| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"mike bishop" |
| Date: |
09 Mar 2007 04:06:00 AM |
| Object: |
Ockham's Razor against unfalsifiable hypotheses |
From
<http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1475>:
| But just suppose, for the sake of argument, that there was no more evidence
| for God¢s existence than there was against. What would it then be rational
| to believe? Many would say: you should be agnostic. The rational thing to
| do would be to suspend judgment either way. You should remain neutral on
| the issue of whether or not God exists. But this is a mistake. In the
| absence of good evidence either way, the rational position to adopt is
| to believe that there is no God. Why is this?
|
| William of Ockham (1285-1349) points out that, where one is presented
| with two hypotheses that are otherwise equally well-supported by the
| available evidence, you should always pick the simplest hypothesis.
| In particular, we shouldn¢t gratuitously introduce any superfluous
| entities. This principle, known as Ockham¢s razor, is very sensible.
| Take, for example, these two hypotheses:
|
| A: There are invisible, intangible and immaterial fairies at the bottom
| of the garden, in addition to the compost heap, flowers, trees, shrubs,
| and so on.
|
| B: There are no fairies at the bottom of the garden, just the compost
| heap, flowers, trees, shrubs, and so on.
|
| Everything I have observed fits both hypotheses equally well. After
| all, if the fairies at the bottom of my garden are invisible, intangible
| and immaterial, then I shouldn¢t expect to observe any evidence of their
| presence, should I? Does that the fact that the available evidence fits
| both hypothesis equally well mean that I suspend judgement on whether or
| not there are fairies at the bottom of the garden?
|
| Of course not. The rational thing to believe is that there are no fairies.
| For that¢s the simplest hypothesis. Why introduce the unnecessary fairies?
I understand the gist of what's being said here, but I always thought that
Ockham's Razor couldn't be used against unfalsifiable hypotheses, in which
case we *would* have to withold judgement on the fairy thing, even though
that's undesirable. Am I wrong?
Also, assuming that I *am* wrong and that the razor takes out the fairies,
would it be possible to make an inductive argument against the fairies: an
argument concluding that probably there are no fairies in the garden?
Thanks!
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
05 Dec 2007 12:51:59 PM |
|
|
On 4 dec, 18:39, wrote:
On Dec 4, 8:54 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 3 dec, 19:25, wrote:
On Dec 3, 9:06 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 2 dec, 13:56, wrote:
On Dec 2, 4:50 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 1 dec, 02:03, wrote:
On Nov 30, 2:23 pm, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
Most people on usenet tend to play in stead of getting serious.
However you have to remember that we are atheists, and that therefor
we tend to think this is a discussion about figments of peoples
imagination.
Of course the fact is that we are talking about something spiritual.
Spiritual things belong solely to the realm of the (human) brain.
Like ideals. Ideals exist, but not outside the human brain.
I got waylaid and wound up here, on this Athiest forum, due to cross-
posting.
As for your brain, you are a well-conditioned slave and I am a free
man - that is the essential difference. I want to be free of all
material bondage, and you consider it your function to insist that
everyone should accept their material bondage.
You are assuming to much on much to little.
What reason do you have to think I am welll conditioned?
What reason do you have to think slavery exists in the Netherlands
It is true that I am depending on materials, you claim that you don't?
You do not need food and air and water do you?
It is not my function to ask these questions,
it is however the function of my brain to remind me,
of the improbability of you claims.
As a matter of fact "I' do not have a function at all.
I chose to live without hunger and pain
I chose to be usufull to society
I chose to get money in return
I chose to be a good husband for my wife
I chose to help you understand the way I think.
f you do no listen and hang un to you pre-concieved notions instead,
you should expect to be verbally abused,
just as you are verbally abusing "Rev.Karl E Taylor" yourself.
Please think before making judgements next time around
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Have you made an argument to refute my statement? If so, it is
indiscernible. Please try to keep the needle in the groove. What is
your counter-argument?-
your statement:
As for your brain, you are a well-conditioned slave and I am a free
man - that is the essential difference. I want to be free of all
material bondage, and you consider it your function to insist that
everyone should accept their material bondage.
Your argument for it.
(nothing)
My argument.
1. There is not slavery in the netherlands
2. Nobody is paying me to insist that everyone should accept their
material bondage.
So far my arguments are little,
but there are inifitely more arguments from me (2) than from you (0).
It ennoys me greatly that a person who does not know me personally is
making
such extravagant remarks about my person.
Next time when somebody ask you to think
don't make a stupid post that proofs that you didn't!
If you react with such insolence for a third time,
you should not expect me to answer anymore.
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Let me get this straight. You are an atheist, no? You don't believe
in God or any supernatural reality, and you argue that actively with
others. You believe in Newton and Darwin and the usual things that
materialists believe in. Am I right? If so, and only if so, then my
argument applies to you. To tell you the truth, I don't remember how
I jumped to the conclusion that you fit the three qualifications for a
demagogue teaching people to accept their limitations, so you tell
us. Do you fit into the three categories I mentioned?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Yes I am an atheist.
(until futher evidence)
Yes I do not believe in a supernatural reality.
(until further evidence)
The problem - especially in the latter case - is that it is hard to
get objective evidence for something that would not be restricted by
the laws of physics.
No I do not "believe" in Newton.
(Newtons laws are only approximately correct and were improved upon by
Einstein)
No I do not "believe" in Darwin
(His theory of evolution was only approximately correct, and is still
being improved at this moment)
A demagogue is someone who is able to steer the opinion of the masses
by his talent of presenting an specific opinion. I clearly am not
capable of doing that.
The word is especially used for people who can make the masses believe
something that is not true. I would not want to do that.
I have little wish to win a discussion unless I am right.
Of course like everybody I think I am right. If I find out I am wrong,
I will change my opinion and than I will again think that I am
right.:-)
Anyway, there was no reason to come up with words like "slave" and
"function".
I do in fact see myself as a freethinker. Which means I am open to
suggestions that are reasonable, even if I do not like them. (I am not
open to unsupported assertions about my own person)
I have no function on the NG, though I choose to be a bit more polite
and understanding towards people with different ideas that most.
I do have a specific idea about the word spiritual. Every time
something is called spiritual I find that it cannot be proven to exist
outside the human brain. I am indeed making the assumption (using
induction) that this is because spirtuality is indeed a major aspect
of thinking, but nothing more than that.
You are of course welcome to try and disproof my assumption.
But without physical evidence (using something besides the human
brain) I am afraid you won't succeed in doing so.
As I am no demagogue I probably won't succeed in convicing you either.
