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

Re: [SPAM]Re: [Death To Religion] New guy

Expand Messages
  • tcburkes
    No, in a way I envy them. I have heard all my life that, Ignorance is bliss! ... From: Richard Godwin To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday,
    Message 1 of 14 , Feb 27, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      No, in a way I envy them. I have heard all my life that,"Ignorance is bliss!"
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Richard Godwin
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 10:03 PM
      Subject: [SPAM]Re: [Death To Religion] New guy


      So do you hate those who believe in religion?

      Richard.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Tom" <tcburkes@...>
      To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:56 AM
      Subject: [Death To Religion] New guy

      > Hi everyone. This my first time here and I have no idea of what I'm
      > suppoed to do. I have not used chat groups before. One reason is ,I'm
      > not very good at spelling and such and Where I live,(in the deeeeeep
      > south),there are very few people I can talk to on this subject or any
      > other that requires one to think for themselves. I hope I can meet some
      > of you guys here and have many long conversations.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Richard Godwin
      Thank you. Yes, and it s true that many (if not most) people believe in ideas and theories with absolutely no evidence or good reasoning to back them up. It
      Message 2 of 14 , Feb 28, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Thank you. Yes, and it's true that many (if not most) people believe in
        ideas and theories with absolutely no evidence or good reasoning to back
        them up. It seems to be part of human nature, or as Sartre calls it "the
        human condition." But the problem is: does that apply to religion in toto?
        Is it a priori in excluding religion? What is evidence? Is religious
        experience an experience, as sensory evidence is, that may (or may not) be
        acceptable evidence for some idea or theory (without the cognitively
        developed theology of course). Thus can religion really be reasonable,
        based on some particular idea or theory? If so, how far can a theory go
        with particular ideas? (certainly not to a heaven or hell, the so-called
        Trinity, virgin birth, etc., etc.)

        Richard.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "tcburkes" <tcburkes@...>
        To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:15 PM
        Subject: Re: [SPAM]Re: [Death To Religion] New guy


        > No, in a way I envy them. I have heard all my life that,"Ignorance is
        > bliss!"
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Richard Godwin
        > To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 10:03 PM
        > Subject: [SPAM]Re: [Death To Religion] New guy
        >
        >
        > So do you hate those who believe in religion?
        >
        > Richard.
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "Tom" <tcburkes@...>
        > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:56 AM
        > Subject: [Death To Religion] New guy
        >
        > > Hi everyone. This my first time here and I have no idea of what I'm
        > > suppoed to do. I have not used chat groups before. One reason is ,I'm
        > > not very good at spelling and such and Where I live,(in the deeeeeep
        > > south),there are very few people I can talk to on this subject or any
        > > other that requires one to think for themselves. I hope I can meet some
        > > of you guys here and have many long conversations.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • bestonnet_00
        ... OTOH whilst ignorance is bliss it also has a tendency of backfiring rather badly when the ignorance conflicts reality. I wouldn t be envying someone in
        Message 3 of 14 , Feb 28, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "tcburkes" <tcburkes@...> wrote:
          >
          > No, in a way I envy them. I have heard all my life that,"Ignorance is
          > bliss!"

          OTOH whilst ignorance is bliss it also has a tendency of backfiring
          rather badly when the ignorance conflicts reality.

          I wouldn't be envying someone in that kind of position (and a lot of
          the religious people are going to end up in it, why else would so many
          leave and become atheists?).
        • bestonnet_00
          ... That s pretty much what all religion is. ... I don t know any religion that doesn t apply to (although anything it didn t apply to probably wouldn t be
          Message 4 of 14 , Feb 28, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
            >
            > Thank you. Yes, and it's true that many (if not most) people
            > believe in ideas and theories with absolutely no evidence or good
            > reasoning to back them up.

            That's pretty much what all religion is.

            > It seems to be part of human nature, or as Sartre calls it "the
            > human condition." But the problem is: does that apply to religion
            > in toto?

            I don't know any religion that doesn't apply to (although anything it
            didn't apply to probably wouldn't be called a religion).

            > Is it a priori in excluding religion?

            The way religious information is made up then believed on faith
            despite there being no evidence and with most religious people not
            choosing their beliefs through careful thought and evaluation but by
            being raised to believe whatever their parents believe.

            I see no reason to not to just exclude religion a priori since it is
            clearly wrong.

            > What is evidence?

            More important is what is good evidence?

            > Is religious experience an experience, as sensory evidence is, that
            > may (or may not) be acceptable evidence for some idea or theory
            > (without the cognitively developed theology of course).

            I'd need something pretty strong to back it up, especially given how
            prone humans are to fooling themselves (and just plain making things up).

            > Thus can religion really be reasonable, based on some particular
            > idea or theory? If so, how far can a theory go with particular
            > ideas? (certainly not to a heaven or hell, the so-called Trinity,
            > virgin birth, etc., etc.)

            If someone had a religious vision that showed it rained yesterday I
            wouldn't believe them unless the ground outside were still wet.
          • Richard Godwin
            ... From: bestonnet_00 To: Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [Death To
            Message 5 of 14 , Feb 28, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "bestonnet_00" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
              To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:25 PM
              Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] New guy


              > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
              >> It seems to be part of human nature, or as Sartre calls it "the
              >> human condition." But the problem is: does that apply to religion
              >> in toto?
              >
              > I don't know any religion that doesn't apply to (although anything it
              > didn't apply to probably wouldn't be called a religion).

              Sounds you are basically ignorant about the varieties of religion. Surely
              you haven't read William James, "Varieties of Religious Experience," (a
              philosopher/psychologist non-believer), as well as many books of major
              religions over the world and all history. You are right: "I don't know
              any," just ignorance.

              >
              >> Is it a priori in excluding religion?
              >
              > The way religious information is made up then believed on faith
              > despite there being no evidence and with most religious people not
              > choosing their beliefs through careful thought and evaluation but by
              > being raised to believe whatever their parents believe.

              And how do you deliniate information. Do you for example restrict it to
              dogma and doctrines? How do you restrict evidence. Does religious kinds of
              experience based on consensus qualify for evidence as does sensory evidence
              based on consensus? I mean this not in the sense of the most prominent, but
              rather "at all." Which is why I used the word a priori. Do you just rule
              out a kind of experience with nothing to back that up? There is a world of
              religious experience and thinking which does not fall within your paradigm
              of what you think ALL religion is. Just plain igorance.

              >
              > I see no reason to not to just exclude religion a priori since it is
              > clearly wrong.

              Your show both your ignorance and you paradigmatic bias. You should be more
              interested in scientific methodology, which requires considering all
              evidence from all kinds of experience and not ruling out any theory. There
              is no a priori in science. But of course, your biased view doesn't consider
              that. "Clearly wrong" is only in your mind, clearly biased.

              >
              >> What is evidence?
              >
              > More important is what is good evidence?

              Excellent, and of course you are right. It was my assumption that my
              mention of evidence is that it would be acceptable evidence. But then what
              is it that makes it acceptable? Does it depend on any restricted paradigm,
              as you want? Then can you reasonable support your restricted paradigm?

              >
              >> Is religious experience an experience, as sensory evidence is, that
              >> may (or may not) be acceptable evidence for some idea or theory
              >> (without the cognitively developed theology of course).
              >
              > I'd need something pretty strong to back it up, especially given how
              > prone humans are to fooling themselves (and just plain making things up).

              Just talk, no walk. No evidence, no show of reason. Too bad for you. Yes
              people do often fool themselves, even in hard science.
              >
              >> Thus can religion really be reasonable, based on some particular
              >> idea or theory? If so, how far can a theory go with particular
              >> ideas? (certainly not to a heaven or hell, the so-called Trinity,
              >> virgin birth, etc., etc.)
              >
              > If someone had a religious vision that showed it rained yesterday I
              > wouldn't believe them unless the ground outside were still wet.

              You only show your ignorance. That is not religion, but an aboration of it.
              You must do better than that very childish way of thinking.

              Try again,

              Richard.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • bestonnet_00
              ... Then why don t you tell me which religion it doesn t apply to? Or are you just calling others ignorant to hide your own ignorance? ... Why should I? ...
              Message 6 of 14 , Feb 28, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: "bestonnet_00" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:25 PM
                > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] New guy
                >
                > > I don't know any religion that doesn't apply to (although anything
                > > it didn't apply to probably wouldn't be called a religion).
                >
                > Sounds you are basically ignorant about the varieties of religion.

                Then why don't you tell me which religion it doesn't apply to?

                Or are you just calling others ignorant to hide your own ignorance?

