Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg >wrote: > > >> > Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. >> > > A religion is just a cult with good PR. > It's interesting. I would be curious to know whether every established religion intentionally sought legitimacy at some point, or if it's more of an inevitable consequence of surviving long enough to seem ancient. Are their ancient cults (other than those intentionally shrouded in secrecy)? Craig > John K Clark > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. > A religion is just a cult with good PR. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 11:59:09 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > > Quentin, > > I agree with you, if that's what religion is. > But it is not generally like that. > Instead, you are talking about a cult. > > The distinction is questionable. I would say that all religions begin as cults and that all cults become religions given enough time and popularity. Unpopular religions are denounced as cults. Same with religions that become popular too suddenly. Craig > > > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Bruno Marchal > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2013-02-05, 11:42:46 > *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. > > > On 05 Feb 2013, at 15:04, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux > > > wrote: > > > > > I do not believe in any *personified* gods, and in any *dogmas*, so in > that settings I would call myself an atheist. I'm agnostic about what I > could call an existential force, a reality "maker"... Religions does not > allows doubt, questionning, religions is about dogmas. I would side with > John in saying that wanting to use god for something else than the accepted > meaning (which means a super *being*/*person*) is wrong. I can accept the > notion of the One (which is not a person), the one is not a *god* in that > sense. > > But when you talk with religious zealot, saying you're agnostic means to > them that they could enrol you in their dogma, and so to them I really > prefer saying I'm an atheist, because really I don't believe their BS, I > don't want to believe, I want to doubt, question, search answers, religions > gives non-questionable "answers", religions are not about seeking truth, it > is just "shut up and believe". > > > My point is there are various levels of sophistication in understanding. > A three-year-old might have some concept of numbers, and so does a PhD > mathematician. Their understandings may be incomparable, but you could say > they both have some belief in numbers. The fact that many people might > have little understanding in certain field is not an appropriate reason to > say there is nothing of any interest in that field. > > > > I agree. And to reject a notion because of a common misunderstanding can > only maintain and spread the misconception. > It remains typical that atheists are so few inclined to accept that we > tackle theology with the scientific method. > > I have used the term "theology" because I have been qualified as such, by > vindicative strong atheists, and this when I said things like "I am > interested in the question 'could a machine be conscious" (answer: that's > theology), or even just "I am interested in modal logic" (comment: that's > theology). Eventually I think there were right, and to prevent such easy > dismissal I have called that theology. > Another reason, is that I want prevent the statement "science has shown > that we are machine", and a big part of what I have done should explain why > this is not a scientific statement, and why saying "yes" to the doctor asks > fro some act of faith. Then the theory of consciousness makes it a basic > and common mystical experience, which takes the form of an automated or > instinctive bet on a reality. > > No scientist get any trouble with this. But I made my old atheists, and > marxist, and philosophers, ex-friends quite unhappy. May be they were just > jealous or something, but the persistence of the problem that atheists seem > to have with the use of the scientific attitude in theology makes me > suspects that they were perhaps more serious in their religious dogma "no > God!". In fact they meant probably no ""God"", (with quotes), but they did > not say, as they know this is only vocabulary. The idea that "matter" is an > hypothesis makes also some people nervous. But in science we should never > make any ontological commitment, not a single one. Ontological commitment > are private matter. > > Bruno > > > > > > Jason > > > > Regards, > Quentin > > > > then 70% of people use that same meaning. If there's some > other notion, > why not call it something else. > > The discordians have their own notion of Pope, as do the Catholics. > Who is anyone to say there is only one meaning of Pope? > > > That's not two different meanings any more that king is two different > notions because there is more than one king. > > > They have different properties though. As is the case between Gods of > various religions. There are some nearly universal characteristics, but no > two are identical. You could even say, every Christian has a different > understanding and view point of what God is. Perhaps there are Gods in > some religions which are not only consistent or probable, but real. Should > science not have some interest in their investigation (especially if they > are part of reality)? > > > > Why then, > should the
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi Jason Resch "God" is a word, and the meanings of words are established by use. So the word "God" can mean whatever you intend it to mean. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-04, 22:12:54 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 2/3/2013 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On 2/3/13, meekerdb ?rote: On 2/3/2013 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It simpler to generalize the notion of God so that indeed basically all correct machines believes in God, and in some theories question like "is God a person" can be an open problem. But you have a vocabulary problem related to the fact that you cannot cut with your education which has impose to you only one notion of God. Why should there be more than one notion designated by "God". Do you not agree that there are multiple religions and each is free to designate its own God or Gods? ?o choose one sect of one religion's God as the standard God for all atheists to disbelieve in is favoritism. ?hy do the atheists choose the Abrahamic God over the God the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Zoroastrians, the Deists, the Platonists, or any of the myriads of religions since lost to history? Because that's the god of theism - hence a-theism. So are you also an a-deist? ?hat about an a-Brahmanist, or a-Hyper-intelligent-simlatorist? ? You say it is because it is the most popular. ?ven if that were so, Atheism isn't about rejecting one God, it rejects all Gods. Not at all. ?ll the atheists I know allow that a deist god is more likely to exist than a theist god. They still (I would think) put that probability less than 50%. ? You would have to be quite an expert to disqualify every religion's (and indeed, every person's) notion of God. I don't have to 'disqualify' them (whatever that means); I just fail to put any credence in them. How do you differentiate yourself from agnostics, who also fail to put any credence in them? ? The Abrahamic religions use the word to designate a particular notion: an omniscience, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him. Not all do, which you failed to account for in your below probabilities. Not all what do? Not all?hristians?efine God as an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator person who wants us to worship him. ? ? just took the