www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:50:41 -0500, Beowulf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:06:06 -0700, Uncle Samuel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >ejaculated: > >>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:35:29 -0500, Beowulf >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:08:41 -0700, Uncle Samuel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>ejaculated: >>> >>>>On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:41:10 -0500, Beowulf >>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:57:19 -0700, Uncle Samuel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>ejaculated: >>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:43:23 -0500, Beowulf >>>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:05:19 -0700, Uncle Samuel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>ejaculated: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:26:34 -0500, Beowulf >>>>>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You're missing the point. Religion is a delusion, often a dangerous >>>>>>>>>one, and just because people like it in no way diminishes its >>>>>>>>>deleterious effects. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Not all religion is a "delusion" - that's a moronic claim to make. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So, there are religions that don't postulate unevidenced entities? >>>>>> >>>>>>So there is a paucity of evidence for the Creator? >>>>> >>>>>>From where I'm sitting it looks like a total lack. >>>> >>>>Well maybe you'd best climb out of your hole of unenlightenment... >>> >>>Gee, an uninteresting insult. >> >>More of an observation really... > >No, it was actually an insult. Only if you feel it to be incorrect, and I submit it is not. > How about you take responsibility for >your own discourse? This from a latter day inquisitor who won't admit as much? Pot/kettle. >>>Did it occur to you that I may have >>>believed in a god at one time? >> >>I haven't given that any thought at all. > >It's obvious. True, why on earth would you be on my radar screen, thread jumper? >>>>> Do you have any >>>>>evidence you'd care to offer up for a Creator? >>>> >>>>Nature, man, everything. >>> >>>Would you care to explicate exactly how nature, man, everything is >>>evidence for a Creator? >> >>Of course, we're unable to account accurately for our presence here, >>evolution, or even begin to explain the origin of life on this rock, >>let alone the galaxy - tired but imaginative scientific parries yield >>little more than b movie postulations. > >Is that an answer to my question? Indeed so, if you take the time to consider it. > You offered "Nature, man, >everything" as evidence for your creator. Why so I did. > I'd like you to expand on >what you mean by that. To the best of our recorded history and oral traditions we've not previously had the powers to make or design or really comprehend this solid reality - hence a Creator is a logically applicable source. > The statement is to broad to allow anything >meaningful to be concluded from it. I had to make a jump in assuming >the direction you were taking just in my followup question to you. Perhaps you make too many jumps. >Is your statement above, then, an admission that "nature, man, >everything" really doesn't have anything to offer in explanatory power >wrt the existence of a Creator god? It's a notation that until just the past few years we've not even unlocked our genome or made the baby steps in creation of life, albeit replicant/mutated in design. Hence we have an entire solid existence which we can only rudimentarily describe with physics and whose traces so far pre-date our origins and those of many other species, as to imply strongly a force and order of creation far in excess both of our abilities to imitate and, with but a few exceptions (prayer, meditation, etc.), access on a repeatable and productive basis. >>> Would you also care to explain how your >>>reasoning based on nature, man, everything isn't yet another >>>re-working of the fallacious "Argument from Design"? >> >>I find no overriding fallacies there. > >Well, since you have yet to provide an argument that's surprising. >So, are you saying that you were alluding to the "Argument from >Design"? Which form of the argument are you using here? Our entire realm suggests repeatable design and patterns, ones we did not create. >>>>> What rational method >>>>>do you use to make the jump from a Creator to *your* god? >>>> >>>>I don't. >>> >>>So, then you make the jump based on wishful thinking. >> >>I present no wishes, try again. > >What you present is no evidence. Ah but I do, read the Dossey material. > In the absence of evidence (as >you've freely admitted) Sorry, more intellectual dishonesty from you - I simply noted the evidence may not be physically well resolved, that does not mean it doesn't exist. Think atoms and the pre-atomic age. > you have assumed that the Creator is your >particular god of choice. You keep harping on that, yet I repeat again oh dull of wit, I specified NO GOD OF CHOICE! > Since you have no evidence the only thing >that can inform that jump of yours is what you desire, i.e., wishful >thinking. No there could, for sake of argument be other things, say...the epistemological leap of faith. Or a metaphysical intuitive knowing. Or a scientifically grounded suggestions like the proof of prayer and telepathy. >>> There is no >>>evidence that suggests *even if* there is a Creator that it is your >>>particular god of choice. So, that is a delusional belief. >> >>I referenced no "particular god of choice" - you expose your own >>pejorative biases yet again. > >So, the Creator isn't a god? Or is it that the Creator is a god, but >not the god you believe in? The terms are interchangeable, you might also substitute "the Diety", or "Yaweh", etc. >>>>I see no distinction between God ( never mentioned my own btw) and the >>>>Creator. >>> >>>Plenty of religious people do. >> >>Then argue with them, not me. > >So, is your Creator not a god? Now there's a question! My Creator is known as God, Yaweh, Jehova, the Diety, the Great Spirit, etc... > That's fine. I think so. > I'd still be interested >in what evidence you see for a Creator. The efficacy for prayer and telepathy and oobe's...to say nothing of the physical weight of the soul, contact from beyond, reincarnation... the list goes on and on and on... >>> That is, they see the Creator as a god >>>different from your particular god of choice. They offer the same >>>evidence to "support" the existence of *their* Creator. Why are you >>>right about the nature of who this putative Creator is and other >>>theists wrong? >> >>"Putative"? >> >>Did I state or merely im-ly as much? > >Why don't you tell me. No, please, it was your accusation, you provide the cite. >>Observation and scientific method shows that for most life patterns >>there is a set of outcomes, babies drown in buckets, birds freeze in >>the snow, patterns emerge suggesting that behavior is linked to >>outcomes on all levels, physical and karmic. > >As far as I know, I see no justification for believing in things like >souls, reincarnation, or the transmigration of souls. What >observation or scientific methods can I use to discern these things? The experiments on the weight of the soul upon death, reincarnation accessed through past life hypnotherapy, more than a few rather poignant physical manifestations of both collective and prior consciousness. >>>>>>>Perhaps some forms of Buddhism. >>>>>> >>>>>>And Taosim. >>>>> >>>>>I guess that depends on which form of Taoism. In most forms, the Tao >>>>>takes on decidedly mystical qualities and belief in angels and spirits >>>>>is included. >>>> >>>>Well there are different flavors of most philosophies and religions. >>> >>>Agreed. Also, many religions use the same so-called evidence to come >>>to very different conclusions. Why is yours better than any of the >>>others? >> >>"Mine"? >> >>Which religion is this you identify with me uniquely? > >I made a couple assumptions. You did. > Let me know which ones are wrong: Ok. >1) you believe in a god I do. >2) you believe in that the Creator, which you believe has evidence for >it is the god you believe in I believe God and the Creator are variant names for the same wellspring of divinity. >>>You've admitted that you have no rational basis for your >>>conclusion that any supposedly existent Creator is your god of choice. >> >>No I have not. > >What asked what method you use to make the jump that the Creator (for >which there is presumably evidence) is your god, you said you didn't >have one. I said the evidence is poorly resolved in the physical plane, but that's not uncommon. How much real impact do neutrinos have in your daily use of life's implements? You don't have much of a conscious awareness of them now do you? Yet they exist. >>The rational evidence is in every natural system pattern of existence. > >What evidence is that? Evidence of design not of man's doing. > I really am interested in something other than >vague generalities. Would you be interested in elaborating? I already have, to some length. >>>>>>>I am more than willing to be shown wrong. Please enumerate the >>>>>>>non-delusional religions here: >>>>>> >>>>>>That would depend on your given culture and nationality, religions, >>>>>>like languages all seek to confer a meaning through a set of >>>>>>communications, but speaking Russian to a Spaniard will always produce >>>>>>mixed results. >>>>> >>>>>No, it wouldn't depend on my given culture or nationality. >>>> >>>>Don't be a pendantic twit, you know exactly what I mean. >>> >>>No I don't. >> >>Well you certainly should, the point was that speaking a given >>language to an alternate culture would cause communication ambiguities >>and errors. > >A given. 