                > Surely you haven't read William James, "Varieties of Religious
                > Experience," (a philosopher/psychologist non-believer),

                Why should I?

                > as well as many books of major religions over the world and all
                > history.

                Why would I need to read thousands of novels to know they are fiction?

                > > The way religious information is made up then believed on faith
                > > despite there being no evidence and with most religious people not
                > > choosing their beliefs through careful thought and evaluation but
                > > by being raised to believe whatever their parents believe.
                >
                > And how do you deliniate information.

                WTF?

                > Do you for example restrict it to dogma and doctrines?

                That seems to be about the only thing to come out of religion.

                Oh sure, every individual believer has their own ideas on how it all
                works but on the whole they communicate with each other by referring
                to dogma and doctrine.

                > How do you restrict evidence.

                It has to be good evidence (i.e. something that would hold up in the
                scientific community).

                > Does religious kinds of experience based on consensus qualify for
                > evidence as does sensory evidence based on consensus?

                Religious consensus tends to be worthless since it is really just
                people repeating the mistakes of others (there tends not to be any
                real critical thinking going on within religion).

                Sensory evidence I'd be willing to accept for something ordinary (e.g.
                I'd believe you if you said it rained where you were yesterday) but
                for the extraordinary claims that religions make (and which define the
                religion, what would Christianity be without a God and Jesus?) it just
                won't do.

                > Do you just rule out a kind of experience with nothing to back that
                > up?

                I don't rule it out with nothing to back that up, I rule it out with
                the fact that humans are good at fooling themselves and thus can't be
                trusted to back me up.

                > There is a world of religious experience and thinking which does not
                > fall within your paradigm of what you think ALL religion is.

                What is religion other than an organised belief in something that
                doesn't exist?

                > > I see no reason to not to just exclude religion a priori since it
                > > is clearly wrong.
                >
                > Your show both your ignorance and you paradigmatic bias.

                Which doesn't answer the question of how can religion not be wrong?

                > You should be more interested in scientific methodology, which
                > requires considering all evidence from all kinds of experience and
                > not ruling out any theory.

                Science requires that we do not use bad evidence.

                > There is no a priori in science. But of course, your biased view
                > doesn't consider that. "Clearly wrong" is only in your mind,
                > clearly biased.

                Except for the assumption that there is a real world and that we can
                find out things about it.

                Given how religion so blatantly violates the scientific method it is
                almost guaranteed to be wrong (you can fuck with the definition of
                religion all you want to allow it not to but then you'd end up with
                something that almost no one would actually recognise as religion).

                > > More important is what is good evidence?
                >
                > Excellent, and of course you are right. It was my assumption that
                > my mention of evidence is that it would be acceptable evidence. But
                > then what is it that makes it acceptable? Does it depend on any
                > restricted paradigm, as you want? Then can you reasonable support
                > your restricted paradigm?

                Good evidence would have to be of this world, not a dream.

                > > I'd need something pretty strong to back it up, especially given
                > > how prone humans are to fooling themselves (and just plain making
                > > things up).
                >
                > Just talk, no walk. No evidence, no show of reason. Too bad for
                > you.

                What about all the people who remember being abducted by aliens?

                I find it particularly interesting that even in cases where the alien
                spaceships have been explained to have been something else (e.g. human
                spaceships seem very common) people still manage to have memories on
                contacting aliens despite it being pretty obvious that there weren't
                any aliens around.

                > Yes people do often fool themselves, even in hard science.

                Yes, that's why scientists put so much effort into avoiding being
                fooled (and why blinded trials exist).

                > > If someone had a religious vision that showed it rained yesterday
                > > I wouldn't believe them unless the ground outside were still wet.
                >
                > You only show your ignorance. That is not religion, but an
                > aboration of it.

                So you think religion is something that the majority of the population
                doesn't?

                > You must do better than that very childish way of thinking.

                You really are childish if you're fucking around with definitions.
              • Richard Godwin
                ... From: bestonnet_00 To: Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:35 PM Subject: Re: [Death To
                Message 7 of 14 , Feb 29, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "bestonnet_00" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                  To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:35 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] New guy


                  > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> ----- Original Message -----
                  >> From: "bestonnet_00" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                  >> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                  >> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:25 PM
                  >> Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] New guy
                  >>
                  >> > I don't know any religion that doesn't apply to (although anything
                  >> > it didn't apply to probably wouldn't be called a religion).
                  >>
                  >> Sounds you are basically ignorant about the varieties of religion.
                  >
                  > Then why don't you tell me which religion it doesn't apply to?