That's not a problem. People will disagree for the next million years
I guess.
It is only a problem when we are wrong
(which of course we never think we are)
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My point is simply that we have two alternatives, your view and my
view. Perhaps there is no convincing evidence for either view. This
is very common in quantum theory, as you may know - many
interpretations and no way to decide between them. Now, the view you
have chosen says that freedom from material bondage is impossible -
you just have to like it or lump it. The view I espouse says that
freedom from material bondage is an eminent possibility, if we are but
clever and persistent and sincere enough. Now, my point is that I am
a good man for believing in that which can liberate mankind, and you
are a bad man for believing and teaching (to the best of your ability)
that liberation of mankind is a strict impossibility. How can you
deny that?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
So I am a bad man for telling what I perceive as the thruth?
And you are supposed to be good for believing something for which
there is no justification whatsoever?
You seem to be morally disfunctional.
I also object to the words "teaching", I am not a teacher. I do not
want to "teach" you my point of view, I just was explaning it to you.
If I was doing it to the best of my ability, I am apperantly not very
able, as little seems to have gotten thru to you.
You are again making several unfounded assumptions.
I wish I could teach you not to do that,
but apperantly I lack the educational skills.
I guess I'd better give it up,
you seem to be happy with making unfounded assumptions,
so I will only get ennoyed if I try to reason with you.
I hope your behaviour will not get you into any trouble,
and that you will stay - or become - happy
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
05 Dec 2007 02:34:53 PM |
|
|
On Dec 5, 10:51 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 4 dec, 18:39, wrote:
On Dec 4, 8:54 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 3 dec, 19:25, wrote:
On Dec 3, 9:06 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 2 dec, 13:56, wrote:
On Dec 2, 4:50 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 1 dec, 02:03, wrote:
On Nov 30, 2:23 pm, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
Most people on usenet tend to play in stead of getting serious.
However you have to remember that we are atheists, and that therefor
we tend to think this is a discussion about figments of peoples
imagination.
Of course the fact is that we are talking about something spiritual.
Spiritual things belong solely to the realm of the (human) brain.
Like ideals. Ideals exist, but not outside the human brain.
I got waylaid and wound up here, on this Athiest forum, due to cross-
posting.
As for your brain, you are a well-conditioned slave and I am a free
man - that is the essential difference. I want to be free of all
material bondage, and you consider it your function to insist that
everyone should accept their material bondage.
You are assuming to much on much to little.
What reason do you have to think I am welll conditioned?
What reason do you have to think slavery exists in the Netherlands
It is true that I am depending on materials, you claim that you don't?
You do not need food and air and water do you?
It is not my function to ask these questions,
it is however the function of my brain to remind me,
of the improbability of you claims.
As a matter of fact "I' do not have a function at all.
I chose to live without hunger and pain
I chose to be usufull to society
I chose to get money in return
I chose to be a good husband for my wife
I chose to help you understand the way I think.
f you do no listen and hang un to you pre-concieved notions instead,
you should expect to be verbally abused,
just as you are verbally abusing "Rev.Karl E Taylor" yourself.
Please think before making judgements next time around
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Have you made an argument to refute my statement? If so, it is
indiscernible. Please try to keep the needle in the groove. What is
your counter-argument?-
your statement:
As for your brain, you are a well-conditioned slave and I am a free
man - that is the essential difference. I want to be free of all
material bondage, and you consider it your function to insist that
everyone should accept their material bondage.
Your argument for it.
(nothing)
My argument.
1. There is not slavery in the netherlands
2. Nobody is paying me to insist that everyone should accept their
material bondage.
So far my arguments are little,
but there are inifitely more arguments from me (2) than from you (0).
It ennoys me greatly that a person who does not know me personally is
making
such extravagant remarks about my person.
Next time when somebody ask you to think
don't make a stupid post that proofs that you didn't!
If you react with such insolence for a third time,
you should not expect me to answer anymore.
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Let me get this straight. You are an atheist, no? You don't believe
in God or any supernatural reality, and you argue that actively with
others. You believe in Newton and Darwin and the usual things that
materialists believe in. Am I right? If so, and only if so, then my
argument applies to you. To tell you the truth, I don't remember how
I jumped to the conclusion that you fit the three qualifications for a
demagogue teaching people to accept their limitations, so you tell
us. Do you fit into the three categories I mentioned?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Yes I am an atheist.
(until futher evidence)
Yes I do not believe in a supernatural reality.
(until further evidence)
The problem - especially in the latter case - is that it is hard to
get objective evidence for something that would not be restricted by
the laws of physics.
No I do not "believe" in Newton.
(Newtons laws are only approximately correct and were improved upon by
Einstein)
No I do not "believe" in Darwin
(His theory of evolution was only approximately correct, and is still
being improved at this moment)
A demagogue is someone who is able to steer the opinion of the masses
by his talent of presenting an specific opinion. I clearly am not
capable of doing that.
The word is especially used for people who can make the masses believe
something that is not true. I would not want to do that.
I have little wish to win a discussion unless I am right.
Of course like everybody I think I am right. If I find out I am wrong,
I will change my opinion and than I will again think that I am
right.:-)
Anyway, there was no reason to come up with words like "slave" and
"function".
I do in fact see myself as a freethinker. Which means I am open to
suggestions that are reasonable, even if I do not like them. (I am not
open to unsupported assertions about my own person)
I have no function on the NG, though I choose to be a bit more polite
and understanding towards people with different ideas that most.
I do have a specific idea about the word spiritual. Every time
something is called spiritual I find that it cannot be proven to exist
outside the human brain. I am indeed making the assumption (using
induction) that this is because spirtuality is indeed a major aspect
of thinking, but nothing more than that.
You are of course welcome to try and disproof my assumption.
But without physical evidence (using something besides the human
brain) I am afraid you won't succeed in doing so.
As I am no demagogue I probably won't succeed in convicing you either.
That's not a problem. People will disagree for the next million years
I guess.
It is only a problem when we are wrong
(which of course we never think we are)
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My point is simply that we have two alternatives, your view and my
view. Perhaps there is no convincing evidence for either view. This
is very common in quantum theory, as you may know - many
interpretations and no way to decide between them. Now, the view you
have chosen says that freedom from material bondage is impossible -
you just have to like it or lump it. The view I espouse says that
freedom from material bondage is an eminent possibility, if we are but
clever and persistent and sincere enough. Now, my point is that I am
a good man for believing in that which can liberate mankind, and you
are a bad man for believing and teaching (to the best of your ability)
that liberation of mankind is a strict impossibility. How can you
deny that?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
So I am a bad man for telling what I perceive as the thruth?
