https://www.facebook.com/RussellBrand/videos/10155278610583177/

He says he rejects the "atheist" label, because he thinks it's divisive, but that he doesn't know about a divine creator. Science doesn't rule out a God, we just don't know. Science doesn't know, full stop.

I agree.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2018 04:17PM by koriwhore.

There's nothing for god to have done, no place to have done it from and no time in which to have done it. At least according to Hawking. So while something you call God could exist, it has no attributes that are godly.

Good for him.

He's still an atheist.

That he doesn't like the label means he doesn't have to use it. But it's still descriptive.

BTW, atheism isn't a position on knowledge. It's a position on belief.

russell brand is a cock who thought it funny to leave crude messages on an old man's answer phone about how he fucked his granddaughter, call back and leave more messages, then broadcast it all on a radio show.

He certainly is no gentleman, a gentleman never tells, and especially doesn't tell her elderly grandfather on national radio.

attention whore


I had to check which brian cox he was talking with - initially I thought it was the scottish actor, not the current poster boy for physics. Lots of girls are now studying physics and other science at UK schools as a direct result of the ex-pop band member, now currently professor of physics and presenter of numerous documentaries - this can only be a good thing, I sure you would agree. He is too clever to put off potential future students of science by spouting uncertainty or opinion as fact.

Now, if only brand could incite that same level of admiration/devotion from 'fans', he may finally find something to be happy about in life. He can't because its called respect, something brand appears to know nothing about, unfortunately. Perhaps parenthood will be good for him.

So, you're saying that you've moved on from believing in "Spinoza's god" and now you just don't know?

Sounds quite reasonable to me.

I think he's saying, "another smart person says science allows for the possibility of a God."

That allows him then to conjure up deity in the form of a Chinese philosophical principle, a Greek philosophical principle, the metaphorical musings of various physicists, or an arbitrarily chosen quantum particle.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think he's saying, "another smart person says
> science allows for the possibility of a God."
>
> That allows him then to conjure up deity in the
> form of a Chinese philosophical principle, a Greek
> philosophical principle, the metaphorical musings
> of various physicists, or an arbitrarily chosen
> quantum particle.

I agree that there's a lot science doesnt tell us, like what is this dark matter/energy that comprises 96% of our universe? Or What happens inside of a black hole? Or, what is the Great Attractor? Or What causes gravity? Or what caused the Big Bang?
Which is why I dont look to science for answers to even bigger questions like, is there a creator?

"Which is why I don't look to science for answers to even bigger questions like, is there a creator?"

I'm not sure how many people are looking to science to determine if there is a creator, I know I'm not. But I'm sure if science found evidence of one, they would provide it.

Where do you look for questions regarding if there is a creator?

Authority figures, ancient philosophies, your own musings?

How is that a better path to answering your creator question?

koriwhore Wrote:

> I agree that there's a lot science doesnt tell us,
> like what is this dark matter/energy that
> comprises 96% of our universe? Or What happens
> inside of a black hole? Or, what is the Great
> Attractor? Or What causes gravity? Or what caused
> the Big Bang?
> Which is why I dont look to science for answers to
> even bigger questions like, is there a creator?


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

You don't look to science for answers to those questions? It was science that identified the questions in the first place and that has led humanity to an ever better understanding of them.

Why suddenly switch from an epistemological system that has produced all the progress so far to one that has had to retreat in the face of each scientific advance?

'science' didn't really identify the question of whether or not there was a 'creator' in the first place, unless you include philosophy in the sciences, which the ancients did, imo. (pythagoras, socrates, plato, etc).

science, mathmatics, philosophy and religion were all the same thing back in ancient greek times, the beginnings of our modern western culture, we are told.

It is only in contemporary times that some populations wish to dismiss religion entirely from inclusion in the arts & sciences. Philosophy is involved in how we decide our ethics and morals; giving it a new definition doesn't actually change anything except attitudes; the mechanics are still the same.