                  Try Hinduism ("neti--neti"), Buddhism, and Taoism: the primary ones.
                  Emphasis is made on no knowlege of humans about supernatural reality, and
                  then the importance of praxis, a pragmatic approach. Especially this is
                  evident in Madyahmaka.

                  >
                  > Or are you just calling others ignorant to hide your own ignorance?
                  >
                  >> Surely you haven't read William James, "Varieties of Religious
                  >> Experience," (a philosopher/psychologist non-believer),
                  >
                  > Why should I?

                  So you can learn something without just holding on to your already
                  determined paradigm, to be open-minded, rather than committed to your
                  psychologically needed beliefs which control your thinking, whatever
                  thinking may be involved. Evidently you're not interested in learning, so
                  discussion with you is useless. Right?

                  >> Do you for example restrict it to dogma and doctrines?
                  >
                  > That seems to be about the only thing to come out of religion.

                  Again your show your immense ignorance.

                  > It has to be good evidence (i.e. something that would hold up in the
                  > scientific community).

                  Religion is not science. So apparently your positivism restricts your
                  thinking toward your narrow focus. It's easy to see your bias which makes
                  you just as dogmatic as the most orthodox of religions.

                  > Religious consensus tends to be worthless since it is really just
                  > people repeating the mistakes of others (there tends not to be any
                  > real critical thinking going on within religion).
                  >
                  > Sensory evidence I'd be willing to accept for something ordinary (e.g.
                  > I'd believe you if you said it rained where you were yesterday) but
                  > for the extraordinary claims that religions make (and which define the
                  > religion, what would Christianity be without a God and Jesus?) it just
                  > won't do.

                  Your understanding comes only from apparently orthodox Christian sources,
                  perhaps with a smattering of Jewish and Islam: the Abrahamic religions,
                  surely the most popular these days. Apparently you know nothing about
                  Eastern religions, which even science since the advent of QM have become
                  very interested in.

                  > What is religion other than an organised belief in something that
                  > doesn't exist?

                  You make my point very clearly: your ignorance in restricting to only the
                  religion of theology.

                  Actually I feel very sorry for you. You must be a miserable person. Might
                  that be the same for all atheists on this board? Which is why I asked: "Do
                  you hate people who believe in religion," since your perspective is that of
                  anger and hate. You are pathologically motivated.

                  Richard.
                • bestonnet_00
                  ... Despite all three religions making supernatural existence claims with no evidence. You ll need to do better. ... I m interested in learning, not in wasting
                  Message 8 of 14 , Feb 29, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: "bestonnet_00" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                    > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                    > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:35 PM
                    > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] New guy
                    >
                    > > Then why don't you tell me which religion it doesn't apply to?
                    >
                    > Try Hinduism ("neti--neti"), Buddhism, and Taoism: the primary
                    > ones. Emphasis is made on no knowlege of humans about supernatural
                    > reality, and then the importance of praxis, a pragmatic approach.
                    > Especially this is evident in Madyahmaka.

                    Despite all three religions making supernatural existence claims with
                    no evidence.

                    You'll need to do better.

                    > > Why should I?
                    >
                    > So you can learn something without just holding on to your already
                    > determined paradigm, to be open-minded, rather than committed to
                    > your psychologically needed beliefs which control your thinking,
                    > whatever thinking may be involved. Evidently you're not interested
                    > in learning, so discussion with you is useless. Right?

                    I'm interested in learning, not in wasting my time and you haven't
                    provided me with any reason to suspect that reading that would be the
                    former and not the later.

                    > > That seems to be about the only thing to come out of religion.
                    >
                    > Again your show your immense ignorance.

                    Yes, I forgot about all the atrocities, thank you for reminding me
                    that there is more to religion than just dogma and doctrine.

                    > > It has to be good evidence (i.e. something that would hold up in
                    > > the scientific community).
                    >
                    > Religion is not science.

                    Exactly, and thus why I can reject it with confidence.

                    > So apparently your positivism restricts your thinking toward your
                    > narrow focus. It's easy to see your bias which makes you just as
                    > dogmatic as the most orthodox of religions.