And you are supposed to be good for believing something for which
there is no justification whatsoever?
You seem to be morally disfunctional.
I also object to the words "teaching", I am not a teacher. I do not
want to "teach" you my point of view, I just was explaning it to you.
If I was doing it to the best of my ability, I am apperantly not very
able, as little seems to have gotten thru to you.
You are again making several unfounded assumptions.
I wish I could teach you not to do that,
but apperantly I lack the educational skills.
I guess I'd better give it up,
you seem to be happy with making unfounded assumptions,
so I will only get ennoyed if I try to reason with you.
I hope your behaviour will not get you into any trouble,
and that you will stay - or become - happy
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No need to take it personal, Peter, I am speaking dialectically to
educate, not to shame you or in any way offend you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
07 Dec 2007 03:08:51 PM |
|
|
On 5 dec, 21:34, wrote:
On Dec 5, 10:51 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 4 dec, 18:39, wrote:
On Dec 4, 8:54 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 3 dec, 19:25, wrote:
On Dec 3, 9:06 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 2 dec, 13:56, wrote:
On Dec 2, 4:50 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 1 dec, 02:03, wrote:
On Nov 30, 2:23 pm, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
Most people on usenet tend to play in stead of getting serious.
However you have to remember that we are atheists, and that therefor
we tend to think this is a discussion about figments of peoples
imagination.
Of course the fact is that we are talking about something spiritual.
Spiritual things belong solely to the realm of the (human) brain.
Like ideals. Ideals exist, but not outside the human brain.
I got waylaid and wound up here, on this Athiest forum, due to cross-
posting.
As for your brain, you are a well-conditioned slave and I am a free
man - that is the essential difference. I want to be free of all
material bondage, and you consider it your function to insist that
everyone should accept their material bondage.
You are assuming to much on much to little.
What reason do you have to think I am welll conditioned?
What reason do you have to think slavery exists in the Netherlands
It is true that I am depending on materials, you claim that you don't?
You do not need food and air and water do you?
It is not my function to ask these questions,
it is however the function of my brain to remind me,
of the improbability of you claims.
As a matter of fact "I' do not have a function at all.
I chose to live without hunger and pain
I chose to be usufull to society
I chose to get money in return
I chose to be a good husband for my wife
I chose to help you understand the way I think.
f you do no listen and hang un to you pre-concieved notions instead,
you should expect to be verbally abused,
just as you are verbally abusing "Rev.Karl E Taylor" yourself.
Please think before making judgements next time around
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Have you made an argument to refute my statement? If so, it is
indiscernible. Please try to keep the needle in the groove. What is
your counter-argument?-
your statement:
As for your brain, you are a well-conditioned slave and I am a free
man - that is the essential difference. I want to be free of all
material bondage, and you consider it your function to insist that
everyone should accept their material bondage.
Your argument for it.
(nothing)
My argument.
1. There is not slavery in the netherlands
2. Nobody is paying me to insist that everyone should accept their
material bondage.
So far my arguments are little,
but there are inifitely more arguments from me (2) than from you (0).
It ennoys me greatly that a person who does not know me personally is
making
such extravagant remarks about my person.
Next time when somebody ask you to think
don't make a stupid post that proofs that you didn't!
If you react with such insolence for a third time,
you should not expect me to answer anymore.
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Let me get this straight. You are an atheist, no? You don't believe
in God or any supernatural reality, and you argue that actively with
others. You believe in Newton and Darwin and the usual things that
materialists believe in. Am I right? If so, and only if so, then my
argument applies to you. To tell you the truth, I don't remember how
I jumped to the conclusion that you fit the three qualifications for a
demagogue teaching people to accept their limitations, so you tell
us. Do you fit into the three categories I mentioned?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Yes I am an atheist.
(until futher evidence)
Yes I do not believe in a supernatural reality.
(until further evidence)
The problem - especially in the latter case - is that it is hard to
get objective evidence for something that would not be restricted by
the laws of physics.
No I do not "believe" in Newton.
(Newtons laws are only approximately correct and were improved upon by
Einstein)
No I do not "believe" in Darwin
(His theory of evolution was only approximately correct, and is still
being improved at this moment)
A demagogue is someone who is able to steer the opinion of the masses
by his talent of presenting an specific opinion. I clearly am not
capable of doing that.
The word is especially used for people who can make the masses believe
something that is not true. I would not want to do that.
I have little wish to win a discussion unless I am right.
Of course like everybody I think I am right. If I find out I am wrong,
I will change my opinion and than I will again think that I am
right.:-)
Anyway, there was no reason to come up with words like "slave" and
"function".
I do in fact see myself as a freethinker. Which means I am open to
suggestions that are reasonable, even if I do not like them. (I am not
open to unsupported assertions about my own person)
I have no function on the NG, though I choose to be a bit more polite
and understanding towards people with different ideas that most.
I do have a specific idea about the word spiritual. Every time
something is called spiritual I find that it cannot be proven to exist
outside the human brain. I am indeed making the assumption (using
induction) that this is because spirtuality is indeed a major aspect
of thinking, but nothing more than that.
You are of course welcome to try and disproof my assumption.
But without physical evidence (using something besides the human
brain) I am afraid you won't succeed in doing so.
As I am no demagogue I probably won't succeed in convicing you either.
That's not a problem. People will disagree for the next million years
I guess.
It is only a problem when we are wrong
(which of course we never think we are)
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My point is simply that we have two alternatives, your view and my
view. Perhaps there is no convincing evidence for either view. This
is very common in quantum theory, as you may know - many
interpretations and no way to decide between them. Now, the view you
have chosen says that freedom from material bondage is impossible -
you just have to like it or lump it. The view I espouse says that
freedom from material bondage is an eminent possibility, if we are but
clever and persistent and sincere enough. Now, my point is that I am
a good man for believing in that which can liberate mankind, and you
are a bad man for believing and teaching (to the best of your ability)
that liberation of mankind is a strict impossibility. How can you
deny that?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
So I am a bad man for telling what I perceive as the thruth?
And you are supposed to be good for believing something for which
there is no justification whatsoever?
You seem to be morally disfunctional.
I also object to the words "teaching", I am not a teacher. I do not
want to "teach" you my point of view, I just was explaning it to you.
If I was doing it to the best of my ability, I am apperantly not very
able, as little seems to have gotten thru to you.
You are again making several unfounded assumptions.
I wish I could teach you not to do that,
but apperantly I lack the educational skills.
I guess I'd better give it up,
you seem to be happy with making unfounded assumptions,
so I will only get ennoyed if I try to reason with you.
