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

Re: [Death To Religion] NO soup for you.

Expand Messages
  • praesto12
    It s funny that you are judging my personality all the while saying it s wrong to judge someone s personality. Anyhow, I agree ultimately. One s ideas are
    Message 1 of 90 , Nov 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      It's funny that you are judging my personality all the while saying it's wrong
      to judge someone's personality.

      Anyhow, I agree ultimately. One's ideas are not necessarially proven wrong
      simply because one is a crazy evil bastard like Nietzsche. 
      But if we are to look at how one lives out the principals he promotes then it is
      quite valuable. Nietzsche was a sophisticated fool but atleast he honestly lived
      out the philosophy he preached. Atheism or a "Hindu-hybrid" is great in theory
      and sounds good until it is put into practice. Atheism as the basis of a system
      of thought just like Hinduism is a philosophy of Death or at the very
      best Nihilism. 
       Richard




      ________________________________
      From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sun, October 31, 2010 3:32:56 PM
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] NO soup for you.

       
      A person's ideas should not be judged by his own personality, but only by
      what he writes. Nietzsche is recognized as one of the great philosophers of
      history, based on his ideas. Shall we base the ideas of Haggard (one of
      your type) by his sexual perversities? And so many more "religionists" with
      your view. There is nothing in your last paragraph.

      Richard II

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "praesto12" <Praesto12@...>
      To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 10:19 PM
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] NO soup for you.

      Nietzsche suggested: Even if, per hypothesis, a religion can offer evidence
      for preferring one account of God over another, it cannot explain why this
      should be so.

      Pra: I never understood the love affair so many seem to have for a man that
      spent his time talking to horses. If we are a reflection of what we believe
      then
      Nietzsche's life should indicate how living out such principals would mean;
      bat-shit crazy.

      The issue of the origin of life is complex, amazing and open to endless
      debate.
      I think the way one answers is more reflective of particular presuppositions
      than of assessments of the "Facts." An Athiest can not concede that
      information,love,life,design,intelligence extc. may come from something
      other
      than a magical exploding dot. As unfathomable as this may seem, it is the
      case
      that to open one's mind is to reject Atheistic assumptions on the issue of
      Origin.

      ________________________________
      From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sat, October 30, 2010 7:12:14 PM
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] NO soup for you.

      A review by Edith Wyschogrod (she called "Ecce Anthropos: When Nietzsche met
      Polkinghorne") quotes the popular book of M. Mitchell Waldorp, "Complexity:
      The Emerging Science at the Edge of Chaos (New York: Simon and Schuster,
      1992)" on complexity theory:

      "How did a primordial soup of amino acids and the simple molecules manage to
      turn itself into the first living cell some four billion years ago? There's
      no way the molecules could just have fallen together at random as
      creationists are fond of pointing out... So was the creation of life a
      miracle? Or was there something else going on in that primordial
      soup?....Why if the universe started out from the formless miasma of the big
      bang and has since then been governed by an inexorable tendency towards
      disorder as described by the second order law of thermodynamics, [how can we
      explain the fact] that universe has also managed to bring forth structure on
      every scale?"

      When physicist Steven Weinberg inquired, whether the fine-tuning of the
      world with respect to physical features that lead to or allow for the
      emergence of human life justify or fail to justify belief in a designer, he
      is asking whether a given alternative is true, or to use the gold standard
      of reliability, can the alternative in question be falsified. Credible
      inquiry, on Weinberg's view, demands trained and credentialed inquirers
      whether one believes, as Weinberg does, that there is no reason to believe
      that there is a designer, or whether one holds that "a deity more or less
      like those of monotheistic religions or some cosmic spirit of order or
      harmony" is responsible for the order of the whole as John Polkinghorne
      thinks (Steven Weinberg, "A Designer Universe," in The New York Review of
      Books, October 21, 1999).

      Perhaps the Weinberg/Polkinghorne debate simply revives the familiar
      terrain of Hume versus Aquinas (or later versions thereof in John Ray or
      William Paley)? Aquinas: "things which lack knowledge, such as natural
      bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always or
      nearly always in the same way, so as it obtain the best result" leading to
      the conclusion that things act "not fortuitously but designedly" (Basic
      Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, vol. I, trans. Anton C. Pegis (New York:
      Random House, 1945), and that some intelligent being directs the play.

      Consider Hume: "Matter may contain the source... of order originally within
      itself as well as mind does; and there is no more difficulty in conceiving
      that the several elements, from an internal unknown cause, may fall into the
      most exquisite arrangement" than to conceive that [they proceed from] from
      an unknown cause." (David Hume, Dialogues concerning Natural Religion in On
      Religion, ed Richard Wollheim, Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1967.

      Polkinghorne notes that "the strong force is such that there is an
      enhancement (a resonance) in just the right place to enable three helium
      nuclei to stick together and make carbon," the sine qua non for the
      emergence of life.... "The action of the weak nuclear force enables some
      stars to explode as supernovae and scatter their nuclear products so that
      heavier elements that cannot be created in the earlier stellar furnace are
      formed." (John Polkinghorne, Beyond Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University
      Press, 1996).

      Weinberg argues for complex reasons bound up with the energy level of an
      intermediate state, that of the unstable nucleus of the beryllium isotope,
      that "the fine tuning of nature here does not seem so fine.....The
      cosmological constant could have any value but from first principles one
      would guess that its value would be very large and could be positive or
      negative. If large and positive, [it] would act as a repulsive force that
      increases with distance [and] prevent matter from clumping together in the
      early universe.... If the cosmological constant were negative it would act
      as an attractive force increasing with distance, a force that would almost
      immediately reverse the expansion of the universe and cause it to recollapse
      leaving no room for the evolution of life... In fact the constant is smaller
      than might have been guessed from first principles [its value we are told is
      zero to within one part in 10 to the 120th]." Although Weinberg
      acknowledges that we cannot explain in terms of fundamental principles why
      the cosmological constant is so small, he thinks it likely that with an
      increase in knowledge, we will be able to answer such questions.

      It just seems to me interesting that arguments regarding the anthropic
      principle, the two depictions: strong and weak, can be so scientifically
      complex, way over my head. Polkinghorne argues for a "moderate" depiction,
      that is quite watered down: "The contingent fruitfulness of the universe
      [is] a fact of interest calling for an explanation."(ibid). He goes beyond
      science! -- The significance of the anthropic principle is not to be settled
      by science, he holds, but is "a scientific metaquestion arising in science
      but going beyond what science is competent to discuss," from science to
      metaphysics: "We are concerned here not with physics but with metaphysics."
      Science has no place for teleology: "the protocols of scientific thought
      preclude the affirmation of teleology as belonging within the framework of
      scientific explanation whether teleology is seen in light of the
      transcendent creator God of biblical theology or as internal to the cosmic
      process as in Spinoza," and then continuing suggestions.

      Nietzsche suggested: Even if, per hypothesis, a religion can offer evidence
      for preferring one account of God over another, it cannot explain why this
      should be so.

      Comments?

      Richard.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "bestonnet_00" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
      To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:56 AM
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] NO soup for you.

      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, praesto12 wrote:
      >
      > Simply saying that someone that believes in God , or an intelligent
      > designer is 'making shit up' is an unfair and illogical statement.

      What evidence is there that a person who believes in such a thing isn't
      making shit up?

      Because if there is some I haven't seen it.

      > Consider the Greek philosopher Aristotle's idea of the prime mover.

      The cosmological argument has a lot of problems with it.

      > Essentially I think we should look at the issue of origin with
      > humility and acceptance of limitation.

      I'd rather we just try to figure out what happened to the best of our
      ability and accept when we don't know something.

      > There's a lot of mystery to the world, and to the issue of where we
      > came from.

      Yes, which is why we need to study the world, do experiments, observations,
      calculations, simulations, etc.

      > I agree. No one should ignore the issue or 'make shit up,' as you
      > say. Â However if the issue comes to saying that one believes
      > nothing exploded and created worlds,love,people,consciousness,order
      > or saying that intelligence, information and love must come from an
      > intelligent, loving information giver then it would make more sense
      > to assume that there was some creator of it all.

      There's no good reason to assume that love, people, consciousness, order,
      etc must come from intelligence and plenty of reasons to believe that they
      do not need to come from intelligence.

      > Either view point is an expression of Faith, or at the very least a
      > very thin line of scientific 'theory' and faith.

      The only faith involved in science is to believe that your senses are at
      least somewhat accurate, but that's pretty much a requirement to function in
      the world (and even then it could be shown to be false by the rules of
      science and a scientific person would have no choice but to admit that).

      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Clint
      ... Lie. ... I belong to and believe whole-heartedly in one of the most hate-filled, violent religions ever... yet I m not like that. Almost like saying I m
      Message 90 of 90 , Nov 5, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        praesto12 wrote:
        > I don't despise anyone in this group.I don't think I've presented that, and if
        > I have it's not true.

        Lie.

        > I think you need to believe that I am a facist and that I am "narrow-minded."
        > You need to believe that I am not open to talking to homosexuals,atheist,
        > muslims extc. You have to believe something like that because it makes it easier
        > for you to reject the Christian message you don't want to hear.

        "I belong to and believe whole-heartedly in one of the most hate-filled,
        violent religions ever... yet I'm not like that."

        Almost like saying "I'm a Nazi and burn Jews but I don't believe in the
        what it says nor do I hate Jews."

        Ok, that is a bit of an extreme comparison but you get the point
        (probably not). You can pick and choose what you want out of your
        religion but it is full of hatred, chauvinism, violence, genocide,
        intolerance, racism, slavery, infanticide, and so forth. I do reject
        it's message and I'd rather not hear it for those very obvious reasons.
        Anyone with half a brain would do so as well.

        > The scope of email is limited, so "arguing" is limited. But let me say that
        > I owe nothing to any of you in the context of presenting or not presenting a
        > fact or argument for anything. I am not on your clock buddy. I owe you nothing.
        > Likewise you do not have to present an argument to me for why you reject Jesus.
        > That's between you and him.

        What jesus? Can I talk him? Where is he? I got something I'd like to say
        to him.

        Oh right. No one has ever seen him nor is there any evidence he ever
        existed. This could be harder than I thought.

        > I do not preach.

        Lie.

        > I did not give up on the DH discussion. I'm interested in
        > learning more on the subject. And, I'm not sure why you are saying that I am
        > against rational discussion.

        I'm not sure what DH stands for but most of this is nonsense. And I'm
        not sure what you define as rational, but I haven't seen much of it.

        > You claim that I "despise" everyone. You call
        > me "narrow-minded." You are very much as ad homenium as you say that I am. I do
        > admit that I dislike "educators" that spend their lives trying to pull
        > people away from God. I also feel sorry for them as well.

        Aw. Poor, other-Richard. I'm getting a mixed message here in that you
        want us to feel sorry for you but you're the bigger man feeling sorry
        for others. Either way, this is just more rambling nonsense.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.