I was curious about your statement that religion is "dismissed. . . entirely. . ." from the Arts and Sciences divisions of major universities, so I looked the question up.

It is not true. Religion is firmly ensconced in the Arts & Sciences curricula of every university I checked. That includes Cambridge, where the School of Divinity is right there; at Yale, Harvard, Stanford, University of Virginia, Indiana, and the University of Utah.

There is no doubt that starting after John Stuart Mill several fields were disaggregated--philosophy, economics, politics, etc--and that research became ever more detailed, with PhDs now awarded for ridiculously narrow projects. But religion is no more separated from relevant fields than any other subject; indeed, religion is also taught in every program on regional or national culture, the history of international relations, history itself, etc.

The only things that have changed are 1) science no longer uses religious texts or teachings to inform its research, and 2) science no longer feels a need to explain its results in terms of religion and its expectations.

I personally think that is appropriate. If science reaches a point where religion becomes relevant, it should be reintroduced in that context. But not until then. The truth is that God had already ceded the stage and become metaphorical when Mill, Adam Smith, Kant, and Hume were writing. Religion has subsequently become, appropriately, a topic both per se and in directly relevant fields.

sorry if you think I meant from university, or other serious study. I meant from public discussion - we lay people. Some lay people especially wish no reference to religion in public life at all, even when discussing what is commonly referred to as 'the arts and sciences'.

Apologies for the misunderstanding. There are some posters here who believe that since they 'reject' religion then the title 'religion' has no place for use when discussing ethics or morals or laws or philosophy, or any other subject matter.

I see.

We are probably fairly close in outlook. I tell my kids that they shouldn't disparage religion since it is the language through which most people at most times have discussed ethics.

I tell my kids that their muslim classmates have a life problem approaching with the difference in what their religion teaches and what they learn at school through direct experience. Their mosque and holy book and family teach one thing (identify and reject infidels) but their gut and life experience teach them something else - I like to relate it to the problems mummy (me) is having with her parents.

My children are aware that sometimes people of the same religion disagree, and sometimes some religious people discriminate purely because of religious teachings. Becoming a mother has made me aware of the abuses of my mormon upbringing and I intend to break the cycle of ignorance-disguised-as-righteouness.

I guess what defines "god" is the bigger question.
Would a hyper-advanced race be considered "gods"?
The god of the bible clearly does not exist. Since this is what MOST people think of when they hear the word "god", I'd suggest that we DO know. Just like we know about Zeus.

gettinreal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess what defines "god" is the bigger
> question.
> Would a hyper-advanced race be considered "gods"?
> The god of the bible clearly does not exist.
> Since this is what MOST people think of when they
> hear the word "god", I'd suggest that we DO know.
> Just like we know about Zeus.

Which is why I think the eternal atheist vs. theist argument is a false dichotomy. It's an argument against an absurd cartoon version of a Judeo Christian (Santa Claus for adults) God.

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God." Carl Sagan

I knew a Spaniard who would begin his blessing of a meal with, "Eternal Mystery" which was beautiful and is what I think of when I see, hear or use the word, God, Tao or Logos, which are synonymous.
Like Sagan said, clearly there is such a God.
Science is not about to eradicate mystery from the universe. Like Einstein said, Mystery is the source of all great art and science.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2018 03:58PM by koriwhore.

koriwhore Wrote:
>
> I knew a Spaniard who would begin his blessing of
> a meal with, "Eternal Mystery" which was beautiful
> and is what I think of when I see, hear or use the
> word, God, Tao or Logos, which are synonymous.

You missed a "not", right before "synonymous".

You're welcome.

Exactly.

He keeps saying God, Tao and logos are synonymous without regard to what those words actually mean.

It is beyond ridiculous.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly.
>
> He keeps saying God, Tao and logos are synonymous
> without regard to what those words actually mean.
>
> It is beyond ridiculous.

