---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
“We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not
unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of
years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what
“Expansion of happiness is the purpose of life, and evolution is the process by
which it is fulfilled. Life begins in a natural way, it evolves, and happiness
expands. The expansion of happiness carries with it the growth of intelligence,
power, creativity and everything that may be said to be
You have a fine store of pertinent cartoons. I had a look and found this one:
http://zenpencils.com/
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
You have a fine store of pertinent cartoons...
Thanks, I try to amuse. :-) To be honest, although I do have a file
Funniest cartoon I've seen in a while.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote:
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 8:01 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
I love
I knew there was a trick to it. I remember reading a list of things to do when
using google to add or subtract particular things, forgot it all though.
...much fun later: Careful when commissioning those yagyas!
Salyavin, have you always had this much trouble retaining factual information?
The unfathomable concept of God dates back to before Aristotle and has
remained the mainstream concept of Western philosophical theism ever since. I
told you that; Seraphita did too. So did philosopher of religion
Salyavin, I think atheists also anthropomorphize God! For example, when they
say that if there was a God, he or she would be the human idea of benign and
there wouldn't be such horrible events in the world. That's making a big
assumption about the nature of God.
On Wednesday, February 19,
Not really an assumption Share, it's all over the bible and koran about what a
great dude he is and how he made us in his image and punishes us for being bad
and rewards us for being good. It's enough of a motif for me to think there is
a concrete idea among devotees about what he was like and
Nope, Salyavin, I'm gonna do a Share and try to explain my logic (-:
Ok, then the atheists seem to do a double anthro! They don't anthropomorphize
God directly. They take what others have written and interpret that in human
terms.
Really both atheists and theists are stuck with being human and
I would say you have to be able to think to invent the concept of god.
Everything else just gets on with it..
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote:
Nope, Salyavin, I'm gonna do a Share and try to explain my logic (-:
Ok, then the atheists seem to do a double anthro!
There is a principle which is pure, placed in the human mind, which in
different places and ages hath had different names. It is, however, pure and
proceeds from God (the Unified Field). It is deep and inward, confined to no
forms of religion nor excluded from any, where the heart stands in
Today, as we stand here repeating the same ideas over and over and over again
for the solution to problems, and even though these ideas have miscarried in
the advance of the goal of solving all problems, we continue nonetheless
repeating these ideas over and over and over in the knowledge that
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote:
Today, as we stand here repeating the same ideas over and over and over again
for the solution to problems, and even though these ideas have miscarried in
the advance of the goal of solving all problems, we continue nonetheless
Good questions, especially in an argument started by and perpetuated by someone
who doesn't even have the balls to say what she believes. She's arguing
*literally* just for the sake of arguing. Go figure.
As for life after
death, you didn't ask me but I don't see that this has anything to do
Personally, I think it would be cool if there was an afterlife of some
description but it's the last thing I'm expecting. For there to be anything it
would either have to have evolved (most likely impossible) or there is
something fundamental we don't know about the universe which is possible
Karma, in the sense of some sort of payback scheme from the universe, I don't
believe in. I believe positively in the principle of shit happens. The idea
that something bad or good that happens to me is because of something I did in
the past just doesn't work.
I remember the TMO trying to
Oopsie-Barry. Nothing wrong with Stevie-boy's questions, but life after
death wasn't part of the discussion, as Barry would have known had he read the
posts.
Barry's panties are really in a wad this morning. Yesterday he got slapped
down because he mistakenly assumed I was trying to
Well, I think once you open the door to the possibility that consciousness may
continue after physical death you open the door to the possibility that there
is an agency at work behind the scenes organizing this activity.
And then there's there are the many anomalies such as twins separated
There is a difference between what the ill-informed layman
apprehends about Science, and what scientists apprehend
about science.
There is a difference between what the ill-informed layman
apprehends about God, and what the serious Theist
philosophers apprehend about God.
