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

from offline message (sender's name not revealed)

Expand Messages
  • psikill4_001
    Yes. I think the whole point of these types of groups is to wage a contest of us versus them. These debates over the existence of gods, demons, hells, or
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 31, 2006
      Yes. I think the whole point of these types of groups is
      to wage a contest of us versus them. These debates over
      the existence of gods, demons, hells, or heavens have been
      raging for how long? So where does it end? Or does it
      end? Don't you ever see yourself living a life free of
      religion? You don't have to succumb to the constant
      taunts of dim witted people who only want to lure you into
      their low brow (or no brow) mode of thinking.

      And when I choose to take a breather from these sorts of
      groups it is not because I have nothing to add or that I
      cannot stand my ground. It is because I have other things
      to do that actually matter.

      ---

      > psikill4,
      >
      > I agree with you on the limits of science, but I don't
      > understand the rest (of your paragraph). Do you think
      > the discussion is simply a matter of "dicking around"
      > to win? I won't put words in your mouth, but it appears
      > that you are saying that the discussion is nothing more
      > than a contest. Is that how you see it?
      >
      > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "psikill4_001"
      > <psikill4_001@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, erik kruger
      > <eakruger@>
      > wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Psi:
      > > >
      > > > > It is plausible for something to exist in all realms
      > > > > simultaneously
      > > > > and remain beyond the perceptions of other life
      > > > > forms.
    • Mark
      ... wage a contest of us versus them. -M: Yes, it is those with the more legitimate positions vs. those with the less legitimate positions. Us vs. them. This
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 1, 2006
        --"psikill4_001" wrote:

        >P: Yes. I think the whole point of these types of groups is to
        wage a contest of us versus them.

        -M: Yes, it is those with the more legitimate positions vs. those
        with the less legitimate positions. Us vs. them. This is a problem?

        >P: These debates over the existence of gods, demons, hells, or
        heavens have been raging for how long?

        -M: Since people could communicate symbolicly. Maybe 200,000yrs+.

        >P: So where does it end? Or does it end?

        -M: Why should it end?

        >P: Don't you ever see yourself living a life free of religion?

        -M: Not unless I lose the capacity for formalized thought(which is
        inherently faith-based, hence religious.)

        >P: You don't have to succumb to the constant taunts of dim witted
        people who only want to lure you into their low brow (or no brow)
        mode of thinking.[...]

        -M: Just respond with high-brow comments.

        shanti
        Mark, Seattle
      • dantreble
        Though there is a lot of us vs. them sentiment, I don t believe that it s universal. I m not in any contest. I have explained my viewpoint on this issue in
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 1, 2006
          Though there is a lot of us vs. them sentiment, I don't
          believe that it's universal. I'm not in any contest.

          I have explained my viewpoint on this issue in another post,
          but I don't remember where it is now. Basically, I suggested
          that a major problem in the US/world is that we tend to focus
          on how we differ instead of on what we have in common. In
          "these types" of groups, which I assume you mean spiritual
          groups, there is the tribal thing going on. But the people
          joining the goups are generally looking to talk with people
          who have beliefs similar to their own.

          That's not a bad thing. What's bad is the fear of others
          with differing beliefs. Mark here is a theist in an atheist
          group. Bravo! Mark. He stated when he got here that he was
          a student of Indian Philosophy. I don't know about you, but
          I find that interesting.

          So did Kelly. While the clouds started to form and all the
          fists and arms and legs were flying she pointed out that she
          didn't know much about the subject. She didn't jump on the
          "let's get Mark" bandwagon. Instead, she displayed an open
          mind and set an example. Brava! Kelly.

          The rest of the people engaging Mark were not cretins.
          I only singled Kelly out because she represents the truth of
          this being a tolerant group, as it says outside.

          Kelly soon ended up rebuking him, which was understandable,
          but my point is that the us vs. them situation doesn't
          apply with everyone. And it does SAY outside that the group
          is tolerant. Why not try to be part of the solution rather
          than part of the problem?

          To me the solution is looking for common ground with people
          who have different beliefs. Mark believes what he believes
          for a reason or reasons, and if one doesn't want to talk to
          him or read his posts they have the option not to.

          Debates over the existence of gods, etc. isn't going to
          end anytime soon. Those matters are important to people.

          I do live a life free of religion. If you mean do I see
          myself living in this country free of religion, no. What
          I hope to see is more tolerance for differences.

          I know that I don't have to succumb to the constant taunts
          of dim witted people who only want to lure me into their
          lowbrow mode of thinking. I think for myself, and I'm not
          a victim when I post.

          Your needing to take a breather is understandable
          (of course!), and I don't assume that silence is a sign of
          anything but silence.