proportion of the world population that self identified as Christian, Muslim, and Jew. ?he major remaining portions are non-believers and Hindus. ? Together their adherents constitute 54% of those who believe in a theist god. ?nd if we take your view that atheists and agnostics use the same definition, That is not my view. ? am trying to ascertain what is the God that atheists disbelieve in, and if it is one in particular (and not all of them, which is what I thought most?theists?elieved (e.g. Richard Dawkins and John Clark say they believe in zero Gods)), why have they chosen some particular religion's God instead of others? ?re there Gods atheists believe in but do not tell anyone about? ? then 70% of people use that same meaning. ? If there's some other notion, why not call it something else. The discordians have their own notion of Pope, as do the Catholics. Who is anyone to say there is only one meaning of Pope? That's not two different meanings any more that king is two different notions because there is more than one king. They have different properties though. ?s is the case between Gods of various religions. ?here are some nearly universal characteristics, but no two are identical. ?ou could even say, every Christian has a different understanding and view point of what God is. ?erhaps there are Gods in some religions which are not only consistent or probable, but real. ?hould science not have some interest in their investigation (especially if they are part of reality)? Why then, should there be only one meaning of God? Because then we wouldn't know what "God" meant. ?f course like many words it may refer to more than one thing and there may be some variations. ?"Automobile" refers to lots of different things, but they all have wheels, motive power, and carry people over surfaces. ?hat doesn't mean you can call an aircraft carrier and automobile. So then what are the universal properties of God? ?ou seem to shy away from them and prefer your own overly specific, self-inconsistent definition, because it is the one you can most comfortably admit you disbelieve in. ?his is trivial though and I think we can do better. ?t is like a mathematician proving there are no numbers that are prime and even and greater than 2, so the mathematician decides he has proven all there is to prove and gives up deciding to advance the field by proving anything else. In showing that an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God cannot exist, you end up doing science and adv
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi meekerdb God is not in spacetime, which is extended, so he doesn't physically exist. He is intelligence, etc., which is not extended, exists beyond spacetime, and is nonphysical. You don't have to think of God as a person, or believe in any "fairy tales" (whatever they are, I don't know) unless you think of the One as a person. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-02, 03:08:08 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 2/1/2013 7:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And here you come back with your vocabulary problem. You don't believe in the fairy tale version of christian God, and for some mysterious reason you want throw out all notion of gods like if it was the only one. That's not accurate. I am happy to consider other notions of gods, but they are all persons and I don't believe any of them exist. The meaning you want to assign to "God" is the ultimate foundation of the world, which I would call "urstuff" or something similar. The theory you have put forward that the world is emergent from the computations of a UD doesn't make the fundamental a person and so I can't see any reason to call it "a god" of "God" of even "ONE" (since it is very numerous). 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi John Clark If you want to learn about science, study Darwin, etc. If you want to learn about God, read the Bible. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-24, 11:17:30 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: ? > Genesis doesn't say anything about God being grand and complex as far as I > know. It certainly says God is grand and if it didn't say that a omnipotent being was complex it certainly should have. And Darwin provided a real explanation, he didn't just say that complex life evolved from much simpler life, he provided the engine, he explained how the mechanism works. But exactly how did God create the heavens and the earth? Genesis doesn't say, and that's why Genesis explains absolutely nothing; it might as well have just said "stuff happens" for all the enlightenment it brought. ? >It's a three letter word and it is not explained at all, I know. That's the problem. > so how complex could it be? Infinitely, and that's a 10 letter word.? > Isn't God just supposed to be "I am that I am."? I believe so. I'm not sure of the exact verse but it's somewhere in the Bible, I think it's in The Book Of Popeye ? "I yam what I yam and I yam what I yam that I yam". ? > Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species instead of a Bible, printing > probably would not have caught on with the public. Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species Gutenberg would have been slowly burned alive by the church. Do you have any reason for defending the barbaric actions of this institution other than the fact that I don't like it? > I doubt that most televangelists have even studied theology. You can study mythology or you can study the appalling behavior of primitive bronze age tribes but there is nothing in theology to study. There is no field, there is no there there. ? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:34:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > > Hi Craig Weinberg > > An anthropic God is the only one we can make sense of. > By 'we', you mean 'you'. You are wrong over 1.5 billion times even if we just count the Buddhist 'we' in Asia alone. You do know that Buddha isn't the 'God' of Buddhism, right? How about Taoism or Confucianism? Shinto? Wicca? Craig > > > > > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Craig Weinberg > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2013-01-23, 09:22:38 > *Subject:* Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 > STEPS. > > > > On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:58:03 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: >> >> Hi John Clark >> >> From his hostile postings, Craig seems to have been very >> very badly hurt by the Christian Church sometime in the past. >> > > Haha, not at all. Some of my best memories in high school were of drinking > beers and smoking cloves with the lovely and exciting girls from my > friend's church group. I think cathedrals are wonderful. Church services > bore me but not as much as synagogue services - wow, if you want to have a > monotonous meaningless experience try sitting through a three hour > monologue in Hebrew. > > I just think that the idea of an anthropomorphic God is an unfortunate and > seductive mistake. If I sound hostile, it is because of the tremendous > damage that this concept can do to people's lives. I am hostile toward > crystal meth too. I love the idea of recreational drugs, but I have known > too many exceptional people who have seen the course of their lives > derailed by crystal. > > Craig > > > > >> >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> *From:* John Clark >> *Receiver:* everything-list >> *Time:* 2013-01-22, 13:23:37 >> *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. >> >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear >>>> that the invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned >>>> alive by the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see >>>> in the night sky were other suns very very far away. >>>> >>> >>> >The Catholic Church of