OT heartbreak

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:42:41 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

Not sure what you are saying - in summary is it one of these?
a) you believe in God, but think he/it is evil

I believe he is simply pointing out the logical conclusion that if you
believe some god responds to prayers by helping children, such a god is
intrinsically evil for placing the child in such a bad condition in the
first place.

Ah, when non-believers start talking about the 'logical conclusion' of what
belief means, it reminds me of all the people who feel themselves qualified
to comment on relativity - you know the ones, they haven't got a clue what
they are talking about but feel qualified to comment.

b) you think that the rational response of people who believe in God
should
be as 'a)'

Rational people don't believe in gods. Or perhaps it would be better to
say that a belief in gods is inherently irrational, so a person who
believes in a god has, at the very least, a big hole in their overall
degree of rationality.

I'm not so sure about that. A sense of the numinous is a very human trait,
and there are two possible sources for this sense. Either it is an artifice
made up of unresolved attempts to rationalise the world, or it is a new
sensory capability that arises from the complexity of the brain. You can
argue either way, but I don't see that it is inherently more rational to say
it is one rather than the other.

c) you don't believe in God but think you know better than people who do

Anybody who doesn't believe in a god is operating on far more
intellectually stable ground than anybody who does.

I know some very dull, inimaginative ignorant people who work from a very
'stable' intellectual ground indeed.

d) you think you know what people who believe in the power of prayer
believe
in even though you don't believe in the things that they believe; and,
because you believe they believe in the things you believe they believe
(but
you don't yourself believe in them) they are mistaken.

It's not a matter of belief. The power of prayer- at least in medical
matters- has been scientifically demonstrated to be non-existent.

And that proves nothing about the existence of God. Surely you accept that!

BTW, what's your view on the existence of Mathematics?

No response from Davoud yet, I notice.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:56:43 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

Ah, when non-believers start talking about the 'logical conclusion' of what
belief means, it reminds me of all the people who feel themselves qualified
to comment on relativity - you know the ones, they haven't got a clue what
they are talking about but feel qualified to comment.

Not necessarily. It depends on what is being argued. Certainly, any
reasonably intelligent person will recognize that there is a valid
argument to be made around the idea that a god that answers prayers to
cure should be held responsible for either (1) not curing some, or (2)
causing the disease in the first place. And by human standards, anyone
in that position can be seen as evil. (This is not an argument that can
be "won", or "lost", but that doesn't mean that the discussion isn't a
valid one, and that people wouldn't walk away from such a discussion
with different opinions than when they started.)


I'm not so sure about that. A sense of the numinous is a very human trait,
and there are two possible sources for this sense. Either it is an artifice
made up of unresolved attempts to rationalise the world, or it is a new
sensory capability that arises from the complexity of the brain. You can
argue either way, but I don't see that it is inherently more rational to say
it is one rather than the other.

I find your two options peculiar. I would have said, either it is an
artifact of the brain/mind (the rationalist position), or it is an
exogenous sense created by the divine (the religionist position). In
that case, I do think the first is truly rational, because it is subject
to test (and in fact, has been tested to some extent: drugs and certain
injuries can produce the numinous sense you refer to.)

I know some very dull, inimaginative ignorant people who work from a very
'stable' intellectual ground indeed.

I know people ranging from brilliant to dull, and from intellectually
stable to... less stable. I don't find much correlation between these
things, so I don't really see your point.

It's not a matter of belief. The power of prayer- at least in medical
matters- has been scientifically demonstrated to be non-existent.

And that proves nothing about the existence of God. Surely you accept that!

Well, that depends. If by "God" you mean the Judeo/Christian god that is
usually implied by your choice of capitalization, then I'd say the
evidence that prayer doesn't work is evidence against the existence of
that god. After all, most religious doctrine around "God" makes it
pretty clear he answers prayers.

If, however, you simply mean a deity in general, I agree completely that
the evidence against the efficacy of prayer tells us nothing about its
existence or non-existence. I was only responding to an earlier comment
that attempted to argue both that prayer has been demonstrated to work,
and that this proves the existence of a god.

BTW, what's your view on the existence of Mathematics?

