Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

29891Re: Fruitless Searches! responses to selected items

Expand Messages
  • khunsinger33
    Oct 24, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "stewart8724" <art1st@...> wrote:
      >
      > Al: Let me ask you: Do you believe in demons? Ghosts? Unicorns? Lucifer? Alien visitors? Spiritual habitation of inanimate things as with the animistic beliefs of primitives? Local gods? If you're consistent, you will believe in these things because, apparently, you think that if human minds have reliably believed in it over time, it must have a basis in reality. Human beings have been believing in many of these things for tens or hundreds of millenia; why should they be any less credible than a monotheistic god?
      >
      > Kurt: Good question. I don't know, maybe. But then I don't believe in a creator-god. Not literally.
      >
      > Stewart: You don't believe in God, not literally? Which implies that you believe in a God in some other way. A non literal God maybe? The opposite of literal is figurative, is this God of yours symbolic, if so what does it symbolise?

      Kurt: actually, the whole question of "god" is pretty hazy to me. I hold no specific believe on that. You asked me about it and i answered best i could.

      > Kurt: I do feel the belief in a creator, demons, spiritual habitation and evolutionary theory all represent something substantial. Exactly why humanity holds all these seemingly kooky beliefs is hard to say, but we've clearly been at it long enough to know that the facts of science don't displace them, or dispel them or lessen the impact for those who have experience such phenomena. And yes, evolutionary theory belongs on the same list.
      >
      > Stewart: They all have substance but they are all "kooky beliefs"? You really are confused aren't you?

      Kurt: I said seemingly kooky. But yes, I think both substantial and seemingly kooky can be applied to the same thing. this conversation for example.
      >
      > Kurt: My point was not so esoteric as all that though. I was simply saying that the old argument of early-man inventing a creator to explain his `unfathomable and mysterious' environment is lame. It's silly, bias guess work.
      >
      > Stewart: Is it really guess work? Is it guess work to say that the Vikings believed in a God of thunder (Thor)? Is it guess work to say that the Greeks believed in a Goddess of love (Aphrodite)? Is it guess work to say that the Romans believed in the God of war (Mars)? Is it guess work to say the Egyptians believed in Gods of night (Anubis) and day (Ra)? Many peoples and just a few of many Gods created to explain mysterious phenomena. All of them well documented removing the need for any guessing. Should we view the worship of these Gods as a worthy pursuit? All of these Gods are specific to the cultures they were created by. It is not uncommon for people to apply anthropomorphic characteristics to aspects of nature, it makes nature easier to deal with.

      Kurt: Viking god named thor, not guess work. Ambigously identified "early humans" making nature easier to understand by self-inventing a god, yes, thats guess work.
      >
      > Kurt: Really, no offense here, but its funny how evolution-believers so revere their belief-system that they think the whole of humanity was lost in an ignorant fog until it came along. Unless you can show that the creator belief early man or modern man or any man represents an insanity then it remains at least a reasonable pursuit.
      >
      > Stewart: Really, no offence taken, but evolution is not a belief system. It is a conclusion based on the fruit of cumulative scientific evidence.
      > Do you remember all those "average" people you referred to before, the ones that knew nothing of the theory of evolution? Well you're one of them. If you had the faintest idea of what evolutionary theory actually is, you wouldn't embarrass yourself by printing such nonsense.

      Kurt: if i lack in that regard then I thank you in advance for your gentle tutelage.

      >
      > Al: I suggest these things *are* self invented, that these are artifacts of human consiousness and thinking (such as it is) -- they are figments of human imagination. Just as are unicorns and demons.
      >
      > Kurt: I've said before that that is a strange argument. If creator-belief is an erroneous artifact that prompts modern man unwittingly to believe in falsities, how is it you that could possible consider yourself immune? As for Demons, unicorns and the like, I've found Carl Jung to be a pretty good source for helping sort that out. The experience of life is quite a potent exchange to be sure. We process this exchange by means of imagery, apparently we don't know why this is true but it is. We hear words but to understand them, for them to have meaning, we must exchange them for images. We dream in images, think, plan, remember, regret and rejoice in imagery. A demon is no more, no less as real an image of the substance and realities of life than the image you may have of irreducible complexity. Imagery encompasses and represents all of our outer and inner experience. Evolutionary theory supposes we can do away with the imagery that doesn't fit the theory. How short sighted! I've heard the story of Jonah and the Whale marginalized as fantasy so many times I'll puke if I hear it again. I myself have been swallowed by a whale! Haven't you? Carried to a destination I would have otherwise avoided and was called on to accomplish a task not of my choosing. Life will do that to ya.
      >
      > Stewart: Oh aye, that sorts the whole thing out right enough. Except if you're blind, where's the reality in imagery then? This guy Jung makes as much sense as you do.

      Kurt: Try The Undiscovered Self. short book but packed with insight on why images play such an important roll. He also suggests that examining the group often leads to misconceptions when trying to learn something of the individual. something we would do well to remember in this discussion.
      >
      > Kurt: Now I whole-heartedly agree that science should not use imagery or language like that! But the rest of us should, a description of experience without it is bland, inaccurate and impotent. But that's the difference between science and evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory has no compunction about seeping its way into our images of what life is and how it works and what defines it, robbing us of the potency of the imagery we should otherwise enjoy and learn from. And as a side note, isn't it kind of silly to invoke consciousness as a tool to support evolution when evolution has not the foggiest idea what it is, where it comes from or the purpose it serves?
      >
      > Stewart: If evolutionary theory seeps uninvited into your images, I would suggest that might be a problem unique to yourself. There may be drugs that can help. (or is that the cause?)