I hope your behaviour will not get you into any trouble,
and that you will stay - or become - happy
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No need to take it personal, Peter, I am speaking dialectically to
educate, not to shame you or in any way offend you.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
LOL You say I am teaching and now it is you who is educating (who?)
Dialecticly would be by questions and answers,
but you do no seem to be interested in the content of my reactions,
but rather seem to choose remarks ad hominum.
Hardly dialectic I think.
But of course this leads me to do the same thing.
Which doesn't bring us any closer to subject does it?
To use Ockham razor again.
Our theories are just as good without this thread.
Let's quit!
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
04 Dec 2007 12:27:57 PM |
|
|
On Dec 4, 12:39 pm, wrote:
On Dec 4, 8:54 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 3 dec, 19:25, wrote:
On Dec 3, 9:06 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 2 dec, 13:56, wrote:
On Dec 2, 4:50 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 1 dec, 02:03, wrote:
On Nov 30, 2:23 pm, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
Most people on usenet tend to play in stead of getting serious.
However you have to remember that we are atheists, and that therefor
we tend to think this is a discussion about figments of peoples
imagination.
Of course the fact is that we are talking about something spiritual.
Spiritual things belong solely to the realm of the (human) brain.
Like ideals. Ideals exist, but not outside the human brain.
I got waylaid and wound up here, on this Athiest forum, due to cross-
posting.
As for your brain, you are a well-conditioned slave and I am a free
man - that is the essential difference. I want to be free of all
material bondage, and you consider it your function to insist that
everyone should accept their material bondage.
You are assuming to much on much to little.
What reason do you have to think I am welll conditioned?
What reason do you have to think slavery exists in the Netherlands
It is true that I am depending on materials, you claim that you don't?
You do not need food and air and water do you?
It is not my function to ask these questions,
it is however the function of my brain to remind me,
of the improbability of you claims.
As a matter of fact "I' do not have a function at all.
I chose to live without hunger and pain
I chose to be usufull to society
I chose to get money in return
I chose to be a good husband for my wife
I chose to help you understand the way I think.
f you do no listen and hang un to you pre-concieved notions instead,
you should expect to be verbally abused,
just as you are verbally abusing "Rev.Karl E Taylor" yourself.
Please think before making judgements next time around
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Have you made an argument to refute my statement? If so, it is
indiscernible. Please try to keep the needle in the groove. What is
your counter-argument?-
your statement:
As for your brain, you are a well-conditioned slave and I am a free
man - that is the essential difference. I want to be free of all
material bondage, and you consider it your function to insist that
everyone should accept their material bondage.
Your argument for it.
(nothing)
My argument.
1. There is not slavery in the netherlands
2. Nobody is paying me to insist that everyone should accept their
material bondage.
So far my arguments are little,
but there are inifitely more arguments from me (2) than from you (0).
It ennoys me greatly that a person who does not know me personally is
making
such extravagant remarks about my person.
Next time when somebody ask you to think
don't make a stupid post that proofs that you didn't!
If you react with such insolence for a third time,
you should not expect me to answer anymore.
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Let me get this straight. You are an atheist, no? You don't believe
in God or any supernatural reality, and you argue that actively with
others. You believe in Newton and Darwin and the usual things that
materialists believe in. Am I right? If so, and only if so, then my
argument applies to you. To tell you the truth, I don't remember how
I jumped to the conclusion that you fit the three qualifications for a
demagogue teaching people to accept their limitations, so you tell
us. Do you fit into the three categories I mentioned?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Yes I am an atheist.
(until futher evidence)
Yes I do not believe in a supernatural reality.
(until further evidence)
The problem - especially in the latter case - is that it is hard to
get objective evidence for something that would not be restricted by
the laws of physics.
No I do not "believe" in Newton.
(Newtons laws are only approximately correct and were improved upon by
Einstein)
No I do not "believe" in Darwin
(His theory of evolution was only approximately correct, and is still
being improved at this moment)
A demagogue is someone who is able to steer the opinion of the masses
by his talent of presenting an specific opinion. I clearly am not
capable of doing that.
The word is especially used for people who can make the masses believe
something that is not true. I would not want to do that.
I have little wish to win a discussion unless I am right.
Of course like everybody I think I am right. If I find out I am wrong,
I will change my opinion and than I will again think that I am
right.:-)
Anyway, there was no reason to come up with words like "slave" and
"function".
I do in fact see myself as a freethinker. Which means I am open to
suggestions that are reasonable, even if I do not like them. (I am not
open to unsupported assertions about my own person)
I have no function on the NG, though I choose to be a bit more polite
and understanding towards people with different ideas that most.
I do have a specific idea about the word spiritual. Every time
something is called spiritual I find that it cannot be proven to exist
outside the human brain. I am indeed making the assumption (using
induction) that this is because spirtuality is indeed a major aspect
of thinking, but nothing more than that.
You are of course welcome to try and disproof my assumption.
But without physical evidence (using something besides the human
brain) I am afraid you won't succeed in doing so.
As I am no demagogue I probably won't succeed in convicing you either.
That's not a problem. People will disagree for the next million years
I guess.
It is only a problem when we are wrong
(which of course we never think we are)
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My point is simply that we have two alternatives, your view and my
view. Perhaps there is no convincing evidence for either view. This
is very common in quantum theory, as you may know - many
interpretations and no way to decide between them. Now, the view you
have chosen says that freedom from material bondage is impossible -
you just have to like it or lump it. The view I espouse says that
freedom from material bondage is an eminent possibility, if we are but
clever and persistent and sincere enough. Now, my point is that I am
a good man for believing in that which can liberate mankind, and you
are a bad man for believing and teaching (to the best of your ability)
that liberation of mankind is a strict impossibility. How can you
deny that?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So your point is "I am good, you are bad" gee How original. Here's a
thought: You are no more "free from material bondage" than I am. You
are subject to the same chamical reactions, the same entropy, the same
gravity, the same magnetosphere.
You have just invented additional items to limit yourself. You have
invented moral absolutes. There is nothing more prone to abuse an
villianny than the self assured feeling "I am good, You are bad,"
moral absolutes, and the ability to believe absurdities. In fact,
every horrible case of massive mans inhumanity to man in history
pretty much starts with those three elements.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
04 Dec 2007 12:48:58 PM |
|
|
On Dec 4, 10:27 am, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 4, 12:39 pm, wrote:
On Dec 4, 8:54 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 3 dec, 19:25, wrote:
On Dec 3, 9:06 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 2 dec, 13:56, wrote:
On Dec 2, 4:50 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 1 dec, 02:03, wrote:
On Nov 30, 2:23 pm, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
Most people on usenet tend to play in stead of getting serious.