Creationist
Poor Xeno. If he's read my post to Salyavin of yesterday afternoon quoting
philospher and classical theist Edward Feser, he now knows he wasted a lot of
his own time and ended up only making a fool of himself. He's just way, WAY out
of his depth, in terms both of information and understanding.
Thanks for that reply. I rushing a little here, but one take away I get is
that for that to happen, (existence after death), there'd have to be something
we are presently unaware of.
And yes, I don't care to speculate too much about things, but in my opinion,
in our western dominated
I mean, I guess it could boil down to one question.
If there is consciousness after physical death, why?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote:
Good questions, especially in an argument started by and perpetuated by
someone who doesn't even have the balls to say what
Re But the necessary existence is another therefore... that doesn't follow
from the previous statement.:
The ontological argument re-phrased.
Definition: God = that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
Claim: a Being that *cannot* be conceived not to exist is greater than a Being
From: steve.sun...@yahoo.com steve.sun...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
I mean, I guess it could boil down to one question.
If there is consciousness after physical death, why
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
But the necessary existence is another therefore... that doesn't follow
from the previous statement.
The best way to kill the argument I think is to decide on moral
interventionism. Seems reasonable to me that god
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote:
Well, I think once you open the door to the possibility that consciousness may
continue after physical death you open the door to the possibility that there
is an agency at work behind the scenes organizing this activity.
And
But god's existence isn't super essential. That's the point. It's all the wrong
way round, I can conceive of a universe without god, I appear to be living in
one. So the argument must be falling down somewhere, probably because I can
conceive of him not existing - bit of a spanner in the
So basically what you are saying is that the early gods that man invented
turned out to be too easily disposed of intellectually, so everyone is going
out of their minds to make him as oblique and impenetrable as possible yet
still keep him existing in some way. I'm a lot more interested in why
On 2/18/2014 8:45 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
If I believe that there is life after death and there is none, and
everything just goes black, there will be no I present to even be
disappointed, so again I win.
So, who does the winning?
Yes, yes, yes! Thanks Ann and Steve.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote:
Well, I think once you open the door to the possibility that consciousness may
continue after physical death you open the
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote:
Well, I think once you open the door to the possibility that consciousness may
continue after physical death you open the door to the possibility that there
is
Salyavin, I actually find these questions quite profound, worth mulling over,
etc. I also like your question about what is my karma bouncing off of but won't
address that here and now.
Anyway, when I think about my belief in a supreme existence, I realize what it
does for me is create a
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote:
Salyavin, I actually find these questions quite profound, worth mulling over,
etc. I also like your question about what is my karma bouncing off of but won't
address that here and now.
A good mull does one good I think.
Sounds like enlightenment is coming to FFL!
Duck!
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 1:54 PM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote:
Salyavin, I actually find these questions quite profound, worth mulling over,
etc. I
“Today, with the discovery that within every brain physiology are tremendous
powers, the world today is different than the world of yesterday. All those
powers that are administering the individual life are those powers which
together are administering the whole universe. That higher power can
I arrived back late last night and read no posts except that one I responded
to. I derived my material principally from the Wikipedia article, but what I
asked you was what *you* thought classical theism was that resulted in your
rejection what I presumed it was, not what someone else thought
Xeno's questions are once again disingenuous. I think classical theism is what
Feser says in his posts. That's, you know, why I posted them here, along with
additional links. Nor have I ever seen any other classical theist describe it
differently. In any case, of course it isn't a matter of
The neo search function does not work very well, I could not find the material
you mentioned. Can you give me the post number? There was no post I could find
that credited Fesler directly in the past few days. Name the post number that
has Fesler quotes that describe classical theism.
On 2/18/2014 4:00 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
It's very well established what it is.
It may be very well established but let's review what we know about theism:
Monotheism, the belief in the existence of one transcendent God, is the
classical use of the word theism in Christianity,
On 2/18/2014 4:00 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
Xeno might also want to check with his mentor Barry concerning
Wikipedia's reliability.