the 16th century is no more representative of >>> Theology >>> >> >> In Europe in 1600 the Catholic Church was not representative of theology >> it virtually was theology; competing franchises like Judaism and Islam were >> just rounding errors, and they were just as dumb anyway. >> >> >than ethnic cleansing is representative of Darwin. >>> >> >> Huh? Charles Darwin and ethnic cleansing, it does not compute. >> >> >> Explaining how complexity came about from simplicity is much better >>>> than saying complexity came about from even more complexity. >>>> >>> >>> > Religion does the same thing. >>> >> >> Bullshit. >> >> > The Tower of Babel. Noah's Ark. Genesis. Complexity emerges from >>> simplicity >>> >> >> God is not simple, although very often the believers in God are. >> >> > Ron Popeil is not a theologian. >>> >> >> True, Ron Popeil is much more moral than theologians because the stuff he >> sells on TV actually exists. >> >> >> What would lead to unemployment is if the LHC discovers nothing >>>> mysterious that contradicts what we think we know. >>>> >>> >>> > Not really. >>> >> >> Yes really. >> >> > Validating the standard model is just as profitable as mystery. >>> >> >> Bullshit. Everybody knows that the standard model is very very good but >> they also know it can't be the end of the story because it says nothing >> about gravity or Dark Matter or Dark Energy nor can it explain why >> neutrinos have mass. And everybody knows that unlike telescopes that have >> found a lot of surprising stuff in fundamental physics, particle >> accelerators have not discovered anything surprising in almost 40 years >> (finding the Higgs was not surprising, not discovering it would have been >> surprising and that's why many hoped it didn't exist but they were >> disappointed), and if the LHC doesn't find anything new either it could be >> the last
Re: Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:32:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > > Hi Craig Weinberg > > OK, you can see that in two current junk science cults: > > (a) materialism > > (b) climate change > What I can see is that your responses seem to be generated by this logic tree: Do I Understand It? Yes = Leibniz No = God Do I Like It? Yes = Rational No = Blame Liberals (aka Nazi-Communist Jews who advocate a Welfare-Police state) Craig > > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Craig Weinberg > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2013-01-23, 09:15:40 > *Subject:* Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 > STEPS. > > > > On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:30:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: >> >> Hi Craig, >> >> What is a fundamentalist pathology ? And how does it apply to science ? >> > > A pathology here refers to a degenerative condition, like a disease, > decay, or a failing strategy - a state of deepening dysfunction and > corruption which produces increasingly undesirable effects. > > Fundamentalist here refers to a reactionary stance characterized by > rigidity and overbearing defensiveness toward alternative approaches. > Intellectual totalitarianism. > > Craig > >> >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> *From:* Bruno Marchal >> *Receiver:* everything-list >> *Time:* 2013-01-22, 11:00:27 >> *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. >> >> >> On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach >> are being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a >> fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology. >> >> >> Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has >> displaced theology as the main source of knowledge about the world. >> >> >> This is non sense. Science is not domain. It points only to an attitude. >> Science cannot displace theology, like it cannot displace genetics. It can >> give evidence that some theological theories are wrong headed, or that some >> theories in genetics are not supported by facts, but science cannot >> eliminate any field of inquiry, or it becomes automatically a >> pseudo-religion itself (as it is the case for some scientists). >> >> >> >> >> Coincidentally is only recently that the sin theory of disease was >> replaced by the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the solar system >> was replaced by the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain >> chemistry instead of possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the >> divine right of kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the >> wrath of God...that the suffering of women in childbirth has been >> alleviated... >> >> >> OK. This shows that religion provides answer, and then the scientific >> attitude can lead to corrections, making those answers into abandoned >> theories. This really illustrates my point. Now some go farer and make >> "primary matter" the new God. that's OK in a treatise of metaphysics, when >> physicalism is explicitly assumed or discussed, but some scientists, >> notably when vindictive strong atheists I met, just mock the questions and >> imposes the physicalist answer like if that, an only that, was science. >> This is just deeply not scientific. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RxABwuXe31MJ. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-li...@googlegroups.com . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/btCFEZ0P0pMJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi Craig Weinberg An anthropic God is the only one we can make sense of. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-23, 09:22:38 Subject: Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:58:03 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi John Clark >From his hostile postings, Craig seems to have been very very badly hurt by the Christian Church sometime in the past. Haha, not at all. Some of my best memories in high school were of drinking beers and smoking cloves with the lovely and exciting girls from my friend's church group. I think cathedrals are wonderful. Church services bore me but not as much as synagogue services - wow, if you want to have a monotonous meaningless experience try sitting through a three hour monologue in Hebrew. I just think that the idea of an anthropomorphic God is an unfortunate and seductive mistake. If I sound hostile, it is because of the tremendous damage that this concept can do to people's lives. I am hostile toward crystal meth too. I love the idea of recreational drugs, but I have known too many exceptional people who have seen the course of their lives derailed by crystal. Craig - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 13:23:37 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear that the >> invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned alive by >> the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see in the >> night sky were other suns very very far away. >The Catholic Church of the 16th century is no more representative of Theology In Europe in 1600 the Catholic Church was not representative of theology it virtually was theology; competing franchises like Judaism and Islam were just rounding errors, and they were just as dumb anyway. >than ethnic cleansing is representative of Darwin. Huh? Charles Darwin and ethnic cleansing, it does not compute. >> Explaining how complexity came about from simplicity is much better than >> saying complexity came about from even more complexity. > Religion does the same thing. Bullshit. > The Tower of Babel. Noah's Ark. Genesis. Complexity emerges from simplicity God is not simple, although very often the believers in God are. > Ron Popeil is not a theologian. True, Ron Popeil is much more moral than theologians because the stuff he sells on TV actually exists. >> What would lead to unemployment is if the LHC discovers nothing mysterious >> that