| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Elroy Willis" |
| Date: |
16 Apr 2005 09:40:26 AM |
| Object: |
Laughter is Caused by God |
Greetings,
Last night, I was watching the science channel, and there was a show
on about "laughter," hosted by Jane Curtain, which was quite
interesting to me.
In one part of the show, a Christian preacher was hypnotizing his
flock, touching them and making them fall to the floor, and many of
them started rolling around on the floor, with their eyes closed,
laughing uncontrollably, so it seems.
When interviewed, one woman said something like "I was so high on
laughter that I felt the presence of God."
"It was like nothing I have ever felt before," she said, while
claiming that the human emotion of laughter is proof of her god.
How can anyone argue against such a belief?
We all know that most people like to laugh, and if certain Christians
attribute their laughter to their god, it seems hopeless to try to
convince them that their god doesn't really exist.
I guess it's the same thing with the human emotion of love, which many
Christians attribute to their god. "God is Love," they claim.
So their god consists of love and laughter, which is also a part of
most every human's experiences, and to try to convince them that those
emotions or things aren't really proof of their god, but rather just
human emotions, which are also shared by our nearest relatives in the
animal kingdom, seems to be a futile effort at best, imo.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
15 Aug 2005 09:44:12 PM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:1a82615a3aa063rsti23akvh467q9ar2o9@4ax.com...
Greetings,
Last night, I was watching the science channel, and there was a show
on about "laughter," hosted by Jane Curtain, which was quite
interesting to me.
In one part of the show, a Christian preacher was hypnotizing his
flock, touching them and making them fall to the floor, and many of
them started rolling around on the floor, with their eyes closed,
laughing uncontrollably, so it seems.
When interviewed, one woman said something like "I was so high on
laughter that I felt the presence of God."
"It was like nothing I have ever felt before," she said, while
claiming that the human emotion of laughter is proof of her god.
How can anyone argue against such a belief?
We all know that most people like to laugh, and if certain Christians
attribute their laughter to their god, it seems hopeless to try to
convince them that their god doesn't really exist.
I guess it's the same thing with the human emotion of love, which many
Christians attribute to their god. "God is Love," they claim.
So their god consists of love and laughter, which is also a part of
most every human's experiences, and to try to convince them that those
emotions or things aren't really proof of their god, but rather just
human emotions, which are also shared by our nearest relatives in the
animal kingdom, seems to be a futile effort at best, imo.
Do you mean Jane Curtin (I think that's how you spell it)? The one that was
on the original Saturday Night Live?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
16 Aug 2005 07:18:10 AM |
|
|
Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
Greetings,
Last night, I was watching the science channel, and there was a show
on about "laughter," hosted by Jane Curtain, which was quite
interesting to me.
In one part of the show, a Christian preacher was hypnotizing his
flock, touching them and making them fall to the floor, and many of
them started rolling around on the floor, with their eyes closed,
laughing uncontrollably, so it seems.
When interviewed, one woman said something like "I was so high on
laughter that I felt the presence of God."
"It was like nothing I have ever felt before," she said, while
claiming that the human emotion of laughter is proof of her god.
How can anyone argue against such a belief?
We all know that most people like to laugh, and if certain Christians
attribute their laughter to their god, it seems hopeless to try to
convince them that their god doesn't really exist.
I guess it's the same thing with the human emotion of love, which many
Christians attribute to their god. "God is Love," they claim.
So their god consists of love and laughter, which is also a part of
most every human's experiences, and to try to convince them that those
emotions or things aren't really proof of their god, but rather just
human emotions, which are also shared by our nearest relatives in the
animal kingdom, seems to be a futile effort at best, imo.
Do you mean Jane Curtin (I think that's how you spell it)? The one that was
on the original Saturday Night Live?
Yeah, that's her. She's also narrated some other shows on the Science
Channel, including ones about time and quantum mechanics.
I wonder why they chose her to narrate the shows? Is she a
science-minded actress, or did they just like her voice?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "phy" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
16 Apr 2005 02:32:56 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
news:1a82615a3aa063rsti23akvh467q9ar2o9@4ax.com:
I guess it's the same thing with the human emotion of love, which many
Christians attribute to their god. "God is Love," they claim.
My kid is asking his classmates that try to evangelize to him. "If God is
Love, and Love is Blind, and Ray Charles is Blind, does that mean that Ray
Charles is God?" He said the last time he asked someone that, they put
their fingers in their ears and walked away chanting "LaLaLaLaLa..."
-phy
.
|
|
|
| User: "rj" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
16 Apr 2005 04:52:30 PM |
|
|
phy <phy00x@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:Xns963A948C9BBAAphy00xyahoocom@69.28.186.121:
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in
news:1a82615a3aa063rsti23akvh467q9ar2o9@4ax.com:
I guess it's the same thing with the human emotion of love, which many
Christians attribute to their god. "God is Love," they claim.
My kid is asking his classmates that try to evangelize to him. "If God
is Love, and Love is Blind, and Ray Charles is Blind, does that mean
that Ray Charles is God?" He said the last time he asked someone that,
they put their fingers in their ears and walked away chanting
"LaLaLaLaLa..."
-phy
That's funny.
rj
--
"I'm an atheist, thank God." - Dave Allen
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
16 Apr 2005 12:47:20 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Greetings,
Last night, I was watching the science channel, and there was a show
on about "laughter," hosted by Jane Curtain, which was quite
interesting to me.
In one part of the show, a Christian preacher was hypnotizing his
flock, touching them and making them fall to the floor, and many of
them started rolling around on the floor, with their eyes closed,
laughing uncontrollably, so it seems.
When interviewed, one woman said something like "I was so high on
laughter that I felt the presence of God."
"It was like nothing I have ever felt before," she said, while
claiming that the human emotion of laughter is proof of her god.
How can anyone argue against such a belief?
We all know that most people like to laugh, and if certain Christians
attribute their laughter to their god, it seems hopeless to try to
convince them that their god doesn't really exist.
