| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Joseph H" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2005 04:27:16 PM |
| Object: |
The Lineaments of Existence |
Energy exists, Is energy eternal? I don't know - though I like the
phrase. I don't see how energy could have emerged: emerged from what?
It begets matter. I don't know how. The E=MC thing always seems too
pat. Can the creation of matter really be that precise?
On at least one occasion matter spools out to produce the thing we call
universe. Over time this matter condenses or coalesces into planets
etc.
On at least one such planet a replicating entity emerges,needing
sustenance to continue replicating. What is sustenance? Why should
something be designated a food? Is "food" just something that provides
energy to a replicating entity?
Countless replicating entities down the ages honed survival strategies.
Such patterns of behaviour were an intrinsic element of the
replication. Amazing stuff.
Knowledge, so called, didn't arise. Some perception arose over time. I
wouldn't dare surmise what creatures knew - or know.
Eventually a creature emerged who could know the lineaments of
existence. But knowledge first had to overcome error. Sanctified error
dominated perception. Such error was unavoidable - but led to tragedy
and gross inefficiency and the destruction of countless human beings
who glimpsed a truth.
Excuses could be made for error up to the present day. And the cost of
error wasn't too high - if one discounted the destruction and
corruption of millions. But now the species stands or falls as a unity.
The cost of error could be horrific. Global error threatens us all. We
know our situation. We must be allowed use that knowledge. We must not
pander to past erroreous views of existence. We must not indulge
deeply-held nonsense. Life is valuable and preciuous and meaningful
enough not to need to seek meaning elsewhere. The human being has the
capacity to know all the foregoing lineaments of existence and to endow
them with as much meaning and value as we could ever require. we are on
the brink of such an age. We have carved out fundamental freedoms
worldwide. Now indifference on the one hand and an obsession with self
on the other - all allied to greed on a global scale - allows reactive
and regressive forces to hinder our advance. We must fight such forces.
But we must fight them not with some empty formula for freedom or
democracy but with a vast committment to a better life for human
beings.
Joseph H
www.humanisation.org
.
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
06 Nov 2005 04:59:00 AM |
|
|
Oh, Drs Mangrove and Timov, u guyz are WRECKING MY HEAD.......
To know so much! U guyz are offering me the ENTIRE SWEETSHOP!
But I ask myself two questions:
!: Will the knowledge on offer support and augment what I believe - or
is it a glittering (i.e. Baudrilliarist) show of emptiness, a kind of
marsh light?
2: If I go "in there" will I ever get out again, will my primitive
Irish honesty and directness-of-vision be ONCE AGAIN CORRUPTED by
aesthetes and effetes from the rotten core of Perfidious Albion?
Incidentally, you might dip into a monologue I'm currently conducting
on Talk Origins....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
15 Nov 2005 03:12:50 PM |
|
|
To seek to establish a data-bank of truth is not a trivial exercise. It
takes the past - and the present - out of the realm of belief and error
and supposition and frenzy and grounds both in a solid foundation of
fact.
Without such distortion we may see our situation more clearly. We are
an extraordinary phenomenon. We may be the eyes of the universe. We
will certainly create an intelligent global society - though not
without many difficulties along the way. The very urgency of our wish
to create such a society precludes our allowing ourselves the
possibility of it. Denied by our increasing knowledge of the ability to
delude ourselves with this or that fiction - as was the case in the
past - we must now make our own potential our source of inspiration in
the future. Lacking such a source we will be subject to every whim and
prone to every despair.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
15 Nov 2005 04:02:28 PM |
|
|
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> said:
To seek to establish a data-bank of truth is not a trivial exercise. It
takes the past - and the present - out of the realm of belief and error
and supposition and frenzy and grounds both in a solid foundation of
fact.
Someone said that the only true map of Ohio is Ohio. The data bank of
truth consists of undistilled reality.
Without such distortion we may see our situation more clearly. We are
an extraordinary phenomenon. We may be the eyes of the universe.
Here and there, the universe sees parts of itself and thinks about
what it sees. In a sense, it cannot see itself inaccurately: what it
sees is what it sees, and what it does not see is not available for
thought. We might as well dispense with the unseen, for now.
We
will certainly create an intelligent global society - though not
without many difficulties along the way.
It is hard to see how we will decide "We have done it!" It seems like
it will always be beyond reach, approached asymptotically
The very urgency of our wish
to create such a society precludes our allowing ourselves the
possibility of it. Denied by our increasing knowledge of the ability to
delude ourselves with this or that fiction - as was the case in the
past -
As will always be the case of the past, meaning, we will always move
from one delusion to the next.
... we must now make our own potential our source of inspiration in
the future. Lacking such a source we will be subject to every whim and
prone to every despair.
Secular humanism? Couldn't agree more!
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
16 Nov 2005 12:36:04 PM |
|
|
Jim07D5 wrote:
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> said:
To seek to establish a data-bank of truth is not a trivial exercise. It
takes the past - and the present - out of the realm of belief and error
and supposition and frenzy and grounds both in a solid foundation of
fact.
Someone said that the only true map of Ohio is Ohio. The data bank of
truth consists of undistilled reality.
Yes, as an outer limit. Our perspective must, necessarily, falsify and
simplify. But to fail to see the entire complexity of something is not
quite the same as to impose or superimpose a falsehood on that
something. We shall never see "all" - but we have a better chance of
seeing "more" if we have removed past error.
Without such distortion we may see our situation more clearly. We are
an extraordinary phenomenon. We may be the eyes of the universe.
Here and there, the universe sees parts of itself and thinks about
what it sees. In a sense, it cannot see itself inaccurately: what it
sees is what it sees, and what it does not see is not available for
thought. We might as well dispense with the unseen, for now.
Even our own eyes don't see "all". But we still have the capacity for
vision. As a species, we shall never see all of the Universe - but we
still have the capacity to act as the eyes of the Univese.
We
will certainly create an intelligent global society - though not
without many difficulties along the way.
It is hard to see how we will decide "We have done it!" It seems like
it will always be beyond reach, approached asymptotically
I think my next point covers that. Even the most succesful society will
contain flaws and failure. Life itself is inseparable from occasional
distress. But we may still create an intelligent global society. I seem
to giving the impression that I expect perfection. I don't
The very urgency of our wish
to create such a society precludes our allowing ourselves the
possibility of it. Denied by our increasing knowledge of the ability to
delude ourselves with this or that fiction - as was the case in the
past -
As will always be the case of the past, meaning, we will always move
from one delusion to the next.
Once upon a time most of us - the "us" who existed at that time -
thought the world was conceived in an eagle's egg and rested on the
back of a turtle. Yes, we will always have error and illusion and
delusion - but rather less than in the past.
... we must now make our own potential our source of inspiration in
the future. Lacking such a source we will be subject to every whim and
prone to every despair.
Secular humanism? Couldn't agree more!
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
16 Nov 2005 06:40:35 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:02:28 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Here and there, the universe sees parts of itself and thinks about
what it sees. In a sense, it cannot see itself inaccurately: what it
sees is what it sees, and what it does not see is not available for
thought. We might as well dispense with the unseen, for now.
That was very well stated. You are more knowledgeable of metaphysics
than you have let on.
Indeed the Universe is reflexive. As you witness that lone photon
being created by the superhot wire in the light bulb near you, you
imagine that this photon is localized. What is not apparent is that
the photon is a localized distrubance of the electromagnetic field,
which permeates the entire Universe. And although the photon, being a
real material object, must obey the rules of Relativity and not travel
any faster than the speed of light (after all, it IS light), there is
ample evidence that quantum mechanical phenomena are non-local (cf.
quantum entanglement).
Therefore in a very real sense that photon is in communication with
the entire Universe in ways we do not understand now. Here's something
else to consider. As you know from Special Relativity, object
traveling near at the speed of light relative to a stationary object
will experience rulers on the object contracting in length and clocks
on the object slowing down.
So what does a photon experience as it roars thru spacetime at the
speed of light? Does it experience the entire Universe shrunk down to
a point? Does it experience time standing still? Is that photon that
is about to enter your eye and signal the presence of light to your
brain really as local as you imagine it to be?
Physicists have seen energy pulses travel faster than light. The fired
a laser pulse into a chamber containing cesium vapor (IIRC) and they
measured the effect 300 times sooner than it would take the laser
pulse to get across the chamber. That does not violate Relativity
because the laser pulse travelled at the speed of light. But something
travelled much faster.
When an event occurs in one part of the Universe, the rest of the
Universe experiences it in some way yet to be understood. That means
the Universe is reflexive. I believe that is why we are aware of self,
we are conscious. Our brains, being quantum mechanical devices, couple
to the Vacuum which itself is by definition coupled to the entire
Universe. We only experience the "here and now" but we participate in
the entire Universe just like the other quantum systems do. IOW,
conscious awareness is an effect of the same thing as quantum
entanglement.
... we must now make our own potential our source of inspiration in
the future. Lacking such a source we will be subject to every whim and
prone to every despair.
Secular humanism? Couldn't agree more!
For my money, I go with the Second Coming. Only a supernatural Being
is going to sort out the intrinsic conflicts in humanity. The
alternative is Armegeddon - and once radioactive pollution of the
biosphere occurs, not even a supernatural agent can fix it.