contradicts what we think we know. > Not really. Yes really. > Validating the standard model is just as profitable as mystery. Bullshit. Everybody knows that the standard model is very very good but they also know it can't be the end of the story because it says nothing about gravity or Dark Matter or Dark Energy nor can it explain why neutrinos have mass. And everybody knows that unlike telescopes that have found a lot of surprising stuff in fundamental physics, particle accelerators have not discovered anything surprising in almost 40 years (finding the Higgs was not surprising, not discovering it would have been surprising and that's why many hoped it didn't exist but they were disappointed), and if the LHC doesn't find anything new either it could be the last of these very expensive machines for a century. ohn K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/iQ5HjTvBgZIJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi Craig Weinberg OK, you can see that in two current junk science cults: (a) materialism (b) climate change - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-23, 09:15:40 Subject: Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:30:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig, What is a fundamentalist pathology ? And how does it apply to science ? A pathology here refers to a degenerative condition, like a disease, decay, or a failing strategy - a state of deepening dysfunction and corruption which produces increasingly undesirable effects. Fundamentalist here refers to a reactionary stance characterized by rigidity and overbearing defensiveness toward alternative approaches. Intellectual totalitarianism. Craig - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 11:00:27 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote: On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology. Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has displaced theology as the main source of knowledge about the world. This is non sense. Science is not domain. It points only to an attitude. Science cannot displace theology, like it cannot displace genetics. It can give evidence that some theological theories are wrong headed, or that some theories in genetics are not supported by facts, but science cannot eliminate any field of inquiry, or it becomes automatically a pseudo-religion itself (as it is the case for some scientists). Coincidentally is only recently that the sin theory of disease was replaced by the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the solar system was replaced by the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain chemistry instead of possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the divine right of kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the wrath of God...that the suffering of women in childbirth has been alleviated... OK. This shows that religion provides answer, and then the scientific attitude can lead to corrections, making those answers into abandoned theories. This really illustrates my point. Now some go farer and make "primary matter" the new God. that's OK in a treatise of metaphysics, when physicalism is explicitly assumed or discussed, but some scientists, notably when vindictive strong atheists I met, just mock the questions and imposes the physicalist answer like if that, an only that, was science. This is just deeply not scientific. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RxABwuXe31MJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:58:03 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > > Hi John Clark > > From his hostile postings, Craig seems to have been very > very badly hurt by the Christian Church sometime in the past. > Haha, not at all. Some of my best memories in high school were of drinking beers and smoking cloves with the lovely and exciting girls from my friend's church group. I think cathedrals are wonderful. Church services bore me but not as much as synagogue services - wow, if you want to have a monotonous meaningless experience try sitting through a three hour monologue in Hebrew. I just think that the idea of an anthropomorphic God is an unfortunate and seductive mistake. If I sound hostile, it is because of the tremendous damage that this concept can do to people's lives. I am hostile toward crystal meth too. I love the idea of recreational drugs, but I have known too many exceptional people who have seen the course of their lives derailed by crystal. Craig > > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* John Clark > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2013-01-22, 13:23:37 > *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > >> The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear >>> that the invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned >>> alive by the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see >>> in the night sky were other suns very very far away. >>> >> >> >The Catholic Church of the 16th century is no more representative of >> Theology >> > > In Europe in 1600 the Catholic Church was not representative of theology > it virtually was theology; competing franchises like Judaism and Islam were > just rounding errors, and they were just as dumb anyway. � > > >than ethnic cleansing is representative of Darwin. >> > > Huh?� Charles Darwin and ethnic cleansing, it does not compute. > > >> Explaining how complexity came about from simplicity is much better >>> than saying complexity came about from even more complexity. >>> >> >> > Religion does the same thing. >> > > Bullshit. > > > The Tower of Babel. Noah's Ark. Genesis. Complexity emerges from >> simplicity >> > > God is not simple, although very often the believers in God are.� > � > >> > Ron Popeil is not a theologian. >> > > True, Ron Popeil is much more moral than theologians because the stuff he > sells on TV actually exists. > > >> What would lead to unemployment is if the LHC discovers nothing >>> mysterious that contradicts what we think we know. >>> >> >> > Not really. >> > > Yes really. > > > Validating the standard model is just as profitable as mystery. >> > > Bullshit. Everybody knows that the standard model is very very good but > they also know it can't be the end of the story because it says nothing > about gravity or Dark Matter or Dark Energy nor can it explain why > neutrinos have mass. And everybody knows that unlike telescopes that have > found a lot of surprising stuff in fundamental physics, particle > accelerators have not discovered anything surprising in almost 40 years > (finding the Higgs was not surprising, not discovering it would have been > surprising and that's why many hoped it didn't exist but they were > disappointed), and if the LHC doesn't find anything new either it could be > the last of these very expensive machines for a century. > > �ohn K Clark > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-li...@googlegroups.com . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/iQ5HjTvBgZIJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:30:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > > Hi Craig, > > What is a fundamentalist pathology ? And how does it apply to science ? > A pathology here refers to a degenerative condition, like a disease, decay, or a failing strategy - a state of deepening dysfunction and corruption which produces increasingly undesirable effects. Fundamentalist here refers to a reactionary stance characterized by rigidity and overbearing defensiveness toward alternative approaches. Intellectual totalitarianism. Craig > > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Bruno Marchal > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2013-01-22, 11:00:27 > *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. > > > On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote: > > On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are > being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a > fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology. > > > Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has > displaced theology as the main source of knowledge about the world. > > > This is non sense. Science is not domain. It points only to an attitude. > Science cannot displace theology, like it cannot displace genetics. It can > give evidence that some theological theories are wrong headed, or that some > theories in genetics are not supported by facts, but science cannot > eliminate any field of inquiry, or it becomes automatically a > pseudo-religion itself (as it is the case for some scientists). > > > > > Coincidentally is only recently that the sin theory of disease was > replaced by the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the solar system > was replaced by the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain > chemistry instead of possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the > divine right of kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the > wrath of God...that the suffering of women in childbirth has been > alleviated... > > > OK. This shows that religion provides answer, and then the scientific > attitude can lead to corrections, making those answers into abandoned > theories. This really illustrates my point. Now some go farer and make > "primary matter" the new God. that's OK in a treatise of metaphysics, when > physicalism is explicitly assumed or discussed, but some scientists, > notably when vindictive strong atheists I met, just mock the questions and > imposes the physicalist answer like if that, an only that, was science. > This is just deeply not scientific. > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RxABwuXe31MJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi John Clark >From his hostile postings, Craig seems to have been very very badly hurt by the Christian Church sometime in the past. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 13:23:37 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear that the >> invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned alive by >> the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see in the >> night sky were other suns very very far away. >The Catholic Church of the 16th century is no more representative of Theology In Europe in 1600 the Catholic Church was not representative of theology it virtually was theology; competing franchises like Judaism and Islam were just rounding errors, and they were just as dumb anyway. ? >than ethnic cleansing is representative of Darwin. Huh?? Charles Darwin and ethnic cleansing, it does not compute. >> Explaining how complexity came about from simplicity is much better than >> saying complexity came about from even more complexity. > Religion does the same thing. Bullshit. > The Tower of Babel. Noah's Ark. Genesis. Complexity emerges from simplicity God is not simple, although very often the believers in God are.? ? > Ron Popeil is not a theologian. True, Ron Popeil is much more moral than theologians because the stuff he sells on TV actually exists. >> What would lead to unemployment is if the LHC discovers nothing mysterious >> that contradicts what we think we know. > Not really. Yes really. > Validating the standard model is just as profitable as mystery. Bullshit. Everybody knows that the standard model is very very good but they also know it can't be the end of the story because it says nothing about gravity or Dark Matter or Dark Energy nor can it explain why neutrinos have mass. And everybody knows that unlike telescopes that have found a lot of surprising stuff in fundamental physics, particle accelerators have not discovered anything surprising in almost 40 years (finding the Higgs was not surprising, not discovering it would have been surprising and that's why many hoped it didn't exist but they were disappointed), and if the LHC doesn't find anything new either it could be the last of these very expensive machines for a century. ?ohn K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi Craig, What is a fundamentalist pathology ? And how does it apply to science ? - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 11:00:27 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote: On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology. Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has displaced theology as the main source of knowledge about the world. This is non sense. Science is not domain. It points only to an attitude. Science cannot displace theology, like it cannot displace genetics. It can give evidence that some theological theories are wrong headed, or that some theories in genetics are not supported by facts, but science cannot eliminate any field of inquiry, or it becomes automatically a pseudo-religion itself (as it is the case for some scientists). Coincidentally is only recently that the sin theory of disease was replaced by the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the solar system was replaced by the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain chemistry instead of possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the divine right of kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the wrath of God...that the suffering of women in childbirth has been alleviated... OK. This shows that religion provides answer, and then the scientific attitude can lead to corrections, making those answers into abandoned theories. This really illustrates my point. Now some go farer and make "primary matter" the new God. that's OK in a treatise of metaphysics, when physicalism is explicitly assumed or discussed, but some scientists, notably when vindictive strong atheists I met, just mock the questions and imposes the physicalist answer like if that, an only that, was science. This is just deeply not scientific. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi guys, Theology is just a form of philosophy, therefore is a rational pursuit, say like psychology or sociology or engineering mechanics. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 10:50:27 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:08, meekerdb wrote: On 1/21/2013 8:53 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > You confuse theology and post 500 occidental use of the field. There is no such field of study. There are experts in literature and experts in the behavior of bronze age tribes but there are no experts in the "field" of theology because there is no knowledge there to impart. There is no there there. And I don't understand your grudge with occidental civilization, western religions are not significantly stupider than eastern religions. > Theology is mainly perverted since 523 Speaking of confusion, I am using the word "theology", as you admit in the above, as it has been used for the last 1500 years. If you insist on redefining common words (like God and theology) and give them your own private meaning then confusion is inevitable; we need a language to communicate and a language known to only one person is useless. > Theology did come up with the idea that there is a reality, That is one ridiculous statement! With or without theology people had no trouble figuring out that there is a reality, so did snails. > and that reason can unravelled it, or a part of it. I didn't think it was possible but that statement is even more ridiculous! Science had to fight every inch of the way against theology and theologians and the fight still isn't over. If you can't immediately figure out how something can be the way it is theology advises you to just give up and say "God did it"; in other words theologians are intellectually lazy, but fortunately scientists are not. But they do have something in common, they both love