I guess it's the same thing with the human emotion of love, which many
Christians attribute to their god. "God is Love," they claim.
So their god consists of love and laughter, which is also a part of
most every human's experiences, and to try to convince them that those
emotions or things aren't really proof of their god, but rather just
human emotions, which are also shared by our nearest relatives in the
animal kingdom, seems to be a futile effort at best, imo.
Kindly humor me in some of my ruminations on the above: These people
see both love and laughter as evidence of the benevolent deity from whom
all good things come. IMO they have got that much right, but with
obvious qualifications. To attribute *all* incidents of laughter as
good makes no sense for it can be and is often misused and abused.
Contemptuous laughter causes a lot of emotional harm, but much more
important is the fact that "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine."
For good mental (and even physical) health, everyone can use a hearty
guffaw every day. The lady who laughed uncontrollably may have needed
relief from life's stresses. In that sense it was a beneficial gift,
though from my POV it was inappropriate in a Christian Church setting.
At least these people have the wisdom to look for God in the things they
experience and understand rather than looking for him only in the
mysterious and as yet unexplained areas of life--the old "god of the
gaps" pursuit.
And if any creation will reflect characteristics of its creator, it
shouldn't be too far out to say that we and our nearest relatives in the
animal kingdom "get our sense of humor naturally." If we are are indeed
made in the image and likeness of God, why shouldn't our sense of humor
also be a mirror of the Source from which we come?
Denny
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
17 Apr 2005 11:22:48 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:47:20 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Elroy Willis wrote:
Greetings,
Last night, I was watching the science channel, and there was a show
on about "laughter," hosted by Jane Curtain, which was quite
interesting to me.
In one part of the show, a Christian preacher was hypnotizing his
flock, touching them and making them fall to the floor, and many of
them started rolling around on the floor, with their eyes closed,
laughing uncontrollably, so it seems.
When interviewed, one woman said something like "I was so high on
laughter that I felt the presence of God."
"It was like nothing I have ever felt before," she said, while
claiming that the human emotion of laughter is proof of her god.
How can anyone argue against such a belief?
We all know that most people like to laugh, and if certain Christians
attribute their laughter to their god, it seems hopeless to try to
convince them that their god doesn't really exist.
I guess it's the same thing with the human emotion of love, which many
Christians attribute to their god. "God is Love," they claim.
So their god consists of love and laughter, which is also a part of
most every human's experiences, and to try to convince them that those
emotions or things aren't really proof of their god, but rather just
human emotions, which are also shared by our nearest relatives in the
animal kingdom, seems to be a futile effort at best, imo.
Kindly humor me in some of my ruminations on the above: These people
see both love and laughter as evidence of the benevolent deity from whom
all good things come. IMO they have got that much right, but with
obvious qualifications. To attribute *all* incidents of laughter as
good makes no sense for it can be and is often misused and abused.
Contemptuous laughter causes a lot of emotional harm, but much more
important is the fact that "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine."
For good mental (and even physical) health, everyone can use a hearty
guffaw every day. The lady who laughed uncontrollably may have needed
relief from life's stresses. In that sense it was a beneficial gift,
though from my POV it was inappropriate in a Christian Church setting.
At least these people have the wisdom to look for God in the things they
experience and understand rather than looking for him only in the
mysterious and as yet unexplained areas of life--the old "god of the
gaps" pursuit.
And if any creation will reflect characteristics of its creator, it
shouldn't be too far out to say that we and our nearest relatives in the
animal kingdom "get our sense of humor naturally." If we are are indeed
made in the image and likeness of God, why shouldn't our sense of humor
also be a mirror of the Source from which we come?
Why should we assume that the creator exists, and, if we have to make
that assumption before the argument is valid, what good is the
argument?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
17 Apr 2005 01:58:39 PM |
|
|
thomas p wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:47:20 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Elroy Willis wrote:
Greetings,
Last night, I was watching the science channel, and there was a show
on about "laughter," hosted by Jane Curtain, which was quite
interesting to me.
In one part of the show, a Christian preacher was hypnotizing his
flock, touching them and making them fall to the floor, and many of
them started rolling around on the floor, with their eyes closed,
laughing uncontrollably, so it seems.
When interviewed, one woman said something like "I was so high on
laughter that I felt the presence of God."
"It was like nothing I have ever felt before," she said, while
claiming that the human emotion of laughter is proof of her god.
How can anyone argue against such a belief?
We all know that most people like to laugh, and if certain Christians
attribute their laughter to their god, it seems hopeless to try to
convince them that their god doesn't really exist.
I guess it's the same thing with the human emotion of love, which many
Christians attribute to their god. "God is Love," they claim.
So their god consists of love and laughter, which is also a part of
most every human's experiences, and to try to convince them that those
emotions or things aren't really proof of their god, but rather just
human emotions, which are also shared by our nearest relatives in the
animal kingdom, seems to be a futile effort at best, imo.
Kindly humor me in some of my ruminations on the above: These people
see both love and laughter as evidence of the benevolent deity from whom
all good things come. IMO they have got that much right, but with
obvious qualifications. To attribute *all* incidents of laughter as
good makes no sense for it can be and is often misused and abused.
Contemptuous laughter causes a lot of emotional harm, but much more
important is the fact that "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine."
For good mental (and even physical) health, everyone can use a hearty
guffaw every day. The lady who laughed uncontrollably may have needed
relief from life's stresses. In that sense it was a beneficial gift,
though from my POV it was inappropriate in a Christian Church setting.
At least these people have the wisdom to look for God in the things they
experience and understand rather than looking for him only in the
mysterious and as yet unexplained areas of life--the old "god of the
gaps" pursuit.
And if any creation will reflect characteristics of its creator, it
shouldn't be too far out to say that we and our nearest relatives in the
animal kingdom "get our sense of humor naturally." If we are are indeed
made in the image and likeness of God, why shouldn't our sense of humor
also be a mirror of the Source from which we come?
Why should we assume that the creator exists, and, if we have to make
that assumption before the argument is valid, what good is the
argument?
And likewise, why should we assume that the Creator does not exist?
Either way you start with an *assumption.*
Denny
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
17 Apr 2005 07:05:40 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
....
And likewise, why should we assume that the Creator does not exist?
Either way you start with an *assumption.*
There is no need to make such an assumption. As I have already shown
you, divine creation is a fallacy.
Regards,
Josef
God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.
-- Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
18 Apr 2005 06:58:50 AM |
|
|
In article <4262B1DF.1347665@nospam.net>, says...
Gidday Denny,
And likewise, why should we assume that the Creator does not exist?
Either way you start with an *assumption.*
Then why assume that this creator-thingy does exist? And then when you
assume it/she/he does actually exist, why assume that it/he/she had a
hand in creating anything? Or is interested in humanity? Or half a
million other assumptions yet to be listed here?
You've heard of Occam's Razor, right? The simplest explanation and all
that. Well, the minimum number of assumptions to be made here is one for
the atheist, several thousand for the theist. Do the math. :)
(Personally, I don't think we atheists assume anything, I think it's
pretty obvious that no gods/divine creatures exist.)
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
18 Apr 2005 10:36:12 AM |
|
|
The Great Hairy One wrote:
In article <4262B1DF.1347665@nospam.net>, says...
Gidday Denny,
And likewise, why should we assume that the Creator does not exist?
Either way you start with an *assumption.*
Then why assume that this creator-thingy does exist? And then when you
assume it/she/he does actually exist, why assume that it/he/she had a
hand in creating anything? Or is interested in humanity? Or half a
million other assumptions yet to be listed here?
You've heard of Occam's Razor, right? The simplest explanation and all
that. Well, the minimum number of assumptions to be made here is one for
the atheist, several thousand for the theist. Do the math. :)
Leave us not try to answer all the questions at the outset, but just
begin with the basic 'either-or'. Either there is a Creator or there is
not. Period.
Admittedly there are vastly more questions to be addressed if one begins
with an assumption of the Creator's existence than if one assumes the
opposite. But why should that be a deterrent to anyone who is after the
truth? The more we learn and discover about the world, the more complex
and paradoxical it becomes. When one important question is answered
about the world, it more often than not raises a host of new questions.
So why be put off that the [assumed] Source of such a world is even more
complex and paradoxical?
Denny
(Personally, I don't think we atheists assume anything, I think it's
pretty obvious that no gods/divine creatures exist.)
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
19 Apr 2005 07:25:19 AM |
|
|
In article <4263D3EC.32D95475@nospam.net>, says...
Gidday Denny,
Leave us not try to answer all the questions at the outset, but just
begin with the basic 'either-or'. Either there is a Creator or there is
not. Period.
I'll go that far, sure.
Admittedly there are vastly more questions to be addressed if one begins
with an assumption of the Creator's existence than if one assumes the
opposite. But why should that be a deterrent to anyone who is after the
truth?
Well, usually the truth, as you put it, tends to be the most simple
explanation. When it comes to natural systems, the route that expends
the least energy (in biology) is usually the one followed. In physics,
this is generally similar.
The more we learn and discover about the world, the more complex
and paradoxical it becomes.
Not so. From a scientific viewpoint, the more understandable and obvious
everything becomes. I remember when I was a kid, no one fully understood
how bumblebees flew. Now, the mechanism of their flight has been
analysed and is understood.
Does this mean that the world loses beauty, or wonder, because we
understand it? Certainly not. It gains, as not only can we appreciate
the beauty, we can understand how the beauty is created.
When one important question is answered
about the world, it more often than not raises a host of new questions.
Sure.
So why be put off that the [assumed] Source of such a world is even more
complex and paradoxical?
It is - we don't really understand the physics of the period before the
'Big Bang'. And we don't really know anything about how - or why - it
happened. So I'd say that that is pretty complex and paradoxical.
Denny, when you define something you limit it. I most definitely can not
accept the christian concept of a divine being - it's too small. Too
narrow. Far too limited. For a creature which is meant to be infinite
and all-everything, thinking that this creature cares solely about the
human race is just plain silly. Especially when the entire universe - we
still don't know how big it is - is stretched out before it/him/her.
If this "Creator" of yours exists, then it most certainly doesn't know
you exist. Oh, it may have a rough idea, but just like we don't
individually know every single proton in every single carbon atom within
our solar system, it most certainly could not identify Denny Gillesp of
Earth from Xil'dratmil of Formaht 7.
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
21 Apr 2005 07:36:29 PM |
|
|
The Great Hairy One wrote:
In article <4263D3EC.32D95475@nospam.net>, says...
Gidday Denny,
Leave us not try to answer all the questions at the outset, but just
begin with the basic 'either-or'. Either there is a Creator or there is
not. Period.
I'll go that far, sure.
Admittedly there are vastly more questions to be addressed if one begins
with an assumption of the Creator's existence than if one assumes the
opposite. But why should that be a deterrent to anyone who is after the
truth?
Well, usually the truth, as you put it, tends to be the most simple
explanation. When it comes to natural systems, the route that expends
the least energy (in biology) is usually the one followed. In physics,
this is generally similar.
Never had physics and am not even an amateur at science.
The more we learn and discover about the world, the more complex
and paradoxical it becomes.
At least the more complex and paradoxical the world is becoming to me,
that is from the layman's POV.
Not so. From a scientific viewpoint, the more understandable and obvious
everything becomes. I remember when I was a kid, no one fully understood
how bumblebees flew. Now, the mechanism of their flight has been
analysed and is understood.
Does this mean that the world loses beauty, or wonder, because we
understand it? Certainly not. It gains, as not only can we appreciate
the beauty, we can understand how the beauty is created.
No problem here to speak of: Except how is "beauty" determined if the
old saw is correct that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? Who or
what determines the standard for beauty, the individual or the society
one lives in?
When one important question is answered
about the world, it more often than not raises a host of new questions.
Sure.
So why be put off that the [assumed] Source of such a world is even more
complex and paradoxical?
