Gwyn, Actually, I was responding to Sean, who happens to be an old friend of mine I have not seen in a decade and more. Obviously, you do not know himMessage 1 of 53 , Oct 13, 2007View SourceGwyn,Actually, I was responding to Sean, who happens to be an old friend of mine I have not seen in a decade and more. Obviously, you do not know him personally, which is why you found no humor in his "Jesus still loves you" post. I do not care to critique your content. But I am curious why someone who thinks there is no need to share ideas would join a yahoo discussion group regarding a spiritual topic like meditation and further why someone who finds no need to treat other's views with respect would subject themselves to such ideas in the first place?You mentioned joy...now that is a topic I would love to discuss.Candy----- Original Message -----From: Gwyn PlaineSent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 2:12 PMSubject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: God Exists (long but semi-interesting)Well, that cleared that up... the joy of the subtle ad-hom and accusations of hostility while people peddle crazy... hate to break the news but the planet is pretty well stocked up on it... along with saccharine nonsense and empty sentiment.
so, care to critique the content rather than tell me my intent, or is that a little too much like having to 'think'?
On 10/13/07, C. Joubert <redbrew@...> wrote:Sean,Clearly there is no hostility there, you ignorant chemist.Candy ;-)----- Original Message -----From: Gwyn PlaineSent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 11:55 AMSubject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: God Exists (long but semi-interesting)you're reflecting hostility where there is none.
It's the kind of poorly researched nonsense that apologists pull out like a shiv in a lunch queue.
I pointed out that his reasons are more to do with him than an extrinsic validation of the stance by a perceived position of a 'hostile' witness... when it's actually incredibly poorly thought out justification of a stance that, in any environment, is of importance to him, and the people who'd trot him out as a poster boy to validate their position on objective 'reality'. In the end it's just loud and tiresome.
and you show your own ignorance by invoking only chemistry to try to explain the universe. A lot like invoking metallurgy to explain the internal combustion engine.
Care to pray (or would that be 'prey') for me again?
On 10/14/07, sean tremblay <bethjams9@...> wrote:Gwyn,All the dude is saying is that he believes in God and he lists 7 reasons why. I don't see why a discusion about the Big G should provoke such hostility. You don't he Does so what it not a matter of being smarter than someone else, as far as imagination goes he is capable of being a scientist and view the world as a place of Deliberate design in some fashion rather than an accidental mix of chemical reactions.It seems we need to set ourselvse aside in "camps" and view each other over a tall fence of suspicion.To all of you who have been hurt by religion, I am terribly sorry to hear it, Human beings do shitty things mostly for power and greed they use religion as an excuse, politics and idiology.
Gwyn Plaine <gplaine@...> wrote:With due respect to the man, just because his imagination is too limited to imagine a designerless universe proves nothing more than he's actually slightly dull, rather than unveiling a cosmic truth.
His invocation of the Goldilocks zone we live in is nonsense, since it a-priori assumes that life can only live in a very small niche. This has been disproved again and again as we open the depths of the oceans, or even volcanic chasms near the surface. Life arose in conditions that would tear us apart to day... we'd boil, roast, implode, or explode if exposed to the conditions where life not just hangs in there, but thrives. Seems that humanity is the pinnacle of his creation. what a low expectation.
I also find his appeal to the mix of metaphors of very large numbers to prove, again in an un-established, un-declared a priori assumption, that life was 'too' complex in it's early stages to arise at best unconvincing and at worse, desperate. We see again and a again self-organising inorganic (non-life) systems, from magnetically charged dusts (containing no carbon) to prion development where a 'mutant' protein converts a 'normal' protein to the mutant. Again, it's more to do with 'least energy' solutions than it does to complexity...
However, life is a little too short to take a scalpel to every point raised by every person justify why they feel the need to believe or otherwise.
In the end I take the view that whatever keeps you from killing, raping or robbing your neighbour is fine, but there's no need to try and spread the idea you use, nor for it to be treated 'respectfully' by people who don't subscribe to your version of the 'creator' be it a being or simply a 'principal'.
On 10/13/07, medit8ionsociety < email@example.com> wrote:Seven Reasons Why a Scientist Believes in God
By A. CRESSY MORRISON,
Former President of the New York Academy of Sciences
<snipped for brevity>.
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
indeedMessage 53 of 53 , Oct 25, 2007View SourceindeedOn 10/24/07, Jeff Belyea <jeff@...> wrote:
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "jvmarco"
> --- In email@example.com, sean tremblay
> <bethjams9@> wrote:
> > I think therefore I am
> > Descartes
> Actually, Descartes, like today's groupthink, has it upsidedown.
> can you put the "i think" (the little i, the ego) before the I am?
> The absolute, irrefutable reality is this:
> Know God, no Peace; Gnow Peace, no God!
Gnice gnostic touch, Vicente.