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, 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!
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
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
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.
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
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, 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
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
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.
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
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
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
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, 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
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
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
---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
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
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
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
As I gathered my information from web pages entitled 'Classical Theism' the
version or variation you imply here needs to be stated explicitly to show how
what I wrote is not classical theism. You need to produce what you think
classical theism is, if you want to correct what I said, otherwise
As I gathered my information from web pages entitled 'Classical Theism' the
version or variation you imply here needs to be stated explicitly to show how
what I wrote is not classical theism. You need to produce what you think
classical theism is, if you want to correct what I said, otherwise
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.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote:
On 2/16/2014 4:45 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
Polytheists believe there is more than one deity, for example the Smarta
Avaita Vedanta. “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed
without
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Ravi Yogi
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 10:09 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day - on Conservatism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 3:37 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the day! Only people with nice neat
Christian names need apply...
--- In FairfieldLife
authfriend wrote:
But of course I never suggested the article I
posted was representative of the typical left-wing
voter. Obviously it isn't, as you'd have known if
you had read it. It's *chiding* left-wing voters.
I posted it in response to Chopra's article, which
is characterized by the
On Sep 8, 2008, at 5:15 PM, authfriend wrote:
And of course this woman represents the views of
the vast majority of U.S. voters.
She does about as much as the article you posted represents
the typical left-wing voter.
Sal
On Sep 8, 2008, at 5:59 PM, authfriend wrote:
Sal, every time I think we've plumbed the depths
of your nitwittery, you surprise me. Apparently it
has no lower limit.
And every time I think we've plumbed the depths of your
nastiness, Judy, you prove me wrong. Thanks for always being
so
On Oct 9, 2006, at 10:49 PM, authfriend wrote:
The Republicans' behavior has been utterly
reprehensible, not only in covering up the Foley
problem to begin with, but in trying to cover up
the coverup after the story broke by trying to
blame the Democrats.
You know, it seems that, at least
On Oct 10, 2006, at 9:28 AM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Oct 9, 2006, at 10:49 PM, authfriend wrote:
The Republicans' behavior has been utterly
reprehensible, not only in covering up the Foley
problem to begin with, but
In a message dated 10/10/06 7:28:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just for
your info: Melhman I've heard is a Satanist. All I've heard
is that he's another closet case.Closet gay satanic child
molesting christian whale, er, congresscritter?Where's North
69 matches
Mail list logo