However you have to remember that we are atheists, and that therefor
we tend to think this is a discussion about figments of peoples
imagination.
Of course the fact is that we are talking about something spiritual.
Spiritual things belong solely to the realm of the (human) brain.
Like ideals. Ideals exist, but not outside the human brain.
I got waylaid and wound up here, on this Athiest forum, due to cross-
posting.
As for your brain, you are a well-conditioned slave and I am a free
man - that is the essential difference. I want to be free of all
material bondage, and you consider it your function to insist that
everyone should accept their material bondage.
You are assuming to much on much to little.
What reason do you have to think I am welll conditioned?
What reason do you have to think slavery exists in the Netherlands
It is true that I am depending on materials, you claim that you don't?
You do not need food and air and water do you?
It is not my function to ask these questions,
it is however the function of my brain to remind me,
of the improbability of you claims.
As a matter of fact "I' do not have a function at all.
I chose to live without hunger and pain
I chose to be usufull to society
I chose to get money in return
I chose to be a good husband for my wife
I chose to help you understand the way I think.
f you do no listen and hang un to you pre-concieved notions instead,
you should expect to be verbally abused,
just as you are verbally abusing "Rev.Karl E Taylor" yourself.
Please think before making judgements next time around
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Have you made an argument to refute my statement? If so, it is
indiscernible. Please try to keep the needle in the groove. What is
your counter-argument?-
your statement:
As for your brain, you are a well-conditioned slave and I am a free
man - that is the essential difference. I want to be free of all
material bondage, and you consider it your function to insist that
everyone should accept their material bondage.
Your argument for it.
(nothing)
My argument.
1. There is not slavery in the netherlands
2. Nobody is paying me to insist that everyone should accept their
material bondage.
So far my arguments are little,
but there are inifitely more arguments from me (2) than from you (0).
It ennoys me greatly that a person who does not know me personally is
making
such extravagant remarks about my person.
Next time when somebody ask you to think
don't make a stupid post that proofs that you didn't!
If you react with such insolence for a third time,
you should not expect me to answer anymore.
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Let me get this straight. You are an atheist, no? You don't believe
in God or any supernatural reality, and you argue that actively with
others. You believe in Newton and Darwin and the usual things that
materialists believe in. Am I right? If so, and only if so, then my
argument applies to you. To tell you the truth, I don't remember how
I jumped to the conclusion that you fit the three qualifications for a
demagogue teaching people to accept their limitations, so you tell
us. Do you fit into the three categories I mentioned?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Yes I am an atheist.
(until futher evidence)
Yes I do not believe in a supernatural reality.
(until further evidence)
The problem - especially in the latter case - is that it is hard to
get objective evidence for something that would not be restricted by
the laws of physics.
No I do not "believe" in Newton.
(Newtons laws are only approximately correct and were improved upon by
Einstein)
No I do not "believe" in Darwin
(His theory of evolution was only approximately correct, and is still
being improved at this moment)
A demagogue is someone who is able to steer the opinion of the masses
by his talent of presenting an specific opinion. I clearly am not
capable of doing that.
The word is especially used for people who can make the masses believe
something that is not true. I would not want to do that.
I have little wish to win a discussion unless I am right.
Of course like everybody I think I am right. If I find out I am wrong,
I will change my opinion and than I will again think that I am
right.:-)
Anyway, there was no reason to come up with words like "slave" and
"function".
I do in fact see myself as a freethinker. Which means I am open to
suggestions that are reasonable, even if I do not like them. (I am not
open to unsupported assertions about my own person)
I have no function on the NG, though I choose to be a bit more polite
and understanding towards people with different ideas that most.
I do have a specific idea about the word spiritual. Every time
something is called spiritual I find that it cannot be proven to exist
outside the human brain. I am indeed making the assumption (using
induction) that this is because spirtuality is indeed a major aspect
of thinking, but nothing more than that.
You are of course welcome to try and disproof my assumption.
But without physical evidence (using something besides the human
brain) I am afraid you won't succeed in doing so.
As I am no demagogue I probably won't succeed in convicing you either.
That's not a problem. People will disagree for the next million years
I guess.
It is only a problem when we are wrong
(which of course we never think we are)
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My point is simply that we have two alternatives, your view and my
view. Perhaps there is no convincing evidence for either view. This
is very common in quantum theory, as you may know - many
interpretations and no way to decide between them. Now, the view you
have chosen says that freedom from material bondage is impossible -
you just have to like it or lump it. The view I espouse says that
freedom from material bondage is an eminent possibility, if we are but
clever and persistent and sincere enough. Now, my point is that I am
a good man for believing in that which can liberate mankind, and you
are a bad man for believing and teaching (to the best of your ability)
that liberation of mankind is a strict impossibility. How can you
deny that?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So your point is "I am good, you are bad" gee How original. Here's a
thought: You are no more "free from material bondage" than I am. You
are subject to the same chamical reactions, the same entropy, the same
gravity, the same magnetosphere.
You have just invented additional items to limit yourself. You have
invented moral absolutes. There is nothing more prone to abuse an
villianny than the self assured feeling "I am good, You are bad,"
moral absolutes, and the ability to believe absurdities. In fact,
every horrible case of massive mans inhumanity to man in history
pretty much starts with those three elements.
Hatter- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You are looking at things exoterically. No insight. As for being
liberated, I am only trying, whereas you are trying to prevent me or
yourself or anyone else from trying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
04 Dec 2007 01:06:33 PM |
|
|
On Dec 4, 1:48 pm, wrote:
On Dec 4, 10:27 am, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 4, 12:39 pm, wrote:
On Dec 4, 8:54 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 3 dec, 19:25, wrote:
On Dec 3, 9:06 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 2 dec, 13:56, wrote:
On Dec 2, 4:50 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 1 dec, 02:03, wrote:
On Nov 30, 2:23 pm, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
Most people on usenet tend to play in stead of getting serious.
However you have to remember that we are atheists, and that therefor
we tend to think this is a discussion about figments of peoples
imagination.
Of course the fact is that we are talking about something spiritual.
Spiritual things belong solely to the realm of the (human) brain.
Like ideals. Ideals exist, but not outside the human brain.
I got waylaid and wound up here, on this Athiest forum, due to cross-
posting.
As for your brain, you are a well-conditioned slave and I am a free
man - that is the essential difference. I want to be free of all
material bondage, and you consider it your function to insist that
everyone should accept their material bondage.