It is beyond rediculous you make that claim, since Logos is directly translated into Chinese Bibles as "Tao" and Logos is another word for God, as in the original Greek version of tge Bible, "In the begining was the Logos. The Logos was with God. The Logos was God."
From Wikipedia Logos,
"Stoic philosophy began with Zeno of Citium c. 300 BCE, in which the logos was the active reason pervading and animating the universe. It was conceived of as material, and is usually identified with God or Nature."
Maybe go suggest an edit to Wikipedia if you dont like dealing with reality?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2018 07:09PM by koriwhore.

There are thousands of translations of the Book of John. One translation to Chinese used the word Tao. The source you cited said that the use suggested the authors thought Tao was a superior word for logos. That is not an endorsement. It is an observation. It does not even claim to be an authoritative observation.

You ignore a huge body of scholarship on logos, an equally huge volume of work on the Tao, and hundreds of translations of John. You pick one translation from a language you do not understand to another you do not understand, arbitrarily give it your authority, and then tell us that we can disregard mountains of work by people who know what they are doing.

Do you read Chinese, Kori? Do you read Classical Greek? Have you translated the word "Tao" into any other language? Have you published either research or translations using any of those sources?

Have you read the Taoist classics? Even in English?

Of course not. You are not a studious person. You are a bombastic person. They are different.

Yet all 3 have in common, that they are wholey inadequate words different cultures made up to try to describe the same thing, the indescribable,
Mystety, which is no less a mystery to you or me, or Einstein or NdGT or or Brian Greene, which is why we dodnt ID as atheists.
They, like me, thought/think the only thing more arrogant than claiming knowledge of something for which you had no proof, is claiming you have eradicated mystery from the universe. Ruling out the existence of an intelligent cause of the Big Bang, when you cannot account for the missing 96% of the universe. Instead we throw in a 96% fudge factor and call it "Dark Matter/Energy"
And pretend that is a better name for that vast, eternal mystery than Tao or Logos or Genius or god



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2018 08:41PM by koriwhore.

Do you have any evidence that the people who wrote of the Tao, those who wrote of the logos, and those who wrote of God thought they were describing something indescribable? Do you see the logical problem there?

The fact that each tradition saw elements of mystery in their thought does not mean that they perceived reality in at all the same way; it does not mean they would have viewed their terms as interchangeable. For instance, if the word Tao had no distinct meaning, why did the Taoists and the Confucians and the Legalists fight over the interpretation of that word for centuries? They didn't even think other Chinese understood the term. They would never have thought Greeks or modern Americans did.

By throwing distinct words with distinct meanings together as if they were synonyms, you do great disrespect to each tradition. It is not univeralistic to expropriate different culture's philosophical terms and impose independent meanings on them: it is condescending and arrogant, literally, for what you are doing is arrogating others' vocabulary in order to use their authority to enhance your own credibility.

The same is true of the other concepts. The intellectually honest way to deal with the mystery you perceive is to coin your own term--Mystery? Cosmos? Fruitloops? Anything--rather than wrenching other cultures' words from their contexts.

Koriwhore writes:

It is silly to take some other word and "pretend that is a better name for that vast, eternal mystery than Tao or Logos or Genius or god."

Not true. Tao or Logos, in particular, have precise meanings. Your expropriating those terms and changing their definitions is lazy and disrespectful since they don't mean what you claim. Using God with any connection to the Judeao-christian-Moslem complex would be equally lazy and disrespectful. You can't simply say the Taoists' mystery is the same as the ancient Greeks' mystery is the same as Einstein's mystery and the same as my mystery. Why? Because each of those are different sorts of mysteries focused on different phenomena.

Using "god" lower case, or the words "eternal mystery" is preferable because those don't carry established meanings. You are talking about the mystery you perceive in the universe; that stands on its own as an actual experience and doesn't need validation from sources who use superficially similar expressions of mystery for things that are radically different.

Put simply, no Taoist would recognize the mystery you posit. No Taoist would even agree that humans are supposed to see that mystery (since Taoists thought education was a wrongful distortion of human perception). So it is less destructive to their epistemology to avoid using "Tao" as it is supportive of your experience to employ a more neutral term like "mystery" or even Koriwhore's Mystery," just not something that belongs to, and lives in, a distinct intellectual and ethnic tradition.

I was under the impression that taoism was the same as daoism/dowism, which is the same as confucionism which was equivalent to our feudalism. Confucious was actually Kung Fu, the creator of the martial art and wise master of many 'forms'. He believed everyone had a place in society and should fulfill their role accordingly to complete 'the way', the 'tao', etc. Education only made people aware of what they did not have therefore education made them want what was impossible and therefore created negative effects for society. Happiness is the absence of desire, standing still in a river is still being in active opposition to the water, etc.

Trying to reconcile any ancient or foreign cultures together or with modern culture is very difficult as it all depends on each individual's personal interpretation of language, which is generally all that divides. When we can accept a similarity of concept, it is easier to define meaning to individual words.

Language - the medium that has the power to unite and divide in equal measure.

UKAnon,

The character Tao is pronounced Dao, with a fourth tone. It is a concept developed most fully in Taoism, the school of thought associated with Laozi and the more profound Zhuangzi and a couple of lesser philosophers.

Taoism was in stark contrast to Confucianism. Since the concept of Tao is 1,000 years earlier than either Taoism or Confucianism, both schools fought over its interpretation. The doctrinal views you ascribe to Confucianism are actually Taoist. Confucianism focused on social order, fulfilling one's role in society, and increasing education so people could better serve the government. Taoism thought everything would be better if people gave up education and followed their hearts. The two schools of thought were radically different and antagonistic--to the point where in their books they directly and indirectly insulted each other.

Confucius, Kongfuzi, did not found Kongfu. The latter is in fact Gongfu, mispelled in the same way that Dao became Dao. The meaning of Gongfu, moreover, is "skills" or "achievement" and was not used to describe martial arts until the last century. There is no association historically or linguistically between Confucius and Gongfu.

If you want to see the difference, there are good books on ancient Chinese philosophy. Alternatively, read The Analects by Confucius and compare it to the Daodejing by Laozi.

Sorry about reversing your moniker, anonuk!

Thank you for your clarification, my knowledge of chinese 'things' are all based around learning wing tsung - the art, form and beliefs taught by the martial art which is more from Hong Kong and therefore more cantonese rather than mainland chinese, or mandarin, or one of the other regional 'systems' for want of a better word. Each system has it's own history and philosophy and even different teachers within each system can be different in what they teach.

I never appreciated the shaolin monks nor old 70s martial arts movies til I took an interest in the sport, which led to learning a bit about the philosophy. I now even prefer oriental versions of holywood films. Such a different way of looking at life. Again, it is my interpretation of what I see and what I have been taught/read and this may or may not be what was intended by the teacher/writer.

I'd bear in mind a couple of points. One is that the name Kongzi, or Confucius, and the term Gongfu, are entirely different characters with different meanings. In fact, the characters gongfu are used in the Confucian classics with their modern meaning. So there was never any confusion between the two.

Also, Taoism basically died out in China when Buddhism entered. The reason was that they were philosophically/religiously similar and had similar meditative practices. But Buddhism offered a much clearer vision of what happens to people when they die and hence was more attractive. From that point on, Taoism (Daojia) devolved into Taoism (Daojiao), which was basically alchemy, magic, and other forms of esoteric mysticism. It wasn't really a religious discipline anymore.

Taoist ideas, however, continued to percolate in Chinese thought for millennia. It's entirely possible that your teachers erroneously ascribed Taoist ideas to Confucius. The truth is that most living Chinese, particularly those from the mainland (where the communists tried to eradicate traditional culture), don't know much about classical Chinese civilization. The new religion, as espoused by Deng Xiaoping, is "To get rich is glorious."

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
The new religion,
> as espoused by Deng Xiaoping, is "To get rich is
> glorious."


another prosperity cult then? That god 'money' does appear to get everywhere, doesn't it?

Modern China is atheistic in the worst sense. The old moral code was destroyed by the communists, replaced by a socialist ethos. That ethos did not work, so it was jettisoned.

There is nothing left of the old moralities because no one believes anything anymore. Deng wanted a strong and rich country, so that's what he taught. It worked. That's all that motivates mainland Chinese now.

Not a religion, really. But there is not a compensating humanist ethos as one would see in, for instance, atheist Scandinavia either.

You really work hard at missing my point, which is that we all exist in a vast mystery. Now scientists call that vast mystery things like "Dark Matter/Energy", "Black Holes" "Singularity" and "The Great Attractor" but calling that vast mystery those arbitrary names doesn't make them any less mysterious than if we called them "Tao" or "Logos" or "god" for that matter.
People can't relate to "Vast Mystery" so we choose words like "Tao" "Logos" or "god" as embodiments of that mystery.
Like Sagan said, "Yes I believe in God, if by the word, God, you mean the embodiment of the immutable laws that govern the universe."
Ive got no problem with having "In God We Trust" on our money, when I trust in the immutable laws that govern the universe, aka, Tao or Logos.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2018 03:56PM by koriwhore.

Yeah, there's mystery. Agreed.

The question is terminology. You are taking words with distinct words and twisting them beyond recognition to use them as you want. Why would anyone dislike that? I don't know, maybe because she is a particle physicist and, along with tens of thousands of others, uses those words in a precise way. Or perhaps she is a professor of Greek philosopher and prefers to use the word logos in the sense that it works. Sometimes you act like no one else's education, profession, or culture has any value: you can expropriate any word you want to use in your chosen context.

Perhaps you should use a word from your own tradition, call the great ineffable mystery "the architect" or "the Obama factor." You could call it the great mystery of Mormonism. I am Koriwhore, and I worship the cosmic mystery of Obama.

That might sound foolish to you, but it sounds equally foolish to a Chinese person to hear you use the word "Tao" the way you do. And Particle physicists would laugh and (in Dr W's case) have laughed at your remarkably a-contextual use of terms from their field.

May the Rabbit's Foot bless you.

My name is better than your name? Is that we're playing?

Jonny the Smoke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My name is better than your name? Is that we're
> playing?
I'm not playing a game.

I'm trying to articulate a more tennable existential foothold in a Cosmos that is a vast mystery.
Like NdGT said, "We are made of stardust. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate the fact that the universe is inside of you."
I'm with NdGT, who also rejects the "atheist" label for the same reasons as Brian Greene, Einstein, Sagan, Bill Nye, Sam Harris, among others.
I'm with them.

> I'm trying to articulate a more tennable existential foothold in a Cosmos that is a vast mystery.

I can see that, and you're working very hard at it. It just seems to me that most folks here don't really care about it as much as you. I feels like you are focusing on an audience that really isn't that interested in what you're offering.

> Like NdGT said, "We are made of stardust. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate the fact that the universe is inside of you."

I do that, I have nothing to get over on that one. Some do some don't I guess.

> I'm with NdGT, who also rejects the "atheist" label for the same reasons as Brian Greene, Einstein, Sagan, Bill Nye, Sam Harris, among others.
I'm with them.

Again, maybe this isn't the best audience for that debate. You can be for whomever you want, I don't think there is a huge amount of interest here in the atheist label and accepting it or not....I know its way to granular for me.

That's why I referred to it as a game....it keeps playing, over and over.....except no one seems to be winning.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm trying to articulate a more tennable
> existential foothold in a Cosmos that is a vast
> mystery.

More tenable than what? Existentialism is premised on the inherent meaninglessness of our existence. It means only what we individually assign to it. To argue that your assigned meaning is broadly applicable or meaningful to anyone else is something entirely different from existentialism.

Mystery doesn't mean meaning nor preclude it. But assigning your own personal meaning to the Mystery, which assignment has no basis beyond your own personal preference, remains meaningless to the rest of us. We don't share your preference, indeed we find your preference silly for us for reasons already well explained.