                    Skeptics often seem dogmatic but that's usually because they have good
                    reasons for what they think.

                    If someone can actually provide some decent evidence for religion
                    being more than a mental illness then I'd be willing to change my mind
                    but given that there is none and hasn't been any despite some very
                    smart people over many thousands of years trying to find it, I highly
                    doubt I will be proven wrong any time soon.

                    > > Religious consensus tends to be worthless since it is really just
                    > > people repeating the mistakes of others (there tends not to be any
                    > > real critical thinking going on within religion).
                    > >
                    > > Sensory evidence I'd be willing to accept for something ordinary
                    > > (e.g. I'd believe you if you said it rained where you were
                    > > yesterday) but for the extraordinary claims that religions make
                    > > (and which define the religion, what would Christianity be without
                    > > a God and Jesus?) it just won't do.
                    >
                    > Your understanding comes only from apparently orthodox Christian
                    > sources, perhaps with a smattering of Jewish and Islam: the
                    > Abrahamic religions, surely the most popular these days.

                    Not to mention the most dangerous.

                    > Apparently you know nothing about Eastern religions, which even
                    > science since the advent of QM have become very interested in.

                    You apparently know nothing about Quantum Mechanics because if you did
                    know about it you wouldn't take seriously the nut cases who claim that
                    it has some relation to the incoherent babbling of the Eastern religions.

                    > > What is religion other than an organised belief in something that
                    > > doesn't exist?
                    >
                    > You make my point very clearly: your ignorance in restricting to
                    > only the religion of theology.

                    You're just fucking around with definitions to make religion into
                    something other than what it is.

                    For religion to be what it is your argument would collapse.
                  • Richard Godwin
                    ... From: bestonnet_00 To: Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [Death To
                    Message 9 of 14 , Feb 29, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "bestonnet_00" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                      To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 1:05 PM
                      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] New guy


                      > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
                      >> Try Hinduism ("neti--neti"), Buddhism, and Taoism: the primary
                      >> ones. Emphasis is made on no knowlege of humans about supernatural
                      >> reality, and then the importance of praxis, a pragmatic approach.
                      >> Especially this is evident in Madyahmaka.
                      >
                      > Despite all three religions making supernatural existence claims with
                      > no evidence.

                      You are wrong about Buddhism and Taoism, two out of three, and somewhat
                      wrong about Hinduism. See you're basically ignorant of religion. I'm sure
                      all you know about religion is Christian orthodoxy with its dogmas a
                      doctrines. I agree they are wrong, but that don't represent all religion,
                      just the most popular among the hoi poloi. For example, all the major
                      Eastern religions (the major forms of them) deny that the word "existence"
                      can be applied to "ultimate reality," and deny supernatural as separate from
                      natural. Buddhism basically is atheistic in regard to deity, and Taoism is
                      also through its conception of ultimate "principle" of reality. And of
                      course you restrict evidence to sensory experience, apparently without any
                      evidence or reasoning for that.

                      >
                      > You'll need to do better.

                      You failed.

                      > I'm interested in learning, not in wasting my time and you haven't
                      > provided me with any reason to suspect that reading that would be the
                      > former and not the later.

                      I'm not interested in teaching you, providing you any reason other than
                      learning should not be restricted as you do. Your mind is made up in your
                      dogmatic paradigm. Just face it and admit it.

                      > Yes, I forgot about all the atrocities, thank you for reminding me
                      > that there is more to religion than just dogma and doctrine.

                      Now you know nothing about logic, as well as philosophical critical
                      thinking. The fact that throughout history many atrocities have been
                      carried out either through as carried out (very few), or justified by
                      religion, does not a priori negate or derogate the values of religion, nor
                      its possible truth. Besides many altruistic activities have been out
                      through religion in caring for and loving people, especially the poor and
                      marginalized. But I have to say you are typical in your assessment and
                      criticism of beliefs of the common ignorant atheist.

                      > Exactly, and thus why I can reject it with confidence.

                      Again your dogmatic restricted paradigm. Much in Eastern religion is
                      considered either science or very close to science by prominent scientists
                      such as in QM. There are numerous witings and a few books on this, but of
                      course you're not interested in learning anything which might conflict with
                      your dogma.

                      > If someone can actually provide some decent evidence for religion
                      > being more than a mental illness then I'd be willing to change my mind
                      > but given that there is none and hasn't been any despite some very
                      > smart people over many thousands of years trying to find it, I highly
                      > doubt I will be proven wrong any time soon.