We should probably also check the dictionary.
the·ism:
belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the
existence of one God
Feser's last name doesn't appear in the post except in the links, which use his
full name edwardfeser (not Fesler).
The neo search function does not work very well, I could not find the material
you mentioned. Can you give me the post number? There was no post I could find
that credited
: steve.sundur@... steve.sundur@...
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
I mean, I guess it could boil down to one question.
If there is consciousness after physical death, why?
Why not?
I differ
well, it is an interesting point you make Ann. I do think that the atheists,
in general like keeping the discussion on a more abstract, highly philosophical
track.
I mean, if I understand it correctly, an atheist would have to believe that we
are born as a blank slate. And that when we
On 2/18/2014 6:41 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
Feser's last name doesn't appear in the post except in the links,
which use his full name edwardfeser (not Fesler).
Just cut out all the double-speak - everyone knows that I'm the
professor and the fester lives up in IA.
Re So the argument must be falling down somewhere, probably because I can
conceive of Him not existing.:
So the Him you can conceive as not existing is clearly NOT the Him whose
non-existence is inconceivable! The God you conceive might not exist is an
image that you've constructed in your
I love the people have shifted the idea of what god is when earlier
interpretations turn out to be too easily disposed of. I can see why theology
never satisfactorily answered any questions! But I am impressed with the energy
people put in to weaving their way past the need for evidence into
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 8:01 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
I love the people have shifted the idea of what god is when earlier
interpretations turn out to be too easily disposed
sympathy for theology Interesting choice of words. I would say that these
new atheists are scientists, so why would a scientist have sympathy for
something that refuses to demonstrate any actual evidence in favour of its
position?
And I don't agree with the idea that Dawkins etc are smug or
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:33 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
sympathy for theology Interesting choice of words. I would say that these
new atheists are scientists, so why would a scientist have sympathy for
something that refuses
, February 17, 2014 9:33 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
sympathy for theology Interesting choice of words. I would say that these
new atheists are scientists, so why would a scientist have sympathy for
something that refuses to demonstrate any actual evidence in favour of its
You're such a smart guy, Salyavin, but you simply turn your brain off when it
comes to theism vs. atheism.
Experiential truth is the continuity of the doorway to joy - Deepak Chopra
(sort of)
http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/ http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/
the moon's green
cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at
them.
Same thing with theists.
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:33 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day
Salyavin, I've been wondering about this: what if God is simply what people
call it when, let's say, 99% of their brain is functioning in a very, very
healthy way? I do think there are some people, in all spiritual and or
religious systems and even outside of them, who have 99% of their brain
: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
sympathy for theology Interesting choice of words. I would say that these
new atheists are scientists, so why would a scientist have sympathy for
something that refuses to demonstrate any actual evidence in favour of its
position?
And I don't agree
I agree that god is what people call a brain in some sort of different,
enhanced, state and that must have something to do with our own sense of
feeling and powers of explanation. I think it was Aldous Huxley who theorised
that people who have god experiences have more mescalin occurring
There is no cheese greener than Barry's.
Not only is he an utter ignoramus with regard to theism, he holds the specious
belief that those who present an argument for theism must be theists
themselves. Yet more evidence for his inability to make a distinction between
X says... and What X says
Share is on to something. As you said, Sal, it is all chemicals and neuronal
activity. Yes, it is. However, it must be stabilized through meditation and
activity. Then, unbounded awareness has a *choice*, to operate locally, while
established in Being, whether enjoying any flashy experience of
On 2/16/2014 8:39 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote:
On 2/16/2014 4:45 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
The theist doesn't believe in one god among other possible gods.
Polytheists believe there is more than one deity, for example the
Smarta Avaita Vedanta.
The Advaita Vedanta is idealistic
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Salyavin says:
An involving argument is no substitute for evidence. It's a security blanket.
