don't know how you count but for me the chance to be in a Dreb world after 24h is 1%^24 == infinitesimal. Each choice are independent... That would be the probability that you went to Dreb independently each hour. So you died the first hour, then you had to also die again the second hour,... 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 02 Dec 2013, at 23:47, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 12:52 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 December 2013 09:49, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/2 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. It too might have personal aspect. I believe Bruno's only prejudice about this is he thinks it leads to a contradiction. Assuming computationalism... I was taking that as read. But yes, Bruno also thinks that if you don't assume computationalism, you have to adopt a supernatural stance towards consciousness, and I imagine he's prejudiced against that! Of course his Universal Dovetailer is pretty super too. In my view, these are all just hypothetical models and whatever is in them is implicitly natural if the model is right. If Zeus existed, he'd be part of nature (just an extended notion of nature). Bruno's theory explains some aspects of consciousness, e.g. something are incommunicable, but it doesn't do so well at explaining matter or even other things about consciousness. At least it explains the appearance of matter. With the Matter assumption, and comp, this is put under the rug. In fact I know only comp for explaining matter. It is not good (today) to do prediction, but that was not the goal, which is to get a coherent picture of reality which explains both mind and matter in the frame of computationalism. I'm not even convinced by his movie graph argument (or Mauldin's Olympia) because they seem to require that all possible contingencies be anticipated. But maybe I just don't understand them. We can come back on this someday. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 03 Dec 2013, at 21:33, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, Could comp possibly work without the infinities.? At the ontological level, it works without the infinities. It still use the infinity of finite things: 0, 1, 2, 3, ... At the epistemological level, that is at the level of the beliefs of the universal numbers, they have to use many infinities to develop theories about themselves and make them meaningful. With comp finite/infinite is aboslute, but enumerable/non-enumerable is relative (like in the model theory of set theory, cf Skolem) Bruno Richard On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. I don't have any prejudice. I am just saying that IF comp is correct, then matter or the observable is given by some infinite sums on infinitely many universal numbers. And so it is testable, accepting the most standard definitions in the crossed fields. It too might have personal aspect. It sure has. (It is, roughly, and plausibly, the nuance between Bp Dt, (no first personal aspect) and Bp Dt p, p sigma_1 (first personal aspect)) They give arithmetical quantizations, and it is a technical difficulty to see if they emulate a quantum machine or not. I have no prejudice at all. I am agnostic on both matter and god. I just try to put the pieces of the puzzle in the correct place, assuming an hypothesis which helps for intuitive reasoning, and their translation in math. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 03 Dec 2013, at 21:53, meekerdb wrote: On 12/3/2013 10:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: wants to be worshiped, judges people and rewards and punishes them. That's a legend used to put people in place so that they will be worshiped, so that they can judged other people, reward and punish them. Why do you credit such things. Why can you believe that we should listen to them? You are the one giving them importance, and by arguing against a scientific approach to God, souls, afterlife, meaning, etc. you will maintain the current fairy tale aspect in theology, and you will contribute in maintaining them in power. I don't credit such things. So why do you come back on it? Why not abstract ourself from the fairy tales, once and for all, if we don't credit them. Because billions of people believe (or pretend to believe) the fairy tales and want to make public policy based on their book of fairy tales. In the U.S., before some courts ruled that leading prayers in public schools was unconstitutional, the fundamentalist churches did not participate in politics. The held themselves to be concerned with an unearthly, spiritual realm that transcended politics. But the prayer in school ruling caused them to become activists and they were seen as resource by the conservative Republicans that had taken over southern politics after the civil rights act of 1964. Since then they have campaigned politically to outlaw abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, teaching evolution, deny global warming, and expand Israel. That is a result of having separated theology from science. But the idea is important because so many people believe it And they are wrong on many things, but perhaps not on everything, so why not try to show them a less naive approach? Their own theologian are not that naïve. And their are many approaches and conception of God, Gods, and Goddesses, It or That. Which theologians? There is no agreement among theologians. There are agreements and there are disagreements. Also among Quantum physicists. The problem is that we have no come back to the free spiritual open- mind that is needed in science to progress. Absence of agreement is what makes science possible. And large sects reject even the idea of relying on theologians; they believe that they should only rely on their own reading of their holy books (remember the protestant reformation?). And even among those who do rely on a priesthood to interpret for them, I don't see that the priesthood has communicated the God of your theology. They would lose their job. But if theology come back to academy and the classroom, with the scientific attitude, they would. By mocking theology you keep it in the hand of the exploiters of credulity/spirituality. Also, to be sure, I know Christians who are real atheists. They keep the label by solidarity with the community or the family or tradition. I let God counts the genuine believers :) - and you are the one that gives them support by writing that God is really an important rational concept, using the name of the bearded man in the sky they believe in when you really mean something completely different. Only the fairy tale aspect is different, but if you read the theologians, you might revise that opinion. I think you only read theologians that you agree with. I googled famous theologians and find Christian and Jewish apologists, not seekers for ur. Googling might not be enough, or take more time. Years ago, when I google on snus (oral tobacco), the 20 first sites where the one reporting the most fake papers you can find on oral tobacco. Given that on god we are brainwashed 1430 years more than on drug, it is hardly astonishing that a simple Googling will reflect the lies instead of the serious inquirers. I think it is your very attitude which helps the bandits to keep theology as a manipulative incorrigible machine. Your God has no overlap with the common usage of the Big Daddy in the sky. I think it has enough common points, I think, especially from the points of view of comparative theology. Of course it is an open problem if it is a Daddy or a Mommy or even if that question makes sense. With comp, it is not clear if X can be a person, or can be conceive by a machine as being a person. The common points are, that God is a X such that - X has no name, no description, - X is responsible for your life and lives, the biology, the psychology, the physics, What does 'responsible' mean? It can be simple causality: The wind was responsible for the tree falling. Or it can imply an ethical choice: Madoff was responsible for the deception. The latter meaning slips in the idea that X is a person. Or it can be a logical reason. Or something else. -
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Hi Richard, On 03 Dec 2013, at 21:54, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: Also, to be sure, I know Christians who are real atheists. They keep the label by solidarity with the community or the family or traditionI let God counts the genuine believers :) Richard: A too friendly priest told me that I was an atheist when I was in college and I agreed. I stopped going to church and he got in trouble. I remained an atheist for almost two decades, mainly because I could not see anyway I could have an afterlife, until I read about OBE. So then I came to believe in the supernatural- that's all background. I don't believe in the supernatural, because I don't believe in the natural to begin with. supernatural is like added artificial magic to correct the defect of the natural, which is naturally person and consciousness elimininativist. Now coming from atheism, no one religion seemed just right for me although the eastern religions, even the atheistic ones, were most appealing. But by then I had married a former jewess and conversion to Judaism seemed most appropriate, you know, for the family. So I began 3 years of study in a Reform Temple under a wannabe-orthodox rabbi a couple of towns away. The point of this little story is that when I and my wife joined the Reform Temple in our home town (Lexington, Massachusetts) my new friends were amazed, esp since I was a rocket scientist, that I was a believer (in the supernatural-not necessarily god). Turns out that the entire membership was atheistic as far as I could tell, although it was not PC to mention it. Atheists or agnostic? Many people make the confusion, and some atheists vindicate it, and distinguish weak atheism (agnosticism) and strong atheism (belief that God = Matter, and no possible other God). I think Judaism, and probably Islam, are slightly less incorrect than Christianism, but their mystic parts (Cabbala, Sufi, Augustin) are closer to neoplatonism and so, to comp (if you can agree with the definitions or meta-definition). Unfortunately they have secret doctrine, and it is hard to delineate what is secret for absolute theological reason (like in the comp G* minus G, or like in any negative theology), and what is secret to avoid trouble with the local authorities, and ... the family ... Bruno On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: wants to be worshiped, judges people and rewards and punishes them. That's a legend used to put people in place so that they will be worshiped, so that they can judged other people, reward and punish them. Why do you credit such things. Why can you believe that we should listen to them? You are the one giving them importance, and by arguing against a scientific approach to God, souls, afterlife, meaning, etc. you will maintain the current fairy tale aspect in theology, and you will contribute in maintaining them in power. I don't credit such things. So why do you come back on it? Why not abstract ourself from the fairy tales, once and for all, if we don't credit them. But the idea is important because so many people believe it And they are wrong on many things, but perhaps not on everything, so why not try to show them a less naive approach? Their own theologian are not that naïve. And their are many approaches and conception of God, Gods, and Goddesses, It or That. Also, to be sure, I know Christians who are real atheists. They keep the label by solidarity with the community or the family or tradition. I let God counts the genuine believers :) - and you are the one that gives them support by writing that God is really an important rational concept, using the name of the bearded man in the sky they believe in when you really mean something completely different. Only the fairy tale aspect is different, but if you read the theologians, you might revise that opinion. So it is important to say the idea is a fairy tale. Not the idea of God, as used by theologians., only the idea of God, as used in don't ask by the demagogs. If your read the theologian or the mystics, you get a different picture. Probably different of what those using religion to control people want you to not see at all. For you religion connotes with Jesus, the Churches, etc. To me it is more a probably sumerian idea, (?), Pythagorus, Plato, Plotinus, and it did not end but lives dissipates in a large part of the abramanic religion, and then looks close to what the self- referentially correct told us about the possible truth about themselves. The scientific approach to Gods is to say they are a failed hypothesis - not to redefine the word. Only retarded creationists would use God as an hypothesis to explain the facts, as God is usually considered as what we can
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 03 Dec 2013, at 22:56, meekerdb wrote: On 12/3/2013 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 21:52, LizR wrote: On 3 December 2013 09:49, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/2 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. It too might have personal aspect. I believe Bruno's only prejudice about this is he thinks it leads to a contradiction. Assuming computationalism... I was taking that as read. But yes, Bruno also thinks that if you don't assume computationalism, you have to adopt a supernatural stance towards consciousness, and I imagine he's prejudiced against that! If you don't assume computationalism you have to adopt a supernatural stance towards Matter. (That's the point), and on consciousness. I don't understand what definition of 'supernatural' you're using? Are you simply saying that if X is taken as fundamental, and therefore unexplained, then X is supernatural? So long as matter is something we can manipulate I don't see how it can be considered supernatural (c.f. Dr. Johnson). I mean that supernatural use some magic, or some actual non Turing emulability, not being recoverable by the FPI. Supernatural = 1) non Turing emulable, 2) non FPI recoverable. You need to work again the UDA step 8 to understand that any notion of primitive matter need a supernatural power, in that sense, if that matter can be related to any conscious experience. Machines cannot distinguish an arithmetical reality from anything reified as more real than numbers. Generally I see the natural/supernatural distinction as admitting a large grey area between black and white. Planets were once supposed to be supernatural beings, i.e. they were immortal and lived above the sphere of corruption in heaven. When they were found to obey fairly simple, precise laws of motion, they became part of nature. I expect the same will happen with human consciousness. It seems mysterious and inexplicable by physics now - but it may not always be so. I don't see how, unless you extend the sense of physics up to accept that the TOE is arithmetic, and physics is a branch of machine's psychology. Primitive matter seems to me mysterious and inexplicable, but comp explains why machines cannot avoid the beliefs in its appearance. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 03 Dec 2013, at 22:57, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, I expected better from you. You seem to restrict the unlimited possibilities into the PRESENT limitations of our imagination. I seem to restrict, but comp is an assumption of finiteness, which augment the unlimited possibilities. Non comp is what limits the possibility. Little things go through *more* holes than big things. I am only more open minded on the unlimited possible relation between machines and truth. Do you have any support for the exclusivity of computationalism over ALL (so far maybe not even thought about) systems that MAY work? You talk like if I was believing in comp, or defending that comp is true. I don't do that at all. Do you have support for YOUR version of consciousness as the ONLY possible input for Matter (as we THINK of it TODAY?) ? I don't understand. And: I have no idea what would you cover by YOUR truth? I have no pretension at all on any truth. I explain two things: - 1) IF we are machine, THEN physics IS a branch of numbers bio-psycho- theology (a part of arithmetic). -2) and this makes the assumption (of being a machine) refutable, as I provide a constructive means to derive physics from arithmetic. 1) is given by the Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA), and 2) is provided by the translation of the UDA in arithmetic (AUDA, the universal machine interview). May be it is the human lack of imagination of some of the humans of today which prevents them to listen to the machines of today, and to see that they saw what Plato and the mystics seems to have seen too. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 03 Dec 2013, at 22:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: You can believe in God in the same sense that we can believe in super intelligent extraterrestrials. A.C. Clarke, and Skeptic magazine editor, Michael Shermer, both, have mentioned this in comparison. Until someone or something shows up in a acknowledgeable was as, both highly, intelligent and extraordinary, shows up, around our home planet, we are dealing with ideas, histories, and creative writing, which is not a terrible thing to do. In which theory? When we talk on Matter or primitively material universe, we deal also with ideas, beliefs, assumptions or myth (even dogma, for many, or even unconscious dogma, for those who sleep in this subject). God is not an alien, although our comp-finiteness could make us confuse a God with some possible alien. In fact if we give a name to a God, we make it into a sort of alien, hiding some possible God. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 3:28 am Subject: Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment On 03 Dec 2013, at 08:13, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: just so they and their close friends can say, We believe in God rationally Come on. No serious theologian would say that. they know you need grace, luck, or a bit of salvia divinorum, which seems to cure atheism according to some reports. So are these people not serious theologians: William Lane Craig, Alister McGrath, Alvin Plantinga, Rowan Williams. Who counts as a serious theologian? Is it only those that agree with you? No, they are those who are able to put an interrogation mark behind their public assertions, and are open to revise their statement in a debate. Bruno PS I have to go and will comment later other posts (busy day). Thanks for the patience. I like very much that thread, which is in between purely vocabulary discussion and perhaps an important idea on reality Brent We can't believe in God rationally, nor can we believe in the moon rationally, but we can study the consequences of our theories. And when we become rational, as you know, we are lead from questions to questions. -- 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/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
You talk like if I was believing in comp, or defending that comp is true. I don't do that at all. So you think that your belief in COMP is product of a computation, so it is a belief, but not a true meta-belief of the meta-numeical reality, so it is not worth a belief fo Bruno Marchall?. suc(1010011) sorry, a meta-glith in the UDA. Please call the measurers to fix it out. 2013/12/4 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 03 Dec 2013, at 22:57, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, I expected better from you. You seem to restrict the unlimited possibilities into the PRESENT limitations of our imagination. I seem to restrict, but comp is an assumption of finiteness, which augment the unlimited possibilities. Non comp is what limits the possibility. Little things go through *more* holes than big things. I am only more open minded on the unlimited possible relation between machines and truth. Do you have any support for the exclusivity of computationalism over ALL (so far maybe not even thought about) systems that MAY work? You talk like if I was believing in comp, or defending that comp is true. I don't do that at all. Do you have support for YOUR version of consciousness as the ONLY possible input for Matter (as we THINK of it TODAY?) ? I don't understand. And: I have no idea what would you cover by YOUR truth? I have no pretension at all on any truth. I explain two things: - 1) IF we are machine, THEN physics IS a branch of numbers bio-psycho-theology (a part of arithmetic). -2) and this makes the assumption (of being a machine) refutable, as I provide a constructive means to derive physics from arithmetic. 1) is given by the Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA), and 2) is provided by the translation of the UDA in arithmetic (AUDA, the universal machine interview). May be it is the human lack of imagination of some of the humans of today which prevents them to listen to the machines of today, and to see that they saw what Plato and the mystics seems to have seen too. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If God exists as mathematics, infinite sets, or neutrinos, how can we deal with it? What evidence would it take to demonstrate convincingly, to you, Dr. Marchal, that Drelb is the Great One? What mathematical proof would it show you that Pi, out to a quadrillion integers is God, or Phi? To 'touch faith' as the olde British 80's rock song (personal Jesus) stated, we must somehow interact with the 'other.' The other has to be someone we know is true, tactile, rational. Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 5:32 am Subject: Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment On 03 Dec 2013, at 22:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: You can believe in God in the same sense that we can believe in super intelligent extraterrestrials. A.C. Clarke, and Skeptic magazine editor, Michael Shermer, both, have mentioned this in comparison. Until someone or something shows up in a acknowledgeable was as, both highly, intelligent and extraordinary, shows up, around our home planet, we are dealing with ideas, histories, and creative writing, which is not a terrible thing to do. In which theory? When we talk on Matter or primitively material universe, we deal also with ideas, beliefs, assumptions or myth (even dogma, for many, or even unconscious dogma, for those who sleep in this subject). God is not an alien, although our comp-finiteness could make us confuse a God with some possible alien. In fact if we give a name to a God, we make it into a sort of alien, hiding some possible God. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 3:28 am Subject: Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment On 03 Dec 2013, at 08:13, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: just so they and their close friends can say, We believe in God rationally Come on. No serious theologian would say that. they know you need grace, luck, or a bit of salvia divinorum, which seems to cure atheism according to some reports. So are these people not serious theologians: William Lane Craig, Alister McGrath, Alvin Plantinga, Rowan Williams. Who counts as a serious theologian? Is it only those that agree with you? No, they are those who are able to put an interrogation mark behind their public assertions, and are open to revise their statement in a debate. Bruno PS I have to go and will comment later other posts (busy day). Thanks for the patience. I like very much that thread, which is in between purely vocabulary discussion and perhaps an important idea on reality Brent We can't believe in God rationally, nor can we believe in the moon rationally, but we can study the consequences of our theories. And when we become rational, as you know, we are lead from questions to questions. -- 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/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. 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
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. Say hi to it and it can hear you. Drelb can even copy us into his galaxy remotely, after discovering us. So the existence of such hyper-intelligences, no matter how remote (even in entirely causally separate universes) is not something that can have no effect on you or your future. Jason -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Jason- Drelb can even copy us into his galaxy remotely, after discovering us. So the existence of such hyper-intelligences, no matter how remote (even in entirely causally separate universes) is not something that can have no effect on you or your future. Me. Oh mighty overlord and master, Drelb, we welcome your magnificence to our foul and benighted world! Great, Drelb! Make me your loyal taskmaster, and I shall put the others to work building enormous monuments to your shinning, glory! Henceforth, Christmas shall be known as the 25th of Drelb. Now back to work you scum, or you'll feel Drelb's and my, lash! -Original Message- From: Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 1:24 pm Subject: Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. Say hi to it and it can hear you. Drelb can even copy us into his galaxy remotely, after discovering us. So the existence of such hyper-intelligences, no matter how remote (even in entirely causally separate universes) is not something that can have no effect on you or your future. Jason -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/4/2013 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Dec 2013, at 21:53, meekerdb wrote: On 12/3/2013 10:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: wants to be worshiped, judges people and rewards and punishes them. That's a legend used to put people in place so that they will be worshiped, so that they can judged other people, reward and punish them. Why do you credit such things. Why can you believe that we should listen to them? You are the one giving them importance, and by arguing against a scientific approach to God, souls, afterlife, meaning, etc. you will maintain the current fairy tale aspect in theology, and you will contribute in maintaining them in power. I don't credit such things. So why do you come back on it? Why not abstract ourself from the fairy tales, once and for all, if we don't credit them. Because billions of people believe (or pretend to believe) the fairy tales and want to make public policy based on their book of fairy tales. In the U.S., before some courts ruled that leading prayers in public schools was unconstitutional, the fundamentalist churches did not participate in politics. The held themselves to be concerned with an unearthly, spiritual realm that transcended politics. But the prayer in school ruling caused them to become activists and they were seen as resource by the conservative Republicans that had taken over southern politics after the civil rights act of 1964. Since then they have campaigned politically to outlaw abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, teaching evolution, deny global warming, and expand Israel. That is a result of having separated theology from science. I think you have a pollyannish view of history. Theology, the belief in superhuman gods, preceded science as a disciple by millenia. Theology was based on faith and priests and dogma, and it supported the state. Theologians held secret, esoteric discussions of the gods, but if they deviated much from the theology of the state they were punished (c.f. Socrates and your namesake). Science was only able to come into existence as an empirical search for truths when the Church was split and weakened and theology was left to apologetics. I don't know how you imagine science could have developed if it had separated from theology - nor how it could proceed now by taking up theology. Note that there have been scientific tests of theology: specifically of the efficacy of healing prayer. So it is not that scientists reject dogmas out of hand. But the idea is important because so many people believe it And they are wrong on many things, but perhaps not on everything, so why not try to show them a less naive approach? Their own theologian are not that naďve. And their are many approaches and conception of God, Gods, and Goddesses, It or That. Which theologians? There is no agreement among theologians. There are agreements and there are disagreements. Also among Quantum physicists. Not about the experimental facts. The problem is that we have no come back to the free spiritual open-mind that is needed in science to progress. Absence of agreement is what makes science possible. And the testability of theories. And large sects reject even the idea of relying on theologians; they believe that they should only rely on their own reading of their holy books (remember the protestant reformation?). And even among those who do rely on a priesthood to interpret for them, I don't see that the priesthood has communicated the God of your theology. They would lose their job. But if theology come back to academy and the classroom, with the scientific attitude, they would. By mocking theology you keep it in the hand of the exploiters of credulity/spirituality. Also, to be sure, I know Christians who are real atheists. They keep the label by solidarity with the community or the family or tradition. I let God counts the genuine believers :) - and you are the one that gives them support by writing that God is really an important rational concept, using the name of the bearded man in the sky they believe in when you really mean something completely different. Only the fairy tale aspect is different, but if you read the theologians, you might revise that opinion. I think you only read theologians that you agree with. I googled famous theologians and find Christian and Jewish apologists, not seekers for ur. Googling might not be enough, or take more time. Years ago, when I google on snus (oral tobacco), the 20 first sites where the one reporting the most fake papers you can find on oral tobacco. Given that on god we are brainwashed 1430 years more than on drug, it is hardly astonishing that a simple Googling will reflect the lies instead of the serious inquirers. I think it is your very attitude which helps the bandits to keep
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com mailto:spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. Brent Say hi to it and it can hear you. Drelb can even copy us into his galaxy remotely, after discovering us. So the existence of such hyper-intelligences, no matter how remote (even in entirely causally separate universes) is not something that can have no effect on you or your future. Jason -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. Jason -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. Such should have a very low measure facing the UD or comp is false... Quentin Jason -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/4/2013 2:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com mailto:spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. So he suffers FPI too. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. Such should have a very low measure facing the UD or comp is false... As you approach death and your measure drops, strange things may result. Remember there are an infinite number of such Drelb-like entities, none can change mathematical truth so none can affect whether or not your existence, but they can provide continuation paths for you. Jason -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 2:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. So he suffers FPI too. That is my understanding. I'm not sure if I would call it suffering though. Jason -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Measure is relative, it doesn't drop while you approach death. Probabilities add up to one... And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. Such should have a very low measure facing the UD or comp is false... As you approach death and your measure drops, strange things may result. Remember there are an infinite number of such Drelb-like entities, none can change mathematical truth so none can affect whether or not your existence, but they can provide continuation paths for you. Jason -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 5 December 2013 19:59, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Measure is relative, it doesn't drop while you approach death. Probabilities add up to one... And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. In fact you don't approach death, assuming QTI, -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. Subjectively you cannot die. And in an infinitely large and varied universe, many strange things may happen. Jason Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. Such should have a very low measure facing the UD or comp is false... As you approach death and your measure drops, strange things may result. Remember there are an infinite number of such Drelb-like entities, none can change mathematical truth so none can affect whether or not your existence, but they can provide continuation paths for you. Jason -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even near death. Quentin And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. Subjectively you cannot die. And in an infinitely large and varied universe, many strange things may happen. Jason Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. Such should have a very low measure facing the UD or comp is false... As you approach death and your measure drops, strange things may result. Remember there are an infinite number of such Drelb-like entities, none can change mathematical truth so none can affect whether or not your existence, but they can provide continuation paths for you. Jason -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Well all the possibilities ever experienced by an human beings anywhere in the multiverse add up to a vanishingly small measure compared to all the parts of the multiverse where we didn't evolve, Earth didn't form, etc. So any measure we are aware of is always going to be infinitesimal from a God's eye perspective - and 100% from our own. On 5 December 2013 20:48, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even near death. Quentin And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. Subjectively you cannot die. And in an infinitely large and varied universe, many strange things may happen. Jason Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.netwrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. Such should have a very low measure facing the UD or comp is false... As you approach death and your measure drops, strange things may result. Remember there are an infinite number of such Drelb-like entities, none can change mathematical truth so none can affect whether or not your existence, but they can provide continuation paths for you. Jason -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/5 LizR lizj...@gmail.com Well all the possibilities ever experienced by an human beings anywhere in the multiverse add up to a vanishingly small measure compared to all the parts of the multiverse where we didn't evolve, Earth didn't form, etc. So any measure we are aware of is always going to be infinitesimal from a God's eye perspective - and 100% from our own. As I said, only relative measure count... ASSA is useless and wrong. When I talk about low measure, I alway talk about relative measure from your current state. Quentin On 5 December 2013 20:48, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even near death. Quentin And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. Subjectively you cannot die. And in an infinitely large and varied universe, many strange things may happen. Jason Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.netwrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. Such should have a very low measure facing the UD or comp is false... As you approach death and your measure drops, strange things may result. Remember there are an infinite number of such Drelb-like entities, none can change mathematical truth so none can affect whether or not your existence, but they can provide continuation paths for you. Jason -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 03 Dec 2013, at 08:13, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: just so they and their close friends can say, We believe in God rationally Come on. No serious theologian would say that. they know you need grace, luck, or a bit of salvia divinorum, which seems to cure atheism according to some reports. So are these people not serious theologians: William Lane Craig, Alister McGrath, Alvin Plantinga, Rowan Williams. Who counts as a serious theologian? Is it only those that agree with you? No, they are those who are able to put an interrogation mark behind their public assertions, and are open to revise their statement in a debate. Bruno PS I have to go and will comment later other posts (busy day). Thanks for the patience. I like very much that thread, which is in between purely vocabulary discussion and perhaps an important idea on reality Brent We can't believe in God rationally, nor can we believe in the moon rationally, but we can study the consequences of our theories. And when we become rational, as you know, we are lead from questions to questions. -- 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/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: That's enough for me, if you want to put credit on fairy tale, it's your problem, not mine. Yeah, but then Ramanujan and a lot of brilliant musicians, mystic, platonist etc. also require some axioms to work from. In a sense they also require fairy tale leap of faith, like working with any theory, but I don't consider any to be inherently superior or more BS than the other. Depends on the dream in which these are embedded and where this takes us. PGC Bruno does not obviously believe in the abrahamic god as he calls that fairy tales... Still, I am not certain that Bruno uses fairy tale with derogatory semantic implications as you do. Well ask him... I think his usage is closer to metaphoric guide story of some theology, What is left about that theology when you remove the fairy tales ? You tell me. I like a good story. I'm asking you, you're the one saying there is something left... not to be taken too seriously or literally by e.g. deriving politics or ethics etc. directly from it. Nonetheless, he recently wrote of non-compness of Ganesha in some thread, which presupposes some familiarity with the mythology, that you do not get, when it's all silly fairy tales... So no, I don't think Bruno uses it the way you do in this infantilization discrimination sense. If you were in power there would be prohibition Please refrain to put actions in your opponent mouth, you say that, I don't and wouldn't act like you say... Why wouldn't it be consistent to get rid of the bs theologies, to use your terms, if they can so easily be identified? I don't see any of these statements leading to some clarification of notions and possibilities of ultimate reality; you're just stating no, that linguistic pointer is definitely false and people practicing theologies x,y,z are misled The people who are misled is not you or Bruno, but the billions of people associating god *with an all loving, omniscient, omnipresent person*, because you use their vocabulary to design something *totally* different. Hence using their vocabulary is misleading. Quentin while Quentin is not. Good for Quentin, is all I can add, then. PGC Quentin of religious mythology, which is bad for Christmas mood ;-) AND the holy economy. How is doing our accounting not a kind of Rosary praying, counting, chore thing? Exactly the same, and no matter how much you do, pray or gain, you're always out where you started in some sense... Another round? PGC Quentin as the brainless faith-freaks that you criticize; just your belief with you as god of validity instead of them. God as understood by billions people on earth... Billions have been wrong, they could and probably will be again. You are using it incorrectly, your usage is absolutely not standard usage, and so by using it, you're misleading people who read you... I beg to differ. Even some Christian theologians I know, not to speak of Taoist, Zen, space bunny new age people etc., agree with this type of meta-definition to avoid naming something we cannot. This is standard across many religions and forms of spirituality. I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... Those ARE already your beliefs, Quentin. Raising them above other people's theology is what that is. I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Most people believe in prohibition. Your appeal to popular consensus weakens your argument, in that it admits that there really is not much more to atheism than a misled popular opinion, that is not only empty, but misleading as I've laid out above. PGC Quentin I know it is a bit subtle, and it is related with the gap between truth and provable. It is related with the fact that a machine can assert its own consistency and take it as a new axiom, but then it has to become a new different machine, which still cannot assert (prove) its own consistency. Yet, the machine can assert its own consistency and stay the same machine, but then that machine becomes inconsistent. This explains a lot about theology, I think, including why theologies can easily become inconsistent. or ultimate truth, or arithmetical truth, despite she is correct, she became inconsistent. She asserts some G* minus G proposition, on herself, in the inconsistent way. No, he/she just use non contreversial word. God as no description and ultimate reality looks already too much to a description. That's what you say but see below... You will tell me
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 02 Dec 2013, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: wants to be worshiped, judges people and rewards and punishes them. That's a legend used to put people in place so that they will be worshiped, so that they can judged other people, reward and punish them. Why do you credit such things. Why can you believe that we should listen to them? You are the one giving them importance, and by arguing against a scientific approach to God, souls, afterlife, meaning, etc. you will maintain the current fairy tale aspect in theology, and you will contribute in maintaining them in power. I don't credit such things. So why do you come back on it? Why not abstract ourself from the fairy tales, once and for all, if we don't credit them. But the idea is important because so many people believe it And they are wrong on many things, but perhaps not on everything, so why not try to show them a less naive approach? Their own theologian are not that naïve. And their are many approaches and conception of God, Gods, and Goddesses, It or That. Also, to be sure, I know Christians who are real atheists. They keep the label by solidarity with the community or the family or tradition. I let God counts the genuine believers :) - and you are the one that gives them support by writing that God is really an important rational concept, using the name of the bearded man in the sky they believe in when you really mean something completely different. Only the fairy tale aspect is different, but if you read the theologians, you might revise that opinion. So it is important to say the idea is a fairy tale. Not the idea of God, as used by theologians., only the idea of God, as used in don't ask by the demagogs. If your read the theologian or the mystics, you get a different picture. Probably different of what those using religion to control people want you to not see at all. For you religion connotes with Jesus, the Churches, etc. To me it is more a probably sumerian idea, (?), Pythagorus, Plato, Plotinus, and it did not end but lives dissipates in a large part of the abramanic religion, and then looks close to what the self-referentially correct told us about the possible truth about themselves. The scientific approach to Gods is to say they are a failed hypothesis - not to redefine the word. Only retarded creationists would use God as an hypothesis to explain the facts, as God is usually considered as what we can understand the less. To refute creationism is like to answer to a spam. Like consciousness, god is not useful as a starting hypothesis. The god = matter failed to. You might define God by the reality beyond or behind matter. Then it is interesting that when you do the math in the comp theory we understand that the overlap is big with the talk of theologians, even if the fairy tales disappear completely (the same with salvia, despite it has its own fairy tales). I realize that science redefines common words too, like energy, but those new definitions subsume the common terms. Which means almost abstract from the popular misconceptions. Your God has no overlap with the common usage of the Big Daddy in the sky. I think it has enough common points, I think, especially from the points of view of comparative theology. Of course it is an open problem if it is a Daddy or a Mommy or even if that question makes sense. With comp, it is not clear if X can be a person, or can be conceive by a machine as being a person. The common points are, that God is a X such that - X has no name, no description, - X is responsible for your life and lives, the biology, the psychology, the physics, - If X get a name, Lies happen and its name multiplies, - X is not computable, - X is not arithmetical, - X attracts or repulse Souls, - etc. Then we can look in arithmetic, and around, if something match and try questioning the (Löbian) machine, like is God competent (like in Plotinus, and most religion) or is God incompetent (like with the Gnostics)?. And many other questions. Cantor took the pain to explain to the Pope that, if he did indeed give name to infinities, he was still unable to name the infinity of infinities, and that he was not naming God. I don't think he meant a big Daddy in the sky. Scientist modesty in machine theology forces us into agnosticism and cautious, about the relation between Truth and Machines. A TOE is necessary a theology, as it must let open or decide if there is 0, or 1, or 2, ... gods, with this or that definition of gods. You can call it theonomy (by the assocation theonomy/theology being astronomy/astrology). But that would be a sort of error similar to lifting the theology of the correct machine on ourself, like if we could know publicly that we are correct. Changing the vocabulary would be like taking the words too much