                      That has been provided in numerous studies and books, the first of which is
                      the one I already referred to you that you refuse to read: the 1901 Gifford
                      Lectures by prominent American psychologist and philosopher William James.
                      He provides the evidence and the interpretations, and he also analyzes
                      pathological religious experiences and distinguishes between them and
                      "genuine" religious experiences, as well as the pragmatic method for that
                      distinction (methodology).

                      > You apparently know nothing about Quantum Mechanics because if you did
                      > know about it you wouldn't take seriously the nut cases who claim that
                      > it has some relation to the incoherent babbling of the Eastern religions.

                      I already referred to QM, and that some of the most prominent scientists
                      find the value in Eastern religious thinking. This is not supernatural
                      separate from natural.

                      So have fun enjoying your ignorance and satisfaction with your dogma.

                      Richard.
                    • bestonnet_00
                      ... How so? All three do make the claim that there is a supernatural (even if they can t seem to tell the difference between supernatural and natural). ...
                      Message 10 of 14 , Feb 29, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- 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 1:05 PM
                        > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] New guy
                        >
                        >
                        > > Despite all three religions making supernatural existence claims
                        > > with no evidence.
                        >
                        > You are wrong about Buddhism and Taoism, two out of three, and
                        > somewhat wrong about Hinduism.

                        How so?

                        All three do make the claim that there is a supernatural (even if they
                        can't seem to tell the difference between supernatural and natural).

                        > See you're basically ignorant of religion.

                        Ignorant of your view of religion maybe, but no one in the real world
                        cares about your view of religion.

                        > I'm sure all you know about religion is Christian orthodoxy with its
                        > dogmas a doctrines.

                        Which more or less describes every religion, even the eastern ones.

                        > I agree they are wrong, but that don't represent all religion, just
                        > the most popular among the hoi poloi.

                        So we have the traditional view of religion along with a
                        'postmodernist' view?

                        > For example, all the major Eastern religions (the major forms of
                        > them) deny that the word "existence" can be applied to "ultimate
                        > reality," and deny supernatural as separate from natural.

                        So some incoherent babbling.

                        > Buddhism basically is atheistic in regard to deity, and Taoism is
                        > also through its conception of ultimate "principle" of reality.

                        Both of them do rely heavily on metaforces which whilst less
                        objectionable than personal gods are still supernatural and still wrong.

                        > And of course you restrict evidence to sensory experience,
                        > apparently without any evidence or reasoning for that.

                        What makes you think I restrict evidence to sensory experience?

                        > > Yes, I forgot about all the atrocities, thank you for reminding me
                        > > that there is more to religion than just dogma and doctrine.
                        >
                        > Now you know nothing about logic,

                        Now you know nothing about hyperbole.

                        > as well as philosophical critical thinking. The fact that
                        > throughout history many atrocities have been carried out either
                        > through as carried out (very few), or justified by religion, does
                        > not a priori negate or derogate the values of religion, nor its
                        > possible truth.

                        No, though it does not in any way make religion a force for good nor
                        does it argue that we should have religion regardless of its truth
                        value as some people seem to think.

                        > Besides many altruistic activities have been out through religion in
                        > caring for and loving people, especially the poor and marginalized.

                        Much of which is overrated (charity done to buy a convert doesn't
                        impress me).

                        > > Exactly, and thus why I can reject it with confidence.
                        >
                        > Again your dogmatic restricted paradigm.

                        Maybe it looks like it to you but I have very good reasons why I don't
                        expect anything from religion to be worth studying.

                        > Much in Eastern religion is considered either science or very close
                        > to science by prominent scientists such as in QM.

                        Not by any that actually are scientists as opposed to psuedoscientific
                        kooks.

                        Many of the real experts of QM hate the attempts to tie it to eastern
                        mythology.

                        > There are numerous witings and a few books on this, but of course
                        > you're not interested in learning anything which might conflict with
                        > your dogma.

                        There are also numerous writings and a few books on homoeopathy but
                        that doesn't mean we should all start diluting our medicines down to
                        the point at which no active ingredient remains.