'Bout time... > However, that has little to do with the question of if there >is evidence for the existence of a Creator. Of course it does, it strikes right to the root of variant religions, prophets, dogmas, prayers, etc. >>> I see you've decided to insult me again. >> >>I see you've tried to make this thread about what my given religion or >>faith might be... > >You've misunderstood. I'm trying to discern what evidence you believe >points to the existence of a creator. You can ask that without relating it to my personal faith you know. And if you read back you'll see I've already answered it several times over. >>> Why do you need >>>to resort to ignoring the issue? >> >>Why do you need to pry at my specific faith, is the subject impossible >>for you to conjugate on an intellectual basis? > >I'm not prying at your specific faith. Ye indeed you have. > I'm trying to get to this >evidence you claim to have for the existence of a creator. I don't >really care what your other beliefs are. I see you're backing off that angle, so noted. >>> If it's so self-evident that you are >>>right about this whole god/Creator issue, what use is there for >>>vitriol? Why not just trot out your evidence and shut me up? >> >>You've already been steeped in evidence, lacking any self awareness >>what more could I do to cast light on the obvious. > >Oh, I see. "nature, man, everything" is so utterly transparent that >I'm the twit for not seeing your line of reasoning. Sorry. Well yes, really that's about right. >>Clearly it is individuals like you who seek to pick at a person's >>purported "religion" who are the traders in vitriol - not uncommon in >>my observation at all in the atheistic community, as bitter a cadre of >>nihilistic wags as one could ever find. > >Hm...I don't give a fuck what your "religion" is or even if you have >one. Yes well, nice to see we've put that one to rest for a bit... > I'm interested in what evidence you have that you claim as >support for the existence of a creator. Feel free to offer it up at >any point. Did and done. ><snip> > >>>>>Religions, on the other hand, tend to make reference to non-existent, >>>>>unevidenced entities. >>>> >>>>You have no proof of "non-existence" - don't presume that your own >>>>fatally flawed misconceptions carry even the slightest weight. >>> >>>I don't need proof of non-existence. >> >>You do if you're so deluded as to reference it as key to your >>argument. > >No, all I need to reference is that fact that no one to date has >offered evidence for any god critters. Feel free to prove me wrong >here: The Bible. The Torah The Koran Urantia Book The Emerald Tablets The Dead Sea Scrolls ...shall I go on... >>> The fact that no theist to date >>>has offered evidence of existence is sufficient justification to >>>withhold my assent to the proposition "There is a god". The burden of >>>"proof" falls to the person asserting the existence of something. >> >>The proof is sufficient for a preponderant majority of humans, > >argumentum ad populum And a fair measure to introduce, though not meant to be wholly conclusive. >>your >>ambiguities relate to at best a jaundiced and self absorbed >>demographic splinter group. > >The reasons I've run into for people believing have nothing at all to >do with evidence. Really? You've meant no people who've had extra-physical contacts with the divine? How sad. > By the way, I happened to have been one of those >believers for a number of years. I don't really see why it is so >difficult for someone, such as yourself, to elucidate their reasons >for believing instead of trying to insult me. Why not just put up the >evidence you've found convincing and let me decide for myself? I already did so, you seem all too willing to pass it by. >>>For example, if I were to claim that you owe me $8000 dollars. It >>>would be up to me to prove the claim true, rather than you having to >>>prove that you don't owe me $8000 dollars. >>> >>>There is nothing fatally flawed in my process. It is the exact same >>>rational process people use to gain knowledge all the time. In the >>>absence of any evidence for a given thing, that thing either does not >>>exist or is irrelevant (the same as non-existent pragmatically). >>> >>>I'd welcome you to show me explicit evidence for a Creator and to show >>>me how I can make the jump to concluding that this putative Creator is >>>your particular god of choice. >> >>Again the side road to "putative' - life is almost always putative >>given the wrong choices for every species. >> >>As for explicit evidence, try prayer, try reincarnation, try any >>number of definitive measures of the divine. > >Um, I have tried prayer (haven't died yet, so I have tried >reincarnation). AFAICT, it doesn't work. So, I guess you have >nothing to offer me. I can state that there is a substantive body of past life regression work, reincarnation studies, oobe's and so on leading to the obvious conclusion of life beyond physical terminus. That's why the soul has a weight measured in grams. >>>>>As such, they are delusional because they claim >>>>>that something exists which does not. >>>> >>>>Prayer exists. >>> >>>I've never contested the existence of prayer. I've seen people pray, >>>so I know prayer exists. >>> >>>>Prayer is empirically proven. >>> >>>Care to substantiate that claim? >> >>Read the results of the Dossey experiments. >> >>http://www.annonline.com/interviews/961024/ >>http://www.dosseydossey.com/ >>http://www.oates.org/journal/pub/vol-02-99/bios/dossey-bio.htm >>http://www.stauros.org/notebooks/v20n1a06.html >>http://www.spiritsite.com/writing/lardos/part6.shtml > >Sure thing. You're bound to learn something if you dig in, Dossey is an interesting physician. >>>>>You are welcome to enumerate for me your list of religions which do >>>>>not make reference to non-existent things, though. I'm interested in >>>>>learning. >>>> >>>>No you're certainly not, don't be a