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 02 Dec 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. I don't have any prejudice. I am just saying that IF comp is correct, then matter or the observable is given by some infinite sums on infinitely many universal numbers. And so it is testable, accepting the most standard definitions in the crossed fields. It too might have personal aspect. It sure has. (It is, roughly, and plausibly, the nuance between Bp Dt, (no first personal aspect) and Bp Dt p, p sigma_1 (first personal aspect)) They give arithmetical quantizations, and it is a technical difficulty to see if they emulate a quantum machine or not. I have no prejudice at all. I am agnostic on both matter and god. I just try to put the pieces of the puzzle in the correct place, assuming an hypothesis which helps for intuitive reasoning, and their translation in math. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Bruno, Could comp possibly work without the infinities.? Richard On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. I don't have any prejudice. I am just saying that IF comp is correct, then matter or the observable is given by some infinite sums on infinitely many universal numbers. And so it is testable, accepting the most standard definitions in the crossed fields. It too might have personal aspect. It sure has. (It is, roughly, and plausibly, the nuance between Bp Dt, (no first personal aspect) and Bp Dt p, p sigma_1 (first personal aspect)) They give arithmetical quantizations, and it is a technical difficulty to see if they emulate a quantum machine or not. I have no prejudice at all. I am agnostic on both matter and god. I just try to put the pieces of the puzzle in the correct place, assuming an hypothesis which helps for intuitive reasoning, and their translation in math. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/3/2013 10:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: wants to be worshiped, judges people and rewards and punishes them. That's a legend used to put people in place so that they will be worshiped, so that they can judged other people, reward and punish them. Why do you credit such things. Why can you believe that we should listen to them? You are the one giving them importance, and by arguing against a scientific approach to God, souls, afterlife, meaning, etc. you will maintain the current fairy tale aspect in theology, and you will contribute in maintaining them in power. I don't credit such things. So why do you come back on it? Why not abstract ourself from the fairy tales, once and for all, if we don't credit them. Because billions of people believe (or pretend to believe) the fairy tales and want to make public policy based on their book of fairy tales. In the U.S., before some courts ruled that leading prayers in public schools was unconstitutional, the fundamentalist churches did not participate in politics. The held themselves to be concerned with an unearthly, spiritual realm that transcended politics. But the prayer in school ruling caused them to become activists and they were seen as resource by the conservative Republicans that had taken over southern politics after the civil rights act of 1964. Since then they have campaigned politically to outlaw abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, teaching evolution, deny global warming, and expand Israel. But the idea is important because so many people believe it And they are wrong on many things, but perhaps not on everything, so why not try to show them a less naive approach? Their own theologian are not that naïve. And their are many approaches and conception of God, Gods, and Goddesses, It or That. Which theologians? There is no agreement among theologians. And large sects reject even the idea of relying on theologians; they believe that they should only rely on their own reading of their holy books (remember the protestant reformation?). And even among those who do rely on a priesthood to interpret for them, I don't see that the priesthood has communicated the God of your theology. Also, to be sure, I know Christians who are real atheists. They keep the label by solidarity with the community or the family or tradition. I let God counts the genuine believers :) - and you are the one that gives them support by writing that God is really an important rational concept, using the name of the bearded man in the sky they believe in when you really mean something completely different. Only the fairy tale aspect is different, but if you read the theologians, you might revise that opinion. I think you only read theologians that you agree with. I googled famous theologians and find Christian and Jewish apologists, not seekers for ur. So it is important to say the idea is a fairy tale. Not the idea of God, as used by theologians., only the idea of God, as used in don't ask by the demagogs. If your read the theologian or the mystics, you get a different picture. Probably different of what those using religion to control people want you to not see at all. For you religion connotes with Jesus, the Churches, etc. To me it is more a probably sumerian idea, (?), Pythagorus, Plato, Plotinus, and it did not end but lives dissipates in a large part of the abramanic religion, and then looks close to what the self-referentially correct told us about the possible truth about themselves. The scientific approach to Gods is to say they are a failed hypothesis - not to redefine the word. Only retarded creationists would use God as an hypothesis to explain the facts, as God is usually considered as what we can understand the less. To refute creationism is like to answer to a spam. Like consciousness, god is not useful as a starting hypothesis. The god = matter failed to. You might define God by the reality beyond or behind matter. Then it is interesting that when you do the math in the comp theory we understand that the overlap is big with the talk of theologians, even if the fairy tales disappear completely (the same with salvia, despite it has its own fairy tales). I realize that science redefines common words too, like energy, but those new definitions subsume the common terms. Which means almost abstract from the popular misconceptions. Your God has no overlap with the common usage of the Big Daddy in the sky. I think it has enough common points, I think, especially from the points of view of comparative theology. Of course it is an open problem if it is a Daddy or a Mommy or even if that question makes sense. With comp, it is not clear if X can be a person, or can be conceive by a machine as being a person. The common points are, that God is a X such that
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Bruno: Also, to be sure, I know Christians who are real atheists. They keep the label by solidarity with the community or the family or traditionI let God counts the genuine believers :) Richard: A too friendly priest told me that I was an atheist when I was in college and I agreed. I stopped going to church and he got in trouble. I remained an atheist for almost two decades, mainly because I could not see anyway I could have an afterlife, until I read about OBE. So then I came to believe in the supernatural- that's all background. Now coming from atheism, no one religion seemed just right for me although the eastern religions, even the atheistic ones, were most appealing. But by then I had married a former jewess and conversion to Judaism seemed most appropriate, you know, for the family. So I began 3 years of study in a Reform Temple under a wannabe-orthodox rabbi a couple of towns away. The point of this little story is that when I and my wife joined the Reform Temple in our home town (Lexington, Massachusetts) my new friends were amazed, esp since I was a rocket scientist, that I was a believer (in the supernatural-not necessarily god). Turns out that the entire membership was atheistic as far as I could tell, although it was not PC to mention it. On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: wants to be worshiped, judges people and rewards and punishes them. That's a legend used to put people in place so that they will be worshiped, so that they can judged other people, reward and punish them. Why do you credit such things. Why can you believe that we should listen to them? You are the one giving them importance, and by arguing against a scientific approach to God, souls, afterlife, meaning, etc. you will maintain the current fairy tale aspect in theology, and you will contribute in maintaining them in power. I don't credit such things. So why do you come back on it? Why not abstract ourself from the fairy tales, once and for all, if we don't credit them. But the idea is important because so many people believe it And they are wrong on many things, but perhaps not on everything, so why not try to show them a less naive approach? Their own theologian are not that naïve. And their are many approaches and conception of God, Gods, and Goddesses, It or That. Also, to be sure, I know Christians who are real atheists. They keep the label by solidarity with the community or the family or tradition. I let God counts the genuine believers :) - and you are the one that gives them support by writing that God is really an important rational concept, using the name of the bearded man in the sky they believe in when you really mean something completely different. Only the fairy tale aspect is different, but if you read the theologians, you might revise that opinion. So it is important to say the idea is a fairy tale. Not the idea of God, as used by theologians., only the idea of God, as used in don't ask by the demagogs. If your read the theologian or the mystics, you get a different picture. Probably different of what those using religion to control people want you to not see at all. For you religion connotes with Jesus, the Churches, etc. To me it is more a probably sumerian idea, (?), Pythagorus, Plato, Plotinus, and it did not end but lives dissipates in a large part of the abramanic religion, and then looks close to what the self-referentially correct told us about the possible truth about themselves. The scientific approach to Gods is to say they are a failed hypothesis - not to redefine the word. Only retarded creationists would use God as an hypothesis to explain the facts, as God is usually considered as what we can understand the less. To refute creationism is like to answer to a spam. Like consciousness, god is not useful as a starting hypothesis. The god = matter failed to. You might define God by the reality beyond or behind matter. Then it is interesting that when you do the math in the comp theory we understand that the overlap is big with the talk of theologians, even if the fairy tales disappear completely (the same with salvia, despite it has its own fairy tales). I realize that science redefines common words too, like energy, but those new definitions subsume the common terms. Which means almost abstract from the popular misconceptions. Your God has no overlap with the common usage of the Big Daddy in the sky. I think it has enough common points, I think, especially from the points of view of comparative theology. Of course it is an open problem if it is a Daddy or a Mommy or even if that question makes sense. With comp, it is not clear if X can be a person, or can be conceive by a machine as being a person. The common points are, that God is a X such that
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 02 Dec 2013, at 21:52, LizR wrote: On 3 December 2013 09:49, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/2 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. It too might have personal aspect. I believe Bruno's only prejudice about this is he thinks it leads to a contradiction. Assuming computationalism... I was taking that as read. But yes, Bruno also thinks that if you don't assume computationalism, you have to adopt a supernatural stance towards consciousness, and I imagine he's prejudiced against that! If you don't assume computationalism you have to adopt a supernatural stance towards Matter. (That's the point), and on consciousness. But even with computationalism, about consciousness, you can't avoid some amount of magic when you get reconnected or when you feel so. You get bits of information, you select realities, and you are aware of that. Consciousness will be obviously true only on the conjunction of the believed and truth, but *that* consciousness remains invariant for local change or distortion of belief unrelated with the most probable truth (like in a dream). It makes the relation between machines and truth quite non-trivial. 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/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
You can believe in God in the same sense that we can believe in super intelligent extraterrestrials. A.C. Clarke, and Skeptic magazine editor, Michael Shermer, both, have mentioned this in comparison. Until someone or something shows up in a acknowledgeable was as, both highly, intelligent and extraordinary, shows up, around our home planet, we are dealing with ideas, histories, and creative writing, which is not a terrible thing to do. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 3:28 am Subject: Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment On 03 Dec 2013, at 08:13, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: just so they and their close friends can say, We believe in God rationally Come on. No serious theologian would say that. they know you need grace, luck, or a bit of salvia divinorum, which seems to cure atheism according to some reports. So are these people not serious theologians: William Lane Craig, Alister McGrath, Alvin Plantinga, Rowan Williams. Who counts as a serious theologian? Is it only those that agree with you? No, they are those who are able to put an interrogation mark behind their public assertions, and are open to revise their statement in a debate. Bruno PS I have to go and will comment later other posts (busy day). Thanks for the patience. I like very much that thread, which is in between purely vocabulary discussion and perhaps an important idea on reality Brent We can't believe in God rationally, nor can we believe in the moon rationally, but we can study the consequences of our theories. And when we become rational, as you know, we are lead from questions to questions. -- 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/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/3/2013 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 21:52, LizR wrote: On 3 December 2013 09:49, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/2 LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. It too might have personal aspect. I believe Bruno's only prejudice about this is he thinks it leads to a contradiction. Assuming computationalism... I was taking that as read. But yes, Bruno also thinks that if you don't assume computationalism, you have to adopt a supernatural stance towards consciousness, and I imagine he's prejudiced against /that!/ If you don't assume computationalism you have to adopt a supernatural stance towards Matter. (That's the point), and on consciousness. I don't understand what definition of 'supernatural' you're using? Are you simply saying that if X is taken as fundamental, and therefore unexplained, then X is supernatural? So long as matter is something we can manipulate I don't see how it can be considered supernatural (c.f. Dr. Johnson). Generally I see the natural/supernatural distinction as admitting a large grey area between black and white. Planets were once supposed to be supernatural beings, i.e. they were immortal and lived above the sphere of corruption in heaven. When they were found to obey fairly simple, precise laws of motion, they became part of nature. I expect the same will happen with human consciousness. It seems mysterious and inexplicable by physics now - but it may not always be so. Brent But even with computationalism, about consciousness, you can't avoid some amount of magic when you get reconnected or when you feel so. You get bits of information, you select realities, and you are aware of that. Consciousness will be obviously true only on the conjunction of the believed and truth, but *that* consciousness remains invariant for local change or distortion of belief unrelated with the most probable truth (like in a dream). It makes the relation between machines and truth quite non-trivial. 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 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/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Bruno, I expected better from you. You seem to restrict the unlimited possibilities into the PRESENT limitations of our imagination. Do you have any support for the exclusivity of computationalism over ALL (so far maybe not even thought about) systems that MAY work? Do you have support for YOUR version of consciousness as the ONLY possible input for Matter (as we THINK of it TODAY?) And: I have no idea what would you cover by YOUR truth? John M On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 21:52, LizR wrote: On 3 December 2013 09:49, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/2 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. It too might have personal aspect. I believe Bruno's only prejudice about this is he thinks it leads to a contradiction. Assuming computationalism... I was taking that as read. But yes, Bruno also thinks that if you don't assume computationalism, you have to adopt a supernatural stance towards consciousness, and I imagine he's prejudiced against *that!* If you don't assume computationalism you have to adopt a supernatural stance towards Matter. (That's the point), and on consciousness. But even with computationalism, about consciousness, you can't avoid some amount of magic when you get reconnected or when you feel so. You get bits of information, you select realities, and you are aware of that. Consciousness will be obviously true only on the conjunction of the believed and truth, but *that* consciousness remains invariant for local change or distortion of belief unrelated with the most probable truth (like in a dream). It makes the relation between machines and truth quite non-trivial. 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/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be If a machine equates God with ultimate reality, I do not... I don't equate god with anything. Which means that you defend some inconsistent theory of God. As I said, I cannot define God by Ultimate reality, but I can meta- define God as the ultimate reality. I know it is a bit subtle, and it is related with the gap between truth and provable. It is related with the fact that a machine can assert its own consistency and take it as a new axiom, but then it has to become a new different machine, which still cannot assert (prove) its own consistency. Yet, the machine can assert its own consistency and stay the same machine, but then that machine becomes inconsistent. This explains a lot about theology, I think, including why theologies can easily become inconsistent. or ultimate truth, or arithmetical truth, despite she is correct, she became inconsistent. She asserts some G* minus G proposition, on herself, in the inconsistent way. No, he/she just use non contreversial word. God as no description and ultimate reality looks already too much to a description. That's what you say but see below... You will tell me that arithmetical truth is also a description. I will tell you that this is indeed the subtle point: from inside arithmetic, machine's cannot rationally believe that God is arithmetical truth (no more than they can rationally believe that they are (consistent) machine). All we can say is that if comp is correct, god or the ultimate reality You see, it's not that difficult, ultimate reality does not mean more than utlimate reality... Few people will understand that to believe in an ultimate reality you need to do an act of faith. But theologian are aware that God needs an act of faith. Somehow, theologians are more aware than most scientist (in our Aristotelian paradigm) that the ultimate reality asks for an act of faith. Its existence cannot be taken as axiom, but as a meta-axiom. That's also the logical reason why the ONE becomes MULTIPLE in Plotinian-like theology. The reason I use and insist on theology, God etc. is that I fear people take science as a new pseudo-theology, like most popular book in science which use expression like science has proved, or worst we know that By opposing science and theology, you confine theology in the fairy tales, and you make science into a new pseudo-theology, which *looks* more serious than fairy tales, but still imposes beliefs in the non scientific manner. is arithmetical truth, So ultimate reality can or can't be arithmetical truth, yet you can call it ultimate reality without refering to it as god... I prefer not, because, as I try to explain, few people will understand that we don't know if there is an ultimate reality, beyond our consciousness, and so we have to pray a little bit. The question is not a vocabulary question. It is an understanding that the belief in an ultimate reality is a theological belief, and that such beliefs cannot be scientific (G), but comes from G* minus G. It is a bit subtle, because we can study the whole theology of a machine simpler than us scientifically (indeed it is mainly given by G*). But we cannot lift that theology on ourself without praying (not even assuming) for comp and our relative correctness. but if a machine believes or proves that god or the ultimate reality once again, it seems you can... ? (the sentence is not finished) is arithmetical truth, or *any* 3p thing, she will be inconsistent. Ok, if she asserts what *is* ultimate reality, by using the word *god* you're doing just that, you're applying what you want to fight. No, because (genuine or correct) believers know that God has no name, no description, should be invoked in argument, etc. And if you read the theological literature (abstracting from all fairy tales and myths) you can see that most of them are aware of the problem. You are condemning a whole great part of the literature, done by honest researcher, by crediting the definition of God given by people who use the idea to install there power. Do you know the real main difference between Cannabis and God? Both have got a lot of names, and are essentially mind-blowing things, but for Cannabis, we got 75 years of brainwashing, for God we got 1500 years of brainwashing. Do you think that by changing the name of Cannabis, it would become legal? Well, it is a way to avoid locally problem and that why it has so many names, and the same appeared with God, but really, to abandon God and theology, is still a way to credit the bandits who lied about cannabis and God. God is not more that unpleasant all loving entity sending your friends to hell, than cannabis is a terrible drug which makes you rape and kill people. Religion is not a problem,