I don't understand the question. Mathematics is a logical system of
symbolic manipulation. It clearly exists. If you're asking whether it
has some physical connection to the Universe, I'd say no. It's just a
way of representing and manipulating ideas; an intelligent creation, not
a property of nature.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:15:29 -0500, "David Staup"
wrote:

so what you're saying is that you really haven't read "Just six numbers"
and
you lied to defend you're opinion....now there's rationality for sure...

I haven't read it.You asked if I was familiar with it, which I am. And
what I'm familiar with is the arguments around the six numbers that Rees
discusses- I didn't even know he proposed a multiverse concept in the
book. I've participated in other discussions about the "six numbers"
idea, and the related anthropic principle, and given the nature of this
discussion I assumed that's what you were talking about.

" You Think" you have all the correct answers and that other "beliefs"
are
irrational simply because they are not your "beliefs" how arrogant....
how
Al Gore of you

Thank you for that; you've qualified for one of my more useful litmus
tests: anybody who uses Al Gore as an example is probably not going to
be able to provide any stimulating ideas, and can largely be ignored.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Thank you for that; you've qualified for one of my more useful litmus
tests: anybody who uses Al Gore as an example is probably not going to
be able to provide any stimulating ideas, and can largely be ignor

knew you would love that and your responce:

"not going to
be able to provide any stimulating ideas, and can largely be ignor"

was exactly what I expected and qualifies you for the David Hume award!


"The greater part of mankind are naturally apt to be affirmative and
dogmatical in their opinions; and while they see objects only on one side,
and have no idea of any counter-poising argument, they throw themselves
precipitately into the principles, to which they are inclined; nor have they
any indulgence for those who entertain opposite sentiments. To hesitate or
balance perplexes their understanding, checks their passion, and suspends
their action. They are, therefore, impatient till they escape from a state,
which to them is so uneasy: and they think, that they could never remove
themselves far enough from it, by the violence of their affirmations and
obstinacy of their beliefs"

congratulations...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:56:43 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

Ah, when non-believers start talking about the 'logical conclusion' of
what
belief means, it reminds me of all the people who feel themselves
qualified
to comment on relativity - you know the ones, they haven't got a clue
what
they are talking about but feel qualified to comment.

Not necessarily. It depends on what is being argued. Certainly, any
reasonably intelligent person will recognize that there is a valid
argument to be made around the idea that a god that answers prayers to
cure should be held responsible for either (1) not curing some, or (2)
causing the disease in the first place. And by human standards, anyone
in that position can be seen as evil. (This is not an argument that can
be "won", or "lost", but that doesn't mean that the discussion isn't a
valid one, and that people wouldn't walk away from such a discussion
with different opinions than when they started.)

I'm not that fixated on the belief that God 'ought' to cure everyone who is
prayed for, and I don't think that many knowledgeable religious people would
argue that position; so how God responds to prayer is not for me to
prejudge. Sometimes God's response appears to be to grant peace and
acceptance to the sick person and the family, sometimes people feel
supported just knowing that others are concerned and are interceeding on
their behalf. And sometimes a disease goes into remission - but to say that
only the latter is 'answering a prayer' is not rational.

I'm not so sure about that. A sense of the numinous is a very human
trait,
and there are two possible sources for this sense. Either it is an
artifice
made up of unresolved attempts to rationalise the world, or it is a new
sensory capability that arises from the complexity of the brain. You can
argue either way, but I don't see that it is inherently more rational to
say
it is one rather than the other.

I find your two options peculiar. I would have said, either it is an
artifact of the brain/mind (the rationalist position), or it is an
exogenous sense created by the divine (the religionist position). In
that case, I do think the first is truly rational, because it is subject
to test (and in fact, has been tested to some extent: drugs and certain
injuries can produce the numinous sense you refer to.)

Drugs and injuries can induce lots of sensations e.g. - tinnitus, imbalance,
paranoia - does this mean that sound, earthquakes and persecution don't
exist? The sense of the numinous seems to be common across a lot of human
history and culture, maybe it is a response to something that really IS out
there.

I know some very dull, inimaginative ignorant people who work from a very
'stable' intellectual ground indeed.

I know people ranging from brilliant to dull, and from intellectually
stable to... less stable. I don't find much correlation between these
things, so I don't really see your point.

You snipped your original comment - which seemed to imply that a 'someone
operating on a stable intellectual ground' is a better thinker than someone
with more doubt and more faith.

It's not a matter of belief. The power of prayer- at least in medical
matters- has been scientifically demonstrated to be non-existent.

And that proves nothing about the existence of God. Surely you accept
that!

Well, that depends. If by "God" you mean the Judeo/Christian god that is
usually implied by your choice of capitalization, then I'd say the
evidence that prayer doesn't work is evidence against the existence of
that god. After all, most religious doctrine around "God" makes it
pretty clear he answers prayers.

But you're not an expert in theology, and probably not able to comment in
depth on what 'most religious doctrine' says about God's response to
rayer - so what you think is probably about as meaningful as a random dip
into sci.physics.relativity. I don't claim any more authority by the way,
but I can see that ruling out the existence of a deity on the basis of this
sort of argument is not 'rational'.

If, however, you simply mean a deity in general, I agree completely that
the evidence against the efficacy of prayer tells us nothing about its
existence or non-existence. I was only responding to an earlier comment
that attempted to argue both that prayer has been demonstrated to work,
and that this proves the existence of a god.


Fair enough, I didn't expect to see anything valuable in that particular
person's postings, so I've no idea what facile argument you were responding
to, but demolishing a fallacious argument in favour of a proposition is not
the same as disproving the proposition. I think we can both agree on that.

Davoud wrote:

Did you mean "eons?"

Yes. Typo/braino.

Chances are the "god person" would be cursing his god

If you believe that, then your experience with "god people" is either
extremely limited, or corrupted by posers. That person would not be a god
person by definition.

God people have two simple tenets to their faith, embrace the divine ideal
(and we all have an image of what that is in our minds), and respect (love)
your neighbor (take care of him, share in his burden, share in his
experience, do not leave him to feel alone.)

I know this to be true, because it is common among loving and caring people,
whether they are religious or not.

Everyone else who claims to know God, is just a poser. Everything else a
corruption. If there is a God, a lot of religious people are likely to be
sorely dissappointed.

I can "feel" it. ;-)
--
Steve Paul
(Please be aware that almost all of my opinions on god and religion are
offered tongue in cheek. They are my opinions, I believe I am entitled to
them, and I make no claim on absolute truth, because that's bad science.)

Davoud:
Chances are the "god person" would be cursing his god

Steve Paul:
If you believe that, then your experience with "god people" is either
extremely limited, or corrupted by posers. That person would not be a god
person by definition.

God people have two simple tenets to their faith, embrace the divine ideal
(and we all have an image of what that is in our minds), and respect (love)
your neighbor (take care of him, share in his burden, share in his
experience, do not leave him to feel alone.)

That is not true, and even if it were, having principles and living by
those principles are entirely different matters. I guarantee you that
among the principles Usama Bin Laden would quote you as being his own
are "embrace the divine ideal, respect (love) your neighbor, take care
of him, share in his burden, share in his experience, and do not leave
him to feel alone."

Whence this term "god person," anyway? Seems a bit clumsy, and I've
never heard it used by a theist. They tend to refer to themselves as
being religious, or being believers.

I know this to be true, because it is common among loving and caring people,
whether they are religious or not.

I'm not so sure about the "divine ideal" when it comes to Secular
Humanists. Our ideals tend to omit divinities and, as the name of our
philosophy implies, we focus on humanity.

Everyone else who claims to know God, is just a poser. Everything else a
corruption. If there is a God, a lot of religious people are likely to be
sorely dissappointed.

I have no idea what that means.

I can "feel" it. ;-)

You may deal with what you feel;
I may agree with what I see.

Davoud

--
I agree with everything that you have said and everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Chris L Peterson wrote:
[snip]

I am excited and amazed by nature, but my mind never boggles. And I've
seen nothing that seems unable to be explained by human analysis.

Oh, that's wonderful. Perhaps your mind is better suited to deal with all the
hoopla that's out there, than mine. As of now, I am assigning you to be The New
Commander of The Universe.

Good luck and don't forget to drop us a note when you will start losing it.

One either sees Him or not.

Why not "them"?

That too. And I suspect you will be seeing lots of that in the near future. Good
luck with your new post. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some sleep-catching
to do.

I really need the rest :-)

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
--
Ioannis

On 16 Ïêô, 04:02, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:55:57 -0400, "lou feeders"
wrote:

Ok, let me try something else and move away from The Bible. *I don't
necessarily believe what I'm about to mention, but others swear by it and
there is documented evidence, although rare to find it. *The paranormal.
In the overwhelming majority of paranormal investigations, the "demons" that
have been encountered disturbing the innocent living people have turned out
to be evil people who have died and are now afraid to enter the light they
see out of fear of judgement for their living works...

Okay, you got me! Now I know that you've been pulling my leg all through
the discussion, and I fell for it.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

S.A.A. is priceless! What an incredible dose of humour and comedy
thanks to all the nut-cases!

Anthony.

David:
Steve::
David:
Chances are the "god person" would be cursing his god

If you believe that, then your experience with "god people" is either
extremely limited, or corrupted by posers. That person would not be a
god
person by definition.

God people have two simple tenets to their faith, embrace the divine
ideal
(and we all have an image of what that is in our minds), and respect
(love)
your neighbor (take care of him, share in his burden, share in his
experience, do not leave him to feel alone.)

That is not true

The believer will tell you that there is no truth about god for the
non-believer. That's the paradox of faith.

On a related note, there is a whole lot of bull**** being flung around about
people of faith, and that's exactly what it is, bull****. While there are
always examples of errant human behavior, it is always unfair to stereotype
a group by the actions of an individual or cult.

On a similar paradoxical note, I leave you with this quote regarding the
experience of motorcycling: "For those who understand, no explanation is
necessary, for those who don't, none will be given." -author unknown

This applies to anything that requires experience to enjoy, like dragging a
12" telescope out back under a dark sky and finding M13. Until you do it,
you are clueless to the power of the experience.

I enjoy my faith, motorcycling, and astronomy. I don't care what anyone else
thinks about it.

Best,
Steve

Steve Paul:

On a related note, there is a whole lot of bull**** being flung around about
people of faith, and that's exactly what it is, bull****. While there are
always examples of errant human behavior, it is always unfair to stereotype
a group by the actions of an individual or cult.

It's the group that is easy to stereotype. When its leader says that
the ACLU was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and the flock stays with
the leader, then it is pretty easy to accurately stereotype the group
as a bunch of crypto-Nazi nutso extremists. I'm talking about the late,
unlamented, Jerry Falwell in this instance.

On a similar paradoxical note, I leave you with this quote regarding the
experience of motorcycling: "For those who understand, no explanation is
necessary, for those who don't, none will be given." -author unknown

That's pure smugness. I've also seen claims that it originated with
sports-car enthusiasts, fly fishermen, sky divers, and a host of others
who might want us to think that what they do makes them a breed apart
and superior to the hoi polloi. But they ain't and they ain't.

This applies to anything that requires experience to enjoy, like dragging a
12" telescope out back under a dark sky and finding M13. Until you do it,
you are clueless to the power of the experience.

What about people who have seen M13 through a 12" (has to be at least
12", does it? 10" or 11" won't do?) telescope and thought it was OK,
but not a life-changing experience? Are they inferior to you and me?

I also dispute your "requires experience to enjoy" assertion. While
enjoyment may increase with experience and skill, the rank beginner is
not excluded from enjoyment.

What about me? I've driven and ridden a few nice motorcycles, thought
it was fun and all, but it didn't make me want to own one. Does that
make me an ignoramus who doesn't "get it?" Ditto row boats, sailboats,
yachts, canoes, kayaks, and the like. On the other hand, my first ride
in, and first and only driving experience in, a Lamborghini had me
considering a big-league bank heist so that I could get one asap. I
settled on a more-or-less honest occupation and have been happy with
Nissans, Miatas, BMW's, and such other less expensive cars as struck my
fancy at the time.

I enjoy my faith, motorcycling, and astronomy.

OK.

I don't care what anyone else thinks about it.

I don't believe that because I don't think that you're a sociopath.

Davoud

--
I agree with everything that you have said and everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm