tar

Inow, You read my mind. And previously (before the spirit thing) I was suggesting the opposite. I was incorrectly figuring that the number thing, might have been an indication that their capacity for considering unseen others might be likewise "missing" from their conceptual architecture. However, after the spirit thing is factored in, the unseen other mechanisms seem to be intact, and their reluctance to accept Jesus as their lord and savior, and the biblical "father" that goes with him, seems to be better explained by their cultural tendency to not accept hearsay evidence. They might have accepted it, if someone they trusted, said they saw Jesus, or God. Which requires me to come up with a different hypothesis, in terms of why the number thing and the God thing might be related. I am guessing that they are, but I do not have a good possible explanation of why they might be. What is it, that we do, when we add, that the Piraha do not readily do? Regards, TAR2 Perhaps us counters have a place holder mechanism that has atrophied in that population, or has not developed because of some cultural influences. Or we, the counters, hijacked some neurological mechanism that the Piraha also have, but we use it for counting, which is other than its evolutionary purpose. Moontanman, Nature/nurture. Another wrinkle. This gets harder and harder to figure out. Humans have a number of skills and abilities that other mammals do not have. How many of them were natural, and how many of them were learned? And what exactly is so unnatural about learning? Regards, TAR2

Monday's Assignment Die, Thank you for the correction. I stuck an h in weight where it never existed, as well. I often error. Perhaps I should be more careful. Had an argument with my 5th grade teacher that if she marked the word I used wrong, she must have known what word I meant, and that should have been good enough. I also complained that it was difficult to look a word up in the dictionary, if you did not know how to spell it. I lost that argument. Inow, Ignoring your request...I just watched the comments that our president made to a gathering in Newtown. He waxed rather philosophical, and a bit religious, speaking of God and Jesus, and the importance...no the critical role that love played in the event and its aftermath. It surprised me, that my pragmatic, secular president would open himself up to being deemed broken by those who would call believers such. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, Gods you can have a dialogue with? Do you mean "think you can have a dialogue with", or that you could have a dialogue with, that could be recorded in some fashion for the benefit of others, and for the inspection purposes that others might have? My guess is that you mean they "really" exist, in some objectively testable fashion, exactly adorned with jewels, mined from the minerals of the earth, and the jewels would be measurable as to their luminousity and size and wheight and shape, color and hardness. In this case, I think you are expecting reality to hold an entity which it does not hold. Your mind might hold the image, but its analog does not exist in reality, where I can behold it. Inow, I was not able to view the recent videos, so I can't comment on what points Immortal was making, or attempting to make, but in general, recently on this thread, I would say that Immortal has retreated into an indefensible area, and being that he believes the area he has retreated into IS defensible, I would say he is broken, as in the way an ostrich is broken when it hides its head in a hole to escape danger. So although I was attempting to give Immortal an out or two, I do believe he is defending a rather broken position, and if his beliefs are of the same type, as others who believe in gods, and these beliefs are of the type where the expectation is that these entities are "actual" and measurable, and exist in reality, then I will have to once again give up, giving such individuals the benefit of the doubt, and fall back into the "people that believe in God are broken" camp, since the fortifications surrounding that camp will hold, and the fortifications surrounding the opposing camp are somewhat thinner than air. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, I was rather disappointed when you started to actually name the 33 gods or the 1 and a half, or whatever the numbers and different categories. Sky, heaven, air and such. These are just the things we all know. If this is what the Buddah "believed in", then there is no argument. We all believe in these things, and no "brokeness" or unbrokeness can be determined regarding our agreement that these things exist. Throws a whole different light on the subject, and puts it in the realm of a "misunderstanding". Also answers in my mind why so many sayings of the teachers and mystics are so circular and childish, and pretend to hold some deep underlying truth, that only the practiced can understand. When in actuality, all the words are just describing common things. Things that we hold in common. No surprise then that the sky is the sky, and when we look up we see the sky, and the clouds are in the sky, and produce rain which waters the earth from which springs the seeds that were sown, and this is life, which is the energy of the sun and the form of the earth and the movement of the waters and the air, which is the Magilicutti, that we are. So, on further inspection, with the added knowledge, that the Gods you are referring to, are the items that science believes in, as well, the arugment is, or the question is, why consider your own awareness of these things, special? Regards, TAR2 And more specifically, why bother going through all the contortions, to come up with the truths that were evident to begin with? Just to call them "your" idea? Or the Buddah's idea? And all the other made up stuff about levels and hidden (unevident) realities, are either imaginary crap, or real, evident stuff, cased in the same figurative language that mystifies the obvious, like the 1.5 god.

An unseen other.

Inow, Understoood. Just let me make a slight correction. Not only will God be referenced, "he" will be addressed in the prayer, and his blessings will be requested. And still, I will not be dishonest to be in the circuit. I would not use the word irrelevant. We will have to talk about that. Regards, TAR

Immortal, Well that is all rather complicated, and no one point can be taken from it. I am constantly aware of a major deficiency in the logic of charma. If a never ending cycle of rebirth and death is afoot, then THIS life will not possibly be the defining moment. A reabsorbtion into the divine, now, today or tomorrow, of TAR is not going to happen. My "separate" soul is paying for or being rewarded for previous deeds, and is sowing the seeds for future rewards and punishments. So I am precluded by the imagined process of such soul continuity from ever reaching the end, today, or tomorrow. As questioned by me, in my thread on "why must the end be near, for religious people" this NEED is obviously not going to be fulfilled, under the plan, so why trust the plan and consider it the truth. My personal take is that we are already absorbed, already 100% united with God, and our separateness in THIS life is our actual reality, our actual job, our individual soul's only glimpse. In this take you can only be you, because you ARE you. When you die, you are no longer a separate entity, and for all intents and purposes can consider yourself reabsorbed into the divine, with no distinctions. But as of now, to be sentient, you must be separate. There is not a way to be a separate entity, except to be aware of being separate. Thus the goal is not to die, and to enjoy THIS life, and make it possible for others to do the same. And there is no truth, but figurative truth in believing in 42 gods. It is just as true that there are only 4. The father, the mother, the sibling and the me. Figuratively speaking you can frame it, all sorts of "true" ways. But what matters at all, to any of us, is THIS life, in which we are us. And regardless of the religious "reasons" for doing such, it seems to me most reasonable to do the best job I can, at being me. With the rewards and punishments being reaped as TAR, for TAR and by TAR. And for TAR's consciousness, things will be much the same, as they were for me, before I was born, after I die. What counts is how my deeds contribute to or depreciate from OUR existence. Because I am already fully vested in the thing. Regards, TAR John Cuthber, Ok, the descriptions are at fault. Which might suggest there is a proper description. That is all I am suggesting. I pick on everybody, theist and atheist alike if I think they think something that does not make sense to me. And hold in the background, the possibility that there is a referent to which a proper description is due. It would be the referent that people would believe in, anyway, not the description. Regards, TAR2 Inow, Why do you think people in Newtown flocked to the church for a candlelight vigil, and not a school, or town hall? That is, would their faith in God, be considered ill-advised, in this instance, in your opinion? Would it be a sign of brokeness? Is the role the church plays in times like this, not evidence that our faith in each other, and our faith in God are somewhat intertwined? Intertwined enough, to not easily separate the two, and call one unbroken, and the other broken? Regards, TAR2 I say that, because I know I will be at a traditional Christmas gathering tonight, hosted by a believer, and we will all be holding hands in a giant circuit before the meal, and her son in law will offer a prayer, for our blessings and friendships and rememberance of the close that we lost this year...and no doubt some words about the events of a town, not far away. And God will be referenced and I will not be dishonest in my inclusion in the circuit.

Immortal, Explain to me a seeming contradiction in your position. From Wallace's first paragraph. "Reputable scholars of Buddhism, both traditional and modern, all agree that the historical Buddha taught a view of karma and rebirth that was quite different from the previous takes on these ideas." I take it, you are on Wallace's side, against the errors of Bachelor and Harris, and in support of the Buddah's teachings. I also take it, that you maintain that the repeating truths, found by the mystics and teachers, reveal an underlying, unwaivering truth of an everlasting and unquestionable nature. If both these takes of your position are correct, one might wonder, how the Buddah was able to find something out about karma and rebirth, that was quite different from previous takes on these ideas. His intellect, his disipline, his insights, his imagination, his esoteric knowledge, was superior to those that came before? If you are to anger at someone who refutes the Buddah, you must be invested in the esoteric imaginary world that the Buddah has constructed, and you trust not the wisdom of those that came before, or after, as to their equal access to the truth. Only the Buddah knows. Only Jesus holds the key. Only believers are on the proper path. Seems to be a repeating pattern. Seems inconsistent with "ultimate" truth to me. If we are all of the same stuff, if we are all of and in the same reality, which we appear to be, then, I would guess we each should have just about the same standing, in regards to it. No preferencial positions, no insiders and outsiders. We are all, fully vested, from the get go. How can you maintain that you know differently, based on what Buddah said? Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, We have enough complicated stuff to argue about, that we don't need to argue over misinterpretations on your part, of my theories, based on bad sentence construction on my part. So let me clarify, so you can argue for or against what I meant, not what I said. (you might not have known that I have a joke rule that says you are suppose to listen to what I mean, not what I say.) You said. "You might notice that nowhere in Dawkins' scale is there any mention of reproductive biology. So this bit of your text "Does not seem to me, that it is likely that there is a "being" with an anatomy such as ours, which has evolved to exist and procreate on this Earth. " seems preposterous. It doesn't matter that you think it's unlikely that God has a willy." My statement had meant to say, that humans have a "reason" to have the anatomy that we have. The creator of the universe, would not have those reasons. Our anatomy exists, and has evolved to exist and procreate on this Earth. Assigning God with human characteristics, as is implied when the phrase "created in his image" is used in the Bible, is a thusly "incorrect" assignment. In the Garden of Eden story, Adam is created in God's image, and Eve is formed out of one of Adams ribs. This makes God a male, and females a subset thereof. Its rather sexist, and says much about the tie-in that Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions have with the Patriarcal societies that they have spawned. Or if you will, says much about how Patriarcal societies tend to put the father in the lead spot. Even the most leadiest spot imaginable. So it would be inappropriate to give the God I imagine a willy, certainly, but likewise inappropriate to give it a human personage at all. After all, the "real" god, is also god of the earthworm, and the rock, the butterfly, rainbow and the quark. All these things were made in its image, or its not the God that created me. Regards, TAR2 By the way, I don't think anybody on this thread is being dishonest. Thread, Thought of you all, and this thread while trying to grasp the horrific shootings in Newtown CT today. The community came together, as did our nation, as reflected in our father-in-chief's tears and remarks. We all had the same thoughts, the same disbelief, the same horror-anger-grief-dispair and loss. We all need answers for it. We all want to do what ever that might be, so it can not happen again. For whom the bell tolls? It tolls for thee. It is our commoness that is God. And I do not think anyone broken, to believe in that. In that is our hope, and our answers, and I do not fault the priest or the rabbi for believing in such love. Though I might frame it differently than they. Regards, TAR2

Moontanman, I learned of that population in my linguistics investigations. They are often used...to unseat "improper" generaliztions and assumptions we make about thought and language. That is, we tend to think, that the way we think, IS the default position, and we proceed to conclusions, without allowing for such "other" ways to think. But I think the lack of numbers is important. Numbers give us a "different" way of thinking, than that population. They can no more understand our concept of God, than they can understand our concept of 42. Science would not have achieved, what it achieved, without the concept of 42. This leads me to a hypothesis, that our ability to concieve of numbers, signifies a real difference in how we internalize the world, and remember it, and theorectically manipulate it, and consequently interact with it...sometimes bringing "new" entities into actual existence. Therefore, our ability to put ourselves in the shoes of an imaginary other "might" be different than the ability a member of that population might have. This neither proves or disproves the actual existence of a "greater" consciousness, than a human's, but it certainly is important when discussing the "concept" of God. So I would not take, for the purposes of our discussion, the cited population, as a "default" human population. Regards, TAR2 Would you consider the cited population "better", "worse", purer, simpler, plain vanilla human, or what? We, as most of the rest of the human population on Earth, seem to have everything, on the conceptualiztion side, that they have...plus...this number thing.

Moontanman, Ok, a population without a creation myth, but they don't have numbers either. Don't know that I can take them as a default population. And there is a certain bias in description, that one would suspect from a "freedom from religion" proponent. But God they don't got, so point taken, and population cited. Regards, TAR2 John Cuthber, In Villian's defense, I would have to say that it is possible for things to exist, as they really are, without us knowing about them. But in your defense, I would agree that what we experience as real, is real. Especially if there is evidence that a thing exists "for" everyone that notices it. Regardless of any questions this might raise in philosophers minds, I think that knowing a thing as it is, is strengthened in its veracity, by the fact that it fits, without prejudice, with another's knowledge of the same reality. Regards, TAR2

doG, Do you know of a non-theist population of humans, past, present or hypothetical? Was just trying to determine whether you are right in suggesting that atheism is the default position. I was told about God as I grew up. My father was not religious, my mother was. I "figured" out God, and spoke to him/her/it one night when I was about 13. Made it a promise, matter of fact. "Felt" the love of Christ in the air one day in my late teens. Defined God in college, after reading a lot of philosophers and thinkers, as "That which is beyond our understanding". Read a little here and there related to Eastern religions, BECAME an atheist at some point. Had an epiphany on a hilltop in Germany, was still an atheist. Would still consider myself an atheist, but I speak to "God" from time to time, like the time I was in my driveway, thinking about a poster on this forum that had seen a shooting star, asked god to "do it again" if he existed, and immediately saw another one. I was thinking that the poster needed to ask God to do something really odd and specific, and let people know about the request beforehand, for it to be scientifically a mutually understandable, real thing. I spoke to God at this point, because I realized I was shoveling a foot of snow off my driveway in the middle of OCT, in NJ. I looked up in the sky, and said "funny, Guy...funny". Regards, TAR2

immortal, If you look through eyes almost closed, various rays eminate from light sources. I don't know the scientific explanation, but I would imagine it has something to do with the way light rays are affected as they pass between the eye lashes. I remember something like Frehoffer lines or some such name describing the interference lines when a light source is seen through a slit. Eyelashes are sort of like a bunch of slits. I say all this, in this context, because you are looking for a reason why there should be such parallels as you have noticed between the lore of varied religious traditions. One "possible" reason would be a group of the same gods, wearing the same jewels, but we probably would have picked them up on radar, or caught them in a a random cell phone picture, by now, if they existed. In fact, given the detail to which many investigators of reality have taken their investigations, I would say that we probably would have the names and addresses, (the exact location and characteristics) of all 42 good gods, and would have smoked out the 58 bad guys by now, and found some way to counteract their influence. No, I think it more likely, that there are things about our neurology, and our anatomy, our ledgends, and our "way of thinking", dreaming and halucinating, that tend to follow the same patterns, for the same reasons. This is why I think the search for God, from an empircal, evidence prone, perspective, would be more successful, if we didn't take it so literally, as to expect to find it in the clouds, but look for the actualy literal connections and common experiences we have with each other, that have been parlayed into specific "gods" over the years. Still would be God we would find, but it would be a "common" one. Regards, TAR2

ydoaPs, That last sentence, that conclusion of Hume's that you quoted. "He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continued, which he calls himself; though I am certain there is no such principle in me." Reminds me of this fellow I used to argue with, who kept promoting that the way to do it right, was to loose your identity. He continually was suggesting that he could accomplish this, and others just did not know how to do it right. I would constantly remind him, that "he" was the one that he was proud could do this thing. And when he did this thing, it was him(insert name) that was reaching this particular state, not me or the rest of the universe. I don't know if Hume is being sarcastic, or cute, or if he is certain there is no such principle in him. I would only ask what limits he placed on the person that was certain that the simple and continued perception was not a requirement. Regards, TAR2 Inow, When it comes to objectively determining what is part of the model, and what is part of the modeled and where the two are intertwined, I would have to quess that you and I have some similar capabilities. We probably do it, this sensing and remembering, and thinking thing, in a basically similar fashion. I would not think you have any particular advantage in determining "the thing as it is". Not enough anyway to suggest that I have gotten it wrong. That would imply that you have it right. Regards, TAR2 Don't we both have the capacity to tell the difference between the map and the territory? And do either of us have ANY information about the sun that has not modified our map? The territory is represented continually and exactly to the model, and the model is adjusted appropriately. I am not certain that the territory does not do some of our "thinking" for us.

ydoaPs, Same way you do. I think, therefore you are. (a little twist, but appropriate) Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, The "outside" world exists. We have a model of the whole thing, inside and out, built within the synapses of our brain. An analog representation of that which does actually exist. Its a model of what actually is. One would not expect that there is actually a way to get the sun, at its size "inside" a little skull like mine, yet its in there, in my imagination. I evidently have the ability to make the proper translations of size and position, to reliably portray the way the Sun actually is, based on whatever my brain has "remembered" of the "outside" situation. There is evidence that others have the same capability to absorb and remember, the "outside" world, as you and I have . Since I am part of the "outside" world, to another human, and that other human would consider me part of his or her "outside" world, between the two of us, we can determine that there is a mutual, outside world, that we both consider our reality. My definition of God would be a reference to this common "outside" that we must logically share with every other entity in the universe. This same outside has created us all, and it is what we model on the inside. Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, You missed one aspect of my secret society password example. It is real, and will allow members of one chapter identify themselves to members of another chapter. It has real existence, beyond being just a private thought in an individuals mind. But that does not matter. I am not arguing that the God of the Bible exists as depicted in the Bible. I decided against that being the case, quite early in my life. I am on the side of those that would argue that the "Lord" depicted in the Bible, was only real in the person of the King or Priest who ruled over the "believers". And that this "lord" resided mostly in the psyches and thoughts of the believers. But my arguments pro or con, figurative or literal, are mostly aimed at determining, what real things are worthy of reverence and awe, and determining why it is "so easy" for people to feel they have an "in" with reality, and know it personally. (And I am not so sure that this is a false belief). Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, So would it be correct and true, or incorrect and false, if I were to maintain that unicorn horns are not spiral, but straight, and I could tame one, even though I am not a virgin? As an "idea", the unicorn still is a specific one, and I would be incorrect to make the above claims about it. As an "idea", god, to each religion, is a specific one, and the "idea" of it, is held in the minds of all properly informed about the thing. If I had a secret society, and we in the society had a secret password, which was never and will never be written down, or recorded, or even hinted at...would this password "exist" in reality, as more than just a thought in a particular member's mind? Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, You can refer to an "idea". And you do not need to locate the brain where the idea resides. I could speak of "bravery" and you would know what it was, without requiring that I provide you a jar full of it, for proof of its exsistence. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, But the white horse remains a metaphor. And the cleansing is an internal thing. If the metaphors were to be constructed today, we would not require the quivers and horses and hoards. We might use some different imagery. But it would still be imagery. It would still make sense, only as metaphor. What kind of rightgeous armies can you imagine could possibly issue forth, from a rent in the sky...the day after tomorrow, over Newark, NJ? Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, What villian asked. If the word god has an accepted meaning, then it has an existing referent. Or perhaps you meant that the word god means the strawman God that atheistss know can not exist...whose definition is widely accepted by Atheists, is the accepted meaning of God to Atheists. Which would of course not be the accepted meaning of the word God, to the majority of the people on the planet. Each theist has their own esoteric definition, but within their circle, the word God does have an accepted meaning. And you forget that many of us, are still trying to figure out what WE mean by the word. Yours and my image of God, may indeed be built upon mutual referents. After all, we do agree we are in the same universe, and when we agree on that, we are both referring to the same one. Regards, TAR2 Science Myth, I am young for my age, as well.

Ophiolite and John5746, Think of it from a fundamentalist point of view...hum...that does seem to do the trick. Answer the question, that is. Ones control over the behavior of the world is, after all, rather minimal. But ones control over their own image of the world, is substantial. And ones connection to one's "personal" god, is thusly, immediate and absolute. If a person, should determine through self evaluation, or through group philosophy, or church teaching, or however, that their "image" of the world, is superior in any way to the way the world actually is, (which is something I do all the time, in small ways), they might be urged to correct the situation. In a small way one might straighten a crooked picture, or in larger ways, feed a hungry child or build a company to fill a certain need, and make the imagined correction. In the case of religions and especially fundamentalist religion, the script, the pattern the way the world "should be" is not only an internal itch, but has double, external reinforcement. Once from the clergy and church and fellow believers, and then again from the universe itself. A universe that they have an internal image of, that matches the image of everybody else, that recites the same words every Sunday, or the words, five times a day...that comes from the speakers on the poles, AND from their memory, when they are called to prayer. Just to be fair, a similar "thing" is probably involved, when I "believe" in the United States of America, and pledged alligience to it every day as I grew up (I'm old enough for that to be the case.) Brain washing, hypnotism, whatever...probably comes in all shapes and sizes, and most likely, none of us are immune from such. But that being the case, probably none of us have the ability to "get" objective enough to make an objective call on existence. So I can see the "need" to pass such a view on to a "truely" objective judge. Unfortuneatly, when conjuring up this judge, (even with the help of the mystics and the teachers,) it remains a conjured thing, that does not empirically present itself. And must be taken on "faith". None-the-less, association with this judge is a "sure" thing to the fundementalist, as you say, and "the right way to be" is an agreed upon, and sanctioned by God, thing. So, although rather an unremoval delusion, I think it is at least "explainable" in this manner, and I thank you, for helping me answer the question of why some religious people need the end to be near. Regards, TAR2

Ophiolite and Inow, Good answers. Thank you. However, Ophiollite, I wonder about the world going to hell in a handbasket, thing. Compared to what? What I mean, is that a certain overall, objective view, is required, to ascertain that "things are not the way, they are supposed to be". Not enough lollipops and unicorns and fluffy stuff to consider the world suitable for existence. As if there IS a better way, that a wayward world shoutd be.. Or perhaps that the world deserves punishment...no, a death sentence, for its failure to do it right. Is our "judgement" of the world, important? Is it actual? Regards, TAR2

But what is the draw? I don't quite get it. Why is it better to imagine your world no longer existing? Not only are you dead, but everything else would be gone, and anybody that would care would be gone as well. There would be no further existence to consider. And no considerers. It would not matter what you did about its nearness, because after the end there would be no next act in which anything in the prior act would have meant anything to anybody or anything. Anyway, perhaps I am trying to find logic and meaning, in a belief that is false in too many ways to make even figurative sense. But I would like to be able to at least formulate a theory, as to why we tend to think this way, where somehow it is important that the final act be played out, on our watch. Regards, TAR2

Inow, Sounds like a good posit, to me. So we have a "real" understanding of "our" life (children and others of similar gene), going on foward, after our "machine" dies. Does sound somewhat spiritual though. And somewhat similar to definitions of "soul" or essense of a human being, that I have heard and pondered before. If you and I are aware of this "soul" and see it as natural, and some others are aware of this soul and call it supernatual, it still could be the same soul, or spirit, or "greater than an individual" will that is being understood. And the differences in Dawkin's 1 to 7 scale, where believers in God and non-believers are sorted out into their very sure and somewhat sure slots, seems to describe more one's personal approach as to how to relate to a such a globally understood "human" awareness of a"greater will", than it does challenge the actual existence of this will. The differences between the 1s and the 7s is thusly not so much a difference in fact or truth, as it is a difference in the language and symbols used to frame the situation, and a difference of opinion as to who or what holds this soul, and is responsible for it. For instance, I call myself an atheist, but I am not a believer in "the ghost in the machine" way of looking at our souls. I think it evident that me and my "machine" are one in the same, and I will thusly take complete responsibility for its existence, and consider it "mine", along with an appropriate association to the rest of universe that is "similar" in nature, or laid the groundwork for my existence (ancestors), or supports my existence (family, friends, society), or otherwise makes my existence possible (other lifeforms to eat, air to breath, Sun to warm, Earth to stand on, etc.) But I don't see how this sorts me into or out of any of the 7 theist-atheist slots. Its just sort of true, and the same truth holds, for "others" than me. As to the OP, in this, "fully understand" would be a goal for anyone, from 1 to 7 on the scale, and not limited to certain portions of the scale. Regards, TAR2 Whoops, this is my thread I am in, I was carrying another in mind as well. As to this OP I would say, Inow, that you have answered why we do not think it will end, with our machines death, but you have not forwarded why or how we need to also consider an end to greater existence.