          Back to your saying "the whole point of these groups...."
          I do think that Yahoo Groups exist to increase the Yahoo
          universe, and that all this tribal stuff is facilitated
          by Yahoo, but that's another issue. This is our group,
          at it's going to be what we make it. We aren't helpless.

          BTW, you're partly responsible for my Monty Python and
          Butch Cassidy posts. I've done that sort of thing before,
          but it was your input that spurred me on this time :)

          Dan

          --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "psikill4_001"
          <psikill4_001@...> wrote:
          >
          > Yes. I think the whole point of these types of groups is
          > to wage a contest of us versus them. These debates over
          > the existence of gods, demons, hells, or heavens have been
          > raging for how long? So where does it end? Or does it
          > end? Don't you ever see yourself living a life free of
          > religion? You don't have to succumb to the constant
          > taunts of dim witted people who only want to lure you into
          > their low brow (or no brow) mode of thinking.
          >
          > And when I choose to take a breather from these sorts of
          > groups it is not because I have nothing to add or that I
          > cannot stand my ground. It is because I have other things
          > to do that actually matter.
          >
          > ---
          >
          > > psikill4,
          > >
          > > I agree with you on the limits of science, but I don't
          > > understand the rest (of your paragraph). Do you think
          > > the discussion is simply a matter of "dicking around"
          > > to win? I won't put words in your mouth, but it appears
          > > that you are saying that the discussion is nothing more
          > > than a contest. Is that how you see it?
          > >
          > > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "psikill4_001"
          > > <psikill4_001@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, erik kruger
          > > <eakruger@>
          > > wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > Psi:
          > > > >
          > > > > > It is plausible for something to exist in all realms
          > > > > > simultaneously
          > > > > > and remain beyond the perceptions of other life
          > > > > > forms.
          >
        • Mark
          ... that it s universal. I m not in any contest. I have explained my viewpoint on this issue in another post, but I don t remember where it is now. Basically,
          Message 4 of 12 , Apr 1, 2006
            --dantreble wrote:

            >D: Though there is a lot of us vs. them sentiment, I don't believe
            that it's universal. I'm not in any contest. I have explained my
            viewpoint on this issue in another post, but I don't remember where
            it is now. Basically, I suggested that a major problem in the
            US/world is that we tend to focus on how we differ instead of on
            what we have in common. In "these types" of groups, which I assume
            you mean spiritual groups, there is the tribal thing going on. But
            the people joining the goups are generally looking to talk with
            people who have beliefs similar to their own.

            -M: Well discribed.

            >D: That's not a bad thing. What's bad is the fear of others with
            differing beliefs. Mark here is a theist in an atheist group. Bravo!
            Mark.

            -M: :-)
            My path has a yahoogroup - I never read it - boring.

            >D: He stated when he got here that he was a student of Indian
            Philosophy. I don't know about you, but I find that interesting. So
            did Kelly. While the clouds started to form and all the fists and
            arms and legs were flying she pointed out that she didn't know much
            about the subject. She didn't jump on the "let's get Mark"
            bandwagon. Instead, she displayed an open mind and set an example.
            Brava! Kelly.

            -M: Again, well discribed, and bravo Kelly!

            >D: The rest of the people engaging Mark were not cretins. I only
            singled Kelly out because she represents the truth of this being a
            tolerant group, as it says outside. Kelly soon ended up rebuking
            him, which was understandable,...

            -M: I think Kelly had good intentions, but misunderstood me. I think
            that she took my defences for offences.

            >D:...but my point is that the us vs. them situation doesn't apply
            with everyone. And it does SAY outside that the group is tolerant.
            Why not try to be part of the solution rather than part of the
            problem? To me the solution is looking for common ground with people
            who have different beliefs. Mark believes what he believes for a
            reason or reasons, and if one doesn't want to talk to him or read
            his posts they have the option not to. Debates over the existence of
            gods, etc. isn't going to end anytime soon. Those matters are
            important to people.

            -M: :-)

            >D: I do live a life free of religion. [...]Dan

            -M: Dan, I have said that formalized thought is inherently faith-
            based, hence religious. This makes the worldview that you act on a
            religion. Well? (This one has not been overturned)

            shanti
            Mark, Seattle

            > --"psikill4_001" wrote:
            > >
            > > Yes. I think the whole point of these types of groups is
            > > to wage a contest of us versus them. These debates over
            > > the existence of gods, demons, hells, or heavens have been
            > > raging for how long? So where does it end? Or does it
            > > end? Don't you ever see yourself living a life free of
            > > religion? You don't have to succumb to the constant
            > > taunts of dim witted people who only want to lure you into
            > > their low brow (or no brow) mode of thinking.
            > >
            > > And when I choose to take a breather from these sorts of
            > > groups it is not because I have nothing to add or that I
            > > cannot stand my ground. It is because I have other things
            > > to do that actually matter.
          • erik kruger
            ... applying terms like faith-based or religious to *all* cognition merely shows how vacuous and/or vague they are. Erik. There is no question of giving
            Message 5 of 12 , Apr 3, 2006
              > -M: Not unless I lose the capacity for formalized
              > thought(which is
              > inherently faith-based, hence religious.)

              applying terms like "faith-based" or "religious" to
              *all* cognition merely shows how vacuous and/or vague
              they are.