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
A good software has a robust exception handling system, and does not crash. Does evolution not come across as a good software for natural selection? Whose the programmer? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 12:40 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Actually Crick designed the perfect means for DNA replication (I think that was it) without any errors long before it was established empirically. When experimenters finally discovered how nature did it, it turned out that nature's method produced occasional errors. So the system of evolution is not perfectly designed. Should not it follow that there is no god.? On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: That is simply because the system of evolution is perfectly designed by whoever designed it. I believe the 'whoever' to be God. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 11:13 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Ok. But evolution works to 'create' without a creator. Brent On 12/1/2013 9:00 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Evolution is also a part of creation! The origin of creation, the perpetuation of creation, the process of procreation, and the selection of creation are all part of the continuous grand act of creation! Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 9:17 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 11:45 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, Because we discovered that we evolved? 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be If a machine equates God with ultimate reality, I do not... I don't equate god with anything. Which means that you defend some inconsistent theory of God. No I don't As I said, I cannot define God by Ultimate reality, but I can meta-define God as the ultimate reality. God is nothing else than a human invention... God as understood by billions people on earth... You are using it incorrectly, your usage is absolutely not standard usage, and so by using it, you're misleading people who read you... I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Quentin I know it is a bit subtle, and it is related with the gap between truth and provable. It is related with the fact that a machine can assert its own consistency and take it as a new axiom, but then it has to become a new different machine, which still cannot assert (prove) its own consistency. Yet, the machine can assert its own consistency and stay the same machine, but then that machine becomes inconsistent. This explains a lot about theology, I think, including why theologies can easily become inconsistent. or ultimate truth, or arithmetical truth, despite she is correct, she became inconsistent. She asserts some G* minus G proposition, on herself, in the inconsistent way. No, he/she just use non contreversial word. God as no description and ultimate reality looks already too much to a description. That's what you say but see below... You will tell me that arithmetical truth is also a description. I will tell you that this is indeed the subtle point: from inside arithmetic, machine's cannot rationally believe that God is arithmetical truth (no more than they can rationally believe that they are (consistent) machine). All we can say is that if comp is correct, god or the ultimate reality You see, it's not that difficult, ultimate reality does not mean more than utlimate reality... Few people will understand that to believe in an ultimate reality you need to do an act of faith. But theologian are aware that God needs an act of faith. Somehow, theologians are more aware than most scientist (in our Aristotelian paradigm) that the ultimate reality asks for an act of faith. Its existence cannot be taken as axiom, but as a meta-axiom. That's also the logical reason why the ONE becomes MULTIPLE in Plotinian-like theology. The reason I use and insist on theology, God etc. is that I fear people take science as a new pseudo-theology, like most popular book in science which use expression like science has proved, or worst we know that By opposing science and theology, you confine theology in the fairy tales, and you make science into a new pseudo-theology, which *looks* more serious than fairy tales, but still imposes beliefs in the non scientific manner. is arithmetical truth, So ultimate reality can or can't be arithmetical truth, yet you can call it ultimate reality without refering to it as god... I prefer not, because, as I try to explain, few people will understand that we don't know if there is an ultimate reality, beyond our consciousness, and so we have to pray a little bit. The question is not a vocabulary question. It is an understanding that the belief in an ultimate reality is a theological belief, and that such beliefs cannot be scientific (G), but comes from G* minus G. It is a bit subtle, because we can study the whole theology of a machine simpler than us scientifically (indeed it is mainly given by G*). But we cannot lift that theology on ourself without praying (not even assuming) for comp and our relative correctness. but if a machine believes or proves that god or the ultimate reality once again, it seems you can... ? (the sentence is not finished) is arithmetical truth, or *any* 3p thing, she will be inconsistent. Ok, if she asserts what *is* ultimate reality, by using the word *god* you're doing just that, you're applying what you want to fight. No, because (genuine or correct) believers know that God has no name, no description, should be invoked in argument, etc. And if you read the theological literature (abstracting from all fairy tales and myths) you can see that most of them are aware of the problem. You are condemning a whole great part of the literature, done by honest researcher, by crediting the definition of God given by people who use the idea to install there power. Do you know the real main difference between Cannabis and God? Both have got a lot of names, and
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote: On 12/1/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu- huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can exist. Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that how you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in whatever anyone conceives of or else provide a disproof? Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist, No, I said I see no reason to believe in them. That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic = ~[]g ( ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g. That's right, I'm agnostic with respect to the question of whether there could be a god(s). But I'm still an atheist because I'm pretty sure there's not theist god. But you said yourself that theist is vague. I am pretty sure than there is no guy with a beard sitting on a cloud, but that does not make me feeling like an atheist. just a rationalist. You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to disbelieve in God. Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. God points on an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it takes some Fairy tale into account. The God of comp is the God of the Parmenides, which is the base of the neoplatonist theology (Plotinus, Proclus). Such a conception is close to Augustin and the christian mystics, the Soufis, the Kabbala, and the East spirituallity. I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can say you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what you are denying. That's my exact point. It's not what you wrote. You wrote: If you are able to conceive a god without afterlife, it means you can conceive a non Christian God, which is nice, but contradicts the main atheist statements you already did in preceding conversations. The context was different. I said to John Clark that his argument against the Christian God was no more an argument in favor of atheism once he agree that the God might not be the Christian one. ... Also, if you can conceive a Non Christian God, it becomes more difficult to *believe* in the non existence of God. So you claimed that conceiving of a non-Christian God makes it more difficult to believe in the non-existence of God (by which I think you mean to fail to believe in the existence of God). No, I mean to positively believe in the non existence of all Gods possible. And then you agree that one *must* concieve of a God (or anything else) in order to fail to believe in its existence. Exactly. As one of my physics advisors, Jurgen Ehlers, used to say, Before we can know whether a thing exists we must first know its properties. Exactly. That is my main criticism of atheism. They have to believe in a rather
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:47, meekerdb wrote: On 12/1/2013 1:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Nov 2013, at 23:33, meekerdb wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan- yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si- Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. But that is agnosticism. Not atheism. We might have only a vocabulary problem. All the atheists I know are typically NOT agnostic. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I have never develop that idea (did I made a typo?). I am saying the exact contrary. It is NOT conceiving a God, which makes harder to disbelief in it. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. That's my exact point, and that is the reason why science should be agnostic before having more light on the mind-body problem and on the origin of the physical universe. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? I am not dogmatic. All I do is providing an argumlent that IF comp is correct, then Aristotelian primitive matter becomes a phlogiston- of-the-gap. I show that such a notion of matter fails to explain the very knowledge that we can have of matter (and mind). I am only reducing the mind-body problem, or the hard problem of consciousness to the problem of justifying the belief in physics from the belief in arithmetic (or Turing-equivalent). What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 02 Dec 2013, at 07:05, meekerdb wrote: On 12/1/2013 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is dishonesty only when an alternative religion is proposed and presented not as a religion, but as scientific facts. Atheists are not honest, because by denying a God or all God, they replace it without saying by another (impersonal) God, That's not true I have not found an atheist, interested in the fundamental question, who does not believe in something transcendental, be it mathematics, or a physical universe, etc. Scientists don't believe in things. They only hypothesize them. Belief = hypothesizing, in standard analytical philosophy. Science is only belief. The mark of a belief is that it can be shown false, which is impossible for knowledge. G* proves [] f. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 02 Dec 2013, at 07:10, meekerdb wrote: On 12/1/2013 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Using God for the ultimate reality, it seems to me, can in the long run enlarge the listening and the understanding of what the machines are already telling us. Not as much as using ultimate reality for ultimate reality. One must suspect you have some hidden agenda to avoid plain speaking. See the comment to Quentin that I made today. There is a subtle nuance between ultimate reality, truth and God. I can come back on this, but it is so subtle, that I can hardly explain it without using the arithmetical hypostases. Plato and the neoplatonists, and mystics people (including machines) seem to be aware of that nuance, but it is hard to explain it in everyday day terms, and even Plato and Plotinus get unclear on that nuance (cf the abyss between the Timaeus and the Parmenides). Nobody said that a theory of everything or a theology is a simple thing, and that's why we must be happy that with comp we can use computer science and mathematical logic to avoid easy but misleading identification. It is due to that difference, between UR and God that the question of God being a person is still open in the machine's theology, and probably very difficult. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be If a machine equates God with ultimate reality, I do not... I don't equate god with anything. Which means that you defend some inconsistent theory of God. No I don't But you are o.k. with arithmetic truth as a pointer to something that transcends what we can prove or understand? But you're not o.k. with when God is used, in a standard non-confessional theological fashion, as that pointer? Please explain the consistency then, because I don't see it. Failing to use a theological term when addressing or assuming transcendental is more misleading than stating that there is transcendental. This popular form of atheism is thus more misleading then some mystic who hasn't cured one person; because at least that mystic puts his cards on the table. As I said, I cannot define God by Ultimate reality, but I can meta-define God as the ultimate reality. God is nothing else than a human invention... If I took the other side for fun: Well human is invention of God! and you quickly see why people would like to escape the discussion and agree to disagree. That position of is a human invention is as fundamentalist as the brainless faith-freaks that you criticize; just your belief with you as god of validity instead of them. God as understood by billions people on earth... Billions have been wrong, they could and probably will be again. You are using it incorrectly, your usage is absolutely not standard usage, and so by using it, you're misleading people who read you... I beg to differ. Even some Christian theologians I know, not to speak of Taoist, Zen, space bunny new age people etc., agree with this type of meta-definition to avoid naming something we cannot. This is standard across many religions and forms of spirituality. I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... Those ARE already your beliefs, Quentin. Raising them above other people's theology is what that is. I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Most people believe in prohibition. Your appeal to popular consensus weakens your argument, in that it admits that there really is not much more to atheism than a misled popular opinion, that is not only empty, but misleading as I've laid out above. PGC Quentin I know it is a bit subtle, and it is related with the gap between truth and provable. It is related with the fact that a machine can assert its own consistency and take it as a new axiom, but then it has to become a new different machine, which still cannot assert (prove) its own consistency. Yet, the machine can assert its own consistency and stay the same machine, but then that machine becomes inconsistent. This explains a lot about theology, I think, including why theologies can easily become inconsistent. or ultimate truth, or arithmetical truth, despite she is correct, she became inconsistent. She asserts some G* minus G proposition, on herself, in the inconsistent way. No, he/she just use non contreversial word. God as no description and ultimate reality looks already too much to a description. That's what you say but see below... You will tell me that arithmetical truth is also a description. I will tell you that this is indeed the subtle point: from inside arithmetic, machine's cannot rationally believe that God is arithmetical truth (no more than they can rationally believe that they are (consistent) machine). All we can say is that if comp is correct, god or the ultimate reality You see, it's not that difficult, ultimate reality does not mean more than utlimate reality... Few people will understand that to believe in an ultimate reality you need to do an act of faith. But theologian are aware that God needs an act of faith. Somehow, theologians are more aware than most scientist (in our Aristotelian paradigm) that the ultimate reality asks for an act of faith. Its existence cannot be taken as axiom, but as a meta-axiom. That's also the logical reason why the ONE becomes MULTIPLE in Plotinian-like theology. The reason I use and insist on theology, God etc. is that I fear people take science as a new pseudo-theology, like most popular book in science which use expression like science has proved, or worst we know that By opposing science and theology, you confine theology in the fairy tales, and you make science into a new pseudo-theology, which *looks* more serious than fairy tales, but still imposes beliefs in the non scientific manner. is arithmetical
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 02 Dec 2013, at 10:26, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be If a machine equates God with ultimate reality, I do not... I don't equate god with anything. Which means that you defend some inconsistent theory of God. No I don't If you defend a consistent theory of God, then you agree that it *might* exist or make sense, so that the field of theology, and theological question make sense. In particular we can study the universal machine experience and believe in the matter, which of course needs to agree on some definition and axiom. As I said, I cannot define God by Ultimate reality, but I can meta-define God as the ultimate reality. God is nothing else than a human invention... God as understood by billions people on earth... I am not sure. When I discuss with Muslims or with Christians they agree that God, very typically, does not belong to the thing you can understand. You are using it incorrectly, your usage is absolutely not standard usage, and so by using it, you're misleading people who read you... I don't think so. They are adult and can tell me so, or take distance with the talk of the universal machine, or abandon comp, or whatever. With comp, *after UDA*, working in arithmetic, things like Souls, Arithmetical Truth, Consciousness, God, etc. are NOT assumed. To interrogate the machine we have to agree on some definition, and they have to be large. I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Even if the Outer God might not be exactly a person, it can make sense only through our personal relation with It, and they can depend to what you identify yourself with. I have no problem with atheists, but some fundamentalist atheists seem to have a problem with comp and their consequences, a bit like Bill Taylor and John Clark apparently. It is normal because those atheists *are* believer: - They believe that the notion of God is ultimate crackpot, and so are annoyed when presented with an arithmetical transparent and clear interpretation of Plotinus in elementary arithmetic (which shows, at the least, the relative consistency of Plotinus in arithmetic). - They believe that the brain is a machine, and are annoyed when I insist that it is a belief, that is an hypothesis, an assumption, a postulate, a theory. - They believe in a primitive material universe, and that physics is the fundamental science. Some confuse physical universe and primitive or in-need-to-be-assumed physical universe, which is easy to make me, or comp, looking mad. I know that there are atheists who know better. I describe only the atheists who have a problem with computationalism and its consequences. I have never met them, as they have declined the desire to meet me, which makes me think they are not scientists at all. My feeling is that you have a prejudice on religion, perhaps for some reasons. Did you have a religious education? If you ask the people in the street on physics, 99% of them are wrong. We don't mislead them by teaching them physics. It is normal a bigger proportion of people might be wrong in theology, given that we forbidden the interrogative inquiries and experiences in the field since about 1500 years in West and 1000 year in Middle-East. You must read the book of theologians, not those who repeat sacred texts like parrots, and who have been programmed by those who stolen the field, for obvious purpose, degrading the issue with varied degrees. By mocking those who search the truth in the matter, you make yourself de facto an ally of those who pretend they found it. By refusing to discuss those matter rationally, in the axiomatic way, you make yourself de facto an ally of those who want to keep it as dogma, and who evacuate the modesty needed for progressing. Bruno 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: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 12:55 AM, Samiya Illias wrote: A good software has a robust exception handling system, and does not crash. Does evolution not come across as a good software for natural selection? Natural selection is just part of evolution, a consequence of life reproducing exponentially so that the death rate must increase to reach a quasi-static equilibrium. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: As one of my physics advisors, Jurgen Ehlers, used to say, Before we can know whether a thing exists we must first know its properties. Exactly. That is my main criticism of atheism. They have to believe in a rather precise notion of God to disbelieve in it. And you criticize us for that!? My main criticism of you and theologians is that they want to take the fairly precise notion of God, the one that billions of people pray to and tithe to and strive to obey, try to stretch it and chop it to fit some rational philosophy, just so they and their close friends can say, We believe in God rationally and so all those people are justified in continuing to believe in fairy tales; they just don't know what the fairy tale really is. But the only God in which it is easy to disbelieve in, are the Fairy Tale notion of God. Atheism becomes equivalent with I don't believe in fairy tales. Now I have tuns of books in theology, and I have not yet seen one defending fairy tales notion of Gods. (Except the free one given by Jehovah witness, which I don't read, except to measure the credulity exploited by their sects). And except the Bible, the Quran, and the Torah - which are the fairy tales believed by billions of people, all but a tiny group of 'theologians' who also claim to believe them, but try to make the belief rational by redefining all the words in them - just as you redefine 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: wants to be worshiped, judges people and rewards and punishes them. That's a legend used to put people in place so that they will be worshiped, so that they can judged other people, reward and punish them. Why do you credit such things. Why can you believe that we should listen to them? You are the one giving them importance, and by arguing against a scientific approach to God, souls, afterlife, meaning, etc. you will maintain the current fairy tale aspect in theology, and you will contribute in maintaining them in power. I don't credit such things. But the idea is important because so many people believe it - and you are the one that gives them support by writing that God is really an important rational concept, using the name of the bearded man in the sky they believe in when you really mean something completely different. So it is important to say the idea is a fairy tale. The scientific approach to Gods is to say they are a failed hypothesis - not to redefine the word. I realize that science redefines common words too, like energy, but those new definitions subsume the common terms. Your God has no overlap with the common usage of the Big Daddy in the sky. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 2:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You seem to have assumed the task is to find something label with the word God. I say let us be modest and use words for what we know. Let us be genuinely modest. We know about nothing, and all we can do is agreeing on some axioms. A logicians conceit. We can agree ostensively. Be it point, line, and god, reality, etc. Thats why Gödel provided a proof of the existence of God. By formalising St-Anselm definition of God, he illustrates the idea that we can be serious (modest, scientific) when doing theology. Is the God of Gödel coherent with comp? St Anselm's proof is not a proof of the God of Abraham. Like you he, and Godel, use the word God to imply a person, but the argument doesn't prove a person or even a singular. Brent This would mean we can do the Gödel proof in S4Grz, and I doubt this, so we can search now if the machine believes in a slightly different notion than St-Anselm/Gödel. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 07:05, meekerdb wrote: On 12/1/2013 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is dishonesty only when an alternative religion is proposed and presented not as a religion, but as scientific facts. Atheists are not honest, because by denying a God or all God, they replace it without saying by another (impersonal) God, That's not true I have not found an atheist, interested in the fundamental question, who does not believe in something transcendental, be it mathematics, or a physical universe, etc. Scientists don't believe in things. They only hypothesize them. Belief = hypothesizing, in standard analytical philosophy. Science is only belief. The mark of a belief is that it can be shown false, which is impossible for knowledge. G* proves [] f. An hypothesis can be shown false. A belief is an act of will and is independent of what can be shown false - as testified to by the billions of people who believe there is a Big Daddy in the sky who will reward them after death and punish their enemies. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/2 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be If a machine equates God with ultimate reality, I do not... I don't equate god with anything. Which means that you defend some inconsistent theory of God. No I don't But you are o.k. with arithmetic truth as a pointer to something that transcends what we can prove or understand? Yes, that doesn't have to be called god which refers to most people to the person that created the world in 3 great religions on earth. But you're not o.k. with when God is used, in a standard non-confessional theological fashion, as that pointer? No I'm not ok, because it is misleading... Please explain the consistency then, because I don't see it. I just did. Failing to use a theological term when addressing or assuming transcendental is more misleading It is not, it is using god for meaning a reality that transcend human ability that is. than stating that there is transcendental. Why use **god** word to mean that ? It is misleading. This popular form of atheism is thus more misleading then some mystic who hasn't cured one person; because at least that mystic puts his cards on the table. As I said, I cannot define God by Ultimate reality, but I can meta-define God as the ultimate reality. God is nothing else than a human invention... If I took the other side for fun: Well human is invention of God! and you quickly see why people would like to escape the discussion and agree to disagree. That position of is a human invention is as fundamentalist It is not, revelation is BS... all religions on earth with book from the word of god are BS... Bruno even call them **fairy tale**, that proves he also has that supposed **fundamentalist** position... Quentin as the brainless faith-freaks that you criticize; just your belief with you as god of validity instead of them. God as understood by billions people on earth... Billions have been wrong, they could and probably will be again. You are using it incorrectly, your usage is absolutely not standard usage, and so by using it, you're misleading people who read you... I beg to differ. Even some Christian theologians I know, not to speak of Taoist, Zen, space bunny new age people etc., agree with this type of meta-definition to avoid naming something we cannot. This is standard across many religions and forms of spirituality. I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... Those ARE already your beliefs, Quentin. Raising them above other people's theology is what that is. I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Most people believe in prohibition. Your appeal to popular consensus weakens your argument, in that it admits that there really is not much more to atheism than a misled popular opinion, that is not only empty, but misleading as I've laid out above. PGC Quentin I know it is a bit subtle, and it is related with the gap between truth and provable. It is related with the fact that a machine can assert its own consistency and take it as a new axiom, but then it has to become a new different machine, which still cannot assert (prove) its own consistency. Yet, the machine can assert its own consistency and stay the same machine, but then that machine becomes inconsistent. This explains a lot about theology, I think, including why theologies can easily become inconsistent. or ultimate truth, or arithmetical truth, despite she is correct, she became inconsistent. She asserts some G* minus G proposition, on herself, in the inconsistent way. No, he/she just use non contreversial word. God as no description and ultimate reality looks already too much to a description. That's what you say but see below... You will tell me that arithmetical truth is also a description. I will tell you that this is indeed the subtle point: from inside arithmetic, machine's cannot rationally believe that God is arithmetical truth (no more than they can rationally believe that they are (consistent) machine). All we can say is that if comp is correct, god or the ultimate reality You see, it's not that difficult, ultimate reality does not mean more than utlimate reality... Few people will understand that to believe in an ultimate reality you need to do an act of faith. But theologian are aware that God needs an act of faith. Somehow, theologians are more aware than most scientist (in our Aristotelian paradigm) that the ultimate
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 02 Dec 2013, at 19:03, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: As one of my physics advisors, Jurgen Ehlers, used to say, Before we can know whether a thing exists we must first know its properties. Exactly. That is my main criticism of atheism. They have to believe in a rather precise notion of God to disbelieve in it. And you criticize us for that!? My main criticism of you and theologians is that they want to take the fairly precise notion of God, the one that billions of people pray to and tithe to and strive to obey, The very fact that this definition is precise should make you skeptical about it. You talk current majority, I point on a concept with has a large long human history. You look like wanting aborting a possible science. try to stretch it and chop it to fit some rational philosophy, But that is what we do all the time in science. Why couldn't we do that in theology? Who forbids that? The pope, the Ayatollah and the atheists. just so they and their close friends can say, We believe in God rationally Come on. No serious theologian would say that. they know you need grace, luck, or a bit of salvia divinorum, which seems to cure atheism according to some reports. We can't believe in God rationally, nor can we believe in the moon rationally, but we can study the consequences of our theories. And when we become rational, as you know, we are lead from questions to questions. and so all those people are justified in continuing to believe in fairy tales; they just don't know what the fairy tale really is. Some fairy tales might have some symbolical explanation, others might not. But the only God in which it is easy to disbelieve in, are the Fairy Tale notion of God. Atheism becomes equivalent with I don't believe in fairy tales. Now I have tuns of books in theology, and I have not yet seen one defending fairy tales notion of Gods. (Except the free one given by Jehovah witness, which I don't read, except to measure the credulity exploited by their sects). And except the Bible, the Quran, and the Torah - which are the fairy tales believed by billions of people, all but a tiny group of 'theologians' who also claim to believe them, but try to make the belief rational by redefining all the words in them - just as you redefine God. I suggest definition, and make reasoning, and that is what the scientists always do. The simple machines theology is refutable as it contains physics. I can understand the dislike of the term God given the many things made in its name, but I think that if your read the theological literature you can become open that the religious phenomenon is not just in the brain, it might reflect some deeper arithmetical truth, concerning notably the relation between the first person self and truth. I fail to understand the certainty you seem to have in this matter. 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/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 8:08 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: God as understood by billions people on earth... Billions have been wrong, they could and probably will be again. But they can't be wrong about what their words mean to them. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. It too might have personal aspect. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. It too might have personal aspect. I believe Bruno's only prejudice about this is he thinks it leads to a contradiction. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/2 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. It too might have personal aspect. I believe Bruno's only prejudice about this is he thinks it leads to a contradiction. Assuming computationalism... -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 3 December 2013 09:49, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/2 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. It too might have personal aspect. I believe Bruno's only prejudice about this is he thinks it leads to a contradiction. Assuming computationalism... I was taking that as read. But yes, Bruno also thinks that if you don't assume computationalism, you have to adopt a supernatural stance towards consciousness, and I imagine he's prejudiced against *that!* -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/2 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be If a machine equates God with ultimate reality, I do not... I don't equate god with anything. Which means that you defend some inconsistent theory of God. No I don't But you are o.k. with arithmetic truth as a pointer to something that transcends what we can prove or understand? Yes, that doesn't have to be called god which refers to most people to the person that created the world in 3 great religions on earth. But you're not o.k. with when God is used, in a standard non-confessional theological fashion, as that pointer? No I'm not ok, because it is misleading... Please explain the consistency then, because I don't see it. I just did. You just called statement 1 true and statement 2 a lie so you did no such thing. Whether transcendental category is personified or not, by definition it escapes our current power to prove/understand, so why pretend you can distinguish some types or members (personification vs. numbers/arithmetic for example) of a category that should even transcend the notion of category itself Failing to use a theological term when addressing or assuming transcendental is more misleading It is not, it is using god for meaning a reality that transcend human ability that is. Indeed, such would appear blasphemy to the human gods and those that believe in them. You are just making my point. than stating that there is transcendental. Why use **god** word to mean that ? It is misleading. It is the oldest label to account for things/object/properties we can't explain. The newer trend is to pretend that those things are not there, and that anybody who uses them in an argument is a crackpot. This popular form of atheism is thus more misleading then some mystic who hasn't cured one person; because at least that mystic puts his cards on the table. As I said, I cannot define God by Ultimate reality, but I can meta-define God as the ultimate reality. God is nothing else than a human invention... If I took the other side for fun: Well human is invention of God! and you quickly see why people would like to escape the discussion and agree to disagree. That position of is a human invention is as fundamentalist It is not, revelation is BS...all religions on earth with book from the word of god are BS... Bruno even call them **fairy tale**, that proves he also has that supposed **fundamentalist** position... That's your argument? Bruno does it too! ??? Still, I am not certain that Bruno uses fairy tale with derogatory semantic implications as you do. I think his usage is closer to metaphoric guide story of some theology, not to be taken too seriously or literally by e.g. deriving politics or ethics etc. directly from it. Nonetheless, he recently wrote of non-compness of Ganesha in some thread, which presupposes some familiarity with the mythology, that you do not get, when it's all silly fairy tales... So no, I don't think Bruno uses it the way you do in this infantilization discrimination sense. If you were in power there would be prohibition of religious mythology, which is bad for Christmas mood ;-) AND the holy economy. How is doing our accounting not a kind of Rosary praying, counting, chore thing? Exactly the same, and no matter how much you do, pray or gain, you're always out where you started in some sense... Another round? PGC Quentin as the brainless faith-freaks that you criticize; just your belief with you as god of validity instead of them. God as understood by billions people on earth... Billions have been wrong, they could and probably will be again. You are using it incorrectly, your usage is absolutely not standard usage, and so by using it, you're misleading people who read you... I beg to differ. Even some Christian theologians I know, not to speak of Taoist, Zen, space bunny new age people etc., agree with this type of meta-definition to avoid naming something we cannot. This is standard across many religions and forms of spirituality. I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... Those ARE already your beliefs, Quentin. Raising them above other people's theology is what that is. I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Most people believe in prohibition. Your appeal to popular consensus weakens your argument, in that it admits that there really is
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:08 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: God as understood by billions people on earth... Billions have been wrong, they could and probably will be again. But they can't be wrong about what their words mean to them. Depends who told them. Knights or knaves :-) 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 12:46 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. It too might have personal aspect. I believe Bruno's only prejudice about this is he thinks it leads to a contradiction. No, he agrees that matter is necessary and he only objects to it being considered *fundamental*, because he thinks it is already explained by arithmetical computation and because he thinks it cannot explain some aspects of consciousness. But then he gives computationalism and theology lots of leeway for not explaining things. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 12:52 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 December 2013 09:49, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/2 LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. It too might have personal aspect. I believe Bruno's only prejudice about this is he thinks it leads to a contradiction. Assuming computationalism... I was taking that as read. But yes, Bruno also thinks that if you don't assume computationalism, you have to adopt a supernatural stance towards consciousness, and I imagine he's prejudiced against /that!/ Of course his Universal Dovetailer is pretty super too. In my view, these are all just hypothetical models and whatever is in them is implicitly natural if the model is right. If Zeus existed, he'd be part of nature (just an extended notion of nature). Bruno's theory explains some aspects of consciousness, e.g. something are incommunicable, but it doesn't do so well at explaining matter or even other things about consciousness. I'm not even convinced by his movie graph argument (or Mauldin's Olympia) because they seem to require that all possible contingencies be anticipated. But maybe I just don't understand them. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/2 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/2 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be If a machine equates God with ultimate reality, I do not... I don't equate god with anything. Which means that you defend some inconsistent theory of God. No I don't But you are o.k. with arithmetic truth as a pointer to something that transcends what we can prove or understand? Yes, that doesn't have to be called god which refers to most people to the person that created the world in 3 great religions on earth. But you're not o.k. with when God is used, in a standard non-confessional theological fashion, as that pointer? No I'm not ok, because it is misleading... Please explain the consistency then, because I don't see it. I just did. You just called statement 1 true and statement 2 a lie No I called it *misleading*. so you did no such thing. I did. Whether transcendental category is personified or not, by definition it escapes our current power to prove/understand, so why pretend you can distinguish some types or members I did not... (personification vs. numbers/arithmetic for example) of a category that should even transcend the notion of category itself Then if it is as you say, you shouldn't talk about it and trying to make a point... but wait...? that's what you're doing... Failing to use a theological term when addressing or assuming transcendental is more misleading It is not, it is using god for meaning a reality that transcend human ability that is. Indeed, such would appear blasphemy to the human gods and those that believe in them. You are just making my point. than stating that there is transcendental. Why use **god** word to mean that ? It is misleading. It is the oldest label to account for things/object/properties we can't explain. No... god in english/french and many other language as a clear accepted meaning, and god doesn't mean shoes... even if you want it very much. The newer trend is to pretend that those things are not there, and that anybody who uses them in an argument is a crackpot. This popular form of atheism is thus more misleading then some mystic who hasn't cured one person; because at least that mystic puts his cards on the table. As I said, I cannot define God by Ultimate reality, but I can meta-define God as the ultimate reality. God is nothing else than a human invention... If I took the other side for fun: Well human is invention of God! and you quickly see why people would like to escape the discussion and agree to disagree. That position of is a human invention is as fundamentalist It is not, revelation is BS...all religions on earth with book from the word of god are BS... Bruno even call them **fairy tale**, that proves he also has that supposed **fundamentalist** position... That's your argument? Bruno does it too! ??? No you're saying I'm insulting people by not believing in their god... Bruno does not obviously believe in the abrahamic god as he calls that fairy tales... Still, I am not certain that Bruno uses fairy tale with derogatory semantic implications as you do. Well ask him... I think his usage is closer to metaphoric guide story of some theology, What is left about that theology when you remove the fairy tales ? not to be taken too seriously or literally by e.g. deriving politics or ethics etc. directly from it. Nonetheless, he recently wrote of non-compness of Ganesha in some thread, which presupposes some familiarity with the mythology, that you do not get, when it's all silly fairy tales... So no, I don't think Bruno uses it the way you do in this infantilization discrimination sense. If you were in power there would be prohibition Please refrain to put actions in your opponent mouth, you say that, I don't and wouldn't act like you say... Quentin of religious mythology, which is bad for Christmas mood ;-) AND the holy economy. How is doing our accounting not a kind of Rosary praying, counting, chore thing? Exactly the same, and no matter how much you do, pray or gain, you're always out where you started in some sense... Another round? PGC Quentin as the brainless faith-freaks that you criticize; just your belief with you as god of validity instead of them. God as understood by billions people on earth... Billions have been wrong, they could and probably will be again. You are using it incorrectly, your usage is absolutely not standard usage, and so by using it, you're misleading people who read you... I beg to differ. Even some Christian theologians
