Thursday, October 30, 2014

[AvC] Re: Prayer for knowledge



On Thursday, 30 October 2014 09:21:51 UTC, Amos wrote:


On Wednesday, 29 October 2014 23:53:44 UTC, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 7:05:18 AM UTC-4, Amos wrote:


On Wednesday, 29 October 2014 10:36:19 UTC, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 4:21:46 AM UTC-4, Amos wrote:


On Wednesday, 29 October 2014 01:34:21 UTC, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 11:09:07 AM UTC-4, Amos wrote:


On Tuesday, 28 October 2014 14:13:13 UTC, thea wrote:


On Monday, October 27, 2014 7:17:50 PM UTC-5, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Monday, October 27, 2014 10:59:31 AM UTC-4, e_space wrote:


On Sunday, October 26, 2014 3:23:02 PM UTC-4, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:55:06 PM UTC-4, e_space wrote:
which jesus do you worship?

   The one that is God incarnate a member of the trinity commonly referred to as the Son. He lived some 2000 years ago  and was executed and on the third day he rose from the dead as he had previously predicted he would. He is the one that had both a human and divine nature in one person and this was accomplished through incarnation as Jesus existed in the godhead for an eternity as the Son. He is also the one that will judge the living and the dead, casting some into hell for just and fully morally justified reasons and bestowing on others eternal life with him out of sheer supererogatory mercy, not being morally obligated to do so.

That one.

and how is "that one" different from the one that others worship? 

  That's simple. Next time you walk up to a Jehowah's Witness ask her/him if they also hold to Jesus being God just as Jehovah is God. Ask if their group holds to Jesus being one person of the trinity. If the answer is no, they are talking about a Jesus that is fundamentally different from mine.

Mind you, I know what they will answer because I have talked to them.



Last time I talked to one of them, I asked them where the *power* was in their religion.
I  kept asking and received no answer, and the older of the two couldn't get out of my
house fast enough.
thea


Thea, the *power* that drives any religion comes from the *subconscious mind*,

   I don't think I have one of those. How can you tell if you do?

Try holding your breath. A bit of humility and you will soon realise who is really in charge.


  So, involuntary bodily functions are the subconscious mind?  So, it is this mind that is responsible for the beating of one's heart and not the nature of the heart muscle tissue. I wonder what a scientist would have to say about that.


He/She may well say that your 'involuntary' bodily actions are by their very nature 'unconscious' actions.

   Would you say that the operation of a combustion engine is similar to that? If you think that there is a difference, I would like to know what that difference is, in your view? If you think there is no difference, could we say that combustion engine also possesses an unconscious mind?


A combustion engine, although unconscious, is not a very good comparison, as it doesn't have a brain. A better and closer comparison is to think of the subconscious/unconscious mind as a computer hard-drive and the conscious mind as the display output of a computer screen.


It seems appropriate at this point to quote a saying from an Arabian philosopher named Monoimus (150 - 210 CE)

Abandon the search for God and the creation of other matters of a similar sort. Look for him by taking yourself as the starting point. Learn who it is within you that makes everything his own and says 'My God, my mind, my thought, my soul, my body.' Learn the sources of sorrow, joy, love, hate. Learn how it happens that one watches without willing, rests without willing, becomes angry without willing, loves without willing. If you carefully investigate these matters you will find him in yourself. ('Refutation of all Heresies' VIII 15, 1-2)


 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: Prayer for knowledge

sigh yar ... TOTAL BS 

On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 6:57:35 PM UTC-4, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:59:27 AM UTC-4, thea wrote:
I have come to realize, e_space, that there is a real difference between people who are real Christians,
and those who just hide inside the church door.  I found this out as a child growing up in a parsonage.
There are some who you don't feel comfortable around, and you discover that they really are not
*good people*, but mean ole so-and-so's.

I do believe that if you are a non-believer and a *good person* that it is hard to tell if you are *good*
or not. 

Sigh....thea...nobody is good...not you, not me...nobody. Only Jesus was good.
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Sun god being worshipped since Vedic period

Bihar's most revered four-day Chhath festival may have acquired its present form a few hundred years back, but the worship of Sun god, to whom it is dedicated, has been prevalent in this region from ancient times.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/Sun-god-being-worshipped-since-Vedic-period/articleshow/44954463.cms

If you were the Sun god, how would you treat (1) those who worship you and (2) those who don't worship you? How would you treat crooks? Would it depend on whether they worship you?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: Atheists' high suicide rate: How to reduce it?

On Thursday, October 30, 2014 12:44:40 AM UTC-4, Loopflanger wrote:
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 6:19:26 PM UTC-7, Dingbat wrote:

Suicide rate is high among Atheists, and low among religious people. (
http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html) So my question is, "how can we possibly reduce suicide rate?


Answer:  Stop telling lies about atheists & stop trying to socially isolate them.

Can we tell whether it is a lie or a misunderstanding? When a claim from a Christian seems fatuous to the atheist, does it seem fatuous to the Christian too or is he earnestly making the claim?
 
"1) The study did not even count atheists. The only nonreligious category was "religiously unaffiliated," which will include many believers who just don't affiliate with a sect or church. It is amusing to see the religious author completely overlooking this, and the fact that it completely destroys the logic of his/her argument.

(2) The study's confounding variables (as even the abstract reports, the "unaffiliated" were very different demographically) suggests the same defect found in other similar studies: they fail to distinguish between having a religion and the mere fact of having a social network (and identifying with any worldview, religious or not). I've discussed this before (Atheism Doesn't Suck: How Science Does Not Prove Atheists Are Less Happy, Healthy, and Sane). This is bad study design. Perniciously bad, in fact, since it leads the study's author to make a poor recommendation for treatment. This is just like ancient witch doctors concluding shaking a wand at someone makes them feel better, therefore wands should be used more in treatment. In actual fact, just the attention and human company and the belief that they should feel better when wands are shaken at them (i.e. the placebo effect) is what is producing the effect. The wand is irrelevant–and can safely be discarded, for something less expensive and less superstitious (see my analysis in Sense and Goodness without God, IV.2.2.4, pp. 270-72)".

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/5181

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

[AvC] Re: Prayer for knowledge



On Wednesday, 29 October 2014 23:53:44 UTC, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 7:05:18 AM UTC-4, Amos wrote:


On Wednesday, 29 October 2014 10:36:19 UTC, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 4:21:46 AM UTC-4, Amos wrote:


On Wednesday, 29 October 2014 01:34:21 UTC, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 11:09:07 AM UTC-4, Amos wrote:


On Tuesday, 28 October 2014 14:13:13 UTC, thea wrote:


On Monday, October 27, 2014 7:17:50 PM UTC-5, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Monday, October 27, 2014 10:59:31 AM UTC-4, e_space wrote:


On Sunday, October 26, 2014 3:23:02 PM UTC-4, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:55:06 PM UTC-4, e_space wrote:
which jesus do you worship?

   The one that is God incarnate a member of the trinity commonly referred to as the Son. He lived some 2000 years ago  and was executed and on the third day he rose from the dead as he had previously predicted he would. He is the one that had both a human and divine nature in one person and this was accomplished through incarnation as Jesus existed in the godhead for an eternity as the Son. He is also the one that will judge the living and the dead, casting some into hell for just and fully morally justified reasons and bestowing on others eternal life with him out of sheer supererogatory mercy, not being morally obligated to do so.

That one.

and how is "that one" different from the one that others worship? 

  That's simple. Next time you walk up to a Jehowah's Witness ask her/him if they also hold to Jesus being God just as Jehovah is God. Ask if their group holds to Jesus being one person of the trinity. If the answer is no, they are talking about a Jesus that is fundamentally different from mine.

Mind you, I know what they will answer because I have talked to them.



Last time I talked to one of them, I asked them where the *power* was in their religion.
I  kept asking and received no answer, and the older of the two couldn't get out of my
house fast enough.
thea


Thea, the *power* that drives any religion comes from the *subconscious mind*,

   I don't think I have one of those. How can you tell if you do?

Try holding your breath. A bit of humility and you will soon realise who is really in charge.


  So, involuntary bodily functions are the subconscious mind?  So, it is this mind that is responsible for the beating of one's heart and not the nature of the heart muscle tissue. I wonder what a scientist would have to say about that.


He/She may well say that your 'involuntary' bodily actions are by their very nature 'unconscious' actions.

   Would you say that the operation of a combustion engine is similar to that? If you think that there is a difference, I would like to know what that difference is, in your view? If you think there is no difference, could we say that combustion engine also possesses an unconscious mind?


A combustion engine, although unconscious, is not a very good analogy, as it doesn't have a brain. A better and closer analogy is to think of the subconscious/unconscious mind as a computer hard-drive and the conscious mind as the display output of a computer screen.









--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: Thinking reed



On Thursday, 30 October 2014 05:46:24 UTC, Eric Griswold, R.C. wrote:
I am part of the universe because we are part of a unified system. If the universe were subtracted I would die. I would have no air, no food, no water. The universe is my external organs, a necessary part of the system. Convention alone dictates that my skin solely defines the boundary of "me," though the assertion is false to fact.

Alan said that the milk is in the bottle, but not part of it. Again, this is a conventional view. You draw the line somewhere in your mind, and imagine that the division you made has ontological status.

When I go to the store and buy "a bottle of milk," I am buying one object, not two. For conventional purposes, at that moment it is convenient to imagine it as one object.
Or, I could say the milk is in the bottle but not part of it. Two objects.
Or, I could say the cream is in the milk but not part of it. Three objects.
Or, I could say the casein is in the cream but not part of it. Four objects.
Or, I could say that the milk is hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorous, carbon, sulfur, silicon, manganese, etc. I can mentally make it into dozens of objects if you like. As many as you like. 

When you cast your mental net on the universe, what you dredge up is as much a function of the net as the universe. 
If you want to assert that man is a thinking reed, well, that is just one way to look at it.


                  > > GT,                

                         Go down that road my friend and you are on an interesting but mind blowing conundrum of a simply huge problem of assimilation,

                         trying to think of the earth as a kind of organism. It is too big, too complex, with too many working parts lacking visible connections.

                         Thinking of it like a single cell, would be difficult enough and is truly amazing in its complexity, yet fundamental to all forms of life

                         including the human organism........Seed perhaps for an interesting debate?







On Friday, October 24, 2014 10:27:46 PM UTC-5, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed. The entire universe need not arm itself to crush him. A vapor, a drop of water suffices to kill him. But, if the universe were to crush him, man would still be more noble than that which killed him, because he knows that he dies and the advantage which the universe has over him, the universe knows nothing of this. All our dignity then, consists in thought. By it we must elevate ourselves, and not by space and time which we cannot fill. Let us endavour then, to think well; this is the principle of morality."

--Pascal Pensees 347

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/pascal.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: Thinking reed

I am part of the universe because we are part of a unified system. If the universe were subtracted I would die. I would have no air, no food, no water. The universe is my external organs, a necessary part of the system. Convention alone dictates that my skin solely defines the boundary of "me," though the assertion is false to fact.

Alan said that the milk is in the bottle, but not part of it. Again, this is a conventional view. You draw the line somewhere in your mind, and imagine that the division you made has ontological status.

When I go to the store and buy "a bottle of milk," I am buying one object, not two. For conventional purposes, at that moment it is convenient to imagine it as one object.
Or, I could say the milk is in the bottle but not part of it. Two objects.
Or, I could say the cream is in the milk but not part of it. Three objects.
Or, I could say the casein is in the cream but not part of it. Four objects.
Or, I could say that the milk is hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorous, carbon, sulfur, silicon, manganese, etc. I can mentally make it into dozens of objects if you like. As many as you like. 

When you cast your mental net on the universe, what you dredge up is as much a function of the net as the universe. 
If you want to assert that man is a thinking reed, well, that is just one way to look at it.








On Friday, October 24, 2014 10:27:46 PM UTC-5, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed. The entire universe need not arm itself to crush him. A vapor, a drop of water suffices to kill him. But, if the universe were to crush him, man would still be more noble than that which killed him, because he knows that he dies and the advantage which the universe has over him, the universe knows nothing of this. All our dignity then, consists in thought. By it we must elevate ourselves, and not by space and time which we cannot fill. Let us endavour then, to think well; this is the principle of morality."

--Pascal Pensees 347

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/pascal.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.