              Erik.


              "There is no question of giving up criticism, but of taking note of the fact that the democratic world endlessly makes promises that it does not keep. It is in the name of these promises, then, that one should perhaps criticize it, in the name of the present, the subversive potential of such an attitude being more powerful than was formerly believed to be found in the future, or currently in the past."
              --from Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut's French Philosophy of the Sixties: An Essay on Antihumanism.

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com
            • erik kruger
              ... why overturn a dead rock, unless one desires to find bugs ...? Erik. There is no question of giving up criticism, but of taking note of the fact that the
              Message 6 of 12 , Apr 3, 2006
                > -M: Dan, I have said that formalized thought is
                > inherently faith-
                > based, hence religious. This makes the worldview
                > that you act on a
                > religion. Well? (This one has not been overturned)

                why overturn a dead rock, unless one desires to find
                bugs ...?

                Erik.


                "There is no question of giving up criticism, but of taking note of the fact that the democratic world endlessly makes promises that it does not keep. It is in the name of these promises, then, that one should perhaps criticize it, in the name of the present, the subversive potential of such an attitude being more powerful than was formerly believed to be found in the future, or currently in the past."
                --from Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut's French Philosophy of the Sixties: An Essay on Antihumanism.

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com
              • Mark
                --erik kruger wrote: [...] ... based, hence religious. This makes the worldview that you act on a religion. Well? (This one has not been overturned) ... -M: If
                Message 7 of 12 , Apr 4, 2006
                  --erik kruger wrote:

                  [...]
                  > > -M: Dan, I have said that formalized thought is inherently faith-
                  based, hence religious. This makes the worldview that you act on a
                  religion. Well? (This one has not been overturned)

                  >ER: why overturn a dead rock, unless one desires to find bugs ...?

                  -M: If there are bugs, where are they?

                  (I hope that wussyism isn't contagious.)

                  shanti
                  Mark, Seattle
                • Mark
                  ... inherently faith-based, hence religious.) ... cognition... -M: No, just *formalized* cognition that is *acted* upon. ... -M: No, fomalization and action
                  Message 8 of 12 , Apr 4, 2006
                    --erik kruger wrote:

                    > > -M: Not unless I lose the capacity for formalized thought(which is
                    inherently faith-based, hence religious.)

                    >ER: applying terms like "faith-based" or "religious" to *all*
                    cognition...

                    -M: No, just *formalized* cognition that is *acted* upon.

                    >ER:...merely shows how vacuous and/or vague they are.

                    -M: No, fomalization and action are very tangible.

                    shanti
                    Mark, Seattle
                  • erik kruger
                    ... you have said does not make anything compelling, or true. this definition of formalized thought merely begs the question you apparently want to
                    Message 9 of 12 , Apr 5, 2006
                      > > > -M: Dan, I have said that formalized thought is
                      > inherently faith-
                      > based, hence religious. This makes the worldview
                      > that you act on a
                      > religion. Well? (This one has not been overturned)

                      "you have said" does not make anything compelling, or
                      true. this "definition" of formalized thought merely
                      begs the question you apparently want to assert.

                      as a ploy, it leaves much to be desired. as a tactic,
                      it doesn't work.

                      > >ER: why overturn a dead rock, unless one desires to
                      > find bugs ...?
                      >
                      > -M: If there are bugs, where are they?

                      see the above. you apparently are only comfortable
                      attacking positions made of straw.

                      Erik.


                      "Quite regularly, 'my eyes glaze over' when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count. True, there are lots of other things I don't understand: the articles in the current issues of math and physics journals, for example. But there is a difference. In the latter case, I know how to get to understand them, and have done so, in cases of particular interest to me; and I also know that people in those fields can explain the contents to me at my level, so that I can gain what (partial) understanding I may want. In contrast, no one seems to be able to explain to me why the latest post-this-or-that is (for the most part) other than truism, error, or gibberish, and I do not know how to proceed. Perhaps the explanation lies in some personal inadequacy, like tone deafness."
                      --from Noam Chomsky on "Rationality, Science, and Post-This-Or-That."

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                      http://mail.yahoo.com
                    • erik kruger
                      see my other post. this is an assertion, but not an argument. Erik. ... Quite regularly, my eyes glaze over when I read polysyllabic discourse on the
                      Message 10 of 12 , Apr 5, 2006
                        see my other post. this is an assertion, but not an
                        argument.