mysteries. Theologians love mysteries because they like to wallow in ignorance, scientists love mysteries because it gives them something new to try to figure out. That's why particle physicists would be absolutely delighted if the LHC produced something mysterious that contradicted something they thought they knew and will be very disappointed if nothing like that shows up in one of their detectors. Can you imagine a theologian being delighted to find something that contradicted his faith? I can't. > What is your theory? That theologians are so dumb they can't walk and chew gum at the same time. To see a prefect example of a theologian who is apparently a graduate of The John K. Clark school of Liberal Divinity see: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/the-way-of-the-agnostic/ Gary Gutting seems quite good to me. Nice paper. Bruno I didn't bother to comment since there a plenty of good comments already, but it exemplifies many features of liberal theological thought: Some things can never be explained by science; and if science hasn't explained it then religion does. Religion "gives access to a rich and fulfilling life of love" (which is implicitly denied the irreligious). Atheists have to prove God doesn't exist. There is something called 'understanding' that is better than knowledge and you can have for free Brent John k Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6034 - Release Date: 01/15/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi John Clark > > Einstein is as welcome to his beliefs as Christians > are to theirs and as your scepticism is to you. > None of this is provable, so please keep your > beliefs to yourself. > Roger, you have to admit this is a bit funny coming from you... > > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* John Clark > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2013-01-21, 12:32:38 > *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013� Jason Resch wrote: > > > What you say above reminded me of what Einstein said on religion: >> > > Let's look at a few more quotations about what Einstein had to say about > religion: > > **" it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious > convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe > in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it > clearly.� If something is in me which can be called religious then it is > the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our > science can reveal it." > > **"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that > could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a > magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and > that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility" > > "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive." > > "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, > education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would > indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment > and hope of reward after death." > "I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the > structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to > appreciate it.� > When Einstein moved to America his religious views, or rather lack of > them, did not always go over well with the native hillbillies and he got > some strange letters: > > "Professor Einstein, I believe that every Christian in America will answer > you, "We will not give up our belief in our God and his son Jesus Christ, > but we invite you, if you do not believe in the God of the people of this > nation, to go back where you came from." I have done everything in my power > to be a blessing to Israel, and then you come along and with one statement > from your blasphemous tongue, do more to hurt the cause of your people than > all the efforts of the Christians who love Israel can do to stamp out > anti-Semitism in our land. Professor Einstein, every Christian in America > will immediately reply to you, "Take your crazy, fallacious theory of > evolution and go back to Germany where you came from, or stop trying to > break down the faith of a people who gave you a welcome when you were > forced to flee your native land." > > "We deeply regret that you made your statement in which you ridicule the > idea of a personal God. In the past ten years nothing has been so > calculated to make people think that Hitler had some reason to expel the > Jews from Germany as your statement. Conceding your right to free speech, I > still say that your statement constitutes you as one of the greatest > sources of discord in America." > > � John K Clark > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi John Clark Materialism is a religious cult who main tenet is contempt prioor to investigation. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:07 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > You confuse theology and post 500 occidental use of the field. There is no such field of study. There are experts in literature and experts in the behavior of bronze age tribes but there are no experts in the "field" of theology because there is no knowledge there to impart. There is no there there.? And I don't understand your grudge with occidental civilization, western religions are not significantly stupider than eastern religions.? ? > Theology is mainly perverted since 523 Speaking of confusion, I am using the word "theology", as you admit in the above, as it has been used for the last 1500 years. If you insist on redefining common words (like God and theology) and give them your own private meaning then confusion is inevitable; we need a language to communicate and a language known to only one person is useless. > Theology did come up with the idea that there is a reality, That is one ridiculous statement! With or without theology people had no trouble figuring out that there is a reality, so did snails. > and that reason can unravelled it, or a part of it. I didn't think it was possible but that statement is even more ridiculous! Science had to fight every inch of the way against theology and theologians and the fight still isn't over. If you can't immediately figure out how something can be the way it is theology advises you to just give up and say "God did it"; in other words theologians are intellectually lazy, but fortunately scientists are not. But they do have something in common, they both love mysteries. Theologians love mysteries because they like to wallow in ignorance, scientists love mysteries because it gives them something new to try to figure out. That's why particle physicists would be absolutely delighted if the LHC produced something mysterious that contradicted something they thought they knew and will be very disappointed if nothing like that shows up in one of their detectors. Can you imagine a theologian being delighted to find something that contradicted his faith? I can't. ? ? ? > What is your theory? That theologians are so dumb they can't walk and chew gum at the same time. ? John k Clark ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi Stephen P. King You can either be untroubled by the fact that innocent people die or suffer, or you can try to find meaning for why this can be so. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 14:00:59 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 1/13/2013 3:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > I have never met a theologian genuinely believing in both omnipotence > and omniscience. Since Thomas, christian theologians knows that it is > inconsistent. > Dear Bruno, I have yet to find a modern Christian apologists that is troubled by this. Most of them reject symbolic logic as applicable to 'God'. Frankly, IMHO discussing the beliefs of those that reject reason is a fools errand. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi Stephen P. King I agree with meeker on the nonduplicates of soul, which are as individual as DNA or fingerprints. And the identity of indescernibles. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 13:58:34 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 1/13/2013 3:13 AM, meekerdb wrote: >> Nearly all scientists would agree that the material identity is not >> important to continuity of consciousness. Therefore any time the >> appropriate instantiation arises, consciousness can continue. In an >> infinitely large and varied reality (Platonism, QM, infinite hubble >> volume, or eternal inflation), our patterns continually reappear. > > That would imply that copies of one's soul exist. But John defined > souls as being impossible to copy. Hi, I disagree, if we bet on comp there is only one soul, just infinitely many 'versions' or 'projections' of it. Consciousness is the 1p associated with the local version, IMHO, unless we allow for 1p that contain experiences that are mutually contradictory. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Space and time may be only on the mind in the Kantian sense. I don´t find that space must be independent of the mind. space and time may be the way we perceive a space-time manifold which is pure mathematic and nothing else. Maybe we can see space out there and we can think on geometry in a spatial way (not algebraically) because we have space-mode rasoning on the mind, not because space is pre-existent to the mind neither because space is something in mathematics. And may be that computation for autopiesis, in the form of natural selection, life and mind are space-time trajectories, which, when looked closely form outside space-time, they are nothing but fortunate caramboles of particles, molecules or electrical signals. 2013/1/11 Roger Clough > Hi Bruno Marchal > > A life field is similar to Sheldrake's morphisms, > Leibniz's substances or L's monads or L's souls. > > The physical is that which is extended in space. > Dreams, like mind or ideas, are not extended in space, so not physical. > > The rest I agree with you on. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 1/11/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: Bruno Marchal > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-10, 11:51:49 > Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. > > > On 10 Jan 2013, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote: > > > Hi Bruno Marchal > > > > Sheldrake's morphisms might be thought of as life fields. > > What is that supposed to explain? > > > > > > But I don't think fields themselves are physical, rather they are > > monadic, descriptions of physical things. > > I am not sure that I understand what you mean by physical. > > Keep in mind that in the comp theory, the physical is epistemological. > (Unless there is a flaw in UDA, etc.) > > The physical is the content of shared dreams, shared between us with > us = all the L?ian entities (machines and divinities (non machines, > oracles, etc.)). > > We belong to a continuum of matrices, consistent with the overall > arithmetical truth (which appears to be something quite transcendental > with comp). > > This might be false, and my point is only that this is a testable > consequence of comp (and QM rather succeeds well the test up to now). > > Then I illustrate that the computationalist "big picture" is closer to > Plato (and many others, perhaps Descartes, Kant and Leibniz) than to > naturalism, physicalism, or any (weak) materialist doctrine which > reifies matter. > > Bruno > > > > > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > > 1/10/2013 > > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > > - Receiving the following content - > > From: Bruno Marchal > > Receiver: everything-list > > Time: 2013-01-09, 09:48:03 > > Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. > > > > > > On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:07, Roger Clough wrote: > > > >> Hi meekerdb > >> > >> Sheldrake's morphisms would be what John Clark or bruno theorized as > >> God. > > > > I don't think so. I have never understood what Sheldrake's morphism > > are, but they seem physical, from what I can understand. > > God is not physical, and by definition, the physical needs God, or > > truth, to exist or make sense. > > > > Bruno > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > >> 1/9/2013 > >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > >> - Receiving the following content - > >> From: meekerdb > >> Receiver: everything-list > >> Time: 2013-01-08, 13:01:16 > >> Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. > >> > >> > >> On 1/8/2013 9:14 AM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > >> > >>> GOD means the reality in which you believe. > >> > >> Friends, are you tired of your old job, it's time to change your > >> occupation and make big bucks, amaze your friends, be a hit at > >> parties and become a professional pundit on cable news shows! You > >> too can become a liberal theologian by using the patented John Clark > >> method and it only takes 4 simple steps! > >> > >> > >> STEP 1) Find something that everybody believes exists, it doesn't > >> matter what it is. > >> > >> STEP 2) Define the word "God" as meaning that thing whatever it may > >> be. > >> > >> STEP 3) Declare that you have proven the existence of God. > >> > >> STEP 4) There is no step 4 because step 3 leads nowhere. > >> > >> John K Clark > >> > >> > >> Didn't Tillich already copyright that method, John? > >> > >> Brent > >> > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> Groups "Everything List" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to everything- > >> l...@googlegroups.com. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > >> . > >> For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/gr
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi Bruno Marchal A life field is similar to Sheldrake's morphisms, Leibniz's substances or L's monads or L's souls. The physical is that which is extended in space. Dreams, like mind or ideas, are not extended in space, so not physical. The rest I agree with you on. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/11/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-10, 11:51:49 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 10 Jan 2013, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Bruno Marchal > > Sheldrake's morphisms might be thought of as life fields. What is that supposed to explain? > > But I don't think fields themselves are physical, rather they are > monadic, descriptions of physical things. I am not sure that I understand what you mean by physical. Keep in mind that in the comp theory, the physical is epistemological. (Unless there is a flaw in UDA, etc.) The physical is the content of shared dreams, shared between us with us = all the L?ian entities (machines and divinities (non machines, oracles, etc.)). We belong to a continuum of matrices, consistent with the overall arithmetical truth (which appears to be something quite transcendental with comp). This might be false, and my point is only that this is a testable consequence of comp (and QM rather succeeds well the test up to now). Then I illustrate that the computationalist "big picture" is closer to Plato (and many others, perhaps Descartes, Kant and Leibniz) than to naturalism, physicalism, or any (weak) materialist doctrine which reifies matter. Bruno > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 1/10/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: Bruno Marchal > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-09, 09:48:03 > Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. > > > On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:07, Roger Clough wrote: > >> Hi meekerdb >> >> Sheldrake's morphisms would be what John Clark or bruno theorized as >> God. > > I don't think so. I