So many feel that believing in a God or Gods or a Creator is somehow lesser
than not believing. It seems to be put out
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
sympathy for theology Interesting choice of words. I would say that these
new atheists are scientists, so why would a scientist have sympathy for
something that refuses to demonstrate any actual evidence in favour of its
position?
And I
No sympathy for theology is perhaps not the best phrase here. More to the
point would be lack of curiosity as to what theologians are actually saying.
Classical theists do not claim there is any scientific evidence for God--could
not be, by definition. The demand for such by the New Atheists is
You're such a smart guy, Salyavin, but you simply turn your brain off when it
comes to theism vs. atheism.
Again, not trying to convert you to theism, simply to show that Roberts's
argument is bogus where classical theism is concerned. You need an argument
that actually addresses classical
You don't understand my definition, sorry. I keep being misled by how smart you
are about other things, but you are so far behind and so resistant to learning
anything about classical theism that I really don't know where to start
explaining things to you.
One assumes Roberts is a New
I wrote:
Exactly. Just as Brahman is not a proper name, but Brahma is (or Zeus, or
Wotan, etc.). For theists, these named gods are, strictly speaking, demiurges,
deities subordinate to the Ultimate Reality, the Ground of Being. The Tao is
another term for the latter (which, according to
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised
that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
http://www.askatheists.com/7316;
Al Pacino (apparently)
No, he does not hold that specious belief, he has already, long ago, classified
you with those he calls idiots, it's completely direct without erudition. The
main thing is, he just does not like you.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote:
There is no cheese greener than
Behind with classical theism? Boy, that's a weird concept. I would say that all
one needs to know about it is that it concerns a speculative set of theories
about man and the universes origin. You don't have to get into the actual nitty
gritty to know what they amount to - a way of looking at
Salyavin, I agree it would be great to compare some heads in the MRI machine (-:
But for an enlightened person, I'd prefer someone who many people think is a
very highly developed human on an ongoing basis. Not just one experience of God
or bliss or the Void or whatever. Someone like Mother
From: anartax...@yahoo.com anartax...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
No, he does not hold that specious belief, he has already, long ago, classified
you with those he calls idiots
Salyavin, continuing in my same vein, I would say that if we hooked Dawkins up
to an MRI machine, we'd see a very well developed part of the brain associated
with logic.
So, what is the force stronger than logic? Again, I think it's the human drive
to be fully developed. I mean really fully
You have to get into the actual nitty-gritty of classical theism if you want to
make a coherent argument against it. And that's what's required if you aim to
eliminate or negate all belief in God.
Oh, and classical theism isn't an explanatory idea that competes with
scientific explanatory
It's hardly an error to ask people to prove things if they are making such big
claims - if you are in the business of providing explanations that is.
If the ambition of theology really is to provide arguments for the existence
of god without ever resorting to science then it's even more
Regardless of how Barry regards me, he does indeed hold the specious belief
that X says... means the same as What X says is true.
No, he does not hold that specious belief, he has already, long ago,
classified you with those he calls idiots, it's completely direct without
erudition. The
Which big claims are the classical theists making? You don't know what they
are well enough to state them accurately.
Come to think of it, do you even know what a category error is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
It's hardly
Comments interspersed in the usual fashion
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote:
You have to get into the actual nitty-gritty of classical theism if you want
to make a coherent argument against it. And that's what's required if you aim
to eliminate or negate all
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote:
No, he does not hold that specious belief, he has already, long ago,
classified you with those he calls idiots, it's completely direct without
erudition. The main thing is, he just does not like you.
Actually, the main thing
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
It's hardly an error to ask people to prove things if they are making such big
claims - if you are in the business of providing explanations that is.
If the ambition of theology really is to provide arguments for
Yes, I would say Dawkins is right at one end of the continuum of human thought
processing, the other end would some sort of new age bliss freak. I'm about two
thirds towards RD even with TM, but I was a bit closer before.