                        Erik.

                        --- Mark <parashakti108@...> wrote:

                        > --erik kruger wrote:
                        >
                        > > > -M: Not unless I lose the capacity for
                        > formalized thought(which is
                        > inherently faith-based, hence religious.)
                        >
                        > >ER: applying terms like "faith-based" or
                        > "religious" to *all*
                        > cognition...
                        >
                        > -M: No, just *formalized* cognition that is *acted*
                        > upon.
                        >
                        > >ER:...merely shows how vacuous and/or vague they
                        > are.
                        >
                        > -M: No, fomalization and action are very tangible.
                        >
                        > shanti
                        > Mark, Seattle
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >


                        "Quite regularly, 'my eyes glaze over' when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count. True, there are lots of other things I don't understand: the articles in the current issues of math and physics journals, for example. But there is a difference. In the latter case, I know how to get to understand them, and have done so, in cases of particular interest to me; and I also know that people in those fields can explain the contents to me at my level, so that I can gain what (partial) understanding I may want. In contrast, no one seems to be able to explain to me why the latest post-this-or-that is (for the most part) other than truism, error, or gibberish, and I do not know how to proceed. Perhaps the explanation lies in some personal inadequacy, like tone deafness."
                        --from Noam Chomsky on "Rationality, Science, and Post-This-Or-That."

                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        http://mail.yahoo.com
                      • Mark
                        --erik kruger wrote: -M: And yet, I don t see any counterpositions here. Potshots from a vacuum? ... discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and
                        Message 11 of 12 , Apr 5, 2006
                          --erik kruger wrote:

                          -M: And yet, I don't see any counterpositions here. Potshots from a
                          vacuum?

                          > > > > -M: Dan, I have said that formalized thought is
                          > > inherently faith-
                          > > based, hence religious. This makes the worldview
                          > > that you act on a
                          > > religion. Well? (This one has not been overturned)
                          >
                          > "you have said" does not make anything compelling, or
                          > true. this "definition" of formalized thought merely
                          > begs the question you apparently want to assert.
                          >
                          > as a ploy, it leaves much to be desired. as a tactic,
                          > it doesn't work.
                          >
                          > > >ER: why overturn a dead rock, unless one desires to
                          > > find bugs ...?
                          > >
                          > > -M: If there are bugs, where are they?
                          >
                          > see the above. you apparently are only comfortable
                          > attacking positions made of straw.
                          >
                          > Erik.
                          >
                          >
                          > "Quite regularly, 'my eyes glaze over' when I read polysyllabic
                          discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what
                          I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction
                          of the total word count. True, there are lots of other things I
                          don't understand: the articles in the current issues of math and
                          physics journals, for example. But there is a difference. In the
                          latter case, I know how to get to understand them, and have done so,
                          in cases of particular interest to me; and I also know that people
                          in those fields can explain the contents to me at my level, so that
                          I can gain what (partial) understanding I may want. In contrast, no
                          one seems to be able to explain to me why the latest post-this-or-
                          that is (for the most part) other than truism, error, or gibberish,
                          and I do not know how to proceed. Perhaps the explanation lies in
                          some personal inadequacy, like tone deafness."
                          > --from Noam Chomsky on "Rationality, Science, and Post-This-Or-
                          That."
                          >
                          > __________________________________________________
                          > Do You Yahoo!?
                          > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                          > http://mail.yahoo.com
                          >
                        • erik kruger
                          ... i told you my main position : methodological naturalism. some secondary positions : disproof atheism, libertarian socialism, and secular humanism. Erik.
                          Message 12 of 12 , Apr 5, 2006
                            > -M: And yet, I don't see any counterpositions here.
                            > Potshots from a
                            > vacuum?

                            i told you my main "position": methodological
                            naturalism. some secondary "positions": disproof
                            atheism, libertarian socialism, and secular humanism.

                            Erik.


                            "Quite regularly, 'my eyes glaze over' when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count. True, there are lots of other things I don't understand: the articles in the current issues of math and physics journals, for example. But there is a difference. In the latter case, I know how to get to understand them, and have done so, in cases of particular interest to me; and I also know that people in those fields can explain the contents to me at my level, so that I can gain what (partial) understanding I may want. In contrast, no one seems to be able to explain to me why the latest post-this-or-that is (for the most part) other than truism, error, or gibberish, and I do not know how to proceed. Perhaps the explanation lies in some personal inadequacy, like tone deafness."
                            --from Noam Chomsky on "Rationality, Science, and Post-This-Or-That."

                            __________________________________________________
                            Do You Yahoo!?
                            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                            http://mail.yahoo.com
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.