There was a special on PBS about Isaac Newton - his so-called secret
life. I was not surprised about this because I had read Michael
White's book:
Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer
by Michael White
Paperback: 402 pages
Publisher: Perseus Books Group (April, 1999)
ISBN: 073820143X
+++
Editorial Reviews - Amazon.com
Science writer Michael White's subtitle, "The Last Sorcerer", echoes
John Maynard Keynes's assertion in 1942 that Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
was not the Olympian rationalist portrayed by his worshipful early
biographers. Newton was a great scientist, the author acknowledges; he
was also an "obsessive, driven mystic," deeply involved in the
pseudoscience of alchemy, subscriber to a heretical sect of
Christianity, and damaged survivor of childhood traumas that rendered
him a difficult, egotistical, quarrelsome adult. White makes recent
research accessible to the general reader in lucid prose that knocks
the academic dust off a towering historical figure..
+++
Newton's concept of "action at a distance" which he used to describe
the force of gravity, was taken straight out of Astrology.
Newton spent more of his life pursuing Theology and Philosophy than
all his other endeavors combined, which included physics, mathematics
and alchemy. He owned 30 Bibles which he went thru in his quest to
determine when the end of the world would occur. He wrote that it
would be 2060.
Newton was also a Christain heretic. He did not accept the notion of
the Trinity (which was ironic since he worked and studied at Cambridge
University's Trinity College). He asserted that the Trinity was
impossible, that although Christ was some kind of supernatural being,
He was not God as the doctrine of the Trinity demands. He claimed that
the Trinity violated the First Commandment about there being only one
God.
The Prophecies of Daniel and The Apocalypse (1733) (Paperback)
by Isaac Newton
Paperback: 314 pages
Publisher: Printland Publishers US (March 1, 1998)
ISBN: 8187409037
+++
Editorial Reviews
From the Publisher
This fascinating and little known work of Sir Isaac Newton has been
fully re-typeset and includes three colour plates (one of Thornhill's
portrait of Newton, and two of Woolsthorpe Manor) and a facsimile page
from the original 1733 edition. Newton takes a historicist approach to
both Daniel and Revelation, for example identifying the dragon in
Revelation 12 with pagan Rome and persecutions of the early church.
The book contains several quotes in Latin which have been left
untranslated, but these are commented upon by Newton in English and do
not significantly detract from understanding of the work.
From the Author
When I wrote my treatise about our System I had an eye upon such
Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a
Deity and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that
purpose. (Sir Isaac Newton in a letter to Richard Bentley)
+++
The commentators on the PBS program proclaimed Newton to be the only
true genius of the past 500 years.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
16 Nov 2005 11:19:04 AM |
|
|
(Bob) said:
<...>
For my money, I go with the Second Coming. Only a supernatural Being
is going to sort out the intrinsic conflicts in humanity. The
alternative is Armegeddon - and once radioactive pollution of the
biosphere occurs, not even a supernatural agent can fix it.
<...>
I go with the Big Shrug. If we vaporize ourselves, the universe gives
a big shrug, and goes on. It will think, and experience itself some
other way, at some other place -- there is no reason to think it is
not already doing this.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
16 Nov 2005 11:56:34 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:19:04 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
For my money, I go with the Second Coming. Only a supernatural Being
is going to sort out the intrinsic conflicts in humanity. The
alternative is Armegeddon - and once radioactive pollution of the
biosphere occurs, not even a supernatural agent can fix it.
I go with the Big Shrug. If we vaporize ourselves,
We won't vaporize anything. We will pollute the biospehere with
radioactive poisons. One microgram - the size of a speck of pepper -
in your lung and you will die from cancer. Now imagine dumping tons of
that crap into the atmosphere and it settles into the oceans.
In order to remove it, you must use distillation. That means
destroying all live in order to make the planet inhabitable again.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
16 Nov 2005 12:06:54 PM |
|
|
(Bob) said:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:19:04 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
For my money, I go with the Second Coming. Only a supernatural Being
is going to sort out the intrinsic conflicts in humanity. The
alternative is Armegeddon - and once radioactive pollution of the
biosphere occurs, not even a supernatural agent can fix it.
I go with the Big Shrug. If we vaporize ourselves,
We won't vaporize anything. We will pollute the biospehere with
radioactive poisons. One microgram - the size of a speck of pepper -
in your lung and you will die from cancer. Now imagine dumping tons of
that crap into the atmosphere and it settles into the oceans.
In order to remove it, you must use distillation. That means
destroying all live in order to make the planet inhabitable again.
Radioactivity does seem to be something to which carbon-based life
forms cannot adapt, except by not having it impinge upon themselves.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
16 Nov 2005 12:45:55 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:02:28 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Here and there, the universe sees parts of itself and thinks about
what it sees. In a sense, it cannot see itself inaccurately: what it
sees is what it sees, and what it does not see is not available for
thought. We might as well dispense with the unseen, for now.
That was very well stated. You are more knowledgeable of metaphysics
than you have let on.
Indeed the Universe is reflexive. As you witness that lone photon
being created by the superhot wire in the light bulb near you, you
imagine that this photon is localized. What is not apparent is that
the photon is a localized distrubance of the electromagnetic field,
which permeates the entire Universe. And although the photon, being a
real material object, must obey the rules of Relativity and not travel
any faster than the speed of light (after all, it IS light), there is
ample evidence that quantum mechanical phenomena are non-local (cf.
quantum entanglement).