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/2/2013 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: just so they and their close friends can say, We believe in God rationally Come on. No serious theologian would say that. they know you need grace, luck, or a bit of salvia divinorum, which seems to cure atheism according to some reports. So are these people not serious theologians: William Lane Craig, Alister McGrath, Alvin Plantinga, Rowan Williams. Who counts as a serious theologian? Is it only those that agree with you? Brent We can't believe in God rationally, nor can we believe in the moon rationally, but we can study the consequences of our theories. And when we become rational, as you know, we are lead from questions to questions. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
As I said to Telmo talking about sacrifices somewhere above, individual sacrifices are the only way to create trust among non cloning entities. And what higher sacrifice than to negate'what is screaming in his mind, in the universe and in everithing? That is the main sacrifice of the atheists. 2013/12/1 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? Is that not intellectual dishonesty? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 01-Dec-2013, at 3:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or simply Maria, you know, the Mother of God, that you can meet with Salvia (according to the Christian Mazatecs). There is no algorithm capable of deciding of two machines computes or not the same function, so you can imagine the difficulties with the nameable non machines, or gods and goddesses. And the big one, cannot be in such a list, I guess. We might try to decide on a definition of atheism, as that notion is very unclear, and I
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com As I said to Telmo talking about sacrifices somewhere above, individual sacrifices are the only way to create trust among non cloning entities. And what higher sacrifice than to negate'what is screaming in his mind, in the universe and in everithing? That is the main sacrifice of the atheists. Nothing is screaming in my mind, in the universe and everything... I sacrifice nothing. Quentin 2013/12/1 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? Is that not intellectual dishonesty? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 01-Dec-2013, at 3:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or simply Maria, you know, the Mother of God, that you can meet with Salvia (according to the Christian Mazatecs). There is no algorithm capable of deciding of two machines computes or not the same function, so you can imagine the difficulties with the nameable non machines, or gods and goddesses. And
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
If what I said were absurd you would have not responded so quickly and so seriously. Sorry if I offended your faith. That was an experiment. 2013/12/1 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com As I said to Telmo talking about sacrifices somewhere above, individual sacrifices are the only way to create trust among non cloning entities. And what higher sacrifice than to negate'what is screaming in his mind, in the universe and in everithing? That is the main sacrifice of the atheists. Nothing is screaming in my mind, in the universe and everything... I sacrifice nothing. Quentin 2013/12/1 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? Is that not intellectual dishonesty? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 01-Dec-2013, at 3:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or simply Maria, you know, the Mother of God, that you can meet with Salvia (according to the Christian Mazatecs).
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com If what I said were absurd you would have not responded so quickly and so seriously. Sorry if I offended your faith. That was an experiment. Oh easy to do that, the first to say is... childish. 2013/12/1 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com As I said to Telmo talking about sacrifices somewhere above, individual sacrifices are the only way to create trust among non cloning entities. And what higher sacrifice than to negate'what is screaming in his mind, in the universe and in everithing? That is the main sacrifice of the atheists. Nothing is screaming in my mind, in the universe and everything... I sacrifice nothing. Quentin 2013/12/1 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? Is that not intellectual dishonesty? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 01-Dec-2013, at 3:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
You know that it is not By the way, I´m glad that you recovered from the punch and adopted the standard superiority mode of atheistic conversation that I find sooo lovely 2013/12/1 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com If what I said were absurd you would have not responded so quickly and so seriously. Sorry if I offended your faith. That was an experiment. Oh easy to do that, the first to say is... childish. 2013/12/1 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com As I said to Telmo talking about sacrifices somewhere above, individual sacrifices are the only way to create trust among non cloning entities. And what higher sacrifice than to negate'what is screaming in his mind, in the universe and in everithing? That is the main sacrifice of the atheists. Nothing is screaming in my mind, in the universe and everything... I sacrifice nothing. Quentin 2013/12/1 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? Is that not intellectual dishonesty? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 01-Dec-2013, at 3:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si,Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can exist. Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that how you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in whatever anyone conceives of or else provide a disproof? Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist, No, I said I see no reason to believe in them. That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic = ~[]g ( ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g. You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to disbelieve in God. Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. God points on an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it takes some Fairy tale into account. The God of comp is the God of the Parmenides, which is the base of the neoplatonist theology (Plotinus, Proclus). Such a conception is close to Augustin and the christian mystics, the Soufis, the Kabbala, and the East spirituallity. I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can say you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what you are denying. That's my exact point. so you are the one pretending having a clear referent for each of the name above, and you are the one acting like if you knew that none exist. Right. Of course I don't have clear referent of each one, but someone did. They were worshiped and prayed to and sacrificed for. But being able to conceive of them is what makes it possible say I don't believe in them - otherwise I wouldn't know what I was failing to believe. It doesn't make it harder to disbelieve; it makes it *possible*. We have been naive on thunder, sun, moon, and many things. Obviously we have been naive on God too, but that is not a reason to abandon the idea, which is basically the idea that the physical universe has a non physical reason. Atheists, like fundamentalists often talk like if they were not ignorant in those matter. but in science, not only we are ignorant, but the very subject is denied by some scientists (when atheists). People like Gödel and Einstein where pissed of by free-thinkers and atheists, because they were quite aware of their dogmatic attitude. I would have read them about that subject, I would have been less naive, and probably run away from them. Atheism and fundamentalist theism is really the same. Same God, same Matter. And same violent responses against the doubter and the agnostics. Same visceral negative attitude against the application of the scientific attitude in the theological field. I'm fine with applying the scientific attitude to the theological field. That is my only point here, besides the study of machine's or number's theology (G* minus G). And it is
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com You know that it is not By the way, I´m glad that you recovered from the punch and adopted the standard superiority mode of atheistic conversation that I find sooo lovely Well, you use the standard rethoric... you don't discuss, so... That's you who said atheist must be deaf because they don't hear what's screaming in their mind, if it's not a superiority mode, don't know what is... anyway, I'll stop here, it's useless. Quentin 2013/12/1 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com If what I said were absurd you would have not responded so quickly and so seriously. Sorry if I offended your faith. That was an experiment. Oh easy to do that, the first to say is... childish. 2013/12/1 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com As I said to Telmo talking about sacrifices somewhere above, individual sacrifices are the only way to create trust among non cloning entities. And what higher sacrifice than to negate'what is screaming in his mind, in the universe and in everithing? That is the main sacrifice of the atheists. Nothing is screaming in my mind, in the universe and everything... I sacrifice nothing. Quentin 2013/12/1 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? Is that not intellectual dishonesty? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 01-Dec-2013, at 3:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si,Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can exist. Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that how you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in whatever anyone conceives of or else provide a disproof? Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist, No, I said I see no reason to believe in them. That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic = ~[]g ( ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g. You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to disbelieve in God. Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. God points on an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it takes some Fairy tale into account. The God of comp is the God of the Parmenides, which is the base of the neoplatonist theology (Plotinus, Proclus). Such a conception is close to Augustin and the christian mystics, the Soufis, the Kabbala, and the East spirituallity. I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can say you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what you are denying. That's my exact point. so you are the one pretending having a clear referent for each of the name above, and you are the one acting like if you knew that none exist. Right. Of course I don't have clear referent of each one, but someone did. They were worshiped and prayed to and sacrificed for. But being able to conceive of them is what makes it possible say I don't believe in them - otherwise I wouldn't know what I was failing to believe. It doesn't make it harder to disbelieve; it makes it *possible*. We have been naive on thunder, sun, moon, and many things. Obviously we have been naive on God too, but that is not a reason to abandon the idea, which is basically the idea that the physical universe has a non physical reason. Atheists, like fundamentalists often talk like if they were not ignorant in those matter. but in science, not only we are ignorant, but the very subject is denied by some scientists (when atheists). People like Gödel and Einstein where pissed of by free-thinkers and atheists, because they were quite aware of their dogmatic attitude. I would have read them about that subject, I would have been less naive, and probably run away from them. Atheism and fundamentalist theism is really the same. Same God, same Matter. And same violent responses against the doubter and the agnostics. Same visceral negative attitude against the application of the scientific attitude in the theological field. I'm fine with applying the scientific attitude to the theological field. That is my only point here, besides the study of machine's or number's theology (G* minus G). And it is
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 30 Nov 2013, at 23:33, meekerdb wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang- mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. But that is agnosticism. Not atheism. We might have only a vocabulary problem. All the atheists I know are typically NOT agnostic. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I have never develop that idea (did I made a typo?). I am saying the exact contrary. It is NOT conceiving a God, which makes harder to disbelief in it. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. That's my exact point, and that is the reason why science should be agnostic before having more light on the mind-body problem and on the origin of the physical universe. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? I am not dogmatic. All I do is providing an argumlent that IF comp is correct, then Aristotelian primitive matter becomes a phlogiston-of- the-gap. I show that such a notion of matter fails to explain the very knowledge that we can have of matter (and mind). I am only reducing the mind-body problem, or the hard problem of consciousness to the problem of justifying the belief in physics from the belief in arithmetic (or Turing-equivalent). What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain- exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or simply Maria, you know, the Mother of God, that you can meet with
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Nov 2013, at 23:33, meekerdb wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. But that is agnosticism. Not atheism. We might have only a vocabulary problem. All the atheists I know are typically NOT agnostic. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I have never develop that idea (did I made a typo?). I am saying the exact contrary. It is NOT conceiving a God, which makes harder to disbelief in it. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. That's my exact point, and that is the reason why science should be agnostic before having more light on the mind-body problem and on the origin of the physical universe. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? I am not dogmatic. All I do is providing an argumlent that IF comp is correct, then Aristotelian primitive matter becomes a phlogiston-of-the-gap. I show that such a notion of matter fails to explain the very knowledge that we can have of matter (and mind). I am only reducing the mind-body problem, or the hard problem of consciousness to the problem of justifying the belief in physics from the belief in arithmetic (or Turing-equivalent). What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or simply Maria, you know, the Mother of God, that you can meet with Salvia
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 01 Dec 2013, at 08:45, Samiya Illias wrote: We exist, OK. then why should we reject the idea of having been created, Or of having a non physical origin. creation involves the idea of someone doing something with something, and so that idea take some something for granted, and so miss by construction the goal of explaining why we exist. Like Quentin said, God created the universe leads to the problem of what is God, why and how has It created the universe, etc. Also, in some culture, the universe can be the result of God sneezing, or the result of God being unable to control the consequence of his creation of something else. the danger of saying that we are created by God is apparent in the doctrine that God has made the humans into his own image. This leads to the idea that humans are somehow single out from all creatures, when the truth might be that all creature are equal and interconnected (as we see ecologically). We cannot pretend that we are the favorite of God. You know the theory that God created the cat in his own image, and then created the humans to be the servants of the cats ... just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? OK. But then God is only a pointer to our ignorance. If we cannot comprehend God, we cannot use It as an explanation. Here computationalism put some light by explaining that something (may be just the arithmetical truth) is intrinsically ignored by all finite creature. So if we are machine, there is something which transcend us, and I think this is closer to the rational conception of the mystical experience and of the God of the greeks and the mystics. Is that not intellectual dishonesty? It is dishonesty only when an alternative religion is proposed and presented not as a religion, but as scientific facts. Atheists are not honest, because by denying a God or all God, they replace it without saying by another (impersonal) God, without understanding that this is a theological theory which assumes a theological axiom: the belief in a primitive physical universe/matter. Some will call Occam razor, meaning that they extrapolate from their dreamy (with comp) experience that a physical universe exist primitively. But there are no evidence for that. Indeed with comp it is far more plausible that we belong to an infinity of computations whose existence is provable in elementary arithmetic: meaning: with comp we might lead to disbelieve in the material creation, meaning that comp is atheist with respect to the God of the atheists. My point is that among all religions, atheism is the most dishonest one, as they pretend to do science, and they mock the other as not being serious. But science is agnostic and makes its assumption explicit, and keep in mind that those are assumptions. From the point of view of an aristotelian believer (like many christians and basically all atheists) comp can be described as being a super-atheism: as it might contradict both the existence of a creator *and* the existence of a creation (physical universe). But there is a universal dreamer (in arithmetic) and he is confronted to a ONE, the arithmetical truth which cannot not influence the dreams possible and their statistics (dreams obeys laws). It remains a big mystery: arithmetical truth, or our belief in arithmetical truth. But this is assumed by all scientist, and comp explain everything from it. Samiya, in case you dont' see how all dreams are generated by arithmetical truth, you can search on Google and Youtube with the key Mandelbrot set which illustrates nicely how a very simple number relation (a quite little program) can generate something infinitely complex (and rather beautiful according to many). The Mandelbrot set (restricted on the rational numbers) might be a compact representation of a universal dovetailer, in which case *you* are infinitely distributed ion its infinitely complex border. The god of comp, like the God of most religion is transcendent, and so we cannot use it as an explanation of the Origin, as it is more complex than the origin, but it might gives the key for the End. God is a soul attractor. It can also be a hope for possible harmony in the chaotic complex reality. It is more like a goal, than an explanation per se. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 08:45, Samiya Illias wrote: We exist, OK. then why should we reject the idea of having been created, Or of having a non physical origin. creation involves the idea of someone doing something with something, and so that idea take some something for granted, and so miss by construction the goal of explaining why we exist. Like Quentin said, God created the universe leads to the problem of what is God, why and how has It created the universe, etc. Also, in some culture, the universe can be the result of God sneezing, or the result of God being unable to control the consequence of his creation of something else. the danger of saying that we are created by God is apparent in the doctrine that God has made the humans into his own image. This leads to the idea that humans are somehow single out from all creatures, when the truth might be that all creature are equal and interconnected (as we see ecologically). We cannot pretend that we are the favorite of God. You know the theory that God created the cat in his own image, and then created the humans to be the servants of the cats ... just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? OK. But then God is only a pointer to our ignorance. If we cannot comprehend God, we cannot use It as an explanation. Here computationalism put some light by explaining that something (may be just the arithmetical truth) is intrinsically ignored by all finite creature. So if we are machine, there is something which transcend us, and I think this is closer to the rational conception of the mystical experience and of the God of the greeks and the mystics. Is that not intellectual dishonesty? It is dishonesty only when an alternative religion is proposed and presented not as a religion, but as scientific facts. Atheists are not honest, because by denying a God or all God, they replace it without saying by another (impersonal) God, That's not true without understanding that this is a theological theory which assumes a theological axiom: the belief in a primitive physical universe/matter. I don't believe in a primitive physical universe and I don't believe in god, I see no contradiction with that... it's because you redefine what god means you're able to say such things, but that is dishonest. Quentin Some will call Occam razor, meaning that they extrapolate from their dreamy (with comp) experience that a physical universe exist primitively. But there are no evidence for that. Indeed with comp it is far more plausible that we belong to an infinity of computations whose existence is provable in elementary arithmetic: meaning: with comp we might lead to disbelieve in the material creation, meaning that comp is atheist with respect to the God of the atheists. My point is that among all religions, atheism is the most dishonest one, as they pretend to do science, and they mock the other as not being serious. But science is agnostic and makes its assumption explicit, and keep in mind that those are assumptions. From the point of view of an aristotelian believer (like many christians and basically all atheists) comp can be described as being a super-atheism: as it might contradict both the existence of a creator *and* the existence of a creation (physical universe). But there is a universal dreamer (in arithmetic) and he is confronted to a ONE, the arithmetical truth which cannot not influence the dreams possible and their statistics (dreams obeys laws). It remains a big mystery: arithmetical truth, or our belief in arithmetical truth. But this is assumed by all scientist, and comp explain everything from it. Samiya, in case you dont' see how all dreams are generated by arithmetical truth, you can search on Google and Youtube with the key Mandelbrot set which illustrates nicely how a very simple number relation (a quite little program) can generate something infinitely complex (and rather beautiful according to many). The Mandelbrot set (restricted on the rational numbers) might be a compact representation of a universal dovetailer, in which case *you* are infinitely distributed ion its infinitely complex border. The god of comp, like the God of most religion is transcendent, and so we cannot use it as an explanation of the Origin, as it is more complex than the origin, but it might gives the key for the End. God is a soul attractor. It can also be a hope for possible harmony in the chaotic complex reality. It is more like a goal, than an explanation per se. Bruno 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.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 01 Dec 2013, at 09:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang- Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke- Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can exist. Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that how you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in whatever anyone conceives of or else provide a disproof? Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist, No, I said I see no reason to believe in them. That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic = ~[]g ( ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g. You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to disbelieve in God. Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. God points on an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it takes some Fairy tale into account. The God of comp is the God of the Parmenides, which is the base of the neoplatonist theology (Plotinus, Proclus). Such a conception is close to Augustin and the christian mystics, the Soufis, the Kabbala, and the East spirituallity. I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can say you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what you are denying. That's my exact point. so you are the one pretending having a clear referent for each of the name above, and you are the one acting like if you knew that none exist. Right. Of course I don't have clear referent of each one, but someone did. They were worshiped and prayed to and sacrificed for. But being able to conceive of them is what makes it possible say I don't believe in them - otherwise I wouldn't know what I was failing to believe. It doesn't make it harder to disbelieve; it makes it *possible*. We have been naive on thunder, sun, moon, and many things. Obviously we have been naive on God too, but that is not a reason to abandon the idea, which is basically the idea that the physical universe has a non physical reason. Atheists, like fundamentalists often talk like if they were not ignorant in those matter. but in science, not only we are ignorant, but the very subject is denied by some scientists (when atheists). People like Gödel and Einstein where pissed of by free-thinkers and atheists, because they were quite aware of their dogmatic attitude. I would have read them about that subject, I would have been less naive, and probably run away from them. Atheism and fundamentalist theism is really the same. Same God, same Matter. And same violent responses against the doubter and the agnostics. Same visceral negative attitude against the application of the scientific attitude in the theological field. I'm fine with applying the scientific attitude to the theological field. That is my only point here,
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 01 Dec 2013, at 11:01, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Nov 2013, at 23:33, meekerdb wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang- Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke- Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. But that is agnosticism. Not atheism. We might have only a vocabulary problem. All the atheists I know are typically NOT agnostic. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I have never develop that idea (did I made a typo?). I am saying the exact contrary. It is NOT conceiving a God, which makes harder to disbelief in it. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. That's my exact point, and that is the reason why science should be agnostic before having more light on the mind-body problem and on the origin of the physical universe. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? I am not dogmatic. All I do is providing an argumlent that IF comp is correct, then Aristotelian primitive matter becomes a phlogiston- of-the-gap. I show that such a notion of matter fails to explain the very knowledge that we can have of matter (and mind). I am only reducing the mind-body problem, or the hard problem of consciousness to the problem of justifying the belief in physics from the belief in arithmetic (or Turing-equivalent). What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain- exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 09:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can exist. Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that how you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in whatever anyone conceives of or else provide a disproof? Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist, No, I said I see no reason to believe in them. That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic = ~[]g ( ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g. You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to disbelieve in God. Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. God points on an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it takes some Fairy tale into account. The God of comp is the God of the Parmenides, which is the base of the neoplatonist theology (Plotinus, Proclus). Such a conception is close to Augustin and the christian mystics, the Soufis, the Kabbala, and the East spirituallity. I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can say you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what you are denying. That's my exact point. so you are the one pretending having a clear referent for each of the name above, and you are the one acting like if you knew that none exist. Right. Of course I don't have clear referent of each one, but someone did. They were worshiped and prayed to and sacrificed for. But being able to conceive of them is what makes it possible say I don't believe in them - otherwise I wouldn't know what I was failing to believe. It doesn't make it harder to disbelieve; it makes it *possible*. We have been naive on thunder, sun, moon, and many things. Obviously we have been naive on God too, but that is not a reason to abandon the idea, which is basically the idea that the physical universe has a non physical reason. Atheists, like fundamentalists often talk like if they were not ignorant in those matter. but in science, not only we are ignorant, but the very subject is denied by some scientists (when atheists). People like Gödel and Einstein where pissed of by free-thinkers and atheists, because they were quite aware of their dogmatic attitude. I would have read them about that subject, I would have been less naive, and probably run away from them. Atheism and fundamentalist theism is really the same. Same God, same Matter. And same violent responses against the doubter and the agnostics. Same visceral negative attitude against the application of the scientific attitude in the theological field. I'm fine with applying the scientific attitude to the theological field. That is
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 01 Dec 2013, at 11:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Is that not intellectual dishonesty? It is dishonesty only when an alternative religion is proposed and presented not as a religion, but as scientific facts. Atheists are not honest, because by denying a God or all God, they replace it without saying by another (impersonal) God, That's not true I have not found an atheist, interested in the fundamental question, who does not believe in something transcendental, be it mathematics, or a physical universe, etc. That's OK, but with comp, this becomes a religious belief in the traditional theological sense. may be you are just ignoring the theological literature. without understanding that this is a theological theory which assumes a theological axiom: the belief in a primitive physical universe/matter. I don't believe in a primitive physical universe and I don't believe in god, I see no contradiction with that... In what do you believe? it's because you redefine what god means you're able to say such things, but that is dishonest. You are using the redefinition of god made by the political power who perverted the original notion for control purpose. But even the theologian belonging to those tradition (who perverted) the word, use it in a sense which is quite close to the original sense. I use it in the same sense than in entheogen: awaking the God inside you, I use it is the sense of most people asserting that they are believer, and who seems genuine, and never pretend their belief is communicable. Then using the terms God and theology can help to correct, with respect to comp, the existing theology, and the demarcation is rather clear: on one par you have the religion based on authoritative arguments, which are far away from comp, and then you have the religion based on personal experience and secret doctrine with negative theology (Soufi, Kabbala, Augustine, Hinduism, Buddhism, taoism, platonism, neoplatonism, etc.). This is certainly an oversimplification, but it illustrates that we might be machine, and that some humans might be more self-referentially correct than others. Bruno Quentin Some will call Occam razor, meaning that they extrapolate from their dreamy (with comp) experience that a physical universe exist primitively. But there are no evidence for that. Indeed with comp it is far more plausible that we belong to an infinity of computations whose existence is provable in elementary arithmetic: meaning: with comp we might lead to disbelieve in the material creation, meaning that comp is atheist with respect to the God of the atheists. My point is that among all religions, atheism is the most dishonest one, as they pretend to do science, and they mock the other as not being serious. But science is agnostic and makes its assumption explicit, and keep in mind that those are assumptions. From the point of view of an aristotelian believer (like many christians and basically all atheists) comp can be described as being a super-atheism: as it might contradict both the existence of a creator *and* the existence of a creation (physical universe). But there is a universal dreamer (in arithmetic) and he is confronted to a ONE, the arithmetical truth which cannot not influence the dreams possible and their statistics (dreams obeys laws). It remains a big mystery: arithmetical truth, or our belief in arithmetical truth. But this is assumed by all scientist, and comp explain everything from it. Samiya, in case you dont' see how all dreams are generated by arithmetical truth, you can search on Google and Youtube with the key Mandelbrot set which illustrates nicely how a very simple number relation (a quite little program) can generate something infinitely complex (and rather beautiful according to many). The Mandelbrot set (restricted on the rational numbers) might be a compact representation of a universal dovetailer, in which case *you* are infinitely distributed ion its infinitely complex border. The god of comp, like the God of most religion is transcendent, and so we cannot use it as an explanation of the Origin, as it is more complex than the origin, but it might gives the key for the End. God is a soul attractor. It can also be a hope for possible harmony in the chaotic complex reality. It is more like a goal, than an explanation per se. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 01 Dec 2013, at 12:32, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 09:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang- mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can exist. Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that how you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in whatever anyone conceives of or else provide a disproof? Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist, No, I said I see no reason to believe in them. That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic = ~[]g ( ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g. You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to disbelieve in God. Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. God points on an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it takes some Fairy tale into account. The God of comp is the God of the Parmenides, which is the base of the neoplatonist theology (Plotinus, Proclus). Such a conception is close to Augustin and the christian mystics, the Soufis, the Kabbala, and the East spirituallity. I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can say you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what you are denying. That's my exact point. so you are the one pretending having a clear referent for each of the name above, and you are the one acting like if you knew that none exist. Right. Of course I don't have clear referent of each one, but someone did. They were worshiped and prayed to and sacrificed for. But being able to conceive of them is what makes it possible say I don't believe in them - otherwise I wouldn't know what I was failing to believe. It doesn't make it harder to disbelieve; it makes it *possible*. We have been naive on thunder, sun, moon, and many things. Obviously we have been naive on God too, but that is not a reason to abandon the idea, which is basically the idea that the physical universe has a non physical reason. Atheists, like fundamentalists often talk like if they were not ignorant in those matter. but in science, not only we are ignorant, but the very subject is denied by some scientists (when atheists). People like Gödel and Einstein where pissed of by free-thinkers and atheists, because they were quite aware of their dogmatic attitude. I would have read them about that subject, I would have been less naive, and probably run away from them. Atheism and fundamentalist theism is really the same. Same God, same Matter. And same violent responses against the doubter and the agnostics. Same visceral negative attitude against the application of the scientific attitude in the theological field. I'm
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 12:32, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 01 Dec 2013, at 09:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can exist. Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that how you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in whatever anyone conceives of or else provide a disproof? Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist, No, I said I see no reason to believe in them. That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic = ~[]g ( ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g. You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to disbelieve in God. Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. God points on an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it takes some Fairy tale into account. The God of comp is the God of the Parmenides, which is the base of the neoplatonist theology (Plotinus, Proclus). Such a conception is close to Augustin and the christian mystics, the Soufis, the Kabbala, and the East spirituallity. I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can say you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what you are denying. That's my exact point. so you are the one pretending having a clear referent for each of the name above, and you are the one acting like if you knew that none exist. Right. Of course I don't have clear referent of each one, but someone did. They were worshiped and prayed to and sacrificed for. But being able to conceive of them is what makes it possible say I don't believe in them - otherwise I wouldn't know what I was failing to believe. It doesn't make it harder to disbelieve; it makes it *possible*. We have been naive on thunder, sun, moon, and many things. Obviously we have been naive on God too, but that is not a reason to abandon the idea, which is basically the idea that the physical universe has a non physical reason. Atheists, like fundamentalists often talk like if they were not ignorant in those matter. but in science, not only we are ignorant, but the very subject is denied by some scientists (when atheists). People like Gödel and Einstein where pissed of by free-thinkers and atheists, because they were quite aware of their dogmatic attitude. I would have read them about that subject, I would have been less naive, and probably run away from them. Atheism and fundamentalist theism is really the same. Same God, same Matter. And same violent responses against the doubter and the agnostics. Same visceral negative attitude against the application of the scientific attitude in