                        > > You apparently know nothing about Quantum Mechanics because if you
                        > > did know about it you wouldn't take seriously the nut cases who
                        > > claim that it has some relation to the incoherent babbling of the
                        > > Eastern religions.
                        >
                        > I already referred to QM, and that some of the most prominent
                        > scientists find the value in Eastern religious thinking. This is
                        > not supernatural separate from natural.

                        What part of eastern religion would cause you to expect the commutator
                        of position and momentum to be zero?

                        > So have fun enjoying your ignorance and satisfaction with your
                        > dogma.

                        Enjoy.
                      • Richard Godwin
                        ... From: bestonnet_00 To: Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 7:17 PM Subject: Re: [Death To
                        Message 11 of 14 , Feb 29, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "bestonnet_00" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                          To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 7:17 PM
                          Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] New guy


                          > --- 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 1:05 PM
                          >> Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] New guy
                          >>
                          >>
                          >> > Despite all three religions making supernatural existence claims
                          >> > with no evidence.
                          >>
                          >> You are wrong about Buddhism and Taoism, two out of three, and
                          >> somewhat wrong about Hinduism.
                          >
                          > How so?
                          >
                          > All three do make the claim that there is a supernatural (even if they
                          > can't seem to tell the difference between supernatural and natural).

                          No, not at all. Evidently your understanding of supernatural is that of
                          Christian theology. That's not Eastern religion. You need to learn
                          something about Eastern religion. Get away from the Abrahamic faiths.

                          >
                          >> See you're basically ignorant of religion.
                          >
                          > Ignorant of your view of religion maybe, but no one in the real world
                          > cares about your view of religion.

                          Not just my view. I follow scholarship, not making anything up on my own.
                          The real world cares are religion. You are among the very few.

                          >
                          >> I'm sure all you know about religion is Christian orthodoxy with its
                          >> dogmas a doctrines.
                          >
                          > Which more or less describes every religion, even the eastern ones.
                          >
                          >> I agree they are wrong, but that don't represent all religion, just
                          >> the most popular among the hoi poloi.
                          >
                          > So we have the traditional view of religion along with a
                          > 'postmodernist' view?

                          Whatever you want to call it, since you think in placing everything in ready
                          made categories.

                          >> Buddhism basically is atheistic in regard to deity, and Taoism is
                          >> also through its conception of ultimate "principle" of reality.
                          >
                          > Both of them do rely heavily on metaforces which whilst less
                          > objectionable than personal gods are still supernatural and still wrong.

                          Not Buddhism. Maybe you can place Taoism in your neat category of
                          "metaforce." Your mind is trapped it appears.

                          >
                          >> And of course you restrict evidence to sensory experience,
                          >> apparently without any evidence or reasoning for that.
                          >
                          > What makes you think I restrict evidence to sensory experience?

                          It's what you said. So now what do you say?

                          >
                          >> > Yes, I forgot about all the atrocities, thank you for reminding me
                          >> > that there is more to religion than just dogma and doctrine.
                          >>
                          >> Now you know nothing about logic,
                          >
                          > Now you know nothing about hyperbole.

                          Again you want to place everything you don't like in a neat category, now a
                          genre.

                          >
                          >> as well as philosophical critical thinking. The fact that
                          >> throughout history many atrocities have been carried out either
                          >> through as carried out (very few), or justified by religion, does
                          >> not a priori negate or derogate the values of religion, nor its
                          >> possible truth.
                          >
                          > No, though it does not in any way make religion a force for good nor
                          > does it argue that we should have religion regardless of its truth
                          > value as some people seem to think.

                          So you deny the clear and voluminous real good evidence for religion active
                          in "a force for good" of humanity. My, my, you are so ignorant about what
                          goes on in the real world. So if you don't restrict knowledge to sensory
                          experience only, what do you mean by truth and truth value?

                          > Not by any that actually are scientists as opposed to psuedoscientific
                          > kooks.

                          Sure Neils Bohr and all the others.

                          >
                          > Many of the real experts of QM hate the attempts to tie it to eastern
                          > mythology.

                          Many have no respect for religion. Hate is the emotion characterizing your
                          kind. There are numerous writings of highly respected scientists showing
                          how concepts and perspectives in Eastern religion apply very well to modern
                          science.

                          Richard.
                        • bestonnet_00
                          ... My understanding of supernatural is that which is not part of the natural world. There s nothing Christian about it. ... Your view on religion is very
                          Message 12 of 14 , Feb 29, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- 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 7:17 PM
                            > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] New guy
                            > > How so?
                            > >
                            > > All three do make the claim that there is a supernatural (even if
                            > > they can't seem to tell the difference between supernatural and
                            > > natural).
                            >
                            > No, not at all. Evidently your understanding of supernatural is
                            > that of Christian theology.

                            My understanding of supernatural is that which is not part of the
                            natural world.

                            There's nothing Christian about it.

                            > > Ignorant of your view of religion maybe, but no one in the real
                            > > world cares about your view of religion.
                            >
                            > Not just my view. I follow scholarship, not making anything up on
                            > my own. The real world cares are religion. You are among the very
                            > few.

                            Your view on religion is very different to what the average person
                            thinks of religion.

                            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.

                            > > So we have the traditional view of religion along with a
                            > > 'postmodernist' view?
                            >
                            > Whatever you want to call it, since you think in placing everything
                            > in ready made categories.

                            Right, do you even understand what I said?

                            > > Both of them do rely heavily on metaforces which whilst less
                            > > objectionable than personal gods are still supernatural and still
                            > > wrong.
                            >
                            > Not Buddhism. Maybe you can place Taoism in your neat category of
                            > "metaforce." Your mind is trapped it appears.

                            Reincarnation not supernatural?

                            > > What makes you think I restrict evidence to sensory experience?
                            >
                            > It's what you said. So now what do you say?

                            Where did I say it?

                            > > No, though it does not in any way make religion a force for good
                            > > nor does it argue that we should have religion regardless of its
                            > > truth value as some people seem to think.
                            >
                            > So you deny the clear and voluminous real good evidence for religion
                            > active in "a force for good" of humanity.

                            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.

                            Whilst the violence would probably not have occurred without religion.

                            > My, my, you are so ignorant about what goes on in the real world.

                            No, merely ignorant about what goes on in your head.

                            > > Not by any that actually are scientists as opposed to
                            > > psuedoscientific kooks.
                            >
                            > Sure Neils Bohr and all the others.

                            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").

                            Those who were serious about it (and didn't just think of it as an
                            interesting metaphor) are all kooks though.

                            Look deeply into QM, something I suspect you haven't done.

                            > > Many of the real experts of QM hate the attempts to tie it to
                            > > eastern mythology.
                            >
                            > Many have no respect for religion.

                            Why should anyone given the problems it's caused?

                            > There are numerous writings of highly respected scientists showing
                            > how concepts and perspectives in Eastern religion apply very well to
                            > modern science.

                            If you play with the language enough you can even get Christianity to
                            appear to have some relation with the real world.

                            Doesn't mean I'm going to start telling people the world is 6000 years
                            old though.

                            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.
                          • Richard Godwin
                            ... From: bestonnet_00 To: Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 11:50 PM Subject: Re: [Death To
                            Message 13 of 14 , Mar 1, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ----- 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.

                              >
                              > There's nothing Christian about it.

                              No. It's all about Christianity, or Christianity is all about that.
                              Without it no Christianity. I say that as "Christianity as usual," or
                              orthodox or conservative. I am a liberal Christian, very liberal. There
                              are lots of us.

                              > 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.

                              >
                              > 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. How do you know
                              what actually happens? How do you know you confront "the real world." All
                              you have is what your brain process, or is Kant another of those writers
                              you reject and refuse to read?

                              >> Not Buddhism. Maybe you can place Taoism in your neat category of
                              >> "metaforce." Your mind is trapped it appears.
                              >
                              > Reincarnation not supernatural?

                              No. Reincarnation (samsara) is Hindu.

                              >> So you deny the clear and voluminous real good evidence for religion
                              >> active in "a force for good" of humanity.
                              >
                              > 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. Again your are short on reading, or even
                              watching TV. 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. "Probably" would have happened without
                              religious motivation of love?????? You sure do reveal yourself, how you
                              really are.

                              >
                              > Whilst the violence would probably not have occurred without religion.

                              Again you reveal yourself, your extreme bias to your dogma.

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

                              >
                              > 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?

                              >
                              > 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.

                              > 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.

                              > 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?

                              >
                              > 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.

                              >
                              > 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?

                              Richard
                              >
                            • bestonnet_00
                              ... 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
                              Message 14 of 14 , Mar 1, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- 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
                                http://cectic.com/074.html

                                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
                                mechanics.

                                > > 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?
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.