On Aug 4, 4:05 am, chazwin
yahoo.com> wrote:> On Aug 3, 5:02 pm,zinnic
gate.net> wrote:
>>> On Aug 3, 2:31 am, "brian fletcher"
bigpond.net.au> wrote:>
>>> "zinnic"
gate.net> wrote in message>
>
>>>> On Aug 2, 6:05 pm, "tooly"
bellsouth.net> wrote:>>>>> "zinnic"
gate.net> wrote in message>
>>>>>>> "tooly"
bellsouth.net> wrote in message>
>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 3:59 pm, "tooly"
bellsouth.net> wrote:>>>>>>>>>> "brian fletcher"
bigpond.net.au> wrote in message>
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Any one read Richard dawkins book?...brilliant, as was his TV
>>>>>>>>>>> series
>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>> Root Of All Evil (He didnt want to call it that, but the BBC
>>>>>>>>>>> insisted.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> He said evil doesnt have a root. Typical enlightened comment of
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> great
>>>>>>>>>>> thinker and educater.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> He managed to put into words, what many "almost" true believers
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> cusp of realizing.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> BOfL
>
>>>>>>>>>> This much I do know. Atheism is a formula for HOPELESSNESS. It
>>>>>>>>>> leaves
>>>>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>>>>> only with pecking orders.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Atheists who are higher up on their pecking order would find some
>>>>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> existence. A boss, an artist, a builder, teacher...anyone who has
>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> 'right of way' in life, some felt purpose in their relationship to
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> sea
>>>>>>>>>> of humanity in which they swim.
>
>>>>>>>>>> There are 7 billion of us, and the masses linger in quagmires
>>>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>>>> foot
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> pyramids we cannot imagine. Few in relative number actually get
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> 'good life', from which the new nihilism is expressing itself (or
>>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>> so secure in which a Richard Dawkins could broadcast his poison).
>
>>>>>>>>>> Looking UP from the bottom, I argue it is fundamentally important
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>> who carry the 'weight' of existence on their backs with little or
>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>> hope of
>>>>>>>>>> reward, at least have some conciliation that their misery has
>>>>>>>>>> 'value'
>>>>>>>>>> measured in some 'higher order' they cannot see from such depths.
>>>>>>>>>> If,
>>>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>>>> looking up, all one sees is the athiest...the hopelessness sinks
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>> concrete upon the heart of human motivation.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Even an ant must believe in his colony to march onward, to give
>>>>>>>>>> itself
>>>>>>>>>> up to
>>>>>>>>>> the horde.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Most of you who write here, and especially those like Dawkins and
>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>> naysayers, have no real conception of hells they walk upon, that
>>>>>>>>>> exist
>>>>>>>>>> beneath them, as they, relegated in relative comfort, are
>>>>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>>>>> mired
>>>>>>>>>> in some meaning due the auspices of their own genetic 'LUCK' to be
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> boss,
>>>>>>>>>> the artist, the builder, teacher...anyone allowed some right of
>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> life.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Most of us are fodder and atheism is not strong enough to hold the
>>>>>>>>>> structural seams of the pyramid together for very long.
>
>>>>>>>>> And when the seams burst asunder who then will raise up the down
>>>>>>>>> trodden? A Queen that will persuade them to joyously give
>>>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>>>> up to the horde? A Prophet who will persuade them to patiently
>>>>>>>>> accept
>>>>>>>>> their suffering because their reward will be found in the kingdom
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> heaven? A Messiah who will smite down the heathen and elevate the
>>>>>>>>> righteous and the inflicted to their proper place in paradise?
>>>>>>>>> Explain to me. Why did not some god do that in the first place?
>>>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>> a mortal can see that would have 'saved' a World of suffering!
>>>>>>>>>Zinnic
>
>>>>>>>> Fair question of course and I have an answer to it...just that, like
>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>> many, I find it hard to 'communicate' that answer via words
>>>>>>>> alone...by
>>>>>>>> intellect or reason. 'STATE' is everything I keep arguing to deaf
>>>>>>>> ears,
>>>>>>>> ha. By that, I mean once a 'state' is changed, new meaning can be
>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> a function of, well, certain 'state'. Sheese, I know I sound like
>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>> flake trying to explain something people have tried to explain since
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>> immemorial.
>>>>>>>> Ever fall in love back when at the peak of mating? That was a
>>>>>>>> 'state'...and at the time, I bet the world stood on it's ears for
>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>> Everything 'came together'. Oh, I know it passes and our rational
>>>>>>>> self
>>>>>>>> takes back over and cajoles us how foolish we were [those moments
>>>>>>>> rarely
>>>>>>>> last or turn out as we want]. But it gives us some clue that we are
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> granite monoliths, that we can 'change' not just our perception, but
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> very 'state of BEing' we become through those perceptions.
>
>>>>>>>> Science is one tool, and it leads us to certain 'perceptions' that
>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>> our state in certain ways. It is a useful state of course, but we
>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> realize when it leads us astray, when our condition becomes so empty
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> voided of hope that it begins to violate perhaps the first and only
>>>>>>>> tennant of meaning that very science suggests to us...To Survive.
>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>> hopelessness is indeed real today and growing like a dark cloud over
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> world, slowly, inexoriably...ha, like Tolkien's dark cloud of evil
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> arose from Mordor.
>
>>>>>>>> I'm not a theologian and cannot argue much on the dogmatic
>>>>>>>> scriptural
>>>>>>>> context of religion. Too much is argued for the grace of God by an
>>>>>>>> intellectual debate of 'hand me down' myths that won't cut wet
>>>>>>>> tissue
>>>>>>>> paper in the modern world. But...is that important? Their function
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> efficable to time and place and our mentality of eras now gone.
>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>> mentality has expanded does not mean the funcationality is no longer
>>>>>>>> needed that those myths provided us. But, erroneously, we rebuke
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> myth
>>>>>>>> while not understanding fully the function, IMO. We NEED hope for
>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> thing.
>
>>>>>>>> To some who need objects to be able to believe, I suppose it is
>>>>>>>> scary,
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> to disavow the history of the religion is to appear to disavow God.
>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>> yet, if one considers that the true object of all the Bible or the
>>>>>>>> Koran
>>>>>>>> or any other written document people need as security blankets to
>>>>>>>> justify
>>>>>>>> a belief in God upon, does it not come down to a more simple notion
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> 'changing our state' through divulging new perception with the
>>>>>>>> functional
>>>>>>>> end of that 'certain state' [for convenience, let's just call that
>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>> the religious experience, as close to epiphony that most of us
>>>>>>>> mortals
>>>>>>>> will ever get].
>
>>>>>>>> Faith and belief, I argue, were tools...a technology of sorts, by
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> could maintain our 'state' of BEing in good repair...while keeping
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> life worthwhile, our motivations intact, our gestalts with high
>>>>>>>> energy,
>>>>>>>> and most importantly, our human relations of a healthy nature [ha, I
>>>>>>>> know,
>>>>>>>> someone will want to point to religious wars here, repressed
>>>>>>>> sexuality
>>>>>>>> etc....but where it really was functional was to make the family
>>>>>>>> unit
>>>>>>>> strong...the main building block of civilization].
>
>>>>>>>> Faith and Belief in what? We really need no object...not really if
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> develop our empathetic reach. It is in that empathetic reach that I
>>>>>>>> personally find much hope and direction. But, at least for this
>>>>>>>> poor
>>>>>>>> brain and mind that sits in it, I need the word...the
>>>>>>>> conceptualization
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> some symbol of higher virtue...even a pinnacle of possibility...upon
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> to focus all objects through. One state leads to another...and a
>>>>>>>> general
>>>>>>>> aspiration toward higher virtue is found in all things around
>>>>>>>> you...ultimately back in 'self'. But...at least for me, I must
>>>>>>>> funnel
>>>>>>>> that symbol through my conceptualization of God. It becomes the
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> object one needs really...for it is undefinable, unrestrained in
>>>>>>>> meaning,
>>>>>>>> the object of all objects.
>
>>>>>>>> I argue we are far and away from that point in time where we can
>>>>>>>> fully
>>>>>>>> wean ourselves from our needed objects by which we might 'believe or
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> faith or reach for higher empathy and virtue'...and we still NEED
>>>>>>>> God...the conceptualization as we each may uniquely divulge to
>>>>>>>> ourselves.
>
>>>>>>>> I better stop here before I sound too flakey. I hope a point or two
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> cohesive thought gets through. State. Once certain state is
>>>>>>>> attained
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> see, one realizes the rest didn't matter [the dogma, whatever paths,
>>>>>>>> myths, rationales, delusions even...that get you to that state].
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> real
>>>>>>>> 'object'...the aspiration, the reach, the pursuit, was a particular
>>>>>>>> 'state
>>>>>>>> of BEing'. Anyway...my 2 cents I guess.
>
>>>>>>> Eloquently put Tooly.
>
>>>>>>> May I suggest that those "states of Be ing" are infinite, the
>>>>>>> recognition
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> which, is based on such aspects as you have identified.Steps on an
>>>>>>> endless
>>>>>>> ladder!
>
>>>>>> Now there's a thought. A circular ladder!. If you take the inside
>>>>>> track you can run, like a hamster, for ever
>
>>>>>>> The more I have discovered that, the more I have realized that past
>>>>>>> references to "God" were convenient references to the "unbelievable",
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> mutate (evolves) into "knowanble".
>
>>>>>> To 'mutate' into one who "knows" must one be over-exposed to divine/
>>>>>> cosmic radiation? I need more evidence before I remove my aluminum
>>>>>> foil hat!
>
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>>>>> By all means...always seek the evidence. There are too many fuller brush
>>>>> salesmen on this planet. The evidence in this case, is the very 'state'
>>>>> I
>>>>> refer to. Some call it...well 'most' call it love I suppose. Life would
>>>>> be
>>>>> a wonderful thing if we could 'sustain' this state. I don't like this
>>>>> word
>>>>> myself, for language fails at some point....and the experience become
>>>>> transcendent to any word. But...suffice that love is the closest word we
>>>>> have. But it can be misleading when most of us understand 'love' as an
>>>>> attachment to 'objects'. Love for it's own sake is not an easy thing I
>>>>> think, but it's justification is the realization that the only thing of
>>>>> worth in this life [perhaps for all sentient being, not sure] is this
>>>>> thing
>>>>> we call love. But that's is not said properly, for as I have come to
>>>>> understand it, this 'essence' of the word and the experience it rests
>>>>> upon
>>>>> is actually the very 'stuff of meaning' itself. God is the better
>>>>> vernacular, a more descriptive handle that leads one away from personal
>>>>> emotionality to a more expansive understanding of BEing.
>
>>>>> From only our momentary brushes with it in all it's various form as
>>>>> 'associations' to various material objects, we carry the residuals that
>>>>> eventually provide the very 'structural pathways' of right and wrong,
>>>>> eventually of law and order [at least in it's foundation]. If one needs
>>>>> a
>>>>> totally material angle, I suppose it provides structural pathways to
>>>>> develop
>>>>> our very nervous system. It draws us like a magnet through time.
>
>>>> A "loving" post from a "loving" person. This does not really express
>>>> my true sentiment.The only other English word that springs to mind is
>>>> empathy but still it does not fit. Perhaps it is expressed better in
>>>> some other language?
>>>> I suspect we are poles apart in temperament and viewpoint. I am
>>>> tempted to explain myself but unfortunately., I repeat unfortunately,
>>>> I will not allow myself to do so. And that for me is a major
>>>> confession.
>>>> I guess this last post of yours convinces me that the fulfilment you
>>>> find in the meaning of "Being" is something that I, in recognising
>>>> the inevitability of "not Being" , have no wish to trample on. In
>>>> short, perhaps there is a right and wrong but I am convinced that I
>>>> will never KNOW.
>>>>Zinnic
>
>>> Why dont you at least allow for the possibility of knowing.?
>
>>> Costs nothing and is worth the bet.
>
>>> BOfL
>
>> Possiibilties are two for a penny, I deal in probabilities.
>
> A probability is a quantified possibility. So being a subset of
> possibility, dealing in probabilities you will by necessity also be
> dealing in possibilities too.
Not if the probabability I am trying to deal with turns out to be
impossible!
Zinnic.