Richard Dawkins learned TM once but he wasn't impressed, I wonder what
Ann, certainly ONE MRI is not going to prove anything! Replication is a big
part of the scientific belief system (-:
So let's hook up 100 people claiming to be united with God and see if their
brains all fire up in the same area.
Even then, we'd need other bunch of people to say yes, I think
Why does it have to be other than some sort of being appearing before me? He
used to do that all the time, why not now. Would solve a lot of problems if he
did.
But if he can't manage that I'll settle forhow about the universe we live
in giving the impression that it was designed in
Love it. Here are 21 favorites of mine (and, apologizing, in advance, for #17
and #21, but they're still funny as hell):
1. Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'... till you can find a rock.
2. Why step on the same rake twice?
3. Shin: A device for finding furniture in the dark.
I would say Dawkins is right at one end of the continuum of human thought
processing...
True, but knowledge, *is* structured in consciousness, so any deft thinker can
make a case that justifies his or her limited view of the world. So what? It is
like standing in front of the Sun, with eyes
I wrote:
You have to get into the actual nitty-gritty of classical theism if you want
to make a coherent argument against it. And that's what's required if you aim
to eliminate or negate all belief in God.
Again, I disagree. I have made a coherent argument against it, the argument
is that
Comments in pink this time.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote:
I wrote:
You have to get into the actual nitty-gritty of classical theism if you want
to make a coherent argument against it. And that's what's required if you aim
to eliminate or negate all belief in
Science of Creative Intelligence Tape 8:
When Consciousness becomes Consciousness and Intelligence becomes Intelligent
That is the Expression of Creative Intelligence.
Buck's favored quote today. .
Science of Creative Intelligence Tape 8
When Consciousness becomes Consciousness
and Intelligence becomes Intelligent That is the Expression of Creative
Intelligence.
That is just how it is! -Buck in the Dome
But Salyavin, I'd say Dawkins is like the rest of us, heading towards optimal
development. Who knows what that is or what it would entail or appear like in
general? And who knows how it would be for Dawkins? He can speculate about how
he'd react to a mystical experience but until it actually
All I know about RD is that he wouldn't attach any god sounding things to it or
any unified quantum field stuff.
Funny if he did though and became another movement spokesman sitting next to
Hagelin, Lynch and Brand.
That'd be a coup for them. Least likely option though
---In
If classical theism refers to god characterized as an/the absolutely
metaphysically ultimate being having,
simplicity
is all knowing
is all powerful
is all good
is ultimate reality
is transcendent
is incorporeal
is timeless
is infinite
is all intelligent
This all sounds very
TTFN, and thanks for another super post.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote:
If classical theism refers to god characterized as an/the absolutely
metaphysically ultimate being having,
simplicity
is all knowing
is all powerful
is all good
is ultimate reality
is
TTFN and thanks for another super post.
I'm sure the argument will range here for another thousand years.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote:
If classical theism refers to god characterized as an/the absolutely
metaphysically ultimate being having,
simplicity
Agreed. Excellent post.
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
TTFN and thanks for another super post.
I'm sure
An/the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being is not how classical theism
characterizes God.
If classical theism refers to god characterized as an/the absolutely
metaphysically ultimate being having,
simplicity
is all knowing
is all powerful
is all good
is ultimate reality
is
Beautiful, Buck !
Logician Kurt Gödel's ontological proof for the existence of God. (This should
keep salyavin808 busy for a while.)
Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those
and only those properties which are positive Definition 2: A is an essence of x
if and only if for
OK, now you're just being flip and not engaging with anything I say. There's no
point in continuing the discussion. Enjoy the fruits of your continued
ignorance.
Comments in pink this time.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote:
I wrote:
You have to get into the
Not as long as you'd think, it's an old one. It originated here: God, by
definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the
understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be
greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.
I
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote:
Yep, I was being flip, simply because you would obviously rather adopt an arch
superior tone instead of explaining what you mean.
Do it now instead of blaming me. Seize the moment!
OK, now you're just being flip and not
1 - 100 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