soulless hypocrite, I've seen >>>>enough of that crap here to last 3 lifetimes. >>> >>>Would you care to explain me to how you've attained the ability to >>>read my mind. >> >>Oh lets just say I read the patterns and words well enough to get >>there. > >Well, apparently not. You have completely mischaracterized my >intentions. Feel free to try again. If so, no harm no foul. Time and your replies will be the only metric to grade that score with. >>> It seems that you may not have room for it in your >>>constrained worldview, but I really am an atheist who is interested in >>>the truth about whether god exists or not. >> >>You're more interested in denigrating those who see the divine and >>communicate with it. > >You wouldn't be trying to paint me into your little box of what an >atheist is supposed to be, would you? I might, but only in the sense that there are certain core values atheists subscribe to. > The fact is that I don't give a >shit what your beliefs are. Oh good, that makes you one up on old "bla"'. > What I am interested in is what evidence >you have for your claims. You have a passel thereof above. >>That's really all any atheist is after - cynics >>and self absorbed dolts all. > >Why are you threatened by me? I'm not, you don't even factor on my radar screen. > How weak is your faith that you have to >denigrate not only me, but a whole class of individuals? T'was you that began with the denigration and accusations that the divine does not exist, pot/kettle there, thread-jumper. >>>The fact that you think you know better than I do what my motives are >>>speaks more to your conceit and arrogance to my moral character. >> >>Your words and parries here clearly defined your agenda, that you are >>unable to admit as much once again lead us to the dishonesty inherent >>in atheism. > >Uh huh. It's not atypical. >>>If you have a good objective reason to believe as you do, why don't >>>you just offer it instead of trying unsuccessfully to insult me? >> >>If you have interest in more than picking at my personal 'religion" or >>pejoratively grouping what you believe it to be with other global >>practices I haven't seen it. > >You know what, I'm not sure where you got the idea I'm picking at your >religion. Your initial inquisitions into. > But let me state unequivocally, I am not. I don't care >what it is. That's what 4 times now? > You claimed to have evidence for a creator. I'd like you >to substantiate that claim. That's the sum total of what I hope to >achieve with this dialogue. Read the Dossey studies, that might be a good start. >>>>You'd have to be a composite moron to flit through the discussion not >>>>understanding that the extra-dimensional definitive of spirit is >>>>anything but fully resolved in a solid plane. >>> >>>So, are you saying that there isn't any empirical evidence for spirit >>>Or just that it is subtle/hard to find? If the latter, what steps do >>>I need to take to be able to discern this subtle evidence? >> >>Several: >> >>Prayer >> >>Meditation >> >>Hypnosis >> >>Positive thinking. >> >>There's a start for you. > >So, these are steps I have to take to be able to discern the subtle >evidence for the spirit, right? They are some good ones, yes. > I've tried 3 of the 4 before and >found them ineffectual for that purpose. Well like any form of exercise, the mind matter link doesn't come about overnight. Like a good musician will learn, practice makes perfect. >I'll see if I can locate a hypnotist somewhere. Not too hard to do, you might find it genuinely valuable (seriously)! >>>What exactly is spirit? >> >>It's the few grams of energy (physical weight) that leave the body >>upon death. > >Do you have any modern verification of the "few grams" thing? I do. http://www.ghostweb.com/soul.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=2882 > If >spirit is energy, then why do we need the concept of spirit? Energy >is already very well defined by physics. what does 'spirit' the >concept buy us? The link between mind and energy - consciousness and the unconscious. >>> How does it relate to the Creator and your >>>particular god of choice? >> >>The Creator imbued life with it. > >So, you subscribe to some form of vitalism? Do bacteria or viruses >have spirit? What about prions? Fine questions, but let's go to dogs and whether they have souls. The aforementioned studies suggest not, I can not confirm yea or nay at this time. The same is true for other forces, yet I can observe a pattern of design in all that is well past man's abilities. >>My "personal god of choice" is a tired attempt to demonize. > >Hardly, it's an attempt to point out that the god you equate with the >Creator (if any) is only a particular brand of god and is, in fact, >quite different from the Creators posited by other people around the >world (who incidentally use the same "evidence" to arrive at their >conclusions). They are al one in my opinion - Good, Jehova, the Great SPirit, the Creator - all variant names for the divine. >>Now go back in the corner and learn to be a positive individual, if >>you've the wit to do so. > >Ow. Such scorn. To think I've disappointed Uncle Samuel. No matter you'd hardly be the first, and surely not the last.
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