Therefore in a very real sense that photon is in communication with
the entire Universe in ways we do not understand now. Here's something
else to consider. As you know from Special Relativity, object
traveling near at the speed of light relative to a stationary object
will experience rulers on the object contracting in length and clocks
on the object slowing down.
So what does a photon experience as it roars thru spacetime at the
speed of light? Does it experience the entire Universe shrunk down to
a point? Does it experience time standing still? Is that photon that
is about to enter your eye and signal the presence of light to your
brain really as local as you imagine it to be?
Physicists have seen energy pulses travel faster than light. The fired
a laser pulse into a chamber containing cesium vapor (IIRC) and they
measured the effect 300 times sooner than it would take the laser
pulse to get across the chamber. That does not violate Relativity
because the laser pulse travelled at the speed of light. But something
travelled much faster.
When an event occurs in one part of the Universe, the rest of the
Universe experiences it in some way yet to be understood. That means
the Universe is reflexive. I believe that is why we are aware of self,
we are conscious. Our brains, being quantum mechanical devices, couple
to the Vacuum which itself is by definition coupled to the entire
Universe. We only experience the "here and now" but we participate in
the entire Universe just like the other quantum systems do. IOW,
conscious awareness is an effect of the same thing as quantum
entanglement.
... we must now make our own potential our source of inspiration in
the future. Lacking such a source we will be subject to every whim and
prone to every despair.
Secular humanism? Couldn't agree more!
For my money, I go with the Second Coming. Only a supernatural Being
is going to sort out the intrinsic conflicts in humanity. The
alternative is Armegeddon - and once radioactive pollution of the
biosphere occurs, not even a supernatural agent can fix it.
Isn't it extraordinary - and bizarre - that someone like you, Bob, who
is so intelligent and so knowledgable and who has such a powerful sense
of the wonder and complexity of existence should resort to the
absurdity of a "Second Coming"? How can that be accommodated with any
observation of nature?
There was a special on PBS about Isaac Newton - his so-called secret
life. I was not surprised about this because I had read Michael
White's book:
Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer
by Michael White
Paperback: 402 pages
Publisher: Perseus Books Group (April, 1999)
ISBN: 073820143X
+++
Editorial Reviews - Amazon.com
Science writer Michael White's subtitle, "The Last Sorcerer", echoes
John Maynard Keynes's assertion in 1942 that Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
was not the Olympian rationalist portrayed by his worshipful early
biographers. Newton was a great scientist, the author acknowledges; he
was also an "obsessive, driven mystic," deeply involved in the
pseudoscience of alchemy, subscriber to a heretical sect of
Christianity, and damaged survivor of childhood traumas that rendered
him a difficult, egotistical, quarrelsome adult. White makes recent
research accessible to the general reader in lucid prose that knocks
the academic dust off a towering historical figure..
+++
Newton's concept of "action at a distance" which he used to describe
the force of gravity, was taken straight out of Astrology.
Newton spent more of his life pursuing Theology and Philosophy than
all his other endeavors combined, which included physics, mathematics
and alchemy. He owned 30 Bibles which he went thru in his quest to
determine when the end of the world would occur. He wrote that it
would be 2060.
Newton was also a Christain heretic. He did not accept the notion of
the Trinity (which was ironic since he worked and studied at Cambridge
University's Trinity College). He asserted that the Trinity was
impossible, that although Christ was some kind of supernatural being,
He was not God as the doctrine of the Trinity demands. He claimed that
the Trinity violated the First Commandment about there being only one
God.
The Prophecies of Daniel and The Apocalypse (1733) (Paperback)
by Isaac Newton
Paperback: 314 pages
Publisher: Printland Publishers US (March 1, 1998)
ISBN: 8187409037
+++
Editorial Reviews
From the Publisher
This fascinating and little known work of Sir Isaac Newton has been
fully re-typeset and includes three colour plates (one of Thornhill's
portrait of Newton, and two of Woolsthorpe Manor) and a facsimile page
from the original 1733 edition. Newton takes a historicist approach to
both Daniel and Revelation, for example identifying the dragon in
Revelation 12 with pagan Rome and persecutions of the early church.
The book contains several quotes in Latin which have been left
untranslated, but these are commented upon by Newton in English and do
not significantly detract from understanding of the work.
From the Author
When I wrote my treatise about our System I had an eye upon such
Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a
Deity and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that
purpose. (Sir Isaac Newton in a letter to Richard Bentley)
+++
The commentators on the PBS program proclaimed Newton to be the only
true genius of the past 500 years.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
16 Nov 2005 04:20:33 PM |
|
|
On 16 Nov 2005 10:45:55 -0800, "Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org>
wrote:
the absurdity of a "Second Coming"? How can that be accommodated with any
observation of nature?
It can't, and I make no claim that it is.
I am interested in escatology because it's like science fiction.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
16 Nov 2005 06:03:14 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 16 Nov 2005 10:45:55 -0800, "Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org>
wrote:
the absurdity of a "Second Coming"? How can that be accommodated with any
observation of nature?
It can't, and I make no claim that it is.
I am interested in escatology because it's like science fiction.
So...you display an intense concern for the workings of nature...and
then leap into the absurdity of a "Second Coming". You have some
questions to ask of yourself, sir.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
16 Nov 2005 06:23:20 PM |
|
|
On 16 Nov 2005 16:03:14 -0800, "Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org>
wrote:
So...you display an intense concern for the workings of nature...and
then leap into the absurdity of a "Second Coming". You have some
questions to ask of yourself, sir.
I watched a biography of Isaac Newton last night on Nova. Newton spent
more time on theology and philosophy research than on all other
endeavors combined.
You have some questions to ask of yourself, like why you indulge such
an intense anti-religious bigotry.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
17 Nov 2005 01:29:14 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 16 Nov 2005 16:03:14 -0800, "Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org>
wrote:
So...you display an intense concern for the workings of nature...and
then leap into the absurdity of a "Second Coming". You have some
questions to ask of yourself, sir.
I watched a biography of Isaac Newton last night on Nova. Newton spent
more time on theology and philosophy research than on all other
endeavors combined.
You have some questions to ask of yourself, like why you indulge such
an intense anti-religious bigotry.
Why am I against religion? Because it blocks perception. It comes
between us and recognition of ourselves. It prevents us coming to
terms with the reality of our existence. It deflects our efforts to
value ourselves. It offers spurious consolation and bogus explanation.
Apart from that I have no problems with religion. In fact, some of my
best friends are priests.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
17 Nov 2005 04:59:23 PM |
|
|
In message <1132255754.156844.133840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Joseph H <joseph@humanisation.org> writes
Why am I against religion? Because it blocks perception. It comes
between us and recognition of ourselves. It prevents us coming to
terms with the reality of our existence. It deflects our efforts to
value ourselves. It offers spurious consolation and bogus explanation.
Apart from that I have no problems with religion
Not even when it is used as a reason for blowing children to pieces?
--
ralph
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
18 Nov 2005 09:33:45 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:59:23 +0000, ralph
<ralph@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <1132255754.156844.133840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Joseph H <joseph@humanisation.org> writes
Why am I against religion? Because it blocks perception. It comes
between us and recognition of ourselves. It prevents us coming to
terms with the reality of our existence. It deflects our efforts to
value ourselves. It offers spurious consolation and bogus explanation.
Apart from that I have no problems with religion
Not even when it is used as a reason for blowing children to pieces?
It isn't. As long as the US media pretends that, the problem will
continue. What you are talking about is impartially known as
asymmetric warfare. One side uses tanks, rockets, ground attack
fighters, gun ships etc. The other delivers its bombs the only way it
can when it has none of these hi-tech means.
In the case I think you mean, it is the side with the high-tech
weaponry which does it for religious reasons, on the people who were
already there when they took over the country because they believed
their god gave it to them 3500 years ago.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
19 Nov 2005 04:25:29 AM |
|
|
In message <3ssrn1t075gk73s2msoi16fbtmnp14r30c@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> writes
Apart from that I have no problems with religion
Not even when it is used as a reason for blowing children to pieces?
It isn't. As long as the US media pretends that, the problem will
continue. What you are talking about is impartially known as asymmetric
warfare. One side uses tanks, rockets, ground attack fighters, gun
ships etc. The other delivers its bombs the only way it can when it has
none of these hi-tech means.
In the case I think you mean, it is the side with the high-tech
weaponry which does it for religious reasons, on the people who were
already there when they took over the country because they believed
their god gave it to them 3500 years ago.
Your focus is too narrow. Catholics blow babies to pieces to help rid
themselves of Protestants, Protestants of Catholics, Muslims of Hindus,
Hindus of Sikhs, Muslims of Buddhists, Shi-ites of Sunnis, Sunnis of
Shi-ites ...
Some say that these identifications only mask underlying political
divisions, but were it not for the religious identity, they could not
happen.
--
ralph
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
19 Nov 2005 08:51:13 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:25:29 +0000, ralph
<ralph@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Catholics blow babies to pieces to help rid
themselves of Protestants, Protestants of Catholics, Muslims of Hindus,
Hindus of Sikhs, Muslims of Buddhists, Shi-ites of Sunnis, Sunnis of
Shi-ites ...
Some say that these identifications only mask underlying political
divisions, but were it not for the religious identity, they could not
happen.
Religion is only a means of identification, a rallying point. The root
cause of these political divisions is economic.
There are enough examples of where diverse cultures live together in
harmony because they all share the economic pie as suits their
interests. Houston, Texas, is a living example where every nationality
lives with every other nationality in economic harmony. No suicide
bombers here. No terrorists here.
Indeed there is criminality everywhere, and Houston is certainly no
exception. So spare us the strawman about Houston's crime rate - which
BTW is well under that of Washington DC(*). We are talking about open
warfare based on religious/ethnic factors and I maintain that the real
factor is economic.
(*) "If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very,
very low crime rate."
- Marion Barry, Mayor of Washington DC
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
20 Nov 2005 06:34:01 AM |
|
|
In message <437f3a6c.57125187@news-server.houston.rr.com>, Bob
<spam@uce.gov> writes
Religion is only a means of identification, a rallying point. The root
cause of these political divisions is economic.
I anticipated that response, but have seen little evidence to support
it.
Do you have any? Think about Sunnis vs Shi-ites, Hindus vs Sikhs.
--
ralph
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
20 Nov 2005 01:27:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:34:01 +0000, ralph
<ralph@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I anticipated that response, but have seen little evidence to support
it.
Do you have any?
No.
Think about Sunnis vs Shi-ites, Hindus vs Sikhs.
They are fighting for econimic reasons. Religion is just a way to
gather together with people who share the same values.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
20 Nov 2005 02:11:35 PM |
|
|
(Bob) said:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:34:01 +0000, ralph
<ralph@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I anticipated that response, but have seen little evidence to support
it.
Do you have any?
No.
Think about Sunnis vs Shi-ites, Hindus vs Sikhs.
They are fighting for econimic reasons. Religion is just a way to
gather together with people who share the same values.
The perspective requires us to treat the fact that the freedom to
exercise one's religion is something on which a monetary value cannot
be and/or is not ordinarily placed, as sufficient reason to conclude
it is not something for which people "really" fight.
Interestingly, this perspective ultimately requires a metaphysical
commitment to economic materialism as the explanatory paradigm for
psychology and history. Not something I'd expect from Bob of Supreme
Being fame, but we live and learn.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
20 Nov 2005 03:00:28 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:11:35 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
They are fighting for econimic reasons. Religion is just a way to
gather together with people who share the same values.
The perspective requires us to treat the fact that the freedom to
exercise one's religion is something on which a monetary value cannot
be and/or is not ordinarily placed, as sufficient reason to conclude
it is not something for which people "really" fight.
Interestingly, this perspective ultimately requires a metaphysical
commitment to economic materialism as the explanatory paradigm for
psychology and history. Not something I'd expect from Bob of Supreme
Being fame, but we live and learn.
I do not understand how you can arrive at that conclusion. Knowing
that the Supreme Being must exist does not make one a religious
person.
Furthermore I do not believe the fact that man is an economic animal
makes all men "economic materialists". You seem to be forcing these
conclusions.
My claim is based on the Principle of Proportionate Causality, which
states that causes are in proportion to the effects they produce. That
metapysical principle sounds reasonable and I believe there are
supportive arguments for it, but I have forgotten them. Suffice it to
say that rational people do not ordinarily use a sledge hammer to nail
a tack nor do they use a tack hammer to drive a large stake into the
ground.
So I look for causes that are in proportion to the effects of warfare.
The reasons for fighting a war that I seek must apply to essentially
all the participants from the generals to the troops. There is high
risk in war so whatever is driving these participants must be of equal
stature as the risks. All I can come up is economic reasons, either
preservation of the current economic environment or enhancement of it.
Religion is indeed a powerful force in the lives of most human being
but I do not accept the claim that people in general would willingly
die for it. It's too intangible. The same goes for most ideology.
Of course the instinct for self preservation is important but unless
there is an immediate threat most people are not willing to take the
war to their enemies for that reason alone. Again, there has to be a
cause in proportion to the effects of war and all I can come up with
in general terms is economic in nature.
Economic benefits of war do not have to be grossly materialistic.
Basic needs are more important to people than frivolities.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Seeker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
20 Nov 2005 10:19:31 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote>
Knowing that the Supreme Being must exist does not make one a religious
person.
I agree.
The definition of a religious person is one who "believes" that a supreme
being exists. One who "knows" it is also a fool.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
20 Nov 2005 07:06:59 PM |
|
|
(Bob) said:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:11:35 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
They are fighting for econimic reasons. Religion is just a way to
gather together with people who share the same values.
The perspective requires us to treat the fact that the freedom to
exercise one's religion is something on which a monetary value cannot
be and/or is not ordinarily placed, as sufficient reason to conclude
it is not something for which people "really" fight.
Interestingly, this perspective ultimately requires a metaphysical
commitment to economic materialism as the explanatory paradigm for
psychology and history. Not something I'd expect from Bob of Supreme
Being fame, but we live and learn.
I do not understand how you can arrive at that conclusion. Knowing
that the Supreme Being must exist does not make one a religious
person.
