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

11345Re: [Death To Religion] New guy

Expand Messages
  • bestonnet_00
    Mar 1, 2008
      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "bestonnet_00" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
      > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 11:50 PM
      > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] New guy
      > > My understanding of supernatural is that which is not part of the
      > > natural world.
      > Yes, just what I said, separate from nature or the natural physical
      > world.

      Yes, though I should note that this is a recent understanding that
      only really came about due to the scientific revolution recognising a
      natural, before modern science they were considered the same thing
      (and some people still try to claim that they are).

      > > Your view on religion is very different to what the average person
      > > thinks of religion.
      > Exactly. Let the masses go their own way, as the herds following
      > the leader with the carrot on the stick. The average or the masses
      > is what served Marx's purpose.

      OTOH I doubt whether what you think is religion actually is.

      Play with the definition enough and you can make anything religion at
      which point the word loses its meaning.

      > > Maybe there are scholars who think the way you do (there are ones
      > > who think there is no real world so not that unlikely) but they
      > > study made up fantasies of how religion is, not what actually
      > > happens in the real world.
      > When you say "they" you should say some, or most, or many. This is
      > perhaps your main problem committing the fallacy of composition.

      Essentially all religious people think differently to you.

      > How do you know what actually happens?

      And how do you?

      > > Reincarnation not supernatural?
      > No. Reincarnation (samsara) is Hindu.

      Despite it being part of Buddhism.

      > > I acknowledge that much of the good claimed to have been done by
      > > religion was not in fact good (e.g. the crap that Mother Teresa
      > > along with countless other missionaries pulled) along with the
      > > fact that the genuine good that came from religion would probably
      > > have happened without it.
      > No. Not just claimed by religion, but claimed by all people, even
      > non-believers and atheists.

      There are a lot of people who give undue credit to religion (most of
      the population in the average western country probably thought that
      Mother Teresa was helping people).

      > Again your are short on reading, or even watching TV.

      I don't tend to watch much TV given that it seems to be mostly crap on.

      > And then you place Mother T into your neat little category,
      > again committing the composition fallacy by applying the negatives
      > about her (and I agree to them) to all of her.

      The vast majority of missionaries are bad (and many of them are far
      worse than her).

      > "Probably" would have happened without religious motivation of
      > love?????? You sure do reveal yourself, how you really are.

      The people that weren't doing it to buy converts would probably have
      helped without a religion because they were just good people.

      Even so, not having religion suppress science would have helped more
      than all the charity in the world multiplied ten times over (the
      smallpox vaccine did a lot more good than prayer).

      > > Whilst the violence would probably not have occurred without
      > > religion.
      > Again you reveal yourself, your extreme bias to your dogma.

      Or maybe I just reveal that I know what I'm talking about and that you
      can't actually refute it (since if you could you would have instead of
      merely saying "extreme bias to your dogma" despite me being the moderate).

      > > Bohr, et. al. did also reject the notion that it was anything more
      > > than a methphor (in much the same way atheist Stephen Hawkins
      > > speaks of the "mind of god").
      > Your not reading the right stuff in which they did not mean
      > metaphor.

      Or you're just delusional.

      > Granted metaphor for Hawkins and Einstein. Why don't you just say
      > "probably" in your speculation?

      Because it isn't probably.

      > > Those who were serious about it (and didn't just think of it as an
      > > interesting metaphor) are all kooks though.
      > You mean "probably" right?

      No, I don't mean probably, I mean that the people who do think there
      is a real relation between QM and Eastern mythology are kooks.

      > > Look deeply into QM, something I suspect you haven't done.
      > Not my provenance. I just study in an open minded way all the
      > prominent reputable scholars I can.

      No surprise, you might even agree with the guy in the white shirt

      Most of the scholars outside of physics (and maths) departments who
      write on QM don't have a damn clue what it is that Quantum Mechanics
      actually is so I wouldn't be surprised if you're reading crap about it.

      > > Why should anyone given the problems it's caused?
      > So you lump all religion into your neat category of the bad
      > activities. A sure sign of extreme bias.

      Or of investigating what the effects of religious belief have been and
      coming to the only reasonable conclusion.

      > > If you play with the language enough you can even get Christianity
      > > to appear to have some relation with the real world.
      > I don't do that. So you mean "probably" I would do that?

      Well there are people who think the bible is actually true despite it
      being so clearly false.

      It involves twisting both the bible and modern science but so does
      telling people that eastern mythology had something to do with quantum

      > > Doesn't mean I'm going to start telling people the world is 6000
      > > years old though.
      > I don't believe that hogwash. I am a thoroughly embued Darwinian
      > evolutionist, study it a lot. In my view all theology is hogwash
      > for the masses.

      At least you agree with reality in one area of your life (though how
      closely is another matter).

      > > I'm still trying to figure out the relation between the commutator
      > > of position and momentum being zero and where in Eastern religion
      > > that came from though.
      > How sweet. Why don't you google it?

      So you can't answer it or tell me why that statement is nonsense?
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic