Re: virus:Logic

Sodom (
Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:19:09 -0400

Brett Lane Robertson wrote:

> b) Sodom's Dictionary defines insight as: A not-absolute
> conclusion
> reached by reflecting upon experiences, experimentation, or
> information.
> Thoughts, based on observation, strung together to reach a theory,
> without the full strength of a theory, probably including jumps in
> logic
> and therefore not entirely accurate.
> When discussing religios insights, I men insights into the natural
> world, not supernatural world. Human behaviour being a good example.
> (Sodom)
> Sodom,
> So are you asking for "A not-absolute conclusion reached by reflecting
> upon
> experiences, experimentaion, or information" which applies to "the
> natural
> world, not supernatural"...but which originates from a "divine source"
> with
> the further criteria that it should not have multiple interpretations
> or be
> a hallucination...?
> The first problem I see with this request is that if it originates
> from a
> "divine source" then must it be "supernatural"?
> Next, if it is religious and has *multiple interpretations* it would
> not
> seem too different from that "not-absolute" conclusion you require
> (But you
> seem to make a distinction between the first and the the
> difference here due to the fact that it is presented as religious, or
> is it
> that your definition of "conclusion" is more specific than
> "interpretation"?)
> Next, can something gained from experiences, experimentaion, and
> information
> ALSO be "divine"?
> SO:
> Is religion not natural? Is religious experience and information not
> the
> source for religious insights? Are religious insights (based on a
> "natural"
> religion with experience and information) different from any other
> "insight"
> the way you use the term?
> Is a statement like "God is Love" not a religious insight based on
> religious
> experience and religious information? It's proof will be in the form
> of
> more religious information and experience...not in the form of
> science-fact;
> but can it be accepted as an insight, or even a theory, and
> experimented on
> using religious criteria (not scientific criteria)?
> What are you really asking for here? Are you saying can we put god in
> a
> maze and run timed tests to see if he learns? Would you use the same
> tests
> to test human behavior as you would animal behavior? Couldn't you
> design
> tests to determine religious phenomenon based on what they perport to
> measure?
> Brett
> Returning,
> rBERTS%n
> Rabble Sonnet Retort
> Rule of the Great:
> When people you greatly admire appear to be thinking deep
> thoughts, they probably are thinking about lunch.

1> That is what I am asking for. Better defined, what I am really
asking for:. Thought processes are electre-chemical in nature. I want
proof that the change in thought is not due to the mind itself, but due
to external divine influence.

2> NO, It can only be divine if influenced by god directly. Not
through experience, experiment and observation.

3> Religion is natural only in the sense that it is generated by
fear, which is natural. Fear of the unknown is what created the rain
gods, moon gods, ocean gods and sky gods. As man could explain more and
more the need for gods disapeared, slowly at first, but continuuing
until there was one god who was only responsible for things that can't
be explained. Today it is fear of death, lack of purpose, control of
others that drives the need for gods. As long as fear is the main factor
in human thought processes, gods will plague us.

4> God is Love? Love is an electro/chemical process with specific
neurotransmitters and actions on the brain, and I am DEFINATELY not
interested in the love shown by religious people ( in this i mean love
for humanity, not love for one another, as I can love, and respect love
for me by a religious person) as the price is too high. Christians have
shown their love by slaughtering by the millions all non-believers.
Enslaving entire races, subjugating women, gays, heritcs etc... Even
today i cannot get a job in Government, spend money or praise my country
without acknowledging your god. The concept of "God is Love" is
definately without statistical or historical precedence.

5> I would suggest that all phenomena are simply a lack of understanding
on our part. Rain was a phenomena people sacraficed their children for,
then we understood and that practice stopped. Religion is willing to
sacrafice the hearts and minds of millions to garner power for itself.
It is willing to legislate it's morals even it it results in oppression
and death of others who do not believe.

i am willing to guess that religion will never be able to bring a
"miracle" under scientific scrutiny because the fear of discovering that
there is a scientific answer is overwhelming. Religion is in a constant
backbpeddle. I would love it to be otherwise, and would not mind living
in the world you would like to exist. According to the bible and all
other texts of this nature, lots is said about the miracles that
happened before people knew why the grass was green or the sky was blue.
Now the scriptures aren't written, and miracles are kept from the public
eye. Does your god need to hide his work? Perhaps smoke and mitrrors
don't work on us like they used to, and the aliens that faked everyone
out 2000 years ago fled for their skins?