It is - we don't really understand the physics of the period before the
'Big Bang'. And we don't really know anything about how - or why - it
happened. So I'd say that that is pretty complex and paradoxical.
Denny, when you define something you limit it. I most definitely can not
accept the christian concept of a divine being - it's too small. Too
narrow. Far too limited.
You remind me of an excellent little book written some 50 years ago,
"Your God Is Too Small" by J.B. Phillips. In it Phillips identifies the
unreal gods in a short chapter on each one: the resident policeman,
parental hangover, grand old man, meek-and-mild, absolute perfection,
heavenly bosom, god-in-a-box, managing director, second-hand God,
perennial grievance, pale Galilean and projected image.
Eastern Christians (I am one) believe that there is no way for finite
humans to understand or even to think of God **as He actually is**
because He is infinite. We make a distinction between the "apophatic,"
(or the negative way of knowing God by saying what He is not) and the
positive or "cataphatic" method of knowing Him. All that we can ever say
about God, however correct, will fall far short of his reality. If we
say that he is good or wise or just, we have to add immediately that his
goodness, wisdom and justice are not to be measured by our human
standards, for they cannot adequately describe God as he actually is. If
we say that God exists, we have to qualify this at once by adding that
he is not just one object that exists among other existing objects. In
the words of John of Damascus we would say,'That there is a God is
clear; but what He is by essence and nature, this is altogether beyond
our comprehension and knowledge'
For a creature which is meant to be infinite
and all-everything, thinking that this creature cares solely about the
human race is just plain silly.
Who says the Creator cares solely about the human race? However, as far
as we know, human beings are the one and only creatures in the entire
universe who are conscious and aware of the universe's existence,
possibly a reflection of the Creator's consciousness if indeed we are
made in the image and likeness of God.
Especially when the entire universe - we
still don't know how big it is - is stretched out before it/him/her.
The most precious and valuable gifts in life don't always come in big,
impressive packages.
If this "Creator" of yours exists, then it most certainly doesn't know
you exist.
Now who's notion of god is too small and limited, if god can't possibly
know of my existence?
Oh, it may have a rough idea, but just like we don't
individually know every single proton in every single carbon atom within
our solar system, it most certainly could not identify Denny Gillesp of
Earth from Xil'dratmil of Formaht 7.
This would be the unreal god of the projected image, "since the human
mind has a tendency to 'project' on to other people ideas and emotions
that really exist in itself. The guilty man, for example will project on
to other people suspicion and disapproval, even though they are
completely ignorant of his guilt." So we are inclined to project onto
God our own limitations and ideas. (J.B. Phillips again).
Cheers,
TGHO
What does TGHO mean?
Shalom,
Denny
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
22 Apr 2005 07:09:59 AM |
|
|
In article <4268470D.32B6482@nospam.net>, says...
Gidday Denny,
Never had physics and am not even an amateur at science.
Even if you are a layman, the basics of science are not hard to
understand.
At least the more complex and paradoxical the world is becoming to me,
that is from the layman's POV.
Note that a point of view is subjective, and not held by everyone.
No problem here to speak of: Except how is "beauty" determined if the
old saw is correct that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? Who or
what determines the standard for beauty, the individual or the society
one lives in?
Go look at these:
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/wallpaper/
And tell me you don't find any of them incredibly beautiful.
Eastern Christians (I am one)
Can't say I've heard of this division before... How does an "Eastern"
christian differ from a "Western/Northern/Southern" christian?
believe that there is no way for finite
humans to understand or even to think of God **as He actually is**
because He is infinite. We make a distinction between the "apophatic,"
(or the negative way of knowing God by saying what He is not) and the
positive or "cataphatic" method of knowing Him. All that we can ever say
about God, however correct, will fall far short of his reality. If we
say that he is good or wise or just, we have to add immediately that his
goodness, wisdom and justice are not to be measured by our human
standards, for they cannot adequately describe God as he actually is. If
we say that God exists, we have to qualify this at once by adding that
he is not just one object that exists among other existing objects. In
the words of John of Damascus we would say,'That there is a God is
clear; but what He is by essence and nature, this is altogether beyond
our comprehension and knowledge'
Okay - then how do you describe your god-concept? What traits does it
have? If these traits are unrecognisable to humanity, how can we
describe or define these traits? How can you actually be correct about
any of this god-concept's traits, when they [quote]"fall far short of
his reality"[/quote]?
You state that we can't compare the goodness, wisdom or justice concepts
we understand to how this particular god-concept expresses it's version
of said traits - so how can we compare at all?
If we have no reference for understanding this god-concept, then it is
rather irrelevant and immaterial to us poor, insignificant humans. And
it (were it to actually exist) certainly has absolutely no reference for
dealing with us!
In the end, it comes down to you believing in an amorphous, nebulous
philosophical construct with no real features or attributes, that has no
relationship to anything a "mere" human can understand, and is thus
quite purely an intellectual exercise, not an actual being or creature.
Who says the Creator cares solely about the human race?
Who says that this god-concept cares at all?
However, as far
as we know, human beings are the one and only creatures in the entire
universe who are conscious and aware of the universe's existence,
possibly a reflection of the Creator's consciousness if indeed we are
made in the image and likeness of God.
As far as we know *at this point in time*. You're falling into the "God
of Gaps" fallacy here.
Regardless, how does an infinite, unknowable, undefinable, unexplainable
figment of human imagination create anything in it's own image -
especially since it doesn't actually have an "image"? And what exactly
did it "create" anyway? We can trace our bodies and minds development
through the process of evolution. There is nothing there to be
"created".
Now, if you are going to postulate the existence and creation of a soul,
spirit, ka, mu or other "unknowable" component we humans express, then
you need to tell me where it can be found within the human body, and
what it exactly does for the human.
The most precious and valuable gifts in life don't always come in big,
impressive packages.
To your particular god-concept, the universe may be very, very small.
It's probably not infinite, and if your god-concept is... Well, an
infinite object next to a non-infinite object means that the non-
infinite object is pretty tiny.
Now who's notion of god is too small and limited, if god can't possibly
know of my existence?
Ha! Do you think you can personally interact with your god-concept?
This would be the unreal god of the projected image, "since the human
mind has a tendency to 'project' on to other people ideas and emotions
that really exist in itself. The guilty man, for example will project on
to other people suspicion and disapproval, even though they are
completely ignorant of his guilt." So we are inclined to project onto
God our own limitations and ideas. (J.B. Phillips again).
Yes, I see theists doing this all the time. :)
What does TGHO mean?
See under the dashed line of my sig? It's my name. :) Have you forgotten
me, mate? We've had several discussions in the past, oh, back from 1999
to 2002 or so.
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
22 Apr 2005 07:02:25 PM |
|
|
The Great Hairy One wrote:
In article <4268470D.32B6482@nospam.net>, says...
Gidday Denny,
Never had physics and am not even an amateur at science.
Even if you are a layman, the basics of science are not hard to
understand.
At least the more complex and paradoxical the world is becoming to me,
that is from the layman's POV.
Note that a point of view is subjective, and not held by everyone.
No problem here to speak of: Except how is "beauty" determined if the
old saw is correct that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? Who or
what determines the standard for beauty, the individual or the society
one lives in?
Go look at these:
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/wallpaper/
And tell me you don't find any of them incredibly beautiful.
I took a gander and find them quite interesting, but only a couple
really struck me as really beautiful. My guess is you need a certain
level of understanding what the photo is showing before you can really
appreciate and see the beauty in it.
Eastern Christians (I am one)
Can't say I've heard of this division before... How does an "Eastern"
christian differ from a "Western/Northern/Southern" christian?
The Church was "officially" a single entity for the first 1000 years,
with five geographical centers: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch,
Alexandria, and Jerusalem. The patriarch of Rome pressed his claim of
authority over the whole church including the other four patriarchies,
whereas it had been a collegial relationship heretofore. His claim was
rejected by the other four (the Eastern Church) and Rome separated
officially in 1054 A.D. Thus the first major division in the historic
Church with the Roman Catholic Church in the West and the Eastern
Orthodox Church in the East (Greece, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria,
Jerusalem, etc., etc.)
believe that there is no way for finite
humans to understand or even to think of God **as He actually is**
because He is infinite. We make a distinction between the "apophatic,"
(or the negative way of knowing God by saying what He is not) and the
positive or "cataphatic" method of knowing Him. All that we can ever say
about God, however correct, will fall far short of his reality. If we
say that he is good or wise or just, we have to add immediately that his
goodness, wisdom and justice are not to be measured by our human
standards, for they cannot adequately describe God as he actually is. If
we say that God exists, we have to qualify this at once by adding that
he is not just one object that exists among other existing objects. In
the words of John of Damascus we would say,'That there is a God is
clear; but what He is by essence and nature, this is altogether beyond
our comprehension and knowledge'
Okay - then how do you describe your god-concept? What traits does it
have? If these traits are unrecognisable to humanity, how can we
describe or define these traits? How can you actually be correct about
any of this god-concept's traits, when they [quote]"fall far short of
his reality"[/quote]?
Via Negativa theology I described is held in counter-balance with the
positive or "cataphatic" way of knowing God. We believe God is revealed
so far as the limitations of human mentality and experience allow, in
the person, work, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus
Christ, and as affirmed in the Nicene Creed.
The paradox and tension that exists between the positive and negative
understanding of God cannot be resolved by humanity in its present
fallen state.
You state that we can't compare the goodness, wisdom or justice concepts
we understand to how this particular god-concept expresses it's version
of said traits - so how can we compare at all?
We compare it to the goodness, wisdom and justice we see in the life,
teachings, passion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
If we have no reference for understanding this god-concept, then it is
rather irrelevant and immaterial to us poor, insignificant humans. And
it (were it to actually exist) certainly has absolutely no reference for
dealing with us!
Jesus Christ is the ultimate reference for humanity's limited
understanding of God. However, in our fallen state man is subject to
misconstruing and even warping the truth as it is revealed in him.
In the end, it comes down to you believing in an amorphous, nebulous
philosophical construct with no real features or attributes, that has no
relationship to anything a "mere" human can understand, and is thus
quite purely an intellectual exercise, not an actual being or creature.
Who says the Creator cares solely about the human race?
Who says that this god-concept cares at all?
However, as far
as we know, human beings are the one and only creatures in the entire
universe who are conscious and aware of the universe's existence,
possibly a reflection of the Creator's consciousness if indeed we are
made in the image and likeness of God.
As far as we know *at this point in time*. You're falling into the "God
of Gaps" fallacy here.
Regardless, how does an infinite, unknowable, undefinable, unexplainable
figment of human imagination create anything in it's own image -
especially since it doesn't actually have an "image"?
The image of God is revealed so far as we can grasp it in Jesus Christ.
The bottom line: if you want to know what God is like, He is like Jesus
Christ who is the human face of God.
And what exactly
did it "create" anyway? We can trace our bodies and minds development
through the process of evolution. There is nothing there to be
"created".
Now, if you are going to postulate the existence and creation of a soul,
spirit, ka, mu or other "unknowable" component we humans express, then
you need to tell me where it can be found within the human body, and
what it exactly does for the human.
The soul is the inner, unique and irreducible essence of any and every
human being. It is the ground of our being, and without that ground we
do not exist. It's simply What I Am.
The most precious and valuable gifts in life don't always come in big,
impressive packages.
To your particular god-concept, the universe may be very, very small.
It's probably not infinite, and if your god-concept is... Well, an
infinite object next to a non-infinite object means that the non-
infinite object is pretty tiny.
Now who's notion of god is too small and limited, if god can't possibly
know of my existence?
Ha! Do you think you can personally interact with your god-concept?
That would be a strictly cerebral activity. Interaction with God
involves the whole person, mind, body and spirit.
This would be the unreal god of the projected image, "since the human
mind has a tendency to 'project' on to other people ideas and emotions
that really exist in itself. The guilty man, for example will project on
to other people suspicion and disapproval, even though they are
completely ignorant of his guilt." So we are inclined to project onto
God our own limitations and ideas. (J.B. Phillips again).
Yes, I see theists doing this all the time. :)
What does TGHO mean?
See under the dashed line of my sig? It's my name. :) Have you forgotten
me, mate? We've had several discussions in the past, oh, back from 1999
to 2002 or so.
No, I haven't forgotten you at all in spite of my 74 years. I thought
TGHO was something akin to LOL, IMHO and that sort of thing. No wonder
I couldn't find it on Google except for some of your posts.
Shalom,
Denny
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
25 Apr 2005 05:49:47 AM |
|
|
In article <42699091.412BFCA4@nospam.net>, says...
Gidday Denny,
I took a gander and find them quite interesting, but only a couple
really struck me as really beautiful. My guess is you need a certain
level of understanding what the photo is showing before you can really
appreciate and see the beauty in it.
Not true in the slightest, in my opinion. I have very little
understanding of astrophysics, but I find all of those photos both
moving and stunningly beautiful. Cripes, check out some of the shots of
Titan's surface, or more local shots of Jupiter and Saturn.
The Church was "officially" a single entity for the first 1000 years,
with five geographical centers: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch,
Alexandria, and Jerusalem. The patriarch of Rome pressed his claim of
authority over the whole church including the other four patriarchies,
whereas it had been a collegial relationship heretofore. His claim was
rejected by the other four (the Eastern Church) and Rome separated
officially in 1054 A.D. Thus the first major division in the historic
Church with the Roman Catholic Church in the West and the Eastern
Orthodox Church in the East (Greece, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria,
Jerusalem, etc., etc.)
Huh. Thanks for that.
Via Negativa theology I described is held in counter-balance with the
positive or "cataphatic" way of knowing God. We believe God is revealed
so far as the limitations of human mentality and experience allow, in
the person, work, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus
Christ, and as affirmed in the Nicene Creed.
The paradox and tension that exists between the positive and negative
understanding of God cannot be resolved by humanity in its present
fallen state.
So, in other words you know nothing of this god-concept except that
which has been revealed via proxy.
You have no direct understanding of this god-concept. All you can come
up with is what this particular concept is not, there is nothing to say
what it actually *is*. So I ask - how do you define this god-concept you
believe in?
We compare it to the goodness, wisdom and justice we see in the life,
teachings, passion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Hmmm, okay. So going by the bible (which is the only reference we have
on this particular jesus-myth) we should only see good, honest and just
acts performed by this jesus-myth?
You know that we don't see that. We see a simple human, doing what any
cult leader does. This jesus-myth gets angry, does bad things and isn't
perfect. Sure, it does good things as well, and teaches some valuable
lessons, but it's hardly a divine creature of any sort. And certainly
not the only jesus-myth around. There are many others.
Jesus Christ is the ultimate reference for humanity's limited
understanding of God. However, in our fallen state man is subject to
misconstruing and even warping the truth as it is revealed in him.
Warping the truth? So are you saying that the bible (which I assume you
are using as the record of this particular jesus-myth's life) is not to
be relied upon?
So our understanding of this god-concept is solely based on an ancient
book, written by literally dozens of authors, set in a primitive and
backwards society and based upon the myths and legends of the time?
Surely we humans can come up with something better than that!
And let's talk about this "fallen state" you've mentioned twice so far.
What's that mean?
The image of God is revealed so far as we can grasp it in Jesus Christ.
The bottom line: if you want to know what God is like, He is like Jesus
Christ who is the human face of God.
So this god-concept is simply a human constructed from myth? A being
made from amalgamated stories and hearsay? Even if a "Yeshua ben Yosef"
actually existed, he certainly was no more than a religious cult leader,
around which several myths and legends were wrapped. This really isn't
much basis for a god-concept.
And getting back to one of my original points - why would this god-
concept of yours pick this shape, this "design" for humans?
From all of this, you are basically saying that this god-concept of
yours can only be understood from one source - the christian jesus-myth.
So, how can you believe in something beyond the jesus-myth? Do you
believe in the god-concept of the other books in the bible? What about
before this particular jesus-myth turned up? What about the other dozens
of jesus-myths? What about the other religions or christian cults out
there, which describe a different god-concept?
The soul is the inner, unique and irreducible essence of any and every
human being. It is the ground of our being, and without that ground we
do not exist. It's simply What I Am.
So how does one locate the soul within the human body? Can this soul be
damaged? Can it be removed from the body? How would we tell if it is
damaged or removed? Can someone have more than one? Where does this soul
come from? When does it "attach" to the body?
Hmmm, this seems a rather nebulous and ephemeral concept. Have you a
better definition for it?
That would be a strictly cerebral activity. Interaction with God
involves the whole person, mind, body and spirit.
Like meditation, maybe?
No, I haven't forgotten you at all in spite of my 74 years. I thought
TGHO was something akin to LOL, IMHO and that sort of thing. No wonder
I couldn't find it on Google except for some of your posts.
Sorry for the confusion, mate. :)
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One
ANZAC Day
Lest We Forget
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
25 Apr 2005 06:30:15 AM |
|
|
The Great Hairy One <the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
dgillesp@nospam.net says...
<snip>
Jesus Christ is the ultimate reference for humanity's limited
understanding of God. However, in our fallen state man is subject to
misconstruing and even warping the truth as it is revealed in him.
And let's talk about this "fallen state" you've mentioned twice so far.
What's that mean?
It's one of the biggest lies of the church. We're all supposed to be
fallen sinners because Adam and Eve munched on some forbidden
fruit.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
24 Apr 2005 10:54:04 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 20:02:25 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
I took a gander and find them quite interesting, but only a couple
really struck me as really beautiful. My guess is you need a certain
level of understanding what the photo is showing before you can really
appreciate and see the beauty in it.
This paragraph precisely sums up my view of religion. In order to
really appreciate the beauty in the world, you have to understand it.
It's like Dawkins says - understanding the beautiful complexity of the
rainbow makes it appear even more beautiful, whereas saying 'god did
it' belittles it. It seems sad to go through life not even bothering
to try and understand the world, and even denying that it works in the
way that it does, just because someone tells you to.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
24 Apr 2005 02:29:07 PM |
|
|
Mephisto wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 20:02:25 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
I took a gander and find them quite interesting, but only a couple
really struck me as really beautiful. My guess is you need a certain
level of understanding what the photo is showing before you can really
appreciate and see the beauty in it.
This paragraph precisely sums up my view of religion. In order to
really appreciate the beauty in the world, you have to understand it.
It's like Dawkins says - understanding the beautiful complexity of the
rainbow makes it appear even more beautiful, whereas saying 'god did
it' belittles it.
Dawkins poses a false dichotomy between the natural and supernatural
dimensions of the cosmos in general and rainbows in particular. "A false
dichotomy is used in an argument to force your opponent into an extreme
position -- by making the assumption that there are only two
positions." He rejects the possibility that science and religion are
complementary with each in need of the other. Einstein said, "Science
without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Nature
can never be fully appreciated or understood until it is viewed and
considered both from below (human research and discovery)and from above
(perspective of the purpose and active participation of the Creator).
Denny
It seems sad to go through life not even bothering
to try and understand the world, and even denying that it works in the
way that it does, just because someone tells you to.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
28 Apr 2005 03:36:59 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:29:07 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Mephisto wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 20:02:25 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
I took a gander and find them quite interesting, but only a couple
really struck me as really beautiful. My guess is you need a certain
level of understanding what the photo is showing before you can really
appreciate and see the beauty in it.
This paragraph precisely sums up my view of religion. In order to
really appreciate the beauty in the world, you have to understand it.
It's like Dawkins says - understanding the beautiful complexity of the
rainbow makes it appear even more beautiful, whereas saying 'god did
it' belittles it.
Dawkins poses a false dichotomy between the natural and supernatural
dimensions of the cosmos in general and rainbows in particular. "A false
dichotomy is used in an argument to force your opponent into an extreme
position -- by making the assumption that there are only two
positions." He rejects the possibility that science and religion are
complementary with each in need of the other.
Quite rightly. Science has no need for religion. It is not a dichotomy
- the same logic applies to every other mythological or fantasy
character, not just a single 'creator'. You have assumed an importance
for the one character when as far as Dawkins is concerned that one is
no more significant than any other mythological being (apart from the
appalling social consequences of belief, of course).
Einstein said, "Science
without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
He also said:
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his
creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short,
who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that
the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble
souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
Nature
can never be fully appreciated or understood until it is viewed and
considered both from below (human research and discovery)and from above
(perspective of the purpose and active participation of the Creator).
Not so. In fact, the people who have the greatest understanding of
nature are the scientists who are willing to reject the whole 'it was
magic' religious explanation, and actually *learn* about the world and
how it works. To accept that the world was created is to reject
learning, and shut one's mind completely to knowledge. There is no
reason to take an interest and learn about the beauty of the world if
you just decide that it was all created magically. Thus, only the
scientist has any real understanding, and any real appreciation of the
beauty, of the world.
One of the most useful lessons when it comes to nature is that nothing
exists without a reason, and as there is no need for a 'creator' to
exist, it would be a bit daft to assume that it does.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
29 Apr 2005 12:49:55 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:36:59 +0100, Mephisto <mephisto@go.away> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:29:07 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Mephisto wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 20:02:25 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
I took a gander and find them quite interesting, but only a couple
really struck me as really beautiful. My guess is you need a certain
level of understanding what the photo is showing before you can really
appreciate and see the beauty in it.
This paragraph precisely sums up my view of religion. In order to
really appreciate the beauty in the world, you have to understand it.
It's like Dawkins says - understanding the beautiful complexity of the
rainbow makes it appear even more beautiful, whereas saying 'god did
it' belittles it.
Dawkins poses a false dichotomy between the natural and supernatural
dimensions of the cosmos in general and rainbows in particular. "A false
dichotomy is used in an argument to force your opponent into an extreme
position -- by making the assumption that there are only two
positions." He rejects the possibility that science and religion are
complementary with each in need of the other.
Quite rightly. Science has no need for religion. It is not a dichotomy
- the same logic applies to every other mythological or fantasy
character, not just a single 'creator'. You have assumed an importance
for the one character when as far as Dawkins is concerned that one is
no more significant than any other mythological being (apart from the
appalling social consequences of belief, of course).
I am still waiting for him to provide an example of science requiring
religion in order to understand nature. Apparently asserting it is
enough.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
30 Apr 2005 02:44:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 19:49:55 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:36:59 +0100, Mephisto <mephisto@go.away> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:29:07 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Mephisto wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 20:02:25 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
I took a gander and find them quite interesting, but only a couple
really struck me as really beautiful. My guess is you need a certain
level of understanding what the photo is showing before you can really
appreciate and see the beauty in it.
This paragraph precisely sums up my view of religion. In order to
really appreciate the beauty in the world, you have to understand it.
It's like Dawkins says - understanding the beautiful complexity of the
rainbow makes it appear even more beautiful, whereas saying 'god did
it' belittles it.
Dawkins poses a false dichotomy between the natural and supernatural
dimensions of the cosmos in general and rainbows in particular. "A false
dichotomy is used in an argument to force your opponent into an extreme
position -- by making the assumption that there are only two
positions." He rejects the possibility that science and religion are
complementary with each in need of the other.
Quite rightly. Science has no need for religion. It is not a dichotomy
- the same logic applies to every other mythological or fantasy
character, not just a single 'creator'. You have assumed an importance
for the one character when as far as Dawkins is concerned that one is
no more significant than any other mythological being (apart from the
appalling social consequences of belief, of course).
I am still waiting for him to provide an example of science requiring
religion in order to understand nature. Apparently asserting it is
enough.
That's faith for you :-)
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
25 Apr 2005 08:36:19 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:29:07 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Mephisto wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 20:02:25 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
I took a gander and find them quite interesting, but only a couple
really struck me as really beautiful. My guess is you need a certain
level of understanding what the photo is showing before you can really
appreciate and see the beauty in it.
This paragraph precisely sums up my view of religion. In order to
really appreciate the beauty in the world, you have to understand it.
It's like Dawkins says - understanding the beautiful complexity of the
rainbow makes it appear even more beautiful, whereas saying 'god did
it' belittles it.
Dawkins poses a false dichotomy between the natural and supernatural
dimensions of the cosmos in general and rainbows in particular. "A false
dichotomy is used in an argument to force your opponent into an extreme
position -- by making the assumption that there are only two
positions." He rejects the possibility that science and religion are
complementary with each in need of the other. Einstein said, "Science
without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Nature
can never be fully appreciated or understood until it is viewed and
considered both from below (human research and discovery)and from above
(perspective of the purpose and active participation of the Creator).
Perhaps you could provide one example in which science requires
religion in order to understand nature.
Denny
It seems sad to go through life not even bothering
to try and understand the world, and even denying that it works in the
way that it does, just because someone tells you to.
Mephisto
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
25 Apr 2005 07:01:33 AM |
|
|
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Dawkins poses a false dichotomy between the natural and supernatural
dimensions of the cosmos...
There is no supernatural dimension. If something exists in the
cosmos, then it's part of the cosmos and hence natural.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Torkel Franzen" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
25 Apr 2005 07:17:04 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> writes:
There is no supernatural dimension. If something exists in the
cosmos, then it's part of the cosmos and hence natural.
Exactly! Like gods, for example.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
25 Apr 2005 08:31:52 AM |
|
|
Torkel Franzen <torkel@sm.luth.se> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> writes:
There is no supernatural dimension. If something exists in the
cosmos, then it's part of the cosmos and hence natural.
Exactly! Like gods, for example.
Yeah, they exist as ideas inside the brains of believers, so even they
are natural. Take away the brains of all those believers and all
their gods go away quite naturally...
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Torkel Franzen" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
26 Apr 2005 04:32:18 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> writes:
Yeah, they exist as ideas inside the brains of believers, so even they
are natural.
Whether gods exist "as ideas" or as bearded, grumbling deities, they
are just as much part of the cosmos as anything else, and hence
perfectly natural.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
26 Apr 2005 08:55:03 AM |
|
|
Torkel Franzen <torkel@sm.luth.se> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> writes:
Yeah, they exist as ideas inside the brains of believers, so even they
are natural.
Whether gods exist "as ideas" or as bearded, grumbling deities,
Or shining planets...
they are just as much part of the cosmos as anything else, and hence
perfectly natural.
Yep.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
22 Apr 2005 07:49:23 PM |
|
|
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
The Great Hairy One wrote:
dgillesp@nospam.net says...
No problem here to speak of: Except how is "beauty" determined if the
old saw is correct that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? Who or
what determines the standard for beauty, the individual or the society
one lives in?
Go look at these:
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/wallpaper/
And tell me you don't find any of them incredibly beautiful.
I took a gander and find them quite interesting, but only a couple
really struck me as really beautiful. My guess is you need a certain
level of understanding what the photo is showing before you can really
appreciate and see the beauty in it.
Do you have a problem with the idea that new stars are being born
every day from the dust clouds in the cosmos? Or that stars explode
and throw the elements formed in their cores out into the universe
which helps to provide matter for the planets and moons?
Eastern Christians (I am one)
Can't say I've heard of this division before... How does an "Eastern"
christian differ from a "Western/Northern/Southern" christian?
The Church was "officially" a single entity for the first 1000 years,
with five geographical centers: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch,
Alexandria, and Jerusalem. The patriarch of Rome pressed his claim of
authority over the whole church including the other four patriarchies,
whereas it had been a collegial relationship heretofore. His claim was
rejected by the other four (the Eastern Church) and Rome separated
officially in 1054 A.D. Thus the first major division in the historic
Church with the Roman Catholic Church in the West and the Eastern
Orthodox Church in the East (Greece, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria,
Jerusalem, etc., etc.)
Since Byzantium was renamed Constantinople in the middle or late
300's, I think that it lead to a "split" in your supposed 1000-year
"official" church.
Notice also that only 50 or 60 years after adopting Christianity
as the official religion, Rome began to fall apart and lose control of
its empire.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
22 Apr 2005 03:08:55 PM |
|
|
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
The Great Hairy One wrote:
dgillesp@nospam.net says...
Admittedly there are vastly more questions to be addressed if one begins
with an assumption of the Creator's existence than if one assumes the
opposite. But why should that be a deterrent to anyone who is after the
truth?
Well, usually the truth, as you put it, tends to be the most simple
explanation. When it comes to natural systems, the route that expends
the least energy (in biology) is usually the one followed. In physics,
this is generally similar.
Never had physics and am not even an amateur at science.
The more we learn and discover about the world, the more complex
and paradoxical it becomes.
At least the more complex and paradoxical the world is becoming to me,
that is from the layman's POV.
Maybe you should try learning some new things about science instead
of praying? Try it, you might have fun.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Laughter is Caused by God |
22 Apr 2005 05:43:09 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
The Great Hairy One wrote:
dgillesp@nospam.net says...
Admittedly there are vastly more questions to be addressed if one begins
with an assumption of the Creator's existence than if one assumes the
opposite. But why should that be a deterrent to anyone who is after the
truth?
Well, usually the truth, as you put it, tends to be the most simple
explanation. When it comes to natural systems, the route that expends
the least energy (in biology) is usually the one followed. In physics,
this is generally similar.
Never had physics and am not even an amateur at science.
The more we learn and discover about the world, the more complex
and paradoxical it becomes.
At least the more complex and paradoxical the world is becoming to me,
that is from the layman's POV.
Maybe you should try learning some new things about science instead
of praying? Try it, you might have fun.
At my advanced age, I should be learning Hebrew in order to be able to
address the Almighty in his native tongue. :)
Denny
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
