2009/5/7 :
> People here keep thinking that I am trying to "convince" people that
> God is a person and/or that there is a God. Let me give you a hint
> that that's not the kind of thing that I would think is worthwhile to
> try to "convince" people about my wife. ("convince" Wow, we
> western
Fabulous post, Jason. Enthralling stuff.
Kim
On 08/05/2009, at 9:20 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
> If we on this list believe that everything (or at least everything
> with a self consistent definition) exists, then we must also believe
> that all possible gods exist. Be they artificial intel
On 08/05/2009, at 2:30 AM, daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
> People here keep thinking that I am trying to "convince" people that
> God is a person and/or that there is a God.
OK - "we" will stop it! I don't really think that, but if you are
anything like me Tom, you have gone through periods in
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM, wrote:
>
> On May 7, 1:42 am, Kim Jones wrote:
>> So - going back to God then, let's maybe do an OPV on him/her/it
>>
>> Hint:
>>
>> If I can't do an OPV on God, then I'm not convinced that:
>>
>> 1. God is a person (100% convinced)
>>
>> 2. There is a God (74%
On May 7, 1:42 am, Kim Jones wrote:
> So - going back to God then, let's maybe do an OPV on him/her/it
>
> Hint:
>
> If I can't do an OPV on God, then I'm not convinced that:
>
> 1. God is a person (100% convinced)
>
> 2. There is a God (74% convinced)
>
People here keep thinking that I am tryin
On 07/05/2009, at 3:43 PM, daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
> I think that knowing what a person is is sort of like knowing what
> consciousness is.
Good. Have you ever had the feeling/hunch/thought/intuition/
apprehension/revelation/vision (call it what you will) that you know a
"person" to whom
On May 6, 12:47 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:33:52 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Temporary Reality
> > From: daddycay...@msn.com
> > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>
> > On May 4, 6:13 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >> 2009/5/4
;
> OK - the only advantage I am suggesting is that atheism be seen as a
> "staging post" to a future, more "correct" theology. As such, atheism
> could be serving a strictly beneficial purpose at this time. Why I
> refer to it as temporary reality. It may actua
2009/5/7 :
>
> On May 4, 6:13 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> 2009/5/4 :
>>
>>
>>
>> > I agree that religion, and a lot of other stuff, produces a lot of
>> > fake certainty. Not good. So that implies that atheism is the way to
>> > go?
>>
>> > But doesn't it make sense that if God were per
seen as a
"staging post" to a future, more "correct" theology. As such, atheism
could be serving a strictly beneficial purpose at this time. Why I
refer to it as temporary reality. It may actually be necessary to be
wrong about something to provoke the mind to jump of
> Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:33:52 -0700
> Subject: Re: Temporary Reality
> From: daddycay...@msn.com
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>
>
> On May 4, 6:13 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> 2009/5/4 :
>>
>>
>>
>>> I agree that
On May 4, 6:13 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 2009/5/4 :
>
>
>
> > I agree that religion, and a lot of other stuff, produces a lot of
> > fake certainty. Not good. So that implies that atheism is the way to
> > go?
>
> > But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
> > pe
On 05 May 2009, at 18:19, daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
>
> The second question is in the form of, "Doesn't C imply D?":
>
>> But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
>> person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would
>> result in expanding our consciou
On May 5, 1:27 am, Kim Jones wrote:
> On 04/05/2009, at 12:57 PM, daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
>
> > But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
> > person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would
> > result in expanding our consciousness?
>
> > Tom
>
> What
On 04/05/2009, at 12:57 PM, daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
> But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
> person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would
> result in expanding our consciousness?
>
> Tom
What particular (and verifiable) personal interaction
2009/5/4 :
>
> I agree that religion, and a lot of other stuff, produces a lot of
> fake certainty. Not good. So that implies that atheism is the way to
> go?
>
> But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
> person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that wou
I agree that religion, and a lot of other stuff, produces a lot of
fake certainty. Not good. So that implies that atheism is the way to
go?
But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would
result in expanding ou
On 01 May 2009, at 08:53, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> Perhaps atheism is necessary as a stepping stone to a more correct
> theology?
Ah ah, I see that you want to provoke me :)
Hard to say, I am discovering that many atheist websites adopt a new
definition of atheism, making it a form of agnostic
Perhaps atheism is necessary as a stepping stone to a more correct
theology? Materialistic atheism is not irrational, being on the side
of reason, but it may be illogical, given the advanced view of reality
we are adopting on this list that challenges the myth of a hard
material substratum
19 matches
Mail list logo