You are assuming to much on much to little.
What reason do you have to think I am welll conditioned?
What reason do you have to think slavery exists in the Netherlands
It is true that I am depending on materials, you claim that you don't?
You do not need food and air and water do you?
It is not my function to ask these questions,
it is however the function of my brain to remind me,
of the improbability of you claims.
As a matter of fact "I' do not have a function at all.
I chose to live without hunger and pain
I chose to be usufull to society
I chose to get money in return
I chose to be a good husband for my wife
I chose to help you understand the way I think.
f you do no listen and hang un to you pre-concieved notions instead,
you should expect to be verbally abused,
just as you are verbally abusing "Rev.Karl E Taylor" yourself.
Please think before making judgements next time around
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Have you made an argument to refute my statement? If so, it is
indiscernible. Please try to keep the needle in the groove. What is
your counter-argument?-
your statement:
As for your brain, you are a well-conditioned slave and I am a free
man - that is the essential difference. I want to be free of all
material bondage, and you consider it your function to insist that
everyone should accept their material bondage.
Your argument for it.
(nothing)
My argument.
1. There is not slavery in the netherlands
2. Nobody is paying me to insist that everyone should accept their
material bondage.
So far my arguments are little,
but there are inifitely more arguments from me (2) than from you (0).
It ennoys me greatly that a person who does not know me personally is
making
such extravagant remarks about my person.
Next time when somebody ask you to think
don't make a stupid post that proofs that you didn't!
If you react with such insolence for a third time,
you should not expect me to answer anymore.
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Let me get this straight. You are an atheist, no? You don't believe
in God or any supernatural reality, and you argue that actively with
others. You believe in Newton and Darwin and the usual things that
materialists believe in. Am I right? If so, and only if so, then my
argument applies to you. To tell you the truth, I don't remember how
I jumped to the conclusion that you fit the three qualifications for a
demagogue teaching people to accept their limitations, so you tell
us. Do you fit into the three categories I mentioned?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Yes I am an atheist.
(until futher evidence)
Yes I do not believe in a supernatural reality.
(until further evidence)
The problem - especially in the latter case - is that it is hard to
get objective evidence for something that would not be restricted by
the laws of physics.
No I do not "believe" in Newton.
(Newtons laws are only approximately correct and were improved upon by
Einstein)
No I do not "believe" in Darwin
(His theory of evolution was only approximately correct, and is still
being improved at this moment)
A demagogue is someone who is able to steer the opinion of the masses
by his talent of presenting an specific opinion. I clearly am not
capable of doing that.
The word is especially used for people who can make the masses believe
something that is not true. I would not want to do that.
I have little wish to win a discussion unless I am right.
Of course like everybody I think I am right. If I find out I am wrong,
I will change my opinion and than I will again think that I am
right.:-)
Anyway, there was no reason to come up with words like "slave" and
"function".
I do in fact see myself as a freethinker. Which means I am open to
suggestions that are reasonable, even if I do not like them. (I am not
open to unsupported assertions about my own person)
I have no function on the NG, though I choose to be a bit more polite
and understanding towards people with different ideas that most.
I do have a specific idea about the word spiritual. Every time
something is called spiritual I find that it cannot be proven to exist
outside the human brain. I am indeed making the assumption (using
induction) that this is because spirtuality is indeed a major aspect
of thinking, but nothing more than that.
You are of course welcome to try and disproof my assumption.
But without physical evidence (using something besides the human
brain) I am afraid you won't succeed in doing so.
As I am no demagogue I probably won't succeed in convicing you either.
That's not a problem. People will disagree for the next million years
I guess.
It is only a problem when we are wrong
(which of course we never think we are)
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My point is simply that we have two alternatives, your view and my
view. Perhaps there is no convincing evidence for either view. This
is very common in quantum theory, as you may know - many
interpretations and no way to decide between them. Now, the view you
have chosen says that freedom from material bondage is impossible -
you just have to like it or lump it. The view I espouse says that
freedom from material bondage is an eminent possibility, if we are but
clever and persistent and sincere enough. Now, my point is that I am
a good man for believing in that which can liberate mankind, and you
are a bad man for believing and teaching (to the best of your ability)
that liberation of mankind is a strict impossibility. How can you
deny that?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So your point is "I am good, you are bad" gee How original. Here's a
thought: You are no more "free from material bondage" than I am. You
are subject to the same chamical reactions, the same entropy, the same
gravity, the same magnetosphere.
You have just invented additional items to limit yourself. You have
invented moral absolutes. There is nothing more prone to abuse an
villianny than the self assured feeling "I am good, You are bad,"
moral absolutes, and the ability to believe absurdities. In fact,
every horrible case of massive mans inhumanity to man in history
pretty much starts with those three elements.
Hatter- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You are looking at things exoterically. No insight. As for being
liberated, I am only trying, whereas you are trying to prevent me or
yourself or anyone else from trying.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Insight does not mean making crap up. Sorry. It just doesn't. Chasing
off the stratosphere for dreams is your time to waste. Meanwhile I
will be as just as I can, as understanding as I can, and helpful as I
can without being a victim. Chasing after absurdities is how the
energies of man are wasted, rather than Stone by Stone, Smile by
Smile, and Invention by Invention how man has just begun his
liberation from hunger, cold, dark, and the false.
And remember my "insight" as to the three prerequisites for every
atrocity.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
04 Dec 2007 01:09:23 PM |
|
|
On Dec 4, 11:06 am, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 4, 1:48 pm, wrote:
On Dec 4, 10:27 am, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 4, 12:39 pm, wrote:
On Dec 4, 8:54 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 3 dec, 19:25, wrote:
On Dec 3, 9:06 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 2 dec, 13:56, wrote:
On Dec 2, 4:50 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 1 dec, 02:03, wrote:
On Nov 30, 2:23 pm, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
Most people on usenet tend to play in stead of getting serious.
However you have to remember that we are atheists, and that therefor
we tend to think this is a discussion about figments of peoples
imagination.
Of course the fact is that we are talking about something spiritual.
Spiritual things belong solely to the realm of the (human) brain.
Like ideals. Ideals exist, but not outside the human brain.
I got waylaid and wound up here, on this Athiest forum, due to cross-
posting.
As for your brain, you are a well-conditioned slave and I am a free
man - that is the essential difference. I want to be free of all
material bondage, and you consider it your function to insist that
everyone should accept their material bondage.
You are assuming to much on much to little.
What reason do you have to think I am welll conditioned?
What reason do you have to think slavery exists in the Netherlands
It is true that I am depending on materials, you claim that you don't?
You do not need food and air and water do you?
It is not my function to ask these questions,
it is however the function of my brain to remind me,
of the improbability of you claims.
As a matter of fact "I' do not have a function at all.
I chose to live without hunger and pain
I chose to be usufull to society
I chose to get money in return
I chose to be a good husband for my wife
I chose to help you understand the way I think.
f you do no listen and hang un to you pre-concieved notions instead,
you should expect to be verbally abused,
just as you are verbally abusing "Rev.Karl E Taylor" yourself.
Please think before making judgements next time around
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Have you made an argument to refute my statement? If so, it is
indiscernible. Please try to keep the needle in the groove. What is
your counter-argument?-
your statement:
As for your brain, you are a well-conditioned slave and I am a free
man - that is the essential difference. I want to be free of all
material bondage, and you consider it your function to insist that
everyone should accept their material bondage.
Your argument for it.
(nothing)
My argument.
1. There is not slavery in the netherlands
2. Nobody is paying me to insist that everyone should accept their
material bondage.
So far my arguments are little,
but there are inifitely more arguments from me (2) than from you (0).
It ennoys me greatly that a person who does not know me personally is
making
such extravagant remarks about my person.
Next time when somebody ask you to think
don't make a stupid post that proofs that you didn't!
If you react with such insolence for a third time,
you should not expect me to answer anymore.
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Let me get this straight. You are an atheist, no? You don't believe
in God or any supernatural reality, and you argue that actively with
others. You believe in Newton and Darwin and the usual things that
materialists believe in. Am I right? If so, and only if so, then my
argument applies to you. To tell you the truth, I don't remember how
I jumped to the conclusion that you fit the three qualifications for a
demagogue teaching people to accept their limitations, so you tell
us. Do you fit into the three categories I mentioned?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Yes I am an atheist.
(until futher evidence)
Yes I do not believe in a supernatural reality.
(until further evidence)
The problem - especially in the latter case - is that it is hard to
get objective evidence for something that would not be restricted by
the laws of physics.
No I do not "believe" in Newton.
(Newtons laws are only approximately correct and were improved upon by
Einstein)
No I do not "believe" in Darwin
(His theory of evolution was only approximately correct, and is still
being improved at this moment)
A demagogue is someone who is able to steer the opinion of the masses
by his talent of presenting an specific opinion. I clearly am not
capable of doing that.
The word is especially used for people who can make the masses believe
something that is not true. I would not want to do that.
I have little wish to win a discussion unless I am right.
Of course like everybody I think I am right. If I find out I am wrong,
I will change my opinion and than I will again think that I am
right.:-)
Anyway, there was no reason to come up with words like "slave" and
"function".
I do in fact see myself as a freethinker. Which means I am open to
suggestions that are reasonable, even if I do not like them. (I am not
open to unsupported assertions about my own person)
I have no function on the NG, though I choose to be a bit more polite
and understanding towards people with different ideas that most.
I do have a specific idea about the word spiritual. Every time
something is called spiritual I find that it cannot be proven to exist
outside the human brain. I am indeed making the assumption (using
induction) that this is because spirtuality is indeed a major aspect
of thinking, but nothing more than that.
You are of course welcome to try and disproof my assumption.
But without physical evidence (using something besides the human
brain) I am afraid you won't succeed in doing so.
As I am no demagogue I probably won't succeed in convicing you either.
That's not a problem. People will disagree for the next million years
I guess.
It is only a problem when we are wrong
(which of course we never think we are)
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My point is simply that we have two alternatives, your view and my
view. Perhaps there is no convincing evidence for either view. This
is very common in quantum theory, as you may know - many
interpretations and no way to decide between them. Now, the view you
have chosen says that freedom from material bondage is impossible -
you just have to like it or lump it. The view I espouse says that
freedom from material bondage is an eminent possibility, if we are but
clever and persistent and sincere enough. Now, my point is that I am
a good man for believing in that which can liberate mankind, and you
are a bad man for believing and teaching (to the best of your ability)
that liberation of mankind is a strict impossibility. How can you
deny that?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So your point is "I am good, you are bad" gee How original. Here's a
thought: You are no more "free from material bondage" than I am. You
are subject to the same chamical reactions, the same entropy, the same
gravity, the same magnetosphere.
You have just invented additional items to limit yourself. You have
invented moral absolutes. There is nothing more prone to abuse an
villianny than the self assured feeling "I am good, You are bad,"
moral absolutes, and the ability to believe absurdities. In fact,
every horrible case of massive mans inhumanity to man in history
pretty much starts with those three elements.
Hatter- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You are looking at things exoterically. No insight. As for being
liberated, I am only trying, whereas you are trying to prevent me or
yourself or anyone else from trying.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Insight does not mean making crap up. Sorry. It just doesn't. Chasing
off the stratosphere for dreams is your time to waste. Meanwhile I
will be as just as I can, as understanding as I can, and helpful as I
can without being a victim. Chasing after absurdities is how the
energies of man are wasted, rather than Stone by Stone, Smile by
Smile, and Invention by Invention how man has just begun his
liberation from hunger, cold, dark, and the false.
And remember my "insight" as to the three prerequisites for every
atrocity.
Hatter
Insight, as I am using the word, means a turning inward and
recognition of an inner spiritual reality, which is at the same time
material, but of a finer grade of matter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
05 Dec 2007 12:31:50 PM |
|
|
On Dec 4, 2:09 pm, wrote:
Insight, as I am using the word, means a turning inward and
recognition of an innerspiritualreality, which is at the same time
material, but of a finer grade of matter.
A finer grade of material...so fine so delicate, it is not like
anything I've seen in my life. It is so lightwieght. And we poor
atheists are too stupid to appreciate its quality. Also, we atheists
are too incompetent to even see its existence.
Sounds so familiar, doesn't it?
Hatter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
05 Dec 2007 02:36:40 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:31:50 -0800 (PST), Hatter <Hatter23@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:09 pm, wrote:
Insight, as I am using the word, means a turning inward and
recognition of an innerspiritualreality, which is at the same time
material, but of a finer grade of matter.
A finer grade of material...so fine so delicate, it is not like
anything I've seen in my life. It is so lightwieght. And we poor
atheists are too stupid to appreciate its quality. Also, we atheists
are too incompetent to even see its existence.
Sounds so familiar, doesn't it?
Emperor Raiment, anyone?
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
06 Dec 2007 02:07:11 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:jt2el3teir9bgvl61n0jj05pri7brun8nm@4ax.com...
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:31:50 -0800 (PST), Hatter <Hatter23@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:09 pm, wrote:
Insight, as I am using the word, means a turning inward and
recognition of an innerspiritualreality, which is at the same time
material, but of a finer grade of matter.
A finer grade of material...so fine so delicate, it is not like
anything I've seen in my life. It is so lightwieght. And we poor
atheists are too stupid to appreciate its quality. Also, we atheists
are too incompetent to even see its existence.
Sounds so familiar, doesn't it?
Emperor Raiment, anyone?
I have often thought how funny it is that that particular Andersen tale is
so popular and that so very few see its application to theism. The only
thing wrong with the story is that in real life the little boy who pointed
out that the emperor was naked would have been executed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
06 Dec 2007 09:37:46 AM |
|
|
On Dec 6, 3:07 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Michael Gray" <mikeg...@newsguy.com> skrev i en meddelelsenews:jt2el3teir9bgvl61n0jj05pri7brun8nm@4ax.com...
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:31:50 -0800 (PST), Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:09 pm, wrote:
Insight, as I am using the word, means a turning inward and
recognition of an innerspiritualreality, which is at the same time
material, but of a finer grade of matter.
A finer grade of material...so fine so delicate, it is not like
anything I've seen in my life. It is so lightwieght. And we poor
atheists are too stupid to appreciate its quality. Also, we atheists
are too incompetent to even see its existence.
Sounds so familiar, doesn't it?
Emperor Raiment, anyone?
I have often thought how funny it is that that particular Andersen tale is
so popular and that so very few see its application to theism. The only
thing wrong with the story is that in real life the little boy who pointed
out that the emperor was naked would have been executed.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
and a completely different tangent, How about "the Little Match Girl"
and its parrallell to either religion or drugs.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
06 Dec 2007 09:34:07 AM |
|
|
On Dec 6, 3:07 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Michael Gray" <mikeg...@newsguy.com> skrev i en meddelelsenews:jt2el3teir9bgvl61n0jj05pri7brun8nm@4ax.com...
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:31:50 -0800 (PST), Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:09 pm, wrote:
Insight, as I am using the word, means a turning inward and
recognition of an innerspiritualreality, which is at the same time
material, but of a finer grade of matter.
A finer grade of material...so fine so delicate, it is not like
anything I've seen in my life. It is so lightwieght. And we poor
atheists are too stupid to appreciate its quality. Also, we atheists
are too incompetent to even see its existence.
Sounds so familiar, doesn't it?
Emperor Raiment, anyone?
I have often thought how funny it is that that particular Andersen tale is
so popular and that so very few see its application to theism. The only
thing wrong with the story is that in real life the little boy who pointed
out that the emperor was naked would have been executed.- Hide quoted text -
There are some modern rewrites where something along those lines
happen.
I am also shocked that even when a theist uses terms like "finer
material" and "beyond your limited perceptions" they still are
incapable of making the parrallel. I'm not saying that they need to
give up their theism, but just realize how bad this line of reasoning
is.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
06 Dec 2007 04:19:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:07:11 +0100, "thomas p." <gudloos@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:jt2el3teir9bgvl61n0jj05pri7brun8nm@4ax.com...
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:31:50 -0800 (PST), Hatter <Hatter23@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:09 pm, wrote:
Insight, as I am using the word, means a turning inward and
recognition of an innerspiritualreality, which is at the same time
material, but of a finer grade of matter.
A finer grade of material...so fine so delicate, it is not like
anything I've seen in my life. It is so lightwieght. And we poor
atheists are too stupid to appreciate its quality. Also, we atheists
are too incompetent to even see its existence.
Sounds so familiar, doesn't it?
Emperor Raiment, anyone?
I have often thought how funny it is that that particular Andersen tale is
so popular and that so very few see its application to theism. The only
thing wrong with the story is that in real life the little boy who pointed
out that the emperor was naked would have been executed.
And good Chrisitans cannot have violence in a book that kiddies read,
can they?
Apart from their alarmingly gory and obscene Bible, of course!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
06 Dec 2007 08:47:01 AM |
|
|
On Dec 5, 12:36 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:31:50 -0800 (PST), Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:09 pm, wrote:
Insight, as I am using the word, means a turning inward and
recognition of an innerspiritualreality, which is at the same time
material, but of a finer grade of matter.
A finer grade of material...so fine so delicate, it is not like
anything I've seen in my life. It is so lightwieght. And we poor
atheists are too stupid to appreciate its quality. Also, we atheists
are too incompetent to even see its existence.
Sounds so familiar, doesn't it?
Emperor Raiment, anyone?
Your sick associations belong on the couch.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
06 Dec 2007 08:55:12 AM |
|
|
On Dec 6, 9:47 am, wrote:
On Dec 5, 12:36 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:31:50 -0800 (PST), Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:09 pm, wrote:
Insight, as I am using the word, means a turning inward and
recognition of an innerspiritualreality, which is at the same time
material, but of a finer grade of matter.
A finer grade of material...so fine so delicate, it is not like
anything I've seen in my life. It is so lightwieght. And we poor
atheists are too stupid to appreciate its quality. Also, we atheists
are too incompetent to even see its existence.
Sounds so familiar, doesn't it?
Emperor Raiment, anyone?
Your sick associations belong on the couch.- Hide quoted text -
The allusion to the Emperors clothes was exactly what I was going for.
Nothing sick about it. You made the association very easy by the words
you used, and I hoisted you by your own petard. Your argument has been
exposed for what it is, nothing pretending to be something: The
Emperors Clothes.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
06 Dec 2007 09:06:46 AM |
|
|
On Dec 6, 6:55 am, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 6, 9:47 am, wrote:
On Dec 5, 12:36 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:31:50 -0800 (PST), Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:09 pm, wrote:
Insight, as I am using the word, means a turning inward and
recognition of an innerspiritualreality, which is at the same time
material, but of a finer grade of matter.
A finer grade of material...so fine so delicate, it is not like
anything I've seen in my life. It is so lightwieght. And we poor
atheists are too stupid to appreciate its quality. Also, we atheists
are too incompetent to even see its existence.
Sounds so familiar, doesn't it?
Emperor Raiment, anyone?
Your sick associations belong on the couch.- Hide quoted text -
The allusion to the Emperors clothes was exactly what I was going for.
Nothing sick about it. You made the association very easy by the words
you used, and I hoisted you by your own petard. Your argument has been
exposed for what it is, nothing pretending to be something: The
Emperors Clothes.
Hatter- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You are daft. Just because you have no idea what finer grade of
matter means, three is no need to get stupid and inject irrelevant
associations, even if they mean something to your brainwashed groupies.
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