Agreed. I didn't say that acknowledging that religion can be the
reason for war would be expected of you as a *religious* person. But I
did not expect someone who rejects religion as a reason for fighting
wars because he thinks it is not an economic reason economic reasons
to be someone who believe in a Supreme Being, which in my mind meant
that you would see there being ultimate human values (worth fighting
for) that are not economic. I expected that you would somehow find a
way to count religious freedom as any other commodity which can be
perceived as having value, and whose (forced) scarcity could be seen
as an economic matter. I appear to have been wrong.
Furthermore I do not believe the fact that man is an economic animal
makes all men "economic materialists". You seem to be forcing these
conclusions.
I was not actually doing that, at least, by intention. My intention
was to say that a forced scarcity of religious freedom could be as
motivating as a forced scarcity of physical freedom or free access to
material resources, so scarcity of religious freedom could be either
(a) viewed as a type of economic scarcity, and so, a reason for war to
overthrow the oppressor, or (b) viewed as a reason for war even to
overthrow the oppressor even if not viewed as a type of economic
scarcity. But I intended to leave the door open to view forced
scarcity of religious freedom as a type of economic oppression, even
though it is not so readily valued in dollars or lire, as peanuts and
water are.
My claim is based on the Principle of Proportionate Causality, which
states that causes are in proportion to the effects they produce. That
metapysical principle sounds reasonable and I believe there are
supportive arguments for it, but I have forgotten them. Suffice it to
say that rational people do not ordinarily use a sledge hammer to nail
a tack nor do they use a tack hammer to drive a large stake into the
ground.
So I look for causes that are in proportion to the effects of warfare.
The reasons for fighting a war that I seek must apply to essentially
all the participants from the generals to the troops. There is high
risk in war so whatever is driving these participants must be of equal
stature as the risks. All I can come up is economic reasons, either
preservation of the current economic environment or enhancement of it.
If 20 people were in locked a room with one pound of peanuts and 1
gallon of water, the efforts to which they would go in the struggle
for that resource would be seen as an economic struggle -- or, if you
wish, if there were no peanuts or water but 20 one-dollar bills and a
vendor wanted 10 for the peanuts and 10 for the water. If they
perceived that 5 people in the room were enforcing a scarcity of
religious freedom, there efforts might be just as strong. After all,
some religions reward them in Paradise for fighting religious
oppression. Infinite economic value.
Religion is indeed a powerful force in the lives of most human being
but I do not accept the claim that people in general would willingly
die for it. It's too intangible. The same goes for most ideology.
You seem to be applying a rational economic animal theory to the
motivations of humans.
Quote:
"Delusional "urgings from God" prompted a Texas mother [Deanna Laney]
to kill two of her three children last year without remorse, according
to three forensic psychiatrists who testified at her trial."
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/24/16
Of course the instinct for self preservation is important but unless
there is an immediate threat most people are not willing to take the
war to their enemies for that reason alone. Again, there has to be a
cause in proportion to the effects of war and all I can come up with
in general terms is economic in nature.
The loss of your immortal soul for not defending your faith and the
promise of paradise if you do, can be a strong incentive.
Economic benefits of war do not have to be grossly materialistic.
Basic needs are more important to people than frivolities.
Agreed. But I do not reject the economic model. I just think that what
people *value* enough to risk their life for is beyond the
materialistic. and I believe in taking them at face value. Deanna
Laney believed that the taking of life was important for religious
reasons.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
20 Nov 2005 08:08:16 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 01:06:59 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
"Delusional "urgings from God" prompted a Texas mother [Deanna Laney]
to kill two of her three children last year without remorse, according
to three forensic psychiatrists who testified at her trial."
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/24/16
More quackery. You are aware that the Yates woman is going to get a
new trial because an expert witness lied on the witness stand.
Economic benefits of war do not have to be grossly materialistic.
Basic needs are more important to people than frivolities.
Agreed. But I do not reject the economic model. I just think that what
people *value* enough to risk their life for is beyond the
materialistic. and I believe in taking them at face value.
Deanna Laney believed that the taking of life was important for religious
reasons.
That's her excuse. I do not believe it.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
20 Nov 2005 11:09:36 PM |
|
|
(Bob) said:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 01:06:59 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
"Delusional "urgings from God" prompted a Texas mother [Deanna Laney]
to kill two of her three children last year without remorse, according
to three forensic psychiatrists who testified at her trial."
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/24/16
More quackery. You are aware that the Yates woman is going to get a
new trial because an expert witness lied on the witness stand.
Lied about whether a TV show was on when he said it was.
Economic benefits of war do not have to be grossly materialistic.
Basic needs are more important to people than frivolities.
Agreed. But I do not reject the economic model. I just think that what
people *value* enough to risk their life for is beyond the
materialistic. and I believe in taking them at face value.
Deanna Laney believed that the taking of life was important for religious
reasons.
That's her excuse. I do not believe it.
Do you think she believed it?
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
21 Nov 2005 12:02:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 02:08:16 GMT, (Bob) wrote:
"Delusional "urgings from God" prompted a Texas mother [Deanna Laney]
to kill two of her three children last year without remorse, according
to three forensic psychiatrists who testified at her trial."
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/24/16
More quackery. You are aware that the Yates woman is going to get a
new trial because an expert witness lied on the witness stand.
Different cases.
In the Yates case,the expert testified that she had seen a similar
case on a T.V. crime show. And that prompted her to kill, believing
that she would be acquitted. Problem, there was no such story.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
21 Nov 2005 11:58:24 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 02:08:16 GMT, (Bob) wrote:
Deanna Laney believed that the taking of life was important for religious
reasons.
That's her excuse. I do not believe it.
The question is did Deanna believe it. If not what was her *real*
motive?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
21 Nov 2005 12:34:27 AM |
|
|
(Bob) wrote in news:4380e161.101710906@news-
server.houston.rr.com:
So I look for causes that are in proportion to the effects of warfare.
The reasons for fighting a war that I seek must apply to essentially
all the participants from the generals to the troops. There is high
risk in war so whatever is driving these participants must be of equal
stature as the risks. All I can come up is economic reasons, either
preservation of the current economic environment or enhancement of it.
Religion is indeed a powerful force in the lives of most human being
but I do not accept the claim that people in general would willingly
die for it. It's too intangible. The same goes for most ideology.
Of course the instinct for self preservation is important but unless
there is an immediate threat most people are not willing to take the
war to their enemies for that reason alone. Again, there has to be a
cause in proportion to the effects of war and all I can come up with
in general terms is economic in nature.
Economic benefits of war do not have to be grossly materialistic.
Basic needs are more important to people than frivolities.
They do not have to be materialistic at all. You construe economics too
narrowly. Any interest of persons which can motivate them to act, and in
which others can interfere or cooperate, is an economic interest. Many
primary motivators --- love, fame, stature, power, wisdom, aesthetic
experience, acceptance in a social group, acceptance by one's God, etc.,
are non-materialistic. But to the extent that cooperation is necessary to
secure them, they are economic interests.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
21 Nov 2005 12:22:32 PM |
|
|
In message <4380e161.101710906@news-server.houston.rr.com>, Bob
<spam@uce.gov> writes
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:11:35 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
They are fighting for econimic reasons. Religion is just a way to
gather together with people who share the same values.
The perspective requires us to treat the fact that the freedom to
exercise one's religion is something on which a monetary value cannot
be and/or is not ordinarily placed, as sufficient reason to conclude
it is not something for which people "really" fight.
Interestingly, this perspective ultimately requires a metaphysical
commitment to economic materialism as the explanatory paradigm for
psychology and history. Not something I'd expect from Bob of Supreme
Being fame, but we live and learn.
I do not understand how you can arrive at that conclusion. Knowing
that the Supreme Being must exist does not make one a religious
person.
Furthermore I do not believe the fact that man is an economic animal
makes all men "economic materialists". You seem to be forcing these
conclusions.
My claim is based on the Principle of Proportionate Causality, which
states that causes are in proportion to the effects they produce. That
metapysical principle sounds reasonable and I believe there are
supportive arguments for it, but I have forgotten them. Suffice it to
say that rational people do not ordinarily use a sledge hammer to nail
a tack nor do they use a tack hammer to drive a large stake into the
ground.
So I look for causes that are in proportion to the effects of warfare.
The reasons for fighting a war that I seek must apply to essentially
all the participants from the generals to the troops. There is high
risk in war so whatever is driving these participants must be of equal
stature as the risks. All I can come up is economic reasons, either
preservation of the current economic environment or enhancement of it.
Religion is indeed a powerful force in the lives of most human being
but I do not accept the claim that people in general would willingly
die for it. It's too intangible. The same goes for most ideology.
Of course the instinct for self preservation is important but unless
there is an immediate threat most people are not willing to take the
war to their enemies for that reason alone. Again, there has to be a
cause in proportion to the effects of war and all I can come up with
in general terms is economic in nature.
Economic benefits of war do not have to be grossly materialistic.
Basic needs are more important to people than frivolities.
The first duty of a rational person is to comprehend the fact that most
human decisions are not taken on rational grounds.
You have clearly failed in this duty.
--
ralph
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
21 Nov 2005 02:17:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:22:32 +0000, ralph
<ralph@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Economic benefits of war do not have to be grossly materialistic.
Basic needs are more important to people than frivolities.
The first duty of a rational person is to comprehend the fact that most
human decisions are not taken on rational grounds.
You have clearly failed in this duty.
The first duty of a rational person is to comprehend the fact that no
one gives a rat's ***** how human decisions are taken, rational or
irrational, because it makes no difference when it comes down to the
motive for war which is primarily economic.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