Assigning an answer you like to the mystery merely for liking that answer is an act of ego and a failure of reason. Existentially, it's as valid as any other individual meaning, but you have failed utterly to offer any logical reason for its application outside of your preferences for meaning with definitions and uses that remain meaningless to the rest of us.

The Sagan quote is demonstrating a strawman. Sagan isn't saying that laws are a god, but instead if you want a god you can have a god.

I'm not surprised that you agree with total nonsense.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not surprised that you agree with total
> nonsense.
Im not surprised you'd make an ad-hominem attack instead of making an intelligent comment that adds to a discussion rather than detracting from it.

Why make a claim of faith without any supporting evidence?

But you have evidence, conclusive evidence, in the form of Koriwhore's opinions. He feels very strongly about his views, so that makes them facts.

It is, dogblogger, impertinent of you not to recognize Koriwhore's authority.

He always dodges the hard questions.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He always dodges the hard questions.
That's pure unadulterated bullshit.
Ask away.

The one just above here about this faith claim of yours.

The existential challenge up thread.

From other threads, the question of moral authority your alleged insight offers as a world view.

Any extra explanarory power of your pantheist world view. You know, basic challenges to any philosophy.

You have dodged all of those questions for a start.

An epistemological path that DEMONSTRATES the equivalency you merely CLAIM.

Why would I give a shit what Russell Brand thinks? He's just chaos and noise.

Plus, he believes in god so any possible credibility he might get for being able to talk fast and with agility goes right out the window in my book.

BTW, as an aside, I decided that ability he appears to have to talk fast with agility is nothing more than lots of rehearsal, probably in front of a mirror.

CateS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why would I give a shit what Russell Brand thinks?
> He's just chaos and noise.
>
> Plus, he believes in god so any possible
> credibility he might get for being able to talk
> fast and with agility goes right out the window in
> my book.
>
> BTW, as an aside, I decided that ability he
> appears to have to talk fast with agility is
> nothing more than lots of rehearsal, probably in
> front of a mirror.

This wasn't about what Russel Brand thinks, although I tend to agree with most of what I've heard him say about spirituality, I don't hold him up as any kind of an authority on anything. He's just a celebrity with a knack for talking eloquently.
This was about what Brian Cox had to say, as a physicist, which was basically, Science doesn't make any claims about God's existence, pro or con. We just don't know.

"theism" = belief in a god or gods.

"a" = a prefix meaning "without."

He's an atheist.

baura Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "theism" = belief in a god or gods.
>
> "a" = a prefix meaning "without."
>
> He's an atheist.


He rejects the label, like a lot of people who don't buy into the traditional definition of 'god'. He doesn't rule out the possibility of a higher power or a creator. A sufficiently advanced alien species would be indistinguishable from god.

If he doesn't believe in a god (even if he hasn't ruled out the
possibility of a higher being) then he's an atheist by definition.

I understand 'atheists' want to define themselves ----- you don't need my permission.

What I don't understand is why the argument over God ---- that scientists can't dismiss or prove based on 'scientific evidence'. They just don't know!

I believe to people like Kori and even most of the 'religious/believers' on this board their 'God' can be debated but is really 'dead to them' if in day to day living/periodically they are not getting some 'benefits'.

Based on my understanding, there should be some benefits in a person's belief or relationship with God/divinity. If not then God/divinity is dead in their lives! A 'good feeling' is nice but doesn't cut it in my world.

Maybe I am wrong, but I get 'great benefits' because of my faith and 'relationship' with divinity. I am never 'directly' dealing with God. But to understand and be 'aware' of what our (God given) 'capabilities are' and being able to use them or get other divine help is what I consider a 'valuable relationship/or valued belief in God'.

If you just believe what God has done such as 'creation' of universe that is ok but what has He/divinity done for 'me' lately is the more accurate question to 'believers'!

I really 'believe' 'divinity' has really helped me as well as 'non believers' also but if they don't recognize it that is where they are and ok.