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 30 November 2013 05:02, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Liz, I disagree. The atheists say the definition of Earth (God) in the sacred text is an infinite plane (fairy tale). We know there is no infinite plane below us, (we disbelief fairy tales) thus we correct our theory of Earth (God): Earth (God) doesn't exist. That this, the atheists credit some text for the definition of God, and abandon the whole idea, or possible reality, because they find some theory wrong. And by doing so, they continue to credit the authoritative arguments. And in passing they impose implicitly their own theology (Matter). God, in the original platonist theoretical conception is basically the reason/cause of the everything which exists in some or other senses. Atheists says it is Matter. Many atheists believes that there is a material universe, and that it is all there is. Their God, in the platonist sense, is Matter, and they might be true. But you don't need to believe in any fairy tale to doubt Matter, and so the physical universe might have a deeper cause or reason, and indeed with computationalism the cause is just the arithmetical truth, which makes the universal number sharing deep computations, with a measure we can compare with the facts (using Theaetetus' definition of knowledge). If we don't put the theological in perspective, it will be hard to even compare the atheist aristotelian theology (Nature, Mater, is the God) and Platonism: (Nature and Matter emerge from, or emanate from, or is created by, or is the shadow of, or (in comp): is the global FPI first person plural projection, from *something else* (with comp: arithmetical truth). The problem of some atheists and materialist is that they confuse physics and theology. They forget that they *assume* a physical reality. They too commit an act of faith, by making the object of physics the explanation of everything. They reason correctly in the frame of that assumption, but to do theology scientifically, you need to remind that it is an assumption, just to see other rational conception of reality possible. Very clearly put. I do think that atheists believe what I said they believe, mainly because I've read quotes from them saying as much - however you are quite right, they then forget that they have a metaphysical belief. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 30 November 2013 03:58, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: 1) Atheists say: Prove to me your existence and I will trust you. God says: Trust me and I will prove to you my existence. Agnostic says: Trust me, neither of you can prove or show the other anything at this point :-) 2) What did the Buddhist say to the atheist pizza chef? Make me one with everything! And the atheist pizza chef did. LOL! And I only say that when I actually do. (And I'm at work) -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 11/30/2013 11:45 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, Because we discovered that we evolved? 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Evolution is also a part of creation! The origin of creation, the perpetuation of creation, the process of procreation, and the selection of creation are all part of the continuous grand act of creation! Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 9:17 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 11:45 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, Because we discovered that we evolved? 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/1/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can exist. Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that how you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in whatever anyone conceives of or else provide a disproof? Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist, No, I said I see no reason to believe in them. That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic = ~[]g ( ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g. That's right, I'm agnostic with respect to the question of whether there could be a god(s). But I'm still an atheist because I'm pretty sure there's not theist god. You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to disbelieve in God. Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. God points on an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it takes some Fairy tale into account. The God of comp is the God of the Parmenides, which is the base of the neoplatonist theology (Plotinus, Proclus). Such a conception is close to Augustin and the christian mystics, the Soufis, the Kabbala, and the East spirituallity. I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can say you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what you are denying. That's my exact point. It's not what you wrote. You wrote: If you are able to conceive a god without afterlife, it means you can conceive a non Christian God, which is nice, but contradicts the main atheist statements you already did in preceding conversations. ... Also, if you can conceive a Non Christian God, it becomes more difficult to *believe* in the non existence of God. So you claimed that conceiving of a non-Christian God makes it more difficult to believe in the non-existence of God (by which I think you mean to fail to believe in the existence of God). And then you agree that one *must* concieve of a God (or anything else) in order to fail to believe in its existence. As one of my physics advisors, Jurgen Ehlers, used to say, Before we can know whether a thing exists we must first know its properties. so you are the one pretending having a clear referent for each of the name above, and you are the one acting like if you knew that none exist. Right. Of course I don't have clear referent of each one, but someone did. They were worshiped and prayed to and sacrificed for. But being able to conceive of them is what makes it possible say I don't believe in them - otherwise I wouldn't know what I was failing to believe. It doesn't make it harder to disbelieve; it makes it *possible*. We have been naive on thunder, sun, moon, and many things. Obviously we have been naive on God too, but that is not a reason to abandon the idea, which is basically the idea that the physical universe
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/1/2013 1:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Nov 2013, at 23:33, meekerdb wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. But that is agnosticism. Not atheism. We might have only a vocabulary problem. All the atheists I know are typically NOT agnostic. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I have never develop that idea (did I made a typo?). I am saying the exact contrary. It is NOT conceiving a God, which makes harder to disbelief in it. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. That's my exact point, and that is the reason why science should be agnostic before having more light on the mind-body problem and on the origin of the physical universe. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? I am not dogmatic. All I do is providing an argumlent that IF comp is correct, then Aristotelian primitive matter becomes a phlogiston-of-the-gap. I show that such a notion of matter fails to explain the very knowledge that we can have of matter (and mind). I am only reducing the mind-body problem, or the hard problem of consciousness to the problem of justifying the belief in physics from the belief in arithmetic (or Turing-equivalent). What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or simply Maria, you know, the Mother of God, that you can meet with Salvia (according to the
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/1/2013 3:32 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: As such, you should restrain from using that word, it's useless. What term would you suggest? What about ultimate reality ? Because that's what you say it means... It's neutral, does not have all the connotations linked with the word god... and eventually, that's what you want to convey. Quentin Not only that, it abbreviates to UR. But it should be used in lower case, ur, so as to avoid the implication it is a proper noun. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/1/2013 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is dishonesty only when an alternative religion is proposed and presented not as a religion, but as scientific facts. Atheists are not honest, because by denying a God or all God, they replace it without saying by another (impersonal) God, That's not true I have not found an atheist, interested in the fundamental question, who does not believe in something transcendental, be it mathematics, or a physical universe, etc. Scientists don't believe in things. They only hypothesize them. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/1/2013 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Using God for the ultimate reality, it seems to me, can in the long run enlarge the listening and the understanding of what the machines are already telling us. Not as much as using ultimate reality for ultimate reality. One must suspect you have some hidden agenda to avoid plain speaking. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Ok. But evolution works to 'create' without a creator. Brent On 12/1/2013 9:00 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Evolution is also a part of creation! The origin of creation, the perpetuation of creation, the process of procreation, and the selection of creation are all part of the continuous grand act of creation! Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 9:17 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 11:45 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, Because we discovered that we evolved? 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 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/1/2013 10:30 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: That is simply because the system of evolution is perfectly designed by whoever designed it. I believe the 'whoever' to be God. Evolution is designed, it's a simple consequence of random variation and it's consequences for reproduction. That's why it's a good explanation - it doesn't just push the question off onto another mystery. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Actually Crick designed the perfect means for DNA replication (I think that was it) without any errors long before it was established empirically. When experimenters finally discovered how nature did it, it turned out that nature's method produced occasional errors. So the system of evolution is not perfectly designed. Should not it follow that there is no god.? On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.comwrote: That is simply because the system of evolution is perfectly designed by whoever designed it. I believe the 'whoever' to be God. Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 11:13 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Ok. But evolution works to 'create' without a creator. Brent On 12/1/2013 9:00 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Evolution is also a part of creation! The origin of creation, the perpetuation of creation, the process of procreation, and the selection of creation are all part of the continuous grand act of creation! Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 02-Dec-2013, at 9:17 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 11:45 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, Because we discovered that we evolved? 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang- Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke- Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain- exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or simply Maria, you know, the Mother of God, that you can meet with Salvia (according to the Christian Mazatecs). There is no algorithm capable of deciding of two machines computes or not the same function, so you can imagine the difficulties with the nameable non machines, or gods and goddesses. And the big one, cannot be in such a list, I guess. We might try to decide on a definition of atheism, as that notion is very unclear, and I have rarely obtain a definition on which atheists agreed. It's as clear as the negation of 'theist'. But theist is not clear. My point exactly. But if you agree that theist is not clear, you agree that atheist is not clear either. It creates an opposition where I see beliefs everywhere, and good willing people trying to understand each others, mixed with people who insult instead. I have many sympathy for many atheists, and I share with them important ideas, like no artificial magic, occam razor, rationalism, and the anticleralism, and the anti-autoritarism (of the first one), but they get trapped in* believing* they have solved the theological question, or trapped in the deny that there was even a question, leading to a form of don't ask, which slow down the possible progresses, and becomes an autoritarist meme by itself. Some identify God with the God of their own culture. In science, we try to get a concept as independent of human and culture as possible. I use God in the greek sense of Truth (the one that we can search about us, or hope or fear, in life and afterlife, whatever it is). Except nobody
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 11/30/2013 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Nov 2013, at 23:59, meekerdb wrote: On 11/29/2013 9:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: On 11/28/2013 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Nov 2013, at 23:36, meekerdb wrote: On 11/27/2013 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Nov 2013, at 18:56, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife, Those are 2 separate ideas and there is no reason they must be linked. There could be a God and no afterlife or a afterlife and no God; or neither could exist or both could. If you are able to conceive a god without afterlife, it means you can conceive a non Christian God, which is nice, but contradicts the main atheist statements you already did in preceding conversations. How does being able to conceive a non-Christian God contradict being an atheist?? I can conceive many different gods that I don't believe in. Can you conceive a God in which you do believe? That was for John Clark who defined once God by the Christian God. Also, if you can conceive a Non Christian God, it becomes more difficult to *believe* in the non existence of God. I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can exist. Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that how you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in whatever anyone conceives of or else provide a disproof? Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist, No, I said I see no reason to believe in them. You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to disbelieve in God. I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can say you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what you are denying. so you are the one pretending having a clear referent for each of the name above, and you are the one acting like if you knew that none exist. Right. Of course I don't have clear referent of each one, but someone did. They were worshiped and prayed to and sacrificed for. But being able to conceive of them is what makes it possible say I don't believe in them - otherwise I wouldn't know what I was failing to believe. It doesn't make it harder to disbelieve; it makes it *possible*. Atheists, like fundamentalists often talk like if they were not ignorant in those matter. but in science, not only we are ignorant, but the very subject is denied by some scientists (when atheists). People like Gödel and Einstein where pissed of by free-thinkers and atheists, because they were quite aware of their dogmatic attitude. I would have read them about that subject, I would have been less naive, and probably run away from them. Atheism and fundamentalist theism is really the same. Same God, same Matter. And same violent responses against the doubter and the agnostics. Same visceral
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or simply Maria, you know, the Mother of God, that you can meet with Salvia (according to the Christian Mazatecs). There is no algorithm capable of deciding of two machines computes or not the same function, so you can imagine the difficulties with the nameable non machines, or gods and goddesses. And the big one, cannot be in such a list, I guess. We might try to decide on a definition of atheism, as that notion is very unclear, and I have rarely obtain a definition on which atheists agreed. It's as clear as the negation of 'theist'. But theist is not clear. My point exactly. But if you agree that theist is not clear, you agree that atheist is not clear either. But theist is only unclear because you suppose that you can cite some ancient philosopher as *really* defining theism. I accept the modern theory of dictionaries that meanings are defined by usage; and the usage of God is a superperson who created the world, wants to be worshipped, and judges, rewards and punishes. It creates an opposition where I see beliefs everywhere, and good willing people trying to
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? Is that not intellectual dishonesty? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 01-Dec-2013, at 3:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or simply Maria, you know, the Mother of God, that you can meet with Salvia (according to the Christian Mazatecs). There is no algorithm capable of deciding of two machines computes or not the same function, so you can imagine the difficulties with the nameable non machines, or gods and goddesses. And the big one, cannot be in such a list, I guess. We might try to decide on a definition of atheism, as that notion is very unclear, and I have rarely obtain a definition on which atheists agreed. It's as clear as the negation of 'theist'. But theist is not clear. My point exactly. But if you agree that theist is not clear, you agree that atheist is not clear either. But theist is only unclear because you suppose that you can cite
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
I grew up with my creators. Richard On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.comwrote: We exist, then why should we reject the idea of having been created, just because we are unable to comprehend or define our Creator? Is that not intellectual dishonesty? Samiya Sent from my iPhone On 01-Dec-2013, at 3:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent, I hope you don't mind I re-answer this. On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them? I didn't say I disbelieved, I said I saw no reason to believe in them. I *fail* to believe in them. I think of belief as admitting degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in God. I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in something undefined. Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental matter does not exist? What if the list just missed the one that exists? As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or Ganesha, is incompatible with comp. I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry, and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more). I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we and how many person really exist. But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc? I would need to study their stories to conclude. Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or simply Maria, you know, the Mother of God, that you can meet with Salvia (according to the Christian Mazatecs). There is no algorithm capable of deciding of two machines computes or not the same function, so you can imagine the difficulties with the nameable non machines, or gods and goddesses. And the big one, cannot be in such a list, I guess. We might try to decide on a definition of atheism, as that notion is very unclear, and I have rarely obtain a definition on which atheists agreed. It's as clear as the negation of 'theist'. But theist is not clear. My point exactly. But if you agree that theist is not clear, you agree that atheist is
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 29 Nov 2013, at 07:56, Samiya Illias wrote: I understand that so many deities and faith-systems and all the myths and fantasies in them easily put off any thinking mind. Yet, the more we discover, the closer we get to theorizing about everything, the more difficult it is to believe that everything just happens on its own. We may not be able to describe or imagine God, but it is also not possible to honestly dismiss a existence of a Deity! I agree. In fact no self-referentially correct machines can miss Her (or Him, or It, or That ...). But it is not entirely related to what we discover, as this can be illusions, or shadows. I do agree also with Quentin, God as a concept should not be used as an explanation, as it is the most mysterious thing ever. So we should not even postulate it. Compare with Arithmetic. Our intuition of numbers, or more generally arithmetical truth, is implicit and cannot be axiomatized in any way. Yet, some of those intuitions are sharable, and we *can* assume them, and then proceed from those assumptions to agree on consequences. But that process would make no sense without the arithmetical reality, from which we start, and this despite we cannot define it. So God cannot be part of any sharable *theory*, even if it is what we share the better, (more or less consciously), just because it has no name, no image, ..., etc. It truly transcend us. There are similarities with the set of all sets which cannot be a set. But this can also be slightly misleading. Greeks Platonists got this right (with respect to computationalism), and that is why they separated God (truth, the one) with the Intelligible (the world of ideas, the Noùs), or the world made of what exist (like the numbers, the dreaming machines, ...). God is no member of the Intelligible, it is beyond being. Like arithmetical truth, it is responsible for what exists, but Itself does not exist, in the sense of the existence of the ideas. Nor does matter, which for them is below being, and is where God loses control, and is identified with the Evil. (no need to follow them on this: in comp the only evil character brought by matter is that it can hurt). Bruno On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:26 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: But if everything's holy... well, you know the rest. On 29 November 2013 14:02, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think size/length of the list matters much, lol! Crazy Ginsberg's list was shorter and he and his publishers apparently see reason for them to exist: Footnote to Howl By Allen Ginsberg Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! Holy! The world is holy! The soul is holy! The skin is holy! The nose is holy! The tongue and cock and hand and asshole holy! Everything is holy! everybody’s holy! everywhere is holy! everyday is in eternity! Everyman’s an angel! The bum’s as holy as the seraphim! the madman is holy as you my soul are holy! The typewriter is holy the poem is holy the voice is holy the hearers are holy the ecstasy is holy! Holy Peter holy Allen holy Solomon holy Lucien holy Kerouac holy Huncke holy Burroughs holy Cassady holy the unknown buggered and suffering beggars holy the hideous human angels! Holy my mother in the insane asylum! Holy the cocks of the grandfathers of Kansas! Holy the groaning saxophone! Holy the bop apocalypse! Holy the jazzbands marijuana hipsters peace peyote pipes drums! Holy the solitudes of skyscrapers and pavements! Holy the cafeterias filled with the millions! Holy the mysterious rivers of tears under the streets! Holy the lone juggernaut! Holy the vast lamb of the middleclass! Holy the crazy shepherds of rebellion! Who digs Los Angeles IS Los Angeles! Holy New York Holy San Francisco Holy Peoria Seattle Holy Paris Holy Tangiers Holy Moscow Holy Istanbul! Holy time in eternity holy eternity in time holy the clocks in space holy the fourth dimension holy the fifth International holy the Angel in Moloch! Holy the sea holy the desert holy the railroad holy the locomotive holy the visions holy the hallucinations holy the miracles holy the eyeball holy the abyss! Holy forgiveness! mercy! charity! faith! Holy! Ours! bodies! suffering! magnanimity! Holy the supernatural extra brilliant intelligent kindness of the soul! Berkeley 1955 I believe both Brent and Allen. And the Sun... Dunno much about their existence though. PGC On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:03 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 November 2013 09:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis,