have never understood what Sheldrake's morphism > are, but they seem physical, from what I can understand. > God is not physical, and by definition, the physical needs God, or > truth, to exist or make sense. > > Bruno > > > >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 1/9/2013 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: meekerdb >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2013-01-08, 13:01:16 >> Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. >> >> >> On 1/8/2013 9:14 AM, John Clark wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >>> GOD means the reality in which you believe. >> >> Friends, are you tired of your old job, it's time to change your >> occupation and make big bucks, amaze your friends, be a hit at >> parties and become a professional pundit on cable news shows! You >> too can become a liberal theologian by using the patented John Clark >> method and it only takes 4 simple steps! >> >> >> STEP 1) Find something that everybody believes exists, it doesn't >> matter what it is. >> >> STEP 2) Define the word "God" as meaning that thing whatever it may >> be. >> >> STEP 3) Declare that you have proven the existence of God. >> >> STEP 4) There is no step 4 because step 3 leads nowhere. >> >> John K Clark >> >> >> Didn't Tillich already copyright that method, John? >> >> Brent >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything- >> l...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en >> . >> > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > . > htt
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi Bruno Marchal A life form is a soul of some type. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/11/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-10, 11:51:49 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 10 Jan 2013, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Bruno Marchal > > Sheldrake's morphisms might be thought of as life fields. What is that supposed to explain? > > But I don't think fields themselves are physical, rather they are > monadic, descriptions of physical things. I am not sure that I understand what you mean by physical. Keep in mind that in the comp theory, the physical is epistemological. (Unless there is a flaw in UDA, etc.) The physical is the content of shared dreams, shared between us with us = all the L?ian entities (machines and divinities (non machines, oracles, etc.)). We belong to a continuum of matrices, consistent with the overall arithmetical truth (which appears to be something quite transcendental with comp). This might be false, and my point is only that this is a testable consequence of comp (and QM rather succeeds well the test up to now). Then I illustrate that the computationalist "big picture" is closer to Plato (and many others, perhaps Descartes, Kant and Leibniz) than to naturalism, physicalism, or any (weak) materialist doctrine which reifies matter. Bruno > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 1/10/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: Bruno Marchal > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-09, 09:48:03 > Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. > > > On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:07, Roger Clough wrote: > >> Hi meekerdb >> >> Sheldrake's morphisms would be what John Clark or bruno theorized as >> God. > > I don't think so. I have never understood what Sheldrake's morphism > are, but they seem physical, from what I can understand. > God is not physical, and by definition, the physical needs God, or > truth, to exist or make sense. > > Bruno > > > >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 1/9/2013 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: meekerdb >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2013-01-08, 13:01:16 >> Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. >> >> >> On 1/8/2013 9:14 AM, John Clark wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >>> GOD means the reality in which you believe. >> >> Friends, are you tired of your old job, it's time to change your >> occupation and make big bucks, amaze your friends, be a hit at >> parties and become a professional pundit on cable news shows! You >> too can become a liberal theologian by using the patented John Clark >> method and it only takes 4 simple steps! >> >> >> STEP 1) Find something that everybody believes exists, it doesn't >> matter what it is. >> >> STEP 2) Define the word "God" as meaning that thing whatever it may >> be. >> >> STEP 3) Declare that you have proven the existence of God. >> >> STEP 4) There is no step 4 because step 3 leads nowhere. >> >> John K Clark >> >> >> Didn't Tillich already copyright that method, John? >> >> Brent >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything- >> l...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en >> . >> > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > . > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsu
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi Bruno Marchal Sheldrake's morphisms might be thought of as life fields. But I don't think fields themselves are physical, rather they are monadic, descriptions of physical things. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 09:48:03 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:07, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi meekerdb > > Sheldrake's morphisms would be what John Clark or bruno theorized as > God. I don't think so. I have never understood what Sheldrake's morphism are, but they seem physical, from what I can understand. God is not physical, and by definition, the physical needs God, or truth, to exist or make sense. Bruno > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 1/9/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: meekerdb > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-08, 13:01:16 > Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. > > > On 1/8/2013 9:14 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> GOD means the reality in which you believe. > > Friends, are you tired of your old job, it's time to change your > occupation and make big bucks, amaze your friends, be a hit at > parties and become a professional pundit on cable news shows! You > too can become a liberal theologian by using the patented John Clark > method and it only takes 4 simple steps! > > > STEP 1) Find something that everybody believes exists, it doesn't > matter what it is. > > STEP 2) Define the word "God" as meaning that thing whatever it may > be. > > STEP 3) Declare that you have proven the existence of God. > > STEP 4) There is no step 4 because step 3 leads nowhere. > > John K Clark > > > Didn't Tillich already copyright that method, John? > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > . > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi meekerdb Sheldrake's morphisms would be what John Clark or bruno theorized as God. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 13:01:16 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 1/8/2013 9:14 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >GOD means the reality in which you believe. Friends, are you tired of your old job, it's time to change your occupation and make big bucks, amaze your friends, be a hit at parties and become a professional pundit on cable news shows! You too can become a liberal theologian by using the patented John Clark method and it only takes 4 simple steps! STEP 1) Find something that everybody believes exists, it doesn't matter what it is. STEP 2) Define the word "God" as meaning that thing whatever it may be. STEP 3) Declare that you have proven the existence of God. STEP 4) There is no step 4 because step 3 leads nowhere. John K Clark Didn't Tillich already copyright that method, John? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