I personally had many things happen when I was much younger, that I recognized were 'amazing' at the time but easily just didn't bother to really 'contemplate fully' as life was going on and I was pretty busy living my life. So I counted them as just 'coincidences' until I now look back at my life with some time to 'contemplate my life and experiences more fully'.

Anyway, I guess if you don't have any 'personal benefits' with your 'beliefs/God' then I guess one option is just keep bringing it up to get some discussion if 'that makes you feel good'(?).

The approach, "does what I believe give me personal benefits?" is
very different from "is what I believe true?"

"What have you done for me lately" also seems a very materialistic standard for God. It almost suggests that God is an extension of one's own ego.

It brings to mind the Old Dog's observation that people who believe in spiritual visitations always receive messages from beyond that comport precisely with what they want for themselves. Other-world messengers never instruct the living to give all that they have to the poor.

I know I said it, but when I said it, I was hoping that ghawd would prove me wrong...



I'm laughing!

It simply wouldn't do for any person or mechanism to interfere with the absolute unknowable randomness of the Bell Shaped Curve's distributions. There are literally quadrillions of little balls dancing in trillions of cosmic pachinko machines.

Yeah, but if one of the nice balls lands in my lap I'm not going to act like it was chance.

Hell no, it will have been Fortune's recognition of my moral superiority.

This seems like a good place to insert this:

http://m.pnas.org/content/106/51/21533.full

baura Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The approach, "does what I believe give me
> personal benefits?" is
> very different from "is what I believe true?"

____________________________________________________________

Good question! But certainly not my main point.

Very true!!!!! However, this is what I consider to be one of our 'God given capabilities' to 'visualize a goal' before or in order to achieve it. And in this case, you are totally correct, you visualize something that is 'not true ---- yet' before you achieve it.

Look it up if you are not familiar with 'visualization'! It has proven effective in weight loss, sports, etc. etc. I was an athlete to some extent but I was never exposed to this in high school or college. My son, also an athlete, was exposed to it in college. I doubt any 'world class athlete' is 'not' exposed to this concept!!

Truth is still important concerning God type things. In this case ----- the 'truth of the effectiveness of the concept of visualization' is what is important!

Visualization is a meditative and psychological discipline. It is explicitly a means of maximizing one's own mundane performance. You are the only person I have ever heard cite it as evidence of God or the supernatural.

Probiotics as proof of God.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Visualization is a meditative and psychological
> discipline. It is explicitly a means of
> maximizing one's own mundane performance. You are
> the only person I have ever heard cite it as
> evidence of God or the supernatural.
>
> Probiotics as proof of God.
________________________________________________________

I would argue with you, but based on what you just misquoted me inferring ---- I would be better off just pounding my head against a brick wall or doing something else.

Does 'twilight zone' have any special meaning to you???



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2018 01:12PM by spiritist.

The word is "implying," for what it's worth.

And if you were not implying a connection between visualization and the supernatural, why did you include it in a comment on whether God exists or not?

In reply to a question about how personal benefit proves the truth of the existence of God, Spiritist wrote:

"Very true!!!!! However, this is what I consider to be one of our 'God given capabilities' to 'visualize a goal' before or in order to achieve it. And in this case, you are totally correct, you visualize something that is 'not true ---- yet' before you achieve it.

. . . Truth is still important concerning God type things. In this case ----- the 'truth of the effectiveness of the concept of visualization. . .'"

That seems a pretty clear statement that the "truth" of visualization, "a God given capability," is evidence of the truth of God.

And I did not "misquote" you. I quoted you word for word. Then I inferred what you implied.

I think we are close to understanding the source of our disagreement. You are so imprecise with concepts and words that logical discourse is impossible.

But your spirits wouldn't share that insight with you, would they, since they just reinforce your own beliefs and desires.

You're right, you didn't claim that visualization is evidence for God. You just claimed that it was a God given capability. Which is still just bullshit.

I learned how to visualize goals, derive the steps to achieve them, and methodically work those steps because other humans taught me how.

This ability was learned, not gifted to me by a supernatural force.