      Kurt: it's true, i could be projecting my own concerns onto others. I'll try to measure my comments with that in mind.

      > Consciousness is not a tool to support evolution it is a fact of nature in the higher life forms. Evolution also applies to life that is unconscious, plant life for example.
      > What is it? - It's awareness, being awake.
      > Where does it come from? - The brain of living beings.
      > What purpose does it serve? - It allows us to move to find our food, it allows us to move to another, more favourable location. It allows us to be more selective in choosing a candidate for reproduction. There you go, just a few advantages it offers.

      Kurt: Wow, ok, thanks for clearing that up.

      > Apart from being upset about imagery seepage, what is it you have against science?

      Kurt: Science? nothing. Evolution theory? Kind of a lot.
      >
      > There's always a place for the angry young man
      > with his fist in the air and his head in the sand. (Billy Joel)

      Thanks for the input. sorry to hear I've made that kind of impression. I'll try to offer more even-handed responses in the future... and more billy joel quotes if that'll help.
      >
      >
      >
      > ..
      >
      > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "khunsinger33" <khunsinger33@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > Al: Let me ask you: Do you believe in demons? Ghosts? Unicorns? Lucifer? Alien visitors? Spiritual habitation of inanimate things as with the animistic beliefs of primitives? Local gods? If you're consistent, you will believe in these things because, apparently, you think that if human minds have reliably believed in it over time, it must have a basis in reality. Human beings have been believing in many of these things for tens or hundreds of millenia; why should they be any less credible than a monotheistic god?
      > >
      > > Kurt: Good question. I don't know, maybe. But then I don't believe in a creator-god. Not literally. I do feel the belief in a creator, demons, spiritual habitation and evolutionary theory all represent something substantial. Exactly why humanity holds all these seemingly kooky beliefs is hard to say, but we've clearly been at it long enough to know that the facts of science don't displace them, or dispel them or lessen the impact for those who have experience such phenomena. And yes, evolutionary theory belongs on the same list. My point was not so esoteric as all that though. I was simply saying that the old argument of early-man inventing a creator to explain his `unfathomable and mysterious' environment is lame. It's silly, bias guess work. Really, no offense here, but its funny how evolution-believers so revere their belief-system that they think the whole of humanity was lost in an ignorant fog until it came along. Unless you can show that the creator belief early man or modern man or any man represents an insanity then it remains at least a reasonable pursuit.
      > >
      > > Al: I suggest these things *are* self invented, that these are artifacts of human consiousness and thinking (such as it is) -- they are figments of human imagination. Just as are unicorns and demons.
      > >
      > > Kurt: I've said before that that is a strange argument. If creator-belief is an erroneous artifact that prompts modern man unwittingly to believe in falsities, how is it you that could possible consider yourself immune? As for Demons, unicorns and the like, I've found Carl Jung to be a pretty good source for helping sort that out. The experience of life is quite a potent exchange to be sure. We process this exchange by means of imagery, apparently we don't know why this is true but it is. We hear words but to understand them, for them to have meaning, we must exchange them for images. We dream in images, think, plan, remember, regret and rejoice in imagery. A demon is no more, no less as real an image of the substance and realities of life than the image you may have of irreducible complexity. Imagery encompasses and represents all of our outer and inner experience. Evolutionary theory supposes we can do away with the imagery that doesn't fit the theory. How short sighted! I've heard the story of Jonah and the Whale marginalized as fantasy so many times I'll puke if I hear it again. I myself have been swallowed by a whale! Haven't you? Carried to a destination I would have otherwise avoided and was called on to accomplish a task not of my choosing. Life will do that to ya. Now I whole-heartedly agree that science should not use imagery or language like that! But the rest of us should, a description of experience without it is bland, inaccurate and impotent. But that's the difference between science and evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory has no compunction about seeping its way into our images of what life is and how it works and what defines it, robbing us of the potency of the imagery we should otherwise enjoy and learn from. And as a side note, isn't it kind of silly to invoke consciousness as a tool to support evolution when evolution has not the foggiest idea what it is, where it comes from or the purpose it serves?
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Al Young" <acyoung@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Kurt: Youre saying we looked to a self-invented, non-existent deity to help
      > > > us cope with and explain the natural environment? The same environment that
      > > > hominids had already been interacting with for the previous two million
      > > > years. Really? After 3 or 4 billion years of life on this planet, in one
      > > > form or another, along comes a species that needs to self-invent a creator
      > > > to interact with the environment? Unlikely.
      > > >
      > > > Let me ask you: Do you believe in demons? Ghosts? Unicorns? Lucifer? Alien
      > > > visitors? Spiritual habitation of inanimate things as with the animistic
      > > > beliefs of primitives? Local gods? If you're consistent, you will believe in
      > > > these things because, apparently, you think that if human minds have
      > > > reliably believed in it over time, it must have a basis in reality. Human
      > > > beings have been believing in many of these things for tens or hundreds of
      > > > millenia; why should they be any less credible than a monotheistic god?
      > > >
      > > > I suggest these things *are* self invented, that these are artifacts of
      > > > human consiousness and thinking (such as it is) -- they are figments of
      > > > human imagination.
      > > > Just as are unicorns and demons.
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Show all 59 messages in this topic