Anti-Judeo-Christian Censorship

[Ringer]

Has it occurred to you that, while science masquerades as shining sanity, it actually suffers from multiple personality disorder. I've said enough already to support that conclusion.

 

Me saying I was crazy was me saying why I edited my post. It was because I wrote the same thing at the beginning and end of my post and I removed the redundancy.

[Moontanman]

My position here is well supported already. The aims of Jefferson, clearly outlined in his statute, are that peoples beliefs should be protected. I have read the upanishads, the bhagavad gita and heaps none of you will have heard of (Oppenheimer would have, he knew sanskrit). They say the same thing as far as dharma is concerned. They obviously diverge on history. Confidence in such is undermined by the virtual official denial of science, by hiding behind a much popularised but inconsistent theory. The familiar and constitutional Christianity alone exacts the violent reactions as the thread claims. Big Bang is less justified than what I have presented on the grounds of solid science and logic. Even so, time is incomplete, just brushed under the carpet. I guess our fate is sealed.

 

 

I know this is supposed to only be about censorship but I would honestly like to see some support for this idea, bolded by me... I don't know what to make of it in the context of what i know... if a new thread needs to be made then it needs to be made but this idea of pymander being somehow authoritative on the stuff he claims in this one paragraph is in outrageous need of support... not the least of which is the sentence I put in bold type...

[Pymander]

Me saying I was crazy was me saying why I edited my post. It was because I wrote the same thing at the beginning and end of my post and I removed the redundancy.

I'm tempted to say that's word salad, but its only an hors d'oeuvre.

 

I know this is supposed to only be about censorship but I would honestly like to see some support for this idea, bolded by me... I don't know what to make of it in the context of what i know... if a new thread needs to be made then it needs to be made but this idea of pymander being somehow authoritative on the stuff he claims in this one paragraph is in outrageous need of support... not the least of which is the sentence I put in bold type...

Maybe you can tell me why the big bang didn't go off an hour later, so that we're not here yet. Or maybe, why, when the expanding BigBangium reach the density Gm/rc^2, it didn't behave as a black hole, and just disappear again. And if that isn't enough, what directs force to behave according to mathematical law, so as to prevent degeneration into kaos. Yet this is a panacaea for "God is not necessary to explain existence, take your bibble and shove off!" And what, then, stops that last sentence from answering your question about the bold type, or did my eyes deceive me once or twice, when I threw bits around? I ask, I heard, you don't want to know. I'm fine with that. Aetheism is a religion. That's what the Saducees were, no angel, no spirit. The symbolic name used in scripture is "the dead", as in "Let the dead bury the dead". To the ancient Egyptian, it was called the filth. There was more, the heart, the soul, the spirit, the power, the shadow, the name, and the persona. Some bits part of the conscious physical life, some eternal, some evolving, and the eventual perfection made one an immortal god, joining the body with the rest, and passing through the dimensions, with the ability to materialise at will. The Hindu is a close survival with evolved symbolism (eg. the chacras, meaning lotus in sanskrit, and corresponding to the endocrines (pineal, pituitary, thyroid, thymus, etc), the seven levels of consciousness of which the senses are the lowest. The 'churches' of the Revelations were thus explained, by Edgar Cayce. From this the rest of the symbolism of the Revelation develops, utilising anecdotes from throughout. I believe that the Tarot Trumps symbolically represent each chapter in sequence as divided today. Okay?

[Moontanman]

I'm tempted to say that's word salad, but its only an hors d'oeuvre.

 

 

Maybe you can tell me why the big bang didn't go off an hour later, so that we're not here yet. Or maybe, why, when the expanding BigBangium reach the density Gm/rc^2, it didn't behave as a black hole, and just disappear again. And if that isn't enough, what directs force to behave according to mathematical law, so as to prevent degeneration into kaos. Yet this is a panacaea for "God is not necessary to explain existence, take your bibble and shove off!" And what, then, stops that last sentence from answering your question about the bold type, or did my eyes deceive me once or twice, when I threw bits around? I ask, I heard, you don't want to know. I'm fine with that. Aetheism is a religion. That's what the Saducees were, no angel, no spirit. The symbolic name used in scripture is "the dead", as in "Let the dead bury the dead". To the ancient Egyptian, it was called the filth. There was more, the heart, the soul, the spirit, the power, the shadow, the name, and the persona. Some bits part of the conscious physical life, some eternal, some evolving, and the eventual perfection made one an immortal god, joining the body with the rest, and passing through the dimensions, with the ability to materialise at will. The Hindu is a close survival with evolved symbolism (eg. the chacras, meaning lotus in sanskrit, and corresponding to the endocrines (pineal, pituitary, thyroid, thymus, etc), the seven levels of consciousness of which the senses are the lowest. The 'churches' of the Revelations were thus explained, by Edgar Cayce. From this the rest of the symbolism of the Revelation develops, utilising anecdotes from throughout. I believe that the Tarot Trumps symbolically represent each chapter in sequence as divided today. Okay?

 

 

I see pymander, thank you for clearing that up....

[iNow]

Aetheism <sic> is a religion.

How are you defining religion? You seem to be using a definition that would equally call the nonbelief in leprechauns a religion.

[Moontanman]

How are you defining religion? You seem to be using a definition that would equally call the nonbelief in leprechauns a religion.

 

 

I noticed you didn't show up last night for services at the twice reformed non denominational church of no leprechauns last night, you missed a lively debate and they opened a new barrel of meade...

[iNow]

The rainbow gods will surely smite me.

[Moontanman]

The rainbow gods will surely smite me.

 

Edgar Cayce led the devotions from the grave last night...

[Phi for All]

Maybe you can tell me why the big bang didn't go off an hour later, so that we're not here yet. Or maybe, why, when the expanding BigBangium reach the density Gm/rc^2, it didn't behave as a black hole, and just disappear again. And if that isn't enough, what directs force to behave according to mathematical law, so as to prevent degeneration into kaos. Yet this is a panacaea for "God is not necessary to explain existence, take your bibble and shove off!" And what, then, stops that last sentence from answering your question about the bold type, or did my eyes deceive me once or twice, when I threw bits around? I ask, I heard, you don't want to know. I'm fine with that. Aetheism is a religion. That's what the Saducees were, no angel, no spirit. The symbolic name used in scripture is "the dead", as in "Let the dead bury the dead". To the ancient Egyptian, it was called the filth. There was more, the heart, the soul, the spirit, the power, the shadow, the name, and the persona. Some bits part of the conscious physical life, some eternal, some evolving, and the eventual perfection made one an immortal god, joining the body with the rest, and passing through the dimensions, with the ability to materialise at will. The Hindu is a close survival with evolved symbolism (eg. the chacras, meaning lotus in sanskrit, and corresponding to the endocrines (pineal, pituitary, thyroid, thymus, etc), the seven levels of consciousness of which the senses are the lowest. The 'churches' of the Revelations were thus explained, by Edgar Cayce. From this the rest of the symbolism of the Revelation develops, utilising anecdotes from throughout. I believe that the Tarot Trumps symbolically represent each chapter in sequence as divided today. Okay?

I don't think this is a very good answer to Moontanman's question, why you think Jefferson considered Christianity to be the preferred, constitutional religion (or "The familiar and constitutional Christianity..." as you put it). Wasn't it purposely stated that the government derives from the People, and not from a deity? And while Jefferson didn't want the government to interfere in religion, wasn't it equally as important that the government NOT be influenced by ANY church?

[Pymander]

I don't think this is a very good answer to Moontanman's question, why you think Jefferson considered Christianity to be the preferred, constitutional religion (or "The familiar and constitutional Christianity..." as you put it). Wasn't it purposely stated that the government derives from the People, and not from a deity? And while Jefferson didn't want the government to interfere in religion, wasn't it equally as important that the government NOT be influenced by ANY church?

If you remember, it was the Beatles, who took America by storm with #1 - 6 consecutive hits in the chart on ARRIVAL there, against all possible corporate opposition, that largely introduced the West to Eastern ideas, Hare Chrisna and other hitherto Pagan beliefs. Do you detect the influence of leprocauns? Part of Ireland IS part of the UK. What else could it be? Mia Farrow was big. Her sister Prudence inspired a famous song. Hoffman's lysergic acid diethylamide popped into their coffee unexpectedly. More leprocauns. The influence of a serotonin derivative (from the pituitary). Edgar Cayce told me in church last night, psychically of course, that the pineal and pituitary grands were responsible for second sight. Thanks mate. How the hell did ancient people have a clue about the bottom line of medical explanations for the body AND mind. And thanks for the humour, that's funny stuff. But maybe the Little Red Book is off the mark with the argument from ancient wisdom. Why? And by the way, no one answered my Big Bang question. Fair is fair.

[Phi for All]

If you remember, it was the Beatles, who took America by storm with #1 - 6 consecutive hits in the chart on ARRIVAL there, against all possible corporate opposition, that largely introduced the West to Eastern ideas, Hare Chrisna and other hitherto Pagan beliefs. Do you detect the influence of leprocauns? Part of Ireland IS part of the UK. What else could it be? Mia Farrow was big. Her sister Prudence inspired a famous song. Hoffman's lysergic acid diethylamide popped into their coffee unexpectedly. More leprocauns. The influence of a serotonin derivative (from the pituitary). Edgar Cayce told me in church last night, psychically of course, that the pineal and pituitary grands were responsible for second sight. Thanks mate. How the hell did ancient people have a clue about the bottom line of medical explanations for the body AND mind. And thanks for the humour, that's funny stuff. But maybe the Little Red Book is off the mark with the argument from ancient wisdom. Why? And by the way, no one answered my Big Bang question. Fair is fair.

Is your confusion real or feigned? I understand if you're trying to avoid answering my questions, but if you 're going to quote me, you should align your part of the conversation accordingly, and actually respond to what I asked in the part you quoted.

[Pymander]

Is your confusion real or feigned? I understand if you're trying to avoid answering my questions, but if you 're going to quote me, you should align your part of the conversation accordingly, and actually respond to what I asked in the part you quoted.

What I'm saying is that the conflict between religions that inspired such laws was interdenominational Christianity. Martin Luthor was the first to escape Catholic execution for contradicting the Pope and murderous prelates. Many people escaped to America to dodge such persecution. He himself belonged to an order that took no such stance. Unless I'm mistaken, he, like many others involved in establishing Washington were Masons, whose only requirement is that you believe in ANY God, regardless of denominational persuasion or, for that matter, non Christian religion, or some more personal understanding of the Deity. You don't get in as an aetheist, though. I see aetheism as another possible step along the road we must all travel from ignorance to perfection. I think, though, that it is safe to assume that most legislators were at least required to profess Christianity for respect at that time, being the public faith and morality of decent people.

[Pymander]

How are you defining religion? You seem to be using a definition that would equally call the nonbelief in leprechauns a religion.

Now that I've stopped laughing, I'll attempt a definition. A religion is a person's faith. This word is misapplied as 'belief' to some extent. A person's faith is a belief system, which can be anything from vacuous to an extensive philosophy, concerning your reality. The laws of science have been narrowly restricted to the productions of the senses, by the 'reproducible experiment' clause. They do not extend into questions of universal purpose, evolution of souls and karma, ethics and such. The faith or belief system of a religious person can range from the sacraments of that religion and a few representative pieces of its scripture, to its entire scripture, and depending on the consistency of his interpretations, may extend well into any or all religions, arts and sciences. The faith, as the knowledge and understanding of scripture (without limitation) is what Christ referred to when he said 'if your faith was like a grain of mustard seed, you could move mountains' (paraphrased). The resulting tree that can grow is huge by comparison. A line from "The Philosopher's Stone" states:

 

Twelfthly: Therefore I am called Hermes Trimegistus, having three parts of the philosophy of the Whole World.

 

This is implying that a belief system including the reality of God solves many intangible problems, or ones that would require a well-reasoned opinion based on very much data. Specifically, it becomes necessary to determine the existence of intelligence in the workings of the universe. Of this Albert Einstein, and many others among the masters of Science, were not in doubt.

 

Hermes is by many traditions believed to be one of the appearances of Christ. In the Judeo-Christian scripture, the same manifestation (he is said to have simply materialised in the (NT) Book of Hebrews) is called Melchizedek (OT) and Melchisedec (NT), Mercury to the Romans; Thoth or Tehuti were Egyptian equivalents of the Greek Hermes.

 

Soap boxing is justifiably contrary to science, as it cannot defend itself in the light of reason. It is based only on belief and an incomplete faith, but as such is another step on the road, as no one can believe that which is condemning. The following book is most remarkable, and has taken me from the tiny mustard seed to the great plant where birds can nest. It is one of the principle texts of Masonry and consistent with KJV, and many other faiths. Its antiquity is more ancient. I will quote a fundamental line and provide a link:

 

4. Be Pious and Religious, O my Son, for he that doth so, is the best and highest Philosopher; and without Philosophy, it is impossible ever to attain to the height and exactness of Piety or Religion.

http://www.theosophical.ca/books/DivinePymanderOfHermesMercuriusTrismegistus,The.pdf

 

And yes, the belief in leprechauns would qualify, and may even have benefits. No doubt the contrary stance may be somewhat better informed. But are you absolutely sure? Can you ever be? All you may ever know is that all your beliefs are consistent. More evidence can always prove you wrong. This is logic, not doubt I am casting. But won't it shatter you to see one, or to watch someone make broomsticks dance?

 

"There could be no fairer destiny for any physical theory than that it should point the way to a more comprehensive theory in which it lives on as a limiting case. " Albert Einstein.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Pymander

[Moontanman]

How is non belief in something a faith?

[Pymander]

How is non belief in something a faith?

How could there be wars if people did not believe contrary information? Why is every war based on some high moral platform, like 'freeing the slaves', when they are always about money? The price is, however, rods for the backs of our leaders. Slowly we advance toward universal consistency. Great change is always traumatic. Laws, as the one commencing this thread, are not easily drafted, clearly. This forum has its own rules. They are respected, if perhaps confusing to some, and need to be enforced. The resulting consensus becomes your belief system, in a forum, discipline or nation. Thus are the pillars of law and liberty raised, laws to protect rights, and liberty as freedoms acquired, but they may take some fine tuning. Truth, justice and liberty are the guiding principles of the Jewish people, and not only preserved them where only the Gypsies and Mason have done the same, as isolated peoples with a unique dharma, but made at least two out of three more powerful as a result.

 

Nonbelief is nonexistence. Your beliefs are quite specific. But being creativity incarnate, nothing is more changeable than man, even potentially infinite. Still, he will ever, being differentiated and specialised, rely on the argument from authority, and official authority is very persuasive.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Pymander

[iNow]

How could there be wars if people did not believe contrary information? Why is every war based on some high moral platform <snip> Thus are the pillars of law and liberty raised, laws to protect rights, and liberty as freedoms acquired, but they may take some fine tuning. Truth, justice and liberty are <snip>

 

Nonbelief is nonexistence. Your beliefs are quite specific.

Well that's super and all there, champ, but do you want to please at least attempt to engage the actual question asked of you now?

 

How is nonbelief in something a faith? How is nonbelief in the tooth fairy, or Zeus, or Thor, or Poseidon, or any of the other countless gods laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology equivalent in your mind to "faith?"

[Pymander]

Well that's super and all there, champ, but do you want to please at least attempt to engage the actual question asked of you now?

 

How is nonbelief in something a faith? How is nonbelief in the tooth fairy, or Zeus, or Thor, or Poseidon, or any of the other countless gods laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology equivalent in your mind to "faith?"

In order to get a grip on the issues at hand, I have defined a person's faith as equivalent to their belief system, or delusional architecture, or more simply, their set of beliefs. "What is your faith" has that usage. "Have faith that the Lord will provide", to me, is a devolution of the proper concept. "Trust that the Lord will provide" is sufficient. This has occurred also with "taking the name of the Lord in vain", which has nothing to do with calling on Him, rather the misapplication of religion for profit and power. You will discover that Edgar Cayce was no such soul.

 

The issues at hand are quite scientific, and pertain to another misapplied concept. A belief is another name for an hypothesis or a theory, although greater abstraction is usually implied by the last two. One can never prove a theory right. One counter example is required to prove it wrong. And even though contradiction and contrariety can coexist in the human skull, and do more often than not, the best minds derive a consistent set of beliefs from available evidence. Einstein was a remarkably honest man, I have read, and this, I believe, contributes greatly to genius. Many will easily believe that which suits selfish purposes at any particular time, and may easily find themselves on the highway to confusion and insanity.

 

Nonbelief is still a part of a belief system (or delusional architecture). I don't believe in the tooth fairy. I think I'm safe there. You may not believe in God. Would you be as safe, do you think? And as for Greek mythology, Edgar Cayce was recounting incarnations from the Trojan War, before it was discovered to have existed. He gave information that the Wooden Horse was set alight to decoy the guard from the gate of Troy. The population was enslaved or murdered to protect this military secret. One may ask, how else would the alarm not have been raised in time?

 

As for the Olympian Gods and Goddesses, they have parallel names in other cultures, representing the planets. Even their moons, like the two of Mars, the God of War, were sons whose names meant Alarm and Panic. Thus they symbolise the character traits indicated by astrology. Discarnate souls sojourn there, in other dimensions of consciousness of which the aspects are the three dimensional projection, in preparation for return to the material life. If this sounds bananas to you, Carl Jung and Isaac Newton were also nuts.

 

Halley: Sir Isaac, how can someone as leaned as you believe such foolishness as Astrology?

Newton: Because Sir, I have studied it, and you have not.

 

Jung: Psychology will accept Astrology without further restriction, because it represents the sum total of knowledge of the human psyche [meaning soul] from antiquity.

 

These quotes come from books on the subject. Either this is fabrication, or psychology is seriously misrepresenting itself and needs another name. Edgar Cayce affirms Astrology, but interprets it more consistently with righteousness, and the evolving soul. To many today, righteousness is just being more right than the next guy, and deserves to be rewarded.

[John Cuthber]

" If this sounds bananas to you, Carl Jung and Isaac Newton were also nuts."

They were.

[Pymander]

" If this sounds bananas to you, Carl Jung and Isaac Newton were also nuts."

They were.

This sounds exactly like what I just said, believing what suits at the time. I'll give you this much. To be faithless, is to believe anything that fits the occasion, and that's insanity.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Pymander

[iNow]

Faith is little more than pretending to know something that you do not (and often cannot) know. Why should that be prioritized in the way you suggest? It is not the same thing as belief or hope. Those concepts have their own terms. Faith is something different. Faith is pretending to know something you do not know, and it's a path to delusion, not truth.

 

Nonbelief is still a part of a belief system

Simply repeating yourself without providing any new information does not magically make you right. In what way is nonbelief part of a belief system? What can you say about my "belief system" once you find out I don't believe in leprechauns? Nothing. All you know about me is that I don't believe in leprechauns. That tells you nothing about my worldview, ideology, or belief system. Your assertion is ridiculous on its face.

 

I don't believe in the tooth fairy. I think I'm safe there. You may not believe in God. Would you be as safe, do you think?

Yes, and you should note that Pascal's Wager is a ridiculous argument to try using here as you've just done (whether you realize it or not).

 

 

Edgar Cayce affirms Astrology, but interprets it more consistently with righteousness, and the evolving soul. To many today, righteousness is just being more right than the next guy, and deserves to be rewarded.

Okey dokey, then. I sure am glad you decided to add that precious little nugget to the thread.

[Phi for All]

To be faithless, is to believe anything that fits the occasion, and that's insanity.

I define faith as the absolute conviction in something that has no evidence to support its existence. That's what everyone of faith I've ever met tells me, that they believe in God with all their heart and soul, despite the fact that no one can prove His existence. To me, that's believing something that fits the occasion, a need for something beyond what we can observe as reality.

 

Hope is more of a reality-based part of my belief system. I can hope that consciousness lives on after the death of the body, but it's not going to make me live my real life any differently. Hope gives me all the warm fuzzies that some people gain from their faith, but it's not trying to pretend that I actually KNOW something that I can't.

 

Trust is the best part of my belief system. It's based on the best available explanation of various phenomena. It's NOT believing in anything that fits the occasion, it's the exact opposite. Trust is having firm ground to walk on and not pretending that all that silly leaping makes me somehow a smarter, better person than everyone else.

[John Cuthber]

This sounds exactly like what I just said, believing what suits at the time. I'll give you this much. To be faithless, is to believe anything that fits the occasion, and that's insanity.

 

Believing what the best current evidence says (and changing what you think when new evidence comes to light) is not, on the other hand, insanity.

 

Believing that the Earth is stationary in the heavens, even though the evidence proves that it rotates, is insanity.

Guess which side of the Sane vs Insane divide you find religion?

 

It was, of course, perfectly possible for Newton to be batshit crazy about astrology and alchemy, but fairly close to perfectly correct about mechanics.

Edited August 12, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Pymander]

Faith is little more than pretending to know something that you do not (and often cannot) know.

[/Quote]

Throughout my threads and other posts, I have demonstrated a philosophy or belief system that is now quite detailed. Inconsistencies across these I will accept readily as valid arguments. Concerning this quote, I can know NOTHING, only believe, certain things to be True, and that my skull contains no contradictions, unless life or meditation makes me aware of them. This is why the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness", that is misrepresenting life. "Thou shalt not make incorrect abstractions as hypotheses" is not there. We can differ on those. Manifestation itself in the antagonist of error.

Why should that [faith] be prioritized in the way you suggest? It is not the same thing as belief or hope.

[/Quote]

If we can agree on my definition for the sake of logical argument, science is not the 6 o'clock news, it is abstraction and hypothesis from the details of life (the manifest universe or firmament).

Those concepts have their own terms. Faith is something different. Faith is pretending to know something you do not know, and it's a path to delusion, not truth.

[/Quote]

The concepts 'science', 'faith', 'belief system', are essentially the same, other than their fields of application. They just use different jargon. Jargon has various meanings across accepted science. Delusion is only made manifest to the mind by contrary evidence. Truth as such, is beyond mortal man. Christ said, "I have come to bear witness to the Truth. Those who are of the Truth hear my voice." This was certified, to my satisfaction, on the provision that recorded miracles are real. Where we stand, no such luxury exists. In the event, the possibility that someone put peyote in the wine exists, which will need to be followed up. But "Those that are of the Truth..." is quite significant here. "More blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe [to doubting Thomas]" is also. From current perspectives, the follow up evidence is enormous and proportionally enlightening.

We do not presently have access to miracles (not 'in your face' ones at least). All we may know of Truth is consistency of beliefs and evidence.

Nonbelief is still a part of a belief system.

Simply repeating yourself without providing any new information does not magically make you right.

[/Quote]

[/Quote]

And now I need to reiterate again for the same reason as before. Not to make it 'righter', but because you seem to miss what is being said.

In what way is nonbelief part of a belief system? What can you say about my "belief system" once you find out I don't believe in leprechauns? Nothing.

[/Quote]

Incorrect. Science does not believe a one wheel bike rider can cross a tightrope, and I know he has this non-belief, because he has a non-belief that he can do it himself, and is not sure of the coffee at the circus. He also has a non-belief that he can perform miracles, and therefore has a non-belief that neither Christ, nor Rasputin, nor Edgar Cayce, nor Patience Worth, could do the things they are purported to have done. The evidence required, apparently, is inconvenient to universities as well as to those who employ scientists.

All you know about me is that I don't believe in leprechauns. That tells you nothing about my worldview, ideology, or belief system. Your assertion is ridiculous on its face.

[/Quote]

Sounds good, but I disagree. The definition required for 'faith' to allow this discussion concerns a set of Boolean values across all conceivable possibilities. Do you believe in horses and unicorns? On what basis?

I don't believe in the tooth fairy. I think I'm safe there. You may not believe in God. Would you be as safe, do you think?

Yes, and you should note that Pascal's Wager is a ridiculous argument to try using here as you've just done (whether you realize it or not).

[/Quote]

[/Quote]

Blaise Pascal was working with the assumptions of simplified Christian beliefs (Fifth Ecumenical Council 553AD, which persecuted Gnostic Christians and rendered the Hieroglyphics lost until the Rosetta stone was found). The fifteen anathemas against the doctrines of Origen (185 - 254 BC, see Wiki) are inconsistent with 'justice' and 'freedom'. As a consequence, the Church is losing a large following among the more rational members of populations, as prophesized. For a consistent interpretation of KJV, the Edgar Cayce Readings DVD is now available on line from the A.R.E. The very concept of God is detailed here, and consistent with science. 'Consistent', not 'True'! Pilate rightly said "What is Truth?', but to washed his hands, literally. You should notice that I am very careful how I use that word.

Edgar Cayce affirms Astrology, but interprets it more consistently with righteousness, and the evolving soul. To many today, righteousness is just being more right than the next guy, and deserves to be rewarded.

[/Quote]

Okey dokey, then. I sure am glad you decided to add that precious little nugget to the thread.

[/Quote]

"Many a 'True' word ... " they say. Still Pascal is not off the mark. If the concept of God was considered an evolving matter for our finite minds, but the ethics were a social standard not applied hypocritically, wouldn't we be better off? Einstein was of Pascal's opinion too, but less analytically.

"If one purges the Judaism of the prophets and Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it of all

subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is

capable of curing all the social ills of humanity."

[/Quote]

In this respect, the point of this thread is that Science is out of its jurisdiction to claim any authority, or exert any influence, concerning the reality of God. That can have a very detrimental influence. It remains an open question requiring too much information, and as Jefferson's statute says:

And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

[/Quote]

[iNow]

The concepts 'science', 'faith', 'belief system', are essentially the same, other than their fields of application.

No, actually. They are not. And, you've completely failed to offer even a remotely reasonable response to the questions I posed.

 

Your reply is full of meaningless gibberish, and is little more than an emergent phenomenon of the god fog in which you seem so irrevocably trapped.

 

Science does not believe a one wheel bike rider can cross a tightrope <snip> because he has a non-belief that he can do it himself, and is not sure of the coffee at the circus. He also has a non-belief that he can perform miracles <snip> The evidence required, apparently, is inconvenient to universities as well as to those who employ scientists.

<snip>

I disagree. The definition required for 'faith' to allow this discussion concerns a set of Boolean values across all conceivable possibilities. Do you believe in horses and unicorns? On what basis?

And none of that is relevant to my point, which was that nonbelief in something is not itself a belief system. I asked what my nonbelief in leprechauns told you about me and my worldview. Your response is the above completely nonsequitur ridiculousness.

[John Cuthber]

 

Science does not believe a one wheel bike rider can cross a tightrope, and I know he has this non-belief, because he has a non-belief that he can do it himself.

Bollocks

and I'm perfectly certain that I couldn't do that . But I guessed someone would be able to and would have put it on youtube, so I checked and there it was.

 

You really don't understand science do you?

You also don't understand what it means not to believe in something.