BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:21 PM

Well, you're in luck--it looks like we've got a pretty good chance to move a whole new group of buffoons in, with a whole nother political agenda. You're going to have to get ready for the fact that they'll start new and different wars, won't pay taxes, and will hijack the school curriculuum. Way of the World.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 07:24 PM

"And of course, you're bothered that the people who exhibit this sort of boorishness feel they are entitled to it,..."

                No. It doesn't bother me at all that they feel they are entitled to it. It bothers me that they elect buffoons to public office who start wars, don't pay their fair share of taxes, and try to hi-jack the public school curriculum. The list is endless, but I'll stop there, just to make the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 06:59 PM

Your problem, Riginslinger, seems to be with certain petty qualities--inflexibility of thought, lack of social boundries, intolerance of the views of others, tedious repetition of simplistic aphorisms, insistance on formulaic solutions for complex problems, agressive self-righteousness, and associated behaviors.

And of course, you're bothered that the people who exhibit this sort of boorishness feel they are entitled to it, because of their affiliation with a higher cause.

Can't disagree with you on any of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 05:54 PM

Sorry Rig - If you think it's the god freaks that make your life miserable you're giving them too much power over yourself. People are as happy as they decide they want to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 05:46 PM

The god freaks make the world a miserable place to live for those of us who actually think for ourselves. That's the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 03:15 PM

It's just from your post it first looked like there were lots of folks posting about personal conversations with God on a regular basis. I don't see any of that here - but maybe you had on other threads. If so I was hoping to see some examples. From what I've seen personal testimony types of threads are few and far between. Vastly outnumbered by Shatner and Chongo threads for instence. I think if folks actually started looking at the number of threads of that sort they would be suprised at how few there are. So I'm confused why they bother people so much. To me it would be like channel surfing - when you come across Brittany Spears singing on TV you have the choice of changing the channel. Or watching a performer you dislike and comlaining bitterly about it. While you hit the rewind button.

I'm just trying to understand the thought process of others - that's all. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 02:37 PM

I was referring tot he folks who have "come to know" God in some personal transaction with him. While these may not have the form of two-way discussion, they are surely some sort of communication, and certainly some two-way exchange is involved, unlike the long nights of peopel like St. THeresa who spent may many long hours sending out prayers and apparently not seeing the answers. But that aside, that's the kind of "talk" I was referring to. I dunno that it is all that different, really; most two-way communication is only slightly on the level of mechanical / vocal signals, and the rest is in a very different space indeed.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 12:35 PM

"Whether you personally experience the connection, what you make of it, and what you call it, is your business."

Sigh - That isn't too much to ask for - is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 12:17 PM

If you believe that there is a spiritual center, common to all of humanity, or that we are all part of a larger living system, it is only logical to suppose that we can, and do experience that connection on an ongoing basis.

My own thought is that, as a musician, it is pretty hard to deny that their is a spiritual center that we share with one another, and as a living creature, it is pretty hard not to notice that we are part of a larger living system.

Whether you personally experience the connection, what you make of it, and what you call it, is your business.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 12:07 PM

Amos - when you say:

"As can easily be demonstrated right here on Mudcat there are lots of folks who want to, or believe they HAVE talked to God. IT's their version of spiritual experience, and it is probably better, overall, than having no spiritual experience at all."

Are you saying there are a lot of posts where folks claim to have had a back and forth conversation with God? Or just a religious experience? Those are two different things. If it's the former I'd like to see some examples because I've missed them. Could you point out some links to those types of posts? I would have a hard time believing those too - but it's not up to me to validate anyone elses experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:56 AM

As can easily be demonstrated right here on Mudcat there are lots of folks who want to, or believe they HAVE talked to God. IT's their version of spiritual experience, and it is probably better, overall, than having no spiritual experience at all.


But it depresses me when the sharer of such an experience immediately claims that they have landed in the center of all spiritual experience, and mapped it in the definitive terms of the only acceptable description, using the very best receivwed Nomenclature with complete aplomb and authority. In doing so they invoke the very worst of our proselytizing forebears, and their mishmash of Victorian moral codes and Puritan obsessions, to the great cost of those on whom they descended.


A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 01:57 PM

In which case he could have talked to god without ever having left his living room.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 01:27 PM

Unfortunately such wild rumours are often the source of extreme acts among the religiously assertive.

It is more likely the copilot was on Ecstasy or ergot-derivative.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 01:26 PM

"Passenger Sean Finucane told CBC News that the co-pilot had said, "he just wanted to talk to God...."


                         Maybe he had reason to suspect there were gods in Ireland, and that's why he forced the plane down there.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 01:17 PM

perish the thought, M.Ted!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 12:38 PM

Is that a hint, BillD?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 12:37 PM

From the Daily NEws:

DAILY NEWS STAFF

Wednesday, January 30th 2008, 11:05 AM

A co-pilot was reportedly dragged screaming from the cockpit of a London-bound flight from Toronto after a suffering a mental breakdown, forcing the jet - with 149 passengers onboard - to make an emergency landing.

Witnesses said the first officer was seen shoeless and restrained by crew members with the help of a passenger who was a member of the Canadian military. The co-pilot's wrists and ankles were shackled as he was escorted off the Air Canada flight which landed in Shannon, Ireland at 3 a.m. EST Tuesday.

Passenger Sean Finucane told CBC News that the co-pilot had said, "he just wanted to talk to God.

....



(Well, who can blame him? We ALL want to do that. AND fly around at will, too.)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 11:23 AM

The notion of using massively parallel processing and neural-net AI methods to generate a more reliable set of mufti-fatwahs and interpretations of Sharia is really appealing to me, in a sense.

One reason is it could be programmed to be sensitive to the impact against well being of such things as distorted importances, obsessive fixations, altered sequences, and "hobby-horse" fanatacism, while still preserving the elegance of the positive traits of Islam.

It would require a humane software engineer, which might be a hard HR project, but once that was accomplished, it could make a serious step forward in normalizing the postive benefits of religion in social constructions and provide a governing hand in tricky transactions between tribes and between nations.

It would need a good PR man, though...


A


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 09:10 AM

And just to go back to logic, if someone says If I had other people's money, I could eat out, it doesn't necessarily follow that they can't eat out now on their own dime, just that they could on OPM (other people's money) - if they had it.

The other conclusion was rational, but not logical.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 08:34 AM

As long as they don't call it Mahammad. Remember what happened to the lady with the first graders and the Teddy bear?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 11:23 PM

"An 'Electronic Mufti' is currently under development that will use artificial intelligence techniques to issue opinions on contemporary Muslim affairs. A mufti is an Islamic scholar who offers interpretations of Sharia, Islamic law. A fatwa is a ruling on Islamic law issued by a credentialed scholar of that faith. There are many variations; fatawa are not binding for everyone, there are differences based on sects and national groups.

Dr. Anas Fawzi, an Egyptian engineer, is the only Arab in a group of French computer scientists working on the artificial intelligence computer project. Dr. Fawzi consulted with Islamic scholars before undertaking his role in the project. He says that they assured him that "such a device is not 'haram' [prohibited by Islam]. But there are fears and scepticism regarding misuse and causing any misrepresentation or defamation to the figure of the Prophet. There are also fears in terms of Arab and Islamic public opinion and their acceptance of a machine such as this.""

(LiveScience.com)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 03:48 PM

(I'm expecting Peace here any moment to critique the straying from the topic)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 03:46 PM

There are people who occasionally invite me out to restaurants just for the scintillating and stimulating conversation....but elderly, retired curmudgeons who whiled away their youth without mastering a remunerative trade don't go out often on their own dime. Those potential donated $$$$$$$$ for cumulative reiteration of relevant nuances of points in philosophical linguistics could, in time, allow me to indulge in a rare experience with Ethiopian cuisine....with Tej!

..."...spends all his time correcting logic on the internet instead of tending to sales and production at home."

tsk...Nicht wahr, mein freund! in addition to. Wanna buy some Torrey vauquelinia?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 12:44 PM

Well, maybe he can't, because he spends all his time correcting logic on the internet instead of tending to sales and production at home.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 12:31 PM

But Amos, he says "I could at least have a good meal in a restaurant.", which means that he can't have a good meal in a restaurant now.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 11:42 AM

Yup, Amos! I spend a week or two tilting at windmills, then when Pancho starts grumbling, I come home and clarify important issues for Mudcat. ☺

Now, as to whether I 'freely' chose this adventurous life....that's another long debate...I can only say, "it felt like it". So, I take responsibility for foisting uncomfortable truths on the populace, knowing it is much like teaching pigs to sing..."it wastes my time, and it annoys the pig"

But Max swears this will all be here for...like...ages! Maybe I'll be famous in 30-40 years!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 11:26 AM

Ted, you missed the implicit predicate, "..on that money alone".


Bill: I know, I know. You have long fought the good fight, alone against the barbaric hordes, struggling on through the lonely night, wielding the sword of Reason, wading through the blood of your enemies, unthanked and unsung.

But, I believe (unless I am mistaken) that it was your choice so to do, no? :D



A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 11:18 AM

Does that mean, BillD, that without a dollar for every time you've had to note the "linguistic fallacy" that you describe, that you cannot have a good meal in a restaurant?

I don't see the logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 10:59 AM

Gee, Amos...if I had a dollar for every time I've noted the linguistic fallacy that assumes that if something has a name, it somehow acquires 'reality', I could at least have a good meal in a restaurant.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 09:57 AM

I thought we were talking about divine intercession in evil generated by humans. So even if he tolerates it out of deep Divine Wisdom, it is still evil, not of His doing but ours.

You could argue, in counterpoint, that If God tolerates it and God is benevolent, then it isn't evil, we just don't see where the good will come from (for example in the slaughters of the Tutsi or Darfur) being much less knowing than Him. But this sounds downright Bushian, and vaguely sickening, given the bizarre premises embedded int he terminology.

It's spinny stuff inventing a term with as much and many meanings as "God" and then having discussions about it. Real wheel-spinning. I'd rather discuss similar but more bounded faith-based terms, such as "caloric", "phlogiston", and "aether".


A


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 09:20 AM

Back to Amos - if you're doing something for a good reason, it isn't evil, so you defined yourself out of what Epicurus was talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 04:30 PM

And what if you see them going to church?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 03:46 PM

If you want to get people really upset, Frank, judging people by what they do, instead of what they say will do it--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 01:51 PM

YEah, Frank!! "By their fruits, ye shall know them." I think Bob Dylan said that.... ;>)

Hope you have an uplifting day in any case!!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 01:29 PM

Here's the deal. I agree with Pat Condell. You can't argue with dogma. There is no
civilized conversation that can take place here.

You can make jokes and ridicule the ridiculous ideas of religion but it serves no purpose
someone tries to force their dogma down your throat. Then, it's open
season.

So if you get politicians like Obama, Hillary, Huckabee, Edwards, Romney, McCain,
Paul or any one of them who starts their political religious crap, I agree with Katha Politt,
tell them to stuff a cork in it. Keep their religious babble out of the public discourse
in politics. It's a violation of the Separation of Church and State and it's unAmerican.

I don't want to hear about their sex lives or personal religious beliefs.

In the meantime why beat the proverbial dead horse?

I'm feeling ornery this morning so don't talk to me about your religious beliefs.

Again, actions speak louder than words and if what you believe informs your good
intentions toward concentrating on the genuine issues that face our country, OK,
but stow the dogma.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 10:47 PM

When you think how many disappointing claims have been filed for godhood -- from THogmagog the lazy Neanderthal to reincarnations of L. Ron Hubbard -- it seems unlikely that such an assertion owld be genuine, and certain that it would not be accepted as such on first blush. Of course a couple of world-enhancing miracles would work a quick sea-change in that. "Shazaam!! The dollar is robust!! Sha-booom!!! Iraq is at peace internally and fullly conscious of individual responsibility. Bzazzzz!! The green glass Coca-Cola bottle is back in use....".




A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 10:04 PM

I'm not sure, never having stumbled across one myself, but I suppose it would have to identify itself as such. At that point, I suspect there would be rigorous testing, but...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 09:43 PM

Indeed...perhaps it was a tapeworm. Gods are clever - they can assume all sorts of shapes.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 06:09 PM

How would you know it WAS a god, r?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 04:17 PM

Just trying to liven things up :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: autolycus
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 04:07 PM

If this is getting threadbare, I posted and got no response.

So if you don't want me to sulk like a true Cancerian........

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 03:47 PM

I don't know why you tried it even once, Rig!! :D

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 02:40 PM

The subject is becoming "thread-bare".

Next!

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 01:43 PM

I tried this once before, but it seemed to have gotten erased, miraculously. But I'll try it again. There is another thread running on the "ins and outs of colonoscopy." Okay, here's the dilemma:
                   What if they were giving somebody a colonoscopy, and they discovered a god? What if it was a member of the Genovese crime family?
                   Should they order up and exorcism, use massive amounts of Milk of Magnesia, ignore it...?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 12:42 PM

Joseph Campbell said it best. "We need our myths". The pacifist myth of Jesus is a good one. The other guy that the Theocons produce is a fraud.

Nothing wrong about feeding the poor, caring for the less fortunate, and turning the other cheek instead of ginning up for NATO's new program for mass destruction. (Nuclear pre-emptive first strike to "protect" us. What bullshit!)

I think the Pacifist Jesus is the sane part of Christianity. I don't care if he existed or not.

I care more about what people "do" than what the profess to believe. Talk is cheap.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 01:44 AM

I was just pointing it out, as a convenient reference, like the cups to tablespoons conversions on matchbook covers--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 08:54 PM

Yes, Amos, but it's less of a jump.

And M.Ted, I don't recall claiming that Christianity came first?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 12:38 PM

The point must be, then, that for all human purposes, God is actually an infinite Zero, a nothing of no location, no energy, no mass, no location in space-time, eh?

That makes mne feel much better, I am sure.

Mrrzy, your re-wording does not respond to the point I raised -- his non-interference policy COULD be a benevolent one for reasons not taken into account.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 11:52 AM

No prob, Riginslinger, that's what friends are for;-)

And Mrrzy, atheism actually preceded the existance of Christianity--there were lots more gods to object to back then-

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 11:35 AM

Thanks, bobad. I hadn't realized it was THAT old.

And you can avoid Amos' pitfall by just saying "then he isn't benevolent."

And my Why Worry thing works for the theory that god is outside/beyond the universe, or that s/he started the Big Bang but that's all, etc. It's the same as no god, then, for humans.